I believe the Torah existed from the foundation of the earth, from the beginning of Creation. We find altar building in the time of Adam and knowledge of unclean and clean animals from the time before the Flood in Noah's time, so who's to say these instructions were not given before the Flood, as well?
Seeing that we also have things present in the time of Adam/Noah that were NOT present in the Mosaic law, again, one must be selective on the issue of saying that all things in the Mosaic Law were ever meant to apply to all situations in the OT. By the logic you're using, everyone was in sin for marrying cousins/siblings even though the Law forbade it - and the same thing goes for a myriad of other things.
One does not need to look at the actions of what would be sin according to ADDITIONAL LAW through Moses, nor even our modern views of right and wrong. A reason for considering this is because there was discrepancy between the
common views (interpretations) concerning Abraham and Sarah, and statements made about them in scripture itself. Without going into detail concerning various scripture and what brought me to this APPROACH to Genesis, I will sum it up instead. I believe Genesis is a book showing "faith", "The law of faith", as it operated in a certain time in history, the beginning. What this approach does is leaves off the
normative ideas of
cause and effect. Namely, things we perceive as sin, being the cause of "problems" later on. Such is the case with Sarai, Abraham, and Hagar. Many look at all that they perceive as "problems" being the result of not having faith. Yet many only see it as sin because they find polygamy repugnant. But nowhere is polygamy a sin in scripture. And nowhere does scripture say Sarai, or Abram acted in faithlessness. Scripture says they were faithful according to Hebrews 11.
The actions we clearly find "WRONG", Somehow are made acceptable if we do not acknowledge them as binding on Abraham etc. But, ALL ACCEPT JUST THAT WHEN ABRAHAM OFFERED ISAAC UP AS A HUMAN SACRIFICE. We do not fear, that somehow we today need to think of this as anything than what it was.
DISTINCT for its own purpose, distinct for its own time, distinct for an idea. You certainly may disagree with this approach, and it may even be wrong. But so far I have not found it to be so. Instead of looking for "SIN" in Genesis, I look for faith in the actions of these individuals. For sin is not reckoned to them, and faith was. Which faith there was no law against. So what do I do with LYING, etc? The same thing you all do with HUMAN SACRIFICE. What was Gods purpose in it, in a DISTINCT TIME, WITH DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS, FOR A DISTINCT PURPOSE?
There are multiple other examples of this.... polygamy BEING one of them. As it concerns the subject of polygamy, its error for others trying to say others were "wrong" for condoning it. It was a cultural practice of the time, as it still is in some nations like West Africa for example. Even in the time of the Mosaic Law, it was not explicitly condemned except in the case of those who were kings...and even that had exceptions at times. God made rules for polygamy just as he did with divorce, as seen in Deuteronomy 21:14-16. ..and others with the Law still did so ( Judges 8:29-31 , 1 Samuel 1:1-3 , 1 Samuel 25:42-44 , 1 Samuel 27:2-4 , 1 Samuel 30:4-6, 2 Samuel 2:1-3, 2 Samuel 12:7-9 , 2 Samuel 19:4-6 , 1 Chronicles 4:4-6, 1 Chronicles 14:2-4 , 2 Chronicles 13:20-22 , 2 Chronicles 24:1-4, etc ). Though Jesus says that God's best/ideal was ONE spouse (Matthew 19:1-14) as Genesis 1, he still made clear God allowed it to occur.
Another example would be prostitution. Scripture RECORDS events that may not always be an indication of something being right. That'd be like one reading of what happened with Judah marrying the daughter of a Canaanite man in Genesis 38:1-2 was "God's Best" since God still blessed his inheritance/the fruit of his loins and tribe----never mind that there was already NUMEROUS instances where the Canaanites were not favored by the patriarchs and told to be AVOIDED in marriage (Genesis 24:1-14, Genesis 26:34, Genesis 28:1-3, Genesis 28:6-9, etc). For all of the times where God told His people to avoid mixture with the Canaanites, its interesting enough already how the very Sons of Judah were mixed in with that already....and the line continued with them in it (I Chronicles 2:3-
It is from here that the story of Judah/Tamar in Genesis 38 (Genesis 38:1-20) is relevant...as it concerns assuming that the methods Tamar used to gain a son through her father-in-law and God blessing the birth was all justified. Indeed, there's a law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 about marrying a widow in the family...with the purpose intended to ensure that a childless widow would have a son who would recieve her late husband's inheritance and who, in turn, would care for her. Judah's sons were killed by the Lord for wickedness....and at one point, Judah would not give up his son to Tamar to have children. Because Judah's son (Tamar's husband) had no children, there was no family line through which the inheritance and the blessing of the covenant could continue. Judah lacked SUBSTANTIAL integrity when examining how he went to prostitutes....and then tried to discuss how his daughter was in "sin" for showing up pregnant. Its amazing seeing how Judah was so open about his relations with a prostitute, yet ready to execute his daughter-in-law for being one (Leviticus 21:9, Deuteronomy 22:21-22). Some of the dynamics are due to culture, of course. For in the land of Canaan, a woman's most important function was bearing children who would perpetuate the family line. To ensure that children belonged to the husband, the bride was expected to be a virgin and the wife was expected to have relations only with him. If a wife committed adultery, she could be executed. Some women, however, did not belong to families. They might be shrine prostitutes supported by offerings or common prostitutes supported by the men who used their servuces. Their children were nobody's heirs...and men who hired them adulterated nobdy bloodlines.
Judah saw no harm in hiring a prostitute for a night....but he was ready to execute Tamar because if she was pregnant as a result of prostitution, his grandchild would not be part of his family line. Sadly, the question of sexual immorality never entered Judah's mind as his concern was for keeping his inheritance in the family. ...
Ironically, it was TAMAR, not Judah, who acted to provide him with legal heirs. By seducing him, she acted more in the spirit of the law than he did when he refused to send his third son to her. The story in no way winks at prostitution since throughout scripture, prostitution is condemned as a serious sin. But it does show how even mistakes can be utilized of the Lord as apart of his plan. Incidently, Judah and TAMAR are listed as direct descendants of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1-6). The same kind of dynamic occurred with Bathsheba....forever noted in the lineage of Christ that she was the wife of Uriah rather than David's wife due to what occurred with David's actions (II Samuel 11, 2 Samuel 12:23-25, 1 Kings 1). For her son, Solomon, became exceedingly great and used of the Lord with David's Blessing...but in NO way was it appropiate how he came into being.
As one being born out of wedlock myself, I've often had conversations with others on whether its ever the case where God sees a life born as a "mistake". My mindset is that even if the 16yr daughter of a pastor chooses to sleep around and gets pregnant, that situation may not be apart of God's best...but nonetheless, the child is not a mistake (Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:1-11). That child's life is given by God---and as has happened many times in scripture, it can be paradoxical realizing that all of the events surrounding the existence of that child were somehow ordained even as the making of that child may've been error.....just like it was for Ishmael/Hagar when the Angel of the Lord came to her to assure her that He had a plan for her son....despite ANYTHING surrounding his birth that may've seemed like a mistake. They were right on time even when things were set back in some ways...
And this same dynamic applies to what occurred with Simeon and Levi in what occurred with them.
We must be consistent with scripture and the context it developed in.
Besides all of this, the screaming or not screaming has no bearing on the situation at all. Dinah's type of situation fits the following verse from Deuteronomy 22:
28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
This verse does not specify whether the man is a Hebrew Israelite, Hivite, Cushite, Egyptian, Syrian, etc., etc., regardless of who the audience might be.
It nonetheless has NO bearing on the fact that the same book already makes plain that other Hebrews were NOT to seek marriage with foreigners - regardless of any attempt to either minimize that, avoid it or act as if it's not there.
The Torah made plain that Hebrews were marry those who served God as they did and that those doing so were in grave sin. Trying to take the verse on Deuteronomy 22 to apply it to Dinah is baseless when avoiding what the text says later on foreigners....and the reason it doesn't specify a Hebrew Israelite is because it was already noted by Moses at the very beginning of His speech that his words were addressed to the people of God/their context. Period.
Until the scriptures on marrying foreigners being forbiden is addressed, one is simply pulling the cart before the horse in regard to Dinah/her situation - and more on that issue was discussed in-depth earlier here in #
20. This all goes back to what was noted earlier with Ezra 9-10...as it concerns the priests/people intermarrying. Since the time of the judges, Israelite men had married heathen women and then adopted their religious practices (Judges 3:5-7), Even Israel's great King Solomon was guilty of this sin ( I Kings 11:1-8). Although this practice was forbidden in God's Law (Exodus 34:11-16, Deuteronomy 7:1-4), it happened in Ezra's day and again only a generation after him (Nehemiah 13:23-27). Opposition to mixed marriages was not a racial prejudice, because Jews and non-Jews of this area were of the same semitic background. The reasons it seems were purely spiritual.....for one who married a heathen spouse was inclinded to adopt that person's heathen practices. If the Israelities were insentive enough to disobey God in something as important as marriage, they couldn't be strong enough to oppose their spouses's idolatry.
One can go to the NT to see a similar principle when it notes that believers should not marry non-believers (II Corinthians 6:14)....
But with Ezra, in Ezra 10:3, it has always been interesting to see how the people were commanded by the scribe to DIVORCE their wives and leave their children. Although the measure was extreme, I've heard that others say the intermarriage to heathens was already forbidden---with even the priests and the Levities intermarrying. The equivalent would be a Christian marrying to a devil worshipper. Some have noted that Ezra's strong act was necessary to preserve Israel as nation committed to God. For some of the exiles of the Northern Kingdom of Israel had lost both their spiritual and physical identity through intermarriage...and their heathen spouses caused them to worship idols (I Kings 16:29-34, I Kings 21, II Kings 17, II Chronicles 18, II Chronicles 22-24, II Kings 11-12, etc).