Is incest always immoral?

Apex · Sep 4, 2017

SkyWriting said:
Oh. Well, it's not. We have a system of laws that codify
the morality of the majority. The rest of morality is not
covered by law and is completely subjective.

Then there is the application of law where a judge or jury
takes in information and subjectively applies the situation
to what laws have been created.

Then the judge subjectively decides how to respond to the crime.
Lucky for you, God only looks at your heart and ignores other input.
The wages of Sin is death, so you'd be dead if not for God taking
your individual circumstances into account.

Let's say a down syndrome male gets another mentally challenged woman
pregnant at 15. Does he go to jail and remain as a sex offender for life?
The odds of her having a DS child are 50%. Is full term pregnancy an option?
You get to decide her fate.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but it seems you agree that there is a difference between human law and divine law. This thread is focused on whether incest is always morally wrong in the context of divine law.

Jig · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
This question can be broken down into three parts:

1. Was incest immoral before the Mosaic Law?

No, Adam and Eve's children proves this. They had no choice. Why would God place them in that position if He thought it was sinful?

2. Was incest immoral under the Mosaic Law?

Yes. Leviticus 18. However, what you said about the law is interesting.

Here is what you said:

This is how I understand morality under the Mosaic Law too. Eating pork under the Law of Moses was immoral, not because eating pork is innately immoral, but because the person eating is breaking God's Law. This is why Jesus was able to internalize the law and make it about intentions (the heart).

This makes sense to me. So, it really doesn't make sense to say anything regulated by the law was immoral in and of itself. What was immoral was breaking the law.

3. Is incest immoral under the New Covenant?

I want to say yes here. You made some good arguments however...and I don't have an answer to them....but incest just seems so wrong. Maybe this revulsion is from my cultural programming. I'm grossed out by people who eat insects in some cultures, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I know incest is legal Portugal.

RDKirk · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but it seems you agree that there is a difference between human law and divine law. This thread is focused on whether incest is always morally wrong in the context of divine law.

Okay, so what is incest?

Leviticus 18 prohibits sexual intercourse with:
Mother
step-mother
sister
step-sister
grandchild
sister-in-law
aunt, natural or by marriage
daughter-in-law

Are those the circumstances you're talking about?

And did you actually have some specific cases in mind from the beginning to question?

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 4, 2017

AarontheStudent said:
The way I view it,

morality was set in stone with the creation of man. God's nature exhibits perfect morality that may almost seem paradoxical to us, but God's nature is also unchanging -- set in stone from the very beginning. Man, through his sinful nature, is what he becomes, not what he should be. God is what he should be ,and through Jesus showed us what we should be. We're not quite there yet, but we're getting there. Faith is that path and we will reach it in the Kingdom of God.

So, in the example of Abraham and Sarah, it was still in my view sexual immorality. Perhaps they were ignorant of it, perhaps they weren't. God gave us a natural fear of death, it wouldn't surprise me if our judgement of right and wrong is also natural. That would explain the innocence of children and their place in the Kingdom that Jesus spoke about.

But I speculate the culture of the locale, the way of the flesh they learned, made them ignorant to many aspects of their immorality.

The entire Bible is a struggle between doing right and wrong, with plenty of wrong.

My take on Adam and Eve is that other people were placed on the earth that the Bible doesn't mention, perhaps as a testament to its centrality of the Israelites in particular.

(By the way, trying to explain Adam & Eve's descendants was the very first question I had as a child when reading the Bible. I think that further supports my earlier points, too.)

Abraham and Sarah were pagans and products of the Chaldean culture. Obviously it was not against the law of the land for half siblings to be married. So they were not lawbreakers. And there is nothing in the Genesis record that God disapproved of their marriage. If He did, He would not have called Abraham to be the father of His chosen nation which was to come out of his descendents.

But the Deuteronomy Law made incest quite clear. It also applies in the New Testament under the terms of loving God and loving others. Jesus said that the whole law is contained in that.

But having said that, incest may be against criminal law and there are consequences, but it is not the unforgivable sin.

Apex · Sep 4, 2017

RDKirk said:
Okay, so what is incest?

Leviticus 18 prohibits sexual intercourse with:
Mother
step-mother
sister
step-sister
grandchild
sister-in-law
aunt, natural or by marriage
daughter-in-law

Are those the circumstances you're talking about?

And did you actually have some specific cases in mind from the beginning to question?

Another good question. Thanks.

I was defining incest based on Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness.

I think some good questions would be, why did God establish this law for the Israelite people? What purpose did it serve? Was God only addressing those who were going to live in Israel? I'm not a fan of dividing laws into categories, because the law is always seen as a whole, but why must this be dealing with a purely moral concern? Perhaps this is dealing with a civil or ritual concern.

Did you know Moses and Aaron were children of incest? Exodus 6:20

disciple1 · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
This question can be broken down into three parts:

1. Was incest immoral before the Mosaic Law?
2. Was incest immoral under the Mosaic Law?
3. Is incest immoral under the New Covenant?

Incest has nothing to do with love. And your only born of God through love, I don't think anyone born of God could commit incest.

RDKirk · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
Some Christian theologians have built upon this position and have come up with the Divine Command Theory which states an action's status as moral or immoral is determined by what God commands. However, determining what God commands is not always agreed upon. For example, Christians can't seem to agree on what their relationship with the Mosaic Law should look like. I take a modified Lutheran view and believe all Christians are no longer under the jurisdiction of the entire Law of Moses, even the 10 commandments. I believe we are under the jurisdiction of the Law of Christ instead. This means my system of ethics is based on selfless "agape" love that is exemplified in Christ's life.

To say "This means my system of ethics is based on selfless 'agape' love that is exemplified in Christ's life" has no better situational concreteness than "an action's status as moral or immoral is determined by what God commands."

It's no easier to determine in every situation "what God commands" than it is to determine "agape love" in every situation.

Leviticus 18 proscribes marriage to one's sister-in-law, yet Deuteronomy 25 directs a man to marry his brother's widow. We might argue that the death of the brother breaks the "in-law" tie and thus makes the marriage permissible...except that Deuteronomy 25 clearly affirms that the brother's death does not break the "in-law" tie, and it's explicitly because the widow is still considered close family that the brother must marry her.

AlexDTX · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
This question can be broken down into three parts:

1. Was incest immoral before the Mosaic Law?
2. Was incest immoral under the Mosaic Law?
3. Is incest immoral under the New Covenant?

What I find interesting is that the royal families of the earth are almost always incestuous. They keep their wealth in the family by having their children marry cousins or second cousins. And they claim that their royalty is a divine lineage directly from Jesus through Mary Magdalene.

That does not answer your question, of course, just a passing thought. When Adam and Eve had children, incest was a necessity. Who knows when and where the line of necessity ended, however.

AlexDTX · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
I believe morality is absolute

I understand what you mean. You are referring to the ethics of life that God has put in creation. However, the moral, does not refer to that. It refers to the morays or customs of a people, which can vary from culture to culture. Even the world ethics has a similar meaning. I don't think there is a word that speaks specifically to the morality of God unless it is wisdom.

Apex · Sep 4, 2017

RDKirk said:
To say "This means my system of ethics is based on selfless 'agape' love that is exemplified in Christ's life" has no better situational concreteness than "an action's status as moral or immoral is determined by what God commands."

It's no easier to determine in every situation "what God commands" than it is to determine "agape love" in every situation.

I disagree. Why would God command us to love one another if we could not respond in a concrete way? John proclaims that "God is love". To say love is indeterminable means we can't know God.

I think your confusion comes from the idea that love is not an action. Love is a motive or intention. It is the quality of an action. Love is not situational, actions are.

Leviticus 18 proscribes marriage to one's sister-in-law, yet Deuteronomy 25 directs a man to marry his brother's widow. We might argue that the death of the brother breaks the "in-law" tie and thus makes the marriage permissible...except that Deuteronomy 25 clearly affirms that the brother's death does not break the "in-law" tie, and it's explicitly because the widow is still considered close family that the brother must marry her.

This is why knowing the purpose of the "incest code" is important. It appears to be addressing a civil or perhaps ritual concern. Either way, I don't believe Christians are under the law.

rockytopva · Sep 4, 2017

Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Apex · Sep 4, 2017

AlexDTX said:
I understand what you mean. You are referring to the ethics of life that God has put in creation. However, the moral, does not refer to that. It refers to the morays or customs of a people, which can vary from culture to culture. Even the world ethics has a similar meaning. I don't think there is a word that speaks specifically to the morality of God unless it is wisdom.

I'd prefer not to go down the semantic rabbit hole.

Do you think an adult Christian man living in Portugal (where incest is legal) can marry his adult Christian sister? And for the sake of argument, lets say she is sterile and both are mentally stable.

Apex · Sep 4, 2017

RDKirk said:
And did you actually have some specific cases in mind from the beginning to question?

I've read a few cases where a brother and sister were adopted to different families as infants and never knew each other. Later in life they coincidentally stumble upon each other, but are ignorant to their biological status. They end up getting married and having children...only to find out later through genetic testing or adoption records that they are in fact siblings.

Do you think they should divorce?

football5680 · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
I've read a few cases where a brother and sister were adopted to different families as infants and never knew each other. Later in life they coincidentally stumble upon each other, but are ignorant to their biological status. They end up getting married and having children...only to find out later through genetic testing or adoption records that they are in fact siblings.

Do you think they should divorce?

Their marriage would be invalid because they were unknowingly unfit to enter into it. There would be no divorce because no marriage took place in God's eyes.

Apex · Sep 4, 2017

football5680 said:
Their marriage would be invalid because they were unknowingly unfit to enter into it. There would be no divorce because no marriage took place in God's eyes.

Was Abraham and Sarah's marriage invalid?

football5680 · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
Was Abraham and Sarah's marriage invalid?

No. God had not established a law against it at that point in time.

Apex · Sep 4, 2017

football5680 said:
No. God had not established a law against it at that point in time.

So, you believe Christians are under the Mosaic Law?

Cuddles333 · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
Another good question. Thanks.

I was defining incest based on Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness.

I think some good questions would be, why did God establish this law for the Israelite people? What purpose did it serve? Was God only addressing those who were going to live in Israel? I'm not a fan of dividing laws into categories, because the law is always seen as a whole, but why must this be dealing with a purely moral concern? Perhaps this is dealing with a civil or ritual concern.

Did you know Moses and Aaron were children of incest? Exodus 6:20

The crucial word in understanding Leviticus chapters 18-20 is one of the words you quote and that is the word. 'approach' . That word in the ancient Hebrew is 'qarab' and means the act a priest performs.
This makes understanding these 2 Leviticus chapters much clearer do to the mistranslating of them when they were put into English. This led so many to believe that these chapters were listing private sins that were committed prior to, during, and after, the Exodus. The end of both of these chapters say that the Israelites did not commit any of these acts. If they are being listed as private sins... then the Leviticus 18 & 20 chapters are lying.
What would be troubling to fundamentalists then would be having no Old Testament prohibition against incest.

SkyWriting · Sep 4, 2017

Apex said:
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but it seems you agree that there is a difference between human law and divine law. This thread is focused on whether incest is always morally wrong in the context of divine law.

I'm not sure what you mean by divine law.
Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.
There is no mention of other people for the kids to get to know.

Apex · Sep 4, 2017

Cuddles333 said:
The crucial word in understanding Leviticus chapters 18-20 is one of the words you quote and that is the word. 'approach' . That word in the ancient Hebrew is 'qarab' and means the act a priest performs.
This makes understanding these 2 Leviticus chapters much clearer do to the mistranslating of them when they were put into English. This led so many to believe that these chapters were listing private sins that were committed prior to, during, and after, the Exodus. The end of both of these chapters say that the Israelites did not commit any of these acts. If they are being listed as private sins... then the Leviticus 18 & 20 chapters are lying.
What would be troubling to fundamentalists then would be having no Old Testament prohibition against incest.

I'm not sure if I understand your position, but it sounds like you think Leviticus 18 is addressed to priests only. I did a quick word study on קרב and you are right that it can mean "to present as an act of worship, often in the form of a sacrifice". However, this isn't true in all contexts. For example, in Genesis 37:18 it just means "to move near". And in Deuteronomy 22:14, it has the meaning of sexual advance. However, I'd be interested in hearing you flesh out your interpretation of this passage further.

Is incest always immoral?

Is incest always immoral?

Yes

No

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Christ Follower

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Veteran

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Newbie

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Love to pray! :)

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Well-Known Member

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Well-Known Member

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Similar threads