Is incest always immoral?

[Blade]

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?

BEFORE the law.. what was sin? Cain killed able.. wrong..but no law. After the law.. was is a sin

 

[RDKirk]

I asked this before, but I don't believe I got a response: What is incest?

 

[Apex]

I asked this before, but I don't believe I got a response: What is incest?

I define "incest" here: My Post

I define "love" here: My Post

 

[Apex]

Many of the articles I have read concerning genetic sexual attraction include reports of close kin who have married ignorant to their genetic ancestry. Once their genetic ancestry was revealed, however, some decided to file for a marriage annulment. This seems to be the course of action many here are suggesting by taking the stance that these marriages was never legitimate in "God's eyes".

However, God never says it is impossible to marry your close kin. He simply told the Israelite people, in Leviticus 18, that they shouldn't. This is the same for any other law. Just because eating pork was outlawed, didn't make it impossible to eat.

 

[Si_monfaith]

1.No
2.Yes
3.Yes

Before the law it wasn't immoral. Hasn't God set us free from the law through His Son according to Romans 7: 4, 6?

 

[Si_monfaith]

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?

In eden there was no law as the knowledge of good and evil was prohibited. But once they chose law, guilt set in and all actions done earlier came to be considered as evil and sinful.

 

[Si_monfaith]

BEFORE the law.. what was sin? Cain killed able.. wrong..but no law. After the law.. was is a sin

Cain wasn't under law? The knowledge of good and evil is the law and accuses people from within as it accused Adam and Eve regarding nakedness.

 

[Si_monfaith]

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.

Weren't Adam and Eve born of God? Weren't they naked?

 

[PollyJetix]

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?

The question in the survey is not the same as your three question "breakdown."
The verb tense is key.
In your survey question, the verb is in the present tense. Therefore, the answer to that question must be YES, biblically.

If you had worded it, "Was incest always wrong, and on that basis, is it always wrong today?"
Then you would need a two part answer.
But that's not the answer you wanted, was it?

If you want to believe that the New Covenant standard of right and wrong is the pre-Abrahamic standard,
Then please read 1 John 3:4...
"...SIN IS the transgression of the law."

And that's the New Covenant definition of sin. Incest included.

As to whether Abraham sinned by marrying his half-sister...
" ...where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom 4:15
No law had been given about that yet. Therefore it wasn't counted as wrong.

 

[Apex]

The question in the survey is not the same as your three question "breakdown."
The verb tense is key.
In your survey question, the verb is in the present tense. Therefore, the answer to that question must be YES, biblically.

If you had worded it, "Was incest always wrong, and on that basis, is it always wrong today?"
Then you would need a two part answer.
But that's not the answer you wanted, was it?

If you want to believe that the New Covenant standard of right and wrong is the pre-Abrahamic standard,
Then please read 1 John 3:4...
"...SIN IS the transgression of the law."

And that's the New Covenant definition of sin. Incest included.

As to whether Abraham sinned by marrying his half-sister...
" ...where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom 4:15
No law had been given about that yet. Therefore it wasn't counted as wrong.

I believe the New Covenant moral standard is based on the Law of Christ not the Law of Moses. I, also, disagree with your interpretation (and English translation) of 1 John 3:4.

1 John 3:4
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

The word translated 'lawlessness' (anomia) is found only in this single verse in John's three letters. As such, we can't compare his use elsewhere. However, it would be unusual for it carry the idea of breaking the law since no hint of a legal framework appears in this letter. Rather, John equates "practicing lawlessness" with being "of the devil" (v. 8).

1 John 3:8
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

We do see the word 'lawlessness' outside of John's letters though. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word anomia describes "one who is lawless". That is, one who stands in direct opposition to Christ at his second coming. If this is the same meaning John intends with his use of the word (and the context seems to agree), its clear that John is saying those who sin participate in a lawlessness, or rebellion, that is characteristic of the devil.

Further evidence for this interpretation is found in chapter 2 where John described the antichrist and unveils the outbreak of evil that will accompany the end of the world. The decision to sin or not to sin is really a decision to reflect the character of Christ or the devil. John is describing what it means to be a true child of God or of the devil (v. 10).

1 John 3:10
By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

 

[Si_monfaith]

The question in the survey is not the same as your three question "breakdown."
The verb tense is key.
In your survey question, the verb is in the present tense. Therefore, the answer to that question must be YES, biblically.

If you had worded it, "Was incest always wrong, and on that basis, is it always wrong today?"
Then you would need a two part answer.
But that's not the answer you wanted, was it?

If you want to believe that the New Covenant standard of right and wrong is the pre-Abrahamic standard,
Then please read 1 John 3:4...
"...SIN IS the transgression of the law."

And that's the New Covenant definition of sin. Incest included.

As to whether Abraham sinned by marrying his half-sister...
" ...where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom 4:15
No law had been given about that yet. Therefore it wasn't counted as wrong.

Hasn't our Lord delivered us from the law as per Romans 7:4,6?

 

[Apex]

As to whether Abraham sinned by marrying his half-sister...
" ...where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom 4:15
No law had been given about that yet. Therefore it wasn't counted as wrong.

Do you find any behavior recorded in Genesis 19:30-38 to be immoral? If so, what behavior and based on what law?

 

[Apex]

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.

I've been thinking about this lately. When we examine the motivations for endogamy and incestuous marriages, one that sticks out most prominently is the preservation of family wealth and power. In a sense, I feel like this type of motivation can lead to a Tower of Babel situation. Ancient people might not have been intimately aware of the heightened genetic risks, but they would have been intimately aware of these political and rapacious motivations. The issues this type of power/wealth hoarding has would have been exacerbated by an agrarian inheritance-based society. Perhaps this might have been one of the reasons for the incestuous prohibitions in Leviticus.

 

[PollyJetix]

Hasn't our Lord delivered us from the law as per Romans 7:4,6?

Romans 7 is talking about bondage to the law, as a system whereby we can never measure up.
Christ has delivered us from that.
But as a moral standard, the law is what brings us to know right from wrong. We cannot know sin, without the law of God educating us. (Romans 7:7)

We cannot attain righteousness by our own works. (Righteousness as defined by the eternal Word of God --which the Law was!-- forever settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89)

Christ has delivered us from the curse of the Law, by taking the curse upon Himself. But He never delivered us from the standard of God's holiness, revealed from heaven.

Because God cannot change. His holiness does not change. What He once said was holy, will forever remain holy. What He once said was an abomination, will forever be an abomination to Him. Because He cannot change.

 

[PollyJetix]

Do you find any behavior recorded in Genesis 19:30-38 to be immoral? If so, what behavior and based on what law?

Good point!
The pattern of parents not having sexual relations with their children is not one seen in the line of righteous families.
There seem to be some commandments given before the Law, which are not recorded in Scripture. (Such as how to offer sacrifices--which Cain obviously did not abide by.) The New Testament refers to the book of Enoch, which we do not have today, except in a corrupted form. It may be that there were commandments given forbidding sex between parents and children. At least we know this was not something godly people did.

In the story of Lot, his daughters had a very distorted moral compass, because of growing up under the influence of Sodom culture. Lot himself would not have willingly participated in their scheme, which is why they had to make him drunk, to get him to do his part.

It's amazing to me that the NT calls Lot a righteous man. But it does. 2 Peter 2:8

 

[PollyJetix]

I believe the New Covenant moral standard is based on the Law of Christ not the Law of Moses. I, also, disagree with your interpretation (and English translation) of 1 John 3:4.

1 John 3:4
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

The word translated 'lawlessness' (anomia) is found only in this single verse in John's three letters. As such, we can't compare his use elsewhere. However, it would be unusual for it carry the idea of breaking the law since no hint of a legal framework appears in this letter. Rather, John equates "practicing lawlessness" with being "of the devil" (v. 8).

1 John 3:8
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

We do see the word 'lawlessness' outside of John's letters though. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word anomia describes "one who is lawless". That is, one who stands in direct opposition to Christ at his second coming. If this is the same meaning John intends with his use of the word (and the context seems to agree), its clear that John is saying those who sin participate in a lawlessness, or rebellion, that is characteristic of the devil.

Further evidence for this interpretation is found in chapter 2 where John described the antichrist and unveils the outbreak of evil that will accompany the end of the world. The decision to sin or not to sin is really a decision to reflect the character of Christ or the devil. John is describing what it means to be a true child of God or of the devil (v. 10).

1 John 3:10
By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

To "fulfill" does not mean to erase. Instead, it means "to fill up" or "complete."
When Christ fulfilled the law, he only completed it.
He BECAME every sacrifice the law required. Which is why we no longer have to offer sacrifices.
He BECAME our High Priest who intercedes. Which is why we confess our sins only through Him.
He BECAME our Sabbath Rest, spiritually. And the fulfillment of every feast day.

But in fulfilling the Moral Code, He BECAME our source of righteousness.
Does that mean we can now do whatever we jolly well please? God forbid. Romans 6:1-2
We do not destroy the Law. Yea, rather, we establish the Law! Romans 3:31
The moral code still stands.

Read Galatians 5:14-25 as all one unit.
Only if we walk in the Spirit, are we lifted up above the baseline of the moral law given by God.
Because when we really learn to love from the heart, we will not need the moral code to correct us.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Romans 7 is talking about bondage to the law, as a system whereby we can never measure up.
Christ has delivered us from that.
But as a moral standard, the law is what brings us to know right from wrong. We cannot know sin, without the law of God educating us. (Romans 7:7)

We cannot attain righteousness by our own works. (Righteousness as defined by the eternal Word of God --which the Law was!-- forever settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89)

Christ has delivered us from the curse of the Law, by taking the curse upon Himself. But He never delivered us from the standard of God's holiness, revealed from heaven.

Because God cannot change. His holiness does not change. What He once said was holy, will forever remain holy. What He once said was an abomination, will forever be an abomination to Him. Because He cannot change.

If you are justified by grace and not by the works of the law, what is the need to know about sin? Does such a knowledge justify you?

 

[Si_monfaith]

Do you find any behavior recorded in Genesis 19:30-38 to be immoral? If so, what behavior and based on what law?

The issue isn't the behavior but the knowledge of the doer.

If the doer is under the knowledge of good and evil, then that knowledge will accuse the doer and produce guilt.

 

[AlexDTX]

Perhaps this might have been one of the reasons for the incestuous prohibitions in Leviticus.

Excellent point! I never thought of that either. It may well be!

 

[Apex]

Good point!
The pattern of parents not having sexual relations with their children is not one seen in the line of righteous families.
There seem to be some commandments given before the Law, which are not recorded in Scripture. (Such as how to offer sacrifices--which Cain obviously did not abide by.) The New Testament refers to the book of Enoch, which we do not have today, except in a corrupted form. It may be that there were commandments given forbidding sex between parents and children. At least we know this was not something godly people did.

In the story of Lot, his daughters had a very distorted moral compass, because of growing up under the influence of Sodom culture. Lot himself would not have willingly participated in their scheme, which is why they had to make him drunk, to get him to do his part.

It's amazing to me that the NT calls Lot a righteous man. But it does. 2 Peter 2:8

We must be careful about speculating. I see nothing objective in your moral analysis of Genesis 19:30-38. This is perilous theological territory. We should not attempt to balance dogma on an unstable foundation. While I agree that it seems something is morally amiss in this passage, it could easily be just the rape.