# Women on their monthly flow (unclean) as well as Church Discipline or Theonomy?



## T.A.G.

This is really a two part question

1. Is the woman who is on her monthly flow unclean still (even with the imputed blood of Christ), if not, would it be sin that she would have sexual relations with her husband during this time?

Now for the theonomy part

How would you regulate this if you believe question 1 is sinful? Or would you regulate it?


Taking these two pages to mind of course

*Lev 15*
19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. 

20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. 

24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean. 

as well as 

*Lev 18:24*
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period. 

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her. 

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. 

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. 

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws

My first observations are this

Lev 15 seems to be addressing loss "life", blood/semen etc represent life and you cannot have worship with God without perfect life. Thus, with the imputed blood of Christ one has perfect life. Also, another understanding that is as valid is just staying clean and the society staying clean during this time. Thus, the point of Lev 15 is pointing to what Christ did etc.

Lev 17 however lumps having sexual relations with a woman on her "time of the month" with others abominations and which are the reasons they are destroying the people to begin with. Thus, make me question if Lev 15 is still saying that or if there is something more.

In reference to the theonomy question, it seems like this would be the priests Job/the churches job not a civil law. Thus, would you church discipline someone for not repenting of doing this if you believe this is sinful?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Brother - I'll happily engage in a discussion on a topic usually considered to be taboo. (Mostly because I've had this discussion in the past. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I've had more than a few church going folks come to me to ask intimate questions like this and I ask them why they didn't go to their pastor and they respond with something along the lines of, "It would feel weird to talk to my pastor about this.")

But that said, I'm not sure that the consensus view is that this is an appropriate topic for a public forum.


----------



## TimV

Like most laws it isn't regulated by anyone. Neither church nor state has ever been given the right to regulate it. So theonomists wouldn't regulate it. Rather they would rail against anyone who tried to regulate it.


----------



## T.A.G.

Tim if this is sin then how does the church not have authority? I agree this is not a civil matter but I posted this for debate with many questions not just one


----------



## TimV

Because in addition to the State and Church there are other spheres of authority, like the family. If my son stays out til 11 and I told him to be in by 10, it's my job to deal with it.


----------



## Rich Koster

A reason that I would see this question coming up, in my opinion, is if a spouse was imposing their desire on the other at a time which is showing no consideration for the other. Marriage counseling would be appropriate for a couple, at this point, because I believe there are some selfish motives in play that this may just be a symptom of.


----------



## seajayrice

This has got to be the thread of the month . . .


----------



## AThornquist

seajayrice said:


> This has got to be the thread of the month . . .


 
 Just...wow...


----------



## T.A.G.

Rich Koster said:


> A reason that I would see this question coming up, in my opinion, is if a spouse was imposing their desire on the other at a time which is showing no consideration for the other. Marriage counseling would be appropriate for a couple, at this point, because I believe there are some selfish motives in play that this may just be a symptom of.


 
But is this really the only reason for Lev 17? I read a commentator who said the same thing you did but it just seemed more to Lev 18 but as for Lev 15 seemed like a law in which Christ fulfilled.


----------



## lynnie

I happen to believe this is a non moral ceremonial law, no longer binding upon us. I put it in the category of eating unclean foods- abolished under the New Covenant.

Having said that, I read a book many years ago, forget the title, about the hygiene of the Mosaic law. Rules about washing after touching dead or infected people, commands to bury excrement, etc. It is said that the Jews stayed so healthy during the dark age plagues that they were accused of sorcery against the gentiles.

It was a Jew who first realized that maternity hospitals could reduce mortality just by washing hands between patients: 

Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

He was scoffed at during his life; later Pasteur proved germ theory. 

There are parts of the mediterranean where they call it med routlette to eat shellfish, the odds of hepatitis are so high. And if you ever read about trichinosos( sp?) and what happens when the little worms go into your brain, well, it is creepy beyond belief and you know why God told them pork was forbidden.

One amazing thing is that a baby's vitamin K (helps with blood clotting) level peaks 8 days after birth, the day Jews had to circumcise. We got our first boy circumcised on the eighth day for that reason, although with the rest they told us they gave the baby a shot of vitamin K before circumcising, so we did it before leaving the hospital sooner.

Speaking of circumcising, the rates for female cancers and vaginal infections drop dramatically with it, or at least they did back in the days before showers and plumbing. Of course it is not binding on us for any moral purity, Paul makes that crystal clear, but it appears to be healthier for wives.

I asked my Jewish OBGYN if there were medical reasons to wait so long after childbirth (biblical 40 days) for relations, and he said he had wondered about that himself. I don't know of any, but as a wife who waited the three weeks we were told to wait, not six weeks, the pain of resuming relations was astonishing and unexpected to me. I think God was trying to protect women who ripped/tore during childbirth. I had big babies and I ripped, and they sew you up, and in theory the stitches and rip are fine after two weeks, but, well, I can see why God told Moses to wait 6 weeks. 

As far as the question goes, I personally feel physically tender during that time and it can be uncomfortable so we tried it very infrequently. I would guess that there is a biological reason to wait, even if there is no spiritual one. I don't know any women who want to do it during their cycle, no matter how much they enjoy that part of marriage. There is no sin, but there might be reasons. Blood is a great culture medium for bacteria...do you really want to introduce germs into a warm, nutrient rich situation? 

I find it amusing how moderns brush off the OT as being so patriarcal and demeaning to women. In actuality, God's protection and care for women, in light of science, was marvelous.


----------



## N. Eshelman

I believe that it is ceremonial and no one is bound to follow it. Here are my two thoughts: 

1. The Apostle Paul says that married couples are only to avoid sexual relations for reasons of prayer and fasting. He does not mention menstruation as a legitimate reason. 
2. The NT clearly teaches that the married bed is undefiled. It is lawful to have sex with your wife during menstruation. Now, of course, she will have to be the one to dictate whether she is comfortable with that. 

I think I will stop there.


----------



## Skyler

Is not "uncleanness" ceremonial? Doesn't Paul make that clear when he says that nothing is unclean of itself?


----------



## TimV

nleshelman said:


> 1. The Apostle Paul says that married couples are only to avoid sexual relations for reasons of prayer and fasting. He does not mention menstruation as a legitimate reason.



If it means what you say then you *have* to do it when she's on her period, so the logic is bad  Unless you honestly think the Bible doesn't give you an option, and the laws are totally reversed nowadays.

Really, guys, every culture ever has considered it wrong. Even the former cannibals I lived with in PNG said it was wrong. Isn't it obviously wrong? 

Lynnie, about the waiting time, I believe studies have shown that the amount of nursing often shuts down a woman's fertility so she normally doesn't get pregnant, which is good so the kids come the right distance apart. Starting up again too soon and the baby making machine hasn't shut down yet. At least that was the reasoning in a big church I used to go to. With us and others I've talked to, we followed that and the kids were the proper distance apart. One every 10 months isn't good for anyone.


----------



## Rich Koster

T.A.G. said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason that I would see this question coming up, in my opinion, is if a spouse was imposing their desire on the other at a time which is showing no consideration for the other. Marriage counseling would be appropriate for a couple, at this point, because I believe there are some selfish motives in play that this may just be a symptom of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But is this really the only reason for Lev 17? I read a commentator who said the same thing you did but it just seemed more to Lev 18 but as for Lev 15 seemed like a law in which Christ fulfilled.
Click to expand...

 
I would suggest looking to 1 Peter 3:7,8 for some expansion on the reason. I believe that God's laws have His glory and our well being in mind, even if they seem not grouped together as we would like to see them.


----------



## Scottish Lass

TimV said:


> I believe studies have shown that the amount of nursing often shuts down a woman's fertility so she normally doesn't get pregnant, which is good so the kids come the right distance apart.



Varies from woman to woman. I know women who exclusively nursed and still got pregnant 3-5 months postpartum. The phrase "Irish twins" was around long before formula was.


----------



## Peairtach

If people want to keep these laws for health or sqeamish reasons rather than ceremonial ones they can, but they aren't keeping the Mosaic ceremonial law.



> “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean.



No doubt such objects need ceremonial Jewish-style cleansing, in the New Covenant, for health and sqeamish reasons!

All these ceremonial laws come under the "Touch not, taste not, handle not" rubric mentioned by our Apostle in Colossians, which fell away with Moses.

If some people can find other reasons than ceremonial uncleanness for keeping these laws, they shouldn't call them biblical law, but common sense and lump them with other laws we have like washing our hands when we go to the toilet.



> Lev 17 however lumps having sexual relations with a woman on her "time of the month" with others abominations and which are the reasons they are destroying the people to begin with. Thus, make me question if Lev 15 is still saying that or if there is something more.



The reason it is lumped here although ceremonial rather than moral, is probably because it also has to do with sexual relations.

Blood had to be treated with peculiar respect in a sacrificial society, as it represented the soul of the animal or the person. Also procreation and things associated with it, being the means (or occasion) by which original sin was transmitted, had other reasons for making one unclean.


----------



## jwright82

Isn't this just one of those "liberty of conscience things"? I mean in what way would it be abusing thi sprinciple if it is not? I mean everything we do is either a sin or not, but some spheres of behavior are purely between me and God, and He alone is Lord of conscience. I think that it is good to seek to conform our lives to God's will in every ethical area of our lives, but sometimes the framing of a question can be misleading. To ask "is it right to do such and such...", implies that everyone should abide by this (meaning that if the leadership of a church found out about it they would be obligated to say something about it). But is this one of those issues? I think that if God convicts you not to do this in your heart than it is irrelivant whether or not it is wrong for all people at all times to do it. Does that make sense?


----------



## Peairtach

Well you've got to ask what the intent of the law is.

(a) Was God just giving this law for the sake of people's health? If so is there any evidence that this is bad for your health. Are the concomitant laws about menstruating women making places where they sit unclean also for people's health?

If the Lord was was so concerned about health why didn't he leave us other important health teaching in the Torah? e.g. wash your hands when you go to the lavatory?

(b) Is it a moral law. Is there something immoral about this practice?

(c) Is it ceremonial, in order to teach the childhood - Old Covenant - Israel? Therefore it falls away in the New Covenant apart from the teaching we get from the fact that it was imposed upon us - the Church - in our childhood. 



> If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people.



Disrespecting this law and it coming to the attention of the priests or elders opened one up to temporary excommunication involving shunning. Doing this involved a flagrant disregard for the Leviticus 15 laws that made menstruation an occasion of ceremonial uncleanness. But does menstruation make a woman ceremonially unclean in the New Covenant Israel?

Presumably if some are demanding that the Leviticus 18 law applies, they would also have to follow the Leviticus 15 laws, or have some good reason for not doing so.


----------



## jwright82

Well sure I agree with you but my point was more like looking at the larger ethical considerations. Smaller or grayer sins I think fall under the "Liberty of Conscience", larger or black and white sins do not fall under this category. Smaller sins are between the person and God and larger sins are between the person and God and the local church leadership. I like to frame ethical discussions in this way because it relates to the concreteness of ethics. Should a local session be concerned about this? That is as concrete as it gets. Why this is important here is because we can theoreticaly discuss why it is right or wrong but whoever is convinced of it either way will have a change of behaviour that goes along wit it. If a person is convinced after reading this thread that it is wrong and they do it anyway is now really commiting a sin. Without the coresponding concreteness of ethical discussions I think, In my humble opinion, that we can get lost in theories. It is a worthwhile discussion, do not get me wrong, but it has a concrete side that might be getting ignored.


----------



## Peairtach

True enough, we do have the principles of Romans 14 to guide us.

Someone who was taking the law more "consistently" might want someone who was doing this to be disciplined because the law in Leviticus 18 mentions "cutting off" i.e. (temporary) excommunication but not by the death penalty - since the death penalty isn't mentioned.

If people realise that this law was given for ceremonial reasons, and yet realise that they wish to keep it for supposed health reasons; or sqeamish reasons; or showing concern for one's wife and one's self reasons, they may also realise that it is not now to be enforced by the Session. 

They may also realise that they have changed the law's character in such a way by their abandonment of it _as a ceremonial law_ that they are actually not following biblical law at all here, but are following commonsense principles that they believe are right for them,_ that happened to be drawn to their attention by Old Testament ceremonial law._


----------



## Pergamum

Lots of similarity on this thread to other discussions I've heard about circumsizing one's kids in these here NT times.


----------



## Peairtach

Yes. It's another ceremonial that tangentially touches on health.

It is - almost - inevitable that some ceremonials touch on health in an accidental way, because the way in which moral impurity was pictured in the ceremonials was through physical dirt, bodily excretions of various kinds, contact with death, eating of animals that were killers or were associated with death and dirt, etc.


----------



## Pergamum

It would seem logical that most, if not all, ceremonials might aid health or general welfare since God is good to his people. I.e. pigs ARE sort of dirty, etc. A great subject for another OP.


----------



## Eoghan

I was intrigued at the question of enforcement of these laws. I had never really thought about it but criminal law is being stopped for speeding by the police. Regulating the relationships between husband and wife however is a civil matter. It can be sorted by the courts but requires to be brought to the courts.

In New England the Puritans regulated such matters when it was brought to the church leaders. In some cases it led to church discipline for not performing marital duties. This is the church interferring in family relationships. 

Or is it?

I think we are not really used to serious discussion of our life. Well amongst the church that is. When we get to the position that the puritans were we will probably be able to have these discussions.


----------



## jwright82

Eoghan said:


> I was intrigued at the question of enforcement of these laws. I had never really thought about it but criminal law is being stopped for speeding by the police. Regulating the relationships between husband and wife however is a civil matter. It can be sorted by the courts but requires to be brought to the courts.
> 
> In New England the Puritans regulated such matters when it was brought to the church leaders. In some cases it led to church discipline for not performing marital duties. This is the church interferring in family relationships.
> 
> Or is it?
> 
> I think we are not really used to serious discussion of our life. Well amongst the church that is. When we get to the position that the puritans were we will probably be able to have these discussions.


 
It is an intriguing question. It is a larger discussion over the boundries of each. Would a session be violating its boundry if it enforced this law? Who could say, I am inclined to believe that it is. The state also has to clearly recognize its own boundries, how much of the affairs of a family can they regulate? But thirdly the individual must recognize their own ethical boundries that they cannot violate. That is the original question I think is this a violation of an ethical boundry put forth in God's law?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Pergamum said:


> It would seem logical that most, if not all, ceremonials might aid health or general welfare since God is good to his people. I.e. pigs ARE sort of dirty, etc. A great subject for another OP.


 
This was generally the position of the man who should not be named. _._ Ru__do_n_


----------



## Peairtach

You can pick your way through the ceremonial law looking for particular laws that will materially be beneficial for your health, or _might_ be materially beneficial for your health, or you can also try to prove that some laws you wish to observe are good for your health e.g. you can dispute with people whether pork is ever good for your health or always bad.

But is this keeping God's ceremonial holiness law or just raiding it for health tips which may or may not be there, some of which can be deduced by science or common sense?

The purpose for which these laws was given was to teach an under age church about holiness, because only a small number of these laws also impinge on health.

How much of Leviticus 15 is the Lord wanting New Covenant Israelites to follow for the sake of their health?



> Leviticus 15
> 
> Discharges Causing Uncleanness
> 
> 1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When any man has an unusual bodily discharge, such a discharge is unclean. 3 Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness:
> 
> 4 “‘Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. 5 Anyone who touches his bed must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 6 Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 7 “‘Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 8 “‘If the man with the discharge spits on anyone who is clean, they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 9 “‘Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, 10 and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 11 “‘Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 12 “‘A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.
> 
> 13 “‘When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering[a] and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.
> 
> 16 “‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.
> 
> 25 “‘When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Anyone who touches them will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 28 “‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
> 
> 31 “‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place,* which is among them.’”
> 
> 32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who has sexual relations with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.
> 
> Footnotes:
> 
> 1. Leviticus 15:15 Or purification offering; also in verse 30
> 2. Leviticus 15:31 Or my tabernacle
> *


----------



## Pergamum

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem logical that most, if not all, ceremonials might aid health or general welfare since God is good to his people. I.e. pigs ARE sort of dirty, etc. A great subject for another OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was generally the position of the man who should not be named. _._ Ru__do_n_
Click to expand...

 
That un-namable man did have a great mind and some great thoughts.

---------- Post added at 03:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 AM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> You can pick your way through the ceremonial law looking for particular laws that will materially be beneficial for your health, or _might_ be materially beneficial for your health, or you can also try to prove that some laws you wish to observe are good for your health e.g. you can dispute with people whether pork is ever good for your health or always bad.
> 
> But is this keeping God's ceremonial holiness law or just raiding it for health tips which may or may not be there, some of which can be deduced by science or common sense?
> 
> The purpose for which these laws was given was to teach an under age church about holiness, because only a small number of these laws also impinge on health.
> 
> How much of Leviticus 15 is the Lord wanting New Covenant Israelites to follow for the sake of their health?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 15
> 
> Discharges Causing Uncleanness
> 
> 1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When any man has an unusual bodily discharge, such a discharge is unclean. 3 Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness:
> 
> 4 “‘Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. 5 Anyone who touches his bed must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 6 Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 7 “‘Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 8 “‘If the man with the discharge spits on anyone who is clean, they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 9 “‘Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, 10 and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 11 “‘Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 12 “‘A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.
> 
> 13 “‘When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering[a] and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.
> 
> 16 “‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.
> 
> 25 “‘When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Anyone who touches them will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
> 
> 28 “‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
> 
> 31 “‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place,* which is among them.’”
> 
> 32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who has sexual relations with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.
> 
> Footnotes:
> 
> 1. Leviticus 15:15 Or purification offering; also in verse 30
> 2. Leviticus 15:31 Or my tabernacle
> *
Click to expand...

*

Yes, I agree that ceremonial holiness and learning as a child were the main reasons for these strange laws.*


----------



## TeachingTulip

Richard Tallach said:


> How much of Leviticus 15 is the Lord wanting New Covenant Israelites to follow for the sake of their health?



What is your definition of "New Covenant Israeliltes?"


----------



## bookslover

seajayrice said:


> This has got to be the thread of the month . . .


 
...but only for a short period.

---------- Post added at 02:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 AM ----------




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem logical that most, if not all, ceremonials might aid health or general welfare since God is good to his people. I.e. pigs ARE sort of dirty, etc. A great subject for another OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was generally the position of the man who should not be named. _._ Ru__do_n_
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001)? The guy who kickstarted the Christian homeschool movement (_The Messianic Character of American Education_ [1963]) and the theonomy movement (_Institutes of Biblical Law_ [1973])? That guy? Heh, heh...

---------- Post added at 02:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 AM ----------

Regarding the original question: may a married couple have sex while the woman is having her period? The short answer is: not a sin, but mighty inconvenient, for both parties.


----------



## jwright82

Richard Tallach said:


> You can pick your way through the ceremonial law looking for particular laws that will materially be beneficial for your health, or might be materially beneficial for your health, or you can also try to prove that some laws you wish to observe are good for your health e.g. you can dispute with people whether pork is ever good for your health or always bad.
> 
> But is this keeping God's ceremonial holiness law or just raiding it for health tips which may or may not be there, some of which can be deduced by science or common sense?
> 
> The purpose for which these laws was given was to teach an under age church about holiness, because only a small number of these laws also impinge on health.
> 
> How much of Leviticus 15 is the Lord wanting New Covenant Israelites to follow for the sake of their health?



Nicley put Richard! I have had many debates with Fundamentalists over the meaning of our body being "The Lord's temple" and health. They say you shouldn't do anything that you know is unhealthy, to which I reply that going outside and breathing is knowingly unhealthy (I mean smog here) would you stop doing that? I think the whole cerimonial law for health reasons distorts the whole picture. It is like saying that God must have a good reason to give a law, in this case these laws are healthy. This somehow gets God off the hook legaly and justifies His legal *opinions*, well I say hogwash! If God layed down a law that we must stand on our heads once a day for 2 minutes than that is His divine to do so, He needs no "good reasons" (which are always only good in our eyes, autonomy) to make demands on us, only His divine right.


----------



## Peairtach

> If God layed down a law that we must stand on our heads once a day for 2 minutes than that is His divine to do so, He needs no "good reasons" (which are always only good in our eyes, autonomy) to make demands on us, only His divine right.



Yes but it seems fairly clear that we can identify the reason for most of these laws being to do with teaching the people about sin and spiritual uncleanness through various kinds of physical and outward uncleanness. In this case it's about teaching them about original sin and reproduction being the occasion of its transmission.

Another wrongheaded approach to this law, apart from saying that God gave it for health reasons, would be to say that its morality lay in the relationship between man and wife and that they should show respect for one another in their relations.

But

(a) Showing respect for one another in ones relations is covered by the law of love.

(b) Insisting on conjugal relations in these circumstances - maybe against the will of the wife - is not the only way that disrespect/lack of love could be shown in this area.

The real moral afront is to God in despising his ceremonial law of outward, physical, pedagogical, holiness in a flagrant manner. 

The penalty isn't death or anything else but temporary excommunication by shunning.

In the New Covenant it is also because of the law of love and the Sixth Commandment that we should be reasonably concerned about our's and other's health and cleanliness.

But e.g. unless you can show from science that a practice under the ceremonial law is a serious health risk, you shouldn't push it. And if you do keep it or push it, you're not following the ceremonial law. You're just picking through it in case there are some health tips there, which there may or may not be. And it's good to see if there are any important health tips there because health is important.

*Quote from Rhonda*


> "New Covenant Israeliltes?"



Us. Christians. The New Covenant Church. The Church no longer under the babyhood phase.


----------



## Gloria

I thought I'd seen everything...I was wrong.


----------



## Peairtach

Gloria said:


> I thought I'd seen everything...I was wrong.


 
*All* Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (II Timothy 3:16, ESV)


----------



## Elizabeth

As a slightly squeamish woman, I wish this discussion was not public. That being said, it seems to me that 'that' time of the month might be a good time for husbands and wives to devote themselves to prayer, as in 1 Corinthians 7:5.


----------



## jwright82

Yeah Richard your right. I was just raised in a fundementalist type envioroment and church, that a distorted view of the law. In my later years I have met more fundementalists who view it this way that I try to counteract that temptation. The temptation is to say that God has a good reason, in a way outside of Himself, to pick what is a law and what isn't. So being healthy is good, it is good apart from God's will, and God is good so He chose laws that conform to this goodness out there. It is a very weak apologetical strategy to try to justify God's ways to the unbeleiver by trying to appeal to some good they agree with and make God on their side or something. In apolgetics of this type I simply point out that God needs no "good reason" that we would agree with or sighn off on to do what He does. As the Creator He dpes whatever He wants and has to answer to no one. 

Now we also affirm His goodness in His being and so everything He does for us is for are own good, but that is quite a different way of saying it. The very fact that God has made something right or wrong makes it right or wrong, not soem standered of good out there beyond Him that He must appeal to. Now He doesn't do anything abritrarly, He has His own "good reasons" for doing things as He does. For instance the pedegalogical reason for the ceremonial law is all that it needs to be good, not some ammended reason like its healthy (although that may be part of it).


----------



## Peairtach

> Now we also affirm His goodness in His being and so everything He does for us is for are own good, but that is quite a different way of saying it. The very fact that God has made something right or wrong makes it right or wrong, not soem standered of good out there beyond Him that He must appeal to. Now He doesn't do anything abritrarly, He has His own "good reasons" for doing things as He does. For instance the pedegalogical reason for the ceremonial law is all that it needs to be good, not some ammended reason like its healthy (although that may be part of it).



It is the case that if God legislates something we should follow it even if we don't know the reasons for it. But the believing and spiritually sensitive Jew would have understood that these laws respecting avoiding physical contact with certain kinds of bodily fluids, filth and dirt, death, animals associated with dirt and death, had spiritual lessons about spiritual contamination and cleansing.

In the New Covenant we do not - should not - follow the laws (we can "keep" some of them for health, sqeamish or compassionate reasons but that is not keeping them), but the spiritual lessons remain, as an extended commentary on our baptism.


----------



## py3ak

I think Richard is absolutely correct that health and hygiene are not the rationale behind God's giving of the ceremonial law. Not only would the omission of many helpful things tell against that, but consider Levitius 14:36. Items are to be removed from a house before a priest gives the verdict of clean or unclean, so that those items will not be rendered unclean by being in an unclean house. If the goal were to prevent the spread of some infestation, this is the opposite of the procedure that would be adopted.


----------



## jwright82

Richard Tallach said:


> Now we also affirm His goodness in His being and so everything He does for us is for are own good, but that is quite a different way of saying it. The very fact that God has made something right or wrong makes it right or wrong, not soem standered of good out there beyond Him that He must appeal to. Now He doesn't do anything abritrarly, He has His own "good reasons" for doing things as He does. For instance the pedegalogical reason for the ceremonial law is all that it needs to be good, not some ammended reason like its healthy (although that may be part of it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the case that if God legislates something we should follow it even if we don't know the reasons for it. But the believing and spiritually sensitive Jew would have understood that these laws respecting avoiding physical contact with certain kinds of bodily fluids, filth and dirt, death, animals associated with dirt and death, had spiritual lessons about spiritual contamination and cleansing.
> 
> In the New Covenant we do not - should not - follow the laws (we can "keep" some of them for health, sqeamish or compassionate reasons but that is not keeping them), but the spiritual lessons remain, as an extended commentary on our baptism.
Click to expand...

 
I completly agree Richard. And with you too py3ak.


----------

