Ethics: Strange Question Concerning Marriage

[BJClark]

LadyFlynt;

Try doing genealogical research on southern families Everyone is related to everyone else.

Only in certain areas,

 

[matt01]

First, the "marriage" if there was any ceremony at all, is annulled. Second, the couple is instructed, on pain of discipline, to cease sexual relations. Remember, such persons are cursed, and the discipline would be for their own good (as well as society's good, preventing other children who are almost guaranteed to have genetic difficulties, etc..). As to the child, it's not his fault, and provision would be made in the normal manor as to which parent his stayed with, visitation, etc...

It is nice that you are able to reach these conclusion with seemingly ease. I don't quite see the sin as blatant. But then maybe I am married to my sister, or at least a cousin. My wife was adopted from Seoul in 1980, I have a sister and brother who were adopted from the same city in 1977 and 1981. I suppose that it is possible they were related...

 

[Grace Alone]

My understanding is if a man has an unbiblical divorce and remarries and later repents of his sin, the church does not require him to divorce the current wife and go back to the first wife. So I don't see how this situation of married half-siblings (which was totally innocent at the outset) differs. They married in innocence. They have become one flesh. So what good is it to force them to divorce? The biggest extraneous issue I see is that they'd have to have genetic counseling to see if they could have children (and then we get into the "be fruitful and multiply" topic!).

 

[TimV]

My understanding is if a man has an unbiblical divorce and remarries and later repents of his sin, the church does not require him to divorce the current wife and go back to the first wife.

Yes, if you have been following this thread, you will see this in the 9th post, where I wrote

And speaking practically, think about people in your church! Most of us know members in good standing who are remarried, and in many cases they remarried against Scriptural rules. But do you excommunicate or force a divorce upon someone whom you just found out unBiblically remarried 25 years ago? No, you don't in any confessional Reformed church.

Then you say

So I don't see how this situation of married half-siblings (which was totally innocent at the outset) differs. They married in innocence. They have become one flesh. So what good is it to force them to divorce?

Two homosexual men who marry, even if they have become one flesh (as you interpret it) do not have a valid marriage in the eyes of any conservative, confessional, Reformed church. Even if they were taught it was proper and good. The reason is that we don't believe that the marriage was valid in the first place.

 

[TimV]

It is nice that you are able to reach these conclusion with seemingly ease. I don't quite see the sin as blatant.

Yes, some people don't see OT law as binding as others. There are churches full of homosexual couples. There are theologians who don't think sex between a mother and her son is wrong, or sex between a brother and sister.

There is a reason this particular part of the Board is called "The law of God".

Perhaps there are no clear answers, and everyone should be left alone to decide these issues for himself. I see that as chaos, you may see that as Christian liberty.

On my side I have 2000 years of tradition, plus clear Scripture. Feel free to post your conclusions. Perhaps you may convince more people that I that your view point is closer to the Christian ideal, if that is your intent. Just be sure to be consistent, and don't stop at half-siblings.

And please don't thing I have come to this conclusion with "ease". I didn't first start thinking about the subject yesterday, nor have I ignored church teaching on the matter.

 

[LadyFlynt]

This is why - at least it was the case when we got married; I don't know what they do now - each party has to state on the application for a marriage license their respective parents' full names (mothers' maiden names). If either party to the application has a mother/father with the same name as the other corresponding parent, well, maybe there should be some investigation into it!

Sperm donors are a whole other evil. The way the sperm is obtained is immoral; the whole thing shouldn't happen in the first place.

Margaret

The issue is in adoption...most do not KNOW who their biological parents are.

 

[LadyFlynt]

LadyFlynt;

Try doing genealogical research on southern families Everyone is related to everyone else.

Only in certain areas,

Or could depend upon which family you are from. I seem to be related to at least half the population of South Carolina.

 

[py3ak]

Why is one marriage valid but sinful while the other is not valid in the first place?

Because one is an illegal contract that was never valid to begin with. The other was a binding legal contract that was sinfully entered into.

Now that is what an explanation should look like. Precise and clear, but withal concise. Thanks, Tim!

 

[Wannabee]

I, too, have pondered this in the past. It actually happened in Russia. The couple had children and were very faithful and active in their church. When they realized their predicament they came to the elders to seek counsel. I think that the elders took them out of teaching roles, but did not counsel divorce.

A couple of thoughts:

If I understand correctly, children of sibling unions, especially half-siblings, rarely have genetic issues in the first generation. It's usually after generations of in-breeding that the gene pool begins to get so watered down as to be unsustainable.

Divorce is permitted because of hard hearts. Unless I am mistaken, it was only commanded once - and there were extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, as has been stated, YHWH can command men to do things that they are not permitted to do otherwise.

It's been claimed that this wasn't really a marriage because the very act transgressed God's law. What makes a covenant a covenant? We're not talking civil law here. This is beyond that. And we're not talking about a contract. We're talking the giving of one's word till death do us part, covenanting together. When Joshua entered Canaan the Gibeonites tricked him into an "illegal" covenant/treaty (Joshua 9).
18 But the Israelites did not attack them, because the leaders of the assembly had sworn an oath to them by the LORD, the God of Israel.

It was a covenant that God had forbidden. However, God made it clear that they were bound to it and even punished Israel under David for the fact that Saul had dishonored the covenant by attacking the Gibeonites. It was so serious that seven of Saul's sons (grandsons) were given, by David, to the Gibeonites in order to compensate them for the transgression of the covenant. This was at the command of YHWH (2 Sam 21).

Let your yes be yes, and your no, no.

 

[matt01]

It is nice that you are able to reach these conclusion with seemingly ease. I don't quite see the sin as blatant.

Yes, some people don't see OT law as binding as others. There are churches full of homosexual couples. There are theologians who don't think sex between a mother and her son is wrong, or sex between a brother and sister.

There is a reason this particular part of the Board is called "The law of God".

Perhaps there are no clear answers, and everyone should be left alone to decide these issues for himself. I see that as chaos, you may see that as Christian liberty.

On my side I have 2000 years of tradition, plus clear Scripture. Feel free to post your conclusions. Perhaps you may convince more people that I that your view point is closer to the Christian ideal, if that is your intent. Just be sure to be consistent, and don't stop at half-siblings.

I suppose you are correct. From that one sentence, you are able to determine that I reject the Old Testament, want to teach error, and use Christian Liberty to defend sin and a desire to sink into chaos. To think, all I intended to write was that it wasn't quite clear to me...

 

[TimV]

Perhaps I was being too defensive and touchy, and I'm sorry.

 

[timmopussycat]

My understanding is if a man has an unbiblical divorce and remarries and later repents of his sin, the church does not require him to divorce the current wife and go back to the first wife.

Yes, if you have been following this thread, you will see this in the 9th post, where I wrote

And speaking practically, think about people in your church! Most of us know members in good standing who are remarried, and in many cases they remarried against Scriptural rules. But do you excommunicate or force a divorce upon someone whom you just found out unBiblically remarried 25 years ago? No, you don't in any confessional Reformed church.

Then you say

So I don't see how this situation of married half-siblings (which was totally innocent at the outset) differs. They married in innocence. They have become one flesh. So what good is it to force them to divorce?

Two homosexual men who marry, even if they have become one flesh (as you interpret it) do not have a valid marriage in the eyes of any conservative, confessional, Reformed church. Even if they were taught it was proper and good. The reason is that we don't believe that the marriage was valid in the first place.

Two homosexual men will never become one flesh no matter what they do (God tell us that it is man and woman that become one flesh), so this is not a parallel situation.

 

[TimV]

Two homosexual men will never become one flesh no matter what they do (God tell us that it is man and woman that become one flesh), so this is not a parallel situation.

It is if one flesh means sex outside of the permissible. Even by your reasoning, since God tells us who can become one flesh, and who can't. Man and woman is simply a summation, like saying the entire second table of the law boils down to love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[timmopussycat]

The Gentiles knew incest with a father's wife was wrong, but given the testimony of Genesis that half sibling marriage was practised before Moses, we cannot automatically conclude that HSM is necessarily wrong outside Sinai.

I didn't mean to imply it was wrong outside of Sinai. I don't really recognize the concept of Sinai in that way. I meant the church has always held to the OT laws (sometimes making them even stricter) of consanguinity since Moses.

I know you didn't mean to imply that HSM was wrong outside Sinai and I know you don't recognize the usual Reformed understanding of how the Westminster Confession applies the test of general equity to Mosaic laws applied to Christian states today, and I know that the church has taken the OT consanguinity laws verbatim at least.
I believe that there is a real question whether the church was correct to bring over the Mosaic stipulation in the case of HSM as the case of Sarah and Abraham presents no evidence that HSM was frowned upon pre-Moses. Although I think modern genetics research offers a valid argument against the practice, I wonder whether it can be biblically argued to be sinful.

 

[satz]

Tim,

I still do not understand why marriage to a relative is different to marriage to an unbeliever in God's eyes. Both are sinful.

I assume (correct me if I err) from your use of the word 'illegal' that you mean marriage to a relative would be a nullity based on the law of the land.

Is that your position ?

 

[py3ak]

There is a difference between a sinful contract and an invalid contract. If I try to sell you my neighbor's house, that is an invalid contract -I had no authority to do so. A brother-sister marriage is in that latter category: they had no authority to contract with one another.

 

[satz]

There is a difference between a sinful contract and an invalid contract. If I try to sell you my neighbor's house, that is an invalid contract -I had no authority to do so. A brother-sister marriage is in that latter category: they had no authority to contract with one another.

Ruben,

Who says they had no authority? If you say God said, than God also said believers and unbelievers are not to marry.

So what is the difference?

Sincerely confused...

 

[timmopussycat]

Two homosexual men will never become one flesh no matter what they do (God tell us that it is man and woman that become one flesh), so this is not a parallel situation.

It is if one flesh means sex outside of the permissible. Even by your reasoning, since God tells us who can become one flesh, and who can't. Man and woman is simply a summation, like saying the entire second table of the law boils down to love your neighbor as yourself.

The conclusion does not necessarily follow and the parallel is not exact. One flesh does not simply mean outside the permissable: Christ tells us that a man and wife become one flesh in Mark 10:7. Jesus tells us that the second table hangs on love your neighbour as yourself, God tells us that it is man and woman not any two having sexual encounters that become one flesh. Wherever the term one flesh is used in the bible to refer to a result of sexual activity, it is heterosexual, legal and illegal that is in view. Homosexual sex may lead to a "one flesh" result, but there is no biblical proof that it does so.

 

[TimV]

I believe that there is a real question whether the church was correct to bring over the Mosaic stipulation in the case of HSM as the case of Sarah and Abraham presents no evidence that HSM was frowned upon pre-Moses. Although I think modern genetics research offers a valid argument against the practice, I wonder whether it can be biblically argued to be sinful.

A very fair post, and one I'd like to discuss further. I suppose that's what you meant earlier in the thread about asking what underlying problem, if any was the reason that the prohibition against HSM was brought over, included in the Moral category etc..

All these questions seem to come down to the same basic thing, don't they? I doubt they'll be answered in our lifetime, but iron sharpens iron.

In the mean time, the fact that 99.99% of orthodox Christians who have ever lived put HSM into the Moral catagory make it at the very least a safe position.

 

[Wannabee]

Perhaps it was missed. Perhaps it's not pertinent. But could someone interact with this in relation to the covenant with the Gibeonites? (post 40)

 

[timmopussycat]

I believe that there is a real question whether the church was correct to bring over the Mosaic stipulation in the case of HSM as the case of Sarah and Abraham presents no evidence that HSM was frowned upon pre-Moses. Although I think modern genetics research offers a valid argument against the practice, I wonder whether it can be biblically argued to be sinful.

A very fair post, and one I'd like to discuss further. I suppose that's what you meant earlier in the thread about asking what underlying problem, if any was the reason that the prohibition against HSM was brought over, included in the Moral category etc..

All these questions seem to come down to the same basic thing, don't they? I doubt they'll be answered in our lifetime, but iron sharpens iron.

In the mean time, the fact that 99.99% of orthodox Christians who have ever lived put HSM into the Moral catagory make it at the very least a safe position.

If God has given in Scripture indications that a Mosaically prohibited practice was not universally prohibited outside the Mosaic covenant then it may or may not be valid today. That 99.99% of Christians held one view does not automatically make that view correct: if it were correct Luther was in error when he launched the Reformation. As far as Christian doctrines are concerned, the only positions that are safe are those directly taught by Scripture and those that are good and necessary consequences of Scriptural statements. Numbers holding a position are no argument for it.

 

[py3ak]

Mark, look at it like this. If, as sometimes happens, one person goes through a marriage ceremony with another, not revealing that he or she is already married, what happens when that comes to light is that the marriage is annulled. Why? Because it is impossible to have two wives. One of the contracting parties was in no position to make that contract.
Now take a daughter who doesn't honor her parents in choosing a husband. She is in sin for that; but she is in a position to make the contract.
Brothers and sisters cannot contract marriage with one another: they can't be in a position to make that contract.

 

[satz]

Mark, look at it like this. If, as sometimes happens, one person goes through a marriage ceremony with another, not revealing that he or she is already married, what happens when that comes to light is that the marriage is annulled. Why? Because it is impossible to have two wives. One of the contracting parties was in no position to make that contract.
Now take a daughter who doesn't honor her parents in choosing a husband. She is in sin for that; but she is in a position to make the contract.
Brothers and sisters cannot contract marriage with one another: they can't be in a position to make that contract.

Ruben,

Thanks that does make it clearer. However, what is the bible basis for the bolded portion? I see that an incestous marriage is sin by scripture and punishable by death, but I do not see how it is different in the sense you are saying from a marriage to a pagan.

IF as per the OP, we were to force a couple to split up, when there was no fault on their part, should be not at least be clear that our position is correct? (especially since God has shown precedent in his word for allowing sinful marriages to stay together)

 

[Grace Alone]

My understanding is if a man has an unbiblical divorce and remarries and later repents of his sin, the church does not require him to divorce the current wife and go back to the first wife.

Yes, if you have been following this thread, you will see this in the 9th post, where I wrote

And speaking practically, think about people in your church! Most of us know members in good standing who are remarried, and in many cases they remarried against Scriptural rules. But do you excommunicate or force a divorce upon someone whom you just found out unBiblically remarried 25 years ago? No, you don't in any confessional Reformed church.

Then you say

So I don't see how this situation of married half-siblings (which was totally innocent at the outset) differs. They married in innocence. They have become one flesh. So what good is it to force them to divorce?

Two homosexual men who marry, even if they have become one flesh (as you interpret it) do not have a valid marriage in the eyes of any conservative, confessional, Reformed church. Even if they were taught it was proper and good. The reason is that we don't believe that the marriage was valid in the first place.

That is true. The two homosexuals would have never been married in a conservative reformed church. But the half-sibling couple could have been married in a conservative reformed church. They did not know nor did the pastor who married them that there was a problem. So I don't see how the homosexual illustration relates to this at all. Neither does the example of the man who marries again when secretly married to another woman. Both of these are circumstances where either the church knew there was sin or one of the marriage partners knew the marriage would be illegal in the church.

 

[TimV]

It simply doesn't matter, Janis. You buy a car from me that I stole, I take the money and disappear, and you didn't have a legal sale. The original owner will still come get the car. You have not bought the car, even though you paid for it. You thought you owned the car. They thought that they were married.

If God has given in Scripture indications that a Mosaically prohibited practice was not universally prohibited outside the Mosaic covenant then it may or may not be valid today. That 99.99% of Christians held one view does not automatically make that view correct:

Adam and Eve's children marrying was legal outside of Moses. It is universally condemned now, and has been since Moses. There's a reason for it, even though that reason may not fit into your Sinai theory. True, the fact that the Mosaic rules of consanguinity have been considered moral and in force by everyone for for 3500 years isn't definitive proof, Timmo. You got me there. But what are the chances that you are going to find some blind spot in all their thinking?

Really, there's more agreement on this subject than on the Trinity.

 

[satz]

Adam and Eve's children marrying was legal outside of Moses. It is universally condemned now, and has been since Moses. There's a reason for it, even though that reason may not fit into your Sinai theory. True, the fact that the Mosaic rules of consanguinity have been considered moral and in force by everyone for for 3500 years isn't definitive proof, Timmo. You got me there. But what are the chances that you are going to find some blind spot in all their thinking?

Really, there's more agreement on this subject than on the Trinity.

Tim,

I agree that the rules against consanguinity are still in force. But what is the basis for saying a marriage that violates those rules is void as opposed to sinful? Especially given the fact that other sinful marriages are still considered marriages?

 

[TimV]

Tim,

I agree that the rules against consanguinity are still in force. But what is the basis for saying a marriage that violates those rules is void as opposed to sinful? Especially given the fact that other sinful marriages are still considered marriages?

Mark, may I ask why you keep asking this? Several people here have explained it to you very clearly, at least as we see the answer. Is there a personal reason? I'm not better able to answer it, I'm afraid, and I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring you when I don't respond. I hate it when people do that to me, and I don't want to do it to you.

To Wannabee (and Mark) there was a case in Thailand where a homosexual man disguised himself as a woman, and married an Italian man. After a few days, the truth came out. The judges verdict was quite embarrassing reading!!

Wannabee, you say let your yes be yes and your no be no in the context of an unlawful marriage. Could you or Mark please explain why that marriage would still be considered a marriage in your eyes, and should allowed to continue, even if both parties consent? Could I get both of you to explain to me why that marriage shouldn't be considered void?

 

[ModernPuritan?]

I guess the question would be

where in scripture, excluding "its day 500 since creation of world" does God speak judgment on a brother and sister for marrying? where does God speak judgment on two guys marrying?

 

[TimV]

I guess the question would be

where in scripture, excluding "its day 500 since creation of world" does God speak judgment on a brother and sister for marrying? where does God speak judgment on two guys marrying?

Hi. I don't agree with that, but even constraining myself by those bounds they are found in Moses, the Gospels and Epistles.

I suppose that one could twist and turn enough to say John's criticism of Herod didn't count since it was still under Sinai. But you can't get out of Paul assuming the Corinthians should have assumed that the laws of consanguinity were still in force.

Are you proposing that all the laws of consanguinity should be considered null and void if they aren't specifically reiterated in the New Testament?

 

[satz]

Tim,

I agree that the rules against consanguinity are still in force. But what is the basis for saying a marriage that violates those rules is void as opposed to sinful? Especially given the fact that other sinful marriages are still considered marriages?

Mark, may I ask why you keep asking this? Several people here have explained it to you very clearly, at least as we see the answer. Is there a personal reason? I'm not better able to answer it, I'm afraid, and I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring you when I don't respond. I hate it when people do that to me, and I don't want to do it to you.

Tim,

Thanks for your gracious answer.

Since you asked, let me assure you I have no personal investment in the answer to this question.

I guess I am still confused because people have been asserting that such a marriage is void, but I see no bible support for that assertion. I scanned through the thread (I don't have time for a detailed re-read), and the only verse I can see is the one you quoted:"Cursed is the man who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

Now, this presents incestous marriage as sin, but so is marriage to an unbeliever. Both are sins, christians in both cases have no "right" to enter into a marriage so why is one different.

You have said yourself that such marriages were lawful in the time of Adam and Eve and up until Moses. Hence, a brother and sister marrying is not inherently against the nature and structure of marriage which God ordained. God later added a prohibition, which makes all brother-sister marriages now sin, but to me, that just seems that the marriage is sin (and I don't make light of that), not that it is a nullity.

As I said in an earlier post, the only possible answer I have been able to figure out on my own is the "unlawfulness" comes from the fact that incestous marriages are not allowed under the civil law of the nations we live in. Is this your position?

Wannabee, you say let your yes be yes and your no be no in the context of an unlawful marriage. Could you or Mark please explain why that marriage would still be considered a marriage in your eyes, and should allowed to continue, even if both parties consent? Could I get both of you to explain to me why that marriage shouldn't be considered void?

I would answer that it is because I see precedent in 1 Cor 7 that God allows sinful marriages to continue. So it is not just me being a softie. I am open to the idea that a incestous marriage is of a different sort, but so far I have not seen a solid biblical argument.