Incest? Why was it ever ok?

[Matthew1344]

Please help me understand this....

ok, so here is my logic. And i really feel like i am missing something, so please help me

God never changes.
Therefore the standard of perfection never changes.
So what is sin and what is not sin can never change.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

Another is incest.
With Adam, it was ok. With Noah, it was ok.
But in the Law of Moses it is wrong.

Did what is sin and what is not sin change? How?

What displeases God has always displeased God, right?
He never changes so what pleases him cant change.
So sin cant change.
And here it looks like it is changing.

Any takers?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

God has changed particular requirements for his people quite often, and the Bible seems unembarrassed by reporting such.

We don't sacrifice bulls and goats anymore. Q.E.D. It's wrong even to pretend to "resacrifice" Christ in the papal mass. Such worship is sinful. But from Adam to Christ those sacrifices were absolutely proper.

So, did God change? No, his requirements for us changed. If God makes his change clear, how is this a problem? Have you ever set up (or experienced) rules that had an expiration date? Perhaps for children? Children change. Circumstances change. God never stops being the rule-Maker. It's our job to follow his commands. His house, his rules. If he restricted Israel's freedoms for a time, by dietary laws and other such, who can demand from him an answer, "Why do you do this?" He sometimes makes "why" clear, but not always; nor is he under any obligation to explain himself in order to solicit our obedience!


But perhaps the question is, that some of the divine dictates (especially out of the OT) have seemed to have less intrinsic moral-quality (and those are fine to modify); but other notions (like incest) have definite moral-quality. And the moral condition of man is essentially unchanged from the beginning... so why were certain things not immoral at first, but now they seem to be?

Given the world God made, there's no way for one set of parents for the human race to have grandchildren without the initial generation intermarrying. There was at least one limit we can count on--Adam was not to have another wife (it would demand a rather gross relation with his daughter). So, there's a natural-moral limit. But there cannot be a limit to the same degree among the first blood-relations. Any other notion creates an impossible condition. The condition with Noah is only partially parallel. Certainly the first limit that applied to Adam and Eve also applies to Noah and his wife. His sons are already married, they have no need for daughters of Noah. There is no necessity for any child to marry closer than a 1st cousin in the case of his grandchildren.

It is legitimate to infer that men knew by nature, or they were told by God, that there was a natural necessity to spread the gene pool shortly thereafter. There is a moral and a natural confluence in divine law in the realm of sexual ethics. At the end of the day, what is moral is determined by the will of God, expressed both by nature and by Word. The Word restates and clarifies what sin obscures in nature.

The simple answer to your question is: God hasn't changed. Not even his overall expectations have changed for humanity. Our circumstances have changed as history has rolled forward. Not everything about our circumstances has changed. Our human nature is basically unchanged. So, the Ten Commandments still provide a helpful summary of God's moral direction for man. Moses Law contained the Moral Law, it did not institute it (murder was wrong long before Ex.20).

The Bible makes it clear what conditions and commands have been adjusted for our sake. We don't make the adjustments, God does. Act.15:20 (among other places) makes it clear that the OT sexual ethics are a standard that has not moved, since the church went-global. If anyone is ever confused as to what limits he should observe, all he has to do is make use of Moses at that point. And note from the Act.15 passage that Moses' Law is not to be imposed generally on the Gentiles (not even on liberated Jews) despite this unique utility.

Hopefully, that's enough to get you thinking in the right direction.

 

[Matthew1344]

thanks!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Matt, there is a useful discussion of the distinction between moral-natural laws and moral-positive laws in Herbert Palmer and Daniel Cawdrey's Sabbatum redivivum book linked below (on p. 7ff):

Sabbatum redivivum, or, the Christian Sabbath ... . - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library | HathiTrust Digital Library

 

[Matthew1344]

and this distinction of the laws goes with covenant theology? not dispensational? or does it apply to both?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Analysis of Sinai's law--distinguishing its constituent elements, weighting its values, etc.--does not belong to a specific tradition or form/frame of theology (such as "covenant" or "dispensationalism").

It's probably true that one tradition or another has (or is more likely to) give itself to this inspection. If we go back in history far enough--say 100yrs--categories of law were just a common staple widely acknowledged among Protestants or Evangelicals in general. Almost everyone reckoned the Ten Commandments as a form of moral-law declaration, and separated the moral law from the rest of the Mosaic legislation.

Now, the distinguishing between the moral, civil, and ceremonial laws of the OT was included in historic Confessions of the Reformation, and churches maintaining close connection to those Confessions tend not to lose track of these things. The precise categories are even older than the Reformation, and are found used by Medieval theologians.

Fast forward to the 20th century, and you find wide swathes of 'Evangelicalism' (an imprecise umbrella term) ignoring both church-history and any confessional basis for their faith. They act as though the Christian faith has no root; it simply floats over the cultural tides. Being "just Bible" believers, they also tended to locate themselves in a NT-only identity and a "Gentile-age" identity, lent strength partly by frequent connection to a dispensational hermeneutic.

If everything I need to know about living my faith is basically taught to me between Matthew and Revelation (or possibly between Acts and Jude, depending on how radical the "Bible-for-me/Bible-for-them" dichotomy shapes my thinking), then an obvious question stands: What possible interest could I have in law that was never intended for me, nor is it any part of my Gentile-heritage?

In other words, I think the modern (rather than a particular hermeneutic) blasé approach to a need for understanding the legal-portions of the OT is not embedded in dispensationalism, but neither is there the same vital connection to dispensational conception of "NT-Religion" which is supposedly Grace without Law (anywhere), that one can find in covenant theology. And this lack of connection can create a handicap when, as a theology is worked out in practice, one is left without (for example) categories for explaining why for centuries and generations it was accepted that Sunday was the Christian Sabbath, and involved some form of moral duty (not just convenience). I would say that most American Christians are merely habitual/cultural Sunday-worship attenders. It may also explain why the day-of-rest has been replaced by carnal recreations, entertainments, and amusements.

Our forebears understood the fourth commandment had an authoritative application for the present, because one could distinguish between the positive (for this, for now) aspects of that law, and the moral (timeless, natural) aspects. Such technical minutiae is annoying to our generation, who are in the main: unsophisticated, anti-authority, anti-intellectual, egalitarian, feeling-oriented, surface level, and truncated in a simplistic approach to Christianity; which is in actuality an ancient and richly textured religion.