Who Owns our Bodies?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
Huh? 1 Cor 7 says the husband has authority over the wife's body, and likewise she has authority over her husbands. If you are married, your body does not belong to you alone.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
Was the desire of the Galatians sinful?

For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. Gal. 4:15

That's plainly hyperbole.

Are you sure about that? What Paul is saying if it were possible the Galatians would have literally given up their physical sight for Paul. We today are able to literately pluck out a kidney for our neighbor, and many out of love do exactly that.
 

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
On the difference between blood and organs, here are the thoughts of Ronald Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Churches:
[T]here is a very essential difference between blood donation and organ transplants- that is that blood is a renewable substance. If I give a pint of blood as a blood donor I do not spend the rest of my life going about with one pint less blood than others! It renews within my body. An analogy might be a nursing mother's milk; by feeding her baby and 'donating' milk she gives what her body will renew, so long as she continues lactating. Possibly hair and finger and toe nails also are analogous to blood in that sense. But organs are essentially different, in that they are not renewable by the body! No kidney donor grows a replacement kidney, no new liver or heart develops in a body from which they are taken. So, extremely unlike blood, organs are an essential part of an individual body, an essential and unalienable part of a whole created by God, and to be ultimately resurrected or changed by Him. Therein lies the essential difference and dividing line, and the reason why Christians can oppose organ transplants without any hint of the Jehovah's Witness nonsense about blood transfusions and the 'soul in the blood' etc."

The liver can grow back.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Rev. Winzer, could you expand on your point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond Jesus' authority over his own body.

Sorry for the brevity. Basically, the action and virtue of laying down His life for the sheep was mediatorial and redemptive, and so unique and unrepeatable. The idea that we are to imitate it is misplaced. The idea of "saving life" in the materialist world has assumed a Messianic character, so it is probably not surprising to see an overt theological explanation which creates Messiahs of mere men.

I find it odd to see Christians assume a materialist understanding of death. As far as I am aware the Bible teaches that the bodies of believers are united to Christ and rest in their graves till the resurrection. He who lives and believes in the Resurrection and the Life shall never die. He lives in Christ. Hence those who die so far as this temporal life is concerned are only said to "sleep." They are not "dead" in the way a materialist would think of them.

We are to pray, Deliver us from evil. That includes being delivered from death with all the power of it. Fatalistically yielding to the power of death is not consistent with the profession of faith that Christ is the resurrection and the life.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."

Brother,

I believe that Matt. 15:6 applies to your position. I speak gently-- but I believe it is a hypocritical position that effectively neglects God's commandment.

Would you put your hand into a machine to save someone else, even if it meant losing your hand? Also, when too much blood is lost, the body cannot recover. By your own definition, isn't blood then a permanent body part?

To be honest, your question about putting my hand into a machine is challenging--I'll have to think it over. My first thought was, Of course I would!, but I see your point. I'll think it over.

To make things clear, if the tables were turned, and I were the one with the failing kidney, I would turn it down.

The difference in the hand in the machine and the transplanted organ is this--the transplanted organ is understood as a possession that my be transferred from one owner to another. The loss of a hand in saving another's life is collateral damage.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Brother, I want to gain some clarity on your argument, so bare with me. What's the premise that gets us from "God owns our bodies" and "our bodies (including their constituent parts, like kidneys) are united to Christ and redeemed by Him" to the conclusion "therefore, our kidneys are not ours to give?"

Surely, all things that we have belong to God and in that sense are not ours to give. Nevertheless, our God gives many good things over which we are to be wise stewards (e.g., our money). Though our financial resources belong to God, nothing precludes us from using or even giving it away for the good of our neighbor, correct?

Unlike money and other such things, our bodies are not commodities. Our bodies are us. As I noted above, Leviticus teaches that we are not to give ownership of ourselves to others.

Also, given the rate at which our organs regenerate, we never have, in some sense, the same organs, bones, etc. with which we were born with. Moreover, all of our bodies rot in the grave. Why cannot we give an organ to save our neighbor's life, which otherwise would rot in the ground? I think it is both loving God and our neighbor to do so. That being said, we do not have permission to give away, say, our heart and other vital organs while living. Such would be suicide and illicit.

So how do you understand the Confession's (and the Bible's) teaching that the bodies that will be raised on the last day are the same ones we have now?
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Huh? 1 Cor 7 says the husband has authority over the wife's body, and likewise she has authority over her husbands. If you are married, your body does not belong to you alone.

As I noted above, our bodies belong to God alone. However, we have certain prerogatives in regard to our bodies, and so do our spouses. That's Paul's point.
 

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
So how do you understand the Confession's (and the Bible's) teaching that the bodies that will be raised on the last day are the same ones we have now?
Good question. I don't think that the identity of our bodies consist in having the exact same cells that our bodies have now. Otherwise our bodies at death are not even identical to the bodies we had ten years prior. The identity of our bodies, however, I do not think depends strictly having the same exact cells, molecules, etc.

Also, your counter-objection is salient, i.e., that our bodies are not commodities. I still do not see what premise moves you to the "therefore..." Though I confess, I see what you're getting at.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I don't think that organ donation is necessarily immoral. For those that do, is it necessarily sinful to amputate/remove diseased limbs, organs or any tissue if it means prolonging a person's life? If it isn't that seems inconsistent. You can give up bad tissue for oneself to live but not good tissue for another to live?
 

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."

Brother,

I believe that Matt. 15:6 applies to your position. I speak gently-- but I believe it is a hypocritical position that effectively neglects God's commandment.

Would you put your hand into a machine to save someone else, even if it meant losing your hand? Also, when too much blood is lost, the body cannot recover. By your own definition, isn't blood then a permanent body part?

To be honest, your question about putting my hand into a machine is challenging--I'll have to think it over. My first thought was, Of course I would!, but I see your point. I'll think it over.

To make things clear, if the tables were turned, and I were the one with the failing kidney, I would turn it down.

The difference in the hand in the machine and the transplanted organ is this--the transplanted organ is understood as a possession that my be transferred from one owner to another. The loss of a hand in saving another's life is collateral damage.

I am not sure that organ transplantation is being understood here.
You can live with one kidney and half a liver that grows back in 3 weeks. You cannot live without a heart.
Heart and lung transplants (as well as others) are performed on recently dead bodies who are organ donors.

Your idea of the resurrection is reminiscent of the Native American idea that if one is not complete at death they are doomed to walk on their hands for eternity to turn that frown upside down, so to speak.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
The resurrection is of course a miracle. The question of being resurrected shouldn't enter into the question of e.g. providing a kidney for one's ill daughter or wife. God is not stumped by such things or by martyrs with missing heads.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The resurrection is of course a miracle. The question of being resurrected shouldn't enter into the question of e.g. providing a kidney for one's ill daughter or wife. God is not stumped by such things or by martyrs with missing heads.

Says Martha: "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

But why will he be resurrected at the last day? Our Lord takes Martha one step farther: he who believes in Me, the Resurrection and the Life, shall rise in the resurrection because he lives in Me. Because he lives in Me he shall never die!

Believest thou this, Martha?

There are ethical implications for the respectful treatment of the body.
 

timfost

Puritan Board Senior
So, if our bodies are part of us, and belong with our souls, then the individual parts of our bodies belong with our souls and with the other parts of our bodies. To separate any part of a man is highly unnatural.

Let's suppose you lost an arm in a machine. Did you lose a portion of your soul?

Tyler, I believe your premise is faulty and you are making extraordinary conclusions from a bad premise. Yes, the body and soul are joined together, but to conclude from this premise that one cannot donate an organ is to materialize the soul.

The soul is united to the body as long as it is alive. The parts of the body receive their vitality from the life source. The soul is not united to parts of the body that are a) dead or b) receive their vitality from another life source.

A) An amputated leg does not have a soul. The soul remains united to the living body of the individual. When the individual dies, the soul is separated from that body.

B) The sperm is part of the male body and carries his DNA. The egg is part of the female body and carries her DNA. When these two come together, they are no longer part of their original source but part of a new body. Likewise, an organ that receives its vitality from a new/different life source is no longer part of the body of its first source.

The resurrected body is changed-- glorious. Yes, physical, but not identical. We should not make an argument which restrains God's creative work in the resurrection and we shouldn't speculate how it is that God accomplishes this miraculous work.
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
OPC apparently has not dealt with this formally http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=404
PCA presumes its lawfulness reporting on heroic measures in 1988. http://pcahistory.org/pca/2-378.html
Wayne, has the PCA dealt with the ethics of transplants beyond this report?
FRCNA has been struggling with the issue for a number of years and finding it difficult to complete a report on end of life issues including organ donation; but not the act of transplanting rather the timing. http://frcna.org/resources/acts-of-synod
PB has discussed this before on threads. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/80452-WLC-136-and-Organ-Donation-Transplantation
I don't know any church that has ruled this is sinful (anyone?) and for churches that don't have some guidance yet it seems prudent rather than leaving that all on each minister as the case arises.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
I wonder even if Galatians 4:15 is hyperbole do we think Paul would have used this as an example if it was in of itself sinful?

15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
I don't think that organ donation is necessarily immoral. For those that do, is it necessarily sinful to amputate/remove diseased limbs, organs or any tissue if it means prolonging a person's life? If it isn't that seems inconsistent. You can give up bad tissue for oneself to live but not good tissue for another to live?

I don't think the position I've laid out precludes amputations. The issue is giving/dedicating our body to another, not removing parts of it when necessary to do so. I'm okay with leaving that question open, as it doesn't get at the heart of the issue (no pun intended).

Good question, though!
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Good question. I don't think that the identity of our bodies consist in having the exact same cells that our bodies have now. Otherwise our bodies at death are not even identical to the bodies we had ten years prior. The identity of our bodies, however, I do not think depends strictly having the same exact cells, molecules, etc.

I agree. So, if our bodies are still the same bodies even with cells constantly dying and being replaced, then our body parts are still the same body parts even with cells dying and being replaced. I'm referring, of course, to your earlier statement: "Also, given the rate at which our organs regenerate, we never have, in some sense, the same organs, bones, etc. with which we were born with."
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."

Brother,

I believe that Matt. 15:6 applies to your position. I speak gently-- but I believe it is a hypocritical position that effectively neglects God's commandment.

Would you put your hand into a machine to save someone else, even if it meant losing your hand? Also, when too much blood is lost, the body cannot recover. By your own definition, isn't blood then a permanent body part?

To be honest, your question about putting my hand into a machine is challenging--I'll have to think it over. My first thought was, Of course I would!, but I see your point. I'll think it over.

To make things clear, if the tables were turned, and I were the one with the failing kidney, I would turn it down.

The difference in the hand in the machine and the transplanted organ is this--the transplanted organ is understood as a possession that my be transferred from one owner to another. The loss of a hand in saving another's life is collateral damage.

I am not sure that organ transplantation is being understood here.
You can live with one kidney and half a liver that grows back in 3 weeks. You cannot live without a heart.
Heart and lung transplants (as well as others) are performed on recently dead bodies who are organ donors.

Trent, I don't think you're understanding my argument. We may not give our organs to others because we are prohibited in Scripture to dedicate our bodies to others. It has nothing to do with the permanency of the organs, nor whether a person can live without them.

Your idea of the resurrection is reminiscent of the Native American idea that if one is not complete at death they are doomed to walk on their hands for eternity to turn that frown upside down, so to speak.

My point about the resurrection has nothing to do with God's ability to resurrect a mutilated body. God will do so. My point about the resurrection is that our bodies will be raised, and those bodies will be the same ones that we have now. Since our body parts are parts of our bodies, we should think twice about what we do with our members. As Rev. Winzer just noted, there are ethical implications of the doctrine of the resurrection. This is why Christians have historically rejected cremation, for instance (I'm not interested in debating cremation on this thread, however).
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
So, if our bodies are part of us, and belong with our souls, then the individual parts of our bodies belong with our souls and with the other parts of our bodies. To separate any part of a man is highly unnatural.

Let's suppose you lost an arm in a machine. Did you lose a portion of your soul?

Where did that come from? I think you have seriously misunderstood my position. The soul is indivisible. It doesn't have "portions."

Tyler, I believe your premise is faulty and you are making extraordinary conclusions from a bad premise. Yes, the body and soul are joined together, but to conclude from this premise that one cannot donate an organ is to materialize the soul.

The soul is united to the body as long as it is alive. The parts of the body receive their vitality from the life source. The soul is not united to parts of the body that are a) dead or b) receive their vitality from another life source.

A) An amputated leg does not have a soul. The soul remains united to the living body of the individual. When the individual dies, the soul is separated from that body.

B) The sperm is part of the male body and carries his DNA. The egg is part of the female body and carries her DNA. When these two come together, they are no longer part of their original source but part of a new body. Likewise, an organ that receives its vitality from a new/different life source is no longer part of the body of its first source.

The resurrected body is changed-- glorious. Yes, physical, but not identical. We should not make an argument which restrains God's creative work in the resurrection and we shouldn't speculate how it is that God accomplishes this miraculous work.

You may need to reread my argument, particularly the portion of my original post before the statement, "This ought to be enough to settle the issue." You will find nothing in my main argument about the union of the body and soul.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
timfost said:
The resurrected body is changed-- glorious. Yes, physical, but not identical. We should not make an argument which restrains God's creative work in the resurrection and we shouldn't speculate how it is that God accomplishes this miraculous work.

The resurrection is not a creative work. It is a redemptive work. God will redeem our bodies, not create new ones.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
OPC apparently has not dealt with this formally http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=404
PCA presumes its lawfulness reporting on heroic measures in 1988. http://pcahistory.org/pca/2-378.html
Wayne, has the PCA dealt with the ethics of transplants beyond this report?
FRCNA has been struggling with the issue for a number of years and finding it difficult to complete a report on end of life issues including organ donation; but not the act of transplanting rather the timing. http://frcna.org/resources/acts-of-synod
PB has discussed this before on threads. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/80452-WLC-136-and-Organ-Donation-Transplantation
I don't know any church that has ruled this is sinful (anyone?) and for churches that don't have some guidance yet it seems prudent rather than leaving that all on each minister as the case arises.

Thank you for the information, Chris.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
I would like to start with the verse you gave (I Corinthians 6, in which he writes, "the body ... [is] for the Lord," and, "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.") and ask an important question. Why did God want to own our body? Well, you already answered it with the Scripture you gave. So you could say he bought us with a price and owns us body and soul so that we would be obedient to him by spreading his Gospel and by glorifying him in all we do through the work of sanctification he works within us. That is why he owns our bodies. His ultimate goal for his people is of a heavenly purpose.

Now, should we take good care of the bodies he's given to us? Of course we should. When we don't take good care of our bodies we fall into bad health but more importantly we are sinning. For example, eating too much can cause diabetes, heart problems etc. But the greater offense of overeating is that we are lusting after food which is an offense against God. This impedes us both physically and spiritually to do his work of spreading the Gospel and of glorifying him by demonstrating self-control if they have these diseases as a result of overeating. So we have an earthly reason for taking care of our bodies which aids in the higher and more important heavenly reason for obeying God.

This is why God owns our body. He doesn't own our bodies in order tell us what to do with it so that he return it to us at the last resurrection in the same shape and form we had at birth....that isn't his goal for our bodies. It is true will will have physical bodies when we are resurrected, but they will not be identical to the ones we have now. Christ's resurrected body was a physical body but it certainly was different from the one he was born with. Paul speaks to this in 1Cor 15 (Calvin's commentary on this is worth the read).

God's goal for our bodies isn't to own them for our usage or for "What's best for mankind". Instead, our bodies and souls are owned by God for, "What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." We begin that process here on earth by spreading His Gospel and by being sanctified so that we might glorify him here on earth in all that we do...... after death we will glorify him perfectly. That is why God owns our bodies.

If you lose a body part, it's ok. If you give a body part away while you're still alive, it's ok as long as it doesn't cause your death. If you give all your useable body parts away after death, it's ok. You're getting a new body which will never decay with which you will be able to glorify him perfectly forever....our chief end.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If you give all your useable body parts away after death, it's ok.

The body is not disposable income. You came naked into the world and you will leave the world naked; and that "you" is body and soul. And "you," body and soul, believe in Christ as your resurrection and life. You do not simply believe that you will be raised from the dead. You believe, as Christ taught, that you live in Him and you can never die in Him. You, body and soul, are trusting in Christ for salvation from death, and this should inform your ethical decisions. Choose life, not death. God is the God of the living, not of the dead.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Another way to come at this is:

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus, you may not be a glutton for gluttony is likened unto worshipping other gods...the god of your belly which breaks the first Commandment, thus you are not glorifying God.

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus, you may not donate your organs to another person because....now you have to plug in a Commandment here which would be broken if you did donate an organ, thus causing you to not glorify God. You can't plug in the Scripture we are using as the Commandment bc that would be a circular argument and basically you could make any man made law God's command then.

I would be allowed to say,

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus no one is allowed to wear earrings because the body ... [is] for the Lord.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
I would like to start with the verse you gave (I Corinthians 6, in which he writes, "the body ... [is] for the Lord," and, "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.") and ask an important question. Why did God want to own our body? Well, you already answered it with the Scripture you gave. So you could say he bought us with a price and owns us body and soul so that we would be obedient to him by spreading his Gospel and by glorifying him in all we do through the work of sanctification he works within us. That is why he owns our bodies. His ultimate goal for his people is of a heavenly purpose.

Now, should we take good care of the bodies he's given to us? Of course we should. When we don't take good care of our bodies we fall into bad health but more importantly we are sinning. For example, eating too much can cause diabetes, heart problems etc. But the greater offense of overeating is that we are lusting after food which is an offense against God. This impedes us both physically and spiritually to do his work of spreading the Gospel and of glorifying him by demonstrating self-control if they have these diseases as a result of overeating. So we have an earthly reason for taking care of our bodies which aids in the higher and more important heavenly reason for obeying God.

This is why God owns our body. He doesn't own our bodies in order tell us what to do with it so that he return it to us at the last resurrection in the same shape and form we had at birth....that isn't his goal for our bodies. It is true will will have physical bodies when we are resurrected, but they will not be identical to the ones we have now. Christ's resurrected body was a physical body but it certainly was different from the one he was born with. Paul speaks to this in 1Cor 15 (Calvin's commentary on this is worth the read).

God's goal for our bodies isn't to own them for our usage or for "What's best for mankind". Instead, our bodies and souls are owned by God for, "What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." We begin that process here on earth by spreading His Gospel and by being sanctified so that we might glorify him here on earth in all that we do...... after death we will glorify him perfectly. That is why God owns our bodies.

If you lose a body part, it's ok. If you give a body part away while you're still alive, it's ok as long as it doesn't cause your death. If you give all your useable body parts away after death, it's ok. You're getting a new body which will never decay with which you will be able to glorify him perfectly forever....our chief end.

Sarah,

God owns our bodies (which is to say that he owns us) because he is our creator. As our creator, he has the primary prerogative over us. In this capacity, he has forbidden us to dedicate our bodies to others, to be possessed by them. That's why we may not give away our body parts.

You spoke of a "new body," and said that Christ's resurrected body "was different from the one he was born with." I hope you don't literally mean that it was a different body. The Bible, and the Reformed faith, teach that the bodies we have now will be redeemed.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Tyler, you are using the circular argument that i just gave as an example. Basically what you are saying is:

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus, you may not donate organs bc the body ... [is] for the Lord.

If we used this type of reasoning we could make up all types of commandments that are not from God and say they are from God bc the body ... [is] for the Lord.

You have to show that donating organs breaks one of his Commandments which we are not allowed to break bc he declared we have to obey that Commandment bc the body ... [is] for the Lord for his glory otherwise you pay the penalty of hell.

Now, if you can find which law we would be breaking by donating organs, I'll be the first to admit my error and be on your side in this matter. Otherwise, this idea is just another man mad law I personally will not feel obligated to follow.

As for our new bodies read 1 Cor 15 and Calvin's commentary. Our new bodies will be free from ever dying again. Jesus is not sitting in heaven eating every day to stay alive. That's certainly new from his body before his death.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Tyler, you are using the circular argument that i just gave as an example. Basically what you are saying is:

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus, you may not donate organs bc the body ... [is] for the Lord.

If we used this type of reasoning we could make up all types of commandments that are not from God and say they are from God bc the body ... [is] for the Lord.

You have to show that donating organs breaks one of his Commandments which we are not allowed to break bc he declared we have to obey that Commandment bc the body ... [is] for the Lord for his glory otherwise you pay the penalty of hell.

Now, if you can find which law we would be breaking by donating organs, I'll be the first to admit my error and be on your side in this matter. Otherwise, this idea is just another man mad law I personally will not feel obligated to follow.

As for our new bodies read 1 Cor 15 and Calvin's commentary. Our new bodies will be free from ever dying again. Jesus is not sitting in heaven eating every day to stay alive. That's certainly new from his body before his death.

Sarah,

My argument is linear, not circular:

Major premise: God owns our bodies (1 Cor 6).

Minor Premise: God explicitly forbids us to dedicate our bodies to others, to be owned by them (Leviticus 19:28).

Conclusion: We may not give our body parts to others.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
As for our new bodies read 1 Cor 15 and Calvin's commentary. Our new bodies will be free from ever dying again. Jesus is not sitting in heaven eating every day to stay alive. That's certainly new from his body before his death.

Yes, it is new in the sense of being renewed. It is not new in the sense of being a brand new body. It is different than it was before, but it is not a completely different body.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Tyler,

I could only find one person who interprets Lev 19:28 the way you have done and that is Charles Ellicott who belonged to the Church of England. I don't put much stalk in the Church of England. I've never heard the interpretation you have given. Calvin is silent (at least I couldn't find it) on this verse as well as others. R.C. Sproul states, "Mutilation of the body created by God was incompatible with holiness, for the holy God is perfect life."

This is what pretty much what everyone else is saying,

28. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead—"The practice of making deep gashes on the face and arms and legs, in time of bereavement, was universal among the heathen, and it was deemed a becoming mark of respect for the dead, as well as a sort of propitiatory offering to the deities who presided over death and the grave. The Jews learned this custom in Egypt, and though weaned from it, relapsed in a later and degenerate age into this old superstition (Isa 15:2; Jer 16:6; 41:5).
nor print any marks upon you—by tattooing, imprinting figures of flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person. The impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different castes of the Hindus. It is probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return. (See allusions to the practice, Isa 44:5; Re 13:17; 14:1)."

I don't see how this verse states, "God explicitly forbids us to dedicate our bodies to others, to be owned by them". Further up in this same chapter in verse 20 it talks about slaves and their right not to be put to death if a man lies with the female slave. As you know, Jews did own Jewish slaves. It obviously permitted by God for someone to own another person and have them as a slave. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. God wouldn't allow the Jews to own slaves, especially Jewish slaves, and then a few verses down give an unclear verse about not owning a person. I think we should take this verse for what it says, "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves.".

Unless you can find a trustworthy, reformed commentator who interprets this verse the way you have, I say again, your argument is circular.

As far as the "new body", I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top