Solon,
<< "the blessings of incest" >>
You CAN'T be serious!
Are you saying that God blessed Abraham and Sarah BECAUSE they had the same father???
That is ridiculous!
Where in the Bible does it say that?
You are taking two verses out of context and drawing a faulty conclusion that obviously contradicts what the Bible teaches. Then you are putting down the Bible based on your faulty conclusion.
It is true that Abraham and Sarah had the same father, but this was before God gave the law against marrying kin.
Cain's wife not only had the same father as Cain, but also the same mother! This was true of most of Adam and Eve's kids! When you start with one male and one female, there really is no other choice: for them to "be fruitful and multiply", they must interbreed. God had no intention of using special creation to provide a mate for each person. Adam was the only one to get a custom-made babe. The rest of us guys have to "shop from the rack".
Likewise, after the flood, the gene pool had to start over with the DNA of eight people: Noah, his three sons, and their respective wives. The next generation had to marry cousins; there was no other choice.
Since Adam and Eve had perfect DNA with no genetic defects, there was no physical problem with their offspring interbreeding. Over time, God knew that the genetic defects would accumulate and it would be harmful for close relatives to mate, so He commanded us to avoid that.
If you map out the geneologies in the Bible (Genesis 5 and 11), you will see that Noah was only the tenth generation (nine after Adam), and Abraham was only the twentieth generation (ten from Noah). It is also interesting to note that Adam was still alive when Noah's father was born and Noah was still alive when Abraham was born! This is something that you don't pick up on in a casual reading of the text. The point being, in twenty generations, the genetic defects would be minimal, especially considering that ten of these generations occurred in the antediluvian period which would produce much fewer defects than today.
Thus, the prohibition against incest came after these early times.
<< Incest is an extreme case of fornication and it is an abomination to God! >>
I made this statement in the context of society after the book of Leviticus (particularly chapter 20). Yes, once the Law was given, it was clear that incest was an abomination to God. As I explained above, obviously God saw nothing wrong with Cain marrying his sister, because that was the whole idea. As the human family grew and divided into separate families, and as the DNA began to accumulate defects, it became no longer acceptable to marry a close relative and Leviticus 20 makes this very, very clear.
Fornication by definition means sex outside of marriage, so Abraham and Sarah never committed fornication together. Thus my statement you quoted does not apply to them. My statement was based on the assumption that family members don't marry each other, thus making incest a subset of sex outside of marriage. The issue you are bringing up is not one of incest, but a question of whether it was right for Abraham to marry his half-sister. It was common at that time for men to marry their half-sister. If a man had four wives, each wife basically raised her own family. Thus, a boy didn't grow up under the same roof with his half-sister. At the very least, a half-sister was viewed very differently from a full-sister. But regardless of this distinction, your question remains: Was it right for Abraham to marry his half-sister, Sarai?
Abraham grew up in a pagan, idol-worshiping society. He was already married to Sarai (Sarah) in Genesis 12 when God chose him to be the father of God's chosen people. Did God choose Abraham because he was righteous? The Bible doesn't say that. Romans 4:3 tells us that Abraham believed God and God counted that as righteousness. He was not chosen for any righteous works that he had done or for avoiding any unrighteous acts. In fact, in Genesis 12:1, God essentially told Abraham to get out of that pagan area, leave his country, and his relatives. God was not endorsing Abraham, his lifestyle, or his past sins. God was giving him a new start. It is called grace, and it is the only hope that any of us have in getting to heaven: grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Another thought concerning your proposition that God was blessing Sarah for "incest". Some blessing! Sarah was barren up to the age of ninety! (Genesis 17:17) It was humiliating for women to be barren in that day, so if God wanted to bless their marriage because they shared the same father, then He picked a rather strange way of doing it! On the contrary, God chose a hundred-year-old man and a ninety-year-old barren woman to give birth to the nation of Israel. This was not to endorse their lifestyle, but instead to demonstrate His incredible power and faithfulness. God can be trusted. The nation of Israel, from its original "conception" up to today, is infallible evidence that YHWH is an awesome God. Israel's continued existence is a miracle of God. He will never break His promise to them and they will never again be removed from their Land.
In regards to the people that God chooses to be His instruments, look at Paul, the human author of about two-thirds of the New Testament. He was on his way to murder Christians in Acts 9 when God called him. Does this mean that God was blessing him for murder? Of course not!
As I stated in my last post to you, the Bible is an honest book which accurately depicts the sins of human beings. That is the whole point. We are all sinners who have broken God's Holy Law and have earned ourselves eternal judgment. God offers us salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. You can't earn heaven by being good because you have already been bad. Good works won't cut it, only perfection. Jesus lived a perfect life and then died on the cross to pay the price of sin. He freely offers salvation to whoever will receive it. No discrimination here. All are equally condemned before God for our sins, and all can be saved through Christ's redeeming blood.
<< Lot offers his daughters to be gang raped. Later he will father their children. >>
It is not difficult to find sinners in the Bible, but Lot is certainly an excellent choice if you have to pick one. You accurately cited the two instances of his worst depravity.
Let's look at Lot and the steps he took that led to such wickedness and evil.
In Genesis 13:5-12, Abraham suggested that he and Lot separate since they had so many flocks and herds and tents that they couldn't live together in the same area. (The problem that Lot faced was that he was "too wealthy". What a place to start!) Abraham told Lot to pick where he wanted to go, and Abraham would go the opposite direction. Lot chose the best land for himself, "all the plain of Jordan", and he "pitched his tent toward Sodom". This he did even though verse 13 tells us that "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." He was putting his material prosperity above the welfare of his family. Bad choice. This was the first warning sign that something wasn't right with Lot.
By Genesis 14:12, the Bible tells us that Lot "dwelt in Sodom". What was he doing living in that wicked city?
We next see Lot in Genesis 19 when the wickedness in Sodom had become so great that God was ready to destroy it. Where was Lot? Had he departed from this wicked environment for the sake of his family and his own spiritual health? No! Verse 1 tells us that "Lot sat in the gate of Sodom." This means that he was a leader in the city! Yes, Lot had fallen so low that he offered to have his two virgin daughters raped by a violent homosexual crowd because the etiquette of the day was that he should protect the strangers who were visiting him. That is a picture of what it meant to be politically correct in Sodom at that time, and should give us an idea of why God was just in destroying that wicked city.
Genesis 19:30-36 tells us that after the destruction of Sodom, Lot and his two daughters were living in a cave, and the two girls feared that they would never have husbands, so they decided to get their father drunk and have children by him.
You quoted Genesis 19:36 which is the last we hear about Lot in the Old Testament. Pretty miserable and disgusting story!
<< But remember that not only does God not condemn any of this >>
Hello? Can there be any doubt? Can you name one Bible commentary that purports that this was anything other than extreme wickedness? The Bible condemns every wicked act that I mentioned above!
The Bible in Genesis 19 records the facts just like a newspaper article might record the details of a crime. For example, let's say you read in the paper that a man abducted a young child and then raped and murdered her. The article gives gruesome details of every despicable act. Step by step it describes every act of evil that was committed against this helpless, innocent child. As you read it, you are sickened. Your skin is crawling and you are on the verge of vomiting. Your anger is building as you read about pure evil. Would you read this article and then turn to the person next to you and say that the newspaper is unjust because it "does not condemn any of this"??? Give me a break! Of course the newspaper writer condemned the wickedness he described, but there was no need to state the obvious. The writer was confident that his readers would understand that these acts were bad.
The Bible says repeatedly that the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked. Lot chose to live there and he became a leader in this wicked city. Can you make the connection? If a book says that murderers are evil and then says that Bob is a murderer, does the book need to say "Bob is evil." or can you figure that out logically? This extreme example that I am giving illustrates a mistake that many people make when reading the Bible. They read verses like Deuteronomy 17:15-17 which states that a king should not multiply horses, wives, or silver and gold. The message is clear. There is no question that God does not approve of a king multiplying horses, wives, or silver and gold. They then read about Solomon, the third king of Israel, and how he multiplied horses, wives, and silver and gold. The correct conclusion is that God does not approve of what Solomon did, but instead they conclude that God really doesn't mean what He said in Deuteronomy 17:15-17 because Solomon did all of those things. They deny clear statements in Scripture because some vague things don't quite seem to match up. Instead of clarifying the vague with that which is clear, they choose to deny that which is clear for the sake of that which is vague.
The Old Testament is absolutely clear that the actions of Lot that you cited are evil and wrong. Genesis 19 simply chose not to state the obvious. If you told a friend that your neighbor was beating his wife, should your friend assume that you condone the act because you didn't say "and beating one's wife is a bad thing"? Of course not. You need to approach God's Word with at least this level of logic and common sense if you hope to understand it.
<< but He says (through Peter) that Lot was a just man with a righteous soul >>
Now you bring up an excellent point! I can understand your confusion with this statement, so let's look at it.
2 Pet 2:6-7
6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked
(NKJ)
I assume that you don't have any problems with verse 6. The ungodly city was justly condemned to destruction.
But what about verse 7?!? Lot is called "righteous"! Without a doubt, his actions in Genesis violated God's Holy Law. He did terribly wicked things. A man is the spiritual leader of the home and is responsible for the spiritual well-being of his family. As a result of Lot's ungodly deeds, his daughters were almost gang-raped. Only an act of God, blinding the rapists, kept them from a terrible rape and almost certain death. They later chose to get their father drunk so that they could bear his children. What shameful fruit from his ungodly leadership! In addition, his wife's heart was so connected to the wicked city of Sodom that even as the angels were leading them safely away from the city about to be destroyed, she still turned back wanting to "go home", and she was killed as a result. Lot's terrible sins created a lot of terrible consequences. The last we hear of Lot, he is living in a cave, full of fear, with his two daughters and the children of their incest. So much for the many flocks and herds and tents that he had been blessed with at the beginning of this story! His sin surely found him out and destroyed his life and everything that was precious to him! Trying to save his life and material possessions, he lost everything. Can you really read this story and conclude that God approved of what Lot did? I don't think so.
Did Lot lead a righteous, godly life? Of course not!
So how are we to understand 2 Peter 2:7?
As I said above, salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
(NKJ)
Like the rest of us, myself included, Lot's works were more than sufficient to condemn him to hell.
The Good News of the Gospel is that even horrible sinners like Lot can be saved if they would only trust in Christ and receive forgiveness through faith.
My "good works" would no more qualify me for heaven than what we read about Lot in Genesis 19. Isaiah 64:6 literally says that all of our personal righteousness is as filthy menstrual rags. That is how God views our "good works". Romans 4 explains "imputed righteousness". I am righteous before God, not because of my own filthy menstrual rags, but because I am clothed in the righteous robes of my precious Savior Jesus Christ. Can you begin to understand why I am excited about my relationship with God as a result of what Jesus did for me? When God the Father looks at me, He sees the sinless perfection and complete righteousness of God the Son, Jesus Christ. Revelation 6:11 talks about white robes being given to Christians. Revelation 7:14 explains that the white robes were made clean in the blood of the Lamb. Revelation 5:12 describes Jesus as the Lamb that was slain, and several other verses like John 1:29 refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God.
The Bible is very clear that we are all a bunch of rotten sinners in need of a Savior. The Bible is equally clear that Jesus Christ is that Savior, and that He died and rose again as evidence that He is God and that the sacrifice was sufficient to cleanse us from our sins. See Romans for a detailed explanation.
<< LOL!! I guess you intend to set a while! The cure for leprosy ... >>
Well, it IS getting late and I have to get SOME sleep before church ... but this is an easy one, so here goes. I am willing to "set a while" if it might help to open someone's eyes to the great salvation that is available through the wonderful Lord Jesus Christ.
You quote Leviticus 14:2-32 and claim that it describes a supposed CURE for leprosy. This is a simple misunderstanding. Carefully read Leviticus 14:3:
"And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper, ... "
Did you catch that?
This verse is saying that the priest must go outside the camp (to where the lepers are) and he must examine the individual. What is he looking for? He is looking to see "if the leprosy is healed in the leper".
Verses 4 through 32 which you quoted are NOT a prescription to cure leprosy. Those steps were only to be performed if the leper had ALREADY been healed!
History tells us that the rabbis never performed these steps because lepers were never healed.
Of course, the blind never regained their sight and the dead were never raised, either, ... , that is, until a humble Jewish Carpenter began his itinerant ministry in Galilee about 2,000 years ago. Then the lepers were cleansed, the blind saw, and the dead were raised!
Matthew 8:4 tells us, that after healing a leper:
4 ... Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."
(NKJ)
Jesus had CURED the leper, so He was telling the healed man to show himself to the priest as in Leviticus 14:3. The priest would then "examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper, ... ", that lucky priest would be the first one to perform the ceremonial cleansing rituals that you quoted.
God foresaw that His Son would cleanse lepers, so through Moses, He included the procedures for ceremonial cleansing thousands of years in advance!
For an interesting Bible study, realize that leprosy is a picture of sin, and then study Leviticus 13 and 14. Sin makes us all unclean, but Jesus Christ can cure us (salvation) and then we can be made clean (sanctification).
<< And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot. (it doesn't get in better than this, does it?!) >>
No, it DOESN'T get any better than this !!! :o)
The ear, the hand, the foot ... of him that is to be cleansed. After Jesus saves us, He cleanses us with His precious blood, and He purifies what we listen to (ear), what we do (hand), and where we walk (foot).
Praise the Lord! He not only can forgive us and give us eternal life in heaven, but He can even cleanse us and purify us here on Earth!
Any other questions?
My hope is built on nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness.
Have a happy Sunday.
I hope that I have given you several things to think about.
Best regards - Ken |
