Hmmm. Don't know about this. I will look at FH explanation below, and then back at yours a bit more. You got my brain thinking on Hosea as a polygynists, and now I'm near certain he was....but this???
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Boaz: Already married? How many wives? Single?
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
Hi Following Him,
You are correct Moses never did fight Moab. It was in fact the Amorites who took the land of Moab. They forced the few Moabites left to move elsewhere. They were still in existence. So when Israel came to the Land of Moab they fought the Amorites and took the land in conquest. That land became the home of the two and a half tribes. That is how it was explained to me.
At work so not much time. Have you ever read the book of Jasher? It's a fun read and worth the time. http://www.gospelminutes.org/jasher.php
Tim
You are correct Moses never did fight Moab. It was in fact the Amorites who took the land of Moab. They forced the few Moabites left to move elsewhere. They were still in existence. So when Israel came to the Land of Moab they fought the Amorites and took the land in conquest. That land became the home of the two and a half tribes. That is how it was explained to me.
At work so not much time. Have you ever read the book of Jasher? It's a fun read and worth the time. http://www.gospelminutes.org/jasher.php
Tim
I am wondering if you have a reference for this, as I looked years ago, and could not find a prohibition on an uncle marrying a niece. It covers many incestual possibilities, but I did not find that one specifically.
The suggestion that they might have lost some land to the Amorites previously is plausible since the Israelites spent considerable time camped in the 'plains of Moab'. However, they are still identified as a people with a kingfom well after this point.
Ruth is not said to be someone who happened to love be in Moab, but is specifically and repeatedly called a Moabitess, meaning someone ethnicity a descendant of Moab. So even if the land was ruled by someone else, even Israel, that would be irrelevant. She was not an Israelitess, but a Moabitess.
Jasher is on the "to-read" list.
Ruth is not said to be someone who happened to love be in Moab, but is specifically and repeatedly called a Moabitess, meaning someone ethnicity a descendant of Moab. So even if the land was ruled by someone else, even Israel, that would be irrelevant. She was not an Israelitess, but a Moabitess.
Jasher is on the "to-read" list.
Good observation. Leviticus 18:12-14 prohibit marrying uncles and aunts. If this passage applies to both women and men, then a neice is prohibited from marrying her uncle, therefore an uncle cannot marry his niece. If however the passage applies only to men, then this isn't technically prohibited, an aunt-nephew relationship would be prohibited but not an uncle-niece. It's a rather tentative loophole, I wouldn't be trying to take advantage of it! But it does mean that Abraham's marriage may not have been technically prohibited - assuming Sarah was his niece as per rabbinical tradition. If she was his half-sister this would clearly be incest.
On further thought, the Hebrew for 'daughter' means 'female descendant', not just 'daughter'.
Abraham said Sarah was his sister, his father's daughter - meaning daughter or granddaughter. So she may have been his niece.
Leviticus 18:9 prohibits marrying your sister, your father's daughter. Interpreting 'daughter' in the same way, as ' female descendant', this also prohibits marrying nieces.
Regardless of how we interpret the word 'daughter', provided we interpret it the same way both times, Abraham's marriage to Sarah would have been prohibited under the Mosaic law. There is no loophole.
Abraham said Sarah was his sister, his father's daughter - meaning daughter or granddaughter. So she may have been his niece.
Leviticus 18:9 prohibits marrying your sister, your father's daughter. Interpreting 'daughter' in the same way, as ' female descendant', this also prohibits marrying nieces.
Regardless of how we interpret the word 'daughter', provided we interpret it the same way both times, Abraham's marriage to Sarah would have been prohibited under the Mosaic law. There is no loophole.
This is getting a little off-topic so i'll be brief. I don't think there's any reason to observe the marriage restrictions as directed to both genders. It makes perfect sense that it is directed to men for two reasons. 1) men had direct control over marriage. KISS. 2) it does make sense that an Uncle can marry a Niece and not an Aunt marry a Nephew. I think the opportunity to develop a Matriarchy in that scenario would be all too likely and therefore prohibited.
Either way, I wouldn't call this a loophole. It's one of those things that are either against the Law or not. If it's not, it's not. No big deal. I also don't think there's any problem with taking the Word at its word and gladly embrace Sarah to be Abraham's half-sister. As stated earlier, the incest laws had not been sanctioned yet, so there's no problem. I think this is one of those times that "rabbinical tradition" took over in order to explain "uncomfortable" ideas.
So much for brief..... Back to Boaz: Yup, he could have been, probably was, but we don't know for sure. Done. HA!
NetWatchR, I am convinced it would have been against the Law, as Leviticus 18:9 specifically prohibits relationships of the exact form that Abraham described his relationship with Sarah as. However, as you have said, this was before the law was delivered, so not sinful for him. In the same way, Lot's sleeping with his daughters was before the law was delivered, so also not sinful (whatever we might think about it).
It's not off-topic, it's just a bit of a scenic loop in the road to come back to talking about Ruth.
Because this means that the Moabites did not come from a sinful, incestuous relationship, they were not cursed in any way for it, there was no reason for an Israelite not to marry a Moabite, and therefore ke4ke's suggestion that Ruth must have been an Israelite is incorrect...
Sorry it took a long scenic route to get back to there!
It's not off-topic, it's just a bit of a scenic loop in the road to come back to talking about Ruth.
Because this means that the Moabites did not come from a sinful, incestuous relationship, they were not cursed in any way for it, there was no reason for an Israelite not to marry a Moabite, and therefore ke4ke's suggestion that Ruth must have been an Israelite is incorrect...
Sorry it took a long scenic route to get back to there!
Hi, Perhaps these articles might help.
http://www.christianpoly.org/m1.php
http://www.christianpoly.org/sarah.php
Wow. Amazed at how long that page has been on line.
Scripture always approached the who for the male.
Have good day. We're shoveling snow here.
Tim
I believe that the prohibitions are a part of God's morals, his law. Because of that I believe they have always been in existence. God can not change and his morals can not change. By the way there is a solution for who Adam's children married with out incest, but that is way off topic.
Tim
Those articles are very brief, and make the same error in the Hebrew that I did in my first post responding to Jolene. They correctly note that "sister" and "daughter" can extend across generational lines when talking about Abraham's marriage to Sarah (ie, she may have been his niece), but then fail to note that since exactly the same language is used in Leviticus the prohibitions against marriage also extend across generational lines in the same way.
The only way to conclude both that Abraham married his niece, and this was not prohibited in the Mosaic law, is to read the Hebrew when Abraham speaks but only read the English when Moses speaks.
Edit: Added scripture to clarify:
Genesis 20:12: "...she is my sister ('achowth) she is the daughter (bath) of my father ('ab)..."
Leviticus 18:9: "...thy sister ('achowth) the daughter (bath) of thy father ('ab) ... even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover"
In the Hebrew, the root words are identical. Leviticus directly prohibits the exact relationship Abraham describes.
The only way to conclude both that Abraham married his niece, and this was not prohibited in the Mosaic law, is to read the Hebrew when Abraham speaks but only read the English when Moses speaks.
Edit: Added scripture to clarify:
Genesis 20:12: "...she is my sister ('achowth) she is the daughter (bath) of my father ('ab)..."
Leviticus 18:9: "...thy sister ('achowth) the daughter (bath) of thy father ('ab) ... even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover"
In the Hebrew, the root words are identical. Leviticus directly prohibits the exact relationship Abraham describes.
Last edited:
I tend to agree with you, Tim, but I think Romans 5:12-14 addresses this:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
This, right here, what @aineo quoted, needs to be emphasized so much for so many people on so many topics, it's not even funny. Well, it is, but not in a funny-ha-ha way. More of a funny-sad way.
This one scripture right here is why I have no problem with Sarah being Abraham's sister/niece/whatever, with Lot and his daughters or Adam and Eve's kids doing.... you know. You don't see any finger-waving from the Almighty, the Creator of this Plane of Existence, for these specific people's relationships. Because it wasn't against the law, at the time. Things that are not evil but prohibited can change because it doesn't go against His character. I can decide when my son can and cannot do things. If I allow my son to do something and then later decide he can't, for whatever reason, I have not changed my character. It is just no longer allowed. Why is this so hard?
God had about 20 generations, a couple thousand years at this point, where if He saw that His people apparently didn't get the memo that sis over there was a no-no, you don't think He would have said something sooner?
@ke4ke, I used to believe as you do that when the Bible says that He doesn't change, then that means that all the laws must have been in effect from the beginning to the end and still are now. Period. But, if you really think about it, it's not true. It can't be true and it's not what he said. He said that He doesn't change. There are many examples of his Laws that were only meant for a specific time period, specific people, civil laws, ritualistic laws and His Moral Law.
Let's bring it back to something simple again. Romans 5:13 above. "For until the Law" there was a time there was no Law. "sin was in the world" yes, there was sin in this world and it was before the Law. "But" meaning there is an exception. "sin is not imputed" sin is not assigned/attributed/owned by someone. How does this happen? "when there is no law". Put it all together: There was a time when there was no Law although there was sin in the world, but sin is not assigned or attributed when there is no law. If the Law was always in existence, and available, and known, to the people, this scripture is completely irrelevant and meaningless.