Geneology in the OT and incest

Faith & Science Conversation
61

No. The methods used for meteorology and climatology are different. The models used are very different.

Exactly. And none of the models used include the supernatural and yet the results are correct. Do you agree?

Here you go assigning intent that I actually find offensive.

He does

He has

The problem is what is the truth that God has communicated. Is it a detailed description of how the universe was created? No. Is it a message of salvation to a lost world? Yes.

3 Likes
62

His daughters feared the extinction of their family, and so arranged between themselves to have offspring by their father (vv. 31–36).

The two sons were the eponymous ancestors of two Transjordanian peoples, the Moabites (v. 37; Deut. 2:9) and Ammonites (19:38; Deut. 2:19), future enemies of Israel (Ps. 83:6–8).

God doesn’t need to comment. It is obvious.

63

Thanks @Paul_Allen1, I thought this was the case but hadn’t had the chance to double-Check.

I would agree that God does not need to comment. I’m not sure it is obvious, if it were obvious the passages wouldn’t cause believers such consternation. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
64

“Being gracious means not assuming or assigning intent beyond what is written, listening to what each other has to say and responding to what they say, not to what is assumed, and responding in a loving way. A good reminder for all of us.”

This is true. Though in self defense please allow me to add this, in some of my endeavors to communicate with people, I have answered question 1, to be asked question 2, and after I answer 2 I am asked 3 and after I answer 3 they go back to 1, as if I never said a word on this first topic.

While, ultimately none of us can see anything that we are not willing to see.

Let me give you a non related example from my life. I have always been able to see falling, drifting leaves, but did I really see them? In watching a Japanese animation showing some of the best moments of older Japanese animation, I watched a brief scene in which Heidi is traveling in an open horse drawn cart down a lane lined with trees. A gust of wind sends a hundred or more leaves drifting down and Heidi stands up in the cart to spin about and, the wagon, driver and horse seem to disappear and Heidi looks like she is flying through those falling leaves. Now I can see them so well that it almost feels like they are touching me whenever I drive or walk through falling leaves.

65

The residents of Sodom had come to Lot’s house demanding that he release to them the two angels he was hosting, Lot instead offered to give them his virgin daughters in an attempt to protect his guests (19:1–8).

He describes his daughters, who were apparently still living with him, as women “who have not known any man” (Gen 19:8 ESV), implying that they were unmarried and childless.

After describing the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot’s wife, the account explains that Lot and his unnamed daughters lived in a cave because “he was afraid to live in Zoar” (Gen 19:30 ESV).

Fearing that their family line would cease, Lot’s daughters decide to intoxicate their dad and conceive children by him. The son of the younger daughter was Ben-Ammi.

So Liam, I find it ironic that, earlier in the chapter, Lot had offered to give his daughters to the men of Sodom to be raped, and later Lot’s daughters sexually exploit him. Remember this is pre-Law and the author is simply giving you an account of what happened.

Genesis’ description of Ben-Ammi and his half-brother being conceived through incest offers an unflattering story of origin for the nations of Ammon and Moab and may reflect a later period when Israel shared a negative relationship with Ammon.

The Genesis narrative does not explicitly condemn Lot and his daughters’ actions. It is silent. It is telling a story and the reader draws the conclusion.

However, the pseudepigraphal book of Jubilees calls their actions “sin … such as had not been on the earth since the days of Adam till this time” (Jubilees 16:8–9). Again, the only law given by God was Noahic covenant. Lot, Sodom and his daughters are a sad sideline to faithful Abram.

Many Christians have taken a negative view toward Lot and his daughters. Others offer an alternative perspective in noting that Lot’s daughters were acting in desperation and, through their actions, managed to save their family line from extinction. Under this interpretation, Lot’s daughters took on the patriarchal role of leading the family, so Lot’s legacy would be carried through their sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi.

Lot’s son Ben-Ammi is identified as the “father of the Ammonites,” which creates a complex kinship relationship between the nation of Ammon and the Israelites.

Some biblical texts depict Israel and Ammon as having a negative relationship. For example, Deuteronomy 23:3–7 states that both the Ammonites and Moabites were forbidden from entering the assembly of Yahweh, though the rationalization for this is directed at Moab. Ammon appears to be guilty for its association with Moab. Later, Amos condemns Ammon as a sinful nation for their violent efforts to expand their borders (Amos 1:13–15).

Other passages offer a less negative portrayal of the relationship between Ammon and Israel. Deuteronomy 2:19 instructs the people not to instigate war with Ammon and to respect their territory based on their kinship through Lot. The story of Ruth adds further complexity to the nature of the kinship relationship, as she is a Moabite who ends up being a matriarch in the Davidic line.

The point of including Lot’s incest is to track the lineage and results with regard to Israel leading to Christ. No comments are needed. The sad results are obvious.

Some draw a parallel with Judah and Tamar (Gen 38)

Christians often point to the parallels between the story of Lot’s daughters and the account of Tamar and Judah in Gen 38. In Genesis 38, Tamar poses as a prostitute, seduces her father-in-law, and conceives a child by him because Judah had neglected his patriarchal duty toward her. Whereas the narrative offers neither a positive nor negative assessment of Lot’s daughters’ actions, the narrative describes Tamar as righteous.

So Liam, are we seeing the results of original sin? Cultural pre-law behaviour? Or observing the twist and turns that leads to a saviour of our sins?

1 Like
66

I agree with your outline above, it is a great summary. Plus you saved me a job :wink:. On both scores, you have my thanks. Your observations about Tamar are also helpful.

Sorry Paul, you’ve lost me. I’m struggling to see why you addressing these questions to me… Have I missed something? Are you responding to something I’ve written or asking out curiosity?

67

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.