Marriage Relations during "her sickness"

[Jordan Kurecki]

a while back I was reading in Leviticus:

20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

My thought always use to be that the ceremonial uncleanness of a woman on her period and having marriage relationships with her, was something that was part of the cermonial law that Christ abolished when he died on the cross... However until I read this verse in context, it lists several things before and after this verse such as :
sodomy
sexual relations with family members
adultery
bestiality

then after going through all these sins God says:

Lev 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

It seems that sex during menstruation was something God abhorred the previous nations for doing, this would mean that sex during menstruation transcends the different dispensations.

What say ye?

 

[Scarlett O.]

The law forbidding relations during her cycle is the only one in that list concerning a husband and his wife. All the rest are between a unmarried people or people/animals.

The New Testament says that the marriage bed is undefiled. Whatever a husband and wife choose mutually and consensually and from respect of each other's bodies in that matter is their business.

It's like the other ceremonially laws, to me, because of what I cited above.

My personal opinion.....I'm not in favor of it and I will leave it at that.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The law forbidding relations during her cycle is the only one in that list concerning a husband and his wife. All the rest are between a unmarried people or people/animals.

The New Testament says that the marriage bed is undefiled. Whatever a husband and wife choose mutually and consensually and from respect of each other's bodies in that matter is their business.

It's like the other ceremonially laws, to me, because of what I cited above.

My personal opinion.....I'm not in favor of it and I will leave it at that.

the problem is, this particular verse is not in the context of ceremonial laws, it's smack in the middle of a bunch of what are clearly moral laws. So the question would be how can you claim that it's ceremonial?

Why are you assuming it's not part of the "all these things" of vs 23.

I also fail to see how the marriage bed being undefiled some how would allow for this?
the marriage bed being undefiled just makes it clear that God approves of sexual relations in marriage.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

What does it mean that the marriage bed is undefiled (Hebrews 13:4)?

"The marriage bed is to be kept pure or undefiled. In other words, the sexual intimacy shared between a husband and wife is to be reserved for that couple alone. God created the sexual union to be between a husband and a wife. Period. Only. No other use of sexuality is ever condoned in Scripture. To abuse or misuse God’s gift of sex is to defile the marriage bed."

I fail to see how this means God approves of the act during menstruation?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Back up from Leviticus 20 to Leviticus 15. It speaks of this activity there also. It merely says here that a man having relationship with his wife during this time will be unclean [not dirty or contaminated] for seven days. Why? Because she was unclean [not dirty or contaminated].

And the things she touched and sat on were unclean. [not dirty or contaminated]. She couldn't touch her children, cook, or anything without causing others or objects to be ceremonially unclean.

Why? The emphasis on blood in the Old Testament has a serious meaning. The shedding of blood was a serious thing. When those animals' blood was shed on the altar, they became a holy thing - and had to be burnt, eaten, and disposed of in extremely specific ways.

If you are going to say that couples cannot engage in this behavior today, then you are also going to have to say that women are unclean in the other ways, too, during this time. That means, she cannot cook, take care of babies and children, come to church and sit on the pew, or anything else.

It's all or nothing.

Because this concerns the shedding of blood, I view it as ceremonial. Whatever "list" is falls into is secondary to me.

 

[Reynolds]

The law forbidding relations during her cycle is the only one in that list concerning a husband and his wife. All the rest are between a unmarried people or people/animals.

The New Testament says that the marriage bed is undefiled. Whatever a husband and wife choose mutually and consensually and from respect of each other's bodies in that matter is their business.

It's like the other ceremonially laws, to me, because of what I cited above.

My personal opinion.....I'm not in favor of it and I will leave it at that.

The marriage bed can be defiled.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Back up from Leviticus 20 to Leviticus 15. It speaks of this activity there also. It merely says here that a man having relationship with his wife during this time will be unclean [not dirty or contaminated] for seven days. Why? Because she was unclean [not dirty or contaminated].

And the things she touched and sat on were unclean. [not dirty or contaminated]. She couldn't touch her children, cook, or anything without causing others or objects to be ceremonially unclean.

Why? The emphasis on blood in the Old Testament has a serious meaning. The shedding of blood was a serious thing. When those animals' blood was shed on the altar, they became a holy thing - and had to be burnt, eaten, and disposed of in extremely specific ways.

If you are going to say that couples cannot engage in this behavior today, then you are also going to have to say that women are unclean in the other ways, too, during this time. That means, she cannot cook, take care of babies and children, come to church and sit on the pew, or anything else.

It's all or nothing.

Because this concerns the shedding of blood, I view it as ceremonial. Whatever "list" falls into is secondary to me.

you are making trying to make both passages the same but they are not.

Leviticus 15 has clear language being about ceremonial uncleanness, Leviticus 20 is not.

So let me ask you a question, are you telling me God accidentally put a command about having relations during the woman's sickness in the middle of a bunch of vile actions? Did God accidentally put it in the wrong place?

Are you telling me that the action of relations during the woman's sickness is NOT part of those things that God abhorred the nations for?

How could god abhor them for an act that only applied to laws given to Israel?

God is not the author of confusion, and it would be confusing to place that command in the middle of all those vile actions if it wasn't part of the list of vile actions.

Lev 15 has no relevance to this, Leviticus 15 has tons of words relating to being "unclean" ceremonially. this passage in Leviticus 20 does not. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Nowhere does it say in Lev 15 that God abhorred the gentile nations for doing things that would make them ceremonially unclean. I feel like your argument is not very logical. What you are doing is presenting a false dilemma fallacy.

Leviticus 20 expressly shows that God abhorred those for sexual relations during menstruation.
Leviticus 15 expresses that if a woman had her menstrual period during relations with a man (done out of ignorance and not presumption) then they were both considered ceremonial unclean.

 

[Scarlett O.]

You asked what we thought. I told you what I thought. I won't convince and am not trying to convince you. I just answered the questions you asked.

 

[Aaron]

a while back I was reading in Leviticus:

20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

My thought always use to be that the ceremonial uncleanness of a woman on her period and having marriage relationships with her, was something that was part of the cermonial law that Christ abolished when he died on the cross... However until I read this verse in context, it lists several things before and after this verse such as :
sodomy
sexual relations with family members
adultery
bestiality

then after going through all these sins God says:

Lev 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

It seems that sex during menstruation was something God abhorred the previous nations for doing, this would mean that sex during menstruation transcends the different dispensations.

What say ye?

One knows intellectually that humans are depraved, but few things really bring it down to earth like being reminded that God had to spell this one out. But, the law is not made for a righteous man. It's made for sickos. (No, I don't think I'm better. I have my appetites, but this one ain't on my list.)

Ugh!