MennoNet.com

We’ve been hearing a lot how details shouldn’t be shared of gross immorality and the great shame it brings upon a family and reputation to do so.

So, let’s discuss Genesis 38.

1. This story has a graphic level of detail of sexual acts.

2. The people involved are directly named and there is a permanent historical record that we believe is true.

3. What is described is very shameful.

4. The family that is shamed by this is part of the direct lineage of Jesus.

Let’s discuss that. The Bible should be our guide, and there are more examples I could give similar to the above.

Good topic choice, Josh. I will be reading with interest.

Or for that matter Genesis 34. Which contains and act of rape and how Jacob's sons Simon and Levi dealt with it.

These are the examples people-of-the-World point me to when they learn that I don't watch television or modern movies because of the sexual content (and violence) permeating them. Or they use these examples trying to discredit the Bible. But as the Bible says that All Scripture is profitable for teaching, these are examples given for our learning. For one thing, it shows just how bad people were back then--pretty much like they are today.

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. Ephesians 5:11-12

I would say this text would apply more to us under the New Covenant. Speak up and say what is sin but one doesn't need to get into the details as they are shameful to speak of.

Personally, I don't see these graphic stories in the OT being grounds for how we approach dealing with sin in the church. The situation in the Corinthian church did not get into any graphic detail about a man sleeping with his step mother. It reads like this - 'I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you—something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother.' That seemed to be all anyone needed to know and then instruction is given to quickly deal with it (remove them from fellowship).

I am not Christian so I guess I am missing something here because I don't see anything wrong. Please explain to me what is wrong in Genesis 38.

I think no answers to this thread for 24 hours pretty well settles whether Mennos really do have a problem knowing how to discuss shameful sexual sin. So let us not pretend there. Rather, let's try to figure out how to remediate our fault and discuss it frankly, yet without being totally icky.

And Franklin (Thank you, sir) gives us that opening.

Franklin wrote:I am not Christian so I guess I am missing something here because I don't see anything wrong. Please explain to me what is wrong in Genesis 38.

Franklin, I am assuming you have read Gen. 38 and understand the Jewish custom explaining why Onan married Tamar, since the OT is your thing. So what is wrong is
1) Onan uses Tamar sexually, but attempts to circumvent having children, which was supposed to be the whole purpose of marrying his brother's widow. He kept "the letter of the law" but disregarded the spirit of it, so God killed him.
2) Tamar decides to take matters into her own hands to get the child she needs. She seduces her father-in-law by pretending to be a prostitute. She conceives, and the oldest of the twins becomes a many times-great-great-grandpa of Jesus. Tamar broke the letter of the law, but was in keeping with the spirit of it, in providing sons for the family line to continue.
3) Judah is willing for the prostitute-daughter-in-law, Tamar, to be executed (letter of the law again) until he realizes HE is her babies' father, and it is now hard to avoid admitting his own sin. "She has been more righteous than I."

For me the chapter is a study in trying to get around what God intends for our good. It does not work.

The biggie that people in my experience have trouble discussing is what Onan did and why it "displeased" God. I think it is partly the topic itself and partly just not wanting to be responsible to take a stand on the topic. I fall on the side of saying contraception is wrong for me in any form. God intends children for a blessing, and He is personally involved in every human life that comes into the world (John 1:4). It displeases God to attempt to do better than His timing and plan. Yes, this is why God blessed us with seven children plus two in heaven. He does not immediately kill off every person, though, who displeases Him. Sometimes, like with kings for Israel, He gives them what they want, but with misery anyhow.


So is my frankness too carnal, graphically detailed, and all around unnecessary for the church?

mercysfree wrote:For me the chapter is a study in trying to get around what God intends for our good. It does not work.

I agree with your interpretation, which is why I see nothing wrong with this reading. Something that seems to confuse Christians is that the Hebrew "ha-torah" is translated as "the Law" in Christian bibles, but this is not right. "ha-torah" really means "the Teaching". I have never seen the phrase "the law" in Hebrew in the Old Testament. God is not a legislator, God is a teacher of good values.

As for the directness of the Old Testament... I homeschooled my children and this included reading the Old Testament. My wife, who was raised Catholic and therefore knew nothing about the Bible, was horrified at the content I was discussing with our children. But I told her that it is better for them to learn these blunt facts of life from the Bible than from another source. Now that they are older, this seems to have proven correct.

Sudsy wrote:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. Ephesians 5:11-12

I would say this text would apply more to us under the New Covenant. Speak up and say what is sin but one doesn't need to get into the details as they are shameful to speak of.

Personally, I don't see these graphic stories in the OT being grounds for how we approach dealing with sin in the church.

According to Paul, this is exactly what OT stories are for:

1 Corinthians 10 King James Version (KJV):
10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Franklin wrote:

mercysfree wrote:For me the chapter is a study in trying to get around what God intends for our good. It does not work.

I agree with your interpretation, which is why I see nothing wrong with this reading. Something that seems to confuse Christians is that the Hebrew "ha-torah" is translated as "the Law" in Christian bibles, but this is not right. "ha-torah" really means "the Teaching". I have never seen the phrase "the law" in Hebrew in the Old Testament. God is not a legislator, God is a teacher of good values.

As for the directness of the Old Testament... I homeschooled my children and this included reading the Old Testament. My wife, who was raised Catholic and therefore knew nothing about the Bible, was horrified at the content I was discussing with our children. But I told her that it is better for them to learn these blunt facts of life from the Bible than from another source. Now that they are older, this seems to have proven correct.

Franklin I don't know what your background is but Conservative Anabaptists are extremely reluctant to discuss sexual things. There was a fuss on here a while back when I copied and pasted a blog post that contained the anatomically correct terms for certain body parts. Those words were deemed "graphic" and "gutter slang" among other things. Based on that brouhaha and my experience growing up Mennonite I think verse 9 is what would be called graphic here. The KJV says, "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother." I'm sure you know what it means when it says he spilled seed on the ground and it's definitely not something that Conservative people are comfortable discussing.