Leviticus 15:24, 18:19, 20:18

I dont have much quibble with your take. Concern for well-being and comfort of a wife who is “known to be in her flowers” (hat-tip to @josiah.alldredge on that one :grinning:) was my first thought regarding the purpose behind this law. That may be the only purpose.

That said, I don’t "have a hard time imagining a man or woman waiting for her period and saying, ‘Great! Let’s do this now so we don’t get pregnant!’ " as I have known multiple couples who have said just that.

So I dont really disagree with you. If that was the only reason, it would be a good one. I’m just not sure it is. I have a short whole bible commentary. It doesn’t give much ink to this particular verse. I’m sure others understand it better than I do.

2 Likes

If you’re looking for a one-sentence oversimplification of Natural Family Planning, “Let’s do this now so we don’t get pregnant” is pretty much it.

5 Likes

These couples were not married, by the way.

If the argument being made relating homosexuality, eating shellfish, and intercourse during that time of the month is against the arbitrary way that Christians choose which laws still apply today, then it’s a valid argument.

There is no distinction among the laws in this section of Leviticus that allow us to chop them up.

Intercourse during menstrual impurity is mentioned by Ezekiel. It is not only found in Leviticus. He tucks it right in with a list of sins that we would still reckon as sin.

[Eze 18:5-9 ESV] “If a man is righteous and does what is just and right-- if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity , does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, does not lend at interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man, walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully–he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord GOD.”

There was a related discussion about this kind of stuff over here. [Editor’s note: this linked conversation is in Hrothgar’s Hall, which is only accessible to Citizens of Sanityville. Just don’t want anybody confused if they can’t see it.]

1 Like

Hadn’t followed this thread, so just now read it and want to comment that the basis of this law is blood. Full stop. Life is in the blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. All our righteousness is as bloody rags. Etc.

Whether the ceremonial laws involving blood apply today is the question, and if so, which ones? Do we still follow Acts 15:29 with regard to blood? Apparently some or all Puritans did, but were they right? Calvin calls the stipulations of the Jerusalem council partly mediatorial from old to new covenant, and this rule concerning blood would seem to be a part of what he was referring to. I think Calvin is right in his general argument concerning this text. Thus insofar as he is not with the Puritans (which I don’t know enough to judge), I’d side with him. Thus, I think Henry hits the mark.

On the other hand, all discussion concerning care for our wives and inconvenient times and fruitfulness are salutary even if secondary, obviously, and the discussion is helpful. Love,

3 Likes

At least some of the Puritans argued that the blood prohibition in Acts was (1) dealing with idolatrous practices well-known at the time and (2) related to not being a stumbling block to Jews but effectively removed because of Christ’s sacrifice.

Owen was in this camp, but I don’t think he was alone.

I researched it because of a Slovenian sausage my family enjoys (like black pudding but with rice instead of porridge). When I starting looking into a more covenantal view of scripture I started wondering if this family delicacy would be prohibited.

2 Likes

Reading Fairbairn this year, and his emphasis upon the symbolical element in the Mosaic Covenant, I was challenged in viewing this as strictly ceremonial. He views the ceremonial laws as extensions and teachers of the moral law, and of sin, righteousness, judgment, mercy. He distinguishes the symbolical from the typical; the former teaches principles, lessons, and truths; the latter particularizes these in type/antitype. So he views the Mosaic Covenant on three levels: carnal (outward), symbolical (abstract principles), and typical (the principles particularized). He makes the argument that there is no typical without the symbolical. Vos says something similar in his Biblical Theology. Here are my notes from where Fairbairn deals with this particular issue.

There were also defilements and purifications associated with the woman in conception and birth, found especially in Leviticus 12 and 15, because of the Fall and original sin. These impurities are symbolical of sin passing from one generation to the next. As the Psalmist says, “Behold I was shapen in iniquity” and “in sin did my mother conceive me.” The impurities were a reference back to the Fall and woman’s transgression; she was then punished as a child-bearer in the judgment. It is likewise with this ritual. The mother’s uncleanness post-birth is extended if a girl is birthed because of this very thing (the woman’s special place of leading in transgression), but also because the boy was to be circumcised on the eighth day.

2 Likes

Why would one want to have sex while your spouse i menstruating? I can’t believe this comment thread is this long and so much confusion is going on lol. That time of the month is for a woman’s body to cleanse itself from the egg that wasn’t used. There’s some real horny ppl out here I see. I never understood ppl that didn’t mind doing this. It’s okay to just wait until the cycle is complete. Come on ppl God gave you a sound mind if you’re asking these questions.

I’m more in the camp of abstaining during menstruation, but you shouldn’t expect serious interaction coming here with a comment like this.

1 Like

A “comment like this.” What’s wrong with the comment sir?

Hi Johnny,

First, welcome to the forum.

I believe what Jackson is getting at is that it’s not really compelling or useful to say things like, “I don’t understand why people would even want to do this. I can’t believe you people are even spending this much time talking about it. This should just be commons sense to anyone with a sound mind,” and then speak dismissively of everyone for even having the conversation as being “horny ppl.” This isn’t exactly a model of constructive discourse, dear friend, and you’re not really making any arguments.

When you say, “Come on ppl God gave you a sound mind if you’re asking these questions,” you seem to suggest that we shouldn’t be asking questions that God himself, in the Scriptures, would have us to consider. You’re alleging that folks evidence a lack of sound mind for asking the questions, but I would submit to you that taking the Scriptures seriously is evidence of a sound mind, seeking to be renewed to think as God would have them to think. After all, you are correct when you conclude that there are horny people out there, so wouldn’t those horny people do well to care about and learn what God says about their horniness?

The texts in question deal with far more than sex, itself. As the discourse of this thread demonstrated well (if you take the time to read it), understanding what is involved in the design of the woman’s menstruation forces us to consider what blood even is, what it teaches us about Adam’s race, what it demonstrates about God, sin, and atonement, etc. And as we consider these things with a sober mind – understanding the corruption of our race, our need for a Savior, etc. – it will inform our sexual ethics, as well.

You might reply, “Well the Bible says it’s wrong so that should be the end of it.” Well, the Levitical law says it’s wrong, but here we must be careful. Scripture does not permit us to simplistically carry forward every letter of the Levitical law into the New Covenant – hence the importance of the discussion. Do we understand this part of the Levitical law as being applicable to the church, or not? By what standard do we determine what to apply and not apply? It isn’t enough to appeal to “common sense.” Common sense only goes so far in the discussion, since you need only look around you in this present age to see that the common sense of the age – even in many evangelical churches, which embrace some form of no-fault divorce and remarriage – is very far from anything resembling biblical sexuality. The only decisive guiding ethics in the common sense of the day are “consent” and “does it feel good?” and if you’re a Christian, maybe throw in, “does the New Testament explicitly condemn it?” (notice that word explicitly is vital).

Sex is a really good thing, Johnny. It has also been used very powerfully as a vehicle for sin, and not everyone is going to innately think about it the same way you do. People have sinned and have been sinned against in so many varieties of ways when it comes to sex, with the net result that people very commonly have their consciences and their desires badly calibrated when it comes to understanding what godly sexuality looks like. There are women who find sex itself to be gross, who withhold themselves from their husbands. There are women who actually desire sex more during their period and feel guilty about it, because they aren’t sure if they should or not. There are men who use their wife’s period as an opportunity to have her satisfy his desire in other ways – ways which cause her to be conflicted in her conscience. There are some husbands and wives who have never given a second thought to having sex during the woman’s period, and it doesn’t bother either of them at all. Meanwhile, there are men and women who find nothing at all to be gross in the bedroom, and indulge themselves together in a kind of sensuality that – while “consensual” – many Christians throughout the ages would condemn under the umbrella of sodomy. And all of these various kinds of men and women have had their consciences and desires calibrated by what they’ve been taught, or haven’t been taught, by what they’ve seen in movies and pornography, by how they were or weren’t abused as children, etc.

How will we blow through the fog? By seeking diligently and sober-mindedly to rightly divide the word of God. Only then can we have confidence that we are speaking the counsels of God, and not just our own opinions.

We should all strive to be men who are slow to simply report our own opinions (Proverbs 18:2).

10 Likes

Dear Johnny,

Are you listening? What say you?

Warmly in Christ,

1 Like