Incest in Biblical Times
By
Gary Primo
April 4, 2013
Introduction
The catalyst for this study was a challenge presented to me by a reader that I should not say that all of mankind came from one source (Eve) because that would mean that Yahuwah violated His own law pertaining to incest - also; that the atheists would take advantage of this understanding to condemn the Scriptures as hypocritical.
Personally I do not care what any atheist thinks. I doubt very much that they would take the time to read any of my articles in the first place. My only concern is the truth, whatever that may be.
Therefore, to start with I will examine the Scriptural references along with my comments and then present some other articles on this subject (including the atheist understanding).
Were Adam and Eve the only humans Yahuwah created?
The reader who initially brought up this question stated to me that he believed that Yahuwah must have created other human being else He would be in violation of His own law prohibiting incest.
The following are his exact words:
Gary, you must be careful here. I used to word it as you did above in the past.
And as such, I caused much confusion because there were those with both good intentions and unfortunately bad intentions that stated if what you say above is true then YaHuWaH allowed incestial behavior to happen against His law / Torah.
YaHuWaH does not go against His Torah.
Case in point, Hawwah (Eve) was formed from a rib of Adam and they had children as we know from the Scriptures.
Are you suggesting they subsequently with further offspring started to mate incestially. Of course not.
Just like the rib (DNA) of Adam helped to create Hawwah, our Father created many more in like manner.
Where does it say that in the Scriptures?
The following are the Scriptures that relate to this question.
Gen.2:8 - And Yahuwah Elohim planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
15 - And Yahuwah Elohim took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 - And Yahuwah Elohim commanded the man, saying...
18 - And Yahuwah Elohim said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
It is quite clear here, as far as I am concerned, that Yahuwah created only one man.
23 - And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
The first woman was created from the first man. We all know this story – Yahuwah took a rib from Adam (after casting him into a deep sleep) and formed Eve, the first woman.
3:20 - And Adam called his wife’s name Eve (Hawwah); because she was the mother of all living.
How much clearer can the Scriptures be? Eve (Hawwah) “was the mother of all living”. DNA research has already concluded that all humans come from one single female source. Both science and the Scriptures agree in this matter.
There is absolutely no mention of Yahuwah creating other humans from Adam in similar fashion as Eve anywhere in the Scriptures or in Jewish literature (that I could find).
The only conclusion that I could draw from these verses is that the children of Adam and Eve had to have committed incestuous relations with their siblings in the beginning because there was no one else to have sexual relations with. Over several generations, they would have had cousins, nephews and nieces to pick from.
The reader who challenged me on this issue also wrote:
Agreed, no one is arguing this at all. It is a single source from Adam's very DNA. But are you suggesting the DNA was passed on through sexual relations with existing family members after the birth of Adam and Hawwah's children!?
He is the Creator man, give Him some credit to Create as He pleases but not against His law. Think like a true scientist, for every cause there is an effect!
Cause and effect is what the Torah is all about, think the law of gravity here.
Since I believe that Yahuwah is the greatest “scientist” there is, I accept His word without question and regard earthly scientists (in contrast to heavenly) as kindergarten students. One would expect a kindergarten student to ask foolish questions and come up with foolish conclusions. In thinking like Yahuwah, one is thinking like the only true and greatest scientist of all.
Since the Scriptural evidence clearly supports the understanding that incest had to have been the “norm of the day” and that there is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures to suggest otherwise, I have to go with Yahuwah’s word.
The reader further wrote:
Single seed is correct!? How He utilized the mechanics of distributing that single seed (DNA) well that is another discussion when you are interested. Think of Adam's rib (DNA) when He created Hawwah. Are you saying He only did this once and for the rest of the human beings it came from inter family marriages and inter family sexual relations!? I hope not!
This exactly what I am saying; and that it is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from what is clearly stated in the Scriptures. If the above were true, Adam would have run out of ribs after twelve operations and man would have no ribs unto this day. However, man is only missing one rib; the rib that was used to make Eve. I have no idea why Yahuwah did things this way but trust in His ultimate wisdom that He knew what He was doing.
The reader further wrote:
Gary, everything evolves as you have seen in our short period of life. I have watched animals in my short period of life evolve their very instincts to survive in an ever evolving world because of our lack of good stewardship in taking care of the earth as one small example of many.
We do not believe in evolution as some believe it to be, its not based on true science which is based on Empirical thought which can be duplicated in a lab. This is why Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution is just that, a "Theory" because it has not been proven.
There is science and then there is true science (Empirical).
Case in point, true science backs up Scripture. Here is a great example.
The earth's surface has been destroyed a few times (Bereshith 1: 2 / Yirmeyahuw 4: 21 - 23 / Tehillim 104: 30 - 31) and Empirical science has proved this and the Creator creates life as He see's fit within His Torah. Its impossible for Him to lie and as such break any of His Laws.
In truth you may be starting to realize our discussion is actually revolving around the mechanics of how He utilizes for humans anyway the "single seed" DNA. As for animals and all plant life, wow another beautiful wonder from YaHuWaH. I hope and pray that I get the blessing of learning this one day!
This was in response to what I wrote:
As far as evolution goes, if it were true, I find it hard to believe that only one single cell mutated and "evolved" into a complicated, multi-celled creature such as a human being. Did that cell turn into male or female? How did it reproduce to create an entire race? What are the chances that multiple single celled creatures all mutated in the exact same fashion to create pretty much identical creatures; and that some evolved into males and some into females, when these cells are sexless from the outset? I have yet to see any scientific answers to these questions; and I believe that they deserve an answer.
As far as “empirical” science goes, it only understands what it sees and what can be measured. It does not understand what cannot be seen. Yahuwah understands both.
A certain degree of “evolution” most certainly does exist, yet still remains within the context of creation. For example; while there is much evidence to support that certain creatures have “evolved” somewhat within their own species; there is absolutely no evidence that one species evolved from another entirely different species (i.e. a single celled specimen to a multi-celled human or ape to human). The only evidence avail to us is that all creatures come from their own kind – exactly as stated in the Scriptures.
If one is confused about what the Scriptures plainly reveal, do they have the right to invent or fill in the blanks from their own imagination? I do not believe so! We must accept what Yahuwah inspired Moshe to write and wait on Him for the answers.
Post Flood Example
Following the flood of Noah’s day, only eight people were saved alive – Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives. They were given the following admonition upon leaving the ark:
Gen. 9:1 - And Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
How were they to accomplish this feat without their children committing some form of incest? Their children would have had to chose wives from only 2 sources, their siblings or their first cousins. I already know what one argument to this statement will be (since I have run into it before) – that the flood did not cover the entire earth or wipe out all flesh. Geology refutes this claim. They have ample evidence that the entire earth was completely covered with water at least twice.
Gen. 9:18 - And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
Now I am sure that some are going to say that the children of the 3 sons of Noah interbred with their cousins, rather than their siblings. However, there is no scriptural basis for either understanding. Also, all scriptural references to tribes and nations indicate that they all started with one family.
In those days the oldest living, male, human being was the high priest and supreme king over all the earth. He would have inherited this honor from his father, Noah. Thus Melchizadek (who was really Shem) is proclaimed to hold that position. In the case of Shem, he was the youngest of the three sons of Noah (the birth order is reversed in this verse), but somehow attained to this honor. Perhaps he was the only one of the three that qualified spiritually or was alive when Noah died. We already know that Ham was cursed because of Canaan. This would have disqualified him. Almost nothing is know of Japheth except that he is believed to have been the progenitor of the Asian race.
The eldest of each family was a regular priest and king over that family. This is not to say that all played by these rules as the case of Nimrod suggests. Since Shem outlived Nimrod, he would have remained the king and high priest of the entire earth until his death. Yet Nimrod declared himself to be the rightful heir to that privilege because he had come into possession of the mantle of Adam (stolen by Ham), and attributed his victories to that mantle (according to Jasher).
Gen. 10:1 - Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
11- The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
12 - And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
13 - And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
14 - By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Again we have confirmation that the nations came from families. A family becomes a tribe, a tribe becomes a nation. The purpose was to keep the bloodlines pure. This was the intent in the beginning. Later they would start taking wives of other tribes/nations and, also, give their daughters to other nations as wives. The Israelites were forbidden from doing so, but as we all know, they often disobeyed.
20 - These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
31 - These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
32 - These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
Again, everyone stayed within their own tribe/nation to the greater degree.
Gen. 11:29 - And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
Abram married his half sister (same father, different mother). His brother married his niece. Would this not constitute incest?
Gen. 20:9 - Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.
10 - And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?
11 - And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of Elohim is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake.
12 - And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
The Law of Moshe
Now we will examine the laws of Moshe in regards to this matter.
Lev. 18:3 - After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
From what I have read and understand of the matter, changes to the human DNA as a result of incest only occurs following 9 generations of continued incestuous relationships. This was the problem with the royal lineage in Egypt. The Pharaoh whom Moshe dealt with was only about 3 feet tall and was (according to Jasher) an extremely ugly individual. This was likely the result of continuing incest throughout 9 generations or more.
One of the reasons Yahuwah spelt out so many different laws for the Israelites to observe, seems to have been to separate them and distinguish them from their pagan neighbors. Since incestuous relationships were common amongst the pagans, Yahuwah decided that the Israelites were no longer to take part in such practices. However, in regard to incestuous relationships, the Law may not have applied to marital situations.
We must also remember that arranged marriages were the norm of the day (and in many Eastern nations, still are). Therefore, if sin were involved (no law equals no sin), the sin (if related to incest) would have been with the parents, not the bride and groom. Would this “law” then not be about the rape of one’s sibling, rather than the arranged martial relationship, which they had no control over?
2 Sam. 13:10 - And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother.
12 - And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.
13 - And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
14 - And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
The story of Amnon and Tamar was clearly a case of rape. And yet, in verse 14 Tamar says that if Amnon was to go to the king (David), that David would give her to him in marriage. Why would she say that if it were not truly a custom of the day?
Again the problem was with the rape not the incest. Amnon was not stupid. She wasn't just saying that to fool him. He knew the customs of the land, but was impatient and all worked up and refused to go wait to go through the proper channels.
Where this incident would have normally brought the death penalty upon Amnon, David refused to carry out the punishment, which angered her brother Absalom, who killed Amnon afterward, even though he was legally married to Tamar at the time.
Clearly this law pertains to matters of rape and adultery, not marriage.
Lev. 18:11 - The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
This verse flatly condemns the marriage of Abraham – yet he has the most favoured of Yahuwah at the time. Could this have been so, if there was any law against it at the time? Of course, I suppose that one might figure that the barrenness of Sarah was a punishment of sorts, but there is no proof of that.
12 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
13 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
14 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
This was the sin of Judah. He had sexual relations with his son’s wife (after his son died), who was posing as a prostitute at the time. This she did this because Judah failed in his efforts to have one of his other sons take her to wife.
16 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
17 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 - Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Lev. 20:17 - And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
19 - And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
20 - And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
21 - And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
Deut. 27:20 - Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.
21 - Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen.
22 - Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
23 - Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Where is the word “marriage” to be found in any of these verses? They all seem to be talking of adulterous affairs or rape situations. Sexual relations were intended for the marriage bed only (incestuous or otherwise). Nowhere do the Scriptures condemn incestuous (legal) marriages. In fact the entire nation of Israel came out of an incestuous marriage (Abraham and Sarah). The main reason for such marriages was to keep the bloodlines pure.
Also, I may be missing it somehow, but I do not see in any of these verses any mention in regards to first cousins. That “civic” law must have come from another source.
In regards to Lot and his daughters, alcohol may not have been the only factor that attributed to his drunken state. The people of that day had much knowledge about plants and drugs. They may have slipped something else into his drink to induce such a state of amnesia. Normally, when a man is that drunk on alcohol alone, he has a problem even getting an erection. The sin clearly seems to have been laid at the feet of the two daughters.
We must also keep in mind that Lot and his daughter were holed up in a cave and for all they knew Yahuwah’s destruction had come upon the entire earth. The daughters assumed that all the men of the earth had been killed. To them, this likely meant that it was up to them to repopulate the earth. Naturally they would have seen their only avenue for doing so through their father, Lot. I do not believe they did this act out of sexual lust for their father.
Other Questions to Consider
1 – Exactly what laws did exist pre-Torah?
As we all know, the Sabbath commandment was the first Law given. I feel that all of the 10 Commandments constituted the Law from the beginning of creation. We also know from the account of Noah, that the Law pertaining to clean and unclean meats must have existed at the time, else how would Noah have known clean from unclean? How could the actions of Cain have been wrong if the Law against murder did not exist? The same story reveals that the sacrificial laws existed at the time, else how could one distinguish between an acceptable offering and unacceptable. There is absolutely no example of there being a law against incestuous marriages, before or after the Torah was given to Israel.
2 - Are all the Torah laws relevant to pre-Torah times?
The most obvious “new” laws given to Israel were those pertaining to the priesthood. Before the exodus the Order of Melchizadek was the priestly order. The Levitical priesthood replaced it. However, with the ascension of Yahushua, the Order of Melchizadek has been restored with an incorruptible, eternal High Priest at the helm.
When the Messiah returns, He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish the priesthood. This time; however, Yahushua will be the only High Priest and King. The priesthood will also be incorruptible, as all who qualify (Levite or not) will have already graduated into the new creation. Yes, this will be a spiritual priesthood. There will also be a return to the sacrificial system (for the sakes of those remaining in the flesh).
It is my belief that almost all the other laws pre-existed the Torah.
3 – Should man’s science ever take precedence over the word of Yahuwah (first 5 books)?
The proof actually does exist that it was Yahuwah that actually “wrote” the first five books of the Scriptures. He merely dictated His words to Moshe. Thanks to modern technology (it is not all bad), we now have knowledge of secret codes written (in Hebrew only) into the first five books.
One thing these codes revealed was YHWH’s signature encoded in all five books. In the first four it appears at the beginning of the books. In the last book, Deuteronomy, it appears at the end of the book and is backwards, indicating the end of what Yahuwah, Himself, wrote through Moshe. I doubt very much that Moshe even knew of these codes. I believe they were intended for the end-time generation to verify the authenticity of the Scriptures.
That being said, we have the proof we need of an all knowing, intelligent, extra-physical designer of the universe. That makes Yahuwah the greatest scientist of all. The knowledge of man is foolishness to Yahuwah. Yes, I will take Yahuwah’s word over that of any scientist every time.
4 – Do we need to be careful what we say, or be “politically correct” with the word of Yahuwah?
Yes, I do admit that I have absolutely no regard for political correctness. I see it as merely one more Globalist ploy to silence free speech. I am usually blunt, to the point and outspoken. I will not “watch what I say” if I believe what I am saying is the truth. Did Moshe care what pagans thought? Did Yahushua? Neither do I.
Conclusion
I believe that I have presented ample evidence that lawful, incestuous marriages were quite common both before and after the Torah. I also believe that I have presented ample evidence that the Law, as it relates to incestuous relationships, is talking only of cases of adultery or rape. It did not apply to marriage or the production of offspring that resulted from a legal incestuous marriage. I also believe that the custom of arranged marriages to close family members was rooted in the desire to keep the bloodlines pure. The parents specially chose mates for their children that would ensure the purity of the bloodline. These were usually between two close family members.
True Believers and all that they believe are going to be constantly attacked by outsiders. This does not mean that we must “invent” facts to support our view. We can rely solely on the word of Yahuwah.
The problem lies with interpretation of Scripture. All scriptures pertaining to one subject must harmonize. We must not twist the scriptures to suit our own theories. They speak quite plainly. When one or more do not seem to harmonize, we must re-examine our interpretation (or the interpretation we have been previously taught).
All translations from the Hebrew to any other language have been corrupted. This is especially true of the New Testament. With the New Testament we have no Hebrew version to compare it to for accuracy. We are told that the NT was inspired in the Greek language. However, the language betrays the fact that it was almost all translated from the Hebrew. Words have been added and taken away at the will of the translators. One has to be careful when interpreting these writings. They must harmonize with the OT to be authentic. Scripture interprets scripture; however, in some cases (that do not seem to harmonize) one has to search diligently for the proper interpretation.
Do not be concerned with what outsiders and especially atheists say or think. They are fools and spiritual retards to begin with. Yahuwah has blessed us by opening our minds and hearts to the truth of His word. We use His blessings of spiritual discernment and the desire for all truth to search and prove all things.
As always, I admonish all readers to not believe me, but to search and prove all things for themselves. This is one of the prime duties of all Believers. This is all part of the learning process and until we arrive in the new creation we are all students.
I began my spiritual journey 32 years ago. In it I have passed through many different phases of understanding. I have no delusions about being fully in possession of all truth yet. I know that I am not. That will only be confirmed at the return of Yahushua or when I stand in the judgment. Therefore, I do not normally (or try not to) come down hard on other Believers who are at various levels of truth. They will only come around as they continue to search for all truth.
This study is a prime example of what I am saying. I had simply always assumed that the children of Adam and Eve must have had incestuous relationships (as in marriage) since there were no other humans to mate with. I never even considered incestuous laws in regards to marriage. So, this study has been as much of a real learning experience for me as it hopefully was for the reader.
Please feel free to write to me with your comments and/or thoughts on this matter. Iron sharpens iron. That is what we are supposed to do. I need as much help as the next guy in testing my understanding.
Other Articles
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_09519.html
INCEST
In the Biblical Period
The idea of what constituted a prohibited degree of kinship for sexual relations seems to have broadened during the biblical period. Among the ancestors of Israel there occurred an unusual number of marriages that are incestuous by later standards; evidently this was not merely condoned, but favored, as ensuring good stock (cf. Gen. 24:3–4; 38ff.; 28:1ff.). Thus Abraham married his paternal sister (Gen. 20:12 against Lev. 18:9), Jacob married two sisters (Gen. 29:21ff. against Lev. 18:18), and Amram, Moses' father, married his aunt (Ex. 6:20, against Lev. 20:19). As late as the time of David, marriage to a half sister was condoned (II Sam. 13:13). The standard of the laws thus reflects a tendency (that reached its culmination in post-biblical legislation) to broaden the scope of incest with the passage of time. Rabbinic theory recognized this, justifying the patriarchs' disregard of the Torah prohibitions on the ground that they were subject only to the *Noachide law of incest, which was far less comprehensive than that of the Torah (Sanh. 58a–b; Maim. Yad, Melakhim, 9:5).
[Moshe Greenberg]
In Jewish Law
The general prohibition against incest with one's "near of kin" (Lev. 18:6) has been held to be limited to the following degrees of consanguinity: parents (18:7); mother-in-law (20:14); stepmother (18:8); sister and half sister (18:9) (but not a stepsister as the Karaites maintained); granddaughter (18:10); aunt (18:12–13); wife of father's brother (18:14); daughter-in-law (18:15); brother's wife (18:16); stepdaughter and stepgranddaughter (18:17); and wife's sister during the lifetime of the former (18:18). This list is exhaustive and may not be added to by analogies (Sifra, Aḥarei-Mot 13:15), since creation of any criminal offense requires the express pronouncement both of the conduct prohibited and the resulting punishment (see *Penal Law; cf. Ker. 3a; Sanh. 74a). A list of another 20 degrees of consanguinity was later drawn up, however, by way of analogy – albeit not to create additional criminal offenses, but as additional prohibitions of intercourse and impediments to *marriage (Yev. 21a; Maim. Yad, Ishut 1:6).
The punishment for the various offenses of incest varies – while biblical law prescribed death by burning for incest with one's mother-in-law (Lev. 20:14), it did not prescribe any particular mode of execution for other capital offenses of incest (Lev. 20:11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21), some of which were clearly to be visited with *divine punishment (*karet; Lev. 20:17, 20, 21). In talmudic law, the offenses of incest were eventually classified as follows:
(1) those punishable with death by stoning – incest with mother, stepmother daughter-in-law (Sanh. 7:4);
(2) those punishable with death by burning – incest with stepdaughter, stepgranddaughter, mother-in-law, grandmother-in-law, daughter, and granddaughter (Sanh. 9:1); and
(3) all other offenses of incest to be punishable with karet or *flogging (Maim. Yad, Issurei Bi'ah 1:4–7). As several of the offenses are threatened with both judicial and divine punishment (e.g., incest with mother and stepmother; Ker. 1:1), the rule was evolved that capital punishment would be imposed judicially only where the offense had been committed after previous warning that it was punishable and in the presence of witnesses; while divine punishment was deemed to apply where the offense had been committed without such previous warning and without witnesses being available (Yad, Issurei Bi'ah 1:2–3). Flogging came to be administered not only by way of punishment for such incestuous acts as had been made criminal offenses, but also by way of admonition and rebuke (makkat mardut), for incestuous acts which were not criminal (Maim. ibid. 2:8). Occasionally, capital offenses were reduced to offenses punishable with flogging, as in the case of incest with one's wife's near relations after her death (ibid.)
Incest is a capital offense only where sexual intercourse has taken place (Shab. 13a), although complete penetration is not a required element (Maim. ibid. 1:10); but the prohibition to come near anyone of one's "near of kin" was interpreted to render any bodily proximity, within the prohibited degrees of kinship, punishable with flogging (Maim. Yad, Issurei Bi'ah 21:1) – except kissing or embracing one's mother, daughter, sister, or aunt, or such other relatives who do not normally arouse the sexual urge (ibid., 21:6; and see *Sexual Offenses). The offense of incest is committed by the female as well as by the male participant (Yev. 84b; TJ, Sanh. 7, 9, 25a; Ker. 2:4; Maim. Yad, Issurei Bi'ah 1:1); but where the offense is committed upon an infant or upon a person asleep or by a person unaware of the incestuous relationship, only the initiator of the act is punishable (Ker. 2:6).
Each single act of sexual intercourse amounts to a complete commission of the offense (Maim. ibid. 3:12). The turpitude of this kind of offense is stressed in the Bible by such epithets as "wickedness" (zimmah, Lev. 20:14; Ezek. 22, 11), "corruption" (tevel, Lev. 20:12), "shame" (ḥesed, Lev. 20:17), and "impurity" (niddah, Lev. 20:21). Incest is one of the three cardinal offenses (together with murder and idolatry) which a man may not commit even in order to save himself from certain death (Sanh. 74a; Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 5:2); nor in order to save another person's life (Tosef. Shab. 15:17); nor can there be any justification for its commission on any medical grounds (TJ, Shab. 14:4, 14d; Pes. 25a). Opinions are divided among medieval scholars as to whether a woman, as well as a man, must choose to die rather than commit incest. Some hold that a woman, being the passive partner, may submit to incest rather than be killed (Rashi to Yoma 82a; Isserles, YD 157:1 and cf. Tos. to Av. Zar. 54a), while others maintain that she should prefer death (ET, 6 (1954), 110). It is also maintained that the female's enjoyment is tantamount to the male's action (Tos. BK32a), constituting "an overt act" for which her punishment is flogging.
In the State of Israel there is no statutory prohibition against incest as such, but it is an offense, punishable with five years' imprisonment, for anyone to have sexual intercourse with an unmarried girl below the age of 21 who is his or his wife's descendant, or his ward, or who has been entrusted to him for education or supervision (Section 155, Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936). Apart from this particular provision, it would seem that sexual intercourse within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity described above is, indeed, left to divine punishment.
[Haim Hermann Cohn]
http://listverse.com/2008/05/26/top-6-incestuous-relationships-in-the-bible/
Top 6 Incestuous Relationships in the Bible
Religious scholars say that God suspended the laws of incest in the early days of man in order to ensure that man spread on the earth. In the words of the commentators of the Douay Rheims Bible: “God [dispensed] with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated.” Despite that, these tales are not all simply matters of procreation – particularly item 1. So, here is a list of 6 of the more questionable relationships in the Bible.
6
Cain and his Wife
And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth, at the east side of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch. [Genesis 4:16-17]
Cain was the first born son of Adam and Eve, and Abel was the second. In Genesis 4 we read how Cain kills his brother and is sent east of Eden where he marries a woman and “lays” with her. Because Adam and Eve were the first humans – from whom all people come – Cain’s wife was his sister – and, consequently, all of the early Biblical relationships were incestuous (with the exception of Adam and Eve). Cain, incidentally, was the guy that caused so much trouble for the Mormon’s who believed that the cursed “Mark of Cain” meant black skin, leading them to forbid blacks from entering the Mormon priesthood (God “revealed” that they were allowed to let black skinned people in to the priesthood in 1978). You can read more about that blunder here. In the image above we see Cain killing his brother Abel.
5
Abraham and Sara
Howbeit, otherwise also she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife. And after God brought me out of my father’s house, I said to her: Thou shalt do me this kindness: In every place, to which we shall come, thou shalt say that I am thy brother. [Genesis 20:12-13]
Abraham married his half sister Sara in Ur. The King of Gerara took her from Abraham and God sent him a dream to tell him that he would be destroyed for taking a woman who already had a husband (God approved of the marriage between the brother and sister). The King returned Sara to Abraham and they remained together as a couple until she died at the age of 127. Incidentally, Abraham died 38 years later at the ripe old age of 175.
4
Nachor and Melcha
And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot. And Aran died before Thare his father, in the land of his nativity in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nachor married wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai: and the name of Nachor’s wife, Melcha, the daughter of Aran, father of Melcha, and father of Jescha. [Genesis 11:26-29]
This is one of those complex “generations” quotes that are found throughout the early stages of the Bible, but if you pay close attention you can see that Nachor (Abraham’s brother) married Melcha (his niece). It is phrases like those above which make it so difficult to read the Bible cover to cover. Frankly, these parts of the Bible make Proust’s “In Remembrance of Things Past” read like a Doctor Seuss book!
3
Lot and his Daughters
And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in and lay with her father: but he perceived not neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. And the next day the elder said to the younger: Behold I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine also to night, and thou shalt lie with him, that we may save seed of our father. They made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in, and lay with him: and neither then did he perceive when she lay down, nor when she rose up. So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father. [Genesis 19:31-36]
It doesn’t really get much more blatant than that. The two daughters had sex with their father, Lot, in order to preserve his family line. Incidentally, this all happened shortly after they had fled from Soddom and Gomorrah which was destroyed by God for its immorality – ironic?. After the events described above, Lot had no memory of it (maybe it was the liquor) and nine months later the daughters gave birth to two sons, Moab (father of the Moabites), and Ammon (father of the Ammonites).
2
Amram and Jochabed
The sons of Merari: Moholi and Musi. These are the kindreds of Levi by their families. 20 And Amram took to wife Jochabed his aunt by the father’s side: and she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of Amram’s life were a hundred and thirty-seven. [Exodus 6:19-20]
This is the family history of Moses – the guy who lead the Jews out of Egypt and later was given the ten commandments (which were not actually 10 commandments – more on that here). Jochabed was Moses’ Great-aunty Mom.
1
Amnon and Thamar
And it came to pass after this, that Amnon the son of David loved the sister of Absalom the son of David, who was very beautiful, and her name was Thamar. And he was exceedingly fond of her, so that he fell sick for the love of her: for as she was a virgin, he thought it hard to do any thing dishonestly with her. [II Kings 13:1-2 ] And Thamar came to the house of Amnon her brother: but he was laid down: and she took meal and tempered it: and dissolving it in his sight she made little messes. And taking what she had boiled, she poured it out, and set it before him, but he would not eat: and Amnon said: Put out all persons from me. And when they had put all persons out, Amnon said to Thamar: Bring the mess into the chamber, that I may eat at thy hand. And when she had presented him the meat, he took hold of her, and said: Come lie with me, my sister. She answered him: Do not so, my brother, do not force me: for no such thing must be done in Israel. Do not thou this folly. [II Kings 13:8-12] But he would not hearken to her prayers, but being stronger overpowered her and lay with her. [II Kings 13:14]
Our final item is not just a case of incest – it is a case of incestuous rape! Amnon fell in love with his sister, Thomar, and was counseled by a crafty man to trick her in to having sex with him. He followed the bad advice and when Thomar tried to defend herself, he raped her. At least justice was ultimately done as Thomar’s other brother, Absalom, killed Amnon two years later in vengeance. Let that be a lesson to us all!
Note: The author made a slight mistake besides the spelling of Tamar. The story of Amnon and Tamar appears in II Samuel 13, not II Kings.
I know this is a potentially derogatory question, and I apologize. What I am wondering, there are two instances of approved incest in the bible (several other cases are mentioned but are either not approved or are outright rejected). The first was Adam & Eve's children populating the earth. The second case was Noah's family populating the earth.
My question is this: Using the specific example of Noah's family to populate the earth, does this imply that the Bible condones incest?
Once again, I apologize for the sensitive nature of this question.
This question is very interesting. A little known fact by most of today's population is that our current definition of incest is different from what it was in biblical times. This view changed because the royal line in England a few centuries back was becoming riddled with health problems and birth defects due to an overabundance of inbreeding. There was a decree from this time period that prohibited the intermarrying of any brothers or sisters as well as any first cousins. This viewpoint spread to the general population, and that is why today there is such a social stigma against this type of marriage. Biblically speaking though, I believe incest was defined as marrying of having sexual relations with a parent.
Text below taken from Third Millennium Ministries
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.…
Incest sometimes OK?
Question
Why did God allow incest in the Bible with no clear punishment? How was it possible for Lot to become intoxicated two nights in a row and not know on either occasion that he was sinning with his daughters? And didn't Noah, his sons, and his sons' wives have to commit incest with their children as time passed?
Answer
Incest in the Bible is an interesting issue. In the beginning, incest was not only permissible but necessary. God created only two humans, Adam and Eve, and all other humans are their direct descendants. Thus, at least that first generation after Adam and Eve had to marry their full-blooded brothers or sisters. Once the first generation had reproduced, marriages could take place between brothers and sisters, between cousins, and between uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews.
When the flood occurred, this situation was repeated -- there was one senior couple (Noah and his wife), and there were three couples consisting of Noah's sons and their wives. Again, brothers and sisters probably married, as well as cousins, and uncles/aunts with their nieces/nephews.
Many significant and righteous biblical characters were married to close family members, such as righteous Seth who must have married his sister or perhaps a niece (Gen. 4:26; 5:3-8), and Abraham who married his half-sister (Gen. 20:12). Also, the parents of Moses, Aaron and Miriam were nephew and aunt (Exod. 6:20; Lev. 20:19; Num. 26:59). Such unions were later banned by the Law (Lev. 18:9-14; Lev. 20:17,19).
The specific biblical commands against incest do not appear until the time of the Mosaic Law. Prior to that time, these relationships do not appear to have been condemned explicitly. In the Mosaic Law, it is interesting to note that when incest is prohibited, it appears to be prohibited on the basis of unchanging moral principles (some of the commands contain such qualifications as "it is your father's nakedness" [cf. Gen. 9:22ff.]).
This leaves us with an ambiguous view toward incest in the Bible. At some point prior to the Mosaic Law, it was implicitly commanded by God (e.g. Gen. 1:28), and therefore could not have been sinful. In the Mosaic Law, however, it takes on a sinful moral quality. As we seek to reconcile these facts, we cannot do violence to either set of historical facts. One option is to interpret the Mosaic Law as forbidding incest not on the basis of unchanging moral principles, but on the basis of changing moral principles (e.g. culturally, socially, religiously, or otherwise conditioned principles).
An important factor to consider as we struggle with this is that the original audience of the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) lived in Moses' time. Moses did not write the Pentateuch simply to teach what happened in prior history. Rather, he had very specific goals for his writings to accomplish that were tied very closely to his mission as the leader of God's people in the Exodus. Moses did not think it important to explain in writing why incest had not been forbidden in the past. He felt it was enough for his audience to understand God's requirements for them.
Notice in this regard that Moses records very few of the laws which God placed on man during the primeval and patriarchal times, though he clearly assumes such laws existed. For example, he clearly assumes it was wrong for Cain to kill Abel, as well as that these brothers both knew the requirements for proper sacrifice to God, but Moses nowhere records how they knew these things.
In point of fact, Moses leaves us with many unanswered questions and unreconciled tensions. This should not, however, disturb our faith any more than it should have disturbed that of Moses' original audience. They knew enough to understand what God required of them, and to understand how to glorify him in their marriages. For us, the question is somewhat more difficult: not knowing precisely why God commanded what he commanded in the Mosaic Law increases the difficulty of knowing how to apply those Laws in our own time. I would suggest that we take our cue from Moses' apparent argument from unchanging moral principles and hold the same standards today.
Regarding the possibility of how Lot could have not known that he had slept with his own daughters, I'm afraid I have no firsthand knowledge of such extreme drunkenness. However, I think it is reasonable to believe that given the proper pharmacological influence, some people are capable of such unwitting behavior. That this is unlikely, however, may be part of the point of the story. The reason this account is included in Genesis 19 is to explain to Moses' original readers (Israel during the Exodus) their relationship to the nations of Moab and Ammon which bordered the Promised Land. On the one hand, Moses wanted his people to understand that these people were cousins of the Israelites, and so were not to be annihilated. On the other hand, he wanted to mock Moab and Ammon so that the Israelites would not fear them. If indeed it is rare to be so unaware when drunk, this would add to the insult against Lot, and thus increase the mockery of Moab and Ammon.
We have no evidence that parent-child incest was ever acceptable, and no evidence that what Lot's daughters did was not condemnable even prior to the Mosaic Law. We also do not know that God did not judge Lot or his daughters in some way for their actions. In all events, we can be assured that God's justice prevailed (Rom. 9:14), but we cannot know precisely how it prevailed, or by what standard it was measured (ultimately the standard is God himself; but we are unaware of any specific stipulation that Lot would have known to keep).
In summary, though the Bible leaves us with many mysteries and unanswered questions, I think it does give us sufficient information about how we are to understand our relationship with him now, and how we are to obey him now. As we apply the Law to our lives today, however, it requires great wisdom for us to know how to do so properly.
Answer by Ra McLaughlin
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogamy
Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class, or social group, rejecting others on such basis as being unsuitable for marriage or other close personal relationships.
Endogamy is common in many cultures and ethnic groups. Several ethnic religious groups are traditionally more endogamous, although sometimes with the added dimension of requiring marital religious conversion. This permits an exogamous marriage, as the convert, by accepting the partner's religion, becomes accepted within the endogamous rules. Certain groups, such as Orthodox Jews, have practiced endogamy as an inherent part of their religious beliefs and traditions. In the past Roman Catholics traditionally practiced religious endogamy as well.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/43655/brother-sister-incest-father-daughter-incest-in-biblical-times/
ON MARCH 29, 2011 AT 2:32 AM
In Leviticus 18, the Mosaic code details regulations against incest: prohibits sexual relationships between categories of persons considered close relations. By the standards of the time (c. 1500 B.C.) the Mosaic code is rather enlightened. The Mosaic code also prohibited homosexuality and bestiality or zoo sexuality associated with the widespread animal cults of Egypt and the Near East ancient civilization.
The Book of Genesis tells a sordid tale of incest in the origin of the two archenemies of the Israelites in ancient times: the Moabites and the Ammonites (Genesis 19:30-38). After the destruction of the legendary cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the daughters of Abraham's nephew, unable to find husbands, got their father Lot drunk and raised children who became the ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
A necessary wisdom in reading Genesis, especially in matters concerning the origins of nations that are the enemies of Israel, is that the accounts are not history but political ideological propaganda–in the case of the story of the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites, racial slur intended to defame their archenemies. Gen. 9:22-26 exemplifies the political ideological preoccupation of the Hebrew writers in which, for instance, the sin of Ham (said by some to be ancestor of Black African peoples) provides an opportunity to find justification for the genocide policy of the Hebrews in their wars of occupation in Canaan under Moses and Joshua).
Thus, according to the Hebrew ideologue, the nations Moab and Ammon, were products of incest, a practice condemned as "wickedness" and "abomination" in the Mosiac code. The interesting aspect to the story is that Ruth, the great-grandmother of David, was a native of Moab. David, King of Israel had Moabite blood, and thus, according to the Christian tradition which traces the Jesus' ancestry back to David, Jesus himself had the Moabite blood of incest.
In Judges 1:12-15, one is rather surprised to find a frank admission of uncle-niece incestuous marital union in Israel when, barely a few pages before in Leviticus 18:1ff, we are regaled with laws emphatically prohibiting such unions: "And Caleb said, he that smiteth Kirjath-Sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achshah my daughter for wife."
Caleb's younger brother Othniel (both were either full or half-brothers: see Judges 1:13) took Kirjath-Sepher and we are gleefully informed(vs. 13) that Caleb gave his daughter to his younger brother in marriage! Such apparent utter disregard of holy law baffles and may lead to the suggestion that the incest laws in Leviticus 18:1ff might have been interpolated into the Mosaic code at a latter date(?)
In spite of the prohibition of incest or sexual relationship between brothers, sisters and half-brothers and half-sisters, II Samuel 13:1-22 tells a story of brother-sister incest in King David's family. Amnon the first-born son of David, and heir to the throne, raped his half-sister Tamar. A point of prime interest in this story is that the condemnation of Amnon's action appears to be mostly from the fact that he raped Tamar rather than that he committed incest (as defined in the Mosaic law of Leviticus). The victim, Tamar, herself, appears to have been less concerned with the fact of incest than with the fact of pre-marital affair, for she said to Amnon: "…speak to the king for he will not withhold me from you." (In ancient Hebrew culture, as in most traditional societies, a virgin "deflowered" before marriage had only very little chance of marrying respectably.) (highlight mine)
The reaction of the concerned parties in the incident suggests strongly that half-brother and half-sister sexual relationships might not have been considered "sinful" or "unlawful" in the time of King David (in spite of the clear provisions of the Mosaic code). Her scheming brother, Absalom, only said, to console her, "…hold thy peace my sister…for he is thy brother, regard not this thing…" Absalom's statement appears to confirm the suggestion in Tamar's admonition to Amnon ("…speak to the king for he will not withhold me from you.") that Amnon's sin was considered primarily "statutory rape" (dishonoring a virgin princess before her marriage) rather than what we would think, incest. Equally instructive is King David's reaction at the news of the incident. We are told that the king was "very wroth," yet he took no action on the matter till two years later when Absalom exacted a terrible revenge on behalf of his sister.
Marriage between close relations other than full siblings appears to have been customary among Semitic peoples in the time of the Hebrew patriarchs. Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel (Laban the father of the girls is identified as the brother of Rebekah, Jacob's mother). Abraham's family seems to have had a long history of what, under the Mosaic law, would be considered incest. Isaac had married Rebekah the daughter of his first cousin Bethuel. The intensity of incestuous inbreed in the family line of Abraham was remarkably high. Nahor, Abraham's brother(and grandfather of Rebekah) had married Milcah his niece (the daughter of his brother Haran). The marriage produced Bethuel, Rebekah's father and Isaac's cousin. Thus, we have in Abraham's family a thick web of incestuous intermarriage within the extended family of Terah the father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran. We may, therefore, understand that the Mosaic regulation was only an attempt at innovation which seems to have been largely ignored in the history of ancient Israel judging from the Ammon-Tamar incident. However, endogamy, the practice of marriage with in the extended family was a longstanding Semitic cultural practice (the Prophet Mohammad had married his older cousin Khadija) and had probably served the purpose of keeping family wealth within the family across the generations.
We know, however,that by Jesus' time incest (as defined in the Mosaic law) was frowned upon by pious Jews. Yet it appears not to have been uncommon among not-so-pious Jews. A glaring public example is the infamous career of Bernice the sister of Herod Agrippa II(both of Jewish descent) which scandalized pious Jews. Bernice had married her uncle Herod Chalcis, became mistress to her own brother Agrippa II, and then later, became mistress to the Emperor Titus whom she followed to Rome.
JohnThomas Didymus is the author of "Confessions of God: The Gospel According to St. JohnThomas Didymus." (Read a Free Three Chapters Excerpt Here).
The following site is an example of the atheist’s argument, which one might guess twists the words Scripture to their own understanding.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewun02.htm
Other Sites of Interest