Grace Blogs

A recent GraceTalk question reads…

How did people populate with the children of Adam and Eve? Did they marry brother/sister? If so, how is it explained that God would never tolerate inter-family relationships? Also, If God knows everything before it happens, did He not know Adam and Eve were going to sin?

We have two different questions here; so, I will tackle the first one here and the second one in a follow-up post within the next week or two. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but this question defies a quick, simple answer.

The question starts with a premise that God would never tolerate inter-family relationships [I'll assume that the questioner means "intra-family"]. As we look at the biblical record, we’ll see that this is not the case. But, the question remains… Does God prohibit intra-family sexual relationships because they are inherently wrong, or are they only wrong because God prohibits them in the Law given to Moses?

Let’s start with the two extremes in history and work inward.

In the Garden

There is no way around the fact that as Adam and Eve produced children, brothers and sisters paired off in marriage to produce the next generation. One could even argue that Adam and Eve were a form of brother and sister—almost like the identical twins that cloning would produce. Of course, taking a rib from Adam and producing Eve is clearly a supernatural act and God may have altered the genes in the process, but Adam did call her “flesh of my flesh.” But that is a whole other rabbit trail for another day…

In the Garden of Eden, we have brothers and sisters necessarily creating marriages and producing children. This must have been moral and good, and God commanded such filling of the earth.

The Mosaic Law

By Leviticus 18 and 20, we have explicit prohibitions against marriages among close relations. Here are the relevant verses and commands:

• 6 No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
• 7 Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
• 8 Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
• 9 Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
• 10 Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
• 11 Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
• 12 Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
• 13 Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
• 14 Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
• 15 Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
• 16 Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
• 17 Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
• 18 Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

Somewhere between Adam and Eve and Leviticus, we have a dramatic transition in the way God views marriages of close relatives.

Before we try to figure out what changed, let’s look at some points in between that may help.

After the Flood

After the flood, Noah’s sons and their wives replenished the Earth. This eventually had to involve marriages at the next generation that were at least as close as cousins, since that is the most distant relation available among group where all of the men are brothers.

Abraham and Sarah

By Genesis 12 we have Abraham deceiving the Egyptians by claiming that Sarah is his sister. That was enough for the Egyptians to assume that they were not married. This may be because it was assumed that brothers and sisters do not marry or it may simply be that if they were married, Abraham would have introduced her that way instead of as his sister since that would have been more relevant (for example, it would be strange to introduce your spouse as a coworker, even if you happen to work together, at a social gathering). In Genesis 20, Abraham is at it again. It seem like the same thing all over again, except that in verse 20:12 we learn that Sarah actually is Abraham’s half-sister (sharing the same father).

What Changed?

According to most Old Testament timelines, there is roughly 2500 years between Adam and Eve and the giving of the Law, and we know that there were 400 years of captivity in Egypt that separated the Patriarchal period from the Exodus.

The first and most obvious answer to what changed is related to the genetic mutations that occurred over time (as a result of the Fall and Curse). It is reasonable to expect that by this time, consanguinial (literally “same blood”) marriages presented health risks in producing children. We all know the “in-breeding” jokes, but this is based on a real concern for the health of children and the future of the human race. For details on this line of thinking, see this helpful article from Answers In Genesis. This may be a component in what changed, but I don’t think it can be the whole story. I say that for two reasons.

First, there seems to be a moral concern in the way the marriage laws are presented in Leviticus 18 (and especially when they are restated in Leviticus 20). There seems to be a moral perversion inherent in the incestuous act. Lev. 18:17 adds “it’s depravity” to the prohibition against sexual relations with a woman and her daughter or grand-daughter. Lev. 20:12 adds “they have committed perversion” to the prohibition against having sex with one’s daughter-in-law.

Second, the incest laws apply to close in-law relations where the consanguinity is not present (step-mother (18:8), brother’s wife (18:16), and wife’s sister (18:18)). One thing that further complicates things is that most of these prohibitions are against sexual relations that would already be adultery—a crime that already carries the death penalty (Lev. 20:10). Some have speculated that these prohibitions imply that the one considering engaging in such a relationship is eligible to marry and any original spouse of the object of his affection has died. For example, Leviticus 18:8 would refer to marrying one’s stepmother after his father has died. This may be so, but the text itself never gives such an indication.

Conclusion

So, however you look at it, there seems to be a moral component to prohibition against incest. That is, it is not simply wrong because God prohibits it (like the dietary laws), but God prohibits it in the Law because it was immoral in itself. At the same time, we have seen that this moral component was not present earlier in human history. My take on this is that these types of marriages became immoral as human society developed, because they undermined the health and sanctity of the family. There was no longer a need to look within your own family for a spouse, and when you did, you became a rival to your own family members and you put your future children at risk. Over the centuries, as the need to marry close relatives subsided and the risks increased, people naturally looked outside of their own families for mates. As this became the norm, only deviancy and bad intentions motivated people to seek spouses within their own families. So, by the time God delivered the Law to Moses, it was no surprise to anyone that spouses should only be found outside the family.

To reiterate, at the dawn of the human race, consanguinial marriages were not dangerous and were necessary. By the time of the Exodus, these types of marriages were not necessary and were (speculatively, anyway) dangerous. From this I take it that these marriages were, at some level, immoral before the Law was given.

If I am mistaken about incest developing an inherent immorality over time, it really doesn’t change anything. In that case, we would simply say that God chose to outlaw it for the Israelites. Even in that case, that is a perfectly reasonable thing for God to apply rules for His creation over time. That would raise the question as to whether God would allow it today, but that is yet another question for another day, perhaps.

Post Script

This is sometimes raised as a challenge to the Bible and presented as a contradiction. I think it is important to remember that the same man authored Genesis and Leviticus. If Moses saw this as contradictory, he would have given an explanation. I surmise from this that Moses’ audience had the necessary context that they didn’t see this as a contradiction.

---

---

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Message