Genesis on Incest

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Genesis on Incest

An earlier post questioned incest between Adam and Eve and their immediate offspring. Although incest is forbidden later in the Bible, in my view the Book of Genesis approves of incest where procreation the regular way is not possible. There are two critically important examples of this in Genesis.

1. Lot in the Cave. Genesis 19: 30 – 38. After Sodom has been destroyed and Lot’s wife has been turned into a pillar of salt, Lot and his daughters live in a cave. Lot has never had a son, and now that his wife is dead, he is in mortal danger of having his male line die out. Lot’s two daughters get Lot drunk on successive nights and thereby are able to present him with sons/grandsons. Because Lot is outside of the Covenant (since Lot is not a descendant of Abraham, although Lot is Abraham’s nephew), Lot’s descendants can’t go on to become part of the Hebrews. Rather Lot’s male line multiplies and prospers and becomes the Moabites and the Ammonites, the immediate neighbors (and rivals) of 7th century BCE Judah. Neither Lot nor his daughters are ever criticized for their actions, even though, just shortly before this, Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt for the rather mild offense of turning to look back as she fled Sodom. Neither Lot nor his daughters are ever told that their progeny will eventually be rivals of the Hebrews. Moreover, as we shall soon see, a Moabite (Ruth) later becomes a critical positive factor for the Hebrews.

In examining the motives of Lot’s daughters, note Genesis 19: 32: “’Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, SO THAT WE MAY PRESERVE OFFSPRING THROUGH OUR FATHER.’” [Capitalization added for emphasis.] If and to the extent that Lot’s daughters’ motive was to enable their father to have a line of male descendants, then in the view of Genesis, the daughters’ motive was just, proper and honorable. Even if this was not the daughters’ primary motive, nevertheless the result was the same: Lot avoided Genesis’s version of hell -- the failure of a man’s male line of descendants. There is nothing in Genesis that suggests that the author of Genesis disapproves of this necessary incest. The fact that Lot’s daughters had to get Lot drunk simply emphasizes that Lot had no unnatural lust for his daughters whatsoever.

Although I admire Israel Finkelstein’s biblical archaeological work, I believe that he is incorrect when he says that the story of Lot’s incest was a 7th century BCE story made up to cast aspersions on the origins of Judah’s neighbors/rivals the Moabites and the Ammonites. In story #2 below, we will find that one male ancestor of King David, King Solomon and Jesus is Perez, who is a product of incest. The story of Lot and his daughters is not, in my opinion, a 7th century BCE creation; it is rather a very old story told by someone who believed in necessary incest.

2. Judah and Tamar. Genesis 38. Judah’s oldest son Er marries Tamar, but Yahweh kills Judah’s firstborn son for being evil, before Er can father a son. Son #2 Onan is supposed to provide his deceased older brother with a son, but instead Onan just sports with Tamar, causing Yahweh to kill Onan as well. Judah wrongfully withholds his third son from Tamar, leading Tamar to take matters into her own hands. Tamar dresses as a prostitute and thereby gets Judah, unknowingly, to impregnate her. Judah rescinds his order to have Tamar burned alive when Tamar reveals that Judah is the biological father of her unborn children. Far from condemning this incest, Judah famously states: “She is more in the right than I….” Genesis 38: 26. Judah’s twin sons/grandsons by Tamar are Zerah and Perez; Perez is the ancestor of King David, King Solomon, and Jesus.

Tamar is praised, not condemned, for initiating this incest. Perhaps Tamar had mixed motives; she probably had a natural desire to have a child, and she apparently wanted to stay with Judah’s clan (though Tamar was a foreigner). Yet it appears that one of Tamar’s primary motives was to create a male line of descendants for Judah’s oldest son, which in Genesis is a totally admirable motivation.

And here we must also consider the Book of Ruth. In many ways, the story of Ruth is a kinder, gentler version of the story of Tamar. Indeed, it is Ruth 4: 18 – 22 where we find out that Perez is the ancestor of King David and King Solomon. The facts of Ruth are similar to Tamar/Judah, except that the Judah character, the woman’s father-in-law, is dead in Ruth’s story, so we are not dealing with incest here. Ruth is a Moabite, a foreigner, but she focuses her entire attention on getting a male relative of her deceased husband to sire a son by her, so that her deceased husband’s male line of descendants won’t die out. Boaz, a male relative of Ruth’s deceased husband’s father (whose wife, Naomi, is still living and with whom Ruth is staying), marries Ruth, and they have a son. Ruth 4: 12 explicitly blesses Judah’s incest with Tamar, when the Israelite elders bless Boaz’s marriage to the young Moabite Ruth: “And may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah -- through the offspring which the Lord will give you by this young woman.”

In the case of both Lot and his daughters in the cave, and Judah/Tamar, a child could not be produced the ordinary way. In both cases, a woman initiated the incest in order to produce the son that was needed in order to prevent a Hebrew man’s male line from dying out. In both cases, Genesis blesses this “necessary” incest.

The story of Ruth nicely completes the picture. Without the Judah/Tamar incest, Perez would not have been born, and Perez is a male ancestor of King David, King Solomon and Jesus. And without the incest of Lot with his daughters, the Moabites would not have been created, so there would have been no Ruth, and Ruth is a female ancestor of King David, King Solomon and Jesus. So BOTH of these two incests were needed in order to produce King David, King Solomon and Jesus.

And so here we have our very first important clue in our quest to determine who it was who originally TOLD these stories of Abraham through Joseph and Judah in Genesis. The person who told this particular line of stories was probably a committed monotheist who could not have a son by his main wife, and who was trying to preserve his male line by his main wife indirectly by means of impregnating his daughters. Who else but such a man would tell the incest stories of Lot and his daughters in the cave, and Judah/Tamar?

[And for people who are into numbers, the number 19 seems like a somewhat unusual number; it is said by some to play an important role in the Koran. The number 19 seems to be the mark of incest in Genesis. Chapter 19 is Lot and his daughters in the cave, and chapter 38 [19 x 2 = 38] is Judah/Tamar. But then, 19 could be looked at as the sum of the two best numbers in the Bible: 12 + 7 = 19. 12 is the very best number in the Bible: 12 tribes of Israel, and 12 disciples of Christ. 7 is the number of days it took to create the world in Genesis. Both 12 and especially 7 are used throughout the Bible in positive connections.]

Van · Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:18 am Post subject: Genesis on Incest

As has been posted elsewhere, incest was necessary if all of mankind came from Adam and Eve. Incest was forbidden by Moses, the Lawgiver. Between these two events, the bible clearly accepts incest. No big deal.

The speculation that someone needing to justify incest made up the stories and passed them along to Moses is without merit.

Van · Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:27 am Post subject: Genesis on Incest

I think the history included in the bible is included because it happened and the authors thought the history was important. Your perspective seems to suggest that incest was not the norm during the time frame, or that the practice was improper or inappropriate.
I find no support for that view.

I do not think marrying your dead brother's wife and therefore to provide for her, is a form of incest (sexual relations between blood relatives), and it certainly was not forbidden by custom.

I think the Mosaic Law would have precluded many of the marriages that occurred during the earlier period. I think Sarah was a half sister for example. I do not see that saying that if things had happened differently, different results would have occurred provides much insight. I think God has the power to shape events such that His purpose is fulfilled.

In summary, there is no need to condemn incest prior to the Law of Moses. It was the norm and custom. No big deal.

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Van:

Don’t you think it’s odd that so many of the things that the Patriarchs do in Genesis, many of which certainly seem to be approved of in Genesis, end up being against Mosaic law?

1. You mention that Sarah is Abraham’s half-sister.

2. Jacob marries sisters, which later is against Mosaic law.

3. Abraham gives his entire inheritance to only one son. Later Mosaic law will provide that the firstborn son gets a double share. (Abraham’s firstborn son, Ishmael, is disinherited.)

4. Neither Isaac nor Jacob provides a double share for their firstborn sons. Far from it! Isaac’s firstborn son Esau is left out of the Covenant (in favor of younger twin son Jacob). Jacob’s firstborn son Reuben gets a curse, not a blessing, even though it was Reuben who gallantly saved the life of Jacob’s favorite son, Joseph. Young son Joseph in effect gets a double share, as his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim each get a share instead of Joseph getting a share directly (this extra share being made possible without disturbing the 12 share principle, because Levi ceased to be a tribe and became the priestly class), yet far from Manasseh getting a double share of Joseph’s inheritance, Jacob, against Joseph’s wishes, gives a better share to Jacob’s younger son Ephraim.

And so it goes. Actions which the author of Genesis certainly appears to condone later become illegal under Mosaic law. It’s not just incest that we are talking about, by any means.

As I mentioned previously, the Hebrew scribes who transcribed the Hebrew Bible through II Kings in 7th century BCE Jerusalem certainly were well aware of Mosaic law when they transcribed the Book of Genesis. So why aren’t the above 4 items expressly disapproved in Genesis? Why, on the contrary, does the Book of Genesis time and again approve of actions by the Patriarchs of monotheism, when such actions will later become improper under Mosaic law?

Doesn’t the Book of Genesis portray a very different mindset than the Book of Deuteronomy? Why is the mindset of Genesis so peculiar?

Van · Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:48 pm Post subject: Genesis on Incest

You seem to be shifting away from a discussion of incest and toward questioning the content of the bible. Hopefully I have helped with a differing view from yours on incest. I hope others will address your real concern.

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Thank you, Van, for your comments. Yes, my real concern is not incest per se, but rather what I perceive to be a significant difference in the mindset of Genesis as opposed to the mindset of Deuteronomy. Why do the Patriarchs do so many things that are approved of in Genesis, but which then become improper under Mosaic law? The picture of the Patriarchs in Genesis is so oddly unflattering. Why? I am trying to figure out what precise mindset undergirds Genesis, as a way of possibly determining who may have originally told the stories in Genesis, from Abraham through Joseph and Judah, that much later got written down in the Bible.

If it turns out that people like discussing this general topic, then I will do further posts on it later, exploring other aspects of these stories in Genesis that intrigue me and which, in some cases, have baffled Biblical scholars for over 2,000 years. Beginning with the story of Abraham, Genesis tells one unforgettable story after another about the Patriarchs and the 12 tribes of Israel, but the mindset of the author of Genesis seems to me to be quite peculiar in unexpected ways. The positive attitude toward "necessary" incest is only one of the many puzzling aspects of Genesis.

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Van:

1. Adam and Eve and their immediate offspring had to commit technical incest in order for the human race to continue. This is not surprising or disturbing. But the human race would have gone on if Lot had not had relations with his daughters, and if Judah had not had a son/grandson by his daughter-in-law Tamar.

Since there was no physical necessity for these latter two incests, WHY does Genesis recount these stories? And why does the Book of Ruth then tell us that (1) the immediate product of Judah’s incest, Perez, was a paternal ancestor of King David and King Solomon (and hence of Jesus, in the Christian view), and (2) a descendant of Lot’s incest, Ruth, was a maternal ancestor of King David? Why present incest in such a favorable light?

2. Although Moses prohibited incest in general, the Mosaic law also specifically condones Levirite marriage. Deuteronomy: 25: 5 – 10 If the eldest son dies without having sired a son by his wife, then “Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her…. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother SO THAT HIS NAME WILL NOT BE BLOTTED OUT FROM ISRAEL.” At least in Genesis and Ruth, this custom was not limited solely to decedent’s brothers, but extended to decedent’s male relatives generally, thus possibly implicating incest like the Judah/Tamar situation. It should also be noted, as one commentator nicely summarized it: “[I]t was not mandatory that the next of kin marry the eldest brother’s wife, but it was shameful for him not to marry her.”

3. Given the specific facts of Lot with his daughters in the cave, and the Judah/Tamar situation, do you think that Mosaic law would have prohibited either or both of those unions? If so, then it is very possible (though by no means certain) that Judah’s name would have been “blotted out from Israel”. And of course Judah ended up being the LEADING tribe of Israel.

4. Certainly the Hebrew scribes who transcribed Genesis and Deuteronomy knew the Mosaic law. WHY then does Genesis treat “necessary” incest in such a favorable light? Why not condemn such incest in Genesis, once the propagation of the human race was no longer in question?

Sara Jansky · Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:17 pm Post subject: Genesis on Incest

Just an interesting thought I had brought up to me by someone on this very subject. I don't know if the "debate forum" is the best place to bring this up but...

The Bible never told us that it is okay to do what Lot's daughters did or anything of the sort. It says that it is wrong most definately. So, the question arises about Genesis because we started out with Adam and Eve and no body else. Well, God made Eve for Adam so, who is to say that he didn't make a wife for their sons. No it doesn't mention making them their wives, but it doesn't mention who their son's, wives parents were either.... Any thoughts? I thought this to be an interesting concept, don't know if it is the truth, probably never will. Just something to think about.

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Sara Jansky:

You wrote: "The Bible never told us that it is okay to do what Lot's daughters did or anything of the sort. It says that it is wrong most definately."

The Book of Genesis does NOT say that what Lot and his daughters did was wrong. Genesis simply reports what they did, and then says that their descendants became the Moabites and the Ammonites. Ruth, a Moabite, is said in the Book of Ruth to be a maternal ancestor of King David and King Solomon, and as such Christians would view Ruth as a maternal ancestor of Jesus as well. And the leading tribe of Israel, Judah, commits incest with his widowed daughter-in-law. One of Judah's twin sons/grandsons is Perez, and the Book of Ruth says that Perez was a paternal ancestor of King David and King Solomon.

My own controversial contention is that the person who originally told the stories that later got written down as Genesis had a very different mindset than most of the rest of the Old Testament. I realize that Mosaic law (in the four books after Genesis)prohibits incest most definitely. But the Book of Genesis itself does NOT condemn the incest of Lot or the incest of Judah, even though, unlike Adam and Even and their immediate progeny, the physical survival of the human race was not an issue for Lot or Judah.

Given that King David, King Solomon and Jesus all have both a paternal ancestor and a maternal ancestor who resulted from incest in Genesis, isn't the odd thing here how favorably the Book of Genesis (unlike most of the rest of the Bible) looks upon such incest?