Why did God allow incest in the Bible

[Edward]

I think it was just necessity.

 

[By Grace]

It seems to me the real question is 'How has what is considered a sin changed?'
Also, can the same line of reasoning used to deal with incest be applied to polygamy?

Your questions are based on the error of "presentism". What that means is that you are passing judgment on a historical event (4000+ years ago) and are not considering the ancient situation.

As a result, you are neglecting the twin questions of necessity and of genetic purity.

With necessity, I refer to the fact that it was necessary for Cain, Able, and the rest of Adam and Eve's sons to marry their sisters because there were no other women around, and the only alternative to that would be for the men to reproduce with their mother. That is a repugnant idea, so of course, it did not happen.

With genetic purity, I am referring to the fact that the gene pool was not polluted with sin as it was in the time of Noah:

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

.
The purity of the genetic code is evidenced by the accounts of longevity. We thing of Methuselah who died at the age of 969 years, and that Adam died several years before the Flood, 900+ years old.

The question of the definition of sin has NOT changed in the eyes of God. Technically, the Greek word for "sin" means "missing the mark" and in particular, it means a trespass of the Laws of God. What HAS changed is the fact that the world is accepting as "normal" the actions that were once called "abominations". As a result the idea of "incest" in the early history of humanity is a far different idea then than what it means in 2014.

As to polygamy, it has never been sanctioned by God, nor has never been blessed by God. That there are accounts of men in the Bible who practiced it, there is no doubt. That is a historical record. But there is also a Biblical record that describes the ethos of that time, and later on:

Judges 21:24 And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
.​

In some respects then is no different than now.

 

[Sinthesis]

Your questions are based on the error of "presentism". What that means is that you are passing judgment on a historical event (4000+ years ago) and are not considering the ancient situation.

As a result, you are neglecting the twin questions of necessity and of genetic purity.

With necessity, I refer to the fact that it was necessary for Cain, Able, and the rest of Adam and Eve's sons to marry their sisters because there were no other women around, and the only alternative to that would be for the men to reproduce with their mother. That is a repugnant idea, so of course, it did not happen.

With genetic purity, I am referring to the fact that the gene pool was not polluted with sin as it was in the time of Noah:

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

.
The purity of the genetic code is evidenced by the accounts of longevity. We thing of Methuselah who died at the age of 969 years, and that Adam died several years before the Flood, 900+ years old.

The question of the definition of sin has NOT changed in the eyes of God. Technically, the Greek word for "sin" means "missing the mark" and in particular, it means a trespass of the Laws of God. What HAS changed is the fact that the world is accepting as "normal" the actions that were once called "abominations". As a result the idea of "incest" in the early history of humanity is a far different idea then than what it means in 2014.

As to polygamy, it has never been sanctioned by God, nor has never been blessed by God. That there are accounts of men in the Bible who practiced it, there is no doubt. That is a historical record. But there is also a Biblical record that describes the ethos of that time, and later on:

Judges 21:24 And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
.​

In some respects then is no different than now.

I'm not passing judgement, rather I'm pointing out the fact that something we today consider a sin was once not considered sin. Is sin now situational?

Gen 6:5 doesn't address genetics, but thought and action. The idea of genetic purity elevates flesh over spirit, which is contrary to the gospel.

 

[By Grace]

I'm not passing judgement, rather I'm pointing out the fact that something we today consider a sin was once not considered sin. Is sin now situational?

Gen 6:5 doesn't address genetics, but thought and action. The idea of genetic purity elevates flesh over spirit, which is contrary to the gospel.

Of course, sin is not situational. However there has to be a valid reason for non-sinful incest relationships that happened before Moses gave the Law. I gave to you and others what I think best describes the reasons. (BTW the same thing also happened after the Flood) If you have a better idea, then I'd like to hear it.

Of course Genesis 6:5 does not address the issue of genetics because its mentioning would be anachronistic meaning it did not come into vogue after 1953 with the work of Crick and Watson who discovered the double helix design of the structure of DNA. But I am not able to understand how you state that genetic purity as a reason for the practice of early procreation is "contrary to the Gospel". Please explain that objection.

However what ever answer you do come up with should take into account the factors of necessity and of a genetic purity.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I have heard that first cousin and the dna isn't close enough to be a problem.

View attachment 5254
You dun heard right, stranger.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Why did God allow incest in the Bible

http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html

That avatar.
I've seen it somewhere before..., way before...

 

[Karl]

Why did God allow incest in the Bible

To show us His overflowing and abundant mercy and grace, ...and if you are talking about pre-flood incest, who else were the children of Adam and Eve going to marry?

 

[Sinthesis]

Of course, sin is not situational. However there has to be a valid reason for non-sinful incest relationships that happened before Moses gave the Law. I gave to you and others what I think best describes the reasons. (BTW the same thing also happened after the Flood) If you have a better idea, then I'd like to hear it.

Of course Genesis 6:5 does not address the issue of genetics because its mentioning would be anachronistic meaning it did not come into vogue after 1953 with the work of Crick and Watson who discovered the double helix design of the structure of DNA. But I am not able to understand how you state that genetic purity as a reason for the practice of early procreation is "contrary to the Gospel". Please explain that objection.

However what ever answer you do come up with should take into account the factors of necessity and of a genetic purity.

We don't have to validate some incest as non-sinful. We can accept it as sin and simply not be judgmental. After all, the world was awash with sin prior to any opportunity for incest. From John 8:3-11 we know that even though adultery was sin, it doesn't necessarily mean the sinner must stand accused and condemned. I suspect the same can be applied to OT incest, with the proviso for us now in the NT era to 'go and sin no more'.

Genetic purity was never a reason for choosing mates. Spiritual purity was desired, so to maintain a purity of religious belief and practice it seemed best not to take foreign wives with attachments to foreign gods or aberrant beliefs lest one fall into the trap that claimed even Sampson and Solomon. However, in Christ there is no differentiation between Jew and Gentile, or even any acknowledgment of genetic descent because Jesus has no physical offspring, only spiritual heirs.

 

[By Grace]

We don't have to validate some incest as non-sinful. We can accept it as sin and simply not be judgmental.

I believe that you are missing an important thing here, and that is Genesis 1: 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

This was the command given prior to the Fall. No matter if A&E did not disobey God, (indeed a hypothetical) their children would have to marry their sisters in order to keep that commandment to multiply. As I understand what you are saying, then the commandment given in Genesis 1:22 would be a commandment by God for humans to sin. Can you see that?

That is why I use the "necessity" argument; it admits that incest is a taboo, but it was necessary for both Adam and Eve, as well as the sons of Noah, and their offspring.

After all, the world was awash with sin prior to any opportunity for incest. From John 8:3-11 we know that even though adultery was sin, it doesn't necessarily mean the sinner must stand accused and condemned. I suspect the same can be applied to OT incest, with the proviso for us now in the NT era to 'go and sin no more'.

That incident was a set-up by the religious rulers, and it was a "no-win" situation concocted for Jesus by the rulers so that He would break one of the Commandments in demanding justice: stoning or in granting leniency. If you recall, in John 6, Jesus calls Himself "The Bread from Heaven" a reference to manna, and a clear claim of His being fully equal with God. THAT incensed the religious leaders, and they wanted to have grounds for His execution and silence.

Genetic purity was never a reason for choosing mates. Spiritual purity was desired, so to maintain a purity of religious belief and practice it seemed best not to take foreign wives with attachments to foreign gods or aberrant beliefs lest one fall into the trap that claimed even Sampson and Solomon. However, in Christ there is no differentiation between Jew and Gentile, or even any acknowledgment of genetic descent because Jesus has no physical offspring, only spiritual heirs.

I agree that that is not in Scripture. I put that forth as my own reason because it fits nicely into what we know now about genetics, and the purity of the gene pool would not cause some of the genetic issues that are seen today in the results of incestuous relations.

 

[jonahmano]

How about this. If Adam never disobeyed God and how would be the case with the "incest". Would God allow brothers and sisters marrying each other???

 

[By Grace]

How about this. If Adam never disobeyed God and how would be the case with the "incest". Would God allow brothers and sisters marrying each other???

I believe that you may be missing an important thing here:

Genesis 1: 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

This was the command given prior to the Fall. No matter if A&E did not disobey God, (indeed a hypothetical) their children would have to marry their sisters in order to keep that commandment to multiply. As I understand what you are saying, then the commandment given in Genesis 1:22 would be a commandment by God for humans to sin. Can you see that?

 

[Nintentacle]

As Kent Hovind said:

1. There was no one else.
2. There was no one to tell on them.
3. There wasn't a rule against it until the time of Moses.

 

[Nintentacle]

It seems to me the real question is 'How has what is considered a sin changed?'

What is considered good and evil depends on the circumstances. For example, David and the people with him ate the shewbread, which was only lawful for the priest to eat.

 

[Sinthesis]

What is considered good and evil depends on the circumstances. For example, David and the people with him ate the shewbread, which was only lawful for the priest to eat.

Basically I agree with you, but also remember that even though the apostles were grazing on grain, Jesus wasn't. From this I believe there is a middle space between good and evil where our shortcomings can be justified and not counted against us. So David and later the apostles could technically break the law, but be excused given the circumstances. Jesus, being perfect, never requires an excuse.

 

[By Grace]

What is considered good and evil depends on the circumstances. For example, David and the people with him ate the shewbread, which was only lawful for the priest to eat.

Sorry, but I disagree that "sin is circumstantial".

In the example you state, as well as the fact that Jesus and His Disciples "broke the rules" when they were hungry and ate some grains of wheat from a wheat field on Sabbath are both not sins; they are not laws of God, but laws of men. As such they were "fences put around the laws" so that people would not go past them and violate the commandments, such as "Honor the Sabbath".

It may seem to be nit picking; it is not, but the 10 Commandments are not the same as the "laws of men". Here is why I say that: the Laws of God predate the giving of the Decalogue by Moses. The proof of that is found in Genesis 6

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually​

.
It is impossible for us to believe that God capriciously punished people for disobeying Laws that were not written yet, nor that they could not know. Paul gives us the answer why that is the case in Romans :

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things​

.
I also note that in quoting Kent Hovind, you are taking a Genesis- based and therefore a necessity-based approach to the use of non-condemned incest in the OT. Of course, you are free to disagree with what I posted, and you are not wrong if you do. I only share with you guys the reasons why I stated the things I did.

Looking forward to the discussion to follow...