Incest

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

Illicit marital relations between a man and woman who belong to the same kinship group. Biblical Hebrew has no term for incest, but the Old Testament spells out marital relations that were forbidden. In the New Testament, the Greek term porneia [] refers to unlawful sexual intercourse in general, which included incest, and which might be the intended meaning of the term in  Matthew 5:32;  19:9;  Acts 15:20,29;  21:25 . The issue of incest receives particular attention in the New Testament in two passages: mr 6:17-29, 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 . In general, a member of the community of faith who violated the biblical incest prohibitions endangered the community's relationship with God and would receive judgment carried out by the community and/or by God.

The biblical prohibitions against incest are found in the Old Testament in three main groups of texts:  Leviticus 18:6-18;  20:11,12 ,  14,17 ,  19,20 ,  21;  Deuteronomy 27:20-23 . Marital relations with the following persons are forbidden: one's mother, father's wife, sister and half-sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, step-sister (a possible meaning of  Leviticus 18:11 ), father's sister, mother's sister, father's brother's wife, daughter-in-law, brother's wife, wife's mother, and the joint marriage of a woman and her daughter, a woman and her son's or daughter's daughter, a woman and her sister (while the former is still alive,  Leviticus 18:18 ), a woman and her mother. Hebrew and Jewish practice as found in the biblical narratives does not always accord with the above prohibitions (cf.  Genesis 20:12;  29   Exodus 6:16,18 ,  20;  Numbers 26:59;  2 Samuel 13:12-13;  Mark 6:17-29 ). Such practices may be accounted for individually on the basis that they occurred: prior to the origin of the prohibitions, in ignorance, or possibly in defiance of them. Also, in contrast to  Leviticus 20:21 stands the legislation and practice of levirate marriage, a special case in which a brother or close kin is expected to marry the childless widow of a brother and father a child who would carry on the family lineage in the dead brother's name.

The guidelines that defined the kinship limits of Hebrew marriage practice are not stated in the biblical texts. One can note, however, how the prohibitions corresponded with the ancient Hebrew social structures. Hebrew marriage practices were exogamous on the level of the household, the extended patrilineal family that was the foundational social unit of ancient Hebrew society. However, Hebrew marriage practice was also basically endogamous on the level of clan and tribe, so that one married within one's clan to create lineage solidarity and to preserve the clan's landed inheritance. This practice explains the absence of cousins from the incest prohibitions. Parallel patrilineal cousins, who could be living one's household, were allowed, even preferred, in marriage.

An examination of the Old Testament incest prohibition lists reveals the nature of the transgression and the judgment it received. Each of the lists of prohibitions is distinct in character and function.  Deuteronomy 27:20-23 is included in a list of the curses of the covenant ratification ritual in which the Israelites recognized that violation of the covenant should justly incur divine curse. Those items mentioned in the list apparently represented a larger body of known laws, probably such as found in   Leviticus 18,20 .

 Leviticus 18:6-18 states its prohibitions in absolute form (apodictic), as in the Decalog, without identifying case-by-case consequences. The force of these prohibitions rests on divine authority, "I am the Lord" (18:5,30). The material bracketing these laws (18:15,24-30) reveals a theological reason for the prohibitions. The banned behavior was associated with the Egyptians, whose land the Israelites had left, and the Canaanites, whose land the Israelites came to possess. The morally corrupt practices of the Canaanites had so defiled the land that they were to be eradicated from it. So, too, if Israelites allowed such behavior, God's land, in which they were sojourners (  Leviticus 25:23 ), would be defiled and they too would be "vomited out." Incestuous practice, then, was a crime against God which, through its polluting influence, would contaminate Israel's relationship with God and result in divine punishment of the community in general.

 Leviticus 18:29 states the consequence for individuals who violate any of the bracketed laws: they will be "cut off." This penalty has often been interpreted to be excommunication (a punishment for incest found in Hittite laws and an interpretation held by the Qumran community) or even the death penalty. However, all of the crimes that result in this penalty are religious sins against God. In the levitical laws, sins against God are punishable by God. Therefore, two other interpretations fit the evidence better. The penalty might refer (1) to the offender's family lineage being cut off by God, or (2) to the offender being cut off from his kin in the afterlife existence of Sheol, or possibly to both consequences together.

The incest laws of  Leviticus 20 provide more information about the consequences of incest violations. These texts share a form common to ancient Near Eastern legal texts. Such texts identify specific violations and consequences in the form of case law (also called casuistic law: "If one commits A, then the consequence is B." ). They presented individual cases, which served as representatives of the larger body of commonly known law, for the purpose of identifying the relevant principles of justice. Lists of such laws were not intended to be inclusive of all possible cases, nor was each case intended to present all the criteria employed for making a judgment and assessing the consequences. These lists were scholarly texts employed by the experts. Perhaps this characteristic common to ancient Near Eastern law explains why there is not a one-to-one correspondence among the three biblical lists of prohibitions and why no biblical text forbids marital relations with one's daughter. Since one's daughter was one of the "flesh" relatives (see   Leviticus 21:2-3 ), and since one's daughter's daughter was forbidden ( Leviticus 18:10 ), one must assume union with one's daughter was forbidden in Israelite practice as well.

Furthermore, a difficulty in understanding the consequences prescribed in  Leviticus 20 for incest may be resolved. In this chapter three cases of incestuous relations receive the death penalty (vv. 11,12, 14), which was carried out by the community; and three receive a form of divine punishment (vv. 17,19, 20). If degrees of incest are being distinguished here, the exact principles used and how such principles would be applied to other unmentioned cases are unclear. Since such laws in the ancient Near East assume an audience skilled in legal matters, they do not always mention various options regarding the consequences. It is possible that total body of violations of 20:1-21 came under two understood conditions: when such violations occurred unknown to the community (as several of these violations could), the violator would receive divine punishment; but when the violator was known to the community, that person would receive the death penalty as well. This conclusion is supported by the fact that   Leviticus 18:6-18 places all of its more inclusive list of incest violations under the consequence of divine punishment.

The theological principle behind  Leviticus 18,20 involves the understanding that incest crimes could not be tolerated in the Israelite community, which was to remain holy before God. No purification ritual for the individual is provided for such violations. One who would pollute Israel's relationship with God, if caught, was to be eradicated from the community in order that the community's relationship with God might remain unimpeded.

Recognition of the above Old Testament theological principle sheds light on a difficult passage in  1 Corinthians 5:1-5 involving incest, a passage that has received various interpretations. In a case where a man has committed incest (apparently marrying the former wife of his father) without the objection of the Christian community, Paul banishes the man and hands him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and the preservation of the Spirit (v. 5). (The usual translation, " his spirit, " is not supported by the Greek text.) Paul's concern in this text is focused on the community, who, like dough, can be totally corrupted by a little yeast (vv. 6-13). The Christian community collectively is the temple of God in which the Spirit dwells (6:19-20). Immoral practice within the community must be eradicated to preserve the presence of the Spirit. Therefore, Paul banishes the man and hands him over to Satan, the agent of destruction. In essence Paul leaves the penalty to God. The opportunity for the brother to repent, although not mentioned, is no doubt assumed, for, in the end, he did repent. Paul's focus is on preserving the holiness of the community and presence of the Spirit from the pollution of incest.

Rodney K. Duke

See also Sexual Immorality

Bibliography . A. Y. Colins, HTR 73 (1980): 251-63; T. Frymer-Kensky, The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman, pp. 399-414; H. A. Hoffner, Jr., Orient and Occident, pp. 81-90; B. A. Levine, Leviticus  ; J. Milgrom,  Leviticus 1-16  ; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus  ; R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law  ; idem, ABD, 5:546-56; B. Witherington, NTS 31 (1985): 571-76; D. Wold, SBLSP , 1:1-45; C. J. H. Wright, ABD, 2:761-69.

Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary

an unlawful conjunction of persons related within the degrees of kindred prohibited by God. In the beginning of the world, and again, long after the deluge, marriages between near relations were allowed. In the time of Abraham and Isaac, these marriages were permitted, and among the Persians much later; it is even said to be esteemed neither criminal nor ignominious among the remains of the old Persians at this day. Some authors believe that marriages between near relations were permitted, or, at least, tolerated, till the time of Moses, who first prohibited them among the Hebrews; and that among other people they were allowed even after him. Others hold the contrary; but it is hard to establish either of these opinions, for want of historical documents. The degrees of consanguinity within which marriage was prohibited are stated in  Leviticus 18:6-18 . Most civilized people have looked on incests as abominable crimes. St. Paul, speaking of the incestuous man of Corinth, says, "It is reported commonly, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife:"  1 Corinthians 5:1 . In order to preserve chastity in families, and between persons of different sexes, brought up and living together in a state of unreserved intimacy, it is necessary, by every method possible, to inculcate an abhorrence of incestuous conjunctions; which abhorrence can only be upholden by the absolute reprobation of all commerce of the sexes between near relations. Upon this principle, the marriage, as well as other co- habitations, of brothers and sisters, of lineal kindred, and of all who usually live in the same family, may be said to be forbidden by the law of nature. Restrictions which extend to remoter degrees of kindred than what this reason makes it necessary to prohibit from intermarriage, are founded in the authority of the positive law which ordains them, and can only be justified by their tendency to diffuse wealth, to connect families, or to promote some political advantage. The Levitical law, which is received in this country, and from which the rule of the Roman law differs very little, prohibits marriages between relations within three degrees of kindred; computing the generations, not from, but through, the common ancestor, and accounting affinity the same as consanguinity. The issue, however, of such marriages are not bastardized, unless the parents be divorced during their life time.

Charles Buck Theological Dictionary

The crime of criminal and unnatural commerce with a person within the degrees forbidden by the law. By the rules of the church, incest was formerly very absurdly extended even to the seventh degree; but it is now restricted to the third or fourth. Most nations look on incest with horror, Persia and Egypt excepted. In the history of the ancient kings of those countries we meet with instances of brothers marrying their own sisters, because they thought it too mean to join in alliance with their own subjects, and still more so to marry into any foreign family. Vortigern, king of South Britain, equalled, or rather excelled them in wickedness, by marrying his own daughter. The queen of Portugal was married to her uncle; and the prince of Brazil, the son of that incestuous marriage, is wedded to his aunt. But they had dispensations for these unnatural marriages from his holiness. "In order, " says one, "to preserve chastity in families, and between persons of different sexes brought up and living together in a state of unreserved intimacy, it is necessary, by every method possible, to inculcate an abhorrence of incestuous conjunctions; which abhorrence can only be upheld by the absolute reprobation of all commerce of the sexes between near relations.

Upon this principle the marriage, as well as other cohabitation of brothers and sisters of lineal kindred, and of all who usually live in the same family, may be said to be forbidden by the law of nature. Restrictions which extend to remoter degrees of kindred than what this reason makes it necessary to prohibit from intermarriage, are founded in the authority of the positive law which ordains them, and can only be justified by their tendency to diffuse wealth, to connect families, or to promote some political advantage. "The Levitical law, which is received in this country, and from which the rule of the Roman law differs very little, prohibits marriage between relations within three degrees of kindred; computing the generations not from but through the common ancestor, and accounting affinity the same as consanguinity. the issue, however, of such marriages are not bastardized, unless the parents be divorced during their lifetime." Paley's Mor. Phil. p. 316, vol. 1.

Holman Bible Dictionary

 Leviticus 18:2 18:4 18:6 Leviticus 18:3 18:24-25 Leviticus 18:6-16  Leviticus 18:19  Leviticus 18:18  Leviticus 20:20-21 Leviticus 18:29 Leviticus 20:17-18 1 Corinthians 5:5 Leviticus 20:11-12 20:14 Genesis 20:12 Genesis 29:21-30 Genesis 19:31-35 Genesis 35:22 2 Samuel 13:1

Webster's Dictionary

(n.) The crime of cohabitation or sexual commerce between persons related within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Incest . See Crimes and Punishments, § 3 .

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

(Lat. in, not; castus, chaste), the crime of sexual commerce with a person within the degrees forbidden by the (Levitical) law (see Trier, De legibus Mo; saicis de incestu, Frcft. a. Oder, 1726). (See Affinity Consanguinity). "An instinct almost innate and universal," says Gibbon (Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, 4, 351), "appears to prohibit the incestuous commerce of parents and children in the infinite series of ascending and descending generations. Concerning the oblique and collateral branches, nature is indifferent, reason mute, and custom various and arbitrary. In Egypt, the marriage of brothers and sisters was admitted without scruple or exception; a Spartan might espouse the daughter of his father, an Athenian that of his mother; and the nuptials of an uncle with his niece were applauded at Athens as a happy union of the dearest relations. The profane lawgivers of Rome were never tempted by interest or superstition to multiply the forbidden degrees; but they inflexibly condemned the marriage of sisters and brothers, hesitated whether first cousins should be touched by the same interdict, revered the parental character of aunts and uncles, and treated affinity and adoption as a just imitation of the ties of blood. According to the proud maxims of the republic, a legal marriage could only be contracted by free citizens; an honorable, at least an ingenuous birth, was required for the spouse of a senator; but the blood of kings could never mingle in legitimate nuptials with the blood of a Roman; and the name of ‘ stranger' degraded Cleopatra and Berenice to live the concubines of Mark Antony and Titus." Vortigern, king of South Britain, equaled, or, rather, excelled the Egyptians and Persians in wickedness by marrying his own daughter. The queen of Portugal was married to her uncle and the prince of Brazil, the son of that incestuous marriage, wedded his aunt.

But they had dispensations for these unnatural marriages from his holiness. "In order," says Paley, "to preserve chastity in families, and between persons of different sexes brought up and living together in a state of unreserved intimacy, it is necessary, by every method possible, to inculcate an abhorrence of incestuous conjunctions; which abhorrence can only be upheld by the absolute reprobation of all commerce of the sexes between near relations. Upon this principle the marriage, as well as other cohabitation of brothers and sisters of lineal kindred, and of all who usually live in the same family, may be said to be forbidden by the law of nature. Restrictions which extend to remoter degrees of kindred than what this reason makes it necessary to prohibit from intermarriage are founded in the authority of the positive law which ordains them, and can only be justified by their tendency to diffuse wealth, to connect families, or to promote some political advantage." The Roman law calls incestuous connection Incestus juris gentiun, while it designates as Incestus juris civilis the intercourse between other members of the families which it considers within the forbidden degrees. The principal law against incest, however, is the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis of Augustus. Children born of incest (liberi incestuosi) are by it bastardized. The canon law extended the forbidden degrees very far thus giving a more extended signification to the appellation of incest. By it a distinction was made between the Incestusjuris diviini, relating to such degrees of relationship as were already condemned by the Mosaic law, and the Incestus juris hunmani, relating only to such degrees within which marriage is forbidden by ecclesiastical laws. But as in the latter case dispensations can, in the Romish Church, always be obtained, this form of incest is merely considered an offense against the laws of the Church. The penal statute of Charles V concerning incest is based on the Roman law, but includes also cohabitation with a daughter-in-law, a stepdaughter, and a mother-in-law. Consequently incest, properly so called, can only take place between ascendants and descendants, brothers and sisters, parents-in- law and children-in-law, stepparents and step-children. Prosecution for incest, however, is legal only in cases where persons have had sexual intercourse without marriage; it is inapplicable where marriage has been contracted in good faith, and only afterwards the contractors become aware of their connection being incestuous. Modern law, which in the main is based on the Levitical, and from which the rule of the Roman law differs very little, prohibits marriage between relations within three degrees of kindred; computing the generations not from, but through the common ancestor, and accounting affinity the same as consanguinity. The issue, however, of such marriages are not bastardized unless the parents be divorced during their lifetime. Penalties are enacted for incest and unchastity varying from simple imprisonment to hard labor for a term of five or six years. Sexual intercourse between parties in different degrees of the collateral lines is in many cases considered only as punishable by the police regulations. The ascendants are generally punished more severely than the descendants. The modern Jews permit the marriage of cousins, and even of the uncle by a niece. See Pierer, Universal Lexikon, 8, 841; Paley, Moral Philosophy, 1, 316 sq.; Buck, Theological Dictionary, s.v.