Why Do I Care about Inbreeding? - Post #2 of the Eleven Toes Series

                                       

Why Do I Care about Inbreeding?

Post #2 of the “Eleven Toes” Series

Why do I care about this subject? Short answer: Nothing personal, but it’s been a grossly intriguing subject for me since high school (mainly dealing with the Blue family of Kentucky and speculating similar situations among various communities in southern Missouri [unproven, BTW]). The recent intrigues have come mainly from Bible study and sermon preparation, particularly working through the First Epistle to the Corinthians for about a year, as well as the book of Ruth for several weeks thereafter (Levirate marriage is a “related” topic, pun shamelessly intended).

 

The passage from 1 Corinthians I’m referring to comes from chapter 5, about a particular sin (sexual immorality) defiling a particular church (the church in Corinth). And not just any form of sexual immorality, but one that sounds rather incestuous: a man taking his father’s wife to be his. But is it incestuous, or at least how we would generally define the term? Let’s investigate:

·       “A man has his father’s wife” (1 Cor. 5:1) – no detail, but using words from Leviticus 18:8 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.” Clearly a violation of the Mosaic law, and the punishment was death. But there’s more:

·       “sexual immorality among you (the Corinthian church), and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans” (1 Cor. 5:1). Sounds like the issue would transcend Corinthian culture, and perhaps even the Greco-Roman culture of the time. It’s a sinful issue even the godless would not tolerate.

§  In effect, the Corinthian church is tolerating a grievous sin beyond what the world generally would. à Paul’s statement could be literally true without any exception, but probably not. It would only take one outlier; and given the vitriol thrown at the Apostle Paul on the regular, no doubt many would resort to purposely tolerating such an offense simply to spite him (which could be part of the issue)!

§  I believe the statement should be taken generally, which would be another piece of evidence of this offense transcending culture.

 

Four Assumptions about the union, and a “Therefore”:

     1.     The union is legally considered a marriage, (shacking up isn’t the offense)

     2.     The father/previous husband is dead (his “nakedness” may be “uncovered,” but he’s not actively affected by the shame of the sin), and the offending couple married after his death (i.e., the offender married a widow).

     3.     The couple has no other close, biological relation (such as, she is not her new husband’s birth mother) – This is an assumption with solid Biblical evidence, since the wording of 1 Cor. 5:1 comes directly from Leviticus 18:8. 18:7 refers specifically to the biological mother, and calling that sin uncovering “the nakedness of your father" instead of "the nakedness of your father's wife.” Essentially, she’s his “step mother.”

     4.     His biological mother has been dead for a long time (at least long enough to not be actively affected by the shame of this sin either).

 

Therefore: the man’s wife had been his father’s second wife. And she married her previous husband after Wife #1 died.

 

And how about two more assumptions, just to take away two more possibilities for an offense:

     1.     The wife is closer to her new husband’s age than her previous husband (taking a major difference in age out of the subject),

     2.     She didn’t have any children with her previous husband (taking the presence of children [and consequently half-siblings of to the new "step dad"] out of the picture).

 

The clear taboo is the relationship, but can we even say the marriage is as offensive as Paul is carrying on in chapter 5 if they aren’t even blood relatives? Would the Romans even care about this union if they weren’t blood relatives? What’s so grossly offensive? Part of the answer to these questions will come in the next post, but I'll give you another Biblical example.

·       Biblical Example – Reuben sleeping with his father’s concubine - Gen. 35:22 – [after the birth of Benjamin - considering Jacob's favorite wife-Rachel-dying, and the meaning of Benjamin - "son of my right hand"] "While Israel (Jacob) lived in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine. And Israel heard of it." - That is, the firstborn son of Jacob slept with the mother of two of his sons (Bilhah was Rachel's handmaiden before she became a concubine).

 ·      This sexual immorality even affected Jacob's blessing to him. Genesis 49:3-4 - "Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent and dignity and preeminent in power. Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up to your father's bed; then you defiled it--he went up to my couch!"

Reuben may not have been related to Bilhah, but she was not rightfully his. He broke both the fifth commandment ("Honor thy father and thy mother."), the seventh commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"), the 10th commandment ("Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife [concubine the same in spirit]"), not to mention dishonoring his God and Creator.

Post #3 will address the forbidden marriages within the Mosaic Law, which we’ll notice this is far from the only violation that is not necessarily blood related. Until then, here’s a picture of one of the last pages of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer – “A Table of Kindred and Affinity” (marriages forbidden in the Church of England). Hint: This list was not created carte blanche. It came from the passages of Scripture we’ll isolate and examine in the next post. (Apologies if the pic is too dark and difficult to read. It can also be found online by searching for it.)

 

Final Questions:

1.     What do you think of the marital union recorded in 1 Corinthians 5? Are there any circumstances that would make this type of union acceptable, whether then or today?

2.     Check out the picture listing forbidden marriages in the Church of England. In a more secular world, should the non-blood related couples be considered differently than blood related couples desiring to marry?

Feel free to post your ideas, thoughts, and suggestions for future posts in the comments, or by emailing me at dancalkinsmusic@gmail.com. Blessings!