- When Genesis 4:17 reports that, “And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch,” we cannot assume that it was Eve that bore Cain’s child. Given their long lifespans (Adam lived for 930 years, as you recall from Genesis 5:5), Eve had many years to produce a daughter/sex partner for Cain. In fact, all of the best scholarship on this matter points to a likely brother-sister pairing.
- Incest was not only permissable, at one time; it was God’s Plan to grow his family. It was only later, in the time of Moses, that God prohibited the practice (Leviticus 18).
None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the Lord. The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness…
(See Leviticus 18:7- for more, as this goes on for quite some time. Basically, nakedness = bad.)
Now, I know what you’re thinking: That’s not possible. God’s Truths are timeless and unchanging. His requirements of us do not bend to the times, like the corrupt “situational ethics” of mealy-mouthed, values-neutral liberals. God’s Truths remain constant over time: What is wrong is wrong today - just as it was yesterday – and will be tomorrow.
Instead, the trick to thinking about Cain’s wife is flexibility
and what I call religious word play - in this case, with the word, “bad.”
You may associate “bad” with the following synomyns:
depraved, corrupt, base, sinful, criminal, atrocious
Sure, “bad” may be used in this way when describing, oh, homosexuals, for instance; but, when it comes to describing First Family incest, you’ll need to rethink the word. It’s sorta like redefining the word “is.”
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
You see, in the case of the brother-sister sex predestined by God, the idea was a fine one (“very good” even); it was only later, post-Fall, that incest became bad-unhealthy.
The following account (accepted by many fundamentalists) explains how it all went down:
Now it is true that children produced in a union between brother and sister have a greater chance to be deformed. As a matter of fact, the closer the couple are in relationship, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed. It is very easy to understand this without going into all the technical details.
Each person inherits a set of genes from his or her mother and father. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways.
However, this fact of present-day life did not apply to Adam and Eve. When the first two people were created, they were perfect. Everything God made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). That means their genes were perfect—no mistakes. But when sin entered the world because of Adam (Genesis 3:6), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over a long period of time, this degeneration would have resulted in all sorts of mistakes occurring in the genetic material of living things.
But Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He, as well as his brothers and sisters, would have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with. In that situation, brother and sister could have married (provided it was one man for one woman, which is what marriage is all about, Matthew 19:4–6) without any potential to produce deformed offspring.
By the time of Moses (about 2,500 years later), degenerative mistakes would have accumulated to such an extent in the human race that it would have been necessary for God to bring in the laws forbidding brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20).
- The evolution of incest
I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year-old definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage.
Boy, his calculations are way off. Good thing Pastor Rick is such an adorable lug, because he’s not much of a mathematician.
Anyhoo, here it is in a nutshell:
Though Adam and Eve were capital-P Perfect, their human genetic code was corrupted following the Fall; since that time, genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation, making it necessary for God to finally declare incest close intermarriage bad-unhealthy.
Ken Ham’s parting challenge to evolutionists on the matter:
You see, if evolution is true, science has an even bigger problem than Cain’s wife to explain—namely, how could man ever evolve by mutations (mistakes) in the first place, since that process would have made everyone’s children deformed? The mere fact that people can produce offspring that are not largely deformed is a testimony to creation, not evolution.
Related posts:
What, is it “opposite day” in fundy land when they discuss ancestral incest and genetic mutation = evolution impossibility?
[laughing] – I never made it much past, “science has an even bigger problem than Cain’s wife to explain.” I didn’t know that it was the job of “science” to explain Cain’s wife :)
Okay, somebody remind me not to go back to answers in genesis again. My brain hurts. Of course, according to them, maybe it hurts because
“… our brains have suffered from 6,000 years of the Curse. We have greatly degenerated compared to people many generations ago. We may be nowhere near as intelligent or inventive as Adam and Eve’s children. Scripture gives us a glimpse of what appears to be advanced technology almost from the beginning.”
So, not only is RW wrong with his 5,000 years of marriage stats, we have been de-evolving the entire time. And now I find out there was*technology* in pre-history, and it was *advanced*.
Must. get. Excedrin.
Of course, this is the setup for, “How would Cain know how to build a city?”
lol – You’re so funny :D Laughter goes so much better with strawberry daiquiris, my drug of choice this evening.
Hmm… you’ve reminded me of a post I’ve written a long while back on Contextual Morality. I think a lot of Christians get themselves into trouble when they talk about Absolute Truth… I know I have! [smile]
~Luke
I was thinking of everything BUT bible rules when I wrote this post, but thanks to you guys, I learn something new every day! Obviously even the ultimate rules of humanity continue to um, “evolve”. . .
How Changing the Rules Changes the Game
Luke, I’ll see your “contextual morality” (which I enjoyed!) and raise you the “two rights make wrongest ethical dilemma” . . .
:)
We delved into this ethical frame on our parent-directed education list years ago. The idea is that right-v-wrong is a moral temptation problem but most of us find that easy. The hard stuff is right v RIGHT, when two right values conflict and so we have an actual ethical “dilemma” where no matter what you do, you can’t treat both rights as absolute answers at the same time. Something’s gotta give . . .
See How Good People Make Tough Choices” and other resources at the International Global Ethics site.
Luke:
To be honest, after reading your post I think I’m far more frightened by Christians’ “contextual morality” than liberals’ “moral relativism.” I do understand why Christians need to strrretch (as contortionists) in order to justify God’s slaughter of innocent born and unborn children, but yikes. Ten points for “good and faithful” intentions though :)
And, speaking of “ten,” should we also be interpreting the Ten Commandments in light of contextual morality?
#5. Thou shalt not murder in most circumstances?
#7. Generally, thou shalt not steal?
Of course, we’d have to re-chisel all those court house monuments to Christianity. What a hassle :(
Luke:
I just went to Isaiah 13 to refresh my memory.
Isaiah 13:11, 16-18
11And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
…
16Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
18Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
So, are you sure you don’t want to just call it a literary device? :) Actually, while I don’t really get your argument – or God’s contextual justification for “dashing children to pieces” – I do give you kudos for owning this stuff, warts and all.
I’m wondering. Have you ever thought of becoming an atheist?? You should, you know [LOL]. Of course, you’d have to stop using super wholesome words like “bop” at your blog – but I think you have potential :)
I’m with the lady with the headache! Good grief~! It is difficult to read/study/learn/care about /believe/know/rationalize/etc…who Cain married~! Or is it just me? *Who* can answer such a question? My most rational thought says “no one” ….
Hey, can you pass me some of that Excedrin??
Uhhh, LOL, I actually have no idea if Meanie is a lady ~!
and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb
**********
So God organizes abortions? Used to? But, like the rules on incest, that rule has evolved?
Such a confusing religion. . .
Nance
I think it’s like any other fan fiction.
Some of it’s really stupid but OTOH true believer stories can be more believable than the original!
Harry Potter fan fiction
Star Trek fan fiction
Yes, I don’t know why people harbored such antipathy toward George Tiller when Tiller was a mere novice compared to God. Go figure :S
Good point, JJ. I wasn’t familiar with the term, “fan fiction,” but it’s an interesting way to think about this stuff :) It’s fan fiction that “apologizes” ;) for the grotesque aspects of the canon.
Wikipedia:
Gosh, I think I could use some fiction fans to follow me around in life and makes excuses for all of my misteps. Any volunteers??? :D
So, tell me the plot of your canonical universe! — if it grabs me, I can be had . . .
Nance, you can see your problem now, right? You are living in the regular literal world of ordinary reality and you haven’t steeped yourself in these “created” ones. Then you are confused and you annoy the faithful by asking them why their created stories don’e match up with the literal facts of history and science books, etc.
I never thought of it this way before but YOU are the literalist, not them! ;-)
“Most fan fiction writers assume that their work is read primarily by other fans, and therefore tend to presume that their readers have knowledge of the canon universe (created by a professional writer) in which their works are based.”
Although I enjoy the funny, the whole thing about Cain’s wife is a moot point. Fan fiction is definitely the apt word!
I’m thinking we need a new group wordpress blog, Lynn you up for it?
Creature fan fiction, perhaps? Or hmm, Groomed by God fan fiction?
Oh wait, there was a good phrase the other day:
“Ecumenical ecstasy and pathology.
That would make a good blog name . . .”
Obviously, JJ, I am living in the wrong world! :)
Nance
Nance:
So, let me help you with the abortion thing,
God’s abortions don’t count against Him because they were performed in a “moral context”; Tiller’s *do* count (against Tiller) because they were performed as an expression of “moral relativism.”
Does that make your confusion go away? :]
JJ:
LOL – very intriguing! Where do I sign up?? :D
Maybe I do need to immerse myself in some fantasy life. Then all of this would start to make more sense. Right? :)
Nance
JJ,
I remember reading that part, too :) It’s too bad that the canon, in this case, includes a “Great Commission,” which specifically targets those outside the fan base. In contrast, if all they ever did was show up at hotel ballrooms in full costume to exchange secret handshakes with one another, I wouldn’t bother to blog – or even think – about it :)
And if they didn’t include their mistresses in these events, the rest of us wouldn’t have to hear about it.
Nance
Miss Roxie
LOL at trying to understand this stuff using “rational thought” :D
Nance:
And, will these family men of God ever stop soliciting sexual favors from male suitors? …Actually, I hope not, because they’re doing a stellar job of refuting their own (anti-gay) arguments, aren’t they?
Bother.
I posted a long response a couple days back but my computer must have eaten it because it’s not here.
Sad times.
I’ll see if I can find the time to type it up again. [sigh] I hate it when technology doesn’t work …especially when it’s my fault [smile].
~Luke
Luke,
I hate losing comments, too. I checked to see if it got stuck for moderation (which can happen if it includes more than 3 links), but it wasn’t there :(
Ooops. Look what I just found…
Submitted on: Jul 6, 2009 @ 7:17
JJ,
Ah, ethics vs. morality [smile]. That’s a very good point, and convoluted in it’s own way. I haven’t had a chance to read the article you linked to–it’s a Monday and I’m swamped–but, yes, that’s a very good point!
boremetotears (I really want a shorter pseudonym [smile]),
I don’t feel a stretch at all. Sometimes these things rub me wrong, or knock me back a bit–like, just this morning, where I read about getting rid of foreign wives (though, there are much more intense passages than that, this is just an example from this morning…). But then I realize I have more to learn. And these issues don’t scare me at all.
Why?
Because “contextual morality” requires that we consider factors outside ourselves when making choices. And to do this properly–i.e. in a way Christ would–we need to be loving… even if that does turn out to be a “tough love” that overshadows our emotional/sexual love (like the passages alluded to above). And, because the situation for the Israelites in the Old Testament is different from my own–context–I don’t see the need to take a spear and drive it through a couple.
Murder? Well, I’m not for murder at all. But killing accidentally, in self defense, often in war, and perhaps at select other times…? That’s not really murder then. But, to take a recent example, am I for “killing” an abortionist because he is a “murderer”? Nope. Not at all.
Stealing? Nope, not for that either. …and I’m not coming up with any counter examples to that one [smile].
“Moral relativism” makes the moral choice about you (what’s right for me…), but contextual morality makes it bigger than me, which is why I find it to be a better method… a true context.
Literary device?
Perhaps. There is much of that in Scripture–arguably, even more than we realize or Christians admit [smile]. The babies bit was mostly an illustration–and, I thought, a good one, since many moralists often say, “No one would say it’s okay to kill babies” while trying to “win” against a “relativist” [smile]–and leaves open the huge can of worms that is the question of “if God allows it, is He responsible?” and all that it entails. I wrote that article a long while back, and while I still really like it, it is certainly far from perfect.
Have I ever thought of becoming an atheist? Sure. Yep. Thought about it, considered it, toyed with the idea. Especially when I’ve just gone through yet another a period where I have been far less than wholesome, and used words that are far from “bop” but of similar length and use letters near some of those in the alphabet [grin]. ‘What’s the point?’ I ask myself, ‘I’m not nearly Christ-like enough. I should just give up. And if this Christianity thing isn’t true then we’re totally screwed‘ (and I’ll let you mull over the etymology of that one based on the context of the thought [smile]. But then I come back to a passage my dad references frequently: Where else would I go?
And, yes, I totally have potential. That’s why I’m a Christian [smile].
~Luke
Woot! [smile]
Thanks!
~Luke