Biblical Response To Incestuous Rape Within Royal Families
The Bible consistently condemns incestuous relationships, viewing them as a profound violation of familial and societal order, even within royal families. The prohibition against incest is rooted in the concept of "nearness of kin" and is not limited to any specific historical period or people [1].
Biblical texts illustrate the severe consequences and moral outrage associated with incest. For example, the defilement of Dinah by Shechem, though not strictly incestuous in the Levitical sense, was considered a "disgraceful thing" and an "outrage against the community of God’s people" [3]. Jacob's sons reacted with fury to this act, indicating the strong cultural condemnation of such sexual crimes [3]. Similarly, the prophet Ezekiel condemns various sexual sins, including incest, describing them as "abominable incest and unnatural lust" [6]. Leviticus 18:7-8 explicitly prohibits sexual relations with one's mother or any of one's father's wives, equating such acts with violating the father himself. This prohibition is linked to the command to honor parents and maintain family integrity [8].
In ancient Israel, the punishment for certain sexual offenses, including adultery, could be severe, even death by burning [4]. While the specific context of royal families is not always detailed, the general principles of divine law applied to all. The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides discusses situations of forbidden intercourse, noting that a person compelled into such relations is not held liable, citing Deuteronomy 22:26, which speaks of the rape of a maiden in a field where she could not be saved [2]. This highlights a distinction between consensual forbidden acts and rape, with the victim of rape not being held responsible for the transgression [2].
The story of Lot, though involving incest, is presented in Scripture with a nuanced perspective by early Christian thinkers. Augustine notes that Lot was considered righteous before his sin, and his actions serve as a warning rather than an example to follow [7]. This patristic interpretation emphasizes that even figures commended in Scripture can commit grave sins, and such accounts are recorded for admonition [7].
The theological understanding of incest prohibitions extends beyond specific legal codes. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, argues that the reason for the prohibition, "nearness of kin," is universally applicable and not confined to the peculiar circumstances of ancient Israel [1]. The disruption caused by incestuous relationships is seen as a fundamental violation of the created order and family structure [8]. The consequences of such sins, even those of ancestors, can affect subsequent generations, as seen in the idea that the iniquities of fathers can impact their families [5].
The biblical narrative, supported by theological and rabbinic interpretations, consistently portrays incest as a grave sin that undermines the fabric of family and community, regardless of the social standing of those involved [1, 3, 6, 8].
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: that question, that it always has been regarded as obligatory by the whole Christian Church. 2. The reason assigned for the prohibition contained in that law, has no special reference to the Jews. It is not found is their peculiar circumstances, nor in the design of God in selecting 411 them to be depositaries of his truth to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah. The reason assigned “is nearness of kin.” This reason has as much force at one time as at another, for all nations as for any one nation. There was nothing peculiar in”
- Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Forbidden Intercourse 1:9: A person compelled [to engage in forbidden relations] is not liable at all, not for lashes nor for a sacrifice. Needless to say, there is no obligation for capital punishment, as [reflected by Deuteronomy 22:26]: "And to the maiden, do not do anything." 25 The verse cited speaks of the rape of a consecrated maiden in a field where even if she had called for help, there would have been none to save her. Since she was compelled to perform the transgression, she is not held responsible. To whom does the above apply? To the vi”
- Genesis (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Genesis 34:5: 34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the ”
- Genesis (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Genesis 38:24: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt--In patriarchal times fathers seem to have possessed the power of life and death over the members of their families. The crime of adultery was anciently punished in many places by burning (Lev 21:9; Jdg 15:6; Jer 29:22). This chapter contains details, which probably would never have obtained a place in the inspired record, had it not been to exhibit the full links of the chain that connects the genealogy of the Saviour with Abraham; and in the disreputable character of the ancestry who figure in this passage, we ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 46: iniquities of their fathers. This is one of the reasons which infidels assign for rejecting the divine origin of the Scriptures. But infidelity furnishes no relief. History is as full of this doctrine as the Bible is. The punishment of the felon involves his family in his disgrace and misery. The spendthrift and drunkard entail poverty and wretchedness upon all connected within them. There is no nation now existing on the face of the earth, whose condition for weal or woe is not largely determined by the character and conduct of their anc”
- Ezekiel (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Ezekiel 22:10: In thee have they discovered - They are guilty of the most abominable incest and unnatural lust. On thee have they humbled - In their unholy and unnatural connexions, they have not abstained from those set apart because of their infirmities. The catalogue of crimes that follow is too plain to require comment.”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 4: Augustine — Anti-Manichaean, Anti-Donatist — BOOK XXII. (part 53): he was rescued from the fire, and a land was given by God to his seed to dwell in, for the sake of his uncle Abraham. On these accounts he is commended in Scripture--not for intemperance or incest. But when we find bad and good actions recorded of the same person, we must take warning from the one, and example from the other. As, then, the sin of Lot, of whom we are told that he was righteous previous to this sin, instead of bringing a stain on the character of God, or the truth of Scripture, rather calls on us to ”
- Leviticus (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Leviticus 18:7: 18:7-8 violate your father: The Hebrew text here equates having sexual relations with your mother or any of your father’s wives with having sexual relations with him (cp. Gen 35:22; 49:4; see also 1 Cor 5:1). The husband and his wife were “two united into one” (Gen 2:24; cp. Eph 5:29). Always in the background of these commands are the commands to honor your parents (Lev 20:9; Exod 20:12) and, by extension, other members of the family (see also study note on Lev 20:17). 18:7 She is your mother: Incest was prohibited because of the disruption it created in famil”