Most individuals would be surprised to know that anthropologists, whose task is to understand why certain social rules, customs, and values have come into existence, have asked: What was the first rule and first sin?  According to the materialists, the first rule was: One shall not marry a member  of one's 'family'; one must marry out.  The universal rule to 'marry out' was called the "Rule of Exogamy."

 

Contrary to what Marx, Mao, and Sartre declare, the social rule that one must marry-out is innate. It is not a product of SOCIAL EXISTENCE.  For the materialist, this means the first sin was that of INCEST.  

 

For the materialist, the first sin occurred when the first human broke the rule and had sexual relations with a member of his or her 'family' as defined by SOCIAL EXISTENCE in a particular environment.  The sin of INCEST is so abhorrent that in some societies the punishment is death, even today among some.

​

Now the reason the universal rule of exogamy is so important for both the materialist and the theist is that the prohibition, in the words of anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, "sets in motion the creation of social and cultural systems." For the theist, only one type of family should be protected by the Rule of Exogamy; for the materialist, whatever type of family produced by contextual pressures of SOCIAL EXISTENCE should be protected by the Rule of Exogamy. 

​

For the materialist, the idea that there should be only one foundational unit of society, the nuclear family, is a very dangerous idea.  Whatever type of family that come into existence through the shaping of material forces, or, by what the apostle Paul calls the "material elements of the world," must be valid because they will be protected by the Rule of Exogamy. In the words of existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, SOCIAL EXISTENCE PRECEDES AND RULES ESSENCE, man's freedom to choose.

​

While it is true that the Rule of Exogamy will protect whatever type of diverse life-way, cultural systems, or family type that comes into existence, the questions that remain to be answered are:

Since the Rule is innate, did the rule BECOME INNATE after being learned that incest was destructive to society, or, is its innateness, like language, a feature of ESSENCE, or what it means to be a human being living under what professor of Law Herman Dooyeweerd  (1894-1977) called the "inner structural law of the family" whose "membership is absolutely restricted to the parents and their offspring   in the first degree"?

 

For the seventeen different tribes populating the Vaupés jungles of Colombia and Northwest Brazil there exists no "internal structural Law of the Family."  It had been replaced with the structural law of a tribe-language group whose membership is restricted to those who speak the same language.

 

In this case, what the Rule of Exogamy protects is not the nuclear family, but each distinct language group.  According to anthropologist Arthur Sorenson, “the rule is expressed in a formula that one does not marry inside of one’s own tribe-and-language group because one would then be marrying a brother or a sister.”  Sound crazy?  

 

Linguistic Exogamy doesn't sound crazy to the tribes inhabiting the Vaupés jungles of Colombia and  Northwest Brazil. It was their means for suppressing inter-tribal warfare and wife stealing. More importantly, since the Rule is innate, it appears to be a feature of being human. Contrary to what the existentialist thinks, the rule was not invented.

 

At some point in history, tribal leaders collectively decided that practicing linguistic exogamy would bring peace and stop the intertribal warfare. But for the missionary, application of the Rule would also mean that Jesus, "the exact representation of God" on earth (Hebrews 1:3), was a bastard because his earthly parents did not marry "outside one tribe-and-language group."

 

The Function of the Rule of Exogamy 

If there existed no Universal Rule of Exogamy, as anthropologist Kingsley Davis points out, "sex within the nuclear family, across generations or even between them, would not only produce destructive domestic rivalry, but if reproduction were to take place, 'the confusion of statuses would be phenomenal.'"  It would destroy what it meant to be a father, mother, son, daughter, or brother and sister.

 

For anthropologist W. Arens, "the incestuous deed universally judged to be  immoral, is defined here as a product of our unique capacity to supersede natural inclinations.  According to this interpretation, incest, rather than it absence, is the unsightly but nevertheless true mark of humanity, culture, and civilization."  

 

To my surprise, Arens proposes that this innate moral Rule manifests a quality of ESSENCE, that is, a "true mark" as what it means to be human, a SOMEONE positioned in the sphere of culture and freedom. But this is not the position of French anthropologist Lévi-Strauss who insists that NATURE PRECEDES CULTURE, or, in the words of existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, EXISTENCE PRECEDES and RULES ESSENCE. 

 

For anthropologist Lévi-Strauss, the rule of exogamy can be compared to a bridge which provides  "the fundamental [first] step by which ...the transition from nature to culture is accomplished."  Without the rule, the cultural concept of family would not exist. 

 

But as to when this transition from nature to culture took place, Lévi-Strauss confesses, "No empirical analysis can determine the point of transition between the natural and cultural facts." Now if, as a Jew, Lévi-Strauss had not treated the Torah as allegory, he would have realized that such a transition from nature to culture never occurred. Pre-humans did not become humans for whom the first sin was incest. 

 

Rather, a man named Adam, who was created in the "image" of God, committed the first transgression when he broke a Divine Rule.  That Rule was: "You must never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when you eat from it, you will certainly die” (Genesis 2: 17). Adam ate and "sin came into the world by one man, Adam" (Rom. 5:12).

 

The Origin of the Rule and the Rise of Social Disorder

The real shift in social disorder began with the birth of Seth's son Enosh, Cain's nephew. With the birth of Enosh, a new era began. Not only was it the "time people began to worship the Lord" (Genesis 4:26), it was at that time that new status positions came into existence, status positions like uncles, aunts, cousins, and nephews and nieces.  

 

With the birth of Enosh, marrying outside the "nuclear family" became a possibility. The Rule of Exogamy is dependent on the existence of collateral relatives, that is, someone who is not a father, mother, brother, sister, or son, or daughter.

 

With the birth of Enosh, the Rule of Exogamy came into existence in order to prevent social chaos. Cultural diversity exists because the Rule was eventually used to protect what should not be protected, the merging  of mutually exclusive statuses like siblings and cousins, an irrational process needed for the creation of new types of "families."

 

For the materialist, the rule of exogamy serves a function; for the theist, a purpose. But for both, the question that demands an answer is: When did the Rule of Exogamy begin being applied? Materialists like Lévi-Strauss have no answers; the theist does. It began with the birth of Enosh and the creation of collateral relatives, Enosh being the first nephew and Cain the first uncle. 

 

"Proclaiming Paradoxes Is a Sin"

For the theist, the existential question is: Do there exist types of family structures which should not be protected by the Rule of Exogamy because they merge mutually exclusive status positions like siblings and cousins and thus violate the rules of logic?  For the materialist and functionalist the rules of logic do not matter; for the theist,  they do. 

 

For example, though a Kiowa-Apache has only one biological father and mother, he can nevertheless say, "I respect all my fathers and mothers."  Biologically, the sentence is irrational, absurd, and violates the Law of Identity which says A (uncles and aunts) cannot be B (fathers and mothers).  For the theist, biology matters; for the functionalist, biology does not matter and the classification of uncles and aunts as "parents" is considered to be valid if it satisfies a need.  

 

For Christian philosopher Gordon Clark, logic matters.  "The use of straight-line logic is a virtue, curbing logic and proclaiming paradoxes is a sin."   Classifying cousins as "siblings" and uncles and aunts as "parents" not only creates paradoxes, the process also violated the rules  of logic. Biologically and linguistically, "Membership [in the family] is absolutely restricted to the parents and their offspring in the first degree."  

But for the materialist who rejects logic, whatever type of "family" SOCIAL EXISTENCE creates by merging mutually exclusive status positions must be good for society because it satisfies a need.

​

The Importance of the Rule of Exogamy

Now how important is an unlearned, universal social rule that requires an individual to marry outside one’s intimate group called “family”?  In the field of missiology, it is incredibly important. There exists no rule in life that more defines who we are as individuals and as a society.

 

From a top-down, inside-out epistemology, the purpose of this universal unlearned Rule of Exogamy is to protect the nuclear family and the integrity of its internal structure. However, since man exists as a transcendent being positioned to exist above nature in the sphere of freedom, he has the capacity to misuse his freedom.  

 

He can use his freedom to rearrange the internal structure of the nuclear family and create new types of "families," "families" created by defying the law of logic by merging mutually exclusive statuses.  But for theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, "No philosophy or religion can change the structure of human existence." 

​

Convictions

1. The purpose of the universal Rule of Exogamy is to protect the nuclear family and the integrity of its internal structure. 

2. The Rule of Exogamy was woven into the very fabric of  our being when Adam was created in God's "image."  As a Divine Principle, it is brought to consciousness by being triggered in a socio-linguist situation, informing ego  to "marry outside the family lest one commit incest."

3. Whenever a society uses its freedom to deviate from the Divine Norm as stated in Genesis 2:24 and creates a new type of family structure, it will use the Rule of Exogamy to protect the deviant form. It represents a demonic misuse of the Rule.

4. Whenever the structural Law of the Family is violated, there occurs a shift from ORDER to DISORDER and the functionalist's belief that EXISTENCE PRECEDES and RULES ESSENCE.