Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover [their] nakedness: I [am] the LORD.
6. A general exhortation (hence perhaps the plural; see above), introductory to the enumeration of specific cases. Baentsch attributes it to the author of the preceding verses.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Near of kin – See the margin. The term was evidently used to denote those only who came within certain limits of consanguinity, together with those who by affinity were regarded in the same relationship.
To uncover their nakedness – i. e. to have sexual intercourse. The immediate object of this law was to forbid incest.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 18:6-30
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him.
Consanguinity
1. God the institutor of marriage (Lev 18:6).
2. Faith in Christ not commanded in the law (Lev 18:5).
3. Of the several kinds of kindred by consanguinity or affinity.
4. Of the computation of the degrees of consanguinity.
(1) Consanguinity is a communicating in blood, derived from one stock.
(2) Affinity is a respective alliance and kindred which comes in by marriage.
(3) A line is a collection of persons coming from the stock.
(4) And it is threefold: the right line Ascending, as the father, grandfather; or descending, as the son, &c.; or collateral above, as the fathers brother–or in the middle, as brother, sister, uncles children–or below, as brothers son or daughter, and their sons and daughters.
(5) A degree is the distance of persons from the stock.
(6) In the right line ascending or descending, there are as many degrees as generations and persons.
(7) In the collateral line there are as many degrees as persons.
(8) In the collateral line the prohibition is extended to the fourth degree.
(9) In the right line ascending and descending, the impediment is perpetual when they are alive or dead, as grounded upon the law of nature.
(10) The same degrees are forbidden ascending and descending by the like analogy.
(11) The same degrees are restrained by the like analogy in both sexes.
(12) Where the degree further off is forbidden, the nearer are inclusively interdicted.
5. Of the computation of the degrees of affinity.
(1) In what degree of consanguinity the husband is distant, in the same degree of affinity the wife is removed, because man and wife are one flesh.
(2) One person added to another by carnal copulation changes the kind of affinity, not the degree: as the brothers wife is of affinity in the second degree, and first kind; if after she marry another husband, he is in the same degree of affinity, but in the second kind.
(3) There are three kinds of affinity–the near, middle, and remote: as the brothers wife is in the first kind, the brothers wifes second husband in the second, the second husbands second wife in the third.
(4) Affinity in the first kind is a perpetual impediment.
(5) Between such as are of kindred in blood to the husband, and them that are of kin to the wife, there is no affinity to hinder marriage: as, two brothers may marry two sisters.
(6) In the degrees of affinity ascending and descending in the right line, the prohibition is infinitely extended without any limitation: as, it is not lawful to marry the wifes daughters daughter, and so downward, nor the wifes mother, or grandmother, and so upward.
(7) In the collateral line, affinity is restrained to the third degree, as to uncles wife, who is in the same degree of affinity that her husband is in consanguinity.
(8) Of the agreements and differences between the degrees of consanguinity and affinity.
(1) Agreement.
(a) In what degree one is of consanguinity, the wife or husband is in the same degree of affinity.
(b) The impediment in both continues not only during life but afterward.
(c) The prohibition extends itself in both alike, in the right line ascending and descending without limitation; and in the collateral to the third degree expressly, and by a certain analogy to the fourth.
(2) Differences.
(a) The efficient cause of consanguinity is a natural obligation, without any relation to the will and consent of man, in the propagation and the line of consanguinity; but in affinity there is a voluntary bond or obligation by consent in marriage.
(b) Consanguinity is by generation from one, both father and mother; affinity is by the copulation of two. The first is real, the second by relation.
(c) In consanguinity, on both sides the bond holds, both by the father and mother, but the kinsmen of the husband are not of affinity to the kindred of the wife; on the contrary, affinity holds only in the first kind, which changes by a new copulation, though the degree alter not, as the brothers wifes second husband is not properly of affinity; but in consanguinity, the kind and degree hold out together.
6. Marriage of divers wives successively, lawful, though not together (Lev 18:18).
7. The Scripture most pure, even when it makes mention of impure and obscene things. (A. Willet, D. D.)
Moral observations
1. To walk constantly in the obedience of Gods law (Lev 18:4).
2. Against the monstrous sin of adultery (Lev 18:20).
3. Against the unnatural and most abominable sin of bestiality (Lev 18:23).
4. To profit by other mens examples, and to be warned by their punishments (Lev 18:25).
5. God not partial in His judgments, and therefore no man should presume (Lev 18:28). (A. Willet, D. D.)
On marriage with a deceased wifes sister
By the wording of the Hebrew text a man is permitted to marry his deceased wifes sister, but not to have two sisters for wives at the same time, or one after the other while both are living–this is the logical inference to be drawn from the qualifying addition in her lifetime; and yet by the spirit of the Levitical laws, the former alliance also is like an alliance with a sister, and therefore no less objectionable. Such scruples were indeed unknown to the Hebrews of earlier times, since even in Genesis Jacob is represented as the husband of the sisters Rachel and Leah; but they followed with necessity from the severe theory of marriage gradually worked out and adopted. Philo, in the oldest explanation of our law that has come down to us, observes that it is impious for one sister to usurp the place of the other, and to make the misfortune of the latter a stepping-stone of her own happiness; thus bitter jealousies and implacable enmities must be engendered; and it would be as if the different members of the body, abandoning their natural harmony and fellowship, were to quarrel with one another, thus inevitably causing incurable diseases and endless mischief. In this sense the prohibition has commonly been understood, and if the words of our verse alone are weighed, it can hardly be understood otherwise: and yet the matrimonial laws, taken as a whole, were not prompted by considerations of mere expediency, such as the prevention of unsisterly rivalry, since their main object was to warn against alliances between near relations (verse 6). From whatever side we weigh the question, we cannot help being struck by the incongruity of a code which permits a woman to marry, at least under certain conditions, her sisters husband, but expressly forbids a man to marry his brothers wife. If the wife dies, her husband does not cease to be the brother of that wifes sister; yet practical life seemed to demand some relief from the rigour of abstract logic, and the prohibition was limited to the lifetime of both sisters. It has bee contended that this was a concession analogous to the levirat and the permission of divorce; but the cases are not quite parallel: the Levitical legislators are entirely silent with regard to the levirat and divorce; for in their own time the former was unnecessary, and the latter was strongly opposed by contemporaries, such as Malachi; a direct repeal of the two statutes, known to the people as a part of Deuteronomy, or the Book of the Law, was unfeasible; and silence on these subjects was sufficiently significant. We need hardly add that these remarks are merely designed to elucidate the meaning and intention of the command, without attempting to decide upon its value or its binding force; the latter points must be left to individual judgment and feeling, which in no other sphere claim greater respect and freedom. The prevailing laws of matrimony may possibly, in the course of time, call for revision; and progress and liberty of action should not be checked by a misconception of Biblical authority. The very verse under consideration affords the strongest proof that the ordinances of the Levitical code are not final and unalterable; for this verse involves the sanction of polygamy, which, not even abrogated by Christ and the apostles, is now regarded by western Jews and Christians not merely as inexpedient, but as immoral. It is well known that from comparatively early times, many chiefs of the Christian Church indeed translated the words of our verse literally, yet weighing the spirit of the law, were strongly opposed to the marriage with the deceased wifes sister. By the Apostolic Canons (about 300) persons contracting such an alliance were for ever incapacitated for clerical functions. The Council of Illiberis (about 305) excluded them from holy communion for five years; St. Basil (375) imposed upon them for seven years the ecclesiastical penalties fixed for adultery; his celebrated letter on the subject proves that, in the Church a custom equivalent to a law, and handed down by holy men had been established against such marriages; it was in his time probably that the Septuagint (in Deu 27:23) received the interpolation found in the Vatican copy of that version, Cursed be he who lies with his wifes sister; and similar views were enforced by the emperors Constantius and Theodosius, Honorius, Theodosius II., and Justinian, and by all the leaders of the Greek and Latin Church: the only notable exception is Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus; but he was indignantly opposed by his contemporary St. Basil, who declared that such marriages are indeed permitted to the Jews because they are under the law and all its ceremonial enactments, but not to the free Christians, and asked how the offspring of the two sisters would be related to each other, whether they should be called cousins or brothers, since by a deplorable confusion they could claim both names. In England those marriages were forbidden in 1603 by the Convocation of the province of Canterbury in a Canon which has never been formally ratified by Parliament. Dispensations were, however, readily granted in the Roman Church; and since the last century many Protestant theologians and jurists, and among the first those of the pietistic schools, as Philip Jacob Spener, declared marriage with the deceased wifes sister unobjectionable, since the prohibition is not unequivocally enjoined in the Bible. It was disapproved of by the Karaites; but among the bulk of the Jews it has at all times not only been tolerated but encouraged. (M. M. Kalisch, Ph. D.)
Of unlawful marriages
As the chosen and covenant tribes of Israel were soon to take up their journey to the land of Canaan, the inhabitants of which were to be exterminated for their multifarious iniquities in the sight of God, a recital is here made of some of those aggravated forms of wickedness which were rife among them, and which God had determined signally to punish. This is done not only to illustrate the justice of the Divine proceedings in their excision, but also with a view to put the peculiar people themselves on their guard against yielding to the contagion of their pernicious example, and thus becoming obnoxious to the same fearful retributions which were now about to be visited upon the Canaanites. The particular class of abominations more especially pointed out in this chapter, and to which the brand-mark of the Divine reprobation is so conspicuously affixed, is that of incestuous connections. Not only had that abandoned race been guilty of a total apostacy from the worship of the true God, substituting in His room the sun, and moon, and host of heaven, and bowing down to stocks and stones and creeping things, but they had mingled with their idolatry every vice that could degrade human nature and pollute society. In the black catalogue of these the abominations of lust Stand pre-eminent; and whether in the form of adultery, fornication, incest, sodomy, or bestiality, they had now risen to a pitch of enormity which the forbearance of heaven could tolerate no longer, and of which a shuddering dread was to be begotten in the minds of the people of the covenant. And in order that no possible plea of ignorance or uncertainty might be left in their minds as to those connections which were lawful and those which were forbidden, the Most High proceeds in the present and in the 20th chapter to lay down a number of specific prohibitions on this subject, so framed, as not only to include the extra-nuptial pollutions, which had prevailed among the heathen, but also all those incestuous unions which were inconsistent with the purit and sanctity of the marriage relation. Both classes of crimes we think are in fact included; so that it is doing no violence to the spirit of the text to regard it as containing a system of marriage-laws by which the peculiar people were ever after to be governed. As this is the only passage in the compass of the whole Bible where any formal enactments are given on this subject, this and the connected chapters treating of this theme have always been deemed of peculiar importance in their relations to the question of the lawful degrees within which the marriage connection may now be formed by those who make the law of God the great standard of moral duty. (G. Bush.)
The wilderness a suitable place for the giving of these laws
The wilderness in which they now were was a very fit place for enjoining these laws upon the Israelites, as they were now removed from the snares and temptations of Egypt, and were not yet mingled with the people of Canaan. (Bp. Kidder.)
Need for marriage laws
The necessity for laws on this point at once discriminating, wise, and stringent, will be sufficiently obvious when we consider the strength of the passion to be controlled–constitutionally common to all ages of the world; the sacredness of the marriage relation and the inestimable value of moral purity in all human society–also common to all ages of the worlds history; and (peculiar to the earlier ages) the necessity of defining the limits of consanguinity within which marriage should be prohibited. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that the race having sprung from a single pair and the world having been repeopled a second time from one family, those primitive examples may have sent down for many generations a certain looseness which called for special restraint and a carefully defining law. The crimes of Sodom, their polluting influence in so good a family as that of Lot; the low morals of Egyptian life; some sad manifestations in the early history of Jacobs family; the horrible contagion of Moab and Midian when the tribes of Israel came socially near them; these and kindred facts will be readily recalled as in point to show the necessity of vigorous legislation in the Mosaic code to counteract these untoward influences of their antecedent life and of surrounding society. (H. Cowles, D. D.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 6. Any that is near of kin] col shear besaro, any remnant of his flesh, i. e., to any particularly allied to his own family, the prohibited degrees in which are specified from Le 18:7-17 inclusive. Notwithstanding the prohibitions here, it must be evident that in the infancy of the world, persons very near of kin must have been joined in matrimonial alliances; and that even brothers must have matched with their own sisters. This must have been the case in the family of Adam. In these first instances necessity required this; when this necessity no longer existed, the thing became inexpedient and improper for two reasons:
1. That the duties owing by nature to relatives might not be confounded with those of a social or political kind; for could a man be a brother and a husband, a son and a husband, at the same time, and fulfil the duties of both? Impossible.
2. That by intermarrying with other families, the bonds of social compact might be strengthened and extended, so that the love of our neighbour, c., might at once be felt to be not only a maxim of sound policy, but also a very practicable and easy duty and thus feuds, divisions, and wars be prevented.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
None, Heb. no man, For though the women also be bound by this law, yet the men alone are mentioned, both because they are most active in the choice of their yoke-fellows, and therefore most likely to transgress these laws, and because they having authority over the women, could have the greater influence upon them, by their power, counsel, or example, to oblige them either to the observation or violation of them.
Approach: this word signifies the conjugal act here, as it doth Gen 20:4; Isa 8:3; but because it is ambiguous in itself, it is so limited and explained in the end of the verse.
To any that is near of kin to him: this is the general rule, which is particularly expounded and applied in the following instances. And these laws are so just and reasonable, that although the barbarous nations did allow of such incestuous marriages, yet wiser and civil heathens by the mere light of nature condemned them, as may be seen in Suetonius, Tacitus, Catullus, and others.
Their nakedness, i.e. their secret parts, so called to put us in mind of the fall of our first parents, whose first sense and shame of their nakedness had its rise from thence. This phrase notes the same thing with knowing, Gen 4:1; and with discovering ones skirt, Deu 22:30; 27:20.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. None of you shall approach to anythat is near of kin to himVery great laxity prevailed amongstthe Egyptians in their sentiments and practice about the conjugalrelation, as they not only openly sanctioned marriages betweenbrothers and sisters, but even between parents and children. Suchincestuous alliances Moses wisely prohibited, and his laws form thebasis upon which the marriage regulations of this and other Christiannations are chiefly founded. This verse contains a general summary ofall the particular prohibitions; and the forbidden intercourse ispointed out by the phrase, “to approach to.” In thespecified prohibitions that follow, all of which are included in thisgeneral summary, the prohibited familiarity is indicated by thephrases, to “uncover the nakedness” [Le18:12-17], to “take” [Lev 18:17;Lev 18:18], and to “lie with”[Lev 18:22; Lev 18:23].The phrase in this sixth verse, therefore, has the same identicalmeaning with each of the other three, and the marriages in referenceto which it is used are those of consanguinity or too close affinity,amounting to incestuous connections.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him,…. Or to all “the rest of his flesh” t, which together with his make one flesh, who are of the same flesh and blood with him, and are united together in the bonds of consanguinity; and such, with respect to a man, are his mother, sister, and daughter; his mother, of whom he was born, his sister, who lay in and sprung from the same “venter” he did, and his daughter, who is his own flesh; and with respect to a woman, her father brother, and son, who are in the same degree of relation, and both sexes are included in this prohibition; for though in the original text it is “a man, a man” u, yet as it takes in every man, so every woman: hence, as Jarchi observes, it is expressed in the plural number, “do not ye approach”, to caution both male and female; and it is also understood by the Talmudists w of Gentiles as well as Israelites, for they ask, what is the meaning of the phrase “a man, a man?” the design of it is, they say, to comprehend the Gentiles, who are equally cautioned against incests as the Israelites; and indeed the inhabitants of the land of Canaan are said to defile the land with the incests and other abominations hereafter mentioned, and for which they were driven out of it: now when man and woman are forbidden to “approach” to those of the same flesh and blood with them, the sense is not that they may not come into each other’s company, or make use of any civil or friendly salutations, or have a free and familiar conversation with each other, provided that modesty and chastity be preserved; but they are not so to draw near as to lie with, or have carnal knowledge of one another, in which sense the phrase is used,
Ge 20:4; or to tempt to it or solicit it, and as it follows, which explains the meaning of it,
to uncover [their] nakedness; that is, those parts, which, by a contrary way of speaking, are so called, which should never be naked or exposed to view; but should be always covered, as nature teaches to do, and as our first parents did, when they perceived themselves naked, and were ashamed, Ge 3:7: this phrase signifies the same as to lie with another, or have carnal knowledge of them, wherefore the following laws are generally understood of incestuous marriages; for if such an action is not to be done between persons standing in such a relation, as here in general, and afterwards more particularly described, then there ought to be no intermarriages between them; and if such marriages are forbidden, and such actions unlawful in a married state, then much more in an unmarried one; wherefore the several following instances are so many breaches of the seventh command, Ex 20:14, and so many explications and illustrations of it, and consequently of a moral nature, and binding upon all men, Jews and Gentiles:
I [am] the Lord; that gave this caution, and enjoined this prohibition, and would greatly resent and severely revenge the neglect of it: the particulars follow.
t “ad omnes reliquias carnis suae”, Montanus; “ad quascunque reliquias carnis suae”, Tigurine version. u “vir, vir”, Montanus, Vatablus, Drusius. w T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 57. 2. T. Hieros. Kiddushin, fol. 58. 2, 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The laws against incest are introduced in Lev 18:6 with the general prohibition, descriptive of the nature of this sin, “None of you shall approach to any flesh of his flesh, to uncover nakedness.” The difference between flesh, and flesh, is involved in obscurity, as both words are used in connection with edible flesh (see the Lexicons). “Flesh of his flesh” is a flesh that is of his own flesh, belongs to the same flesh as himself (Gen 2:24), and is applied to a blood-relation, blood-relationship being called (or flesh-kindred) in Hebrew (Lev 18:17). Sexual intercourse is called uncovering the nakedness of another (Eze 16:36; Eze 23:18). The prohibition relates to both married and unmarried intercourse, though the reference is chiefly to the former (see Lev 18:18; Lev 20:14, Lev 20:17, Lev 20:21). Intercourse is forbidden (1) with a mother, (2) with a step-mother, (3) with a sister or half-sister, (4) with a granddaughter, the daughter of either son or daughter, (5) with the daughter of a step-mother, (6) with an aunt, the sister of either father or mother, (7) with the wife of an uncle on the father’s side, (8) with a daughter-in-law, (9) with a sister-in-law, or brother’s wife, (10) with a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter, and (11) with two sisters at the same time. No special reference is made to sexual intercourse with ( a) a daughter, ( b) a full sister, ( c) a mother-in-law; the last, however, which is mentioned in Deu 27:23 as an accursed crime, is included here in No. 10, and the second in No. 3, whilst the first, like parricide in Exo 21:15, is not expressly noticed, simply because the crime was regarded as one that never could occur. Those mentioned under Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10 were to be followed by the death or extermination of the criminals (Lev 20:11-12, Lev 20:14, Lev 20:17), on account of their being accursed crimes (Deu 23:1; Deu 27:20, Deu 27:22-23). On the other hand, the only threat held out in the case of the connection mentioned under Nos. 6, 7, and 9, was that those who committed such crimes should bear their iniquity, or die childless (Lev 20:19-21). The cases noticed under Nos. 4 and 5 are passed over in ch. 20, though they no doubt belonged to the crimes which were to be punished with death, and No. 11, for which no punishment was fixed, because the wrong had been already pointed out in Lev 18:18.
(Note: The marriage laws and customs were much more lax among the Gentiles. With the Egyptians it was lawful to marry sisters and half-sisters ( Diod. Sic. i. 27), and the licentiousness of the women was very great among them (see at Gen 39:6.). With the Persians marriage was allowed with mother, daughter, and sister ( Clem. Al. strom. iii. p. 431; Eusebii praep. ev. vi. 10); and this is also said to have been the case with the Medians, Indians, and Ethiopians, as well as with the Assyrians ( Jerome adv. Jovin. ii. 7; Lucian, Sacriff. 5); whereas the Greeks and Romans abhorred such marriages, and the Athenians and Spartans only permitted marriages with half-sisters (cf. Selden de jure nat. et gent. v. 11, pp. 619ff.). The ancient Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, were very strict in this respect, and would not allow of marriage with a mother, daughter, or aunt on either the father’s or mother’s side, or with two sisters at the same time. The only cases on record of marriage between brothers and sisters are among the Arabs of Marbat ( Seetzen, Zach’s Mon. Corresp. Oct. 1809). This custom Mohammed raised into a law, and extended it to nieces, nurses, foster-sisters, etc. ( Koran, Sure iv. 20ff.).)
Elaborate commentaries upon this chapter are to be found in Michaelis Abhandl. ber die Ehegesetze Mosis, and his Mos. Recht; also in Saalschtz Mos. Recth. See also my Archologie ii. p. 108. For the rabbinical laws and those of the Talmud, see Selden oxur ebr. lib. 1, c. 1ff., and Saalschtz ut sup.
The enumeration of the different cases commences in Lev 18:7 very appropriately with the prohibition of incest with a mother. Sexual connection with a mother is called “uncovering the nakedness of father and mother.” As husband and wife are one flesh (Gen 2:24), the nakedness of the husband is uncovered in that of his wife, or, as it is described in Deu 22:30; Deu 27:20, the wing, i.e., the edge, of the bedclothes of the father’s bed, as the husband spreads his bedclothes over his wife as well as himself (Rth 3:9). For, strictly speaking, is only used with reference to the wife; but in the dishonouring of his wife the honour of the husband is violated also, and his bed defiled, Gen 49:4. It is wrong, therefore, to interpret the verse, as Jonathan and Clericus do, as relating to carnal intercourse between a daughter and father. Not only is this at variance with the circumstance that all these laws are intended for the man alone, and addressed expressly to him, but also with Lev 18:8, where the nakedness of the father’s wife is distinctly called the father’s shame.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Incest Defined and Forbidden; Against Marrying Near Relations. | B. C. 1490. |
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. 9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 11 The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman. 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman. 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. 17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. 18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
These laws relate to the seventh commandment, and, no doubt, are obligatory on us under the gospel, for they are consonant to the very light and law of nature: one of the articles, that of a man’s having his father’s wife, the apostle speaks of as a sin not so much as named among the Gentiles, 1 Cor. v. 1. Though some of the incests here forbidden were practised by some particular persons among the heathen, yet they were disallowed and detested, unless among those nations who had become barbarous, and were quite given up to vile affections. Observe,
I. That which is forbidden as to the relations here specified is approaching to them to uncover their nakedness, v. 6.
1. It is chiefly intended to forbid the marrying of any of these relations. Marriage is a divine institution; this and the sabbath, the eldest of all, of equal standing with man upon the earth: it is intended for the comfort of human life, and the decent and honourable propagation of the human race, such as became the dignity of man’s nature above that of the beasts. It is honourable in all, and these laws are for the support of the honour of it. It was requisite that a divine ordinance should be subject to divine rules and restraints, especially because it concerns a thing wherein the corrupt nature of man is as apt as in any thing to be wilful and impetuous in its desires, and impatient of check. Yet these prohibitions, besides their being enacted by an incontestable authority, are in themselves highly reasonable and equitable. (1.) By marriage two were to become one flesh, therefore those that before were in a sense one flesh by nature could not, without the greatest absurdity, become one flesh by institution; for the institution was designed to unite those who before were not united. (2.) Marriage puts an equality between husband and wife. “Is she not thy companion taken out of thy side?” Therefore, if those who before were superior and inferior should intermarry (which is the case in most of the instances here laid down), the order of nature would be taken away by a positive institution, which must by no means be allowed. The inequality between master and servant, noble and ignoble, is founded in consent and custom, and there is no harm done if that be taken away by the equality of marriage; but the inequality between parents and children, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, either by blood or marriage, is founded in nature, and is therefore perpetual, and cannot without confusion be taken away by the equality of marriage, the institution of which, though ancient, is subsequent to the order of nature. (3.) No relations that are equals are forbidden, except brothers and sisters, by the whole blood or half blood, or by marriage; and in this there is not the same natural absurdity as in the former, for Adam’s sons must of necessity have married their own sisters; but it was requisite that it should be made by a positive law unlawful and detestable, for the preventing of sinful familiarities between those that in the days of their youth are supposed to live in a house together, and yet cannot intermarry without defeating one of the intentions of marriage, which is the enlargement of friendship and interest. If every man married his own sister (as they would be apt to do from generation to generation if it were lawful), each family would be a world to itself, and it would be forgotten that we are members one of another. It is certain that this has always been looked upon by the more sober heathen as a most infamous and abominable thing; and those who had not this law yet were herein a law to themselves. The making use of the ordinance of marriage for the patronizing of incestuous mixtures is so far from justifying them, or extenuating their guilt, that it adds the guilt of profaning an ordinance of God, and prostituting that to the vilest of purposes which was instituted for the noblest ends. But,
2. Uncleanness, committed with any of these relations out of marriage, is likewise, without doubt, forbidden here, and no less intended than the former: as also all lascivious carriage, wanton dalliance, and every thing that has the appearance of this evil. Relations must love one another, and are to have free and familiar converse with each other, but it must be with all purity; and the less it is suspected of evil by others the more care ought the persons themselves to take that Satan do not get advantage against them, for he is a very subtle enemy, and seeks all occasions against us.
II. The relations forbidden are most of them plainly described; and it is generally laid down as a rule that what relations of a man’s own he is bound up from marrying the same relations of his wife he is likewise forbidden to marry, for they two are one. That law which forbids marrying a brother’s wife (v. 16) had an exception peculiar to the Jewish state, that, if a man died without issue, his brother or next of kin should marry the widow, and raise up seed to the deceased (Deut. xxv. 5), for reasons which held good only in that commonwealth; and therefore now that those reasons have ceased the exception ceases, and the law is in force, that a man must in no case marry his brother’s widow. That article (v. 18) which forbids a man to take a wife to her sister supposes a connivance at polygamy, as some other laws then did (Exo 21:10; Deu 21:15), but forbids a man’s marrying two sisters, as Jacob did, because between those who had before been equal there would be apt to arise greater jealousies and animosities than between wives that were not so nearly related. If the sister of the wife be taken for the concubine, or secondary wife, nothing can be more vexing in her life, or as long as she lives.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 6-16:
Incest is strictly forbidden. Incest is “sexual relations between persons related within the degrees wherein marriage is forbidden by law.” The text defines these degrees:
1. Parent and child, including the “in-laws,” and step-parents.
2. Brother and sister, including the “in-laws,” and step-children. An exception to this was practiced in patriarchal times (Ge 38:8), and prescribed in the Law (De 25:5), in which a man was commanded to marry his brother’s childless widow to “raise up a seed” to his deceased brother. This was not an accommodation to the fleshly desires of the surviving brother, but a family duty imposed by law, and was often not in accord with the brother’s personal desires.
3. Aunt/uncle and niece/nephew, whether paternal or maternal.
4. Grandparents and grandchildren, whether paternal or maternal.
All sexual relationships are prohibited between all who are related by blood or by affinity to the degree defined in the text.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. None of you shall approach to any that is near. This name does not include all female relations; for cousin-ger-mans of the father’s or mother’s side are permitted to intermarry; but it must be restricted to the degrees, which He proceeds to enumerate, and is merely a brief preface, declaring that there are certain degrees of relationship which render marriages incestuous. We may, therefore, define these female relations of blood to be those which are spoken of immediately afterwards, viz., that a son should not marry his mother, nor a son-in-law his mother-in-law; nor a paternal or maternal uncle his niece, nor a grandfather his granddaughter, nor a brother his sister, nor a nephew his paternal or maternal aunt, or his uncle’s wife, nor a father-in-law his daughter-in-law, nor a brother-in-law his brother’s wife, nor a step-father his stepdaughter. The Roman laws accord with the rule prescribed by God, as if their authors had learnt from Moses what was decorous and agreeable to nature. The phrase which God uses frequently “to uncover the turpitude,” is intended to awaken abhorrence, in order that the Israelites may beware more diligently of all incest. The Hebrew word, indeed, ערוה, gnervah, signifies nakedness, therefore some translate it actively, “the nakedness of thy father,” i e. , the womb which thy father hath uncovered; but this meaning would not be suitable to the nakedness of thy daughter, or thy daughter-in-law, or thy sister. Consequently, there is no doubt but that Moses means to denote that it is a filthy and shameful thing.
We must remember, what I have already hinted, that not only are incestuous connections out of wedlock condemned, but that the degrees are pointed out, within which marriages are unlawful. It is true, indeed, that this was a part of the political constitution which God established for His ancient people; still, it must be borne in mind, that whatever is prescribed here is deduced from the source of rectitude itself, and from the natural feelings implanted in us by Him. Absurd is the cleverness which some persons but little versed in Scripture pretend to, (87) who assert that the Law being abrogated, the obligations under which Moses laid his countrymen are now dissolved; for it is to be inferred from the preface above expounded, that. the instruction here given is not, nor ought to be accounted, merely political. For, since their lusts had led astray all the neighboring nations into incest, God, in order to inculcate chastity amongst his people, says; “I am the Lord your God, ye shall therefore keep my statutes; walk not after the doings of the land of Egypt and of Canaan;” and then He adds what are the degrees of consanguinity and affinity within which the marriage of men and women is forbidden. If any again object that what has been disobeyed in many countries is not to be accounted the law of the Gentiles, the reply is easy, viz., that the barbarism, which prevailed in the East, does not nullify that chastity which is opposed to the abominations of the Gentiles; since what is natural cannot be abrogated by any consent or custom. In short, the prohibition of incests here set forth, is by no means of the number of those laws which are commonly abrogated according to the circumstances of time and place, since it flows from the fountain of nature itself, and is founded on the general principle of all laws, which is perpetual and inviolable. Certainly God declares that the custom which had prevailed amongst the heathen was displeasing to Him; and why is this, but because nature itself repudiates and abhors filthiness, although approved of by the consent ( suffragiis) of men? Wherefore, when God would by this distinction separate His chosen people from heathen nations, we may assuredly conclude that the incests which He commands them to avoid are absolute pollutions. Paul, on a very trifling point, sets before our eyes the law of nature; for, when he teaches that it is shameful and indecorous for women to appear in public without veils, he desires them to consider, whether it would be decent for them to present themselves publicly with their heads shorn; and finally adds, that nature itself does not permit it. (1Co 11:14.) Wherefore, I do not see, that, under the pretext of its being a political Law, (88) the purity of nature is to be abolished, from whence arises the distinction between the statutes of God, and the abuses of the Gentiles. If this discipline were founded on the utility of a single people, or on the custom of a particular time, or on present necessity, or on any other circumstances, the laws deduced from it might be abrogated for new reasons, or their observance might be dispensed with in regard to particular persons, by special privilege; but since, in their enactment, the perpetual decency of nature was alone regarded, not even a dispensation of them would be permissible. It may indeed be decreed that it should be lawful and unpunished, since it is in the power of princes to remit penalties; yet no legislator can effect that a thing, which nature pronounces to be vicious, should not be vicious; and, if tyrannical arrogance dares to attempt it, the light of nature will presently shine forth and prevail. When, formerly, the Emperor Claudius had married his niece Agrippina, (89) for the purpose of averting the shame, he procured a Senatusconsultum, which licensed such marriages; yet no one was found to imitate his example, except one freedman. Hence, just and reasonable men will acknowledge that, even amongst heathen nations, this Law was accounted indissoluble, as if implanted and engraved on the hearts of men. On this ground Paul, more severely to reprove the incest of a step-son with his father’s wife, says, that such an occurrence “is not so much as named among the Gentiles.” (1Co 5:1.)
If it be objected that such marriages are not prohibited to us in the New Testament, I reply, that the marriage of a father with his daughter is not forbidden; nor is a mother prohibited from marrying her son; and shall it therefore be lawful for those, who are near of kin, to form promiscuous connections? (90) Although Paul expressly mentions only one kind of incest, yet he establishes its disgrace by adducing the example of the Gentiles, that at least we should be ashamed if more delicacy and chastity is seen amongst them. And:. in fact, another admonition of the same Paul is enough for me, who thus writes to the Philippians:
“
Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” (Phi 4:8.)
As to those who ascend or descend ill a direct line, it, sufficiently appears that there is a monstrous indecency in the connection of father and daughter, or mother and son. A licentious poet, (91) being about to relate the frantic incest of Myrrha, says:
“
Daughters and fathers, from my song retire, I sing of horror.”
In the collateral line, the uncles on both sides represent the father, and the aunts the mother; and, consequently, connection with them is forbidden, inasmuch as it would be of somewhat similar impropriety. The same rule affects affinity; for the step-mother, or mother-in-law, is held to stand in the relation of mother; and the step-daughter, or daughter-in-law, in that of daughter; as also the wife of the paternal or maternal uncle is to be regarded in the relation of mother. And, although express mention may not be made of it here, we must form our judgment by analogy as to what is prohibited; — the uncle on the father’s or mother’s side is not here forbidden to marry his niece; but, since the nephew is interdicted from marrying his paternal or maternal aunt, the mutual relation of the inferior to the superior degree must prevail. But if any should contend that there is a difference, the reason added by Moses refutes his objection, for it is said, “She is thy father’s or thy mother’s near kinswoman.” Hence it follows, that a niece is guilty of incest if she marries her uncle on either side. As to brothers and sisters, God pronounces that marriage with a sister, although she be not uterine, is unlawful; for He forbids the uncovering of the turpitude of a sister, who is either the daughter of thy father or thy mother.
(87) Thus, the third Canon of the 24 Session of the Council of Trent declares; “Si quis dixerit, eos tantum consanguinitatis et affinitatis gradus, qui Levitico exprimentur, posse impedire matrimonium, et dirimere contractum: nec posse Ecclesiam in nonnullis illorum dispensare, aut constituere, ut plures impediant, et dirimant, anathema sit.” “Atqui plane certum est, (says Lorinus, in loco,) praecepta de gradibus in isto capite contenta, cum non sint omnia pure moralia, et naturalia, sed quaedam positiva, et judicialia, per se non obligare Christianos, et idcirco posse per Ecclesiam in quibusdam dispensari.”
(88) “Sous couverture que la Loy de Moyse a cesse” — Fr. Under the pretext that the Law of Moses has ceased.
(89) “Nec Claudius ultra expectato, obvium apud forum praebet se gratantibus; senatumque ingressus ‘decretum postulat, quo justae inter patruos, fratrumque filias nuptiae etiam in posterum statuerentur.’ Neque tamen repertus est, nisi unus talis matrimonii cupitor, T. Alladius Severus, eques Romanus, quem plerique Agrippinae gratia impulsum ferebant.” — Tacitus Ann., Lib. 12:7.
(90) “Leur sera il pourtant licite de se mesler confusement ensemble comme bestes?” shall it therefore be lawful to them to mix together confusedly like beasts?
(91) Ovid. Metam., 10:300.
“
Dira canam: procul hinc natae, procul este parentes.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
PROHIBITED MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIPS 18:618
TEXT 18:618
6
None of you shall approach to any that are near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am Jehovah.
7
The nakedness of thy father, even the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8
The nakedness of thy fathers wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy fathers nakedness.
9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10
The nakedness of thy sons daughter, or thy daughters daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11
The nakedness of thy fathers wifes daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers sister: she is thy fathers near kinswoman.
13
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mothers sister: for she is thy mothers near kinswoman.
14
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy sons wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife: it is thy brothers nakedness.
17
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her sons daughter, or her daughters daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18
And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 18:618
391.
What is the meaning of the phrase, to uncover their nakedness?
392.
Why not have sexual relations with near of kin?
393.
The nakedness of the mother is also the nakedness of the father. How so?
394.
Who is involved in the nakedness of thy fathers wife?
395.
There can be no marriage of sister and brother even if they are only half-sisters or brothers, even if they were born far from you and you never saw them until you were both grown. Is this the thought of Lev. 18:9? Discuss the reason behind this.
396.
A man may sin against his own body if he has intercourse with whom? Is marriage or simply sex relations being discussed here?
397.
Wasnt half-sister relationship covered in Lev. 18:9?
398.
Why mention her again in Lev. 18:11?
399.
No one should marry his aunt, on either his fathers or his mothers side. Why?
400.
What about Cain and Abel who married their sisters? Compare Lev. 20:17 as to the penalty for sexual intercourse with a half-sister. What is the penalty?
401.
How many relationships are covered in these verses (there are eleven. Can you find them all?)
402.
There is no prohibition for a daughter, a full sister, or a mother-in-law. Cf. Deu. 27:23, Exo. 21:15.
403.
What was the penalty for the violation of these laws? Notice a difference between numbers 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 and 6, 7, 9. Cf. Lev. 20:11-12; Lev. 20:14; Lev. 20:17; Deu. 23:1; Deu. 22:20; Deu. 22:22-23)
PARAPHRASE 18:618
None of you shall marry a near relative, for I am the Lord. A girl may not marry her father; nor a son his mother, nor any other of his fathers wives, nor his sister or half-sister, whether the daughter of his father or his mother, whether born in the same house or elsewhere. You shall not marry your granddaughterthe daughter of either your son or your daughterfor she is a close relative. You may not marry a half-sisteryour fathers wifes daughter; nor your auntyour fathers sisterbecause she is so closely related to your father; nor your auntyour mothers sisterbecause she is a close relative of your mother; nor your auntthe wife of your fathers brother. You may not marry your daughter-in-lawyour sons wife; nor your brothers wife, for she is your brothers. You may not marry both a woman and her daughter or granddaughter, for they are near relatives, and to do so is horrible wickedness. You shall not marry two sisters, for they will be rivals. However, if your wife dies, then it is all right to marry her sister.
COMMENT 18:618
Lev. 18:16-18 These laws can hardly be considered national when the Egyptians and Canaanites have been condemned for their violation. Evidently God gave them in the beginning and therefore they have Patriarchal and not only Mosaic significance. These verses discuss but one law of the ten commandments, i.e. the seventh. It would seem God is to stop all channels in which lust might flow. Lev. 18:6 gives the general prohibition and Lev. 18:7 through 18 describe the specific applications. There are eleven in number. We shall consider each in order. Before we do we must point out the principles behind such laws. There are at least three obvious reasons we should not marry our near of kin: (1) How could society and the home exist if man was at the same time brother and husband, or a son and a husband; he could never fulfill the duties of such relationships at the same time; (2) By intermarrying with other families than our own the bonds of society are established between neighbors. In an intermarried family feuds and divisions of all kinds would be unavoidable; (3) The strength of the blood line is weakened by family intermarriage and deformity and weaknesses are found in the children and grandchildren.
(1) With mother. Lev. 18:7 The meaning of the phrase uncover nakedness is found only by referring to its context. There are a total of 21 references to this act in the Old Testament. (Exo. 20:26; Isa. 42:3; Ezekiel 17:36, 37; Eze. 22:10; Eze. 23:10; Eze. 23:18; Eze. 23:29; Lev. 20:11; Lev. 20:17; Lev. 20:20-21 and the nine references in Lev. 18:6-19.) In all the references in Ezekiel illicit sex relations are described, but in all other references the God-ordained physical relationship in marriage is involved. We believe the phrase was used both ways. In the verses under consideration we are discussing the wrong use of the sex act. Some commentators refer the nakedness of the father to relations of the daughter with the father and the nakedness of the mother to relations of the son with the mother. The paraphrase of this text so renders it; however it is probably more accurate to consider this from the sons viewpoint and see the nakedness of the mother to include that of the father, since the two are one.
Paul is repulsed at the thought of such a relationshipit is not even named among the pagansand yet it was practiced in the Corinthian church. Cf. 1Co. 5:1-2.
The tragic consequences of such action can be seen in Lot and his daughters. The Moabites and the Ammonites were the unhappy children of such a union. Reuben was marked and punished because he had sexual relations with the handmaid of his father. Cf. Gen. 35:22.
(2) With a step-mother. Lev. 18:8 Are we to conclude she is widowed and this is a marriage and not adultery? We believe so. Marriage and family relationship must not be violated even if there is no blood relationship. (Cf. Lev. 20:11; Deu. 27:20) Perhaps the father had died in the example cited in Corinth, but no such information was given and in the absence of it, we would conclude that he was still alive.
(3) With sister or half-sister. Lev. 18:9 Such description would infer the possibility of a former marriage by either the father or the mother. The father or mother could have children in another town or country. When such children come to visit, the present children must not imagine they are eligible for marriage. They are not. We have a sad example of this relationship in the son and daughter of David. When Amnon was about to commit adultery with his half-sister, Tamar, she cried out, I pray you, speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you. Cf. 2Sa. 13:10-19. Evidently this law was not as effective as the example of Jacob reflected in the life of David and his children.
(4) With a granddaughter, the daughter of either son or daughter. Lev. 18:10 Whereas marriage to a daughter is not plainly stated in any of these relationships we could say it is included in this law, i.e. if a man was not to marry his own granddaughter, how much more should he be shut out from his own daughter? It could be that the word granddaughter should be daughter, i.e. the text could read, the nakedness of thy daughter and of thy sons daughter. (Ginsburg)
(5) With the daughter of a step-mother. Lev. 18:11 This refers to a half-sister by a second marriage, and the prohibition refers to the son by the first marriage, whereas Lev. 18:9 treats of the son by a second marriage. The notion that the mans own mother is also included, and that the prohibition includes marriage with a full sister, is at variance, with the usage of the expression, thy fathers wife. (Keil)
(6) With an aunt, the sister of either father or mother. Lev. 18:12-13 Cf. Lev. 20:19; Lev. 21:2; Num. 27:11. Moses might have thought more than twice when he heard this prohibition, since he himself was the offspring of such an alliance. The father of Moses was Amram, who married his own aunt, Jochebed, the sister of Amrams father. Cf. Exo. 6:20. Home can be a happy place. God tells us how. The fact that His grace and mercy covers our mistakes does not argue against His beautiful ideal pattern.
(7) The wife of an uncle on the fathers side. Lev. 18:14 A nephew was to have no marriage involvements with his aunt during the lifetime of his uncle, and he could not marry his aunt even when his uncle was dead. Lev. 20:20 indicates the death penalty for the violation of this law.
We do have examples of the marriage of the niece to her uncle: Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of his brother Haran (Gen. 11:29); Othniel, the son of Kenaz, married his grand-niece, Achsah, the daughter of Caleb, his fathers brother. (Jos. 15:17; Jdg. 1:13)
(8) The daughter-in-law. Lev. 18:15 The legislators in the time of Christ defined this prohibition as applicable not only to cases where marriage between them had actually been consummated, but to cases where the maiden had only been espoused, or when the daughter-in-law had been divorced by the son, or had become a widow. For an offense of this kind, both parties were punished by death. (Cf. Lev. 20:12) Other nations regarded such alliances with the same abhorrence. (Ginsburg)
(9) The sister-in-law, or brothers wife. Lev. 18:16 Deu. 25:5 gives the exception to this regulation. Mat. 22:23-26 cites an example of the exception. If a brother dies and his wife has had no male children, the living brother is obligated to marry the widow. If the brother dies and leaves a male child, it would be wrong for the brother to marry the widow. It is of passing interest to note object of interest in the minds of the Sadducees. Our Saviour spoke to them as He does to usin the world to come there will be no sex (nor food, nor money).
(10) The woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter. Lev. 18:17 Marriage with a woman and her daughter, whether both together or in succession, is described in Deu. 27:20 as an accursed lying with the mother-in-law; whereas here it is the relation to the step-daughter which is primarily referred to, as we may see from the parallel prohibition, which is added, against taking the daughter of her son or daughter, i.e. the granddaughter-in-law. Both of these were crimes against blood relationship which were to be punished with death in the case of both parties (chapter Lev. 20:14), because they were wickedness, literally invention, design, here applied to the crime of licentiousness and whoredom (Cf. Lev. 19:29; Jdg. 20:6; Job. 31:11). (Keil)
(11) Two sisters at the same time. Lev. 18:18 We have read a good deal of discussion as to the possible permission of polygamy from this verse. We are unconvinced that any such possibility could exist. We are not discussing polygamy as cited in Exo. 21:7-11 or Deu. 21:15-17; Deu. 17:17 (please read our BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOKS on these passages). We are satisfied with the American Standard translation of this verse, and thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime. As if this were not clear enough the Amplified translation says, You must not marry a woman in addition to her sister to be a rival to her, having sexual relations with the second sister when the first one is alive, or in the New English BibleYou shall not take a woman who is your wifes sister to make her a rival-wife, and to have intercourse with her during her sisters lifetime. This seems to be a law against the very circumstance in which Jacob found himself with Leah and Rachel.
FACT QUESTIONS 18:618
398.
Why should we consider the laws given here to be larger than the nation of Israel?
399.
Give the three reasons God gave these limitations on the marriage of near kin.
400.
What is meant by the phrase uncover nakedness?
401.
Sex relations with ones mother has tragic consequences. What biblical examples teach this?
402.
There is a New Testament example of illicit relations with a stepmother. Where? Discuss.
403.
Amnon and Tamar illustrate one of these prohibitions. Discuss.
404.
Why no law against marriage to a daughter?
405.
Show how the case in Lev. 18:9 is different in the violation of Lev. 18:11.
406.
Moses was involved personally in the violation of Lev. 18:12-13. Discuss.
407.
What was the penalty for marriage to ones aunt?
408.
What about marriage to an uncle by a niece?
409.
The law was very strict on marriage between father-in-law and daughter-in-law. Discuss.
410.
There is an exception in the marriage of a brothers wife. Discuss.
411.
What does God call an accursed lying with the mother-in-law? Discuss the reason.
412.
Just what is involved in the marriage of two sisters? i.e. why the prohibition?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(6) None of you shall approach.Literally, man, man, ye shall not approach. It is part of the phrase used in Lev. 17:3; Lev. 17:8; Lev. 17:13, and should accordingly be rendered by no man whatsoever shall approach. The absence of the words of the house of Israel, which, in the other instances, form part of this phrase, as we are assured by the authorities in the time of Christ, shows that these prohibitions are also binding upon the stranger who took up his abode among the Israelites, lest the land be defiled by his transgressions. Though primarily addressed to man, who, in these cases, takes the initiative, the punishment for violating any of these laws was visited upon both man and woman.
Near of kin to him.Literally, the flesh of his flesh. (See Psa. 73:26; Psa. 78:20; Psa. 78:27; Mic. 3:2-3.) The combination of two synonymous expressions is often used to denote intensity. Thus the phrase rendered my exceeding joy in the Authorised Version (Psa. 43:4), literally means the joy of my joy, or, as the Margin has it, the gladness of my joy. Accordingly, the flesh of his flesh signified nearness of his flesh, his near kin. This technical sense is assigned to the first of these two words by itself in Lev. 18:12-13, &c, where it is translated near kinswoman. It expresses kinship of both consanguinity and mere affinity. (See Lev. 18:17.)
To uncover their nakedness.Upon the import of this phrase depends the interpretation of the laws laid down in this chapter and chapter 20, inasmuch as it furnishes the clue to the definition whether the interdicts refer to illicit commerce or to incestuous marriages. In the only other passage in the Pentateuch where it occurs, it does not appear to imply any unseemly intention (Exo. 20:26). This is also its sense in Isa. 47:3. In the seven instances in Ezekiel, however (Eze. 16:36-37; Eze. 22:10; Eze. 23:10; Eze. 23:18; Eze. 23:29), which are the only other passages in the Bible where this phrase is used, it denotes unseemly exposure, sexual intercourse, etc. Hence some high authorities maintain that in the twenty-one instances in which it is used in this part of the legislation (Lev. 18:6-19; Lev. 20:11; Lev. 20:17; Lev. 20:20-21), it denotes extra-conjugal licentiousness, and is simply an explanatory addition to the phrase approach to, with which it is combined in Lev. 18:6; Lev. 18:14; Lev. 18:18. From a comparison, however, of Lev. 18:18 with Lev. 18:19 to Lev. 20:11, it will be seen that it is undoubtedly used to denote sexual intercourse both within and without the pale of matrimony. As cohabitation without any religious ceremony whatever constituted and consummated marriage amongst the early Hebrews, the euphemistic phrases to take home, to approach to, to know, etc., as well as the less veiled expressions, to lie with, to uncover her nakedness, etc., denote marriage in Hebrew, not excluding, however, the primary sense of illicit commerce or incestuous marriages. The context in which the phrase occurs must determine the sense in which it is used. The administrators of the law during the second Temple, whilst rightly interpreting it here generally to denote incestuous marriages, also apply it in some instances to fornication and adultery.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES, Lev 18:6-18.
These fall into three classes: 1.) blood-relationships proper, 7-13; 2.) the wives of blood-relations, 14-16; 3.) the blood relations of the wife. This prohibition is not grounded on the eternal principles of absolute morality, since the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” must have involved the marriage of brothers and sisters in the family of Adam, and since, also, Abraham married his half sister, Jacob two sisters at a time, Amram his aunt Jochebed, and Judah married Tamar, the widow of his own son, with no indication of the divine disapproval; and by the commandment of the Levitical law the brother must marry the wife of his deceased childless brother. Still it must be confessed that the horror naturalis, or revulsion of feeling at the thought of marrying one’s mother or daughter is very closely allied to the abhorrence of the violation of the seventh commandment.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
6. Near of kin Hebrew, the flesh of his flesh, or his blood kindred. In Lev 25:49, the same words are equivalent to “family,” and they are applicable to marriage relationship, since in Lev 18:17-18 they include the near blood relations of the wife.
Uncover nakedness This is the customary expression in the Pentateuch for the cohabitation of persons married or unmarried, though the former are chiefly referred to. This prohibition is addressed to males; the exceptions in Lev 18:7; Lev 18:14 are only apparent, not real.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Relationships Within Families ( Lev 18:6-18 ).
Lev 18:6
“None of you shall approach to any who are near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am Yahweh.”
Firstly the initial principle was laid down that there should be no sexual approaches among those who were of near kin, no approaches of the kind which were with a view to marriage and sexual relations. This was because Yahweh was Yahweh and disapproved of anything that could destroy family relationships, and knew what great dangers there were of sexual relationships doing this, and what tragedy they could bring about. This principle is now expanded in detail. For He wanted it known that His people were simply not expected to behave like that because they accepted Who and What He is.
That ‘marriage’ is probably mainly in mind throughout, in that the person would seek to justify their behaviour by that means, comes out in that without legal marriage such behaviour should automatically have resulted in the death penalty anyway. Thus to have legitimacy they would have to marry the person involved. For when two had sexual relations they became one flesh. So it had to be made clear that in relation to those who are of near kin marriage is as bad as fornication and adultery.
On the other hand it might be argued that illicit sex within the family would be so hushed up, and so never revealed, that it had to be legislated against anyway, which explains the strong statements against it within close family relationships. Each man must be made to recognise that God would know and would punish what he did even if men could not. The point is being made that these activities are in fact forbidden under any circumstances, whether within marriage or not, and the emphasis is not so much on marriage as on the evil of sexual relations between such related people. They were wrong under any circumstance, and a professed marriage did not excuse them. To ‘uncover nakedness’ refers to sexual intercourse.
From this point until Lev 18:23 the commands are all in the singular, stressing their application to each individual. He then again returns to the plural.
Lev 18:7
“The nakedness of your father, even the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover. She is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness.”
The first forbidden relationship for a man was with his own mother. To marry and/or have relations with his own mother, to uncover her nakedness, was clearly totally unseemly. To do so would be to utterly shame his father’s name, with whom his mother was one flesh, and indeed his mother herself as made one with his father. He would be exposing his father’s nakedness as Ham had done long before (Gen 9:22). It would be totally unnatural and could not even be considered. Here God was enforcing the fact by statute.
Among other things such a relationship would dishonour the father with whom his wife had been one flesh, so that the revealing of her nakedness was the revealing of his; would distort positions of authority as the son, as the husband of the mother, would gain a status contrary to and in apposition to that of the firstborn son; and it could be seen as against nature. It also carried with it genetic dangers.
The sin of Lot’s two daughters, which resulted in the birth of Ammon (Ben-ammi) and Moab (Gen 19:30-38), can be compared to this although they literally uncovered their father’s nakedness.
Lev 18:8
“The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover. It is your father’s nakedness.”
The next forbidden relationship was with any other wife or ex-wife of a man’s father. This was forbidden because she and his father were one. Therefore to marry her and/or have sexual relations with her would be shaming his father. It is as if he had had sex with his father. He must not seek to take his father’s place in this way. Furthermore it would again undermine authority.
And on top of that lust for a beautiful relative, if not absolutely forbidden, could cause all kinds of evil behaviour through the centuries, including convenient murder of the father. Without these laws forbidding it, any father with a very beautiful wife (like Sarah) might always be in danger of being murdered by his sons so that they could have her for themselves. But if legally they could not marry acceptably, much of the danger was removed. In Israel God was seeking to scotch that from the beginning by indicating that marriage to her would be out of the question. In this case the penalty for failure was to be death (Lev 20:11).
In fact a man lying with his father’s wife was accursed by the law (Deu 27:23). He stood cursed before God. Such an incestuous relationship was engaged in by Reuben with Bilhah (Gen 35:22), and by Absalom with his father’s concubines or secondary wives (2Sa 16:22). The one lost his pre-eminence as the firstborn, the other his life. It was the sin that especially shocked Paul among the Corinthians (1Co 5:1), one not even thought of among the Gentiles.
Lev 18:9
“The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness you shall not uncover.”
Marriage and/or sexual relations with a blood sister or half-blood sister were also forbidden, even if she had been born elsewhere. It is quite clear how impossible family life would have been if men could pressurise their own sisters. Family unity would have been impossible and no beautiful woman would have been safe to pursue an ordinary life (see 2Sa 13:12-32). But the regulations produced a mind set in Israel which helped to prevent all but the worst of men even thinking in this way. Those who did this were to be ‘cut off in the sight of the people’ (Lev 20:17). They were cursed (Deu 27:22).
“Born abroad” may indicate an illegitimate daughter, but there may have been cases where a man had two families living separately.
When man was first in the world it is clear that such relationships did occur, but that was another matter, for then there was no alternative. All Adam’s sons married their sisters, including Cain. It had to be so then, and genetic make-ups were simpler. But this was now forbidden.
Lev 18:10
“The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover: for theirs is your own nakedness.”
Marrying and having sexual relationships with grandchildren was also forbidden. Again families could have been destroyed by it, and the future of young children regularly blighted. It was vital that those who had responsibility for such children should honour them and not take advantage of them. They were intended to be their protectors! They should be able to trust their grandfathers absolutely, to watch over them and look after their best interests, not to be themselves pursuing them for sexual gratification. After all, they were a part of himself. How could he seek sexual relations with himself?
It would also distort lines of authority. If a child resulted a man could thereby find himself under the ‘authority’ of his own daughter, which would make a mockery of authority.
Lev 18:11
“The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.”
This confirms Lev 18:9, especially in the case of a half sister. Abraham seemingly went contrary to this rule, which had not, of course, then been laid out. Such intermarriage seems in his day to have been approved of in order to maintain the family aristocracy. Here it is forbidden. In Lev 20:17 the punishment is to be cut off in the sight of the people
Lev 18:12-13
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister. She is your father’s near kinswoman. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s near kinswoman.”
Here aunts are forbidden as objects of lust, marriage and sexual relations. Again the protection of family unity, and lines of authority, and the necessity to ensure that those who should be protecting relatives left without protection did so with no ulterior motive, is in mind. This was especially so when they were children. A woman should be able to have confidence that her affectionate response to, and reliance on, her relatives did not result in unfortunate situations or coercion. She must be able to trust them. In this case the matter would be brought up for judgment and a suitable penalty be decided on, ‘they shall bear their iniquity’ (Lev 20:19). It was thus not seen as quite such a serious offence. In fact Amram, Moses’ father/ancestor, married his father’s sister (Exo 6:20).
Lev 18:14
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, you shall not approach his wife. She is your aunt.”
The prohibition also includes aunts through marriage. Marrying and having sexual relations with an uncle’s wife would be a shaming of one’s uncle, whether alive or dead. This also would be judged by the courts, but in this case, additionally, God would punish it directly by making them childless (Lev 20:20).
Lev 18:15
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife. You shall not uncover her nakedness.”
A daughter-in-law, a son’s wife, is forbidden for marriage and sexual relations to a father. The daughter-in-law is one flesh with his son. Thus the father must honour what is his son’s, and not shame his son. Among other things the inheritance problems and the resulting hatreds and rivalries could have been horrendous. The point was that a son should be able to trust his father in such matters absolutely and be confident that he would not complicate or take advantage of his family if he died or divorced, but would act only in their best interests. The punishment in this case is death because it has ‘wrought confusion’ (Lev 20:12). It is intermixing two generations.
Lev 18:16
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife. It is your brother’s nakedness.”
Nor shall one brother marry and have sexual relations with his brother’s wife, with a view to her becoming his wife and bearing children to him, whether his brother is dead or divorced, for to do so would be to shame his brother, with whom his wife was ‘one’, and destroy family relationships. This was the sin for which John the Baptiser rebuked Herod Antipas. This is not forbidding levirate marriage. In that case the brother was dead and the aim was to honour his brother, and raise up children in his name. In that case also the children were seen as the brother’s. That was not a case of family conflict, but of family cooperation. The penalty for not fulfilling the levirate law but taking the wife for himself would be that the marriage went childless (Lev 20:21).
It may well be that in levirate ‘marriage’ the sexual relations were deliberately carried out more discreetly.
Lev 18:17
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near kinswomen. It is wickedness (prostitution).”
To marry and have sexual relations with both a mother and her daughter, or with a mother and her granddaughter, was forbidden. They were near kinswomen. The tensions that would arise and the pain that could be caused are not to be contemplated, and no man should so take advantage of his position. He should be aware of the great harm and misery that could result. It was to treat them like prostitutes just available for his lust, have no regard for their deeper feelings and play havoc with relationships. And once again lines of authority and inheritance would be blurred. This was another case where death was the penalty for both (Lev 20:14). For a man to lie with his mother-in-law was to be cursed (Deu 27:23).
Lev 18:18
“And you shall not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime.”
Nor should a man marry one sister after another while they were both alive. In a polygamous marriage wives were rivals, and this would be to make two sisters rivals and possibly antagonistic to each other, and would be to destroy the natural love between them. This was not to be contemplated. Family love was important to God, the Supreme Father. This was, of course, what Jacob did and it caused great grief of heart.
In all these prohibitions we see God’s concern that non-sexual, loving relationships and responsibilities within families were of prime importance, that lines of authority should be clearly maintained, that inheritance questions must not be complicated unduly, and that these things must come before all others, so that lust especially must not be in a position to destroy them. They reveal a deep sense of the current and counter-currents that sexual feelings could cause within close family units, and provided the standards by which they should be assessed and dealt with.
However, they also served another purpose. The inter-marriage of relatives who are in too close a relation to each other can also be the cause of an increase in birth defects and, if continued in through the generations, can result in a lack of vitality and vigour in the strain. That also is therefore not something to be advised.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 18:6. None of you, &c. Improper and incestuous marriages, which were extremely common, not only among the Egyptians and Canaanites, but other Eastern idolaters, are here first prohibited. There were to be no marriages between those who were near of kin. The word sheir, denotes cosanguinity. For the best comment on this chapter, we refer to Grotius de Jur. Bell. & Pacis, lib. 2: cap. 5.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
These precepts, considered in a moral sense, carry with them conviction of their own propriety. And if explained spiritually, they serve to convey this idea, that the souls who are taken into covenant relation by virtue of their union with their great spiritual head, dare not commit spiritual fornication. Hos 2:2-3 ; 1Co 6:151Co 6:15 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover [their] nakedness: I [am] the LORD.
Ver. 6. None of you shall approach, ] viz., To couple carnally with them. Eze 18:6 Isa 8:3 Yea, though it be under a pretext of marriage: for by marriage they seem to justify their incest, which makes it the worse, saith Tostatus, whose reason here I like better than that of Cardinal Campeius, though it sound somewhat like. If comparison should be made, said this carnal cardinal, much greater offence it is for a priest to have a wife than to have and keep at home many harlots. For they that keep harlots, said he, a as it is naught that they do, so do they acknowledge their sin; the other persuade themselves they do well, and so persist without repentance or conscience of their fact.
a Act. and Mon., fol. 790.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
near to kin: Heb. remainder of his flesh. Notwithstanding the prohibitions here, it must be evident, that in the infancy of the world, persons very near of kin, and even brothers and sisters, must have joined in matrimonial alliances; and therefore we cannot pronounce them immoral in themselves. But, in these first instances, necessity required it; but when this necessity no longer existed, the thing became inexpedient and improper for:
1. As human nature now is, it is very expedient that those who are so much together in youth, should, by such a restriction be taught to look upon all such intercourse as prohibited and incestuous; for unless such restrictions are made, it would be impossible to prevent the prevalence of very early corruption among young persons. – See Michaelis on the laws of Moses, Art. 108.
2. That the duties owing by nature to relatives might not be confounded with those of a social or political kind; for could a man be a brother and a husband, or a son and a husband at the same time, and fulfil the duties of both? Impossible.
3. That by intermarrying with other families, relationship and its endearments might be diffused. These prohibitions are, therefore, to be considered so eminently moral obligations as to be observed by all mankind.
to uncover: Lev 18:7-19, Lev 20:11, Lev 20:12, Lev 20:17-21
Reciprocal: Gen 19:32 – seed Gen 19:33 – drink Gen 19:36 – General Lev 18:24 – Defile Lev 20:19 – uncovereth Lev 21:2 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 18:6. The first of these prohibitions is against all improper and incestuous marriages, a thing very common among the Canaanitish nations and in Egypt, even to the last degree of unnatural mixtures. Diodorus Siculus relates, that it was permitted by law in the latter country, contrary to the custom of other nations, that a man might marry his own sister. None of you shall approach The prohibition is absolute, and no advances were to be made toward its violation. Indeed the only way to avoid actual transgressions, is to resist and guard against the first motions of evil. Principiis obsta, withstand the first approach of sin, is a most important precept. And it is to be well observed, that as these laws forbade marriages between near relations, they certainly much more prohibited unchastity between them, and every approach to it. Any that is near akin to him Hebrew, The remainder of his flesh; that is, his immediate relations, so near akin to him, that they are, as we say, his own flesh and blood; such as a mans sister, mother, daughter. Indeed, had near relations been allowed to marry each other, the most mischievous and fatal consequences must have resulted from it. For being much together in youth, temptations to unchastity would frequently have been too powerful to have been resisted. But, by such a restriction as this, being taught to look upon all such intercourse as prohibited and incestuous, they were assisted to withstand temptations to evil.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 18:6-18. Forbidden Degrees of Marriage.After a general preface (Lev 18:6) the relationships are given in detail. The phrase uncover the nakedness is almost confined to Leviticus 17-20, Ezek., and Genesis 9. No penalties or consequences are given, though reasons are sometimes added (e.g. Lev 18:14; Lev 18:16 f.). Two special cases should be noticed; prohibition of marriage with a fathers wife (Lev 18:8), which has often been familiar in Oriental royal families (cf. 1Ki 2:22), and of levirate marriages (Lev 18:16, see p. 109). Contrast Deu 25:5-10; also Ruth, where, however, there is more thought for the widow, as needing to be looked after, than for her first husband. The more importance is attached to population and the preservation of families, the stronger will be the hold of such a law. From Mat 22:23 ff., it would seem that the prohibition of Lev. could not overcome an old-established custom which was able to give a reason for itself. There is no prohibition of the marriage of uncle and niece, or of cousins. In older societies (e.g. Fiji) the marriage of paternal cousins is allowed, and even encouraged, but that of maternal cousins strictly forbidden, through the influence of matriarchal ideas. Marriage with a daughter is not actually mentioned, probably by inadvertence. Bigamy is never prohibited in the OT; in Lev 18:18 its existence is implied; it gradually fell out of use. The restriction of Lev 18:18 (observe also in her lifetime) is noteworthy (cf. 1Sa 1:6). [In view of frequent misuse it may be explicitly stated that this passage has nothing to do with marriage to a deceased wifes sister. A man may not marry his wifes sister while the wife is still living.A. S. P.] The Semitic name for a fellow-wife is significantly derived from a root meaning hostile (cf. 1Sa 1:6*).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to {c} uncover [their] nakedness: I [am] the LORD.
(c) That is, to lie with her, though it be under title of marriage.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
"To uncover nakedness" means to have sexual intercourse (cf. Gen 20:12).
"The phrase covers intercourse within marriage and outside it." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 253.]
"In the unfallen world, nakedness was a symbol of integrity and sinlessness (Gen 2:25), but in the fallen world, it became a sign of exploitation, captivity, abuse, and shame (Lev 3:7; Lev 3:11)." [Note: Ross, p. 345.]
Note the parallels between this legislation and the story of Ham looking on his father Noah’s nakedness (Gen 9:20-27). Both acts resulted in a curse (Lev 18:24-28; Gen 9:24-27). Both acts also connect with drinking wine (Lev 10:9; Gen 9:21). God was guarding His people from falling into the same type of sin and its consequences that Ham experienced. One writer suggested that God designed the legislation in chapters 18-20 to guard the Israelites from what humankind did at Babel (Gen 11:1-9). [Note: Sailhamer, p. 346.]
God prohibited intercourse with married or unmarried individuals outside marriage. In Israel, engaged couples were considered as good as married, though they had not yet consummated their marriage with intercourse. Moses mentioned twelve different situations in these verses.
"Marriage as a social institution is regarded throughout Scripture as the cornerstone of all other structures, and hence its purity and integrity must be protected at all times." [Note: Harrison, p. 186. Cf. Hertz, p. 172.]
"After the death of her husband a woman may not marry her brother-in-law [Lev 18:16]. Deu 25:5 ff. states an exception to this principle. Should a woman be widowed before she has borne a son, her brother-in-law has a duty to marry her ’to perpetuate his brother’s name’ (Lev 18:7). This custom of Levirate, attested elsewhere in Scripture and the ancient Orient, illustrates the paramount importance of having children in ancient times. Heirs prevented the alienation of family property and ensured the parents’ support in their old age, in times when pensions and other welfare services were unknown." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 257.]
Translators have made a fairly strong case from philological, literary, and historical considerations for translating Lev 18:18 as follows. "And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to another. . . ." The Qumran community translated it this way. If this translation is correct, the verse explicitly prohibits polygamy and implicitly prohibits divorce. [Note: See Angelo Tosato, "The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (April 1984]):199-214; Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 259; and Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 189. John Murray also preferred this interpretation in Appendix B of Principles of Conduct, pp. 250-56.] Thus the Mosaic Law forbade some things that the patriarchs practiced: marrying one’s sister (Lev 18:11; cf. Gen 20:12) and marrying two sisters (Lev 18:18; cf. Gen 29:30).
"What has troubled biblical scholars for some time are the two major omissions from the list: father-daughter incest and brother-sister incest. Economic reasons might have made these two violations rare in the ancient Israelite world. A virgin daughter brought a good bride-price. If a father violated her, he lost that. A corrupt father more likely turned his attentions elsewhere than to his daughter. This might also apply to a brother, as seen in the case of Laban, the brother of Rebekah, who actually became the head of the family and negotiator for marriage in the place of his father." [Note: Ross, p. 345. Cf. Hartley, p. 287.]