Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 18:16
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it [is] thy brother’s nakedness.
Thy brothers wife – That is, if she had children. See Deu 25:5. The law here expressed was broken by Antipas in his connection with Herodias Mat 14:3-4.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. Thy brother’s wife] This was an illegal marriage, unless the brother died childless. In that case it was not only lawful for her to marry her brother-in-law, but he was obliged by the law, De 25:5, to take her to wife.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Neither in his lifetime, nor after his death, and therefore a woman might not marry her husbands brother, nor might a man marry his wifes sister, either before or after his wifes death, for so all the prohibitions are to be understood; which will give light to Lev 18:18. But God, who can undoubtedly dispense with his own laws, did afterwards make one exception to this rule, of which see Deu 25:5.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife,…. Neither debauch her nor after the death of the brother marry her, that is, unless he dies without issue; and then, by another law, he was obliged to marry her, De 25:5; hence the Targum of Jonathan adds; by way of explanation.
“in the life of thy brother, or after his death, if he has children,”
but then that law was but an exception from this general rule, and so did not make it void in other respects, but bound it the more strongly; and besides, it was a special and peculiar law to the Jews, until the Messiah came to make it manifest of what tribe and family he came; and the reason of it ceasing, the law itself is ceased, and so neither binding on Jews nor Gentiles: hence John the Baptist boldly told Herod to his face, that it was not lawful for him to have his brother’s wife
Mt 14:3; and even such marriages were condemned by the very Heathens: Dionysius Halicarnassensis n relates, that Lucius Tarquinius, Superbus, his brother being removed by poison, took Tullia to wife, whom his brother Aruntus had before married; but the historian calls it , “an unholy marriage”, and abominable both among Greeks and Barbarians: Plutarch also reports o, that Marcus Crassus married the wife of his deceased brother; but such marriages are condemned by the same writer, as they are by the ancient Christians in their councils and canons p; now by this same law, if it is not lawful for a man to have his brother’s wife, then it is not lawful for her to have her sister’s husband; or, in other words, if it is not lawful for a woman to marry two brothers, then it is not lawful for a man to marry two sisters: the case of Jacob will not countenance such a marriage, since he was imposed upon and deceived; and such marriages have also been disapproved of by the Heathens and Christians: Honorius the emperor married two daughters of Stilico, one after another, but the unhappy exit of both sisters showed that those marriages were not approved of by God, for they both died premature deaths, leaving no children q;
it [is] thy brother’s nakedness; that is, his wife is, being by marriage one flesh with him, and his brother being so to him, the relation is too near to intermarry, and more especially when there is issue by the first, which connects them strongly.
n Hist. l. 4. o In Vita M. Crassi. p Canon Apostol. can. 19. Concil. Neocaesar. can. 2. q Zonaras, l. 3. apud Zanchium de Sponsalibus, l. 4. c. 1. p. 786.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Marriage with a brother’s wife was a sin against the brother’s nakedness, a sexual defilement, which God would punish with barrenness. This prohibition, however, only refers to cases in which the deceased brother had left children; for if he had died childless, the brother not only might, but was required to marry his sister-in-law (Deu 25:5).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife. They are bad (92) interpreters who raise a controversy on this passage, and expound it, that a brother’s wife must not be taken from his bed, or, if she be divorced, that manage with her would be unlawful whilst her husband was still alive; for it is incongruous to twist into different senses declarations which are made in the same place, and in the same words. God forbids the uncovering of the turpitude of the wife of a father, an uncle, and a son; and when He lays down the same rule respecting a brother’s wife in the very same words, it is absurd to invent a different meaning for them. If, therefore, it be not lawful to marry the wife of a father, a son, an uncle, or a nephew, we must. hold precisely the same opinion with respect to a brother’s wife, concerning whom an exactly similar law is enacted in the same passage and context. I am not, however, ignorant of the source from whence those, who think otherwise, have derived their mistake; for, whereas God gives a command in another place, that if a man shall have died without issue, his surviving brother shall take his widow to wife, in order that he may raise up of her seed to the departed, (Deu 25:5,) they have incorrectly and ignorantly restricted this to own-brothers, although God rather designates other degrees of relationship. It is a well-known Hebrew idiom, to embrace under the name of brother all near kinsmen in general; and the Latins also formerly so denominated cousins-german. (93) The law, then, now before us, respecting marriage with a deceased brother’s wife, is only addressed to those relations who are not otherwise prohibited from such a marriage, since it was not God’s purpose to prevent the loss of a deceased person’s name by permitting those incestuous marriages, which tie had elsewhere condemned. Wherefore these two points agree perfectly well, that an own-brother was prohibited from marrying his brother’s widow, whilst the next of kin were obliged to raise up seed for the dead, by the right of their relationship, wherever their marriage was otherwise permissible by the enactment’s of the law. On this ground Boaz married Ruth, who had previously been married to his near kinsman; and it is abundantly clear from the history, that the law applied to all the near kinsmen. But if any still contend that own-brothers were included in the number of these, on the same grounds the daughter-in-law must be married by her father-in-law, and the nephew’s wife by the uncle, and even the mother-in-law by the son-in-law, which it is an abomination to speak of. If any object that Er, Onan, and Shelah, the sons of Judah, were own-brothers, and still that Tamar married two of them, the difficulty is easily solved, viz., that Judah, following the common and received practice of the Gentiles, acted improperly in permitting it. It is plain enough, from the histories of all ages, that there were disgusting and shameless mixtures in the marriages of Oriental nations. By evil communications, then, as is ever the case, Judah was led into giving the same wife to his second son as had before been married to the eldest. And, in fact, God expressly says that this offense was rife among the Gentiles, where tie condemns incestuous connections. This, therefore, I still hold to be unquestionable, that, by the law of Moses, marriage with the widow of an own-brother is forbidden.
(92) In Willet this exposition is attributed to Radulph., Blesensis, and Borrhaus.
(93) Thus Augustine (De Civit. Dei. 15:16. Section 2,) says, — “quod fiebat cum consobrina, pene cum sorore fieri videbatur: quia et ipsi inter se propter tam propinquam consanguinitatem fratres vocantur, et pene germani sunt.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) The nakedness of thy brothers wife.Though alliance with a brothers wife is here forbiddenthe prohibition, according to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, extending to illicit commerce or marriage in case she is divorced from her husband during the lifetime of her husbandand though the offenders are threatened with the curse of childlessness (see Lev. 20:21), yet the law on this point is by no means absolute. Under certain conditions the law enjoins it as a moral and civil duty for a man to marry his brothers widow. If a brother dies without issue, it is incumbent upon each surviving brother in succession to marry the widow, and if the brother-in-law refused to perform the sacred duty, the widow made him pass through a ceremony in which she heaped upon him the greatest indignity. This clearly shows that the prohibition here could not be based upon the ground of incest, since that which is inherently incestuous the Divine law itself would under no circumstances have set aside. This duty the surviving brother-in-law had to perform to the widows of as many of his brothers as happened to die without issue. A striking illustration of this fact occurred whilst Jehudah the Holy was president of the Sanhedrin. Twelve widows appealed to their brother-in-law to perform the duty of Levir. He refused to marry them because he saw no prospect how to maintain such an additional number of wives, and possibly a large increase of children. The case came before the President of the Sanhedrin, who not only decided that he must marry them all, but promised that if he would do the duty enjoined upon him by the Law of Moses, he himself would maintain the family, and their children in case there should be any, every Sabbatical year, when no produce was got from the land, which was at rest. The offer was accepted by the Levir, and he accordingly married his twelve sisters-in-law. After three years these twelve wives appeared with thirty-six children before Jehudah the Holy, to claim the promised alimony, as it was the Sabbatical year, and they actually obtained it. To this day this law is in force among the orthodox Jews. When a man dies without issue, the widow ipso facto belongs to the surviving brother, and she is not allowed to marry any one else unless her brother-in-law has gone through the ceremony of publicly renouncing her, which is tantamount to a divorce. This will explain the rendering of the clause before us in the ancient Chaldee Version, thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife in the lifetime of thy brother or after his death if he has children.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Brother’s wife This is supposed to refer either to a brother’s widow who has children, or to a woman put away from the brother by divorce, whose bill of divorcement permitted her to “go and be another man’s wife.” Deu 24:1-2. Keil advocates the first, and Haley the second theory.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it [is] thy brother’s nakedness.
Ver. 16. Brother’s wife.] Except in that special case. Deu 25:5 This was Herod’s sin Mat 14:4 and our Henry VIII’s; whereupon was the divorce.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 20:21, Deu 25:5, Mat 14:3, Mat 14:4, Mat 22:24, Mar 6:17, Mar 12:19, Luk 3:19
Reciprocal: Gen 38:8 – General Mar 6:18 – It is
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 18:16. Thy brothers wife Unless he died childless, for in that case God afterward commanded that a man should marry his brothers widow, Deu 25:5. For the prohibiting of marriages in the more remote degrees of consanguinity, where other moral considerations are less obvious, there is this good reason to be assigned, namely, that marriage being one of the firmest bonds of friendship, it is proper, for the greater good of society, that men should seek to enlarge the ties of friendship and social affection, by uniting, not with those to whom they were before related, but with persons of different families.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy {h} brother’s wife: it [is] thy brother’s nakedness.
(h) Because the idolaters, among whom God’s people had dwelt and would dwell, were given to these horrible incests, God charges his own to beware of them.