Leviticus 18:18

Verse 18. - Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Do these words refer to the marriage of two sisters or not? It has been passionately affirmed that they do, by those who are opposed to permission being granted for marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and by those who are in favour of that measure, each party striving to derive from the text an argument for the side which they are maintaining. But Holy Scripture ought not to be made a quarry whence partisans hew arguments for views which they have already adopted, nor is that the light in which a commentator can allow himself to regard it. A reverent and profound study of the passage before us, with its context, leads to the conclusion that the words have no bearing at all on the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and thus it may be removed from the area and atmosphere of angry polemics. It is certain that the words translated a wife to her sister may be translated, in accordance with the marginal rendering, one wife to another. The objections made to such a version are arbitrary and unconvincing. It is in accordance with the genius of the Hebrew language to take "father," "son, brother," "sister," in a much wider acceptation than is the case in the Western tongues.

Anything that produces or causes is metaphorically a "father;" anything produced or caused is a "son;" any things akin to each other in form, shape, character, or nature, are "brothers" and "sisters." This is the name given to the loops of the curtains of the tabernacle ( Exodus 26:3, 5, 6 ), the tenons of the boards ( Exodus 26:17 ), and the wings of the cherubim ( Ezekiel 1:11, 23 ). Indeed, wherever the expression, "a man to his brother," or "a woman to her sister," is used (and it is used very frequently) in the Hebrew Scriptures, it means not two brothers or two sisters, but two things or persons similar in kind. This does more than raise a presumption - it creates a high probability - that the expression should be understood in the same way here. But a difficulty then arises. If the right reading is, Neither shalt thou take one wife to another , does not the verse forbid polygamy altogether, and is not polygamy permitted by Exodus 21:7-11 ; Deuteronomy 21:15-17 ; Deuteronomy 17:17 ? Certainly, if so important a restriction was to be made, we should expect it to be made directly, and in a manner which could not be disputed. Is there any way out of the difficulty? Let us examine each word of the Law. Neither shalt thou take one wife to another, to vex, to uncover her nakedness upon her in her life time. The two words, to vex , have not been sufficiently dwelt on. The Hebrew, tsarar , means to distress by packing closely together, and so, to vex, or to annoy in any way.

Leviticus 18:18 . A wife to her sister — The meaning seems to be, that no man should take to wife two sisters, which had sometimes been done, as we see in the example of Jacob. It may, however, signify that a man, who already had a wife, was not to take another out of mere incontinency, which would tend only to break his wife’s peace; but that if he took that liberty at all, it ought only to be when his wife consented to it, as Sarah did in the case of Abraham’s marrying Hagar, and Rachel in the case of Bilhah. To vex her — Grotius justly observes, that as the feuds and animosities of brothers are, of all others, the most keen; so are generally the jealousies and emulations between sisters, whereof we have an example in the history of Rachel and Leah.

18 . a woman to her sister ] This is clearly right, as against the A.V. mg. ‘ one wife to another.’ It is the marriage of two sisters together that is prohibited. The words that follow (‘in her lifetime’) show that the law, as set down here, does not prohibit marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. However weighty the reasons which may be adduced against such a connexion, scholars are generally agreed that they derive no support from this v.

The word sister is here understood, either, 1. Properly, so some; whence others infer that it is lawful to marry one’s wife’s sister after the wife’s death. Or, 2. Improperly for any other woman, as not only persons, but things, of the same kind are oft called sisters and brethren , of which see plain examples, Exodus 26:3 32:27,29 Eze 1:9 3:13 16:45,48,49 . So the sense is, thou shalt not take one woman to another . And this sense may seem more probable, 1. Because else here were a tautology, the marriage of a man with his wife’s sister being sufficiently forbidden, Leviticus 18:16 , where marriage with his brother’s wife is forbidden; as also Leviticus 18:9,11 , where he forbids the marriage of one’s own sister, and cousequently the marriage of one’s wife’s sister, it being manifest and confessed that affinity and consanguinity are of the same consideration and obligation in these matters. Nor can this be added for explication, for then the comment would be darker than the text, nay, it would destroy the text; for then what was simply, and absolutely, and universally forbidden before, is here forbidden doubtfully and restrainedly, and might at least seem to be allowed after the wife’s death; which is rejected by those who own the former interpretation. 2.

Because the reason of this prohibition, which is lest he should vex her thereby, is much more proper and effectual against marrying any other woman, than against marrying the wife’s sister, so near and dear a relation being most commonly and probably a means to induce them rather to love and please and serve, than to vex one another in such a relation. And therefore to take her natural sister to vex her, would seem a course unsuitable to his end or design. 3. Some add another reason, that polygamy, which Christ condemns, Matthew 19:5 is either forbidden here or no where in the law. But this may admit of great dispute. And it is observable, that Christ confutes polygamy and divorces, not by any of Moses’s laws, (which probably he would not have omitted, if they had been to his purpose,) but by the first institution of marriage, Genesis 2:23 ; whence also Malachi seems to fetch his argument, Leviticus 2:14,15 .