The Expositor's Bible: The Book of LeviticusKellogg, Samuel H. (Samuel Henry)
Religion
The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Leviticus
Kellogg, Samuel H. (Samuel Henry)
Bible. Leviticus -- Commentaries; Bible. Leviticus -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
(Gen. xxxviii.)--had been observed long before the days of Moses, both
by the Hebrews and other ancient nations, and, indeed, even limited
and restricted its application; with good reason providing for
exemption of the surviving brother from this duty, in cases where for
any reason it might be repugnant or impracticable.
The case of a connection with both a woman and her daughter or
granddaughter is next mentioned (ver. 17); and, with special emphasis,
is declared to be "wickedness," or "enormity."
The prohibition (ver. 18) of marriage with a sister-in-law, as is well
known, has been, and still is, the occasion of much controversy, into
which it is not necessary here to enter at length. But, whatever may
be thought for other reasons as to the lawfulness of such a union, it
truly seems quite singular that this verse should ever have been cited
as prohibiting such an alliance. No words could well be more explicit
than those which we have here, in limiting the application of the
prohibition to the life-time of the wife: "Thou shalt not take a woman
to her sister, _to be a rival to her_, to uncover her nakedness,
beside the other _in her life time_" (R.V.). The law therefore does
not touch the question for which it is so often cited, but was
evidently only intended as a restriction on prevalent polygamy.
Polygamy is ever likely to produce jealousies and heart-burnings; but
it is plain that this phase of the evil would reach its most extreme
and odious expression when the new and rival wife was a sister to the
one already married; when it would practically annul sisterly love,
and give rise to such painful and peculiarly humiliating dissensions
as we read of between the sisters Leah and Rachel. The sense of the
passage is so plain, that we are told that this interpretation "stood
its ground unchallenged from the third century B.C. to the middle of
the sixteenth century _A.D._" Whatever opinion any may hold therefore
as to the expediency, upon other grounds, of this much debated
alliance, this passage, certainly, cannot be fairly cited as
forbidding it; but is far more naturally understood as by natural
implication permitting the union, after the decease of the first wife.
The laws concerning incest therefore terminate with ver. 17; and ver.
18, according to this interpretation, must be regarded as a
restriction upon polygamous connections, as ver. 19 is upon the rights
of marriage.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account