No one shall approach to any that is his near relation, to uncover his nakedness I am Jehovah.
The law now moves from worship to the home. Chapter 18 sets out who a man may and may not marry. Verse 6 gives the rule behind every case that follows, and it ends with God's own name as the reason.
Commentators read this verse as the heading over the whole chapter, not as one more item on a list. It guards the difference between two kinds of closeness.
Leviticus 18 keeps them from dishonouring themselves in what belongs to nature itself — in what a man ought to be in his natural relationships, so that he would not dishonour himself. Man ought not to do it. But he did not honour God, and so he has been left to dishonour himself (compare Rom. 1). Verse 6 is the great principle the chapter presses: do not confuse the intimacy of marriage with the trust that belongs to a natural family tie.
The verse gives no health reason and no social custom. It closes with God's name, and that is the argument.
God's prohibition in this part of the chapter concerns near relations. It rests on nothing but God's will and authority: "I am the LORD." Except at the very beginning, marriage was never meant to unite "one's own flesh" — people already joined or near by nature.
That name runs through the whole chapter. Calling a forbidden union a marriage does not make it honourable:
Marriage is only honourable where people keep God's will. Hebrews 13:4 in no way approves or makes holy a forbidden union. The LORD sets His face against the unions and liberties listed here. From the start of the chapter to the end, His name is the solemn warrant against them all. If an Israelite let passion carry him away, it was rebellion against the LORD, and he did it at his own risk.
Verse 6 gives the principle. Verses 7-18 name the cases, and the way they are grouped teaches as well.
The chapter speaks to the man throughout, and never to the woman. It sorts the prohibitions under three headings. First come certain blood relations of his own (18:6-13). Next come certain relations by marriage (14-16). Last come certain relations of his wife (17-18). Among his own blood relations, besides his direct line — his mother or his own children — the side branches of the family are closed to him too, reaching out to his aunts by blood, the sisters of his father or the sisters of his mother. Everyone within that range is near of kin, and so is barred to him.
The seriousness rises with the nearness of the relation, and the text names only the man:
In these near relationships marriage was unnatural and dishonourable in proportion to the nearness. The intimacy that belongs to marriage, and is forbidden in every case outside it, was here sinful and shameful in the highest degree. And who would be bold enough to deny that the matching cases, not named here, are really implied? It is the man who is forbidden here; surely the woman is forbidden no less. It mattered greatly to build the warmest affection among all who stood together as near kin or connection. But it mattered even more that their love for each other should be kept pure.
In Genesis, men God blessed had married within these very degrees. Commentators treat this law as new at Sinai, not a rule always in force.
Until Israel came to Sinai, we have no hint of any marriage law given by God. Before the flood, and in the days of Cain, what the law of Leviticus counted as incest was lawful. Men married their sisters. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Jochebed was Amram's own aunt, his father's sister. Under the law of Leviticus, marriages like those of Abraham and Sarah, Amram and Jochebed, and Jacob and Rachel were clearly forbidden (18:11-12, 18).
Commentators differ on why the change came. One points to what time does to a damaged family line:
Abraham married his half-sister (Gen. 20:11-12), but this was early in human history, when the danger of harm to the children was not the same. "The laws of heredity show that in a fallen race, everyone can inherit disease, and that inheritance grows stronger when both parents carry the same tendencies." Time only increases the weakness that such disease brings in any genetic line.
This chapter is not dead history. It still marks out what God protects.
The incest that the Lord warns against here was a common practice among the nations outside Israel. These unholy, impure things are still common in the world — not only among pagan peoples, but also in the so-called civilized world. God warns against and forbids everything that would destroy the holiness of the family and open the door to abuse. In the New Testament the Spirit of God stresses the absolute purity of family life.
- Principle. Verse 6 is the rule the whole chapter unfolds: never confuse family closeness with the closeness of marriage.
- Authority. The ban rests on God's will and His name alone. No ceremony can make a forbidden union honourable.
- Range. "Near of kin" is then defined in three circles: blood relatives, relatives by law, and relatives of a man's wife.
- Development. At Sinai God made unlawful what had been lawful for Abraham and Amram. He raised the standard.
- Result. The goal is warm family love kept pure — a home whose order still speaks long after Israel's day.
The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover she is thy mother thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover it is thy father's nakedness.
This verse reaches into the closest circle of family life: a man may not take his father's wife, because the wrong falls on his father. Why does God make a law about this at all, how far does the ban reach, and does it still bind Christians today?
The rule does not rest on its results. It rests on who God is and on the relationship He had formed with Israel.
God's ban in this part of the chapter covers near relations. It rests on nothing but God's own will and authority: "I am the Lord." Marriage was never meant, except at the very beginning, to unite "one's own flesh" — people already close or related by nature.
Israel's conduct was not to be measured against the nations around them.
The moment He entered into a relationship with a people, their conduct had to take on a character and tone worthy of Him. The question was no longer what they were in themselves, or how they compared with others. The question was what God was, compared with them all.
Two questions follow: which woman is meant, and does the father's death change anything?
Finally, a man was not to take his father's wife, that is, his stepmother. Whether his father had died or not, this was forbidden.
She is no blood relation to him at all. The verse gives the reason itself: the offence lands on his father.
Whatever blood relation was forbidden to a man, the widow of the matching blood relation was forbidden too. But the reason was that she had been the wife of his close relative.
Jacob's firstborn son did this very thing. What he lost shows how God weighed the act.
The man who dishonoured his father — and in a way not even found among the nations that do not know God — was forgiven. But he lost his birthright. He could have no first place, either now or when God's kingdom comes for the earth.
The text addresses the man throughout, but the writers do not read that as a loophole.
And who would be bold enough to deny that the matching cases, though not listed here, are also implied? The command names the man, but it binds the woman just as much. The ban also goes beyond blood relations. It covers, in the same degree, those joined by marriage. It mattered greatly that all who stood in near kinship or connection should love one another warmly. But it mattered even more that their love should stay completely pure.
A wedding ceremony cannot make lawful what God has forbidden.
Marriage is only honourable where God's will is observed. Hebrews 13:4 in no way sanctions or sanctifies a forbidden union.
A list like this one says something uncomfortable about the reader.
Clearly the Spirit of God would never make laws against evils that do not exist. He does not build a dam where there is no flood to hold back. He does not deal with abstract ideas, but with real facts. Man really is able to commit every one of the shameful crimes named in this most faithful section of the book of Leviticus. If he were not, why would God tell him not to do them?
Paul had to deal with this very sin among Christians at Corinth.
Paul speaks here of a case that was well known — a man having his own stepmother. Such immorality as this was not even considered among the ungodly nations. This shows that grace, once known, can be abused in a most unholy way, if it does not hold living power over the soul. And a believer may slip into evil that shocks even the conscience of an unbeliever.
The demand on Christians is higher still, and the assembly had to act.
How much more is this wrong for Christians! Yet a man in the assembly at Corinth was guilty of this evil and had to be put out.
- Authority. The ban rests on God's own word and name: "I am the Lord." It does not rest on human opinion or on what other nations allowed.
- Relationship. God took Israel as His people. So their conduct had to match His character, not the standards of the nations around them.
- Reach. The woman named is the stepmother, no blood relation; she is forbidden because she was the wife of his near of kin, and the wrong is reckoned as done to the father.
- Realism. God does not build a dam where there is no flood — the very existence of this law tells us what the human heart is capable of.
- Result. Jacob's firstborn lost his birthright. Corinth had to put the offender out. No wedding can make honourable what God has forbidden.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, born at home, or born abroad -- their nakedness shalt thou not uncover.
Leviticus 18:9 sits inside a list of unions God forbids to His people. It names a man's sister — whether they share a father or a mother, and whether she grew up in the same house or somewhere else. Two questions follow. On what authority is such a union banned? And why does the ban reach a half-sister raised in another home?
The rule is not argued from custom or from results. It rests on who is speaking. The older translation quoted here uses God's covenant name, "Jehovah"; the ESV has "the LORD."
The ban in this part of our chapter concerns near relations. It rests simply on God's will and authority: "I am Jehovah." Except at the very beginning, marriage was never meant to join "one's own flesh" — people already joined or close by birth.
That name binds every item on the list. To break one is to strike at Him.
Jehovah sets His face against the unions and liberties described here. From the start of the chapter to the end, His name is the solemn authority against them all. If an Israelite let passion carry him away, that was rebellion against Jehovah, and he did it at his own risk.
The closer the two already stand, the worse the wrong. And though the verse speaks to the man, the same writer applies it to the woman too.
In these near relationships marriage was unnatural and dishonourable, and the closer the tie, the worse it was. The intercourse that belongs to marriage, and is forbidden in every case outside it, was here sinful and shameful in the highest degree. That holds whether the other person stands above him, as a father or mother does and the nearest on either side; or on the same level, as a sister does, however she was born; or below him, as a daughter-in-law does. And who would be bold enough to deny that the matching cases, not named here, are really implied? The ban here is spoken to the man, but it binds the woman just as much.
The verse marks a real change. Earlier generations had done what this law now bans.
Until Israel came to Sinai we have no hint of any marriage law laid down by God. Before the flood, and certainly in the days of Cain, what the Levitical law ruled as incest was lawful. Men married their sisters. And even in Abraham's day such unions do not seem to have been unlawful. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Jochebed was Amram's own aunt, his father's sister.
Commentators give more than one reason. One writer looks at what such unions do to the children born of them.
Abraham married his half-sister (Gen. 20:11-12), but this was early in human history, when the danger to the children was not the same. "The laws of heredity show that in a fallen race, the diseases we can all inherit grow stronger when both parents carry the same tendencies." Time only increases that weakness in a family line, and the marriage of two from the same line would double it.
The verse covers a sister by either parent, and one writer notes that the penalty was the same for both.
Incest with a half sister was just the same as with a full sister: it demanded death.
One writer draws out the principle behind the list, and warns against adding to it.
So we see that blood relationship is really the guiding principle on the man's side. It covers his blood relations, and also relations by marriage, forbidden because they had been the wives of blood relations. This last point is important. It throws light on a question where men have added restrictions that the principle in God's word never gave. And we see how necessary it is to come to the book to learn God's mind here, instead of drawing our own conclusions and putting relations by marriage on the same ground as relations by blood.
The chapter belongs to a law Christians are not under. Its moral force still stands.
These laws deal with matters that are morally wrong and are still wrong today. The believer is in no sense "under law" but "under grace." That does not leave him free to cross the bounds of morality. It means instead that grace gives him both the desire and the ability to carry out the righteousness the law requires, without putting himself under the law's authority.
- Authority. The ban rests on God's own will and name. To break it was open rebellion against Him, at the offender's own risk.
- Nearness. What makes the union wrong is that the two are already one flesh by birth; the wrong grows with the closeness.
- Reach. Father's daughter or mother's daughter, raised at home or elsewhere. Half-sister and full sister fall under the same word and the same penalty.
- Boundary. Blood is the guiding principle, so no one may stretch the list past what God wrote.
- Result. The rule was new at Sinai and it reshaped family life. Today grace gives both the desire and the power to live out the same purity.
The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter -- their nakedness shalt thou not uncover; for theirs is thy nakedness.
Leviticus 18:10 puts a man's granddaughter — through his son or his daughter — outside the reach of marriage. The reason comes in one short clause: her nakedness is his own. So what ties this list of forbidden unions together, and does it still speak today?
The ban rests on two things: how close the relatives are, and who is speaking.
God's prohibition in this part of our chapter concerns near relations, and it rests on God's own will and authority: "I am Jehovah." Except at the very beginning, marriage was not meant to unite "one's own flesh" — people already joined or close by nature.
The chapter keeps two kinds of closeness apart.
Leviticus 18 keeps them from dishonouring themselves in the things that belong to nature itself — in what a man ought to be in his natural relationships, so that he would not dishonour himself... Verse 6 holds the great principle the chapter presses: do not confuse the intimacy of marriage with the trust of natural relationship.
Stuart sets the granddaughter beside a relative by marriage. The two are banned for different reasons.
His son's daughter was forbidden to him because she was a close blood relative. His daughter-in-law was forbidden because she had been his son's wife. So for every blood relative a man was forbidden, the widow of the matching relative was forbidden too — but on the ground that she had been the wife of a close relative.
The rule is not arbitrary. One writer points to what it protects in the body, in society, and in the home.
The laws of heredity show that in a fallen race everyone is open to inherited disease, and that risk grows stronger where both parents carry the same tendencies. Having to look outside the circle of near relatives for a partner also puts a divine restraint on human selfishness, and it strengthens and multiplies the bonds that unite people with one another at large. On top of that, it guards the close life of home and family from abuse.
The verse speaks to the man, and it names only some relatives. Kelly treats both limits as shorthand, not as loopholes.
And who would dare to say that the matching cases, not named here, are not really implied? It is the man who is forbidden here; surely the woman is forbidden just as much. The prohibition also goes beyond blood relatives and reaches just as far to relatives by marriage. It mattered greatly to build the warmest affection among all who stood close in family or connection. But it mattered even more that their love for one another should be kept pure in every way.
Israel had no such marriage law before Sinai. These rules banned what earlier generations had done freely.
Until Israel came to Sinai, we have no hint of any marriage law given by God. Before the flood, and certainly in the days of Cain, what the law of Leviticus called incest was lawful. Men married their sisters. Even in Abraham's day such marriages do not appear to have been unlawful. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Jochebed was Amram's own aunt, his father's sister.
Behind the rule stands God's order in nature.
In Leviticus 18 God now treats the people as a holy people, and here He strictly forbids everything that went against His order in nature. It is important to hold this same principle always. God does not excuse what offends His natural order.
The evils named here did not stay in the ancient world.
These impure things are still common in the world, not only among the pagan nations, but also in the so-called civilized world. Loose marriage laws, divorce and other evils of the same kind are the curse of our age... God warns against and forbids everything that would destroy the holiness of the family and open the door to abuse.
- Flesh. The granddaughter is forbidden because she is the man's own flesh. Blood, not household custom, draws the line.
- Confusion. The great principle of the chapter: never confuse the intimacy of marriage with the trust of family.
- Restraint. The rule guards the home from abuse. It also curbs selfishness, sending a man outside the near circle to find a wife.
- Reach. The verse names the man, but Kelly holds that the woman and the unnamed matching cases fall under the same ban.
- Order. God does not excuse what offends the order He set in nature. The family still stands under the same warning.
The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father she is thy sister thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
This verse names a woman raised in the same house — the daughter of the man's father's wife — and calls her his sister. Why does God draw a line inside the family home, and on what authority?
One ground carries this whole part of the chapter.
This part of the chapter forbids marriage with near relations. It rests simply on the divine will and authority: "I am the Lord." Marriage was not meant to unite "one's own flesh" — people already close by nature. Only at the very beginning was that so.
That repeated name runs through the chapter as its warrant.
Notice how this book judges the details of evil. The Lord puts Himself forward as the One whose character rejects these things and makes them impossible for His people — "I am the Lord." The people were in relationship with Him; He set them apart.
The verse describes people who share one home. That closeness is what the command guards.
Verse 6 is the great principle insisted on in the chapter. Do not confuse the intimacies of marriage with the confidence of natural relationship. Satan plunged man into these forbidden things through the unnatural indulgence of the flesh. God had given men up to them, to work all uncleanness with greediness. What is fitting in nature is maintained; what defiles is forbidden.
The good of this rule reaches past the household.
Men must look outside the circle of near relationship for partners. In that need man's selfishness meets a divine restraint, and the bonds that unite people at large grow stronger and multiply. Besides that, the intimacies of the home and family are guarded from abuse.
In this list a sister stands between parents above and a daughter-in-law below. Closeness does not soften the wrong; it deepens it.
But in these near relationships marriage was unnatural and dishonourable — the nearer the tie, the worse it was. The intercourse that belongs to the married tie is forbidden in every case outside it. Here it was sinful and shameful in the highest degree. That is true in the superior place of father or mother and the nearest on either side, in the equal place of a sister however born, and in the lower place of a daughter-in-law. And who would be bold enough to deny that the matching relationships, though not named here, are just as truly implied? It is the man who is forbidden here: surely the woman is no less. Further, the prohibition goes beyond blood relations and reaches in the same degree to those connected by marriage. It mattered greatly that the warmest affection should grow among all who were near in kin or connection. It mattered even more that their mutual love be ordered in all purity.
Before Sinai, unions like this were not treated as sin. The lives of Israel's own ancestors show it. (Older translations read "begotten of your father," so some writers tie this verse to the half-sister. The ESV reads "brought up in your father's family.")
Until Israel came to Sinai, we have no hint of any marriage law laid down by God. Before the flood, and certainly in the days of Cain, what the law of Leviticus called incest was lawful. Men married their sisters. Even in Abraham's day such unions do not seem to have been unlawful. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Jochebed was Amram's own aunt, his father's sister. The law of Leviticus clearly forbade unions like those of Abraham and Sarah, Amram and Jochebed, and Jacob and Rachel (18:11-12, 18).
Scripture neither hides the earlier marriages nor bends the new rule to fit them.
It is beautiful to trace the unbending authority of revelation. Moses was inspired to forbid a marriage such as that of Abraham and Sarah, to mention no more. There is no apology for the past, though of course the guilt would have been greater for the future.
The rules reach past Israel, and what they leave unsaid matters too.
This word of the Lord about marriage concerns not only Israel but Christians as well. The marriage laws of our own land are not wholly governed by this revelation made to Moses. Still, everything God has forbidden here counts as illegal, and no Christian would act rightly by breaking the regulations laid down. These rules plainly tell us what to avoid. From what they forbid, we gather which unions the Lord does not count unlawful.
Restrictions which God has not imposed have been introduced, extending the forbidden degree of blood relationship beyond the limits laid down in the Word; and men have argued and legislated as if relations by law, simply as such, were to be seen in the same light as relations by blood.
- Who speaks. The ban rests on God's own will and name, not on argument — "I am the Lord" is the warrant running through the chapter.
- What it guards. Never confuse family closeness with the intimacy of marriage; this law shields the home from abuse.
- How near. A sister sits in the middle of the list, and the shame of such a union grows with the nearness of the tie.
- When it began. The rule is new at Sinai; it forbids what Abraham and Sarah did, with no apology offered for the past.
- How far it goes. What God forbids here still binds Christians; what He leaves unnamed, He does not count unlawful.
The nakedness of thy father's sister shalt thou not uncover she is thy father's near relation.
Leviticus 18:12 bans marriage with a father's sister. It gives the reason in the same breath: she is his father's own relative. The verse sits inside a list of banned unions (verses 6–18) that God gave Israel at Sinai. That reason shows what the whole list rests on.
The ban rests on two things: nearness of blood, and the authority of the One who speaks.
The divine prohibition in this part of our chapter refers to near relations. It rests simply on the divine will and authority: "I am the LORD." Except at the beginning, marriage was not meant to unite "one's own flesh" — people already united or near by nature.
Verse 13 says the same about the mother's sister. One writer shows how the chapter is arranged, and where the aunt by blood fits.
Throughout, the law speaks to the man, never to the woman. The prohibitions fall under three headings: first, certain blood relations of his own (18:6-13); next, certain relations by marriage (14-16); and last, certain relations of his wife (17-18). Among his own blood relations, his direct line is forbidden him — his mother or his offspring. So are the side branches, reaching out to his aunts by blood: the sisters of his father, or the sisters of his mother. All within that range are near of kin, and so are closed to him. If a man went in to his aunt by blood, they were both to bear their iniquity (20:19).
Verse 12 would have condemned the marriage of Moses' own parents. He wrote the law down anyway.
Until Israel came to Sinai, we have no hint of any marriage law laid down by God. Before the flood, and certainly in the days of Cain, what the Levitical law called incest was lawful. Men married their sisters. Even in Abraham's day such unions do not seem to have been unlawful. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Jochebed was Amram's own aunt, his father's sister. By the law of Leviticus, unions such as Abraham and Sarah, Amram and Jochebed, and Jacob and Rachel were plainly forbidden (18:11-12, 18).
Scripture neither hides those earlier marriages nor excuses them.
It is beautiful to trace the unbending authority of revelation. Moses was inspired to forbid such a marriage as that of Abraham and Sarah, to name no more. There is no apology for the past, though of course the guilt would be greater in the future.
Chapter 20 sets out what breaking these rules would cost.
In certain cases it would be wickedness, and death was the penalty attached. In other cases the penalty was to die childless (20:20-21). What was lawful for Abraham and Amram was made unlawful for their descendants by the law. Abraham's marriage, had he lived under the law, would have been wickedness. Amram's would have meant that he and Jochebed bore their iniquity... This word of the Lord about marriage clearly concerns not only Israel, but Christians as well.
The chapter is not cold about family love. It guards it, so that closeness stays clean. And though the command names only the man, the same bar holds for the woman.
But in these near relationships marriage was unnatural and dishonourable, and the closer the kin, the worse it was. The sexual union that belongs to marriage, and is forbidden in every case outside it, was here sinful and shameful in the highest degree... It is the man who is prohibited here: surely the woman is no less so... It was very important to build the warmest affection between all who were near kin or near by connection. But it was even more essential that their mutual love should be ordered in all purity.
Verse 12 gives blood kinship as its reason. So we must not stretch the list by our own reasoning.
So we see that blood kinship is really the guiding principle on the man's side. That holds for his blood relations, and also for the relations by law who were forbidden because they had been the wives of his blood relations. This is an important point. It throws light on a question where men have added restrictions that the principle in God's word never laid down. And we see how necessary it is to come to the book to learn God's mind here. We should not draw our own conclusions and put relations by law, as such, on the same footing as relations by blood.
- Flesh. The ban rests on one fact — a man's aunt by blood is his father's own flesh — and on one authority: "I am the LORD."
- Range. That fact reaches sideways as well as down. Aunts on the father's side and the mother's side alike are near of kin, and so closed to him.
- History. Jochebed was Amram's father's sister. Moses wrote down the law that condemned his own parents' marriage, and offered no apology for the past.
- Cost. Chapter 20 sets the price: a man and his blood aunt would both bear their iniquity, and other unions in the list brought death or a childless life.
- Purity. The fence is not against family affection but for it. Love among near kin was to be warm, and ordered in all purity — and this word of the Lord still concerns Christians, not Israel only.
The nakedness of thy mother's sister shalt thou not uncover; for she is thy mother's near relation.
Leviticus 18 lists the marriages and sexual unions God forbids His people, and verse 13 names the last of a man's own blood relatives: his mother's sister. The reason is not custom or health but kinship itself — so why should nearness of blood bar a marriage?
The chapter falls into groups. This verse sits at the far edge of the first one.
Throughout, the law addresses the man and never the woman. The prohibitions fall under three headings. First, certain blood relations of his own (18:6-13). Next, certain relations by marriage (14-16). Last, certain relations of his wife (17-18). Of his own blood relations, besides his direct line — his mother or his children — the side branches are forbidden to him. The ban reaches out to his aunts by blood, the sisters of his father or the sisters of his mother. All within that range are near of kin, and so are barred to him. And if a man went in to his aunt by blood, they were both to bear their iniquity (20:19).
The verse gives its own reason — relationship. God adds no argument beyond His own name.
The divine prohibition in this part of our chapter refers to near relations and rests simply on the divine will and authority: "I am Jehovah." Marriage was not, except at the beginning, to unite "one's own flesh," naturally united or near already.
Family closeness and married closeness are two different things, and the chapter keeps them apart. A man may love and trust his aunt. He must never turn that trust into marriage.
Verse 6 is the great principle the chapter insists on: do not confuse the intimacies of marriage with the confidence of natural relationship. The things forbidden are those into which Satan plunged man through the unnatural indulgence of the flesh. God gave men up to them, to work all uncleanness with greediness. The fitting order of nature is maintained; what defiles is forbidden.
Israel's own history holds a marriage that this law would forbid. Amram married his father's sister — the matching case to verse 13 on the other side of the family.
Until Israel came to Sinai, we have no hint of any marriage law laid down by God. Before the flood, and certainly in the days of Cain, what the law of Leviticus ruled to be incest was lawful. Men married their sisters. Even in Abraham's day such unions do not seem to have been unlawful. Sarah was Abraham's half-sister. Jochebed was Amram's own aunt, his father's sister. Under the law of Leviticus, the unions of Abraham and Sarah, Amram and Jochebed, and Jacob and Rachel were forbidden (18:11-12, 18).
The same writer holds that the ruling did not expire with Israel:
This word of the Lord about marriage concerns not only Israel but Christians as well. The marriage laws of our own land do not follow this revelation made to Moses in every point. Still, everything God has forbidden here counts as illegal, and no Christian would act rightly in breaking the regulations laid down.
Other writers ask what such a boundary achieves. Looking beyond his own relatives for a wife does three things at once — for a man's children, for society, and for his home.
The laws of heredity show that in a fallen race all are liable to inherited disease. That disease grows stronger where both parents carry similar tendencies. The need to look outside the circle of near relationship for partners puts a divine restraint on man's selfishness. It also strengthens and multiplies the bonds that unite man with man at large. Besides this, the close friendships of home and family are guarded from abuse.
The verse speaks to the man alone. That silence does not put the woman outside the rule, or leave the matching cases untouched.
And who would dare say that the matching cases, not listed here, are not really implied? The law prohibits the man here; the woman is no less bound... It was very important that all who stood together in near kinship or connection should love one another warmly. But it mattered even more that their mutual love should be ordered in all purity.
- Near — the aunt by blood marks the outer edge of a man's forbidden blood relatives. Everyone inside that range is near of kin, and barred.
- Named — the ban rests on God's own authority, not on argument. Marriage was never meant to join what was already one's own flesh.
- Not confused — the chapter's ruling principle: no one may turn the trust of family into the intimacy of marriage.
- New — this was a genuine change; Amram had married his own aunt, and under this law that union would now be forbidden.
- Needed — the limit spares children inherited disease, drives families outward into wider bonds, and keeps the home safe.
The nakedness of thy father's brother shalt thou not uncover; thou shalt not approach his wife she is thine aunt.
Leviticus 18 lists the unions God forbids His people. Verse 14 guards the wife of a man's uncle, a woman related to him by marriage and not by blood — so why is she off limits, and what decides where the line falls?
One writer traces the whole chapter back to a single principle in verse 6. It keeps two kinds of closeness apart:
Leviticus 18 keeps them from dishonouring themselves in the things that belong to nature itself — in what a man ought to be in his natural relationships, so that he would not dishonour himself... Verse 6 gives the great principle the chapter presses: do not mix the intimacy of marriage with the trust of a natural family tie.
An uncle's wife belongs to the family circle. A man meets her with the ease of a relative, and the law guards that trust.
The bans fall into three groups. This verse sits in the middle one: relatives gained by marriage, not by birth:
All through, the law speaks to the man, never to the woman. The bans fall into three groups: first, certain blood relations of his own (18:6-13); next, certain relations by marriage (14-16); and last, certain relations of his wife (17-18)... Three relations by marriage were forbidden to him: his son's wife, his brother's wife, and his aunt by marriage. All three were forbidden because they had been the wives of his blood relations.
That explains the verse's own wording. It names the offence first as uncovering the nakedness of the father's brother. The wrong strikes the uncle, because she is his wife.
The law reaches just as far for in-laws. It speaks to the man, but it holds the woman too:
But in these close relationships marriage was unnatural and dishonourable, and the closer the tie, the worse it was... It is the man who is forbidden here; the woman is surely forbidden no less. The ban also goes beyond blood relations and reaches just as far to those connected by marriage. It mattered greatly to keep up the warmest affection between all who stood close in family or connection. It mattered even more that their love for one another should be pure.
The law does not cool family warmth. It keeps it clean.
The chapter never argues from custom or convenience. Its force comes from who is speaking, and no wedding makes a forbidden union honourable:
Marriage is only honourable where God's will is kept. Hebrews 13:4 in no way approves or makes holy a forbidden union... The LORD sets His face against the unions and liberties named here. His Name, from the beginning of the chapter to the end, is the solemn authority against them all. If an Israelite let passion carry him away, it was rebellion against the LORD, and he did it at his own risk.
These rules were new. Israel's own history holds marriages this chapter would have ruled out:
Until Israel came to Sinai, we have no hint of any marriage law given by God... And even in Abraham's day such marriages do not appear to have been unlawful. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Jochebed was Amram's own aunt, his father's sister. By the law of Leviticus, marriages like those of Abraham and Sarah, Amram and Jochebed, and Jacob and Rachel were plainly forbidden (18:11-12, 18).
The same writer notes the penalty attached, and holds that what God settled here still guides believers today:
In some cases it was wickedness, and death was the penalty attached; in others, the penalty was to die childless (20:20-21)... Now what the Lord says here about marriage clearly concerns not only Israel, but Christians as well. Our own country's marriage laws do not follow this revelation given to Moses at every point. Still, everything God has forbidden here is counted unlawful, and no Christian would be acting rightly if he broke the rules laid down.
In-laws are forbidden because they married into the blood line. That reason also sets a limit, and missing it leads people to invent rules God never gave:
So we see that blood relationship is the guiding principle on the man's side. It covers his own blood relations, and it covers his relations by marriage, who were forbidden because they had been the wives of blood relations. This last point is important. It throws light on a question where men have added restrictions that the principle laid down in God's word knows nothing of. We see how necessary it is to come to the book to learn God's mind on the matter, instead of drawing our own conclusions.
- Near, therefore guarded. The chapter's rule is simple: never turn the trust of family closeness into the intimacy of marriage.
- Near by marriage. The uncle's wife falls under the ban because she married a blood relation. The verse names the wrong as against the father's brother himself.
- Near in duty. The law speaks to the man, yet it binds the woman just as much. Warm family affection should continue, kept pure.
- Near to God. No ceremony makes a forbidden union honourable. God's own Name, running from the start of the chapter to its end, is the authority behind the whole list.
- Near the text. The law now shuts out marriages once allowed, such as Amram's to his own aunt. The reason it gives also keeps us from adding rules Scripture never made.
The nakedness of thy daughter-in-law shalt thou not uncover she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
The prohibition in this verse is short, and God gives His reason inside it: this woman is already bound to the family through a son. The whole chapter rests on one refrain — "I am the LORD," older translations "I am Jehovah" — and it names the unions God will not allow.
The chapter forbids two different kinds of nearness, and this verse belongs to the second. One writer sets the two side by side to show that a daughter-in-law is not barred as a blood relative, but as a wife already given to a son.
His son's daughter was forbidden to him because she was his close blood relative. His daughter-in-law was forbidden because she had been his son's wife. So for every blood relation forbidden to a man, the widow of that relation was forbidden too. But the reason was that she had been the wife of a close relative.
That is why the verse states the relationship twice. The son's marriage created the barrier, and the barrier stands whatever happens to the son.
The verse gives no argument from custom or consequences. It traces the ban to the will of the One speaking.
God's prohibition in this part of the chapter concerns near relations. It rests only on His own will and authority: "I am Jehovah." Except at the beginning, marriage was not meant to unite "one's own flesh" — people already united or near by nature.
Some treat the honour of marriage as a loophole, as though a wedding could make any union acceptable. Kelly answers that directly.
Marriage is only honourable where God's will is observed. Hebrews 13:4 does not approve or make holy a forbidden union… Jehovah sets His face against the unions and liberties listed here. His name from the beginning to the end of the chapter is the solemn warrant against them all. If an Israelite let passion carry him away, it was rebellion against Jehovah and at his own peril.
The verse speaks to a man and names one woman. Kelly argues that the seriousness rises with the closeness of the tie, and that the unnamed side of each pair falls under the same ban.
In these near relationships, marriage was unnatural and dishonourable, and the closer the tie the worse it was. The sexual union that belongs to marriage is wrong in every case outside it. Here it was sinful and shameful in the highest degree — in the higher place of a father or mother, in the equal place of a sister, or in the lower place of a daughter-in-law… The man is the one forbidden here. Surely the woman is forbidden no less. The ban also reaches past blood relations. It covers, in the same degree, those related by marriage. It mattered greatly that close relatives should feel the warmest affection for one another. It mattered even more that their love should be kept entirely pure.
This chapter lists what people are capable of. One writer says it also shows us ourselves.
Especially in chapters 18 and 20, we come face to face with great depths of depravity. It is a solemn, searching thing to realise that we carry within us that fallen nature, able to do such things as these. The sins forbidden here have much to do with our sexual nature. Today it is plain that sins of that kind lie under a vast amount of the depravity and crime that fill every land.
Judah slept with Tamar, his son's widow, long before God gave this law. One writer weighs them both by the same standard.
On a human level, Tamar's act was more righteous than Judah's, as he himself admitted. But morally they were alike, partners in a serious sin. Conduct such as this might suit the families of the Canaanites, but it was abhorrent to the holiness of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
One writer answers the obvious question. Does a rule like this still bind someone who is not under the law?
These laws deal with matters that are morally wrong and are still wrong today. Though the believer is not in any sense "under law," but "under grace," this does not mean that he is free to break through the bounds of morality. Instead, grace gives him both the desire and the ability to carry out the righteousness the law required. He does this without putting himself under the law's authority.
- The reason — Blood does not bar her; marriage does. She had been his son's wife, and that alone settles it.
- The authority — The ban rests on God's own will and name, not on argument, custom, or consequence.
- The reach — The verse speaks to the man, but it binds the woman no less, and it implies every matching relationship.
- The mirror — The list exposes what our fallen nature can do. That is why it makes hard reading.
- The answer — Grace does not loosen these bounds; it supplies both the desire and the power to keep them.
The nakedness of thy brother's wife shalt thou not uncover it is thy brother's nakedness.
Leviticus 18 lists the family ties that put marriage and sex out of bounds in Israel, and a brother's wife is one of them. The reason given — she is "your brother's nakedness" — raises three questions: why in-laws are on the list, whether any exception exists, and how far the rule reaches.
The ban does not rest on custom or opinion. It rests on who God is, and on what marriage was meant to do.
God's prohibition in this part of our chapter covers near relations. It rests on His will and authority alone: "I am the LORD." Marriage was not meant, except at the beginning, to unite "one's own flesh" — people already joined or close by nature.
A brother's wife shares no blood with the man. So why is she on the list? One writer points to her husband.
Whatever blood relative was forbidden to the man, the widow of that relative was forbidden too. But the ground was different: she had been the wife of his close relative.
The chapter opens by calling on man twice over. One name stands behind every rule in it.
The opening is unusually emphatic: "Man, man." God is calling for man's attention. Marriage is only honourable where His will is kept. Hebrews 13:4 in no way approves a forbidden union or makes it holy… Against unions or loose practices like those described here, the Lord sets His face. His name from the beginning to the end of the chapter is the solemn warrant against them all. If an Israelite let passion carry him away, it was rebellion against the Lord and at his own peril.
In one case the law does tell a man to take his brother's widow. That case was narrow. It was tied to inheritance in Israel, and it was no pattern for others.
One marked exception was needed to keep up tribal inheritance in Israel: marriage to a brother-in-law. Such marriage existed elsewhere, but it applied to no other people as it did to Israel, still less to a Christian. It came in when a man died childless. His brother or nearest relative then had to raise up offspring for the dead man. The aim was to bind together the family line and the inheritance.
The exception also shows where the prohibition bites. Another writer, commenting on the matching penalty in chapter 20, reads it of a brother still living.
Verse 21 clearly refers to someone taking his brother's wife while his brother was still alive, for if the brother had died, then he was told to take the widow and raise up offspring who would be counted as belonging to his dead brother (Deut. 25:5).
Every clause in the list speaks to the man. That form of wording does not narrow the law's reach.
The man is the one forbidden here, but surely the woman is no less. The ban also goes beyond blood relations. It reaches just as far to those related by marriage. It mattered greatly to grow the warmest affection among all who stood in close family ties. It mattered even more that their love be ordered in complete purity.
Men are quick to add rules of their own. One writer warns against treating in-laws as blood relatives across the board, and points to a case God left open.
This is an important point. It sheds light on a question where men have added restrictions that God's word never lays down. We see how necessary it is to come to the book to learn God's mind here. We must not draw our own conclusions and put in-laws, simply as in-laws, on the same ground as blood relatives… Apart from that one brother-in-law case, a man was never to make his brother's widow his wife. But his wife's sister he was free to marry after his wife's death.
Centuries later John the Baptist held a king to this very law, face to face.
John rebuked the king for the many notorious evils he had committed. But perhaps his blackest crime was to marry his brother Philip's wife. The fearless prophet did not shrink from denouncing the incestuous adulterer to his face, though he sat on a throne. He condemned him by the laws of God and of man (Lev. 18:16; Lev. 20:21). "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" summed up his charge. The king's guilt was three times over. Herod's own wife was alive. The husband of Herodias was alive. And Herod and Herodias were uncle and niece.
- Authority. The rule stands on "I am the LORD" — God's name, not human custom, is the warrant behind every line of the chapter.
- Reason. A brother's wife is barred, not by blood, but because she married a blood relative. Marriage was never meant to join what is already one's own flesh.
- Exception. One case reversed it. When a brother died childless, his nearest relative raised up offspring to keep the family line and inheritance alive in Israel. Commentators say that rule does not carry over to the Christian.
- Reach. The wording speaks to the man, but the woman is bound just as much. The ban covers in-laws as well as blood relatives.
- Limit. The same word that forbids also shows where forbidding stops — men are not to add restrictions God never made.
The nakedness of a woman and her daughter shalt thou not uncover; thou shalt not take her son's daughter, nor her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness they are her near relations it is wickedness.
Leviticus 18 lays down God's rules for the closest circle of family life. Verse 17 reaches past a man's own blood relatives, and it raises two questions: why God forbids these unions, and how far the ban goes.
The verses just before this one deal with a man's own relatives.
Verse 17 shows that the ban goes further than this. It covers unfitting and unnatural sexual relations with a woman and her daughter, or with her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, even though none of them is related to him by blood.
The ban on the wife's line rests on different ground.
Now we come to the wife's relations, whom the man is not free to marry. Her own direct line is plainly forbidden to him. We can all understand that. But here we have left the ground of blood relationship. Between a man and his wife there is no blood tie at all, unless he marries his cousin, and their marriage does not create one. They are one flesh, but there is no blood relationship between them.
Behind every prohibition in the chapter stands one governing idea, stated back in verse 6.
Verse 6 gives the great principle the chapter presses: never confuse the closeness of marriage with the trust of natural family relationship. What is forbidden here is what Satan plunged man into, through the satanic and unnatural indulgence of the flesh.
Kelly puts it from the other side. These are the ties where affection should be warmest of all.
It mattered greatly that the warmest affection should grow among all who stood close to one another, by blood or by marriage. It mattered even more that their love for each other should be kept in complete purity.
God gives no argument from custom or feeling. He gives His own name as the reason.
God's prohibition in this part of our chapter concerns near relations, and it rests on nothing but His own will and authority: "I am the LORD." Marriage was not meant, except at the very beginning, to join "one's own flesh" — those already joined or close by nature.
The verse does not just ban the act — it calls it depravity. Under the law that verdict carried a heavy penalty, and its reach did not stop with Israel.
In some cases it would be wickedness, and the penalty attached was death. In other cases the penalty such people suffered was to die childless. What the Lord says here about marriage concerns not only Israel but Christians as well. The marriage laws of our own country are not wholly shaped by this revelation given to Moses. Still, everything God has forbidden here is counted illegal, and no Christian would be acting rightly if he broke the rules laid down.
Grace does not lower the standard. It does change how the believer stands toward the law.
These laws deal with matters that are morally wrong, and they are still wrong today. The believer is not in any sense "under law" but "under grace." That does not mean he is free to break the bounds of morality. It means that grace gives him both the desire and the ability to carry out the righteousness the law requires.
Verse 17 forbids the wife's direct line and stops there. That limit matters when people try to build a general rule about in-laws.
This is an important point. It throws light on a question where men have added restrictions that the principle laid down in God's word knows nothing of. We see how necessary it is to come to the book to learn God's mind on the matter, instead of drawing our own conclusions and putting relations by marriage on the same footing as relations by blood.
- Order. One principle runs through the chapter: never confuse the closeness of marriage with the trust of family life.
- Reach. The ban goes past a man's own kin. It covers a woman's daughter and her granddaughters, who are no blood relation to him.
- Ground. The ban rests on God's will and authority alone: "I am the LORD."
- Weight. Under the law such unions brought death or childlessness. Writers hold that what God forbade here still binds Christians.
- Limit. God bars the wife's direct line and goes no further. Adding rules His word never made is its own failure to learn His mind.
And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside her, during her life.
Leviticus 18 lists the marriages God forbids His people, and this verse closes the list. It is the one ban with a time limit: it holds only "while her sister is still alive." That clause raises two questions. Why is a wife's sister singled out? And why is this rule unlike every other one in the chapter?
The chapter is not a random pile of rules. One writer traces its shape, and shows that verse 18 closes the third and final group.
The law speaks to the man throughout, never to the woman. The prohibitions fall under three heads: first, certain blood relations of his own (18:6–13); next, certain relations by marriage (14–16); and last, certain relations of his wife (17–18).
The same words close these commands again and again: "I am the LORD." That is what makes breaking them serious.
Marriage is only honourable where God's will is kept... Jehovah sets His face against unions and loose practices such as those described here. His name from beginning to end of the chapter is the solemn warrant against them all. If an Israelite allowed passion to carry him away, it was rebellion against Jehovah and at his own peril.
Israel's own ancestor had done this very thing. Genesis had already shown what it cost.
Next Leah is forced on Jacob by deceit, and Rachel — the one he loved and had bargained for — has to be added. But strife and distraction follow again. The sisters' rivalry deepens the misery, with two concubines added as well. Later the law points out this very marriage of two sisters at the same time, which, standing where it did, might be a snare to Israel, and forbids it.
Notice who this law protects, and why it stands apart from the rest of the chapter.
They are one flesh, but between a man and his wife there is no blood tie. So besides the wife's direct line, no branch on her side is forbidden to the man, except her sister during her lifetime. The Lord in mercy to the wife would preserve her by this law from the sorrow that comes when a husband follows Jacob's example. Beyond this God's word does not go.
The same writer notes that this care runs through the law, but only so far. A woman "was protected from being trampled on in certain cases (Ex. 21; Lev. 18:18); yet she never had, under the law of Moses, her proper place beside man" (C E Stuart).
Compare this rule with the bans around it, and the difference is sharp.
A man was permitted to have two wives (Deut. 21:15) by the law, but no woman was ever allowed to have two husbands... Restrictions God has not imposed have been introduced, and men have argued and legislated as if relations by marriage, simply as such, were the same as relations by blood. If this agreed with the word of God, the wife's sister would be as forbidden to the man as his own sister. Now to have relations with his own sister was wickedness (20:17), and the law punished both with public execution. To marry the wife's sister was only forbidden while the first wife was alive, and no punishment is even hinted at if he married her after her sister's death.
What Scripture permits, the law of a country may still forbid. One writer meets that clash directly.
Here there is no conflict of authority. God's word does not command us to enter such marriages, though it permits them. So no one is bound before God to do what the law of the land will not allow. The Christian is bound to respect such a law, even though it may limit the freedom God's word allows him.
Kelly adds that Christ reaches back further than any list of forbidden relatives. Christianity, he says, "goes to the root of the matter by recalling, as our Lord did, what was true at the beginning, when God made one man and one woman" (William Kelly).
- Cause. Jacob married two sisters. The result was rivalry, concubines and misery — the very snare Israel needed protecting from.
- Mercy. The ban is not about kinship but kindness: it spares a wife the sorrow of a rival in her own family.
- Warrant. "I am the LORD" stands over the whole chapter. Breaking these commands is not a breach of custom but rebellion against God.
- Limit. The words "while her sister is still alive" set this ban apart. The others carried the death penalty. Here no penalty is named once the wife has died.
- Restraint. Where Scripture permits and the law of the land forbids, believers respect the law of the land. And Christ points back past every such rule to one man and one woman.