Leviticus 18:6–27

Leviticus 18:6 · Darby

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.

The Governing Principle

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

The Ground of the Command

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Who Counts as "Near of Kin"

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Something New in Israel's History

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).

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Its Reach Beyond Israel

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.

Modernised from Arno C. GaebeleinOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:7 · Darby

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.

Leviticus 18:8 · Darby

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 Ground of the Ban

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from C. H. MackintoshOriginal wording

Who Is Meant by "Your Father's Wife"

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.

Modernised from Leslie M. GrantOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

Dishonour Done to the Father

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The Reach of the Command

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Why God Wrote Such Laws at All

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?

Modernised from C. H. MackintoshOriginal wording

The Same Sin in a Christian Assembly

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.

Modernised from Leslie M. GrantOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from Leslie M. GrantOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:9 · Darby

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 Ground of the Prohibition

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Nearness Is the Offence

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

A New Line Drawn at Sinai

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

Why the Change Came

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.

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Half-Sister and Full Sister Alike

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.

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Blood, Not Human Additions

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

Standing for Today

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.

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:10 · Darby

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 principle behind the list

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

Why a granddaughter is named

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

Reasons behind the rule

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.

Modernised from F. W. GrantOriginal wording

What the wording leaves unsaid

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

A rule that had not always applied

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

Where this leaves the reader today

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from Arno Clemens GaebeleinOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:11 · Darby

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?

The Reason Is the Relationship

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

What the Law Protects

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from Numerical Bible NotesOriginal wording

Nearness Measures the Offence

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

A New Line Drawn in History

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).

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The Limit of the Line

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:12 · Darby

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 ground of the prohibition

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Aunts on both sides

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).

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

Moses' own parents

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).

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The cost, and who it still binds

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

Warm affection, ordered in purity

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Going to the book, not to our own deductions

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:13 · Darby

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?

Where the Verse Falls in the List

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).

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

The Ground of the Prohibition

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Two Kinds of Closeness

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

A Rule That Had Not Always Existed

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).

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

What the Limit Protects

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.

Modernised from Numerical Bible NotesOriginal wording

The Unwritten Half of the Law

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:14 · Darby

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?

The Rule Behind the List

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

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.

Why the Aunt by Marriage

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

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.

Blood and Marriage Alike

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The law does not cool family warmth. It keeps it clean.

God's Name as the Warrant

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Once Lawful, Now Forbidden

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).

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

Not One Rule More

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:15 · Darby

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 reason God gives

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

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.

Resting on God's authority

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Marriage does not cover it

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

How far the wording reaches

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

A list that reads us

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.

Modernised from F. B. HoleOriginal wording

A case from before the law

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.

Modernised from An Outline of Sound WordsOriginal wording

Where this leaves a Christian

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.

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:16 · Darby

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 reason inside the verse

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

God's name as the warrant

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The one exception

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

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).

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Who the rule binds

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Where the list stops

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

The verse in the New Testament

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:17 · Darby

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 Reach of the Prohibition

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Blood Relation Is Not the Ground Here

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

Marriage and Family Confidence Kept Apart

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The Authority That Makes It Binding

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The Weight God Gave It — and Who It Binds

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

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.

Modernised from Leslie M. GrantOriginal wording

Stopping Where the Text Stops

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.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:18 · Darby

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?

Where the verse sits 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).

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

The name behind the command

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Jacob's household as the warning

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.

Modernised from Numerical Bible NotesOriginal wording

A law given to shield the wife

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

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).

Why the time limit matters

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

Where Christians land

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

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).

Summary

- 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.

Leviticus 18:19 · Darby

And thou shalt not approach a woman in the separation of her uncleanness to uncover her nakedness.

In this chapter God gives laws for the most private area of human life. At this verse the list turns from forbidden family unions to other practices God calls defiling — but why does God speak here at all?

A Different Kind of Defilement

One writer marks this verse as a change in the kind of defilement, and links it to what the New Testament says about marriage.

Here is a somewhat different character of defilement, but one leading on to still viler abominations. There is no need to dwell on any of them, though we can be sure God is wise and holy in every word He lays down. In fact Hebrews 13:4 calls Christian Jews, and in principle everyone concerned, to take heed. Its words take in verses 19 and 20 of our chapter. Marriage is to be honourable in all respects, as well as among all, of course. Christian light and love are meant to reach even the most intimate of relationships. They cleanse from every defilement of flesh and spirit. Whether Jews or Gentiles, we need reminding that the Lord avenges all such wrongs.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The Meaning of "Separation"

The word behind "menstrual uncleanness" points back to the laws about bodily discharges earlier in the book. Those laws dealt with conditions no one could help, yet God still treated them as defiling.

Chapters 13 and 14 deal with the worst form of defilement. It usually lasted a lifetime and shut a person out of the camp of Israel, where God was pleased to dwell. Leviticus 15 deals with a variety of lesser defilements. These brought a temporary separation and careful washings before a person could return to the camp and its privileges. They sprang from the weakness of human nature. They also sprang from conditions as they exist today, as a result of the fall. Many of them were unavoidable, yet Israel still had to recognise them as defiling and treat them as such. In this way Israel learned the holiness of their God, and learned that everything defiling must go if they were to enjoy His presence.

Modernised from F. B. HoleOriginal wording

Desire Held Under God's Name

Each command in this chapter carries God's own name, and that name is why it binds.

Against unions or liberties such as those indicated here, Jehovah sets His face. His name, from the beginning of the chapter to the end, 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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Another writer explains that name:

Notice how this book judges the details of evil. Jehovah puts Himself forward in person 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 sanctified them.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

God's Order in Nature

One writer reads the whole chapter as a guard on human dignity.

Leviticus 18 keeps them from dishonouring themselves in what belongs to nature itself — in what a person ought to be in their natural relations... God brings His people near to Him and teaches them on this subject. They were separated from the evil of the world they were called out of. They were separated too from the reckless immorality into which Satan had driven degraded man as his plaything... The comeliness of nature is maintained; what defiles is forbidden.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

Not the Culture's Standard

Israel had lived in Egypt and was heading into Canaan. Their standard came from neither.

God's people are to be shaped by what He has revealed of Himself. Their conduct rests on what He is, not on what they are in themselves... The Egyptians and the Canaanites were all wrong. How was Israel to know this? Who told them?... Jehovah's word settled every question of right and wrong for every member of the Israel of God. This was not one Israelite's judgement against an Egyptian's or a Canaanite's; it was the judgement of God above all. Egypt might have her practices and opinions, and so might Canaan; but Israel were to have the opinions and practices laid down in the word of God.

Modernised from C. H. MackintoshOriginal wording

Where Grace Leaves the Believer

Does any of this still bind Christians, who are not under 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 he is free to break the bounds of morality. Rather, grace gives him both the desire and the ability to carry out the righteousness the law required. He does this without seeing himself as under the law's authority (Rom. 8:3-4).

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Summary

- The Lord signs — the force behind the command is a Person. "I am the Lord" rejects these things for a people He has set apart.

- The Lord defines — Egypt had its ways and Canaan had its ways. Israel's right and wrong came from God's word.

- The Lord restrains — the verse curbs desire at its most private point. Letting passion win here was rebellion, not weakness.

- The Lord reaches in — even weaknesses no one could avoid counted as defiling. His presence tolerates nothing unclean.

- The Lord enables — grace does not lower the moral bar; it supplies both the wish and the strength to keep it.

Leviticus 18:20 · Darby

And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to become unclean with her.

Leviticus 18 lists the unions God forbids, and verse 20 guards a neighbour's marriage. The reason it gives is not social harm but uncleanness, and God signs each command with His own name.

God's Order in Nature

The chapter is not a random list of bans. One writer reads it as God guarding what belongs to human nature itself.

Leviticus 18 keeps them from dishonouring themselves in the things that belong to nature itself. It holds them to what man ought to be in his natural relations, so that he would not dishonour himself. Man ought not to dishonour himself. But since he did not honour God, God left him to do it (compare Rom. 1). God brought His people near to Himself, and so He teaches them about this. He set them apart from the evil of the world He called them out of. He also set them apart from the reckless immorality into which Satan had driven degraded man for his sport.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

Israel could not work out this standard alone. God had to give it.

The warnings given to Israel show us what uncleanness they were in danger of falling into, if left to themselves. Without a revelation from God they had no right standard to guide their conduct in matters that so closely affected their happiness and the purity of family life.

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

Adultery Weighed With Incest

Verse 20 comes straight after the laws on incest. One writer weighs the two sins against each other.

Adultery is just as evil as is incest (v. 20), and similarly forbidden.

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Signed With the Name of God

God's own name runs through the chapter from beginning to end. That name is the warrant behind the commands, and it also settles what "honourable" marriage can cover.

Marriage is only honourable where people keep God's will. Hebrews 13:4 in no way approves or sanctifies a forbidden union. The true rendering is: let marriage be honourable "in all things," and the bed be undefiled. It is a command, not a statement of fact. Against unions or liberties such as those listed here, Jehovah sets His face. 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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Defilement That Reaches the Land

The verse says the act makes a person unclean. The chapter widens that: the uncleanness reaches the land itself.

Israel were not to make themselves unclean in any of these things. The nations of Canaan did all of them, and He drove those nations out before Israel. How much guiltier, then, would Israel be! These sins made the very land unclean, so He brought judgment on it for that guilt. The earth vomited out its inhabitants. So Israel had to beware, both for themselves and for any stranger living among them, in case the land should vomit them out too, as it had the nations who lived there before Israel. For such evil was intolerable in His eyes, and even more offensive in His own people than in anyone else.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Carried Into the New Testament

The command does not expire with Israel. One writer sees the letter to the Hebrews take up this very verse and name an avenger.

The letter to the Hebrews (13:4) calls Christian Jews, and in principle everyone concerned, to take heed. Its words cover verses 19 and 20 of this chapter. Marriage is to be honourable in all respects, and among all people too. Christian light and love should reach even the most intimate relationships and cleanse them from every defilement of flesh and spirit. Jews and Gentiles alike need the reminder that the Lord avenges all such wrongs.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The Lord did not set this command aside when He taught on it.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28). Where is the law set aside here? Nowhere — He upheld it. The law was content to forbid the act itself. The Lord went further and forbade the inward desire as well as the outward act.

Modernised from A. J. PollockOriginal wording

Summary

- Order — the chapter guards what belongs to human nature, so that people do not dishonour themselves.

- Weight — adultery stands beside incest as equally evil, not as a smaller sin.

- Warrant — God's name runs through the chapter as the authority behind every command; giving in to passion is rebellion against Him.

- Land — defilement does not stay private; the land vomited out the nations of Canaan, and Israel was warned it could do the same to them.

- Heart — Hebrews 13:4 repeats the command and names the Lord as avenger, and Christ carries it from the act to the desire.

Leviticus 18:21 · Darby

And thou shalt not give of thy seed to let them pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God I am Jehovah.

This verse sits in a chapter about marriage and sexual purity. Then it turns to children — to parents handing their own sons and daughters over to a god named Molech. Two questions follow. What was this rite? And why does God call it profaning His own name?

The god named "King"

One writer names the gods behind this rite, and the king of Israel who gave in to it.

Then the laws move from wives to children, and to that most inhuman rite. Parents were so blinded by Satan that they offered their own children as sacrifices to Molech or Moloch, and likely to Malcham or Milcom. It was the guardian god of the Ammonites. Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, differed little from it. Fürst takes that name to mean "fire," while Molech and the rest mean "King." … How awful that Solomon gave in to his pagan wives.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The same writer adds that learning and wealth are no defence: "The greatest science and learning, the highest civilization and luxury, can do nothing to stop it — and may even help it on."

Passing through the fire

Did parents only carry their children through the flames as a dedication, without killing them? A reference work weighs that reading against other Scriptures.

Passing their children through the fire might seem to mean that parents dedicated them to the idol by moving them quickly through a fire without burning them. This may have happened. But some passages do not allow that reading. Of the Canaanites Scripture says, "they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31). Israel is recorded doing the same: they made the sons they bore to God pass through the fire, to be devoured; and after killing their children for their idols, they came into His sanctuary the same day to profane it (Ezekiel 23:37, 39).

Modernised from Morrish Bible DictionaryOriginal wording

Commentators differ on how much weight to give the gentler reading. One says that arguing away the burning "seems a kindly effort to soften the reality of the wickedness."

What the parents wanted

Another writer looks past the religious language to the motive underneath, and draws a line into our own day.

People called this a sacrifice. But it did not come from unselfish love for Molech. It came from the selfish evil of wanting to get rid of a child. How evil it is today that many want to get rid of a child before it is born! Molech was an image with its arms stretched out. People would place their children in those arms, and a fire burned underneath. Drums and noisy music drowned out the cries of the child as the fire burned it to death. So this religious wickedness made the torture and murder of an unwanted child look holy!

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Profaning the name

The verse does not stop at the crime against the child. It names the injury done to God, and sets what He asks beside what the idol demanded.

This verse is only one of many solemn bans on a horror that lasted down to Josiah's day. Ahaz had been a notable patron of it long before. … It was the fullest, though not the only, profanation of the name of Israel's God. Jehovah accepted a sheep or an ox, or even a much smaller sacrifice. Satan, under these names, demanded their sons.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

"I am the LORD"

The short clause that closes the verse is not a signature. It is the reason the command exists at all.

Notice how in this book, when the details of evil are judged, Jehovah puts Himself forward in person. He is the One whose character both rejects these things and makes them impossible for His people — "I am the LORD." The people were in relationship with Him. He sanctified them.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

The warning that reaches parents still

Israel's slide into this evil started somewhere. One writer turns that history on parents today.

One of the first steps in this downward progress was burning the little ones of Judah in the fire of Molech. What a fearful thought for a parent's heart! A believer's backsliding sin and worldliness today may sacrifice his children to everlasting burning, unless grace prevents it. … I believe we cannot turn one step away from God without affecting our children. In that case it is no use praying for their conversion. That only hardens their hearts, if we ourselves are leading them into Satan's paths.

Modernised from C. StanleyOriginal wording

Summary

- The god. Molech was the god of the Ammonites, worshipped by fire. Even Solomon gave way to it, so learning and civilization are no defence.

- The fire. Some read "pass through the fire" as a dedication only. But Deuteronomy 12:31 speaks of sons and daughters burned in the fire. Softening the words softens the sin.

- The motive. Behind the religious language lay the wish to be rid of an unwanted child — a wish that has not disappeared.

- The name. Compare the two altars. God accepted a sheep, an ox, even something smaller. Satan, under these names, demanded their sons. That exchange is what profanes His name.

- The person. "I am the LORD" ends the verse because God puts Himself forward. He is the One who sets His people apart. Every step a parent takes away from Him is a step their children will follow.

Leviticus 18:22 · Darby

And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman it is an abomination.

Leviticus 18 gives command after command about sexual conduct, and this verse names one act and calls it an abomination. The God who speaks here is Israel's own God, and He warns that a land can throw out the people living in it.

Between Egypt and Canaan

The chapter opens by naming two countries: one Israel had left, one they were walking toward.

The opening verses of Leviticus 18 show that the Lord was looking back on Egypt and forward to Canaan. Both lands were in the grip of very degrading idolatry. So Israel met that infection both before and after their journey through the wilderness. They were not to follow the evil but to keep God's statutes and judgments, and by doing so they would live in them.

Modernised from F. B. HoleOriginal wording

God's Order in Nature

These commands guard an order God set in nature, and He holds His people to it.

In Leviticus 18 God now treats the people as a holy people, and He firmly and solemnly forbids everything that goes against the order of God in nature. It is important to hold the same principle always. God does not release anyone from what offends His natural order. Grace may bring us into a higher place, where we do not take up the freedom nature allows; but God still keeps His own order there, and so should we… Neither Egypt nor Canaan may set the practice of Israel: the One who spoke to them was Jehovah their God. He laid down the broadest principles, and He also knew how to go down into the smallest details that concerned His people.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

What the Verse Protects

The verse forbids an act, and it also guards a gift God gave: marriage.

Closely connected with this is the strong prohibition of the abominable practice of homosexuality (v. 22). God has provided the honorable institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Yet out of sheer selfishness people dare to abuse the very best that God has given. We know too that such things bring painful repercussions (Rom. 1:26-27). God is not mocked. People may feel they get away with evildoing, but whatever one sows he will also reap (Gal. 6:7).

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Open Among the Nations

This was not a rare or hidden practice. Whole nations carried it on openly, and God found the same act more offensive in His own people than in anyone else.

The unnatural cruelties of verses 22 and 23 are plain enough. What is less known is how shamelessly the nations practised them, even the Greeks and the Romans. What abomination!… So God punished the land for its sin. The land threw out the people living in it. Israel had to be careful, then, not only for themselves but for any foreigner living among them… Such evil was intolerable in His eyes, and even more offensive in His own people than in anyone else. The Jews soon forgot that truth, and the Christian world later forgot it too. God keeps souls from evil through the good He gives — His word, and above all His Christ.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The Root Underneath

One writer traces such acts back to what people do with God's revelation.

The most unnatural crimes and vile things mentioned in verses 22-23 belonged to the idol worship of the nations around Israel. Egypt and Canaan both practised them. Romans 1:18-32 gives the inspired history of the degradation of the Gentile world. Idolatry and moral degradation always go together… Rejection of God's revelation leads into idolatry (not necessarily idols of wood and stone) and moral decline.

Modernised from Arno Clemens GaebeleinOriginal wording

Where the Story Does Not End

The New Testament names these sins again, and then turns to people who had once lived in them.

"Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers… nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these things were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11). How real and great is the depravity of man left to himself and Satan! How real and still greater is the delivering grace of God in the name of the Lord Jesus and by His own Spirit!

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Summary

- Order. God set an order in nature, and He does not release anyone from what offends it. Grace may lift a person higher, but it never overturns that order.

- Gift. The verse refuses the abuse of a gift — marriage between a man and a woman, the very best God has provided.

- Pressure. Israel stood between Egypt behind and Canaan ahead, both gripped by degrading idolatry. Neither country could set the standard for God's people.

- Consequence. The land grew unclean and threw out the people living in it. God finds the same evil even more offensive in His own people.

- Rescue. The New Testament list of such sins ends with people who had lived that way and were then washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus. Man's depravity is real; God's delivering grace is greater still.

Leviticus 18:23 · Darby

And thou shalt lie with no beast to become unclean therewith; and a woman shall not stand before a beast to lie down with it it is confusion.

Leviticus 18 stands between two lands: the Egypt Israel left and the Canaan they were entering. God tells them to copy neither. Verse 23 stands at the end of that list, naming an act that God Himself labels with a single word: perversion.

God's Order in Nature

God built an order into creation, and He does not bend it. One writer points out that this chapter treats Israel as a holy people, so everything cutting across that order is shut down:

In Leviticus 18 God treats the people as a holy people. So everything that went against God's order in nature is firmly and solemnly forbidden here. It is important to hold this same principle always. God does not excuse what offends His natural order. Grace may bring us into a higher place, where we do not use our freedom in matters of nature. But God still keeps His own order there, and so should we.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Man Dishonouring Himself

These rules are not random. They protect man from degrading himself, and one writer ties that back to Romans 1:

Leviticus 18 keeps them from dishonouring themselves in the things that belong to nature itself — to what man ought to be in his natural relationships, so that he would not dishonour himself. Man ought not to do it. But because he did not honour God, he has been left to dishonour himself (compare Rom. 1)... The things forbidden here are the ones Satan plunged man into, through the satanic and unnatural indulgence of the flesh.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

An older translation renders that verdict "confusion." A man who erases the line between himself and an animal does not rise by it:

They changed the truth of God into a lie. They put the creature in the place of the Creator as an object of worship. So they are allowed to fall below the creatures they worshipped. Men sank below the animals. It has been well said that an animal is not a moral creature, but a man brought down to an animal's level becomes immoral. His affections are corrupted and twisted out of their natural course into what is against nature.

Modernised from Hamilton SmithOriginal wording

Not a Hypothetical Warning

Readers often ask why such a law was needed at all. These things were happening — and among peoples far from primitive:

It may be painful to read. But it is healthy to learn what human nature fell into among pagan peoples as civilized as Egypt and Canaan. And God knew that His people, if they treated His word lightly, might follow them both.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Another writer makes the same point. Israel needed the warning spelled out because the nations around them did it:

Israelites even had to be warned against the disgusting wickedness of having sexual relations with an animal (v. 23). Yet this, along with the other evils named earlier, was practised among the nations God was about to drive out of Canaan (v. 24).

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

The Land That Spits Out Its People

The verses that follow give the consequence, and it falls on everyone alike. The Canaanites lost the land for these very things, and the ground would treat Israel no differently:

The unnatural cruelties of verses 22 and 23 are plain enough. But people may not know how shamelessly the pagan nations did them, even the Greeks and the Romans. What an abomination! It is confusion, says the Lord... The land itself was made unclean, so He punished its sin. The earth vomited out those who lived in it, and Israel must beware... Such evil was intolerable in His eyes, and even more offensive in His own people than in anyone else. The Jews soon forgot that truth, as Christendom did later.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The verse names both the man and the woman, and a later chapter sets the penalty. It reaches the animal as well:

If a human and an animal had sexual relations, both were to be put to death (vv. 15-16).

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Why God Signs His Name

Right through the chapter God signs the commands with His own name. One writer draws out what that means:

Notice how in this book, when God judges the details of evil, the Lord puts Himself forward as the One whose character rejects these things at once and makes them impossible for His people — "I am the Lord." The people were in relationship with Him. He sanctified them.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

The way out is not just resisting evil. It is taking in something better:

Souls are kept from evil by receiving the good that comes from God — His word, and above all His Christ.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Summary

- Order — God built a natural order into creation, and grace never cancels it. He "does not excuse what offends His natural order."

- Dishonour — the chapter keeps man from degrading himself. Having refused to honour God, he is left to dishonour himself.

- Confusion — the word marks a line God drew being erased. A man who sinks to an animal's level does not become innocent like an animal. He becomes immoral.

- Consequence — the Canaanites lost the land for exactly this. Israel was told the same ground would spit them out too. God's standard is heavier on His own people, not lighter.

- Cure — the answer is not just avoiding evil. It is taking in what is good from God: His word, and above all His Christ.

Leviticus 18:24 · Darby

Make not yourselves unclean in any of these things; for in all these have the nations which I am casting out before you made themselves unclean.

Leviticus 18 lists what God forbids His people. Verse 24 gives the reason: the nations of Canaan did these very things, and God is driving them out for it. So the verse raises two hard questions. Why does God call these acts unclean and not just wrong? And could Israel expect any better treatment than the nations it replaced?

Dishonouring what is natural

The chapter is not a random list of rules. One writer sees God guarding people from degrading themselves in the natural relationships He gave them.

Leviticus 18 keeps them from dishonouring themselves in the things that belong to nature itself. It guards what man ought to be in his natural relations, so that he would not dishonour himself. Man ought not to do it; but, not having honoured God, he has been left to dishonour himself (compare Romans 1). The people of God, being brought near to Him, are taught on this subject. They were separated from the evil of the world they were called out of. They were separated, too, from the reckless immorality into which Satan had driven degraded man, using him as his plaything.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

How the nations got there

The condition described in this verse was not humanity's starting point. It was the end of a long slide away from God.

What thick moral darkness man was in, that the Lord was unknown to so many! What depths of degradation and filth they were found in! That is why God had to warn Israel against the ways of the nations of the land, both social and religious (18:24-28). Because of those ways the land would vomit them out like something sickening. What had man become, man made in the image of God, and originally in His likeness too? But how had this come about? … God made man upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

Modernised from C. E. StuartOriginal wording

Why God took the land from them

Verse 24 also answers an objection people still raise. Was it fair for God to drive out the Canaanites? The timing of the judgment answers it.

Those nations filled that land with gross corruption. That was more than enough to strip them of any decent claim to keep it. In Abraham's day the cup of their wickedness was not yet full (Genesis 15:16). It was overflowing when Israel's armies came upon them as God's executioners. Does anyone doubt whether it was right to dispossess those nations to make room for the Lord's chosen people? It is enough to quote Leviticus 18:25: "And the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

Modernised from W. W. FeredayOriginal wording

The same rule for Israel

The land expelled its former residents for these things. Being God's people gave Israel no cover. Nearness to God made them more guilty, not less.

Israel were not to make themselves unclean by any of these things. The nations of Canaan did all of them, and He drove those nations out before Israel. How much guiltier, then, would Israel be! … So Israel had to beware — not only for themselves, but for any foreigner living among them. Otherwise the land would vomit them out, as it had the nations who lived there before Israel. Such evil was intolerable in His eyes. It was even more offensive in His own people than in anyone else. The Jews soon forgot this truth, and Christendom forgot it later.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The warning fulfilled

This was not a threat about the Canaanites alone. Israel's own history settled the question.

A solemn warning closes this chapter. The inhabitants of Canaan were to be driven out because of their vileness. The Lord would not spare His own people if they practised these things. They did commit all this wickedness. Israel, driven out of the land, the homeless wanderer, is a witness that this solemn warning was fulfilled.

Modernised from Arno C. GaebeleinOriginal wording

What it asks of us

The chapter opens with two places: the land Israel left and the land they were entering. One writer applies both to believers today.

First, God told them not to do the evil practices they had seen in Egypt. Second, when they entered the land of Canaan they were not to do as the Canaanites did (vv. 2-3). The world was living in moral corruption, as it still is today, and the believer is not to conform to this kind of thing. They had come out of Egypt, as believers today have left the world that ignores the living God. So let them take no part of the world with them. … Such circumstances distress someone called by God to a path of obedience. But we should treat circumstances as a proving ground.

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Summary

- Defiling. These acts do more than break a rule. They make a person unclean, because they dishonour the nature God gave. Man would not honour God, so he was left to dishonour himself.

- Descending. Humanity did not begin this way. God made man upright, and the filth of the nations was the end of a long fall away from Him.

- Dispossessed. God waited until the Canaanites' wickedness was full. No one can call their removal unjust.

- Doubly guilty. The same standard fell on Israel. Evil was even more offensive in God's own people than in anyone else.

- Displaced. Israel did what the nations did. Their scattering proved that God's warning was not empty.

Leviticus 18:25 · Darby

And the land hath become unclean; and I visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out its inhabitants.

Leviticus 18 lists sins so vile that God says the land could no longer hold the people who did them. This verse is His verdict on Canaan, and it raises a hard question: was God right to give one nation's land to another?

A land made unclean

The verse closes a long list of forbidden acts. One commentator shows how the guilt of the people spread to the ground they lived on:

The unnatural brutalities of verses 22 and 23 are plain enough, but you may not know how shamelessly the pagan nations practised them, even the Greeks and the Romans. What an abomination! It is confusion, says Jehovah. Israel were not to make themselves unclean in any of these things, as all the nations of Canaan did whom He drove out before them. How much more guilty then would Israel be! The very land was made unclean. Therefore He had visited the iniquity on it. The earth vomited out its inhabitants. So Israel must beware, and not only for themselves but for any stranger living among them. Otherwise the land would vomit them out, as it had the nations who lived there before them. Such evil was intolerable in His eyes, and even more offensive in His own people than in anyone else… It is by receiving the good that comes from God — His word and above all His Christ — that souls are kept from evil.

after_reason_note: DELETE

William Kelly

Judgment that waited four hundred years

The eviction was not sudden. God left His own people in Egypt for four hundred years while the guilt of Canaan filled up:

Here the critic of God's Word, and the one who scoffs at His ways, steps up and charges Him with cruelty and injustice. But they are shallow thinkers and dishonest judges; they jump to conclusions without examining the evidence. He had assigned that land to Israel, yet He kept them in the fiery furnace of Egypt for four hundred years. All that time He was patient with the wicked inhabitants of Canaan. He did not carry out His judgment on their horrible breaking of all His laws until the cup of their iniquity was full. Leviticus 18:25 describes the state of the land and gives the reason for God's way. So God's judgment of them was justified.

Modernised from J. T. MawsonOriginal wording

Not because Israel deserved better

God never told Israel that He was rewarding them. He gave a different reason:

Israel was told exactly why these nations were judged: "Not because of your righteousness ... but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you" (Deuteronomy 9:5; 18:12). Leviticus 18 states this truth in the strongest possible way, warning Israel not to fall into the same abominations. So God lets a people ripen to the full height of their wickedness. Then He takes them as the occasion for showing His righteous anger and power. It is a great public sample of God's full judgment on the earth.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

Israel as executioner, not owner

So what was Israel's role? Not that of a conqueror grabbing land:

The land itself was spewing them out for their abominations. In this Israel was only the executioner of divine judgment. They did not act from their own passion or greed for territory. He could have destroyed them by plague or famine. Instead He chose Israel to do this work. In this way He gave His people the most solemn lesson possible: the holiness of His own nature, and what sin is before Him. They themselves would come under similar awful judgments if they followed those nations in their sin.

Modernised from F. W. GrantOriginal wording

Behind the eviction lies a question of ownership:

The Land — "My Land," whatever its state or divisions. It is Jehovah's Land, and if the people fail in every way, it falls into His hands. It was only entrusted to Israel.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

The same rule turned on Israel

God gave Israel the same warning, and history proved it real:

For these sins the land they were going to was casting out its inhabitants. They are warned that if they do the same things, it would cast them out too. God's righteousness is the same toward all His creatures. Israel, now cast out of their land, are witnesses to it.

Modernised from F. W. GrantOriginal wording

Summary

- Defiled — the sins in this chapter did not stay private. They made the land itself unclean, and God judged the land.

- Delayed — judgment came only after four hundred years of patience, when the cup of iniquity was full. The charge of cruelty ignores the evidence.

- Deserved — Israel entered not for their own righteousness, but because of the wickedness of those nations. The conquest is a public sample of God's judgment on the earth.

- Delegated — Israel acted as executioner of a sentence already passed, not from greed. The task taught them the holiness of God, and the land stayed His own.

- Doubled back — God's righteousness is the same toward all. Israel was later cast out of that same land, proving the warning was real.

Leviticus 18:26 · Darby

But *ye* shall observe my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of all these abominations the home-born, and the stranger that sojourneth among you;

Verse 26 turns from description to command: the land itself throws out those who defile it, so Israel must not copy the people who lived there before — native-born and foreigner alike. That raises two questions: why does a piece of ground react to human sin, and what keeps a people from sliding into the same evils?

Between Egypt and Canaan

Israel had lived in one corrupt culture and was walking toward another.

The opening verses of Leviticus 18 show that the Lord was looking back on Egypt and forward to Canaan. Very degrading idol worship gripped both these lands. So Israel faced that infection both before and after their journey through the wilderness. They were not to follow the evil, but to keep God's statutes and judgments. If they did, they would live in them. The Apostle quotes this statement in Galatians 3:12. This doing was not "of faith," and obedience would secure not heaven but continued life on earth.

Modernised from F. B. HoleOriginal wording

Why the nations lost the land

The command rests on a judgment already carried out, and God did not leave Israel guessing why.

God told Israel plainly why those nations were judged: "Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out before you." Leviticus 18 states this truth in the strongest possible way. It warns Israel not to fall into the same abominations… So God let a people ripen to their full height of wickedness, and then used them as the occasion to show His righteous wrath and power. He warned Israel fully and told them the principle He acted on.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

Native and stranger held to one rule

The verse names two groups: the native-born and the foreigner living among them. One writer shows why the warning had to reach that far.

Israel must not make themselves unclean in any of these ways. The nations of Canaan did all these things, and He cast those nations out before Israel. How much guiltier, then, would Israel be! The very land was made unclean. Therefore He had visited the iniquity on it. The earth vomited out its inhabitants. So Israel had to be careful — not only for themselves, but for any foreigner staying among them — in case the land should vomit them out too, as it had the nations that lived there before them. Such evil was intolerable in His eyes. It offended Him even more in His own people than in anyone else. The Jews soon forgot that truth, and Christendom forgot it later.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Where these practices came from

The acts listed earlier in the chapter were not random vices. They came with the religion of the nations around Israel.

The most unnatural crimes and vile acts named in verses 22-23 belonged to the idol worship of the nations around Israel. People did these things in Egypt and in Canaan… Idol worship and moral degradation always go together. The fearful road of the apostasy in Christendom is no exception. When people reject what God has revealed, they slide into idolatry — not always idols of wood and stone — and into moral decline.

Modernised from Arno Clemens GaebeleinOriginal wording

The warning that later came true

Israel did not stand outside the standard God gave them. Their own later history shows He kept to the same measure with them.

The land they were going to was casting out its inhabitants for these sins. They are warned that if they practised such things, it would cast them out too. God's righteousness is the same towards all His creatures. Israel, now cast out of their land, are witnesses to it.

Modernised from Numerical Bible NotesOriginal wording

The safeguard

The chapter opens and closes with the same words about who is speaking. One writer treats that repeated sentence, not the list of bans, as the real protection.

Just as this chapter begins, so it ends with the positive declaration, "I am the LORD your God" (v. 30). If only Israel would recognise this wonderful, positive blessing as they should, it would keep them from all the negative evils of this chapter.

Modernised from L. M. GrantOriginal wording

Kelly ends his comments on the chapter with the same point, stated positively: "It is by receiving the good that comes from God, His word and above all His Christ, that souls are kept from evil."

Summary

- Cause. The nations lost the land for what they did in it. God told Israel the reason plainly, so no one could think the land was a reward for Israel's goodness.

- Command. Israel had left one corrupt culture and was walking into another. The answer was not just avoidance but obedience: keep His statutes.

- Reach. The rule covers the native-born and the foreigner alike. It weighs heavier, not lighter, on God's own people.

- Root. These evils came with idol worship. When people reject what God has revealed, moral collapse follows — and Christendom is no exception.

- Result. Israel, scattered from their land, became the witness that God's righteousness is the same towards everyone. Their one safeguard was the sentence that frames the chapter: "I am the LORD your God."

Leviticus 18:27 · Darby

(for all these abominations have the men of the land done, who were before you, and the land hath been made unclean);

Leviticus 18 ends its long list of forbidden practices with a reason, not a new rule. Canaan's earlier residents had done these things, and their sin defiled the land itself. That raises the hardest questions in the chapter. Why did God drive out whole nations? Would He treat Israel any differently?

Israel Caught Between Two Corrupt Lands

Israel had just left one corrupt country. They were walking toward another.

The opening verses of Leviticus 18 show that the Lord was looking back on Egypt and forward to Canaan. Both these lands were in the grip of very degrading idolatry, and so Israel was exposed to the infection both before and after their wilderness journey.

Modernised from F. B. HoleOriginal wording

The Land Itself Made Unclean

These sins stain the ground, not only the people who commit them. The point then turns back on Israel.

Israel were not to make themselves unclean in any of these things. That is what the nations of Canaan did, and He drove them out before Israel. How much guiltier, then, would Israel be! The very land became unclean. So He visited the iniquity on it. The earth vomited out its inhabitants. So Israel must beware, both for themselves and for any foreigner living among them. The land might vomit them out, as it had the nations that lived there before them. Such evil was intolerable in His eyes, and even more offensive in His own people than in anyone else.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Eviction, Not Favouritism

Canaan lost the land through its own conduct. Israel's arrival was not the reason for the eviction.

Every landlord has a perfect right to evict bad tenants. The nations of Canaan had not only failed to pay their rent, as we say. They had damaged and defiled the property so badly that God could no longer put up with them. So He was going to drive them out, quite apart from the incoming tenants. Whoever was going to take possession of the property, these dreadful tenants had to go... He had put up with the wickedness of the seven nations until it became unbearable. The very land itself could not bear it.

Modernised from C. H. MackintoshOriginal wording

Centuries of Patience First

God's judgment on Canaan did not fall the moment its sin began.

God had assigned that land to His people. Yet in His patience with the wicked inhabitants of Canaan, He kept them in the fiery furnace of Egypt for four hundred years. He did not carry out His judgment on their horrible breaking of all His laws until the cup of their iniquity was full. Leviticus 18:25 describes the condition of the land and gives the reason for God's way: "And the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants." So God's judgment of them was just.

Modernised from J T MawsonOriginal wording

The Warning Was Not Empty

This warning pointed at Israel too. Their own history proved it.

Because of these sins the land they were going to was casting out its inhabitants. The warning to Israel was this: if they practised such things, it would cast them out too. God's righteousness is the same toward all His creatures. Israel, now cast out of their land, are witnesses to it.

Modernised from F. W. GrantOriginal wording

Why These Sins Cluster Together

These practices were not random vices. They went together with the false worship of the surrounding nations.

The most unnatural crimes and vile things in verses 22–23 belonged to the idolatries of the nations around Israel. People practised these things in Egypt and in Canaan. Romans 1:18–32 gives the inspired history of the degradation of the Gentile world. Idolatry and moral degradation always go together... When people reject God's revelation, they fall into idolatry — not necessarily idols of wood and stone — and into moral decline.

Modernised from Arno Clemens GaebeleinOriginal wording

And they reached far beyond Canaan.

It may not be known how openly these things were practised among the nations, even by the Greeks and the Romans. What abomination!

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Summary

- Defiled — The sins in this chapter pollute the land itself, until the ground can no longer bear the people living on it.

- Patient — God waited four hundred years while Canaan's iniquity filled up. He evicted these tenants only when His patience had run its course.

- Equal — The righteousness that removed the Canaanites also faced Israel. God's standard does not change with the tenant, and Israel's later exile proved it.

- Rooted — These practices travelled with idolatry. Reject God's revelation, and moral collapse follows — in Canaan or anywhere else.

- Guarded — Israel stood between Egypt behind and Canaan ahead. The same sin offends God more, not less, in His own people.