And a man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness both of them shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 18 forbids these sins. Chapter 20 sets the penalties, and verse 11 names one of the worst: a man who takes his father's wife, and the woman with him, both die.
Which woman does the law mean? Commentators say she is his stepmother, not his own mother, and they point to the same crime in the New Testament.
A man who has sexual relations with his father's wife comes under the curse. This would of course be his stepmother, as in the shocking case of the man in 1 Corinthians 5:1, whom the church put out of Christian fellowship for this evil.
The law does not call this a wrong against the woman. It calls it uncovering his father's nakedness. The closer the family tie, the worse the sin — and the ban holds the woman as much as the man.
In these close relationships marriage was unnatural and dishonourable, and the closer the tie, the worse it was. Sexual union belongs to marriage and is forbidden in every case outside it. Here it was sinful and shameful to the highest degree — whether in the higher place of a father or mother and their nearest relatives, or in the equal place of a sister, however she was born, or in the lower place of a daughter-in-law. And who would dare deny that the matching cases, not named here, are also meant? It is the man who is forbidden here: surely the woman is forbidden no less.
One writer explains what chapter 20 adds to chapter 18.
Much of what is forbidden here was forbidden in chapter 18, yet chapter 20 is no empty repetition. It tells us what the other did not — the penalties attached to the acts of impurity it warns them against. These warnings show us what uncleanness Israel was in danger of falling into, if left to itself. Without a revelation from God the people had no right standard to guide them in matters that touched their happiness and the purity of family life so closely.
This sin carries the same sentence as open contempt for a parent. The reason lies in who is defied.
So we begin with open and base dishonour to one's parents, which was to be punished by death. The same sentence falls on the nearest and deepest wound one man can inflict on another. That sin is not only vile in itself; it defies the God who set up marriage from the beginning. His law was as severe against these sins as against whatever denied Him.
Israel was about to enter Canaan and live among people who knew no such limits.
But far worse impurity was common among the nations, especially those living in the promised land. Israel's sons would soon face their shameless example. The One who gave them Canaan knew their hearts far better than they did. So we have these solemn and painful condemnations of incest and the like. The flesh is the same root of vileness in a Jew as in a Gentile. Restraint may hold it back from breaking out, but the evil desires are there, ready to sweep the impulsive and headstrong past every limit.
The same case later appeared in the church at Corinth.
It was distressing enough that such a monstrous evil had found its way into the assembly of God. But what grieved the apostle most — and rightly so — was that they tolerated the offender among them. The assembly cannot stop a Christian from falling into the worst scandal, but it must deal with evil, since it stands identified with Christ before God and man.
Under the gospel the penalty changes.
Rooting up means taking someone out of this world by killing them. That is not church discipline. The church should kill no one. The most it can do is to put people out of itself, so that it may not sin.
And unlike stoning, this removal can be undone.
Only when the sin was judged and stopped was the man restored (2 Corinthians 2:6-8).
A law can name a sin and punish it. It cannot change the person.
The Lord Jesus is in every way the Saviour, not from divine punishment only but from sins. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of offences according to the riches of God's grace. But in Him we have life as well — eternal life. He is the Son, and He gives nothing less than this life to everyone who believes in Him.
- Relationship — the woman is the stepmother. The law names the wrong as done against the father, and it binds her as much as the man.
- Ruling — chapter 18 forbids; chapter 20 adds the penalty attached to each act.
- Reason — the sin defies the God who set up marriage, so His law is as severe here as against denying Him.
- Removal — Corinth met the same crime not with death but by putting the man out, and took him back once the sin was judged.
- Remedy — the law names the sin but cannot cure it. Christ saves from sins as well as from punishment, and gives eternal life to everyone who believes.
And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall certainly be put to death they have wrought confusion; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 20 takes the sins already forbidden in chapter 18 and sets a penalty on each one. Here the case is a man and his son's wife. Two questions press on a modern reader. Why was this relationship forbidden at all? And why was the punishment death?
Chapter 18 named these sins. Chapter 20 says what happens to those who commit them. One writer explains why the repeat is not pointless.
Much of what is forbidden here was already forbidden in chapter 18. Yet chapter 20 is no empty repetition. It tells us what the other chapter did not: the penalties attached to the different acts of impurity they are warned about here. That men could do such vile things was bad enough. It shows how low they had sunk — the result of sin. But the warnings given to Israel show us what filth they were in danger of falling into, if left to themselves. They also show that without a revelation from God they had no right standard to guide their conduct.
There is no blood tie between a man and his son's wife. The ban rests on a different ground: she is his son's wife.
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 whatever blood relative was forbidden to a man, the widow of the matching relative was forbidden just as much — but on the ground that she had been the wife of his close relative.
Closeness measures the wrong. What belongs inside marriage turns shameful where family ties are closest.
But in these close relationships marriage was unnatural and dishonourable, and the closer the tie, the worse it was. The physical union that belonged to marriage was forbidden in every case outside it. Here it was sinful and shameful in the highest degree. That holds in the higher place of a father or mother, and the closest relatives on either side; in the equal place of a sister, however she was born; and in the lower place of a daughter-in-law. It is the man who is forbidden here, but the woman is forbidden just as much.
The verse sentences two people, not one.
The penalty for incest was death for both parties (vv. 11-12).
Readers often stumble at the severity. One writer answers that objection head-on.
This chapter shows the justice of God in dealing with criminals. The death penalty stands out most... People today argue for abolishing the death penalty without thinking of the outraged justice of a holy God. The purpose of these severe penalties imposed by Jehovah was to satisfy justice and to uphold a law that had been broken. Look closely at these warnings and their penalties. You will see how serious these offences were against the government God had set up in the middle of Israel, and how perfectly just every penalty was.
The chapter deals with idolatry first. Then it turns to the home, and the sentence does not get lighter.
So we begin with open, low dishonour shown to one's parents, and death was the punishment for it. The same sentence falls on the closest and deepest wound one man can inflict on another. That sin is not only vile; it defies Jehovah, who set up married union from the beginning. His law was as severe against these sins as against sins that denied Him.
Another writer traces the failure back to the heart.
The verses that follow show that if we do not sanctify the Lord in our hearts, we will not respect the natural relationships God has appointed — whether parents, as in verse 9, or the other relationships in verses 10-21.
The demand for holiness rests on a relationship.
They are bound to holiness, and to sanctify themselves in daily practice, because they are in the house and its Master is holy. Sanctification assumed that they already stood in a recognised relationship with God. He will have everyone living in His house clean, and clean by His own standard of cleanness.
No one is safe by birth or background. Rules can hold sin down, but they do not remove it.
The flesh is the same root of vileness in a Jew as in a Gentile. Outward restraint may stop it from breaking out, but the evil desires are still there, ready to sweep the impulsive and headstrong past every limit.
- Warned. Chapter 18 forbids; chapter 20 names the price. God tells His people what such sin costs.
- Near. A daughter-in-law is barred not by blood but because she was his son's wife; the wrong grows with the nearness of the tie.
- Both. Two people share the act, and both share the sentence. The law spares neither.
- Holy. God's demand rests on relationship. They live in His house, its Master is holy, and He wants them clean.
- Watchful. The same root of evil is in every heart. Outward restraint can hold it in, but the desire is still there.