And the nakedness of thy mother's sister, and of thy father's sister shalt thou not uncover; for he hath laid naked his near relation they shall bear their iniquity.
Leviticus 20:19 forbids a man to take his mother's sister or his father's sister, because she is his own close blood relative. Why write such a law at all, and what does it mean that both must bear their iniquity?
Leviticus 18 already banned these unions. One writer explains what chapter 20 adds.
Chapter 20 requires everyone in the land to avoid gross impurities, because it pictures the people already in possession of Canaan. Much of what is forbidden here was forbidden in chapter 18. Yet chapter 20 is not a pointless repetition of it. It tells us what chapter 18 did not — the penalties attached to the various acts of impurity they are warned about here.
The same writer traces this principle of blood kinship through the whole list of forbidden unions.
Besides his direct line — his mother or his own children — the side branches of his family are also 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 closed to him. And if a man had relations with his aunt by blood, both of them were to bear their iniquity (20:19).
The same rule reaches beyond the words on the page. Commentators differ, though, on how heavy the penalty was.
Incest with a half sister was just the same as with a full sister: it demanded death. The same was true as regards aunts, whether on the father's or the mother's side (vv. 19-20). It is evident that such evil between an uncle and niece would be the same.
Verse 19 concerns an aunt by blood. Ties by marriage belong to a different class, and people have often blurred the two.
So we see that blood relationship is really the guiding principle on the man's side. It covers his blood relations, and also his relations by marriage, who were forbidden because they had been the wives of his blood relations. This last point is important. It casts light on a question where people have added restrictions that the principle laid down in God's word knows nothing of. And we see how necessary it is to come to the book to learn God's mind in the matter.
Why would God write a law against something so unthinkable?
It is clear that the Spirit of God could never make laws for the purpose of preventing evils that have no existence. He does not construct a dam where there is no flood to be resisted. He does not deal with abstract ideas, but with positive realities. Man really is capable of committing each and every one of the shameful crimes referred to in this most faithful section of the book of Leviticus. If he were not, why should he be told not to do so?
Israel carried the same nature as the nations whose land they were entering.
But worse impurity was common among the nations, and especially those living in the promised land. The sons of Israel too were soon to be exposed to their shameless example. He who gave them Canaan knew their hearts far better than they themselves did. Flesh is the same root of vileness in a Jew as in a Gentile. Restraint may hinder its outbreak; but evil desires are there, ready to carry away the impulsive and headstrong beyond all bounds.
Israel's standard did not come from comparing themselves with other people. It came from who their God was.
God brought them into a special relationship with Himself, and that relationship had its own privileges and responsibilities. "I am the LORD your God." This was to be the ground of their conduct. They were to act in a way worthy of the One who had become their God, and made them His people. It was not that they were a bit better than other people.
To "bear their iniquity" means the guilt is not overlooked.
Leviticus 20 speaks of the certainty that iniquity will be punished. These easy-going times have largely forgotten that. God will show how certain it is, either in the chastening of His people or in the judgment that is to fall on the ungodly.
One writer turns from the sentence to the remedy.
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 also, life eternal.
- Kin. The ban rests on blood: a father's sister or mother's sister is near of kin, so she is closed to him.
- Kind. Blood ties and ties by marriage are not the same category, and no one may add restrictions God's word does not lay down.
- Cause. The law exists because the sin is possible — God does not build a dam where there is no flood.
- Certainty. Chapter 18 named the evils; chapter 20 attaches the penalties, so guilt is borne, not overlooked.
- Cure. The standard is "I am the LORD your God," and the Saviour delivers not only from punishment but from sins, giving eternal life.
And if a man lie with his aunt, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness their sin shall they bear they shall die childless.
Leviticus 20 gives the penalties for sins the book has already named, and this verse deals with a man and his uncle's wife. It raises two questions: why the sentence here is childlessness rather than death, and what it means to bear your own sin.
Chapter 18 already forbade what this verse forbids. So why say it again? One writer points out what the second telling adds:
Chapter 20 insists that everyone in the land keep clear of gross impurity, for it looks at the people once they hold Canaan. A great deal of what is forbidden here was forbidden in chapter 18. Yet chapter 20 is no empty repetition, for it tells us what the other did not: the penalties attached to the acts of impurity they are warned against.
The woman here is the wife of the man's uncle. The verse counts the wrong as done to the uncle, and she is one of three women forbidden because of who their husbands were, not because of shared blood.
Three of his relations in law were forbidden to him: his son's wife, his brother's wife, and his aunt by marriage. All three were forbidden on one ground: they had been the wives of his blood relations.
The punishment given here is not death, and that difference is deliberate. The same writer notes how the sentence tracks the closeness of the tie:
So it is clear that relations in law were not put in the same class as relations by blood. The penalty for going in to his uncle's widow was not the same as the penalty for going in to his own aunt, who was a close blood relative (20:20). 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. In short, whatever blood relation was forbidden to a man, the widow of that relation was forbidden too — but on the ground that she had been the wife of a close blood relative.
One writer traces this phrase through Leviticus, including this verse, and defines it:
If you want to see how bearing sin in Isaiah 53:12 is connected with the punishment due to it, compare Leviticus 5:1, 17; 17:16; 20:19; 24:15; and Numbers 5:31. In all of them you will see that it means coming under all the consequences of the sin committed, and being answerable for it before God.
So in this verse the two who sinned carry the consequences themselves, and dying childless is one of those consequences.
Readers often stumble at how harsh this chapter is. One writer answers the objection:
Men now argue for doing away with the death penalty, without considering 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 set up in Israel, and how perfectly just every penalty was.
These laws were not written for a people already immune to such things. They were written for a nation about to move in next door to it:
But worse impurity was common among the nations around them, especially those living in the promised land. Israel would soon be facing that shameless example. He who gave them Canaan knew their hearts far better than they knew their own. So we have these solemn and painful condemnations of incest and the rest. The flesh is the same root of vileness in a Jew as in a Gentile. Restraint may hold it back, but the evil desires are still there, ready to carry the impulsive and headstrong beyond all limits.
The penalties in this chapter are not all alike, and the same writer draws a lesson from that:
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 does not know. 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 in law on the same ground as relations in blood. Compare 20:12 with 20:20, 21 and you will see how necessary it was to learn God's mind from His own written word.
- Penalty. Chapter 18 named the sin; chapter 20 names the price. This verse is the sentencing half of a law already given.
- Ground. The uncle's wife is forbidden because of whose wife she was, not because of shared blood.
- Measure. Here the penalty is childlessness, not death. God Himself sets that difference, weighing each offence instead of treating them all alike.
- Bearing. To bear your sin means to come under all its consequences and to answer for it before God. Here it means a marriage that ends without children.
- Standard. God draws lines men would not draw. So His written word sets the limits, not our own reasoning. The hard penalties measure His justice, not His excess.