Different penalties are attached to the infringement of these prohibitions. The punishment of death is to be inflicted for marrying a father's wife (Lev. xviii, 8 ; XX, 11), or a daughter-in-law (Lev. xviii, 15; xx, 12); of death by fire for marrying a woman and her daugh- ter at the same time (xviii, 17 ; xx, 14) ; of being cut off or excommunicated for marrj-ing a sister on the fa- ther's side or on the mother's side (xviii, 9 ; xx, 17) ; of not being pardoned for marrying a father's or moth- er's sister (xviii, 12, 13 ; xx, 19) ; of not being pardoned and childlessness for marrj-ing a father's brother's wife (xviii, 14; XX, 20); and of childlessness alone for mar- rying a brother's wife (xviii, 16 ; xx, 21), excepting the case of a Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv, 5-10), No pen- alty is mentioned for marrying one's mother (xviii, 7), granddaughter (xviii, 10), or two sisters together (xviii, 18). From this enumeration it will be seen that it only specifies thi-ee instances in which capital punishment is to be inflicted.
I
MARRIAGE
V81
MARRIAGE
The grounds on which these prohibitions were enact- ed are reducible to the following three heads : (1) moral propriety; (2) the practices of heathen nations; and (3) social conv^enience. The first of these grounds comes prominently forward in the expressions by which the various offences are characterized, as well as in the gen- eral prohibition against approaching •' the flesh of his flesh." The use of such expressions undoubtedly con- tains an appeal to the horror naturalis, or that repug- nance with which man instinctively shrinks from mat- rimonial union with one wth whom he is connected by the closest ties both of blood and of family affection. On this subject we need say no more than that there is a difference in kind between the affection that binds the members of a family together, and that which lies at the bottom of the matrimonial bond, and that the amal- gamation of these affections cannot take place without a serious shock to one or the other of the two ; hence the desirableness of drawing a distinct line between the provinces of each, by stating definitely where the mat- rimonial affection may legitimately take root. The sec- ond motive to laying down these prohibitions was that the Hebrews might be preserved as a peculiar people, with institutions distinct from those of the Egyptians and Canaanites (Lev. xviii, 3), as weU as of other hea- then nations with whom they might come in contact. Marriages within the proscribed degrees prevailed in many civilized countries in historical times, and were not unusual among the Hebrews themselves in the pre- Blosaic age. For instance, marriages with half-sisters by the same father were allowed at Athens (Plutarch, Cim. 4; Themistocl. 32), with half-sisters by the same mother at Sparta (Pliilo, De spec, leg. p. 779), and with fidl sisters in Egypt (Diod. i, 27) and Persia, as illus- trated in the well-known instances of Ptolemy Phila- delphus in the former (Pans, i, 7, 1), and Cambyses in the latter country (Herod, iii, 31). It was even believed that in some nations marriages between a son and his mother were not unusual (Ovid, J/rf.x, 331; Eurip. .4?«- drom. 174). Among the Hebrews we have instances of marriage with a half-sister in the case of Abraham (Gen. XX, 12), with an amit in the case of Amram (Exod. vi, 20), and with two sisters at the same time in the case of Jacob (Gen. xxix, 26). Such cases were justifiable previous to the enactments of Moses : subsequenth^ to them we have no case in the O. T. of actual marriage within the degrees, though the language of Tamar to- wards her half-brother Amnon (2 Sara, xiii, 13) implies the possibility of their luiion with the consent of their father. The Herods committed some violent breaches of the marriage law. Herod the Great married his half- sister (.4«f. xvii, 1, 3); Archelaus his brother's widow, who had children (xvii, 13, 1) ; Herod Antipas his broth- er's wife (xviii, 5, 1; Matt, xiv, 3). In the Christian Church we have an instance of marriage with a father's wife (1 Cor. V, 1), which St. Paul characterizes as "forni- cation" (jropvtia), and visits with the severest condem- nation. The third ground of the prohibitions, social convenience, comes forward solely in the case of mar- riage with two sisters simultaneously, the effect of which would be to " vex" or irritate the first wife, and produce domestic jars.
Besides the proscribed degrees, the Mosaic law also forbids the following intermarriages : i. No Israelite is to marry the progeny of incestuous and unlawful copu- lations, or a mamzer ("iTTS^O, Deut. xxiii, 2). In the ab- sence of any Biblical definition of this much-disputed expression, we must accept the ancient traditional ex- planation contained in the Mishna, which is as foUows: '• When tliere is betrotlial without transgression of the law about forbidden marriages — e. g. if the daughters of priests, Levites, or Israelites are marrietl to priests, Le- vites, or Israelites — the child goes after the father; where there is betrothal, and this la\v has been trans- gressed— e.g. if a widow is married to a high-priest, a divorced woman or one who performed the ceremony of chalitsah to an ordinary priest, or a bastardess or a fe-