The Pulpit Commentary — Leviticus — Section 310

commanded as a duty in Deuteronomy?" daughter being nearest of kin, this oom- Bishop Wordsworth replies, "In a special mand was sufficient without further speoift- case, for a special reason applicable only to ootion. The niece and probably the wife's the Jews, God was pleased to dispense with sister are forbidden by the same general that law, and in the plenitude of his omni- rule (see following note). potence to change the prohibition into a Ver. 18.-Neither &halt thou take a wife command. . . . God cannot command any- to her sister, to vex her, to a.noover her thing that is sinful. For sin is 'tmnsgres• nakedness, beside the other in her life time. sion of the Law' (1 Jolm iii. 4), and J?o these words refer to the marriage of two whatever he commands is right. But it s1Stors or not? It has been passionately wonld be presumptuous to say that we may affirmed that they do, by those who a.re dispense with Goo's law concerning mar- opposed to permission being· granted for riage, because he in one case dispensed with marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and it; as it would be impious to affirm th&t by those who are in favour of that measure, murder is not immoral, and mlly be com- each party striving to derive from the text mitted by us, because God, who is the sole an argument for "the side which they are Arbiter of life and death, commanded Abra- maintaining. But Holy Scripture ought ham to slay his son Isaac." The levirate not to be made a quarry whence partizo.us maniage was not a concession to the desires hew arguments for views which they ha·re of the second brother, but a duty enjoined already adopted, nor is that the light in for a family or tribal pnrposc, and it was which e. commentator oo.n allow himself to plainly at all times most dista;teful. Thus regard it. A reverent and profound study Onan refused to perform his duty to Er's of the passage before us, with its contsxt, wife (Gen. :uxviii. 9); the legislation in leads to the conclusion that the words have Deuteronomy anticipates objection on the no bearing at all on the question of mar- part of the brother, and institutes an in- riage with a deceased wife's sister, and thus sulting ceremony to be gone through by it may be removed from the area and him if he declines to do his duty to his dead atmosphere of angry polemics, It is cer- brother (Dent. xxv. 9, 10), which we see tain that the words translated a uife to heF carried out in some of its details in the sister may be translated, in accordance with case of Rnth's kinsman (Ruth iv. 7, 10). the marginal rendering, one wife to another. Indeed, in such a marriage, the second hus- The objections made to such a ersion a.re band seems rather to have been regarded as arbitrary and unconvincing. It is in ac- the continuation of the first husband than cordance with the genius of the Hebrew as having a substantive existence of his own language to take" father,"" son,"" brother," as a married man. He performed a function "sister," in a much wider acceptation than in order " that the name of his brother is the case in the Westem tongues. Any- which is dead may not be put out of Israel" thing that produces or causes is metaphori- (Dent. xxv. 6), "to raise up the name of cally a "father;" anything produced or the dead upon his inheritance, tl,at the caused is a "son;" any things akin to each name of the dead be not cut off from among other in form, shape, character, or nature, his brethren" (Ruth iii. 10). The sec,,nd are "brothers" and "sisters." 'l'his is the husband's position may be compared to that name given to tho loops of the curt11ins of of the concubine presented by Rachel to the tabernacle (Exod. xxvi. 3, 5, 6), the her husband. "Behold my maid Dilhnh, tenons of tho boards (Exod. xxvi. 17), o.nd go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my the wings of the cherubim (Ezok. i. 11, 23). knees, that I may also have children by Indeed, wherever the expression, "a man to her" (Gen. m. 3). The whole object of his brother," or "a woman to hor sister," is the rule was that, as the elder brother could used (and it is used very frequently) in not keep up the family by begetting an the Hebrew Scriptures, it means not two heir, the younger brother should do it for brothers or two sisters, but two things or him after his death. persons similnr in kind. This does moro Ver. 17.-The ninth form of incest pro- than raiso a presumption-it creates a hi{l"h hibited is intercourse with a stepdaughter, probability-that the expression should 00 or step-granddaughter, or mother-in-law. underotood in the so.me we.y here. Dut 11 The expression mado use of, Thou shalt not difficulty then arises, If the right rending unoover the nakedneBB ot a woman and her is, Neither shalt thou take one wife to anotl1eT, daughter, covers the case of o. man's own does not the verse forbid polygamy alto- daughter, and it is singular that it is only gether, o.nd is not polygnm1 permitted by in this incidental manner that it is spcoifl- Exod. xxi. 7-11; Dent. xx1. 15-17; xvii. cally named. But it h!LB been already dis- 17? Certainly, if so important a restriction posed of by the general command, None of was lo be made, we should expect it to be you shall apJl'l'oach to any that ia near of made directly, and in a manner which could l<in lo J.im to uncoDer tl,,eir nalcednea,. The not be disputed. Is there any way out of OH, XVI.II. 1-30.] THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS. 275