\n<\/p>
Scattered, inconclusive remarks on the prohibition of brother-sister incest in Leviticus 18 and 20. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A number of the relations prohibited in these chatpers recall relationships that existed among the patriarchs. Leviticus <\/span> 18:11 <\/span> prohibits a man from taking his half-sister, the daughter of your father. <\/span> That is exactly the relationship of Abraham and Sara. <\/span> In Genesis 20:12, Abraham explains to Abimelech that \u201cshe actually is my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.\u201d <\/span> <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n A more subtle, but striking, example along the same lines comes from the related rule in chapter 20:17. <\/span> <\/span> <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n This also prohibits a man from taking either his father\u2019s daughter or his mother\u2019s daughter \u2013 a step-sister from either side \u2013 and seeing her nakedness. <\/span> In condemning this union, Leviticus 20 said that it is <\/span> hesed. That\u2019s a very unusual usage. <\/span> The word normally is translated as \u201clovingkindness,\u201d and only rarely does it have a negative connotation of any sort. <\/span> Lexicons and commentaries say that here it has some connotation of \u201cdisgrace,\u201d but why the word should be used is hard to see. Strikingly, nearly the first use of this word in the Bible is found in Genesis 20:13, where Abraham is again describing to Abimelech the plan to say that Sarai is his sister rather than his wife. <\/span> This is the \u201ckindness\u201d that she was going to show to her husband. <\/span> The word seems to be chosen to draw attention to the connection between the situation prohibited in Leviticus 20 and the situation of Abraham. <\/span> <\/span> <\/em> <\/span> <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Another example is in Leviticus 18:15, where the man is prohibited from uncovering the nakedness of his daughter-in-law. <\/span> The word for \u201cdaughter-in-law\u201d is <\/span> kallah <\/em> , and it is used again in <\/span> 20:12 <\/span> . <\/span> The word is first used in connection with Abraham and Sarah\u2019s relation to their father Terah (Genesis <\/span> 11:31 <\/span> ), but other than that, it is used prior to Leviticus 18 only in Genesis 38 (vv. 11, 16, 24), the story of Tamar and Judah. <\/span> <\/span> Judah <\/span> , of course, takes his daughter-in-law thinking that she is a prostitute. <\/span> So <\/span> Judah <\/span> , like Abraham comes under condemnation from the Levitical laws. Leviticus <\/span> 18:18 <\/span> says that a woman is not to take a woman and her sister who will cause vexation and rivalry. <\/span> But of course, this is what Jacob did when he married both Leah and then Rachel. <\/span> <\/span> <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n What are we to make of this? Some of these actions are already condemned in Genesis. <\/span> <\/span> Judah <\/span> is not in the right when he takes his daughter-in-law. <\/span> On the contrary, she is more righteous than he because he doesn\u2019t provide her with a levirate husband and she takes things into her own hands to do it. <\/span> It is <\/span> not <\/em> good for <\/span> Judah <\/span> to take his son\u2019s wife. <\/span> He\u2019s not executed for it, but it\u2019s clearly wrong, and condemned already in Genesis 2. <\/span> There has to be a break with the family of origin for a marriage to be legitimate. <\/span> The man who takes his son\u2019s wife is taking someone from his own \u201chousehold.\u201d Jacob doesn\u2019t have a good time of it with his two wives. <\/span> It\u2019s not exactly condemned, but it\u2019s not pretty. <\/span> <\/span> <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n But what about brother-sister incest, between Abraham and Sarai? <\/span> What can we say about that? At the first, of course, this would be the only option. <\/span> Adam and Eve\u2019s children would have to marry one another. <\/span> But Abram and Sarai are not in that position. <\/span> There is no need for them to do what Cain and Abel had to do, take sisters. <\/span> But there might be a link with the original situation. <\/span> Abram and Sarai appear on the scene in the aftermath of the scattering at <\/span> Babel <\/span> . <\/span> They may be in a \u201cfirst generation\u201d situation. <\/span> This may be a way of pointing to the Adamic character of Abram\u2019s calling. <\/span> <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n But I want to try to make sense of this from the Levitical law itself. <\/span> The closely link is in <\/span> 20:17 <\/span> . <\/span> Let\u2019s look at that passage in a little more detail. It\u2019s a pretty full verse, and has a fairly elaborate chiastic structure: <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n A. Man takes sister, father or mother\u2019s daughter <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n B. he sees her nakedness, she sees his <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n C. HESED <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n B\u2019. cut off in eyes of people <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n A\u2019. uncovers sister\u2019s nakedness, bears guilt <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n From this, we can see not only that the passage uses the word hesed in a very unusual way, but also that it gives unusual attention to the faculty of sight. <\/span> This is the only place in these two chapters where the emphasis is on \u201cseeing nakedness,\u201d and the only other places that use this terminology are Genesis 9:23; Lamentations 1:8; Ezekiel 16:37. <\/span> The latter two have to do with the exposure of daughter <\/span> Zion <\/span> to shame and disgrace, so that her lovers see her exposed nakedness. <\/span> Here, brother and sister see each other\u2019s nakedness, and their punishment is literally sight for sight, eye for eye, because they are \u201ccut off in the eyes of the people.\u201d <\/span> The people are to judgment them as cut off from the Lord, to judge them so. Ultimately, of course, this goes back to Genesis 2-3. <\/span> Adam and Eve were naked from their creation, but didn\u2019t know it. <\/span> They were naked and unashamed until their eyes were opened, and they saw (\u201cknew\u201d) that they were naked. <\/span> Sight and nakedness has to do with shame, and with having their eyes opened so they could pass judgment on themselves. <\/span> Adam and Eve were the first brother-sister marriage. <\/span> <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Abram tells Abimelech that Sarai did him a kindness in saying she was his sister. <\/span> She showed her \u201cloyalty\u201d to Abram. <\/span> The idea in Leviticus 20 may be of an extreme and false loyalty. <\/span> Hirsch: \u201cIf . . . <\/span> hesed <\/em> elsewhere has the meaning of an unrestrained going beyond the dictates of duty, giving oneself up to another where one is not duty bound to do so, here it can also very well mean giving oneself up to another where forbidden by duty.\u201d <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n At least we can say that Leviticus is instructing Israel to make a break, on the issue of brother-sister marriage, with the <\/p>\n Why? That remains to be determined. <\/span> <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Scattered, inconclusive remarks on the prohibition of brother-sister incest in Leviticus 18 and 20. A number of the relations prohibited in these chatpers recall relationships that existed among the patriarchs. Leviticus 18:11 prohibits a man from taking his half-sister, the daughter of your father. That is exactly the relationship of Abraham and Sara. In Genesis […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bible-ot-leviticus"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n earlier tradition of the patriarchs. Exodus\/Leviticus institutes a new configuration of society for Israel, and marks a transition from one sort of relgio-social organization to another. The prohibition of brother-sister marriage is one of the markers of that transition. <\/span> <\/p>\n