Unlawful Marriage/Chapter 7
CHAPTER VII.
The Levitical statutes relate to marriage—Opinion of Talmudists and Karaites—Judgment of the Primitive Church—Of the Reformed Church—Argument of the Puritan—His error shown.
1. That these statutes relate to marriage, and determine the degrees within which it is not lawful to contract marriage, has been, we have reason to believe, the judgment of the Church of God in every age.
In this manner, both the Talmudists and the Karaites interpreted the law. On other points of explanation they differed; but in this they were entirely agreed.
The judgment of primitive Christians coincided with that of the Jews.
And, at the Reformation, when, by the inquiry of Henry VIII., this Levitical law came to be investigated anew, by the Universities of Europe, and by the Protestant Church, they all arrived at the same result. The Universities, without exception, regarded these statutes as referring to marriage, and prescribing the lawful degrees. Among the Reformers there was no difference of sentiment. This was the judgment of the Protestant Church of Europe; (see pp. 31–34,) and it has continued to be the judgment of the Church to this day, As there is no evidence to the contrary, we may rationally believe that this has always been the judgment of the Church of God, from the first publication of this law.
Now, has the Church, Jewish and Christian, notwithstanding the careful examination of this law, at different periods, by the ablest men, been ignorant of its true meaning and design, in every age? So thinks the Puritan. Is he, and the few who think with him, right, and the whole Church wrong? It is possible, but it is highly improbable.
2. Let us hear the Puritan. His first reliance is on the absence of the word marriage in this law, and on the meaning of the term or phrase, "Thou shall not uncover the nakedness," &c., so often used in these statutes. "And the first position that we shall take is, that they do not prohibit any marriages. Marriage was a familiar word in the vocabulary of Moses; and if that were his meaning, it was quite as pertinent, and as delicate and euphonic, and every way as suitable, as the term here used. And as he has avoided the use of it, and has not used even an accustomed synonyme of it, it is fair to conclude that marriage was not his meaning."
"But our opponents say, that though the term does not necessarily import marriage, it imports sexual intercourse in general, and that includes marriage. And that may be true, unless it can be shown that the term of its own force bears the idea of criminal intercourse. If that can be made appear, then, so far from including, it excludes marriage. Besides, the term, uncover nakedness, is in this series of statutes by parallelisms made equivalent to another term, in which both sodomy and bestiality are forbidden." Pp. 10, 11.
3. In our reply we shall begin with the meaning of the peculiar term, "uncover nakedness," and afterward notice what is said about the absence of the word marriage.
Let the reader carefully notice, that the term is not simple, but compound; a phrase, not a single word.
If the chapter devoted to the exposition of the phrase under consideration, be carefully examined, it will be found that the author overlooks the qualifying influence of the verb uncover, and confines his attention almost exclusively to the noun nakedness. This surely is not the way to explain a phrase, however it may answer for giving the meaning of a single word.
To show this to be the Puritan's mode of criticism, may be cited what is said in the beginning of the third paragraph: "But before we proceed to the proof that the word is expressive of crime." Observe, he does not say the phrase, but the word, is expressive of crime. In the last paragraph he, adverting to the phrase, says, "A careful attention to this phrase will show that it imports neither marriage, nor the intercourse of married persons, but criminal commerce, involving shame and dishonor." How does he prove this? By losing sight of the phrase, and confining his attention to the single word; for he immediately adds: "The Hebrew word עֶרְוָה rendered nakedness, in its prevailing use, imports uncleanness, and that disgrace which is inflicted by an act of lewdness. As this is an idea, which seems mainly to have been overlooked, by writers on both sides of this discussion—as it is of itself decisive of the question, and so may be admitted with difficulty, we must be excused for exhibiting that proof in considerable detail."
Accordingly, he bestows through the two following pages a needless amount of research to show the meaning of this single term, and the corresponding Greek term.
In the last paragraph on the 13th page, he insists that the phrase uncover nakedness has, in Levit. 18:14, the same meaning when applied to the male, as it has when applied to the female. Certainly it cannot be so. The nakedness of a female was uncovered by an act committed on her body; but the nakedness of her husband was uncovered by this act, and not by an act committed on his body; and by this act his nakedness was said to be uncovered, because the body of his wife was his property; therefore what was done to her, was reputed as done to her husband.
In the first paragraph, on the 14th page, the Puritan insists that the term nakedness means dishonor, both when applied to the male and to the female. Allow this meaning, and make the substitution in the 16th verse, and it will read thus: "Thou shalt not uncover the dishonor of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's dishonor." Now, such a disclosure might, in various ways, be made, without involving an act of lewdness on the part of the author.
4. Having made these remarks on the author's critical reasoning, we go back to notice what he asserts in the first paragraph of page 11, "The term uncover nakedness," he says, "of its own force bears the idea of criminal intercourse." This we deny, and assert that the phrase, abstractly considered, in relation to females, signifies sexual intercourse; and that the character of this intercourse depends entirely on circumstances. It may be virtuous and honorable, or it may be vicious and criminal, according as it is the intercourse of persons legally married, or the intercourse of persons unmarried, or not legally married. Alms given from proper motives, and in a proper way, is widely different from alms given from improper motives, and in an improper manner. The former is a Christian act, acceptable to God; the latter is not.[1]
The Puritan is not only erroneous in his reasoning, but incorrect in his quotations.
He asserts (p. 14, third paragraph) that "Selden, in all the numerous instances in which he had occasion to use this word in all his writings, renders it by the Latin word turpitudo; and that Jewish Rabbies define it as expressing all things that are base and filthy, and every thing base in word and deed."
Now, in opposition to this, we say, that if the Puritan had given correctly the first quotation he offers from Selden, (p. 12, second paragraph,) in support of the meaning he wishes to attach to the Hebrew word, it would have disproved his assertion; and shown too that these Levitical prohibitions forbid marriages with certain relatives, as well as single incestuous acts. His quotation seems to be singularly defective; and of course misrepresents the meaning of Selden. There are two defects, one at the beginning, and the other at the end; and the supply of both is necessary to show the true meaning of the passage.
We shall supply these defects, and mark the first omission by brackets.
["Lex sacra de incestu ad hunc modum loquitur,] (we omit the Hebrew text,) Nullus ad propinquum carnis suæ accedat ad revelaudum turpitudinem ejus, &c. Scilicet το ערוה sic in Vulgata nec male vertitur, uti et Græcis ασχημοσυνη, quod idem sonat." So far the Puritan; but immediately after Selden says, "Nuditas item (quæ primaria est vocis significatio) verenda, pudibunda, pro eodem hic substituitur; unde עריוה Rabbinis tum omni modo incestus genere tum pro fœminis hoc nomine hic interdictis usurpari solet, uti et ערוה pro earum qualibet, ut matre, sorore, amita, martertera, nuru."[2]
Now, when the whole passage, as it stands in Selden, is read, how apparent is it, that the Puritan's quotation fails in presenting the true meaning of this oriental scholar. Selden here certainly considered the 6th verse of Lev. 18, a part of which he recites, as referring to incest. What is incest? The crime of cohabiting or of sexual intercourse between those who, on account of near relationship, are interdicted marriage. If a man have commerce with a female to whom he does not sustain such a relation, his sin may be fornication or adultery; but it cannot be incest. If then Selden regarded the sixth verse as referring to incest, he must have regarded all the prohibitions in the subsequent verses, which amplify and explain the general rule in the sixth, as referring to the same offence. Incest can be committed only by persons whose marriage is interdicted. The words, at the commencement of the above quotation, omitted by the Puritan, are a key to Selden's meaning, and ought to have been recited.
The words too that immediately follow his quotation, should have been connected with it; because they were necessary to let the reader see the mind of this learned man in regard to the signification of the Hebrew term on which our brother labors so much. And what do they discover? Why, that Selden, while he admitted that it was not badly rendered by turpitudo in Latin, and by ασχημοσυνη in Greek, believed its primary signification to be nakedness, and that it signified too verenda, pudibunda; and that the Rabbins were accustomed to designate by עֶרְוָה any interdicted female, as a mother, a sister, an aunt by the father's side, an aunt by the mother's side, a daughter-in-law.
Is it not then perfectly clear, that Selden does not, as the Puritan affirms, always render this word by turpitudo in Latin; and that the Jewish Rabbies apply it to designate objects or persons that are far from being "base and filthy?"
In the next paragraph, referring to another quotation from Selden, he says, "Here we have his testimony direct, that the word which our opponents suppose to mean marriage, expresses some unlawful connexion." How unjust in our brother to impute to us what we do not hold! We do not believe the word means marriage; and it may be fairly presumed, he never heard any intelligent person say so. We believe, as Selden states, its primary signification to be nakedness, and as it is used in the Levitical prohibitions in connexion with the verb uncover, to express sexual intercourse; and that the prohibitions not only respect single incestuous acts, but are also intended to interdict incestuous marriages.
The quotation in the paragraph next to the last, on the same page, (p. 12,) is faulty. The translation is incorrect, and the Latin quotation, at the foot of the page, leaves out very material words. It is offered as "the testimony of a Jewish Rabbi, Solomon Jarchi." As it is found in Selden, in the same book and chapter from which the preceding quotation was taken, we presume the Puritan derived it from that source, though it is not so stated.
It has been seen how he labors to support his cause by the authority of the great oriental scholar; and that his first quotation, when fairly set before the reader, by exhibiting it in connexion with what went before and followed after it in Selden, entirely fails to sustain his assertion. A similar example is now to be presented where the Puritan has omitted at the beginning what was necessary to a correct understanding of his quotation, as well as a parenthesis that throws light upon it.
We shall quote the whole from Selden, and leave it with the reader to compare our quotation with that of our brother. "Unde Salomon Jarchius ad illud Deut. xxiii. 2. Non ingrediatur Mamzer in cœtum Domini (quod de matrimonio cum Israelitide contrahendo, ac si dictum fuisset, לא ישא ישראלית, Non ducat in uxorem Israelitidem, exponunt.) The Hebrew terms we omit. "Mamzer, inquit, is duntaxat est, qui ex coitu excisione plectendo nascitur, aut (quod magis dicendum) ex eo qui ex sententia forensi ultimo plectendus supplicio. Nam inter coitus, qui nomine ערוה (ασχημοσυνης sue turpiduninis) signantius denotantur, (Levitico xviii. and xxi.) nullus est ex sententia forensi ultimo supplicio plectendus, ad quem simul excisionis pæna non attinet." If the reader will compare this quotation with that of the Puritan, he will see that there is a material difference; an important omission at the beginning, and the omission of a material parenthesis in the middle of his quotation.
His translation too is incorrect; for it is made to exclude the idea of marriage, which is presented so distinctly to our view by the part omitted by him at the beginning. The word coitus, which signifies conjunction, union, coition, he improperly renders, in one place, "an act of lewdness," and in another, "acts of lewdness:" and this is done to sustain his assertion that עֶרְוָה always signifies, in Selden's writings, what is base, and never has reference to marriage. If the quotation be closely examined, it will be seen that this Jewish Rabbi had two kinds of coition in view; one which cut off the offspring from the congregation, and another which was punishable with death. Dr. Clarke, in his commentary on Deut. 23:2, says, "Mamzer, which is here rendered bastard, should be understood as implying the offspring of an illegitimate or incestuous mixture." Such an offspring might be the fruit of an illegal marriage between an Israelitish woman and a heathen man; or of an incestuous marriage between a Hebrew man and a Hebrew woman; or of illegitimate intercourse.
How well this accords with the views of the great oriental scholar, will appear from the following quotation, in which he expresses his own apprehension of what was signified by "children born of incest." It is found on the same page with the faulty quotation of the Puritan, and a little before it. "De Liberis ex incestu genitis (quod et de concubinis et de uxoribus ingenuis and Israeliticis, sed quibuscum sive ob affinitatem sive ob consanguinitatem matrimonium contrahi non poterat, intelligo) ita Moses Maimonides," &c. Maimonides speaks of a Mamzer, and asserts that he could succeed to the inheritance, just as another son or brother.
On this quotation we offer two remarks. First, Selden here plainly asserts, that children begotten of freeborn Israelitish concubines, or wives, with whom, on account of affinity or consanguinity, a Hebrew man could not lawfully contract marriage, were children of incest. Secondly, this implies that he believed that God had given to his people Israel a law which prohibited marriages, on the ground both of affinity and consanguinity. And where is that law to be found except in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus? the sixth verse of which he quotes, when he says, "The sacred law speaks of incest in this manner." See above, page 118.
The Puritan's quotation from the Targum of Jonathan (p. 15, 3d par.) is, like the preceding, incorrect and faulty.
The Hebrew word עֶרְוָה is not used by the Jewish writer where he places it, nor in any other part of the comment; but the Chaldaic form, which in the Latin translation is rendered by the term turpitudo. The translation is: "Vir qui duxerit uxorem fratris sui in vita sui, abominatio est : (מְרַחְקָא) turpitudinem (עִרְוְיהָא) fratris sui retexit; absque prole erunt." The comment on Jonathan's meaning is entirely wrong. He contends that this Jewish writer believed that a brother's nakedness could not be uncovered after his death, and that therefore it necessarily followed, that the offence here spoken of could have no reference to marriage. If the Puritan had examined Jonathan's comment on Levit. 18:16, he would have better understood his mind. Here is the Latin translation: "Turpitudinem uxoris fratris tui non revelabis vivente fratre tuo, aut post mortem ejus si habeat filios: nuditas fratris tui est." From this we learn—1. That, in the opinion of Jonathan, if a man had sexual intercourse with his brother's wife, while his brother was living, it would be a violation of the prohibition in the 16th verse;—2. That if his deceased brother had children by her, it would be unlawful for him to marry her;—and 3. That uncovering her nakedness after his decease would uncover his nakedness; because her nakedness was considered as his nakedness: "nuditas fratris tui est." There was only one exception to the general rule in the 16th verse. If a Jew died without children, his brother could lawfully marry his widow, or uncover her nakedness without offence; but in all other cases, the prohibition was binding.
That this Jewish Rabbi did not (in Levit. 20:21) refer to an adulterous connexion with a brother's wife, may be inferred from the penalty specified by him: "absque prole erunt." Such a connexion he well knew was punishable with death (Levit. 20:10); and this he notices in his comment on the verse just named, and points out the different modes of inflicting this penalty, according as the crime was committed with an espoused virgin or a married woman. The penalty specified by him, ("absque prole erunt,") evinces that he had regard to the offence committed by a man who married his brother's divorced wife, while he was living. Of the true meaning of the original Hebrew text, we shall have occasion hereafter to speak.
This is confirmed by the Arabic version of Levit. 20:21: "Et quisque vir acceperit uxorem fratris sui quæ est remota ab ipso quandoquidem detexit turpitudinem fratris sui, morientur ambo orbi."
How many erroneous quotations have been made by the Puritan! 1. From Jeremy Taylor;—2. From Turrettin;—3. From Selden; 4. From Salomon Jarchi;—5. From Jonathan, the Jewish Rabbi. See above, pp. 21, 22, 84, 110–116, 117.
6. Had the Puritan opened Simon's or Gesenius' Lexicon, he would have seen that the word עֶרְוָה signifies—1. Nakedness in general;—2. Specially, nuditas pudendorum;—3. Metonymically, turpitudo.
The different meanings of the word being thus ascertained from a Hebrew Lexicon, the next point to be determined is, which of these three meanings is best adapted to its connexion with the verb uncover, in application to a female. In this connexion it seems obvious, that the second meaning should be selected.
No one can doubt what is meant by the nakedness of Noah, (where the word occurs for the first time in the Bible,) which his two sons so discreetly, and with such filial reverence, covered with a garment, while they went backward, that they might not see their father's nakedness. (Gen. 9:23.)
The word occurs a second time in Gen. 42:12, where it is rendered "the nakedness of the land;" and that this means its destitution of defence, or defenceless condition, is very obvious. In Exod. 28:42, we meet with it a third time, where the signification of בְשַׂר עֶרְוָה, translated their nakedness, cannot be misunderstood. Then the word appears so often in Levit. 18:6–18.[3]
And when the great Lawgiver pronounces the prohibition, that a man shall not uncover the nakedness of sundry female relations, is it reasonable to doubt which meaning of the Hebrew word, translated nakedness, is suggested? Does He not refer to the pudenda? and is it not plain that, connected as it is with the verb uncover, the prohibition forbids sexual intercourse? Compare with these prohibitions Levit. 20:17.
This in effect is admitted by the Puritan; for, in p. 11, he denominates the acts forbidden, "single acts of an incestuous character." And the whole paragraph, from which these words are quoted, shows that he saw the acts prohibited to be acts of unlawful sexual intercourse. It was, then, unnecessary for him to labor so much on the meaning of the single word עֶרְוָה; and indeed his labor was worse than useless; for it led him astray. The meaning of the phrase he presents, in the paragraph referred to before he enters on his learned research; but when he arrives at the end of it, he is so misled, by dwelling so much on a single word, that he substitutes the meaning of this single word that best pleased him for the two words; and a general for a definite phrase. The plain and obvious terms of the law, he explains by terms that do not well define the acts prohibited. The law says, "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's wife;" and he imagines he gives its meaning, by saying, "Thou shalt not dishonor thy father's wife." Now, as such a relative might be dishonored in various ways and by different acts, the question will arise, Does the law refer to one act, to one way, or to all acts and ways of dishonoring a relative? This we apprehend to be obscuring, rather than explaining the law. The particular act that would produce dishonor to a female relative, is specified in the law; but the Puritan thinks he explains the prohibition, by substituting the effect for the cause.
At the top of p. 12 he says, "The Seventy translate the word in all the instances in which it occurs, in these chapters, by the word ασχημοσυνη, which signifies baseness, or a base act. And they render this text, 'Thou shalt not dishonor or expose to shame,'" &c. In this the Puritan is erroneous.
Robinson, in his Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, gives, as one meaning of this word, pudenda; and very properly supporting it by Rev. 16:15, adds, "So Sept. and עֶרְוָה Ex 20:26, Lev. 18:6, 7." Charles Thomson, in his translation of the Septuagint, has rendered it, in Lev. 18, as it is in our English translation of the Hebrew: "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover," &c. The nakedness of thy brother's wife thou shalt not uncover, &c. Grotius, commenting on the word turpitudinem, used by the Vulgate, in Levit. 18:6, says, ערוה, id est nuditatem, Hebræi vocant partes quæ nudæ dedecent. Ideo LXX. ασχημοσυνη, inhonestatem. Paulus 1 Cor. 12:23, τα ασχημονα [inhonesta].
In the 2d paragraph, on the 12th page, the Puritan reiterates what he had before asserted: "Now, both from the meaning of the word עֶרְוָה and ασχημοσυνη, we put it beyond a reasonable doubt, that unlawful intercourse is here the thing forbidden."
The meaning of the phrase "uncover nakedness," as to the criminality of the act, depends, we have shown, upon circumstances. The act may be virtuous or vicious. The terms in which it is expressed, do not of themselves denote its character; they merely signify, in a delicate way, the act. In this chapter, as they are used in prohibitory statutes, they do, in general, mark criminal intercourse. Yet there is found one exception. The 17th verse says, "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter." Now, we apprehend, the law does not here forbid a man to have intercourse with a woman to whom he is married, but only to have intercourse with the daughter of his wife. Our translation is, we think, unfortunate. The original word is precisely the same as that rendered in other verses by the English word wife; and had it been so translated, the ambiguity would have been avoided. It would then have read: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a wife and her daughter."
The Hebrew word is translated uxor, wife, both by the Septuagint and by the Vulgate; and Charles Thomson has very properly used the term wife, in his version of the Septuagint. The Hebrews understood the word to signify wife. See Selden De Lege Nat. et Gen. Lib. v. chap. i., p. 590.
Here, then, the phrase is used to express the lawful intercourse of married persons; and this intercourse is pronounced by the Supreme Lawgiver to be "honorable in all."
The reader may now look at the assertion of the Puritan, which, by large capitals, he has placed in bold relief, on page 14, and know how to appreciate it. If the terms have not the sense of marriage, they are sometimes used to express the intercourse that pertains to marriage. He may learn too that the author is in error, where he confidently asserts, of this phrase, (p. 11,) "It so embodies the idea of a criminal connexion, as to exclude that of marriage; and that a Hebrew writer would no more use it to express the idea of marriage, than he would use the term adultery." Moses, we see, writing under inspiration, has used these terms in reference to the intercourse of married persons.
7. If we felt disposed, we might put our brother, the Puritan, to some trouble to sustain what he regards as so easy to sustain, the meaning of "the term wife, in these texts." (Chap. 4, par. 3.) He alleges there are "forty-nine cases where the proper term (wife) is used," against seven in which the term widow is found. In reference to this arithmetical criticism, we might say, the primary meaning of the Hebrew word, rendered in these statutes by the word wife, is woman. So it is translated in very many places; and therefore, according to his rule, he ought to assign a reason for its being rendered, in these texts, by the term wife. Had he recollected this primary sense of the Hebrew word, he would not (guided by sound) have said, "It may seem presumption in me, to contend that the text means what it says." We shall not put him to this trouble; we shall agree to receive the translation as correct.
We have however a reply to offer to a question he proposes in p. 17: "Is not then the inference irresistible, that when no such special reasons for departing from the accustomed use can be shown, the term wife is to be understood to mean wife, and nothing else?"
Now, while we admit the correctness of the version of the term, we contend, that in all the statutes included in verses 6–16, the term wife does signify more than what it usually expresses; it means, from the very import of these prohibitory statutes, the wife, not only while her husband is living, but when he is dead, and she left in a state of widowhood. How long is a man forbidden to have incestuous intercourse with his mother? Only during his father's life-time? May he marry his mother after his father's decease, and thus render sexual intercourse with her who bare him and brought him into the world lawful and honorable? Nature abhors the idea; the divine statute prohibits forever all such unnatural commerce between a parent and her child, as peremptorily when his father is dead, as while he is living. Is not the prohibition perpetual too in regard to a father's wife? in regard to an aunt, the wife of a father's brother? in regard to a son's wife? Can any form of marriage cover the iniquity of intercourse between such near relations? Is not sexual commerce forever forbidden between a man and such females, as well when they are widows, as while their husbands are living? Do not these statutes prohibit even the thought of such intimacy, under any circumstances?
8. The Puritan asks, Why the term marriage was not used, if the Lawgiver intended by these statutes to prohibit marriage? We promised an answer to his question. The preceding remarks will suggest one. Infinite Wisdom, designing by these statutes, to fix the mark of reprobation on all sexual intercourse between near relations, under all circumstances, uses the terms here recorded, as the fittest to express His will; and, therefore, forebore to employ the term marriage in reference to connexions that no form of marriage could sanctify and render honorable.
These statutes, then, while they prohibit all sexual intercourse between near relations, as incestuous, have reference to marriage, and do impliedly forbid it.
Another proof of such reference may be found in Levit. 20:21. Mark the penalty annexed to the crime. "They shall be childless." And what was the crime from which this threatening was designed to deter? Was it, as the Puritan imagines, an adulterous connexion with a brother's wife? Was adultery committed with such a relative less heinous, than adultery committed with another woman to whom the offender was not nearly related? Certainly not. It was a greater crime. By the 10th verse of this chapter, the crime of adultery was to be punished with death; and it will follow, that if the crime contemplated in the 21st verse had been adultery, the offender would have been deserving of this punishment, and the appropriate penalty would have been annexed, as in all the preceding verses.
Besides, the desire of procreating children is no incentive to defile the bed of a brother. The adulterer is prompted to his crime merely by his unbridled lusts, which he seeks to gratify. The threatening of being childless was no appropriate punishment of such a crime.
But to deter from marrying a brother's wife, when repudiated by him, or after his death, it was appropriate. The Jews had a great desire for children; and a threatening that they should be childless, if they violated the law by contracting marriage, was likely to deter from this sin.
The Jews, in the time of Henry VIII., regarded the Levitical prohibitions as having respect to marriage. "Many of the Jewish Rabbins," says Burnet, "did give it under their hand in Hebrew, That the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were thus to be reconciled: That the law of marrying a brother's wife, when he died without children, did only bind in the land of Judea, to preserve families, and maintain their successions in the land, as it had been divided by lot; but that in all other places in the world, the law of Leviticus of not marrying the brother's wife, was obligatory."[4]
Indeed, the Puritan has in fact yielded the reference of these statutes to marriage, in the character (so often referred to) which he gives to sexual intercourse between relations designated in the Levitical law; for, if it were at any time lawful for them to marry, their intercourse might be denominated fornication or adultery, but it could not be called incest; because incest is the crime of cohabiting or sexual commerce between persons so nearly related, that their marriage is declared to be unlawful. Hence, the Jews, who never thought of calling in question the application of these Levitical statutes to marriage, maintained, as Selden informs us, that if an unmarried man were to lie with a woman and her daughter, or with a woman and her sister, he would not be guilty of incest, however criminal his conduct might be.[5]
From all the evidence presented to prove the reference of the Levitical prohibitions to marriage, we may conclude, that the Puritan has failed to establish the contrary doctrine, which, at the close of his fourth chapter, he imagines to be fully proved. All the statutes refer to marriage; and as those which prohibit sexual intercourse between parents and children, brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces, prohibit, at the same time, all attempts to sanctify such intercourse by marriage; so it is with the prohibitions that respect a brother's wife, and a wife's husband. All are near of kin, and may not be approached. God has forbidden it by his law.
9. But the Puritan objects, (p. 8, 3d par.) "In our view, the fact that God commanded a man to marry a brother's widow, proves that there is no immorality in such marriages." Nor was there immorality in the marriages of brother's and sisters, when in the commencement of our race God commanded such near relations to marry. In the purpose of Abraham to slay his son, when God commanded him to "offer him as a burnt sacrifice," (Gen. 22:2; Heb. 11:17–19,) there was no immorality, but a signal act of obedience to the Divine will; nor would there have been any immorality in the patriarch's conduct, if, at the command of God, he had actually deprived him of life. But, when "the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him;" if he had executed his purpose, there would have been great immorality in his murderous act. When, in consequence of the multiplication of the human race, the marriage of brothers and sisters became unlawful, they who, contrary to the Divine will, contracted such marriages, were chargeable with great immorality. And so now, when a man marries his brother's widow, he acts in a very immoral manner; because God prohibits in his word such marriages. Levit. 18:16, and 20:21.
But, as it was the duty of a brother, under the Jewish economy, to marry the childless widow of his brother, and raise up seed to him, the Puritan still objects, and says, (in the close of the above paragraph,) "We must insist, that this command to marry a brother's widow proves that such marriages were not abhorrent to ." This objection he has himself, in effect, answered by a quotation from Turrettin; from which it appears, that some precepts of the Divine law are so founded in the nature of God and the nature of things which he has constituted, that they cannot be altered, and must remain unchanged; and that others are not so founded, but "founded in the nature of things constituted in a particular way." Such precepts may be changed by the exercise of God's sovereign authority. (See his p. 8, last par.)
And were we to admit the marriage in question was "not abhorrent to nature," in the sense attached to the phrase by the Puritan, it would not follow that it is now lawful. Can Jehovah forbid no marriages but such as nature abhors? or, in other words, his short-sighted, erring, and misguided creatures see and allow to be improper and wrong? In commemoration of his resting from his works of creation, He enacted the fourth commandment in the Decalogue, which required the Hebrew people to sanctify the seventh day; and violations of this day were, by his judicial law, punishable with death, by the civil magistrate, as long as the fourth commandment remained unchanged; but now, under the new dispensation, we observe, as the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord, and the finishing of the glorious work of redemption. So in regard to the statute prohibiting a man marrying his brother's widow, the sovereign authority that enacted could, at anytime and in such circumstances as He deemed proper, suspend its operation; and, as the reason for which its operation was suspended does not, under the Christian dispensation, ever occur, the statute has become invariable, and perpetually forbids the marriage of a man with his brother's widow.
In regard to the interesting subject of marriage, the Puritan may prefer being guided by human legislators and his own interpretation of nature; but we prefer being guided by the great and unerring Lawgiver of the universe; who knows the nature of things which He has constituted, unspeakably better than we do, and how to protect his own institution, so as best to promote His own glory and the best interests of the human race.
- ↑ Under the verb גָלָה Gesenius’ Lexicon, translated by Robinson, says, "To uncover the nakedness of a woman, i.e., to have carnal intercourse with her, Lev. 18:8 sq. 20:17 sq.
- ↑ Uxor Ebr. Lib. I. chap. 3, p. 539.
- ↑ Buxtorf, in explanation of the meaning of this word, says, "Nuditas corporis humani propalam turpis et pudenda censetur, maxime partium genitalium, quæ natura tecta voluit."
- ↑ Burnet's Hist., p. 143.
- ↑ De Jure Nat. et Gen. Lib. V., chap. x., pp. 545, 546.