Shalom

We seem to be agreed on the broad principles of the law, including the principle of those duly authorised by the law setting judgements BASED ON THE LAW that set precedents for subsequent periods. The issue where we are still not agreed, and one that we ought to address, is the category of widow a man is allowed or forbidden to marry.

Leviticus 18:20 reads,

Does this verse forbid a man from marrying any widow?

I don't think so. It forbids a man from marrying only a woman who is CURRENTLY someone's wife. Once a wife ceases to be so, such as in the death of her husband, she can be married by a man, subject to other laws of Yahweh. If this verse forbids a man from marrying a widow, then no widow ought to be married. But the law allows a widow to marry. Showing that this verse does not forbid widows from being married.

It therefore appears that Leviticus 18 is talking about human relations as they CURRENTLY stand, not as they stood in the past under different circumstances. Such that where a man is currently forbidden from marrying a neighbour's wife, he is not forbidden from marrying the same woman after she becomes a widow, for she is then no longer someone's wife - all subject to other laws of Yahweh.

Where a woman is married to a man, a man who has another wife, and through this other wife has a married daughter, what is the relationship between the first woman and her husband's son-in-law? For want of a apt phrase I will use yours - the woman is a step-mother-in-law. As the situation currently stands there is no close genetic relationship between this woman and her husband's son-in-law, either directly or by the son-in-law's marriage to her husband's daughter, her stepdaughter. Therefore the ground whereby she is forbidden from being married by her step-son-in-law is not one of close kinship, as per Leviticus 18:6, but one of avoiding adultery, as there is no close kinship between them!

If the woman's husband dies, her marriage to him ceases at that point of death. She then ceases to be step-mother-in-law to her late husband's son-in-law, for she is no longer married! Her relationship to her late husband's son-in-law then becomes one of an unmarried woman to a man, both not being close relatives of one another, either directly (genetically) or by marriage. Any man not a close relative of the woman (widow) may now marry her, subject to Yahweh's other laws. Therefore the woman's late husband's son-in-law, her former step-son-in-law, is not forbidden from marrying her!

Studying the relevant scriptures in Leviticus 18 enables us to derive principles out of the law that are NOT additions to the law.

Leviticus 18:6 forbids a man from sexually lying with a CLOSE relative. Subsequent verses define WHO a close relative is.

Leviticus 18:7 shows that a man's parents are close relatives, both his father and his mother.

Leviticus 18:8 shows that a man's stepmothers are close relatives, being considered one with the man's father (Genesis 2:24).

Leviticus 18:9 shows that a man's sister is his close relative, irrespective of whether she is his father's daughter or his mother's daughter.

Leviticus 18:10 shows that a man's granddaughters are his close relatives. They are his seed or descendants.

Leviticus 18:11 clarifies 18:9, in that it uses the phrase "begotten of your father". Any woman begotten of a man's father is the man's sister, irrespective of whether or not the sister shares the same mother with the man.

Leviticus 18:12-13 shows that any sister of a man's parents is his close relative.

Leviticus 18:14 shows that a wife of a man's father's brother is his close relative (Genesis 2:24).

Leviticus 18:15 shows that a man's daughter-in-law is his close relative (Genesis 2:24).

Leviticus 18:16 shows that a brother's wife is a man's close relative (Genesis 2:24).

Leviticus 18:17 shows that a daughter or granddaughter of a man's wife are his close relatives. Implying that by virtue of his marriage to his wife, his wife's descendants, though not his biological descendants, are his close relatives for purposes of the command against sexual relations between close relatives (Genesis 2:24).

These scriptures enable us to derive other close relatives that are not specifically mentioned by them.

Leviticus 18:7. As a man's parents are his close relatives, because they are his parents, any children of his parents are his parents' close relatives, including daughters. A daughter is therefore a close relative of her father, and is therefore sexually forbidden from him.

Leviticus 18:10. As a man's granddaughters are his close relatives, on account of his being their grandfather, all his grandchildren are his close relatives. And just as he is sexually forbidden from his granddaughters, he is also sexually forbidden from any wife of a grandson of his.

Likewise, as grandchildren are a grandfather's close relatives, so are they for a grandmother. A man is therefore sexually forbidden from his grandmother. Also, a man is sexually forbidden from any wife of his grandfather.

Leviticus 18:12. As a man is sexually forbidden from his father's sister, as his father's sister is a close relative of his father, and also a close relative of the man, then any brother or sister of his father is a close relative of the man. The man is therefore likewise forbidden from any wife of his father's brother. And seeing that his father's brothers and sisters are his close relatives, the same holds true on his mother's side. His mother's brothers and sisters are also his close relatives. He is therefore sexually forbidden from any sister of his mother, and also from any wife of his mother's brother.

Likewise, as uncles and aunts are close relatives of a man, so are they for a woman. A man is therefore sexually forbidden from his niece, a daughter of his brother or of his sister. He is also sexually forbidden from a wife of his nephew, a son of his brother or of his sister.

Leviticus 18:17. The generational limit or cut-off point, either in ascent or descent, of a close relative is two generations. One's parents and grandparents are one's close relatives. Likewise, one's children and grandchildren are one's close relatives. Sexual relations between one and anyone else in one's ancestry or descent up to two generations is forbidden.

Also, a man is sexually forbidden from his stepdaughter and his step-granddaughter, the daughter of his stepson or stepdaughter. He is therefore also forbidden from a wife of his stepson, or a wife of his step-grandson, the son of either his stepson or stepdaughter. In other words, by virtue of his marriage to his wife, his wife's descendants to the second generation are deemed the same as his descendants for purposes of forbidding sexual relations between close relatives.

In like manner, a man, if a stepson, is sexually forbidden from any wife of his stepfather. Also, a man, if a step-grandson, the son of either a stepson or a stepdaughter, is forbidden from any wife of his step-grandfather.

Leviticus 20:10-22 stipulates the death penalty upon those who violate the prohibitions mentioned in Leviticus 18. The death penalty is not stipulated upon sexual relations between a man and a woman who is not defined as his close relative, provided she is not someone's wife.

It would therefore appear, to preserve the consistency between Leviticus 18 and 20, that the only sexual relationships forbidden are those listed in these two chapters, and those directly derived therefrom. If the death penalty is not levied against a particular kind of sexual relationship it appears that it is not forbidden.

Leviticus 21:1-3 defines the close relatives of a priest for purposes of mourning, these being his father, his mother, his brother, his unmarried sister, his son and his daughter. The implication being that his other relatives are DISTANT relatives.

Leviticus 25:47-49 shows that for purposes of redeeming a slave an uncle's son is considered one's close relative. But Leviticus 18 and 20 do not include an uncle's son as one's close relative for purposes of sexual relations. It therefore appears that the only CLOSE relatives, whom a man is prohibited from having any sexual relations with, are those specifically defined to be so by Leviticus 18 and 20, either expressly or impliedly. For even though an uncle's son is considered a close relative for other purposes, he is not so considered for purposes of sexual relations, thereby showing that other relatives who are not close for purposes of sexual relations may be considered close for other purposes.

Numbers 26:28-34 lists the early genealogy of the children of Menashshe, Yosef's son. 26:33 reads,

Numbers 27:1-11 shows that, as a result of the matter brought to Moshe's attention by the daughters of Tzelohchad, where daughters have no brother their father's inheritance passes to them.

Numbers 36 shows that, as a result of the matter brought to Moshe's attention by the tribe of Menashshe, where daughters inherit a possession in the tribe of their father they are not to be married outside that tribe, that the possession they have inherited not pass away from the tribe of their father. 36:11 shows that the daughters of Tzelohchad were married to their father's brothers' sons, showing that their father's brothers' sons were NOT their CLOSE relatives for purposes of sexual relations, even though they were their relatives.

It therefore appears from Leviticus 18 and 20 that only the expressly or impliedly specified relatives sexually forbidden to a man are his CLOSE relatives. Other relatives, who are not close in the context of sexual relations, are not sexually forbidden to him.

Joshua 15:13-19 further confirms that a man can indeed have sexual relations with a daughter of his father's brother, for Kalev the son of Yefunneh gave his daughter Akhsah as wife to Otniel, the son of Kenaz, Kalev's brother. Leviticus 18 and 20 therefore forbid a man from having sexual relations with his CLOSE relatives, as expressly or impliedly defined therein, but does not forbid him from so having sexual relations with his DISTANT relatives.

It therefore appears that a key to understanding Leviticus 18 and 20 is distinguishing between CLOSE and DISTANT relatives for purposes of sexual relations.

Based on my comments above it should be clear that, in harmony with Scripture, I would NOT allow a man to marry his own daughter. I would also NOT allow a man to marry his niece, whether the niece is the daughter of his brother or the daughter of his sister.

To reiterate, a man's uncle, the brother of his father, is a close relative of the man. A man's uncle is also the uncle of the man's sister, the daughter of his father. Therefore, just as the man's uncle is a close relative of the man, so also is he a close relative of the man's sister, the daughter of his father. Therefore the man's sister, the daughter of his father, is forbidden from having sexual relations with her uncle, her father's brother. For they are close relatives.

Would you say that the application of principles derived from Leviticus 18 to be "teaching traditions of men"?

I wouldn't! My understanding is that applying principles derived from Leviticus 18 is NOT teaching men's traditions, but applying Yahweh's word to situations where it appears silent or not readily apparent. In other words, it is applying Yahweh's traditions!

I will comment also on another case not covered by your question. Is a man allowed to have sexual relations with his maternal uncle's wife by the close relatives' law?

A man is forbidden from having sexual relations with his mother's sister, for she is a close relative. Leviticus 18 is silent with respect to whether his mother's brother is a close relative. But the status of a mother's brother, with respect to his being a man's close relative, can be determined from Leviticus 18.

A man's father's sister is a close relative, as well as a man's father's brother. Likewise, seeing that a man's mother's sister is a close relative, a man's mother's brother is also a close relative. Therefore, just as a man is forbidden from having sexual relations with his paternal uncle's wife, so also is he forbidden from having sexual relations with his maternal uncle's wife, for the nakedness of his uncles' wives is his uncles' nakedness, who are his close relatives!

Having established this, just as a daughter is forbidden from having sexual relations with her paternal uncle, so also is she forbidden from having sexual relations with her maternal uncle. A man is therefore forbidden from having sexual relations with his niece, the daughter of either his brother or his sister, for his niece is his close relative!

Can you please explain this statement.

It seems to me that a man can marry a widow who was married to his brother, whether or not she produced a son to succeed to his brother's name. Where do you get this notion that a man was forbidden to marry such a widow except to produce a son for the deceased?

What Scripture does is to place an obligation upon the man to marry such a widow if she has not borne a son to succeed to the name of the deceased, and likewise upon the widow to so be married by her late husband's brother. If the widow has already borne a son to succeed to the name of the deceased, she is NOT BOUND to be married by her late husband's brother, nor is such a brother bound to marry her. But she is NOT PREVENTED from marrying such a brother, subject to other laws of Yahweh.

Also it should be noted that levirate marriage did not disadvantage a widow who was so married with respect to the rights of a married woman. Exodus 21:10 ensures that she must be accorded adequate food, clothing and sex by her new husband - her late husband's brother. If the marriage was consummated ONLY to produce seed for the deceased, such that after seed for the deceased was produced there was no longer any sex between the woman and her new husband, then Yahweh's law in Exodus 21:10 would be violated!

It should therefore be clear that the marriage of such a widow to her late husband's brother is just like any other marriage. The only issue here is that the choice of marriage partner is restricted to ensure compliance with a law of Yahweh. This was exactly the same scenario with the daughters of Tzelohchad, who were restricted in their choice of husband to facilitate compliance with a law of Yahweh.

A man's ancestors cannot be changed. Close relationships as a result of one's ancestry cannot also be changed. A man is therefore permanently forbidden sexual relations with his mother, and also his father's sister and his mother's sister, on account of these being his parents' close relatives. What about close relationships formed as a result of marriage? Can these change with the cessation of the marriage? For example, what is the case with respect to a man's uncle's widow? Is he forbidden from marrying her by the law of close relations?

While his uncle was alive the man was forbidden from sexual relations with her, on the grounds of both close kinship and adultery. But after the death of his uncle, and the cessation of his uncle's marriage to his wife, she is no longer married. She therefore ceases to be a close relative. The close relative law previously forbidding this man from having sexual relations with her no longer applies to him with respect to her. Also, as she is no longer someone's wife the adultery law forbidding this man from having sexual relations with her no longer applies. The law does not prohibit this man from marrying this widow, subject to other laws of Yahweh, such as this man already being the husband of a daughter of this widow. If he has not married her daughter, and her late husband had a son to succeed to his name, the law does not prohibit this man from marrying her!

A man's descendants cannot be changed. Close relationships as a result of one's descent cannot also be changed. A man is therefore permanently forbidden sexual relations with his daughter and his granddaughter, and also his niece, on account of her being his close relative.

With respect to a widow of his nephew, is a man forbidden from marrying her by the law of close relations?

If such a widow has borne a son to succeed to the name of the man's nephew, she is free to marry whomever she pleases, provided that man is not a close relative of hers. It therefore appears that the man can marry her, as she is no longer a close relative by marriage to his nephew, that close relation having been terminated by the death of his nephew. Once he marries her he must continue to comply with the law of close relations, with respect to his new wife's children by his late nephew.

The above scenarios are derived by applying the principle that a woman's marriage ceases upon the death of her husband. When she is a widow she is no longer a close relative of those she was formerly a close relative of by marriage, for purposes of sexual relations, except those who remain close relatives by virtue of her children.

The book of Ruth appears to affirm the above.

Ruth 1:1-5 introduces Elimelekh, his wife Naomi, their two sons Machlon and Kilyon, the wives of their sons taken after the death of Elimelekh, Orpah and Rut, and the widowhood of both these women, leaving three widows in total.

Ruth 2:1 reads,

It should be noted that Boaz is NOT called Naomi's kinsman, but her late husband's kinsman, Elimelekh's kinsman, for he belonged to the same family as Elimelekh.

Ruth 3:1-2a reads,

It should be noted that historically Naomi was Rut's mother-in-law. But by the cessation of the marriage of Rut to her son, she was, technically speaking, not Rut's mother-in-law at the time she spoke this. Also, historically, Boaz was their kinsman. But with the cessation of both their marriages, technically neither Naomi nor Rut was Boaz's kinswoman.

Ruth 3:9-13 reads,

It should be noted that Elimelekh and Boaz were near kinsmen, both belonging to the same family. It therefore appears that Boaz and Elimelekh's sons were also near kinsmen, thereby making Boaz a near kinsman of Rut's at the time she was married to Elimelekh's son.

It should also be noted that Boaz called Rut "my daughter", indicating that he was a paternal uncle to Rut's late husband, a brother of Elimelekh. Also, that Boaz commended Rut for not following after "young men", but showing him her kindness, indicates that Boaz WAS NOT at this time a young man, but fairly elderly. Thereby further indicating that he was of Elimelekh's generation, and not that of Elimelekh's sons. It therefore appears that Rut was indeed a widow of Boaz's nephew.

Ruth 4:3 reads,

This confirms that both Boaz and the other near kinsman were Elimelekh's brothers. Boaz was therefore Rut's former uncle-in-law, Rut having been the wife of Boaz's nephew.

Ruth 4:13 reads,

It should therefore be evident from this scriptural evidence that a man can indeed marry a widow of his close relative, even one deemed a close relative for sexual relations purposes. It should therefore also be evident that marriage ceases at the death of one of its parties. Such that where a man is sexually forbidden from a woman because she is the wife of a close relative of his, he is no longer sexually forbidden from her once she becomes a widow, subject to other laws of Yahweh. And just as an uncle can marry the widow of his nephew, so also can a man marry the widow of his brother, all subject to other laws of Yahweh.

Is it the case that a man is not prohibited, by the principles derived from Leviticus 18, from having sexual relations with his grandmother?

Leviticus 18 forbids sexual relations between those who are CLOSE relations. A man is considered a close relation of his granddaughter. A man is also considered a close relation of both his father and his mother, for these are his immediate ancestors, only one generation separating them. A man and his granddaughter are separated by two generations, and are still considered close relatives. If a granddaughter is considered a close relative, so also is a grandson, for there is no distinction between a grandson and a granddaughter in this context, both having the same ancestry and separated by two generations.

In the context of a grandson, if his grandfather is his close relative, then also his grandmother is his close relative, for both his grandparents are his ancestors and both are separated from him by two generations, which is within the limit for close relations for sexual purposes. Therefore, seeing that a grandmother is just as much a close relative as a grandfather, the principles derived from Leviticus 18 FORBID a man having sexual relations with his grandmother!

My understanding, based on my application of principles derived from Leviticus 18, results in a conclusion different from what you have portrayed above, that a man is not forbidden from having sexual relations with his grandmother. It is also evident that the principle you have stated here, that ascending one's line is not prohibited, does not appear to be correct under the principles derived from Leviticus 18. For Leviticus 18 clearly forbids a man from having sexual relations with either his mother or his father's wives. Leviticus 18 therefore forbids ascending one's line by at least one generation. And from what I have outlined above it should be evident that Leviticus 18 also forbids ascending or descending one's line by two generations!

Leviticus 18 is SILENT on sexual relations between a man and a wife of his father-in-law who is not his mother-in-law. Why? It is also silent on the sexual relations between a man and a wife of his wife's brother. Why? Or between a man and a wife of his wife's uncle, whether a paternal or maternal uncle. Why?

The only in-law on a man's wife's side accorded close relative status is his mother-in-law, the mother of his wife, on account of her being his wife's mother, and not on account of her being an in-law. If his mother-in-law was accorded close relative status on account of her being an in-law, then several other in-laws would also be accorded close relative status. Such as his father-in-law, and his wives, his father-in-law's brothers and their wives, his father-in-law's sisters and his mother-in-law's sisters. But these are not categorised as close relatives. It therefore appears that in-laws on a man's wife's side are not categorised as close relatives on account of being in-laws on a man's wife's side!

In fact Yahweh allows a man in Leviticus 18:18 to marry his wife's sister, provided he marries her not to be a rival to his wife. Is not his wife's sister his sister-in-law? Nevertheless Yahweh allows a man to marry her. Proving that a sister-in-law who is a wife's sister, or other in-laws on the side of a man's wife, are not close relatives for purposes of sexual relations.

Therefore, at the generational level of a man, the in-laws who are his close relatives are the wives of his brothers, and not a sister of his wife or a wife of his wife's brother.

It should therefore be clear that Shaul's widows were not David's close relatives for purposes of sexual relations. It should therefore not seem a difficult matter for Yahweh to have given David for wives Shaul's widows, excluding David's mother-in-law, Mikhal's mother. For in so doing Yahweh was NOT violating his law in Leviticus 18 and 20!

Leviticus 18 forbids a man from having sexual relations with his daughter's daughters, on account of these granddaughters being his close relatives. It also forbids a man from having sexual relations with his son's daughters, on account of these granddaughters being his close relatives.

Leviticus 18 forbids a man from having sexual relations with his son's wife, his daughter-in-law, on account of her being a close relative, being the wife of his son, who is a close relative of his. Seeing that a son is a closer relative than a son's daughters, closer by one generation, and seeing also that a daughter's daughters are close relatives, it should evidently be clear that a daughter's daughters are close relatives on account of the daughter! For the daughter is a closer relative than her daughters! Therefore, even though a cursory read of Leviticus 18 might suggest that it does not mention that a daughter is a man's close relative, the fact that it mentions that a daughter's daughter is a close relative, and also mentions that a son's daughter is a close relative on account of the son, shows that a daughter is indeed a close relative, closer than even her daughter. A man is therefore forbidden from having sexual relations with his daughter, for she is a closer relative than even her daughters, who are a man's close relatives according to Leviticus 18.

Also, at the generational level immediately prior to that of a man, that of a man's father, a man's father's brother and a man's father's sister are all considered close relatives. These have the same parentage. The same is true of a man's mother and a man's mother's sister, who also have the same parentage. Likewise, a man's son and a man's daughter have the same parentage. If a man's son is considered a close relative, so also is a man's daughter. A man is therefore forbidden from having sexual relations with his daughter, for she is a close relative.

Also, according to Leviticus 18:17, a daughter of a man's wife, irrespective of whether she is his own daughter, is considered a close relative. Also, a granddaughter of a man's wife, irrespective of whether she is also the man's granddaughter, is considered a close relative. The evidence from Leviticus 18 is therefore very clear that a man is forbidden from having sexual relations with either his daughter or his stepdaughter, for these are his close relatives.

This, I think, is a correct derivation of a close relative according to the principles inherent in Leviticus 18. It is not adding new principles to Leviticus 18, but only applying principles already existing in Leviticus 18. I therefore think that it is NOT ADDING to Yahweh's word, but applying Yahweh's word on a matter where Yahweh's word appears to be silent.

The same cannot be said of in-laws on a man's wife's side, seeing that Yahweh has not accorded them the same status of close relatives. And the only in-law on a wife's side accorded close relative status has been so accorded not on account of her being an in-law of a man's wife's side, but on account that a man should not have sexual relations with both a woman and her mother, or a woman and her daughter. In-laws on a man's wife's side are therefore NOT close relatives for purposes of sexual relations. Therefore, by making these in-laws a close relative for purposes of Leviticus 18, one would be found to be ADDING to Yahweh's word!

Shalom

ISAAC

PS I concede that the derivation of the above principles is not easy. I therefore somewhat appreciate the widespread misunderstanding of the application of Leviticus 18.

[Previous Section] [Contents] [Next Section]

Your comments on this article

Return to Servants of Yahweh Site Contents page.

Go to Home Page

© 1999, All rights reserved. Servants of Yahweh, P O Box 22855, LONDON, NW9 8ZF, UNITED KINGDOM, servantsofyahweh@serveyahweh.org. Permission is hereby GRANTED to reproduce this and other documents in the Servants of Yahweh web site, http://www.serveyahweh.org, unless otherwise stated.