Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 18

Commentary on Leviticus · Book · Chapter 18

p. 323CHAP. XVIII.

Ver. 1. Verſe 1 AND the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] It is not ſaid, when the LORD delivered theſe Laws to Moſes; but it is likely after the other, and before thoſe that follow.

Ver. 2. Verſe 2 Speak unto the Children of Iſrael, and ſay unto them.] They were all concerned in theſe Laws about Marriage; and therefore they are directed to the whole Body of the People: who received them, I ſuppoſe, by their Elders and Heads of the Tribes, to whom Moſes delivered them, and charged they ſhould be communicated to every Family and Houſhold. See XVII. 2.

I am the LORD your God.] I have a right to give you Laws (being your Soveraign, upon more Titles than one) to which all Human Cuſtoms muſt yield, though long practiſed, and ſpread every where in the World. This reaſon is mentioned ſix times in this Chapter; and oftner in the next. See v. 4.

Ver. 3. Verſe 3 After the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell, ſhall ye not do: and after the doings of the Land of Canaan, whither I bring you, ſhall ye not do.] The Manners of theſe two Countries (of Egypt wherein they had dwelt a long time; and of Canaan, wherein they were going to ſettle) they were in the greateſt danger to imitate: Eſpecially in taking the liberty of making ſuch Marriages, as they ſaw practiſed among them, againſt which they are here ſeverely cautioned. But though theſe words ſeem to have a particular reſpect to thoſe Marriages, yet Maimonides extends them to all their other Practices, for which they could ſee no reaſon. Magick being in much uſe p. 324among them, in dreſſing their Trees, and ploughing their Ground, and ſuch like common things: in which they had a reſpect alſo to the diſpoſition of the Stars of Heaven, which led them to the Worſhip of them; as he ſhows at large in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. R. Levi Barcelonita alſo extends theſe words to the Cuſtoms of all other Nations, (Praecept. CCLXII.) which he that obſerved, was to be beaten. But the Doings, or Cuſtoms, which Moſes here ſpeaks of, ſeem to be thoſe that follow v. 6, 7, &c. as appears from v. 24, &c. And the other Cuſtoms of thoſe Nations, about their Clothes, and cutting their Hair (which the forenamed Author mentions) are forbidden in other places.

Neither ſhall ye walk in their Ordinances.] The Hebrew word Chukkoth, which we commonly tranſlate Statutes, and here Ordinances, ſeems to import that the inceſtuous Marriages here mentioned, were allowed by the Laws and Conſtitutions of thoſe Countries; which made their Wickedneſs the more intolerable, v. 24.

Ver. 4. Verſe 4 Ye ſhall do my Judgments, and keep my Ordinances to walk therein.] Frame your Lives according to the Laws and Rules which I give you to obſerve; and not according to their wicked Practiſes, which were grown into Cuſtoms and Precedents. The Gemara Babylonica mentioning theſe words, ſaith, it is a Tradition of their Doctors, that by Miſhpatim (which we tranſlate Judgments) are to be underſtood ſuch Natural Laws, as all Mankind are bound to obſerve, though there were no written Commands for them: ſuch as thoſe againſt Idolatry; and thoſe about uncovering the Nakedneſs of ſuch near Relations, as are here mentioned; and Murder, &c. And by Chukkim (Ordinances, or Statutes) ſuch Laws are meant p. 325as depended only on the Pleaſure of God; and obliged none but thoſe to whom they were given: ſuch as thoſe, about Meats and Garments, and Leproſie, &c. Againſt which, leſt any one ſhould object, it is here added, I am the LORD your God.

I am the LORD your God.] I, who am your Soveraign LORD; and by redeeming you from the Egyptian Bondage, am become, in a ſpecial manner, your God, have ordained theſe things. Therefore let no Man diſpute them, or make a queſtion of them, as the forenamed Gemara expounds theſe words. See Selden, Lib. I. de Jure N. & G. cap. 10. p. 122. where he obſerves that the Laws called Statutes, are, in their Language, ſuch as depend only on the Royal Authority.

Ver. 5. Verſe 5 Ye ſhall therefore keep my Statutes, and my Judgments.] Obſerve the Laws before-mentioned. For the word we here tranſlate Statutes, is the ſame with that tranſlated Ordinances, in the foregoing Verſe.

Which if a man do, he ſhall live in them.] Not be cut off; but live long and happily, in the enjoyment of all the Bleſſings which God promiſed in his Covenant with them.

I am the LORD.] Who will faithfully keep my Covenant, and fulfil my Promiſes, VI Exod. 3.

Ver. 6. Verſe 6 None of you.] In the Hebrew the words being iſch, iſch, (as much as to ſay, Man, Man) that is, no Man; the Talmudiſts take it as if he had ſaid, neither Jew nor Gentile. For all Mankind, they ſay, are comprehended under theſe Laws about Inceſt. Nay, the very Karaites (or thoſe who adhere only to the Scripture, and reject all Talmudical Expoſitions) are of this mind, as Mr. Selden obſerves, Lib. I. de Ʋxore Hebr. cap. 5. But the Talmudiſts themſelves do p. 326not all underſtand this matter alike. For ſome of them think all the Gentiles (at leſt thoſe who were under the Dominion of the Iſraelites) were bound to refrain from all inceſtuous Marriages; to which Death is threatned by the Law. But others of them think they were concerned only in thoſe ſix things which were unlawful before the Law of Moſes was given. See Selden, Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 1. and cap. 11. p. 596, &c. But the ancient Hebrews give a good reaſon for all theſe Laws, as Grotius obſerves, Lib. II. de Jure Belli & Pacis, cap. 5. ſect. 13. n. 2.

Shall approach.] Some of the Jews have been ſo rigorous, as to expound this word, as if it bound them not to have any familiarity with the Perſons after named. (R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CLXXXVIII.) which is againſt all Reaſon and natural Affection. The plain ſenſe is, they ſhould not approach, or come near to them, for the end afterward mentioned, viz. to uncover their Nakedneſs. Nay, this very phraſe is uſed for the ſame thing (XX Gen. 4.) without the addition of uncovering their Nakedneſs.

Any that is near of kin to him.] It muſt be confeſſed that theſe words near of kin, do not ſufficiently expreſs the full ſenſe of the Hebrew phraſe; nor are they of a determinate ſignification: for a Man maybe near of kin to a Woman, who is not the remainder of his fleſh, as the Hebrew phraſe is: that is, ſo near of kin to him, that nothing comes between them. This is properly the nearneſs of fleſh here ſpoken of; ſhe that is immediately born of the ſame Fleſh that a Man is, or ſhe out of whoſe Fleſh he is born; or ſhe that is born out of his Fleſh: that is, in plainer words, a Man's Siſter, Mother, or Daughter. Theſe are a Man's own immediate Relations; which the Karaites call the Foundation and Root of all that is here forbidden, as p. 327Selden notes, Lib. I. Ʋx. Hebr. cap. 2. For the ſake of whom, the reſt here mentioned are prohibited, having a nearneſs of fleſh to them, viz. his Father or Mother's Siſter; his Grand-daughter, and his Niece. For the beſt Explication of this Phraſe, is the expreſs Particulars mentioned by God himſelf in this place.

To uncover their nakedneſs.] To have Carnal knowledge of her, as the Scripture modeſtly ſpeaks in other places. For nakedneſs in the holy Language ſignifies the Secret Parts, which natural Modeſty teaches all civilized People to cover; and not to reveal them to any but thoſe whom they marry. Therefore not to uncover the nakedneſs of the Perſons here named, is properly, not to take them in Marriage; and much leſs to have Knowledge of them without Marriage. Anſwerable to this is the Name of a Virgin, whom the Hebrews call Alma, which is as much as covered, clothed, or veiled: becauſe thoſe parts were never expoſed to any one, but thoſe to whom they were eſpouſed and joyned in Marriage.

I am the LORD.] By my Authority, who am your Soveraign, and the Soveraign of the World, theſe Laws are enacted: and I will puniſh thoſe that break them.

Ver. 7. Verſe 7 The nakedneſs of thy father, or the nakedneſs of thy mother, thou ſhalt not diſcover.] It is commonly thought by Interpreters, that the Particle we tranſlate or, is here as much as that is, (for ſo it ſignifies in ſome places, particularly 1 Sam. XXVIII. 3.) So that the latter part of the Verſe is only an Explication of the former, and makes them but one Prohibition, againſt a Man's marrying his Mother. And this indeed the next words ſeem to imply, ſhe is thy Mother; who bare thee, and therefore not to be taken to be thy Wife, p. 328much leſs to be otherwiſe known by thee. But we may as well think, that the nakedneſs of the Father, and of the Mother, are both here mentioned, to ſhow neither the Daughter might marry her Father, nor the Son his Mother; and conſequently, that in all the following Particulars, Women were concerned juſt as Men were; though the Men be only mentioned. And under the Name of Father and Mother, are comprehended Grandfather or Grandmother, or other Progenitors before them.

She is thy mother, thou ſhalt not uncover her nakedneſs.] This is the very firſt Prohibition; it being a going back in Nature for a Man to marry his Mother. Which though it was practiſed in thoſe days by the Canaanites, and Egyptians, and by the Perſians alſo, in after times, and ſome other Eaſtern Countries, yet in the Weſtern part of the World (as Mr. Selden obſerves) ſuch Marriages were nunquam non execranda, execrable in all Ages, Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 11. p. 601, &c. Such were the Marriages of Oedipus with Jocaſta, of Nero with Agrippina, Pelopeja and Thyeſtes her Father, of whom Aegiſtus was born; which every Body deteſted. See Grotius de Jure Belli & Pacis, Lib. II. cap. 5. ſect. 2. For the Law of Nature was againſt ſuch Marriages, notwithſtanding the practice of Perſons, nay whole Nations, whom God gave up to foreign (as St. Paul ſhows) diſhonourable affections, for their other ſins; eſpecially for their forſaking him, and falling to Idolatry.

Maimonides gives this as the general reaſon of prohibiting this, and all the following Marriages, becauſe the Perſons here forbidden to be ſo joyned together, are all, in a manner, ſuch as are wont to live together in the ſame Houſe, (for ſo Fathers, Mothers, Children, Brothers and Siſters do) who might eaſily be p. 329tempted to lewdneſs one with another, if even marrying together were not ſeverely forbidden. And thus the LXX. tranſlate the words of the foregoing Verſe, none of you ſhall approach to any that is near of kin to him, foreign, or, as other Copies, foreign, to thoſe that are ſo near of kin, that they uſually dwell in the ſame Houſe; as Parents and Children; Brothers and Siſters; and the Brothers and Siſters of our Parents. Mahomet, as lewd and impudent as he was, had not the boldneſs to controul theſe Laws; but in the fourth Chapter of his Alcoran expreſly forbids his Followers to marry their Mothers, their Mothers-in-law, &c. and a great many of the reſt which here follow.

Ver. 8. Verſe 8 The nakedneſs of thy fathers wife ſhalt thou not uncover.] That is, of a Step-mother. Such was the inceſt of Reuben with Bilhah, XXXV Gen. 22. and of Abſolom with the Wives of his Father David, 2 Sam. XVI. 21, 22. And of Antiochus Soter with Stratonice; who abhorring from ſuch a Conjunction, was taught that all things were honeſt that pleaſed the King. But the thing it ſelf is ſo hateful, that the very naming it is a Condemnation; and therefore it is all one with the prime Natural Law, which prohibits the Conjunction of Parents and Children. For ſhe that is one fleſh with my Father (as a great Man ſpeaks) is as near to me as my Father, and that's as near as my own Mother. As near, I mean, in the eſtimation of Law, though not in the accounts of Nature: and therefore, though it be a Crime of a leſs turpitude, yet it is equally forbidden, and is against the Law of Nature, not directly, but by interpretation, Book II. chap. 2. Ductor Dubitantium Rule 3. n. 29.

p. 330It is thy fathers nakedneſs.] He having known her, it was not permitted the Son to have her alſo. Nay, the Jews ſay, if the Father had only eſpouſed her, it was not lawful for the Son to have her to Wife: or if he had divorced her, it was not lawful for the Son to have her, even after he was dead. See R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CXCI. Buxtof. de Sponſal. p. 16, 17.

Ver. 9. Verſe 9 The nakedneſs of thy ſiſter.] As the nearneſs of fleſh (mentioned v. 6.) above a Man is, his Mother; and below him is his daughter: ſo on the ſide of him, is his Siſter.

The daughter of thy father.] Though ſhe were begotten by his Father of another Wife, not of his Mother; yet he might not marry her.

Or the daughter of thy mother.] Born of her by another Husband, not by his Father.

Whether ſhe be born at home, or born abroad.] Be legitimately born, in wedlock; or illegitimately, out of wedlock; as the Talmudiſts expound it. See Selden, Lib. V. de Jure N. & G. cap. 10. p. 591. where he obſerves, that though the Egyptians (as Philo and others report) with ſuch like Nations, thought the Marriage of Brothers and Siſters to be lawful, and it was practiſed alſo in Greece; yet the greateſt Men in the Weſtern Countries condemned ſuch Marriages; which ſome of the Greek Philoſophers alſo diſallowed: and Euripides himſelf called barbarous, even when it was practiſed. Inſomuch, that in after Ages this wicked Cuſtom was quite aboliſhed; and that before Chriſtianity was well ſettled among them. For Sextus Empiricus ſaith, that in his time it was utterly unlawful. See there cap. 11. p. 603, 605, &c. Where he ſhows, the Romans always abhorred ſuch Marriages; nay, it was late before the Perſians took up this p. 331abominable Cuſtom, after the example of Cambyſes: who being in love with his own Siſter, as Herodotus relates (in his Thalia, cap. XXXI.) and having a Mind to marry her, which was never practiſed before in that Country; he commanded the Royal Judges (as he calls them) who were the Interpreters of the Laws, to adviſe whether he might lawfully do it, or no. Who to pleaſe him, and yet not ſeem to give an illegal opinion, anſwered, foreign, &c. That they could find no law which permitted a Brother to marry his Siſter: but there was a Law that the Perſian King, might do, even what he would. See Grotius, Lib. II. de Jure Belli & Pacis, cap. 5. ſect. 13.

Even their nakedneſs thou ſhalt not uncover.] It ſhall be unlawful to thee to marry any of the forenamed Siſters. For though the Marriage of Brother and Siſter was neceſſary in the beginning, when God created but one Man and one Woman, by whoſe Children the World was peopled; yet, when it was ſo, there was great reaſon that it ſhould be made utterly unlawful, as many have demonſtrated. Particularly Biſhop Taylor in his Ductor Dubitantium, Book II. chap. 2. Rule 3. n. 24, 25, &c. For now it is next to an unnatural mixture (as he ſpeaks) it hath ſomething of confuſion in it, and blending the very firſt partings of Nature; which makes it intollerably ſcandalous, and univerſally forbidden; for if it were not, the miſchief would be horrible and infinite.

Ver. 10. Verſe 10 The nakedneſs of thy ſons daughter, or of thy daughters daughter; even their nakedneſs thou ſhalt not diſcover.] This Law concerns a Man's Grand-daughters, by his Son or his Daughter; whether legitimately or ſpuriouſly begotten; as R. Levi Barcelonita expounds it, Praecept. CXCIII. Who adds in the next p. 332Precept but one, this is another Prohibition, Thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſs of thy daughter: which (ſaith he) is not expreſly mentioned in this Law, becauſe it was not neceſſary. For a Man's Grand-children, either by Sons or Daughters, which are more remote, being forbidden, there was no need to ſay it was unlawful for him to marry his own Daughter.

For theirs is thy own nakedneſs.] They have their original from thy Nakedneſs. For which reaſon ſome of the Jews extended this to thoſe Deſcendants which were ſtill further off; as an Hedge to this Law. So R. Levi calls it in the place forenamed. The ancient Romans alſo (as our Mr. Selden ſhows) were very ſtrict, in reſtraining the Marriage of Men with their Nieces, either by their Brothers or Siſters, and with others mentioned in the following Laws of Moſes, Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gentium, &c, cap. 11. p. 605. &c.

Ver. 11. Verſe 11 The nakedneſs of thy fathers wives daughter, begotten of thy father (ſhe is thy ſiſter) thou ſhalt not uncover her nakedneſs.] This Prohibition, ſeeming to be the ſame with that v. 9. ſome of the Hebrews have expounded this concerning the Daughter of a Mother-in-law begotten by another Father. For the words may be thus tranſlated, as Mr. Selden obſerves the order of them will bear (Lib. I. de Ʋxore Hebr. cap. 4.) The nakedneſs of the Daughter of thy Father's Wife (for ſhe that is born of thy Father, is thy Siſter) thou ſhalt not diſcover. And with this the Greek, and ſeveral other Verſions of the Bible agree, who make the Prohibition of the Wives Daughter to end, before he ſpeaks of his own Siſter. And it is the ſenſe of the principal Men among the Karaites, as he ſhows cap. 6. But this is againſt the conſtant ſenſe of p. 333the Hebrew Doctors, who ſay it is lawful to marry the Daughter of a Mother-in-law, which ſhe had by another Husband; for there is no nearneſs of Fleſh at all between theſe two. And therefore, as in the ninth Verſe, the Marriages of all Brothers and Siſters in general, are forbidden, ſo here more particularly the Marriage with a Siſter by the ſame Father, though not by the ſame Mother: which was neceſſary to be expreſly forbidden, becauſe before the Law, the Sons of Noah thought it lawful to marry a half Siſter (as we ſpeak) by the Father's ſide, though not by the Mothers. See Buxtorf. de Sponſ. & Divort. p. 15, 16. And this was the ancient Law of Solon among the Athenians, that they might marry foreign, their Siſters by the ſame Father, but not foreign, their Siſters by the ſame Mother; as Joh. Meurſius ſhows in his Themis Attica, Lib. I. cap. 18. And if the one of theſe had not been in ſo many words prohibited, as well as the other, the Jews might ſtill have continued in that practice, which was uſual before the Law. See Sam. Petitus in Leges Atticas, p. 440.

Some are of the opinion, that, in the ninth Verſe, the Son of a ſecond Venter is forbidden to marry the Daughter of the firſt: and here, the Son of the firſt Venter to marry the Daughter of the ſecond. And others fancy that the Siſter here meant, is one that was adopted by his Father.

Ver. 12. Verſe 12 Thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſs of thy fathers ſiſter.] And it made no difference whether ſhe was his Father's Siſter legitimately, or illegitimately begotten by his Grandfather; as R. Levi Barcelonita repreſents the opinion of the Hebrew Doctors, Praecept. CXCVII. Such Marriages alſo were prohibited by the ancient Romans, as Mr. Selden obſerves in the place forenamed (Lib. V. cap. 11. p. 605.) though before p. 334the Law of Moſes, they are ſuppoſed to be lawful; for it is commonly thought that his Father Amram married his Aunt Jochobed, VI Exod. 20. and therefore no wonder it was practiſed in other Countries, who were not acquainted with this Prohibition: particularly at Sparta, where Herodotus ſaith in his Erato, cap. 71. Archidamus their King married Lampito, who was Siſter to his Father Zeuxidamus, foreign; Leutychides (who was Father both to her and to Zeuxidamus) giving her to him in Marriage.

She is thy fathers near kinſwoman.] So near, that as he could not be permitted to marry her, ſo his Son alſo, who was but a little further removed from her, was forbidden to touch her. And by the ſame reaſon that a Man might not marry his Aunt, an Uncle might not marry his Niece. Which though practiſed among the Romans after Claudius married Agrippina, till the time of Conſtantine; yet it was a new thing, as Claudius himſelf acknowledges in Tacitus, (Nova nohis in fratrum filias conjugia, Lib. XII. Annal. Marriages with our Brother's Daughters are new things with us.) And all he could ſay for it, was, That it was common in other Nations, nec lege ulla prohibita, and not forbidden by any Law. And indeed the newneſs of it ſo frighted Domitian, that he would not venture upon it; nor did many uſe it. Which ſhows that this Law had ſome foundation in Nature; which made thoſe Men cautious about ſuch Marriages, who had nothing elſe to guide them. Or, at leaſt, there had been ſuch a long Cuſtom againſt them, in the Weſtern part of the World, that Men, who were otherwiſe very bad, would not help to alter it.

p. 335Ver. 13. Verſe 13 Thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſs of thy mothers ſiſter: for ſhe is thy mothers near kinſwoman.] There is the ſame reaſon for this, as for the former Prohibition: the Aunt by the Mother's ſide being as near to a Man, as his Aunt by the Fathers.

Ver. 14. Verſe 14 Thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſs of thy fathers brother.] This is explained in the next words, Thou ſhalt not approach to his Wife: that is, not marry thy Uncles Wife. And therefore much leſs might an Uncle marry his Brother's Daughter: as Herodotus tells us Darius married Phrataguna the Daughter of his Brother Atarnes, who gave him all his Eſtate with her; and Leonides, King of Sparta, married Gorgo the Daughter of his Brother Cleomenes. See Lib. VII. (called Polymnia) cap. CCXXIV. and CCXXXIX.

She is thy Aunt.] By ſuch near Affinity, that Marriage is forbidden with her, as well as with an Aunt by Conſanguinity, v. 12, 13. In which the ancient Romans alſo were very ſtrict, as our Selden obſerves in the place above-named. And it made no difference, whether he were only Eſpouſed to her, or had after Marriage divorced her, or was ſeparated by Death: or whether he was his Father's Brother legitimately, or ſpuriouſly, as R. Levi Barcelonita obſerves, Praecept. CXCIX. and CC. Where he notes, that though the Fathers Brother's Wife be only mentioned, yet the Mothers Brother's Wife is alſo prohibited. This is repeated XX. 20.

Ver. 15. Verſe 15 Thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſs of thy daughter-in-law: ſhe is thy ſons wife, &c.] Though only eſpouſed to him; and therefore much more when ſolemnly married; as the ſame R. Levi explains it, Praecept. CCI. where he hath the ſame obſervation as before; that if ſhe was afterwards divorced, he might not marry her: and that it is probable the Wife of a p. 336Baſtard Son is prohibited; for he is his Son, though a Child by a Slave, or a Stranger, is never called a Man's Son.

Ver. 16. Verſe 16 Thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſs of thy brothers wife, &c.] Unleſs he died Childleſs; for in that caſe the next Brother was bound to marry her, XXV Deut. 5. See Buxtorf de Sponſ. p. 25. and Grotius in XIV Matth. 4. Much leſs might a Man marry his Brother's Daughter, (as was before noted) who was nearer to him, and of his own Fleſh. Which was ſo much abhorred by the ancient Romans, that Claudius Caeſar durſt not celebrate his Marriage with Agrippina, till he had got a Decree of the Senate for it, Quo juſtae inter patruos, fratrumque filias, nuptiae etiam in poſterum ſtatuerentur: which made the Marriage of Uncles with their Brother's Daughters to be lawful for the future; which hitherto had been without example. So Tacitus relates in the fore-named Book of his Annals, cap. 5. where he ſaith, notwithſtanding this Decree, there were none found, but only one Man, who deſired ſuch Matrimony; and moſt thought he did it to gain Agrippina's favour: Neque tamen repertus est, niſi unus, talis matrimonii cupitor, &c.

Ver. 17. Verſe 17 Thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſs of a Woman and her daughter.] If a Man married a Widow that had a Daughter; it was a wicked thing to marry that Daughter, either while her Mother lived, or after ſhe was dead.

Neither ſhalt thou take her ſons daughter, nor her daughters daughter, to uncover her nakedneſs.] To preſerve them from this, the Jews added, as a Hedge to this Law, a Prohibition to marry the Grand-daughters of ſuch Daughters, as R. Levi Barcelonita tells us, Praecept. CCV.

p. 337For they are her near kinſwomen.] Of ſuch Conſanguinity with her (from whom they directly come) as makes it very Criminal in him that is one with her, to marry them.

It is wickedneſs.] The Hebrew word Zimmah imports more than Wickedneſs. The LXX. tranſlate it foreign, Impiety; the Vulgar Latin, Incest; others nefarious wickedneſs: which is the word in the Civil Law, for thoſe Marriages that are contrary to Nature. Such were theſe in ſome meaſure; though not in the higheſt degree.

Ver. 18. Verſe 18 Neither ſhalt thou take a wife to her ſiſter.] There are a great many eminent Writers, who following our Marginal Tranſlation, [one wife to another] imagine that here plurality of Wives is expreſly forbidden by God? And they think there is an example to juſtifie this Tranſlation in XXVI Exod. 3. Where Moſes is commanded to take care the five Curtains of the Tabernacle were coupled together one to its ſiſter (as the Hebrew phraſe is) i. e. one to another. And ſo the Karaites interpret this place, That a Man, having a Wife, ſhould not take another while ſhe lived. Which, if it were true, would ſolve ſeveral difficulties: but there are ſuch ſtrong Reaſons againſt it, that I cannot think it to be the meaning. For as more Wives than one were indulged before the Law, ſo they were after. And Moſes himſelf ſuppoſes as much, when he provides a Man ſhould not prefer a Child he had by a beloved Wife, before one by her whom he hated, if he was the eldeſt Son. Which plainly intimates an allowance in his Law, of more Wives than one. And ſo we find expreſly their Kings might have, though not a multitude, XVII Deut. 17. And their beſt King, who read God's Law day and night, and could not but underſtand it, took many p. 338Wives, without any reproof: Nay, God gave him more than he had before, by delivering his Maſter's Wives to him, 2 Sam. XII. 8. And beſides all this, Moſes ſpeaking all along in this Chapter of Conſanguinity, it is reaſonable (as Schindlerus obſerves) to conclude he doth ſo here: not of one Woman to another; but of one Siſter to another. There being alſo the like reaſon to underſtand the word Siſter properly in this place, as the words Daughter and Mother in others, v. 17. and XX. 14. where he forbids a Man to take a Woman and her Daughter, or a Woman and her Mother, as Theodorick Hackſpan judiciouſly notes, Diſput. I. de locutionibus ſacris, n. 29. See Selden, L. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 6. and Buxtorf. de Sponſal. p. 28, 29.

The meaning therefore is, That though two Wives at a time, or more, were permitted in thoſe days, no Man ſhould take two Siſters (as Jacob had formerly done) begotten of the ſame Father, or born of the ſame Mother, whether legitimately or illegitimately, as the fore-named R. Levi expreſſes it, Praecept. CCVI. Which though it may ſeem to be prohibited before, by conſequence and analogy (becauſe the Marriage of a Brother's Wife is forbidden v. 16.) yet it is here directly prohibited, as other Marriages are; which were implicitly forbidden before. For v. 7. the Marriage of a Son with his Mother is forbidden: and v. 10. the Marriage of a Father with his Daughter.

To vex her.] There were wont to be great Emulations and Jealouſies, and contentions between Wives (ſome of them being more beloved than others, and alſo ſuperiour to them) which between two Siſters would have been more intolerable, than between two other Women: who not being à conſanguinitate, aequiore animo ſub eodem marito, aetatem unà agant (as Petrus p. 339Cunaeus ſpeaks, Lib. II. de Repub. Hebr. cap. 23.) of the ſame Conſanguinity (as two Siſters are) might live with more equal and quiet minds under the ſame Husband. The Vulgar Latin underſtands this, as if Moſes forbad them to make one Siſter their Wife, and the other their Concubine; which could not but beget the greateſt diſcords between them.

In her life time.] From hence, ſome infer that a Man was permitted to marry the Siſter of his former Wife, when ſhe was dead. So the Talmudiſts; but the Karaites thought it abſolutely unlawful, as Mr. Selden obſerves, Lib. I. de Ʋxore Hebr. cap. 4. For it is directly againſt the Scope of all theſe Laws, which prohibit Men to marry at all with ſuch Perſons as are here mentioned, either in their Wives life time, or after. And there being a Prohibition v. 16. to marry a Brother's Wife, it is unreaſonable to think Moſes gave them leave to marry their Wive's Siſter. Theſe words therefore, In her life time, are to be referred, not to the firſt words, Neither ſhalt thou take her, but to the next, To vex her, as long as ſhe lives. Chaskuni refers it to both the Siſters, according to the Targum. and makes this the ſenſe; least they ſhould both be afflicted Widows as long as they live: for no Body would marry either of them, being defiled by ſuch an inceſtuous Conjunction, for which God cut off their Husband.

In this the ancient Chriſtians were ſo ſtrict, that if a Man, after his Wife died, married her Siſter, he was by the tenth Canon of the Council of Eliberis, to be kept from the Communion five years.

Ver. 19. Verſe 19 Alſo thou ſhalt not approach to a woman.] No, not to his own Wife, as the fore-named R. Levi expounds it, Praecept. CCVII. though all other Women alſo are comprehended, even their Canaanitiſh Slaves, as he obſerves.

p. 340As long as ſhe is put apart for her uncleanneſs.] Which was ſeven days, XV. 19. All the Laws about Marriages unto this place, ſeem to have a ſpecial regard to the wicked Cuſtoms among the Egyptians; who, above all other People, were then polluted with ſuch inceſtuous mixtures. And now he proceeds to direct them to abhor the Cuſtoms of the Canaanites; who were polluted more than other Nations, with Adulteries, and offering their Children to Molech, and the reſt of the foul Crimes which follow. For againſt the practiſes of theſe two Nations, the Egyptians and the Canaanites, Moſes cautions them v. 3. and accordingly firſt mentions the doings of the Egyptians, unto this place; and then thoſe of the Canaanites in the following Verſes.

Ver. 20. Verſe 20 Moreover, thou ſhalt not lie carnally with thy neighbours wife.] While he lived with her: for this was to commit Adultery.

To defile thy ſelf with her.] This ſignifies the fouleſt impurity, as appears from v. 23. and was puniſhed with death, XX. 10.

Ver. 21. Verſe 21 And thou ſhalt not let any of thy ſeed.] i. e. Of their Children, as it is explained XVIII Deut. 10. This was a Spiritual Adultery, and therefore here mentioned.

Paſs through the fire to Molech.] It is certain that Molech was particularly worſhipped by the Children of Ammon, (at leaſt in future Ages, 1 Kings XI. 7.) but ſeems to have been the Name of many of the Heathen Gods, and the ſame with Baal: both of them ſignifying Dominion. This appears by comparing XIX Jer. 5. with XXXII. 35. But more eſpecially it ſignifies the Sun, the Prince of the Heavenly Bodies, (See Voſſius de Orig. & Progr. Idolol. Lib. II. cap. 5.) as the Queen of Heaven was the Moon, VII Jer. 18. Now p. 341it is evident by ſeveral paſſages in Scripture, that the ancient Pagans (whom the Iſraelites were prone to imitate) not only made their Children paſs through the fire; but alſo offered them in Sacrifice unto Molech. The former I take to be forbidden in this Law; the latter in XX. 3. where giving their Children to Molech is prohibited under a ſevere Penalty, of being put to death for that Crime: whereas there is no Penalty annexed here to their making them paſs through the fire. Which I take therefore to have been a leſs Crime than the other; though an idolatrous Rite practiſed by thoſe, who abhorred the cruelty of offering the very Life of their dear Children to Molech. Inſtead of which this Rite was deviſed, of making them paſs through the fire (for though the word fire be not here in the Hebrew Text, yet it is underſtood by all, and expreſſed XVIII Deut. 10.) by way of Purification, and Luſtration, as they called it; and by this means to dedicate them to the Worſhip and Service of Molech. And therefore, being a Rite of Initiation, whereby Parents conſecrated their Sons and Daughters to their Deities; we never find it mentioned in Scripture, but only concerning Children (not concerning Men and Women) whom the Iſraelites are forbidden to dedicate in this manner; which was in truth, to alienate them from the LORD God of Iſrael.

Now that this was practiſed among the ancient Pagans as a Rite of Initiation, appears particularly in the Myſteries of Mithra, (See Suidas upon that word) and continued long among the Perſians, if we may believe Benjamin Tudelenſis, in his Itinearium, p. 214. See G. Schickardi TARICH, p. 126, &c. And this very phraſe make to paſs unto (for the word fire, as I ſaid, is not here mentioned) ſignifies as much as ad partes ejus tranſire, to be addicted to any one; like p. 342that phraſe foreign, to come unto God, XI Hebr. 6. And ſo this Hebrew Phraſe is uſed XIII Exod. 12. and may very well be thus underſtood here, for devoting, or making over their Children unto Molech. For the Heathen thought their Children unclean, and obnoxious to the Anger of their Gods, and conſequently in danger to be taken away from them, if they were not thus expiated, as Maimonides tells us, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. And on the contrary, they fancied (as R. Levi Barcelonita obſerves, Praecept. CCVIII.) that if only one of their Children were thus conſecrated to Molech, all the reſt were bleſſed, and ſhould be proſperous. For he very nicely takes notice that the Iſraelites are forbidden to make any of their ſeed to paſs through the fire: It not being the manner, he ſaith, to make them all paſs. But the idolatrous Prieſts (to make the People more willing to this Service) cunningly perſwaded them, that if any one Child was offered to Molech, it procured a Bleſſing upon all; and if there was only one Child in a Family, they laid no Obligation on the Parents to do this.

The manner of doing it, at this diſtance of time, cannot certainly be known. Some ſay their Parents carried them through two fires upon their ſhoulders. Others, that they were led between them by their Prieſts: and ſo R. Levi in the place before-named; The Father delivered the Child to the Prieſt, in the name of the Idol; just as it is ſaid concerning Legal Sacrifices (XV. 14.) he ſhall give them to the Priest. Others think that the Prieſt, or ſome Body elſe, waved the Child about in the very flame, while Men and Women danced round the fire; nay, leaped through the flame. And Joh. Coch obſerves, upon the Title Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 7. that ſome are of the opinion, the p. 343Children thus dedicated, did not walk, but dance through the fire: which being an emblem and repreſentative of the Sun, plainly ſignified ſuch Children were conſecrated to that Deity. And this comes nearer to the Hebrew phraſe, as we tranſlate it, that they did not paſs between fires, but through the fire. But which way ſoever it was done, whether they waved the Child through the very fire, and preſented it to Molech, before whom the fire was kindled, or led it between two fires; when they had ſo done, the Prieſt reſtored the Child to the Father again. And in ſome ſuch way Ahaz made his Son to paſs through the fire, according to the abomination of the Heathen, 2 Kings XVI. 3. which cannot be meant of his burning him: for Hezekiah his Son outlived him, and ſucceeded in his Throne. See Theodoret in IV King. Quaeſt. 47. Maimon. de Idol. c. 6. ſect. 14. n. 4, 5, 6, 7. and Voſſius his Notes; with Simeon de Muis in CVI Pſal. 37.

Neither ſhalt thou prophane the name of thy God.] By offering their Children to Molech, they in effect rejected and diſowned (as I before obſerved) the LORD God of Iſrael: which was to pollute his Name, by giving that honour, which was due to him alone, unto another God: For he gave them Children; who were therefore to be devoted to none but him.

I am the LORD.] The only Soveraign of the World; who will ſeverely puniſh the Tranſgreſſors of this Law.

Ver. 22. Verſe 22 Thou ſhalt not lie with mankind, as with woman-kind: it is an abomination.] A deteſtable wickedneſs; condemned by all Nations: though practiſed by ſome lewd Perſons among them. Inſomuch that the Apoſtles of Chriſt make mention of it, with the greateſt abhorrence, I Rom. 27. 1 Corinth. VI. 9. 1 Tim. I. 10. For not only ſeveral of the Roman Emperors p. 344were infamous, upon this account; but ſome alſo of the Greek Philoſophers.

This Prohibition is repeated, according to Maimonides, in XXIII Deut. 17. whom our Tranſlation follows; there ſhall not be a Sodomite of the Sons of Iſrael. But Onkelos interprets that place otherwiſe.

Ver. 23. Verſe 23 Neither ſhalt thou lie with any beaſt, &c.] i. e. Of any kind whatſoever. Some are apt to ſay, What need was there of ſuch Prohibitions? when it is ſo monſtrouſly unnatural, to mix with Creatures of a different Species from us, as all Beaſts are. But ſuch Perſons do not underſtand, that this was not only practiſed in Egypt (againſt whoſe doings he cautions them, v. 3.) but was alſo made a piece of Religion: Women devoted to the Worſhip there uſed, moſt filthily ſubmitting to the Luſt of their ſacred Goats. So Strabo tells us, Lib. VII. p. 802. that at Mendes, where they worſhipped Pan, foreign, Goats (which were there alſo worſhipped) lay with Women. For which he quotes Pindar; as do alſo Priſcianus and Aelian, Lib. VII. de Animal. cap. 19. as Caſaubon there notes. And Herodotus vouches this upon his own knowledge, and ſaith they did it openly (ſo foreign ſignifies) when he was in Egypt. His words are theſe in his ſecond Book called Euterpe, cap. 46. foreign. This prodigy hapned in this part of Egypt (i. e. among the Mendeſians) when I was there, a Goat had to do with a Woman in the view of all. foreign. How long this beaſtly Cuſtom had been among them, none can tell, but theſe words import, that then it was notorious; and ſo far from being kept ſecret, that they rather made an oſtentation of it. Which I look upon as an argument that this had been a very old p. 345practice; otherwiſe they would have bluſhed at it.

Ver. 24. Verſe 24 Defile not your ſelves in any of theſe things.] This ſeems to relate particularly to the ſins beforementioned, v. 20, 21, 22, 23. See v. 26.

For in all theſe the Nations are defiled, which I cast out before you.] The ſeven Nations that inhabited the Land of Canaan, (mentioned in many places, particularly VII Deut. 1.) were ſo over-run with theſe filthy Vices, that God could not bear with them, but ordered them to be deſtroyed for this very reaſon. Which was a ſufficient Caution to the Iſraelites, who came in their room, to keep themſelves from ſuch Impurities.

Ver. 25. Verſe 25 And the Land is defiled.] To make the Iſraelites the more abominate ſuch doings, he repreſents the very Land, in which they dwelt, as ſenſible of the foul wickedneſs of the Inhabitants; who were a loathſome burden to it, which it could not digeſt.

Therefore do I viſit the iniquity thereof upon it.] I am about to puniſh them, upon that account.

And the Land it ſelf vomiteth out its inhabitants.] A moſt eloquent figure, expreſſing the exceſſive loathſomneſs of their wickedneſs: which made their own Country nauſeate them, and throw them out, as our Stomack doth Meat that offends it. The ſame expreſſion is uſed v. 28. XX. 22. III Rev. 16. Theodoret expounds this word by foreign, which ſignifies their Expulſion, as an execrable People. And indeed the word vomit in Scripture is uſed for that which is moſt deteſtable and abominable, XXVIII Iſa. 8. XLVIII Jer. 26. II Habakk. 10.

p. 346Ver. 26. Verſe 26 Ye ſhall therefore keep my ſtatutes and my judgments.] Theſe Laws I have given you. See v. 4, 5.

And ſhall not commit any of theſe abominations.] From this word abominations, which the Nations God caſt out, to make room for them, are ſaid to have committed v. 27. ſome conclude that every one of the foregoing Marriages, mentioned in this Chapter, are in their own nature ſinful; the Nations who had no poſitive Law to forbid them, being caſt out for ſuch Pollutions. But the meer force of this word will not warrant ſuch a concluſion; becauſe ſeveral things are called in this Book an abomination, which have no moral turpitude in them; but were made ſo by God's poſitive Laws, as Mr. Selden obſerves (Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 11. p. 598.) from XI Lev. 10.20, 41, 42. where ſeveral ſorts of Creatures are forbidden to be eaten, as abominable: And the Sacrifice of a Bullock or a Sheep that had a blemiſh, is ſaid to be an abomination, XVII Deut. 1. not from the very nature of the thing; but from the Prohibition which God had made againſt ſuch Offerings.

It is moſt reaſonable therefore to refer the abominations here ſpoken of, to thoſe foul things mentioned in the latter end of this Liſt (v. 20, 21, 22, 23.) and to thoſe in the beginning, v. 7, 8, 9, &c.) For lying with ones Mother, or Mother-in-law, or Siſter, was always an abomination. But we cannot ſay the ſame of every one of the reſt (the Law it ſelf following, or rather requiring in one caſe, the marriage of a brother's wife) which were made an abomination by the Law now given to the Iſraelites.

p. 347Neither any of your own Nation, nor any Stranger that ſojourneth among you.] That is, any Proſelyte, who had embraced their Religion. See XVII. 8.

Ver. 27. Verſe 27 For all theſe abominations have the men of the Land done, which were before you, &c.] He admoniſhes them to beware of theſe Abominations, by the example of thoſe who were utterly undone by them. For God is no reſpecter of Perſons; but would puniſh them in the ſame manner, if they did the ſame things.

Ver. 28. Verſe 28 That the Land ſpue not you out alſo, &c.] As it did at laſt IX Jer. 19. XXXVI Ezek. 17.

Ver. 29. Verſe 29 For whoſoever ſhall commit any of theſe abominations, even the ſouls that commit them, ſhall be cut off from among their people.] The multitude of the Offenders ſhall not keep off the Puniſhment; but they ſhall ſuffer by the hand of the Judges, or by the Hand of God, if they neglect their Duty. See XVII Gen. 14.

Ver. 30. Verſe 30 Therefore ſhall ye keep mine Ordinances.] Live by all theſe Rules which I have now given you.

That ye commit not any of theſe abominable Cuſtoms, which were committed before you.] By obſerving every one of theſe Laws, they were kept at a diſtance from thoſe greater Abominations, mentioned in the beginning, and in the latter end of theſe Prohibitions. The poſitive Laws (or Ordinances) now added, being in the nature of an antemurale, or an out-work; to ſtop their proceeding to the higher Crimes, which were againſt the Law of Nature.

I am the LORD your God.] As their LORD, he had Authority to make theſe Laws: and as their God, they had particular Obligations to obſerve them. Nay, it was a ſingular token of his Love to them, p. 348that he preſcribed theſe Laws of Chaſtity and Modeſty: that thereby he might preſerve them an holy People to him, pure and free from thoſe abominable filthineſſes, and thoſe indecent Conjunctions that were practiſed in the World. For as the ancient Rule was, Semper in omnibus conjunctionibus, non ſolum quod liceat conſiderandum eſt, ſed & quod honeſtum est: In all Marriages, it is always to be conſidered, not meerly what is lawful, but what is honeſt and ſeemly. Which is more true in the Chriſtian Religion, than in any other: For thereby Marriage is advanced, to repreſent the Unity that is between Chriſt and his Church. And beſides, in contracting Marriage we are not only to have regard to our own Conſcience (as Joh. Brentius wiſely obſerves, upon the fore-named Rule of the ancient Law) but to Succeſſion alſo, and to Inheritances. And therefore, id agendum, quod & boni viri honeſtum judicant; & a legitimo Magiſtratu permittitur: that is to be done, both which good Men judge to be honeſt, and is allowed by lawful Governours.