John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 18:6

"None of you shall approach to any that are near of kin to him, to uncover [their] nakedness: I am Jehovah." — Leviticus 18:6 (ASV)

None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin. This term does not include all female relations, for first cousins on the father’s or mother’s side are permitted to intermarry. Instead, it must be restricted to the degrees that He proceeds to enumerate and is merely a brief preface, declaring that there are certain degrees of relationship which render marriages incestuous.

We may, therefore, define these female blood relations as those spoken of immediately afterwards: namely, that a son should not marry his mother, nor a son-in-law his mother-in-law; nor a paternal or maternal uncle his niece, nor a grandfather his granddaughter, nor a brother his sister, nor a nephew his paternal or maternal aunt, or his uncle’s wife; nor a father-in-law his daughter-in-law, nor a brother-in-law his brother’s wife, nor a stepfather his stepdaughter.

The Roman laws accord with the rule prescribed by God, as if their authors had learned from Moses what was proper and agreeable to nature. The phrase God frequently uses, to uncover the turpitude, is intended to awaken abhorrence, so that the Israelites might be more diligent in guarding against all incest. The Hebrew word, indeed, ערוה, gnervah, signifies nakedness. Therefore, some translate it actively, “the nakedness of your father,” that is, the womb which your father has uncovered. However, this meaning would not be suitable for “the nakedness of your daughter,” or “your daughter-in-law,” or “your sister.” Consequently, there is no doubt that Moses means to indicate that it is a filthy and shameful thing.

We must remember, as I have already hinted, that not only are incestuous connections out of wedlock condemned, but also that the degrees are pointed out within which marriages are unlawful. It is true, indeed, that this was a part of the political constitution God established for His ancient people. Still, it must be kept in mind that whatever is prescribed here is deduced from the source of rectitude itself and from the natural feelings He implanted in us.

Absurd is the cleverness to which some people, little versed in Scripture, pretend,⁸⁷ who assert that since the Law has been abrogated, the obligations Moses laid on his countrymen are now dissolved. For it is to be inferred from the preface explained above that the instruction given here is not, and ought not to be considered, merely political. For, since their lusts had led astray all the neighboring nations into incest, God, to inculcate chastity among His people, says, I am the Lord your God; you shall therefore keep my statutes. Do not walk according to the practices of the land of Egypt, nor according to the practices of the land of Canaan. And then He adds what are the degrees of consanguinity and affinity within which the marriage of men and women is forbidden.

If any again object that what has been disobeyed in many countries is not to be accounted the law of the Gentiles, the reply is easy: namely, that the barbarism which prevailed in the East does not nullify the chastity that is opposed to the abominations of the Gentiles, since what is natural cannot be abrogated by any consent or custom. In short, the prohibition of incests set forth here is by no means among those laws commonly abrogated according to the circumstances of time and place, since it flows from the fountain of nature itself and is founded on the general principle of all laws, which is perpetual and inviolable.

Certainly, God declares that the custom which had prevailed among the heathen was displeasing to Him. And why is this, but because nature itself repudiates and abhors filthiness, even if approved by the consent (suffragiis) of men? Therefore, when God would by this distinction separate His chosen people from heathen nations, we may surely conclude that the incests He commands them to avoid are absolute pollutions.

Paul, on a very minor point, sets before our eyes the law of nature. For when he teaches that it is shameful and improper for women to appear in public without veils, he desires them to consider whether it would be decent for them to present themselves publicly with their heads shorn. And finally, he adds that nature itself does not permit it (1 Corinthians 11:14). Therefore, I do not see that, under the pretext of its being a political Law,⁸⁸ the purity of nature is to be abolished, from which arises the distinction between the statutes of God and the abuses of the Gentiles.

If this discipline were founded on the utility of a single people, or on the custom of a particular time, or on present necessity, or on any other circumstances, the laws deduced from it might be abrogated for new reasons, or their observance might be dispensed with for particular persons by special privilege. But since, in their enactment, the perpetual decency of nature was alone regarded, not even a dispensation of them would be permissible.

It may indeed be decreed that such actions should be lawful and unpunished, since it is in the power of princes to remit penalties. Yet no legislator can make a thing that nature pronounces vicious not be vicious; and if tyrannical arrogance dares to attempt it, the light of nature will soon shine forth and prevail. When, formerly, the Emperor Claudius had married his niece Agrippina,⁸⁹ to avert the shame, he procured a Senatusconsultum which licensed such marriages; yet no one was found to imitate his example, except one freedman.

Hence, just and reasonable men will acknowledge that, even among heathen nations, this Law was considered indissoluble, as if implanted and engraved on the hearts of men. On this ground Paul, to reprove more severely the incest of a stepson with his father’s wife, says that such an occurrence is not so much as named among the Gentiles (1 Corinthians 5:1).

If it is objected that such marriages are not prohibited to us in the New Testament, I reply that the marriage of a father with his daughter is not forbidden there, nor is a mother prohibited from marrying her son. Shall it therefore be lawful for those who are near of kin to form promiscuous connections?⁹⁰ Although Paul expressly mentions only one kind of incest, he yet establishes its disgrace by citing the example of the Gentiles, so that we at least should be ashamed if more delicacy and chastity is seen among them. And, in fact, another admonition of the same Paul is enough for me, who thus writes to the Philippians:

Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (Philippians 4:8).

As to those who ascend or descend in a direct line, it sufficiently appears that there is a monstrous indecency in the connection of father and daughter, or mother and son. A licentious poet,⁹¹ being about to relate the frantic incest of Myrrha, says:

“Daughters and fathers, from my song retire,
I sing of horror.”

In the collateral line, the uncles on both sides represent the father, and the aunts the mother. Consequently, connection with them is forbidden, inasmuch as it would be of somewhat similar impropriety. The same rule affects affinity: for the stepmother, or mother-in-law, is held to stand in the relation of mother; and the stepdaughter, or daughter-in-law, in that of daughter. Likewise, the wife of the paternal or maternal uncle is to be regarded in the relation of mother.

And, although express mention may not be made of it here, we must form our judgment by analogy as to what is prohibited. For example, the uncle on the father’s or mother’s side is not explicitly forbidden here to marry his niece. However, since the nephew is interdicted from marrying his paternal or maternal aunt, the mutual relation of the inferior to the superior degree must prevail. But if anyone should contend that there is a difference, the reason Moses adds refutes his objection, for it is said, She is your father’s or your mother’s near kinswoman. Hence it follows that a niece is guilty of incest if she marries her uncle on either side.

As to brothers and sisters, God pronounces that marriage with a sister, even if she is not uterine, is unlawful. For He forbids the uncovering of the turpitude of a sister, who is either the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother.

⁸⁷ Thus, the third Canon of the 24th Session of the Council of Trent declares; “Si quis dixerit, eos tantum consanguinitatis et affinitatis gradus, qui Levitico exprimentur, posse impedire matrimonium, et dirimere contractum: nec posse Ecclesiam in nonnullis illorum dispensare, aut constituere, ut plures impediant, et dirimant, anathema sit.” “Atqui plane certum est, (says Lorinus, in loco,) praecepta de gradibus in isto capite contenta, cum non sint omnia pure moralia, et naturalia, sed quaedam positiva, et judicialia, per se non obligare Christianos, et idcirco posse per Ecclesiam in quibusdam dispensari.”,) praecepta de gradibus in isto capite contenta, cum non sint omnia pure moralia, et naturalia, sed quaedam positiva, et judicialia, per se non obligare Christianos, et idcirco posse per Ecclesiam in quibusdam dispensari.”

⁸⁸ “Sous couverture que la Loy de Moyse a cesse” — Fr. Under the pretext that the Law of Moses has ceased.. Under the pretext that the Law of Moses has ceased.

⁸⁹ “Nec Claudius ultra expectato, obvium apud forum praebet se gratantibus; senatumque ingressus ‘decretum postulat, quo justae inter patruos, fratrumque filias nuptiae etiam in posterum statuerentur.’ Neque tamen repertus est, nisi unus talis matrimonii cupitor, T. Alladius Severus, eques Romanus, quem plerique Agrippinae gratia impulsum ferebant.” — Tacitus Ann., Lib. 12:7.

⁹⁰ “Leur sera il pourtant licite de se mesler confusement ensemble comme bestes?” shall it therefore be lawful to them to mix together confusedly like beasts?

⁹¹ Ovid. Metam., 10:300.