Review of a Pamphlet from the Churchman's Magazine, Entitled Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister/Paper Two
PAPER TWO.
I. We agree with the Churchman's Magazine writer when he says: "The Divine authority of the one Lawgiver is that to which Christians mainly defer"—we add, must entirely defer. He further remarks: "It shall be my aim to present the Bible argument fairly and without disguise, and more [the italics are his own] particularly as some very important illustrations lately fell in my way, which I am quite sure are unknown to the bulk of Bible readers." So said Bishop Colenzo, when he undertook to give new readings of the Pentateuch, from discoveries newly made by him, and which he was "quite sure were unknown to the bulk of Bible readers." It may be presumed that what is quite new is false in Biblical interpretation, as well as in religion, and especially on a subject which has been discussed by the most learned Hebraists and Divines in England for very many years. Our clerical friend acknowledges himself indebted for these novel illustrations to a writer by the name of Galloway, who published a pamphlet in London last year on the subject; and the pamphlet of this man Galloway seems to constitute the sum and substance of our rural friend's researches and learning on a grave question of long and varied discussion for more than a quarter of a century.
THE MAGAZINE WRITER'S NOVEL ILLUSTRATIONS AND READING OF THE SCRIPTURE.
II.—One of these novel illustrations is, the denial that Moses ever commanded a brother to marry the childless widow deceased brother, "and raise up seed to his brother; or that the seven brothers mentioned in Matthew, xxii. chapter, verses 24 and 25, were own brothers. Moses said, (Deuteronomy xxv. 5, 6), "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the first born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel." In Matthew, we are told that the Sadducees came to our Lord, "Saying, Master, Moses said, 'If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up seed unto his brother.' Now, there were with us seven brethren: and the first when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also." These words are as plain in the authorized version of the Scriptures as the English language can make them, and as they have ever been understood by the Jews, and by all Christendom, but which are now denied by the writer of the Churchman's Magazine on the authority of his man Galloway, in illustrations "unknown to the bulk of Bible readers!" He says, referring to Deuteronomy xxv. 5–10, it is a mere "assumption that the brothers are own brothers, sons of one father or mother;" "but the assumption itself is to be denied." (p. 12.) "In truth, the idea that the Levirate law contemplated own brothers is wholly baseless and should be unceremoniously abandoned;" (p. 13), after having said, "It is truly surprising how generally this assumption has been allowed."
Now, upon what ground does this magazine writer, who says he is "entirely indebted to Mr. Galloway" for his proofs, thus deny what has been declared by the Jews of all ages, and all Christendom, to be the plain command of Moses, and recognized by our Lord and his Apostles? He gives three reasons: The first is the marginal reading of Deuteronomy xxxv. 5, which is "next kinsman." And who, let us ask, is the "next kinsman" of the deceased husband of a widow, but his own brother, if alive? His next reason is, when denying that the seven brothers mentioned in Matthew xxii. 24–28, were "all sons of the same parents," a quotation from the "book of Tobit," in which a woman, after having had seven husbands, laments, "I am the only daughter of my father, neither hath he any child to be his heir, neither any near kinsman, nor any son of his, alive, whom I may keep myself for a wife." Now, this writer's own quotation from the Apocryphal book of Tobit contradicts his own assumption and assertion; for how could the woman possibly have lamented that her father had no son alive to whom she might keep herself for a wife, if it was not lawful for her to be the wife of such a son? His other and third "illustration" is, that it "would contradict an express enactment: 'Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.' Leviticus xviii. 16." Now, not to notice the fact that many learned interpreters regard Leviticus xviii. 16, and all the verses preceeding, as referring not to marriage, but to adulterous connexions between near relations; but assuming that marriage is referred to in Leviticus xviii. 16, what is there in it in the slightest degree inconsistent with, much less contradictory to, Deuteronomy xxv. 5, according to the authorized version, since, in the former, reference is made to a living brother's wife. and in the latter the reference is to a deceased brother's widow. The tenth commandment says: "Thou shalt not covet [desire] thy neighbour's wife;" but who but such as the magazine writer and his man Galloway would interpret this command as forbidding a man to covet or marry his deceased neighbour's widow?
Thus there is not a shadow of ground to justify this writer's denying the authorized version of the Scriptures in regard to the command of Moses as to a man's marrying the childless widow of his deceased brother—a marriage in which there could be nothing improper or wrong, much less immoral, when commanded by God himself.
THE WRITER'S SELF-CONTRADICTORY RENDERINGS AND OMISSIONS EXPOSED.
III.—We will now consider this writer's criticisms and authorities in regard to Leviticus xviii. 18—the passage on which the whole controversy turns. The words of the authorized translation are as follows:—"Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other in her life time." Now all the efforts of this writer, and of other writers of the same school, are directed to combat this plain passage of Scripture as given in the authorized translation.
Our first remark is, that this writer's professed rendering of the verse above quoted is self-contradictory. On page 5 he says—"I add a literal rendering of the Hebrew, as it will be useful for reference:" "And a woman to her sister thou shalt not take, to rival, to uncover her nakedness, besides her, in her life time!" But on page 8, to support his theory, he renders this same verse as follows: "And one with the other thou shalt not take, to uncover her nakedness besides her an long as she liveth." In this rendering of the verse the magazine writer leaves out the two important words woman and sister, both of which appear in his first rendering of the verse, which he himself calls "a literal rendering of the Hebrew." When a writer, to support his dogma, can boldly deny in one place that a brother means a brother, and in another place leave out the two important names that determine the whole meaning of the passage, he can do all that Bishop Colenzo has done in the way of reckless criticism, to undermine both the authorized translation and integrity, not only of one book but, of the five books of Moses.
THE MAGAZINE WRITER'S MISTAKES IN REGARD TO HERREW IDIOM.
Thus prepared, by the omission of both the words woman and sister in his second rendering of the verse in question, this writer proceeds (p. 6) to what he calls the "Hebrew idiom." He says, "It is well known that the words 'a woman to her sister' are a Hebrew idiom, an expression peculiar to the language. The corresponding phrase, 'a man to his brother,' occurs twenty-five times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and is translated generally as in the following examples:
| Gen. xxxviii. 19. | 'And they said one to another.' |
| Ex. xxv. 20. | 'And the faces of the cherubim shall look one to another.' |
| Jer. xiii. 14. | 'And I will dash them one against another.' |
| Jer. xxv. 14. | 'And all the kings of the north one with another.'" |
| Ex. xxvi. 3. | '"The five curtains shall be coupled together one to another; and other five curtains shall he coupled one to another.'" &c. |
Those are some of the examples given by this writer to prove that two sisters are not intended in the verse under discussion, though they are named! And what shadow of proof do his examples furnish? Besides, what he calls a "Hebrew idiom," "is well known" by the learned to be no idiom at all. The examples he gives are idiomatic, because they all refer to many or several persons or things, not to two persons only, and all are, as the reader will see, preceded by a plural nominative. followed by a plural verb; but the phrase in Leviticus xviii. 18, is not idiomatic,—refers to two persons only, a woman and her sister, or two sisters,—has a singular nominative with a singular verb, and followed by the words "her nakedness, besides her, in her life time;" not having the least resemblance to the phrases: "The five curtains shall be coupled together one to another, and other five curtains shall he coupled one to another." The late learned Revd. Dr. A. McCaul, (elder brother of the Revd. Dr. McCaul of the Toronto University) Professor of Divinity and Hebrew Literature in King's College, London, has remarked,—"When the words, 'a woman to her sister,' or in the masculine form, 'a man to his brother,' are used idiomatically to signify 'one another,' they always have a plural antecedent of the things or person spoken of. Here is no such antecedent; consequently here they cannot be so translated." Page 59 of a pamphlet entitled: "The Ancient Interpretation of Leviticus xviii. 18, as received in the Church for more than 1,500 years, a Sufficient Apology for holding that, according to the Word of God, Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister is lawful." Sixteenth thousand.
DR. M'CAUL'S INTERPRETATION SUSTAINED.
Professor Robinson, the well-known oriental traveller, and most distinguished Hebraist in America, thus (in his Biblotheca Sacra) gives the reason for Dr. McCaul's interpretation:
"The phrase, 'a woman to her sister,' does indeed occur no less than eight times elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, in the general meaning, 'one to another,' but only of inanimate objects in the feminine gender—viz., of the curtains, loops and tenons of the tabernacle,—Exodus xxvi. 3, bis, 5, 6, 17; and of the wings of the living creatures, Ezekiel I. 9, 23; iii, 13. The like phrase 'a man to his brother, 'occurs in all about twenty times; mostly of men, but also in a few instances of inanimate objects or insects, of Exodus xxv, 29; Joel 11–8. But it is to be remarked that in every such instance, this phrase, whether of the masculine or feminine gender, has a reciprocal distributive power,—that is, a number of persons or things are said to do, or be so, one to another. Exodus xiv. 15 and often. 'So Abraham and Lot separated themselves one from another.' Genesis xiii. 11; Nehemiah iv. 19; Isaiah ix. 19. In the Hebrew: 'They shall not spare one another,' Haggai ii. 22. 'And the horses and their riders shall come down, each by the sword of the other,—i. e., they shall destroy one another. So of other examples. The only apparent exception as to form is Ezekiel xxxviii. 21., 'Every man's sword shall be against his brother,' here too, the idea of multitude and of reciprocal and mutual action among individuals is fully preserved. This, then, is the idiom; and to this idiom the passage in Leviticus xviii. 18. has no relation. There is nothing distributive nor reciprocal implied in it. The phrase here refers only to the object cf the verb; upon which object no trace of mutual or reciprocal action passes over. To bring it in any degree under the idiom, it should at least read thus: 'Wives (Na-shim) one to another thou shalt not take; and even then it would be unlike any other instance. But, further, the suffixes attached in the singular to the subsequent words (her nakedness, besides her, in her lifetime) show, decisively, that even such a solution is inadmissable; and these of themselves limit the words to two specific individuals (who have no mutual action one upon another,) in the same literal sense as in the preceeding verses, viz., a wife to a sister."
It is thus as plain as day that two sisters are mentioned in Leviticus xviii. 18, as this writer's own first "literal rendering of the Hebrew" declares; and when he afterwards, (page 7), says, "the text in dispute refers neither to polygamy nor to a deceased wife's sister," he not only contradicts himself and what we have above adduced, but he contradicts such writers as Dr. Pusey, the late Bishop of Exeter (Dr. Philpotts), and others of the same school. Dr. Pusey adopts the authorised version, and "interprets the prohibition of marrying two sisters;" and Dr. Philpotts does the same.
PLAIN MEANING OF THE PROHIBITION IN LEV. XVIII. 18.—THE MAGAZINE WRITER'S ABSURD EXAMPLES.
So much at present on the translation of the verse. Let us now briefly notice the prohibition, "thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, &c.," a prohibition understood in all ages, as the words expressly declare, as relating to two sisters. The law of Moses assumes the existance of polygamy, and regulated it, (Exodus xxi. 9–12; Deuteronomy xxi. 15–17), but does not forbid it. The prophet denounced David's adultery, but directly recognized his polygamy (II Samuel xii. 8.) It is clear, not only from the histories of David and Solomon and Joash (II Chronicles xxiv. 3), and of the Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, but from the passage referred to in Exodus xxi. 9–11, and Deuteronomy xxi. 15–17. that polygamy was recognized by the law of Moses and by the Jews. When, therefore, a man was forbidden to marry a second sister during the lifetime of the first, it could not be polygamy that was condemned, but individual domestic peace that was to be preserved. The note of the learned Wesleyan, Dr. Adam Clarke, expresses not only the sentiments of Wesley, but the common sense of the passage: "Thou shalt not marry two sisters at the same time, as Jacob did Rachel and Leah; but there is nothing in this law that rendered it illegal to marry a sister-in-law, when her sister was dead. Therefore the the text says, 'Thou shalt not take her in her lifetime, to vex her,' alluding, probably, to the cause of the jealousies which subsisted between Leah and Rachel, and by which the family peace was so much disturbed." Dr. T. Scott, our Church Commentator, interprets the verse as forbidding "the marrying of two sisters together. This conduct in Jacob proved a source of vexation both to Leah and Rachel; who were more jealous of each other than of the handmaidens whom they willingly gave to their husband's" But as all parties are agreed that a man's marrying two sisters at the same time was forbidden by Moses, we need not multiply authorities on the point, though a score of them might be adduced.
But the chief point in the remaining part of the argument turns on the last phrase of the passage, the restriction or limitation, "in her life time." The Churchman's Magazine writer says (page 5) "such a mode of reasoning is in general highly dangerous and uncertain—to conclude that things are sanctioned or approved by law, if the are only not expressly forbidden! For example, I say to a servant whom I have detected in theft, 'As long as you are in my employ never steal again.' May he justly conclude that when not in my employ he may my full approbation for theft?" This writer must me more foolish than we had even imagined him to be, if he would utter such a limited prohibition to his servant, and not caution him against ever stealing again. But what he supposes himself to say to a servant detected in theft, is as fallacious in argument as it would be foolish in act. It would indeed be as wrong for "a clergyman's" servant to steal after leaving his master's employment as before; but it would not be as wrong for his married servant to marry another woman after his wife's death as before, as every one but this writer must know. But this writer resorts to a second illustration. He says, (page 6) "When Hannah says she will give her expected son unto the Lord 'all the days of life,' she might just as well be supposed to intend keeping him to herself after his death, as the restriction in Leviticus be explained away as temporary—contingent on the life of the first wife." In this second illustration the Magazine writer supposes Hannah might intend an impossible thing, as in his first illustration he supposed himself to do a foolish thing. Hannah might have kept her son's dead body after his death, had she survived him, but her son would have been beyond her reach. We fear our readers may think us trifling with them by our noticing such nonsense; but we cannot resist the desire to add one or two illustrative examples of this writer's logic. For example, from the prohibition, Leviticus xxii. 28, "Whether it be a eow or ewe, ye shall not kill her and her young one in one day;" common sense infers that to kill them on different days was lawful; but according to this writer's logic, it would be as unlawful to kill them on different days as to kill them on the same day. Again in Leviticus x. 9, it is said "Do not drink wine nor any strong drink, thou nor thy sons with the, when ye go into the tabernacle . . . . . . . . lest ye die." Common sense would infer that the parties addressed might drink wine at other times; but the logic of this writer would make them teetotallers at all times and for ever—perhaps a very good thing, at least for some parties, but hardly commanded by the Mosaic law. Furthermore, when in Leviticus xxi. 14, a High Priest is forbidden to marry a widow, common sense infers that other priests and other men may marry a widow; but according to this writer no priest nor any other man can lawfully marry a widow; yet this inference from the prohibition of the High Priest is the only authority or permission in the law of Moses for the lawfulnes of a priest or any other man to marry a widow. If this writer be consistent or sincere in his reasoning, he certainly should not marry a widow. But to be serious, and not multiply examples, we may remark, that even in the New Testament the lawfulness of a man's marrying a second time has the authority of inference, and that alone, from the permission given, to a widow (Romans vii.) to take a second husband; and by inference our Lord proved the doctrine of the Resurrection, and St. Paul the doctrine of Justification by Faith.
THE MAGAZINE WRITER'S VIOLATION OF A PLAIN PRINCIPLE OF JURISPRUDENCE IN HIS STATEMENT.
But to the principle of the argument itself. No principle is more generally understood and acted upon in both civil and criminal jurisprudence than this—that "when a prohibition is given with a limitation, that where the limitation ceases, the prohibition ceases, especially when the limitaton is with regard to time." The examples above given are illustrations of the truth of this principle; and thus when we are prohibited from stealing and bearing false witness against our neighbour, it is implied that we should be honest and truthful: when we are prohibited from doing any labour on the Sabbath day, it is implied that we may work on others days; when a criminal is prohibited his liberty and sent to prison for twelve months, it is implied that at the expiration of that time he shall be restored to his liberty; when a minor is incapacitated or prohibited from selling or holding property, it is implied that on his becoming of age he can do both; the prohition, which prevents the heir to a title or an estate from assuming it during the life of the owner, ceases on his death. Examples could be multiplied without number. And thus the prohibition of a man from marrying his wife's sister during his wife's life, implies the lawfulness of his doing so after his wife's death. In, therefore, concluding our review of the magazine writer's absurd sayings, (for arguments they cannot be called), on this point, we may remark in the language of the learned Dr. A. McCaul:—"The inference drawn from the limitation in Leviticus xviii. 18, 'in her life-time' is as old as the days of Philo, has been drawn by the great body of the Jewish nation ever since, and by the most learned and thoughtful Christians, of various nations and opposing creeds, down to the present time—not only of those who draw it in favour of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but of those who, opposing that marriage, interpret Leviticus xviii. 18, of polygamy. Both assert that the words, 'in her life-time' is a limitation, and that when the wife is dead, a second marriage as lawful; and thus the united strength and learning of both parties—and there are only a few individual commentators who do not belong to the one or the other—are combined in affirming the validity of this conclusion."
We have thus, we think, sufficiently replied to the magazine writer on the interpretation of Leviticus xviii. 18, though we have employed but a small part of the authorities and illustrations which we had prepared to expose his crude and absurd criticisms. We shall next, in one more paper, notice his misquotations of authorities from Jewish and Christian antiquity, and conclude with adducing modern Church and other authorities which can neither be gainsaid nor resisted by any sound Protestant.