Leviticus 18:16 · Bible study
Leviticus 18:16 Commentary: Brother's Wife
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
How does Leviticus 18:16's prohibition against marrying a brother's wife square with the levirate marriage command in Deuteronomy 25:5?
Research Summary
- Meaning: A man must not have sexual relations with his brother's wife (whether by adultery or marriage), unless the brother died childless, in which case levirate marriage is required.
- Key words: "uncover the nakedness" (H1540, H6172), a euphemism for sexual intercourse; "brother's wife" (H0251, H0802), a woman bonded to a kinsman.
- Main debate: Does this prohibition apply absolutely (Calvin's view) or only when the brother left children (majority view)? The reconciliation with Deuteronomy 25:5 is the crux.
- Theological theme: God's holiness requires clear boundaries around the family; yet His mercy makes a compassionate exception for the childless widow and the preservation of lineage.
- Best use: Understanding how to read Old Testament laws in their own context, and seeing God's consistency in both prohibition and provision.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
You must not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would shame your brother.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife. It is your brother’s nakedness.
KJV King James Version 1769
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`The nakedness of thy brother's wife thou dost not uncover; it is thy brother's nakedness.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
The nakedness of thy brother's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: because it is the nakedness of thy brother.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
La desnudez de la mujer de tu hermano no descubrirás: es la desnudez de tu hermano.
A nudez da mulher de teu irmão não descobrirás: é a nudez de teu irmão.
Tu ne découvriras point la nudité de la femme de ton frère. C’ est la nudité de ton frère.
Du sollst deines Bruders Weibes Blöße nicht aufdecken; denn sie ist deines Bruders Blöße.
Gij zult de schaamte der huisvrouw uws broeders niet ontdekken; het is de schaamte uws broeders.
Non scoprirai la nudità della moglie di tuo fratello: è la nudità di tuo fratello.
Sromoty żony brata twego nie odkryjesz: sromota brata twego jest.
Наготы жены брата твоего не открывай, это нагота брата твоего.
不可 露 你弟兄 妻子 的下體；這本是 你弟兄 的下體。
You may not have sex relations with your brother's wife, for she is your brother's.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Leviticus 18:16
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The commentators agree that this verse forbids a man from having sexual relations with his brother's wife. They also recognize an exception: if the brother died childless, the levirate law in Deuteronomy 25:5 required the surviving brother to marry the widow. Adam Clarke, Gill, and Keil & Delitzsch all state that the prohibition applies only when the deceased brother left children. John Calvin disagreed, calling it "absurd to invent a different meaning" for this verse than for the parallel prohibitions. He held that the levirate command applied to more distant kinsmen, not own brothers. Nonetheless, the majority reading sees a controlled tension: a general ban with a specific divine override for the sake of raising offspring for the deceased. Matthew Henry and Wesley simply note the later exception. The consensus is that the text protects the bond between brothers, the wife is "your brother's nakedness", while the levirate law provides a temporary, purpose-driven exception within the Old Covenant.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Absolute prohibition view: Calvin argues that the context demands a uniform meaning for 'uncover nakedness' throughout the chapter, so the prohibition always applies; the levirate command in Deuteronomy 25:5 is for collateral kin, not own brothers.
- Exception view: The majority of commentators (Clarke, Gill, Keil & Delitzsch, Barnes) hold that the prohibition assumes the brother left children; if he died childless, Deuteronomy 25:5 overrides as a specific divine command.
What is clear: Both sides agree that sexual relations with a living brother's wife (adultery) are always forbidden, and that John the Baptist's rebuke of Herod followed this interpretation.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Application when the brother is alive | All agree this forbids adultery with a living brother's wife (as in Herod's case). | No disagreement here. |
| Application when the brother died with children | Most argue the prohibition remains in force; the wife's bond to the deceased brother is not dissolved because the family lineage continues. | Calvin holds that the prohibition applies regardless, but most others see this as the case when children exist. |
| Application when the brother died childless | Deuteronomy 25:5 commands the brother to marry the widow. | Some (Calvin, following certain interpreters) say the levirate law applies only to collateral kin, not own brothers. Others see it as an exception for own brothers. |
| Applicability to women (reciprocal ban) | Most apply the principle to both sexes: a woman should not marry her brother's husband (sister's husband). | Text explicitly addresses men; some see the analogy as implied, others stress the specific male address. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Leviticus 18 sits within the Holiness Code, a series of laws given to Israel as they prepared to enter Canaan. The chapter opens with God commanding Israel not to follow the practices of Egypt or Canaan (verses 1, 5). It then lists forbidden sexual relationships, each phrased with the euphemism "uncover the nakedness of." Verse 16 is the seventh in a series covering blood relatives and in-laws: father's sister, mother's sister, father's brother's wife, daughter-in-law, and now brother's wife.
The phrase "it is your brother's nakedness" grounds the prohibition in the prior relationship. Because a wife becomes "one flesh" with her husband (Genesis 2:24), sexual access to her touches the brother's own honor and identity. The law protects the family from rivalry and confusion of boundaries, a risk starkly illustrated when Jacob married two sisters (Leah and Rachel), leading to strife.
The exception in Deuteronomy 25:5 appears in a different legal context, laws about preserving a deceased man's name and property. Levirate marriage was practiced in parts of the ancient Near East, but Israel made it a duty, not an option. The brother who refused faced public disgrace. The two laws together show that God's interest was both in holy boundaries and in compassionate provision for widows and the preservation of family lines. The same God who says "do not" can also say "do" when a higher purpose, raising up offspring for a childless dead brother, is in view.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Leviticus 18:16. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts.
Reception History
In the early church, this verse was cited to condemn incestuous marriages, especially those between in-laws after a spouse's death. John the Baptist's confrontation with Herod over his marriage to Philip's wife (Matthew 14:3, 4) set the pattern for Christian moral teaching: the prohibition applies to relationships contracted while the brother is alive. Rabbinical interpretation wrestled with the levirate exception; the Mishnah and Talmud treat the two laws as complementary, not contradictory. During the Reformation, Calvin took a stringent line, arguing that the prohibition always stands and that the levirate law refers to distant kinsmen. Most Protestant commentators followed the majority view that the prohibition allows an exception for childless widows. Catholic moral theology has similarly held that marriage with a deceased brother's wife is impeded by affinity, unless dispensed by the Church in special circumstances, reflecting the same tension. The verse continues to serve as a test case for how Christians read the Old Testament law in light of Christ and the New Covenant.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The prohibition protects the bond between brothers. The wife is classed with the brother's own body. Any sexual relationship intrudes on that bond, whether the brother is alive or dead (and has children). The text guards against rivalry, confusion, and the breakdown of family trust.
- The exception shows God's heart for the vulnerable. Levirate marriage is not a loophole but a provision. The childless widow had no rights and no future. The command to marry her came from the same divine source as the prohibition. God is not contradictory; He is purposeful, adjusting the rule to meet a deeper need.
- The principle points beyond the law. Within the New Covenant, neither prohibition nor exception remains binding on Christians (the levirate law has ceased). But the underlying values, honoring family bonds, caring for widows, trusting God's wisdom in apparently conflicting commands, still shape Christian ethics.
Five-point outline
- God's standards are not arbitrary: they reflect His design for human relationships.
- The prohibition applies in life and, with children present, after death.
- The levirate exception is temporary and culturally specific, yet reveals God's care.
- Herod's marriage to his brother Philip's wife while Philip was still alive directly violated this law, and John the Baptist called it out (Mark 6:17, 18).
- Christians today are called to uphold the marriage bond (one man, one woman) and to care for widows in their distress (James 1:27), without being bound by the levirate provision.
Illustration hooks
- A family rule that a child cannot borrow a sibling's special toy without permission. But if the sibling is away and the toy is needed for an emergency (e.g., a school project), the parent may override the rule. The exception does not cancel the rule; it fulfills a greater purpose.
- A workplace policy against sharing passwords. But when an employee is on leave and a urgent report is needed, the supervisor may authorize temporary access. The policy stands; the exception serves a higher goal.
Questions your congregation is asking
- "Does Leviticus 18:16 mean that a widowed sister-in-law can never remarry into the family?"
- "Why would God command something in one place and forbid it in another? Is He inconsistent?"
- "Does this law apply to Christians today? What about other laws in Leviticus 18?"
Leading a Discussion
This verse raises an important question about how to read laws that seem to conflict. The group will explore the relationship between the prohibition and the later command, and consider what principles carry into the New Covenant. Use the cross-references to see how Jesus and John the Baptist handled these texts.
Discussion questions
- Observation: Read Leviticus 18:6, 18. What pattern do you see in how each relationship is described? What does the repeated phrase "it is [relative's] nakedness" emphasize?
- Observation: Read Deuteronomy 25:5, 6. What is the stated purpose of the levirate law? How does that purpose differ from the purpose behind Leviticus 18:16?
- Interpretation: Most commentators agree that Leviticus 18:16 assumes the brother's wife has children. Why would the presence of children change the application? What is being protected in each case?
- Interpretation: John the Baptist rebuked Herod for marrying Herodias (Mark 6:17, 18). Was Herod's situation covered by the levirate exception? (Herod's brother Philip was still alive.) What does this tell us about the force of Leviticus 18:16?
- Application: How does this passage inform our view of God's character? What does it mean that God can give a general prohibition and then a specific command that seems to contradict it?
- Application: The levirate law is no longer practiced. But what underlying principles about caring for widows and preserving family heritage still apply? How can your church live those out today?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Leviticus 20:21 | “‘If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an impurity. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless. |
| Deuteronomy 25:5 | If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. |
| Matthew 14:3 | For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. |
| Matthew 14:4 | For John said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” |
| Matthew 22:24 | saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.’ |
| Mark 6:17 | For Herod himself had sent out and arrested John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for he had married her. |
| Mark 12:19 | “Teacher, Moses wrote to us, ‘If a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife behind him, and leaves no children, that his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.’ |
| Luke 3:19 | but Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done, |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke clarifies that marrying a brother's wife was forbidden under normal circumstances, but when the brother died childless, the law of Moses not only permitted it but actually required the surviving brother to marry her. This was a duty, not merely an option.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes notes that the marriage to a brother’s wife was only lawful if the brother had no children. Herod Antipas broke this law by marrying Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because she already had a daughter, making the union forbidden.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin insists that the prohibition against uncovering a brother's wife's nakedness is as absolute as the parallel commands against a father's or son's wife. He rejects interpretations that limit it to adultery while the brother lives or after divorce, arguing the same wording demands the same meaning. The levirate marriage law in Deuteronomy applies only to a broader kinship group, not biological brothers.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The note ties the prohibition directly to family honor: exposing a brother's wife's shame is forbidden because it is treated as the brother's own shame. The sin is not against the woman alone but against the brother, whose reputation is bound up with hers.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill distinguishes the general prohibition against marrying a brother's wife from the temporary levirate exception for Jews, which ended with the Messiah. He further argues that if a man cannot marry his brother's wife, then a woman likewise cannot marry her sister's husband, making polygamy with sisters also unlawful.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch draws a sharp distinction: the prohibition against marrying a brother's wife applies only when the brother left children. If he died childless, the brother was not merely permitted but required to marry the widow, as the law of levirate marriage commands.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange frames the marriage prohibitions as guarding against two opposite extremes: incest, which drags the family back upon itself, and unnatural acts that destroy the life-giving purpose of union. The core principle is keeping the seed sacred to its creative end, the formation of new and holy families.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry emphasizes that these prohibitions rest on God's own authority and the natural bonds of family. He stresses that approaching near kin violates the honor due to parents and corrupts the sacred order of relationships, making such acts not merely unclean but wicked.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley observes that what might seem like an unusual situation involving a brother's wife actually foreshadows a command God later gave. In one specific case, the law would require a man to marry his deceased brother's widow, showing divine purpose behind what appears questionable.