Question and Answer The Prohibition of Marriage to a Brother’s Wife
Question and Answer
The Prohibition of Marriage to a Brother’s Wife¹
Question:
I received a letter from one of the fathers who strongly objects to the prohibition of marriage to a brother’s wife, considering it contrary to the explicit divine command:
“The wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)
The same letter also cited other scriptural references: (Matthew 22:24), (Mark 12:19), and (Luke 20:28). What is the response?
Answer:
The father who sent you the letter did not cite the divine text in its entirety, as honesty in quotation requires. Rather, he omitted the first part of it and also omitted the final part, thus making the quotation unrepresentative of the divine teaching, its purpose, and its reasons.
As for the first part that he omitted, it is: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son…” the wife of the dead shall not be married outside…
As for the last part that he omitted, it is: “And the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 25:5–6)
The matter, therefore, is not a general permission to marry a brother’s wife. Rather, it is specific to a brother who dies without offspring. His brother marries his wife in order to raise up offspring for him, and the firstborn who is born is considered a son of the deceased brother.
This occurred for the purpose of preserving genealogies within the tribes of Israel, so that the name of one who had no offspring would not be blotted out. At that time, it was permissible for the firstborn child to be considered the son of the deceased husband, even though this child was born after his death.
This same teaching is what was stated in Matthew 22, when they said to the Lord Christ: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were with us seven brothers. The first married and died, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother…” (Matthew 22:24–25)
We notice here that the reason for permitting marriage to the brother’s wife is “having no offspring” when he died. The same wording appears in the Gospel of Mark: “…Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, and leaves no children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. There were seven brothers. The first took a wife and died, and left no offspring. And the second took her…” (Mark 12:19–21)
The same is also found in the Gospel of Luke: “…If a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take the wife and raise up offspring for his brother.” (Luke 20:28)
Now the question we ask frankly is this: Is there anyone who marries his brother’s wife today with the purpose of raising up offspring for his deceased brother—meaning, to carry out the divine command according to the wisdom in which it was established?
And can anyone, under any law, beget a child and register him on a birth certificate as the son of his brother who died before the birth of this child?
Would this not, under current laws, be considered falsification of official documents? Where, then, is the purpose of such a marriage?
And if someone claims that he marries his brother’s wife in order to care for the deceased brother’s children, in his capacity as their uncle, we say that in this case he would be contradicting the teaching of Scripture, because Scripture stipulates two conditions:
First: that the brother must have died without having begotten children.
Second: that the purpose is to raise up offspring for this brother. As long as the deceased brother has offspring, there is no need for this marriage. Rather, there are divine texts that prohibit it.
Marriage to a brother’s wife in the Old Testament was completely forbidden.
Its only exception was in the case of a brother who died without offspring, so that his name would not be blotted out from Israel. It was required that offspring be reckoned to him after his death through his brother. Jewish law permitted the firstborn child to be counted as the son of the deceased brother. Therefore, we should not take a particular situation that no longer exists today and make it a general rule, forgetting its purpose and reasons.
As for the general divine rule, it is the word of divine inspiration:
“If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing.” (Leviticus 20:21)
Why did the father who sent you the letter hide this explicit divine text, while defending what he claims to be God’s teaching in the Holy Bible? And how does he permit a marriage that the Bible itself calls uncleanness?
Why did he also conceal another text in which God commands clearly, saying:
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:16)
God places this command among other prohibitions such as marriage to an aunt, a maternal aunt, or a sister, and considers the violation of all these commandments as uncleanness and abomination. He says:
“Do not defile yourselves with any of these things… But you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations… for all these abominations the men of the land have done who were before you, and thus the land is defiled… For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.” (Leviticus 18:24–29)
Consequently, the same punishment applies to anyone of any priestly rank who permits these abominations that God has forbidden. Thus he allows an illegitimate marriage that God has prohibited to take place and to continue, and he bears its burden and its punishment. Moreover, he strongly objects to the prevention of a forbidden marriage that God Himself called uncleanness and listed among abominations, which He forbade in the same context in which He forbade marriage to a sister, an aunt, a paternal aunt, or a father’s wife.
Where does such a priest flee from Leviticus 20:21, Leviticus 18:16, and the discussion of these abominations and their punishment as in Leviticus 18:24–29?
The teaching of the Holy Bible is not merely a text from which someone deletes the beginning and the end and presents it mutilated to people, while at the same time concealing the remaining verses that forbid what he claims.
The prohibition of marriage to a brother’s wife is what the great holy Fathers understood and decided, and what the holy councils have stated. There is no one higher than the holy Fathers, nor higher than the holy councils and their canons. We will continue speaking about this matter in the next issue, God willing.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
¹ An article by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, published in Al-Keraza Magazine – Year Sixteen – Issue Fifteen – dated December 16, 1988.
For better translation support, please contact the center.
