Abraham and Sarah

If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt.  Leviticus 20:17  NASB

Sister – What are we to do with Abraham’s account of his relationship with Sarah (Genesis 20)?

Sarah’s ancestry is not clear. Genesis 11 relates that Abram and his brother Nahor married Sarai and Milcah, respectively (v. 29). It does not name Sarah’s father, even though it relates that Milcah was the daughter of Haran, Terah’s other son, and then names Haran’s other daughter, Iscah. When Gen 11:31 tells that “Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife” from Ur to Haran, it does not call Sarai Terah’s granddaughter. However, in Genesis 20, when Abraham explains his wife-sister ruse to Abimelech of Gerar, he claims that Sarah is his non-uterine sister (v. 12). This contradiction has led some readers to identify Sarah with the otherwise unknown Iscah. But this would make Sarai Abram’s niece, not his half-sister; it would not explain why she is identified as daughter-in-law to Terah, not as his daughter.[1]

The Genesis account certainly seems to violate the commandment in Leviticus.  That means that the father of Israel, Abraham, would be cut off from the people if he had lived during the time of Moses.  Apparently what was acceptable to God at the beginning was not acceptable a few centuries later.  Otherwise, how do we explain that fact that God chose Abraham and Sarah despite their immoral sexual entanglement according to Leviticus?  Perhaps we could argue that the Leviticus commandment applies only to sisters of the same two parents, thereby exempting Abraham since Sarah is a half-sister.  But the Leviticus passage doesn’t seem to make this distinction.  We must acknowledge the insight of Eve Levani Feinstein:

Leviticus 18, which belongs to the Holiness legislation, departs from the more common conception of sexual pollution in the Hebrew Bible by applying pollution language to men and associating it with a variety of sexual transgressions, which pollute simply because of their transgressive nature.  This departure is a product of [Holiness legislation]’s view of Israel as a community composed of males with a mandate to be holy.  Sexual pollution is incompatible with holiness . . .”[2]

What do we learn?  Sexual mores in Israel are a function of Israel’s covenant relationship with God.  They are not drawn from other cultures.  They are, in fact, a choice—a commitment.  And in this regard, God’s view of Israel’s sexual purity progresses.  Sexual prohibitions changed.  Covenant morality is progressive.

This conclusion has far-reaching consequences.  Are we ready to say that Paul’s prohibition of homosexuality, echoing the same chapter in Leviticus, is now out-of-date and no longer applicable?  If God can exempt Abraham, why not Abby Stein?[3]  Is the Torah still the standard for sexual behavior, and if it is, what do we do with the sexuality of the patriarchs?  Jacob marries two sisters (later prohibited).  Abraham has sexual relations with a servant girl while married to Sarah.  Jacob does the same, with two servants.  Isaac is the only one who seems to have been monogamous, but even he lied about it when he believed he was threatened.  And Moses?  His wife comes from outside the tribes.  Ezra would have violently objected.  The stories and the commandments don’t always match up.  Have you asked why?

Topical Index: sister, marriage, sexuality, morality, Leviticus 20:17

[1] https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/sarahsarai-bible

[2] Eve Levanti Feinstein, Sexual Pollution in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford, 2014), p. 159.

[3] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2019/09/09/474156/9-lgbtq-faith-leaders-watch-2019/