Second Argument
Wilber’s second argument is that because Leviticus 18:18 uses the preposition “to” (el) instead of the conjunction “and,” (vav) the commandment should “be understood idiomatically in the distributive sense.” Wilber writes further, “If it were referring to two literal sisters, we would expect the phrasing of the verse to be consistent with the other anti-incest laws of Leviticus 18.” Now, like Wilber noted, the conjunction “and” is used in Leviticus 18:17 to identify an explicitly forbidden relationship in marrying a mother and her daughter; but the fact is that in Leviticus 18:18 the preposition “to” is used rather than the conjunction “and” in describing the taking of a woman “to her sister.” It seems as if Wilber is trying to reason that inconvenient fact away by appealing to some idiomatic understanding of the “distributive sense.”
But what does that really mean? In a sense, it means that Wilber’s argument here actually strengthens our objection: that Leviticus 18:18 doesn’t fall in the same category as the anti-incest laws. The conjunction “and” has been used repeatedly in the previous verses to denote forbidden relationships; yet here we come to the preposition “to,” thus denoting a new, unique thought process on the part of the author.
Setting this aside, here is the biggest problem with Wilber’s second argument: the wording of law is supposed to be clear. If a specific law is supposed to mean something other than what is plainly read, then how can a Righteous Lawgiver penalize someone for following the plain interpretation of that law? What if a governmental law required knowledge in idioms to properly understand and follow it? What if that law would otherwise be interpreted to mean something totally different than the plain reading by using a Hebrew idiom? How could a righteous government enforce that law on someone who is not familiar with the idiom, or penalize one that read the law and followed the plain reading of it? Does it make sense for any local lawgiver to use idioms in their law and then punish someone for breaking that law for using that phrase literally?
The answer to all of these questions should be clear: God is not the author of confusion, (1 Corinthians 14:33) but of order. (1 Corinthians 14:40) It does not make sense for the Creator of the Universe to send a secret code in His law which was only revealed to an extremely few number of people, able to crack the code several thousand years after the fact, that His instructions really mean something totally different than the plain (and historically accepted) reading. It is therefore unfathomable that a Righteous Lawgiver, who declares that He will hold His people accountable for their observance of the decrees that He gave, (Matthew 7:21-23) would be so negligent in giving His commandments as to give one with such convoluted verbiage.
