# Levirate marriage and God's unchanging moral standard



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2019)

God is perfect and would not command us to do that which is immoral. 

God commanded the OT Jews to marry multiple women (The Levirite marriage). Therefore, this Levirite arrangement was not sin. 

This means that polygamy is not per se (innately) sinful in all circumstances, or else God could not have commanded it to be done. Just as not all killing is murder, not all polygamy is sinful polygamy. Therefore, polygamy is not sinful in and of itself.


---Does this argument check out? If sombody gave you this argument stating that polygamy was not sin, how would you respond?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2019)

The practice is reflected in three Old Testament texts: Gn 38.6–11, the Book of Ruth, and Dt 25.5–10.

5 “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside unto a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him for a wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.

6 And it shall be that the firstborn whom she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’

8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak unto him; and if he stand by it and say, ‘I like not to take her,’

9 then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.’

10 And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.’"



So the penalty for refusing to take and try to impregnate your dead-brother's wife was a public shaming.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> So where does it indicate _polygamy_? In the Hebrew?


Presumably by the fact that the statute applies to a man whether he is married or not. There is no exception provided for a man if he is already married to another woman.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 17, 2019)

You can play all sorts of games with biblical morality.

Question for the claimant: because God commanded the "ethnic cleansing" of Canaan, is it true therefore that "ethnic cleansng" isn't in-and-of-itself sinful?

I'd say this is a good diagnostic question, before starting into a discussion of the issue of polygamy.

Also, the proposed parallel of polygamy with the alleged qualification on prohibition of murder (6th commandment) is rather loose.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 17, 2019)

With regard, specifically, to the levirate institution: the more fundamental question is whether this arrangement is strictly a "marriage" in the full/robust sense.

I argue: it is not, because there is no presumption of ongoing (lifelong) sxual relations between the "husband" and the "wife." The sole reason for the congress of the two is the production of an heir for the sake of the dead brother (who lacked one), and end-of-life care for the wife/mother.

The situation in patriarchal-tribal culture had certain social characteristics, one of which was inter-generational care. Those who lacked this "safety net" were doomed to death, apart from dedicated provision.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You can play all sorts of games with biblical morality.
> 
> Question for the claimant: because God commanded the "ethnic cleansing" of Canaan, is it true therefore that "ethnic cleansng" isn't in-and-of-itself sinful?
> 
> ...


I guess I would have to say that ethnic-cleansing is not per se sinful, because God commanded at least one class of people to be obliterated and that instance was not sinful, therefore, ethnic cleansing is not innately sinful, only the wrong kind of ethnic cleansing. 

How do I get out of this conundrum?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 17, 2019)

I was just grappling with this the other day as it came up in course in my daily readings. And my own denomination addressed the issue of the marrying of one's "deceased wife's sister" when the UK legalised such a union in the early 1900s. Our church opposed the change in the law and to this day forbids such a marriage.

From what I can make out it's like this:

There is a general commandment against marrying a sibling of one's deceased husband/wife (Leviticus 18:16). However there was an exception made (Deuteronomy 25:5) which, according to the godly commentators, was for the theocratic Israel only and with the dissolution of that nation the original commandment came back into full force.

One of the reasons given for the exception is because of the misguided view of the Israelites that one's offspring were the primary means of "living on", evidencing a poor understanding of the resurrection.

It is also suggested that it had been a practice amongst the Israelites before the regulation was given in Deuteronomy which might suggest that God was regulating a practice which the Israelites persisted in though against the law (much like the situation with polygamy where it clearly was against God's teaching on marriage but they persisted in it anyway). And God, as lawgiver, is able to dispense with His own laws.

That's how Poole/Henry explain it anyway.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> With regard, specifically, to the levirate institution: the more fundamental question is whether this arrangement is strictly a "marriage" in the full/robust sense.
> 
> I argue: it is not, because there is no presumption of ongoing (lifelong) sxual relations between the "husband" and the "wife." The sole reason for the congress of the two is the production of an heir for the sake of the dead brother (who lacked one), and end-of-life care for the wife/mother.



I would argue that it is a true marriage. Was Ruth a true wife to Boaz?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I would argue that it is a true marriage. Was Ruth a true wife to Boaz?


There's no reason to think Boaz was currently married, so the marriage between the two appears to take the full step. There is, further, an argument that Boaz was likely much older than Ruth, closer to the generation of Naomi, who could not have a child herself. Ruth 4:17, "There is a son born to... *Naomi*."


----------



## yeutter (Apr 17, 2019)

I would contend that Levirate marriage was part of the civil law, and therefore not binding on either individuals or the civil state in the New Covenant


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I guess I would have to say that ethnic-cleansing is not per se sinful, because God commanded at least one class of people to be obliterated and that instance was not sinful, therefore, ethnic cleansing is not innately sinful, only the wrong kind of ethnic cleansing.
> 
> How do I get out of this conundrum?


Well, you could begin by inquiring where God has commanded the man who wants a plural marriage to take another wife.

In other words: no selective appropriation of the biblical witness. Appeal to some particular case as though it makes an allowance for someone to do what he pleases has to take into account the fullness of the data, not just that which serves his aim.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 17, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I would contend that Levirate marriage was part of the civil law, and therefore not binding on either individuals or the civil state in the New Covenant


Of course. The question is, can something be innately sinful if their are certain circumstances in which it is permissible?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Well, you could begin by inquiring where God has commanded the man who wants a plural marriage to take another wife.


The man would then point to God's imagery of Himself having two wives. God Himself describes Himmself as polygynous. 

So, if the Levirate was ALREADY in practice, then God was merely regulating a present law and ameliorating it instead of positively commanding a new law. Sort of like saying, "If you are going to do this practice, here are some rules to help you make it better." This seems to make a difference to me. Is it a difference that matters?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The man would then point to God's imagery of Himself having two wives. God Himself describes Himmself as polygynous.
> 
> So, if the Levirate was ALREADY in practice, then God was merely regulating a present law and ameliorating it instead of positively commanding a new law. Sort of like saying, "If you are going to do this practice, here are some rules to help you make it better." This seems to make a difference to me. Is it a difference that matters?



As I said above, that's the inference I take from Poole and Henry commenting on this issue.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> As I said above, that's the inference I take from Poole and Henry commenting on this issue.


That is the solution I like best. Thanks. It avoids the discomfort of God positively commanding polygyny rather than God merely regulating and limiting it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The man would then point to God's imagery of Himself having two wives. God Himself describes Himmself as polygynous.
> 
> So, if the Levirate was ALREADY in practice, then God was merely regulating a present law and ameliorating it instead of positively commanding a new law. Sort of like saying, "If you are going to do this practice, here are some rules to help you make it better." This seems to make a difference to me. Is it a difference that matters?


Ezk.23? Is this the claim? That's bad exegesis.

God portrayed himself as being united to two wives--which was actually one people and one "marriage," Hos.2. God takes the historical movement and split of the kingdom after well over half a millennium, and describes the one marriage as two.

In the same book Ezk.16, God describes him as married to Jerusalem--is that three wives? Or is it a literary device?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Ezk.23? Is this the claim? That's bad exegesis. God portrayed himself as being united to two wives--which was actually one people and one "marriage," Hos.2. God takes the historical movement and split of the kingdom after well over half a millennium, and describes the one marriage as two. In the same book Ezk.16, God describes him as married to Jerusalem--is that three wives? Or is it a literary device?


Yes, that is his reference. Thanks for the Hosea 2 reference.

And also his go-to is in 2 Samuel 12 where the prophet Nathan lists many wives as gifts of God and says to King David over his sin with Bathsheba, we read: "I have given you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom ... and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and as if this wasn't enough, I would have given you even more." 

God was ready to gift David with many more wives had David merely desired it. His wives were listed among all the other property God had blessed him with. If polygamy were a sin it would be coutned as a curse to heap up wives, but Samuel speaks of David's wives as blessings.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 17, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I would contend that Levirate marriage was part of the civil law, and therefore not binding on either individuals or the civil state in the New Covenant



“...not...further than the general equity thereof may require.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> There is a general commandment against marrying a sibling of one's deceased husband/wife (Leviticus 18:16).


That passage doesn't say anything about anyone in question being deceased, and considering Christ's rebuke of the Sadducees for supposing that there would be marriage in the resurrection (if there were a resurrection, which they denied) and the Apostle Paul's clear statement in Romans that death annuls marriage, there is good reason to think the passage refers to a _living _brother, just as everyone else in the passages forbidding incest is supposed to be alive.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, that is his reference. Thanks for the Hosea 2 reference.
> 
> And also his go-to is in 2 Samuel 12 where the prophet Nathan lists many wives as gifts of God and says to King David over his sin with Bathsheba, we read: "I have given you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom ... and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and as if this wasn't enough, I would have given you even more."
> 
> God was ready to gift David with many more wives had David merely desired it. His wives were listed among all the other property God had blessed him with. If polygamy were a sin it would be coutned as a curse to heap up wives, but Samuel speaks of David's wives as blessings.


Again, it sounds like someone who wants to find some "precedent" (any) in order to slip by Jesus' plain teaching on marriage ideal. Further, Jesus' teaching on "serving two masters" seems germane, as loving one and despising or neglecting the other seems not only a natural effect; it is frankly the portrayal of every multiple-marriage in the Bible.

Men with multiple wives in NT church-order are neither free to divorce them, nor to serve as elders. Some bridges cannot be recrossed, and moving forward the situation must be handled as one that is less-than-ideal, and fraught with consequences. Polygamy is not condoned in Scripture, but it is regulated.

Scripture does, at times, take history into account, as to what is permissible. Adam and Eve's children had to marry one another--there was not other human beings with whom to mate and carry on the human race. Later, marrying one's immediate family became unwise and flatly forbidden. So, simply noting that a past practice found in the Bible is not apparently frowned on in every case (and by every means) is no argument for its normative status, or for its allowance now.

David was an ancient monarch, and before that a warlord. Such kings' status was judged in part by their marriage alliances, their harems. That God did not condemn David (or others) for taking plural wives--and may even be said to describe it as a personal privilege* (according to the custom)--is no reason to ignore the teaching of Jesus, the apostles, and the biblical witness as a whole. Either there were particular lessons that Redemptive History was used to teach, along with a consistent moral thread; or else the Bible is a mishmash of conflicting moral lessons.

[* it's also the case that Scripture refers only to one wife for Saul, 1Sam.14:50, and one concubine who was taken by Abner, 2Sam.3:7. So, Nathan's words are clearly used in a speech that simply puts his condemnation of David in terms of the ancient practice of conquest-appropriation; note the deplorable acts of Absalom in this connection, 2Sam16:21-22]

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## KMK (Apr 17, 2019)

The fact that NT writers did not spend much time 'apologizing' about OT polygamy leads me to believe it is kind of a 'no-brainer'.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 17, 2019)

Charles Johnson said:


> That passage doesn't say anything about anyone in question being deceased, and considering Christ's rebuke of the Sadducees for supposing that there would be marriage in the resurrection (if there were a resurrection, which they denied) and the Apostle Paul's clear statement in Romans that death annuls marriage, there is good reason to think the passage refers to a _living _brother, just as everyone else in the passages forbidding incest is supposed to be alive.



Whether the original spouse is dead or alive isn't relevant (here). The commandment is forbidding a union between a man and his brother's wife period. Once the original union had been entered into such a subsequent union was forbidden. This general rule is qualified later.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Whether the original spouse is dead or alive isn't relevant (here). The commandment is forbidding a union between a man and his brother's wife period. Once the original union had been entered into such a subsequent union was forbidden. This general rule is qualified later.


It is unqualified because if he's dead, she's not his wife. No qualification is needed.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 17, 2019)

Charles Johnson said:


> It is unqualified, because if he's dead, she's not his wife. No qualification is needed.



1) The Confession 24:4 states: "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own." Leviticus 20:19-21.

Lawful marriage is governed by both consanguinity and affinity and Leviticus 18:6-18 teaches they are of equal reach.

2) Leviticus 18:18 (putting aside whatever it is specifically addressing) gives the qualification of the original wife still being alive. It would seem strange that if 18:16 applied only when the original wife was still alive the qualification wouldn't be added there as well. And indeed if we take 18:16 as applying only while she still lives it only serves to make 18:18 either redundant or very unclear as to its meaning.

3) Poole, for one, understands it as applying uniformly: whether the spouse is still alive or dead.

4) It was understood by the church as forbidding even after death, clearly, or there wouldn't have been the need to change the civil law to allow it. (The civil law was based on earlier canon law.)

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> 1) The Confession 24:4 states: "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own." Leviticus 20:19-21.
> 
> Lawful marriage is governed by both consanguinity and affinity and Leviticus 18:6-18 teaches they are of equal reach.
> 
> ...


That it has been historically interpreted in a certain way does not ensure that that interpretation is correct. Every American Presbyterian denomination, even the most conservative, such as the RPCNA, no longer subscribes to that line of the 1646 because the Scripture is clear that marriage does not bind after death.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> False. Not _every_.


Are there any full conformists besides the Westminster Presbyterians? I'm not sure I'd call one or two churches a denomination, and the FCC isn't "American".


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> The Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly, for one. Also, the Presbyterian Reformed Church


Ok. I stand corrected.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 17, 2019)

Charles Johnson said:


> That it has been historically interpreted in a certain way does not ensure that that interpretation is correct. Every American Presbyterian denomination, even the most conservative, such as the RPCNA, no longer subscribes to that line of the 1646 because the Scripture is clear that marriage does not bind after death.



So it's OK to marry one's step daughter if the mother has died?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> So it's OK to marry one's step daughter if the mother has died?


Well it would certainly be weird but so are cousin marriages and I think we all agree those are acceptable by biblical standards.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 17, 2019)

Charles Johnson said:


> Well it would certainly be weird but so are cousin marriages and I think we all agree those are acceptable by biblical standards.



Yes cousin marriages are allowed by Scripture. The other two types are not. I'll stick with the earlier interpretation. The original Confession is, after all, the superior.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> ?!!?!!?!!?!
> 
> 
> 
> False. By this standard, the man in 1 Corinthians should not have come under discipline for marrying his father's wife.


"fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife". Why are you so certain that he married her, that the father had also married her, that the father was dead, and that she was not his mother? There are quite a few ways in which the actions described in 1 Cor. 5:1 could be understood as immoral within my framework that do not require marriage to be marriage after death.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Apr 17, 2019)

The WCF was not unique in setting forth who we are permitted to marry according to the teaching of the Bible. For instance, on the last page, in the 1662 *Book of Common Prayer*, immediately after the Articles of Religion, is found a _*Table of Kindred and Affinity,* _which corresponds to what is found in the Westminster. Allow me observe that the Church of Rome had different rules of kindred and affinity which prohibited, for instance, first cousin marriages.
www.justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/Baskerville.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

---Does this argument check out? If sombody gave you this argument stating that polygamy was not sin, how would you respond?[/QUOTE]


Pergamum said:


> I guess I would have to say that ethnic-cleansing is not per se sinful, because God commanded at least one class of people to be obliterated and that instance was not sinful, therefore, ethnic cleansing is not innately sinful, only the wrong kind of ethnic cleansing.
> 
> How do I get out of this conundrum?



Dear Pergummum,

Am I missing something?

You keep saying, "God commanded".

When God commands it is a sin to disobey.

So if you are not a polygamist are you disobeying God?

Silly question right?

Well, if someone decides to be a polygamist because they want to be without God commanding them, then are they doing what God commands?

But where does God command polygamy or ethnic cleansing other than the RARE occasions in rare circumstances in scripture? or in situations that were clearly for the Jews and for those times?

Therefore, polygamy is a sin now and has been for a very long time!

No polygamist today can claim that God commanded them to be a Polygamist.

Am I missing something in this discussion?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Apr 17, 2019)

It has been more then 40 years since I have read him. But if I remember correctly what he said, Walter Trobisch had some insights that may be helpful. The conservative German Lutheran missionary, Walter Trobisch, labored in areas of west Africa where polygamy was an accepted indigenous practice. He thought that Levirate marriages should be discouraged, and talking second [multiple] wives should be prohibited to confessing members of the Church. He did not believe that those already in such a relationship, who had come to profess Christ, should be denied baptism

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

yeutter said:


> It has been more then 40 years since I have read him. But if I remember correctly what he said, Walter Trobisch had some insights that may be helpful. The conservative German Lutheran missionary, Walter Trobisch, labored in areas of west Africa where polygamy was an accepted indigenous practice. He thought that Levirate marriages should be discouraged, and talking second [multiple] wives should be prohibited to confessing members of the Church. He did not believe that those already in such a relationship, who had come to profess Christ, should be denied baptism



Some modern missionaries have been faced with this when a man comes to Christ in an polygamous marriage.

For him to be baptized and accepted the polygamous marriage must be _*dissolved*_.

Though all of the wives and children are certainly cared for with the help of the sending Church, or local church if already planted, and great prayerful hopes for the conversion of all of them.


----------



## yeutter (Apr 17, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Some modern missionaries have been faced with this when a man comes to Christ in an polygamous marriage.
> 
> For him to be baptized and accepted the polygamous marriage must be _*dissolved*_.


I understand this has historically been the practice of the church. Can you point to a clear teaching of the Bible on this point? When St. Paul wrote that a Bishop, Presbyter, & Deacon must be the husband of one wife, was St. Paul saying that there were men who would not be qualified to hold such an office because they were, or had been the husband of more than one wife?


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I understand this has historically been the practice of the church. Can you point to a clear teaching of the Bible on this point? When St. Paul wrote that a Bishop, Presbyter, & Deacon must be the husband of one wife, was St. Paul saying that there were men who would not be qualified to hold such an office because they were, or had been the husband of more than one wife?



??? it certainly sounds like there were some men with multiple wives, and Contra-Mundum (Rev Buchanan) in a post earlier in this thread said they were not allowed to divorce them (I was shocked when I read that earlier and plan to research it because I never heard that before, have you?)


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 17, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> (I was shocked when I read that earlier and plan to research it because I never heard that before, have you?)



Yes. 

It is a pretty fair inference from 1 Tim 3:2 combined with Jesus' teaching on divorce, while considering the circumstances of the early Gospel era.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> Yes.
> 
> It is a pretty fair inference from 1 Tim 3:2 combined with Jesus' teaching on divorce, while considering the circumstances of the early Gospel era.



Are you saying that those who had multiple wives were required by Jesus to remain polygamous after becoming Christians? If so, would they have been required to continue having sex with all of their wives too?

I think the early church leaders would have considered the only proper thing for them to have done after converting would have been to become celibate, live separately, but care for & provide well for the wives and children praying fervently that all would be converted.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 18, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Are you saying that those who had multiple wives were required by Jesus to remain polygamous after becoming Christians? If so, would they have been required to continue having sex with all of their wives too?



Jesus requires: "let your yea be yea." In other words, stick to your promises and vows. Sin complicates things, but you cannot undo sin to get to some state of "purity." (Note, I am not going down the path of Ezra commanding divorce from non-Israelites--that was a unique circumstance, and God allows but does not command divorce from nonbelievers initiating divorce.)



> I think the early church leaders would have considered the only proper thing for them to have done after converting would have been to become celibate, live separately, but care for & provide well for the wives and children praying fervently that all would be converted.



Early church leaders had a lot of things not well thought through.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 18, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> Jesus requires: "let your yea be yea." In other words, stick to your promises and vows. Sin complicates things, but you cannot undo sin to get to some state of "purity." (Note, I am not going down the path of Ezra commanding divorce from non-Israelites--that was a unique circumstance, and God allows but does not command divorce from nonbelievers initiating divorce.)
> 
> 
> 
> Early church leaders had a lot of things not well thought through.



Thank your for your time. Lord's blessings to you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 18, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> ---Does this argument check out? If sombody gave you this argument stating that polygamy was not sin, how would you respond?



You wrote:

"Dear Pergummum,

Am I missing something?

You keep saying, "God commanded".

When God commands it is a sin to disobey.

So if you are not a polygamist are you disobeying God?

Silly question right?

Well, if someone decides to be a polygamist because they want to be without God commanding them, then are they doing what God commands?

But where does God command polygamy or ethnic cleansing other than the RARE occasions in rare circumstances in scripture? or in situations that were clearly for the Jews and for those times?

Therefore, polygamy is a sin now and has been for a very long time!

No polygamist today can claim that God commanded them to be a Polygamist."


---

I respond:

Yes, somebody (2 people actually) have given me this exact argument. One guy was a crackpot, but the other was a pretty reasonable guy.

And yes, God COMMANDED the Levirate marriage, and therefore, God commanded polygyny (multiple wives) in this specific case-law. So yes, if you do not take the dead brother's wife and ty to produce seed, then you are disobeying God. In that context.

You wrote: "Well, if someone decides to be a polygamist because they want to be without God commanding them, then are they doing what God commands?"

That is a good reply. Even if I were to say, ok, yes, God commanded it in the case of the Levirate, I can always then respond, "But he hasn't commanded you." Just like in the case of ethnic cleansing. It might have been okay in the case of an explicit command, and even sin NOT to do it in that case, but we do not expect that command ever to be repeated and, therefore, all cases of ethnic cleansing (and polygyny) now can be seen as sin.

Thanks, that seems to be the best way to respond.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You wrote:
> 
> "Dear Pergummum,
> 
> ...



Dear Pergummum,

A Pastor once told me that God uses examples of polygamy through scripture to show all the heartbreaks and heartaches it causes.

He of course knew the OT like the back of his hand and was able to go through countless examples of grief and strife in amazing ways.

He made so much sense, and said the wise should be able to discern from scripture the blessings God imparts to TRUE ONE FLESH marriages between 1 man and 1 woman.

Sadly, I can't do his teaching any justice. It was beautiful.

Have you heard this before?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 18, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Dear Pergummum,
> 
> A Pastor once told me that God uses examples of polygamy through scripture to show all the heartbreaks and heartaches it causes.
> 
> ...


Yes. Just as God gave us laws on slavery, the OT examples of slavery show us the misery this brings. We should not bring it back if we can eliminate it in the world (which we've mostly done, except in Libya right now). 

God mitigates the evil and regulates it for a time beefore he does away with it totally in history through the Gospel. 

So slavery and war and polygamy, and maybe even a form of the Levirate, all existed in ancient Israel and so God puts down laws to make it less evil. It was a condescension and a permission, not a positive command to start doing it, but regulations upon a practice already being done (until such a time the practice was to be elininated once and for all). 

Thanks for your interaction. You and Bruce have been helpful.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Yes. Just as God gave us laws on slavery, the OT examples of slavery show us the misery this brings. We should not bring it back if we can eliminate it in the world (which we've mostly done, except in Libya right now).
> 
> God mitigates the evil and regulates it for a time beefore he does away with it totally in history through the Gospel.
> 
> ...



Wow! Well spoken examples, especially regarding slavery. I have not been gifted with a good memory for scripture, or the ability to see it like a "fly over" as so many I know are able to. I have to really struggle constantly looking things up. Ugh. But I see you are blessed with those gifts and put them to good use. Lord's blessings to you.


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 18, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> Jesus requires: "let your yea be yea." In other words, stick to your promises and vows. Sin complicates things, but you cannot undo sin to get to some state of "purity." (Note, I am not going down the path of Ezra commanding divorce from non-Israelites--that was a unique circumstance, and God allows but does not command divorce from nonbelievers initiating divorce.



So maybe it would be equivalent to not making the sin (polygamy) worse by sinning more (divorce)? It almost reminds me of the command to avoid being unequally yoked, but if already married to an unbeliever you shouldn't seek divorce [edited: I see you you made that connection on your parenthetical]


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 20, 2019)

Charles Johnson said:


> Ok. I stand corrected.



It's good to remember that some of our brothers have retained this teaching, but it's also worth noting that those two denominations combined only have 15 churches. 

I think the basic point still stands: virtually all American Presbyterian denominations have rejected that line.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 20, 2019)

Steven Dilday discusses polygamy and Levirate marriage, as well as marriages of affinity in the following lectures. I don't recall the ones where he discusses polygamy, but he comes to an interesting conclusion that it was always forbidden in the Law: 
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....SpeakerOnly=true&includekeywords=&ExactVerse=


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 20, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> Steven Dilday discusses polygamy and Levirate marriage, as well as marriages of affinity in the following lectures. I don't recall the ones where he discusses polygamy, but he comes to an interesting conclusion that it was always forbidden in the Law:
> https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?subsetitem=WCF+24:+Marriage+and+Divorce&subsetcat=series&keyword=Pastor_Steven_Dilday&SpeakerOnly=true&includekeywords=&ExactVerse=


Listening to SD convinced me (exegetically) that Lev.18:18 was a prohibition of polygamy. That it did not come with a particular penalty probably made it simpler for those who study excuses, or simply conform to the world, to give themselves a pass. Those who so married were married even to multiple wives; but God demanded that they follow other regulation, such as supply of proper maintenance and the unlawfulness of arbitrarily denying the proper firstborn of his right, on account that his father hated his mother (Dt.21:17).

I have still reservations on the matter of v16, combined with the "exception" of Levirate marriage. As one commentator says, "The prohibition here could not be based upon the ground of incest, since that which is inherently incestuous the Divine law itself would under no circumstances have set aside." That seems utterly obvious to me, and so entangles us in the question of under what circumstances "affinities" (in-law relations) persist beyond the deaths of key individuals; i.e. what is referred to as "indirect affinity" (as opposed to "direct affinity," which imposes natural, lasting moral duties via the marriage relation, and which overthrow violates those duties).

Levirate situations, being a matter of indirect affinity, verge toward the interplay of civil polity and the moral question. In one case it was denied in ancient Israel, in another case it was ordained. We may compare it to the matter of first-cousin marriage: in certain polities (in the USA, variously by state) a limit may be observed; but it is not the same in every legal jurisdiction. Thus, another commentator observes, "It is not to be supposed that the more remote of the prohibited degrees were among the abominations for which the Canaanites were to be cut off." Those people had abandoned all restraint.

In sum, 1. I am convinced (as I stated) on the prohibition of polygamy; its needful regulation being a matter of "hardness of heart." 2. I maintain my original position (stated in an earlier post) that levirate-marriage differed legally from ordinary marriage and from polygamy (as well as from concubinage, but in this thing men only invent cover for their multiplied marriage and status violations). 3. I am not presently persuaded that indirect affinity as it was regulated in Israel falls into the same category of moral responsibility covered by consanguinity and direct affinity.

I further believe that the laws and customs of various civil polities are to be observed, when they do not violate the moral law (even if they extend the prohibitions beyond ancient Israelite limits). In this one particular, I am perfectly aligned with Calvin,


> Since from long custom it is established that cousins-german [close or first cousins] should not marry, we must beware of giving scandal lest too unbridled a liberty should expose the Gospel to much reproach; and we must bear in mind Paul's admonition, to abstain even from things lawful when they are not expedient.


He is commenting on Lev.18, and notes that ancient Israel did not prohibit such unions, but throughout Europe (under church law) for a long time they were. It was a widespread social more to regard them as "too close" (incestuous). So Christians should be careful about the terms wherein they might stand on any claim to this liberty.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------

