• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

When bringing up the subject of PM, what's the first verse you would use?

Mojo said:
isegesis will lead them to assuming each if the brothers in Matthew were bachelors waiting their turn to be married to the same gal.
Click to expand...
True, and yet I don't believe a reasonable person can come to the above conclusion because (1) polygamy was obviously practiced in Old Testament and (2) none of the many references to Levirate marriage stipulate the marriage status of the man who is required to marry his brother's wife - this just means it's unreasonable to say "the man must be single" because God simple never says that. But here's what's amazing about Levirate marriage...

It shows how much God deeply cares about the future and well being of women - without Levirate marriage she may have been a widow the rest of her life forced to move back in with her parents or worse, kicked to the street. But by having children, and carrying on her former husband's name, she likely gets to keep the land, keep the farm, have a more free legal status and her children will marry and care for her in her old age, etc. (I don't have links to show this is historically true so your mileage may vary.)

Maybe even more amazing is that God didn't make exceptions for the new brother-husband! In other words, it doesn't matter if the new brother is busy, just got back from war, is already married, doesn't have a lot of money, or other complications - God is indicating the vulnerable woman MUST be cared for, not left out on the street, not forsaken, not without a future. Again, this shows how much priority God gives to strengthening and caring for women and other at-risk people.

All the best,

--JAG

PS. This also means brothers can't be all strung out on credit, with no money in the bank: They need to be prepared and ready to care for their brother's wife should something happen to their brother. Maybe like the Good Samaritan who had "extra" time to stop & help the beat up guy, and "extra" money in his pocket to give the inn keeper. I aspire to build more margin into my life (time-wise and financially) to be able to care for more people more frequently as God brings them into my life, marriage or not.
 
Last edited:
JustAGuy said:
True, and yet I don't believe a reasonable person can come to the above conclusion because (1) polygamy was obviously practiced in Old Testament and (2) none of the many references to Levirate marriage stipulate the marriage status of the man who is required to marry his brother's wife - this just means it's unreasonable to say "the man must be single" because God simple never says that. But here's what's amazing about Levirate marriage...

It shows how much God deeply cares about the future and well being of women - without Levirate marriage she may have been a widow the rest of her life forced to move back in with her parents or worse, kicked to the street. But by having children, and carrying on her former husband's name, she likely gets to keep the land, keep the farm, have a more free legal status and her children will marry and care for her in her old age, etc. (I don't have links to show this is historically true so your mileage may vary.)

Maybe even more amazing is that God didn't make exceptions for the new brother-husband! In other words, it doesn't matter if the new brother is busy, just got back from war, is already married, doesn't have a lot of money, or other complications - God is indicating the vulnerable woman MUST be cared for, not left out on the street, not forsaken, not without a future. Again, this shows how much priority God gives to strengthening and caring for women and other at-risk people.

All the best,

--JAG

PS. This also means brothers can't be all strung out on credit, with no money in the bank: They need to be prepared and ready to care for their brother's wife should something happen to their brother. Maybe like the Good Samaritan who had "extra" time to stop & help the beat up guy, and "extra" money in his pocket to give the inn keeper. I aspire to build more margin into my life (time-wise and financially) to be able to care for more people more frequently as God brings them into my life, marriage or not.
Click to expand...
You and I are speaking the same language, but the monos may say that this narrative is in the New Testament where poly is largely silent. It isn't specifically poly and there don't seem to be many or any instances of levirate poly. Not arguing with you, but the OP was about first verses to use, not support verses. I love these verses you've given, but it seems it's a stretch to use for a "first timer" conversation.
Blessings
 
This is a good verse for Levirate responsibilities, though for the average believer they will read right past it unaware.

1 Tim 5:16. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

How can a living man have a widow? And if he does, why is it his responsibility? Culturally we understand that the next of kin or near kin would provide for widowed women in their own immediate family. Mothers, aunts, sisters etc if necessary.
The disconnect comes when our culture doesnt recognize the responsibility for a man to provide for his brothers widows is just as righteous as providing for his father or uncles widows. A Levir marriage could be a sexless marriage if the brother already had a male issue and the widow was content to remain without sex.
 
Also 1 Cor 7:39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

This one is also a Levir passage. The widow is allowed to marry whoever she likes, as long as it’s in the family. The Levir responsibility fell to the next of kin male. However, she still had a lot of wiggle room built into the custom as is evidenced by the story of Ruth.

Hate to post and run, but I think I hear my responsibilities calling.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
This is a good verse for Levirate responsibilities, though for the average believer they will read right past it unaware.

1 Tim 5:16. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

How can a living man have a widow? And if he does, why is it his responsibility? Culturally we understand that the next of kin or near kin would provide for widowed women in their own immediate family. Mothers, aunts, sisters etc if necessary.
The disconnect comes when our culture doesnt recognize the responsibility for a man to provide for his brothers widows is just as righteous as providing for his father or uncles widows. A Levir marriage could be a sexless marriage if the brother already had a male issue and the widow was content to remain without sex.
Click to expand...
It absolutely could not. The whole point of the Levirate marriage was to bring up an heir for your brother. It had nothing to do with providing for widows. The verse you quote also has nothing to do with marriage and especially not Levirate marriage. You can provide for widows and orphans without having sex with them.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Also 1 Cor 7:39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

This one is also a Levir passage. The widow is allowed to marry whoever she likes, as long as it’s in the family.
Click to expand...
I would like to see this backed up? Where is she restricted to marry in her husband's family?
 
ZecAustin said:
It absolutely could not. The whole point of the Levirate marriage was to bring up an heir for your brother. It had nothing to do with providing for widows. The verse you quote also has nothing to do with marriage and especially not Levirate marriage. You can provide for widows and orphans without having sex with them.
Click to expand...

But you can also provide for them by marrying them.
 
I agree with @ZecAustin that the Levirate law only technically applies when there were no male offspring and the purpose of it was to provide a male heir, the provision for the woman was technically only a byproduct of that.

Nevertheless, I think these passages do still relate. Whenever those widows had no male children, then the Levirate law most certainly applies - so we can confidently say that at least a subset of the widows referred to in the New Testament were subject to the Levirate law, and that these passages reiterate these responsibilities (although they may add additional responsibilities also by stating that all widows should be provided for rather than only some).

I think that the Levirate law itself also fits into a culture where widows needed provision, regardless of whether they had children already, and so would be likely to be often married by someone else in the family anyway or a neighbour as a charitable act if nothing else. The Levirate law makes this mandatory in a subset of circumstances - but that doesn't mean it wasn't also seen as a generally good thing in a wider set of circumstances. The New Testament examples affirm this wider set of circumstances.
 
FollowingHim said:
the purpose of it was to provide a male heir, the provision for the woman was technically only a byproduct of that.
Click to expand...
I believe that outside of modern Western culture, a male child is provision. He will provide for his parents; to avoid this responsibility is nearly unthinkable. The Southeast Asian folk I've met are quite clear on this point anyway.
 
ZecAustin said:
It absolutely could not. The whole point of the Levirate marriage was to bring up an heir for your brother. It had nothing to do with providing for widows. The verse you quote also has nothing to do with marriage and especially not Levirate marriage. You can provide for widows and orphans without having sex with them.
Click to expand...
I think Paul rightly leans on the principle of Levirate marriage to care for the widows within the fledgling household of faith. Much like Hebrew roots believers today, I suspect many had lost family relations over faith in Yeshua. Paul was advising family to care for family.
 
ZecAustin said:
I would like to see this backed up? Where is she restricted to marry in her husband's family?
Click to expand...
Deuteronomy 25:5. . . . . The wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger.

Also the story of Ruth. Her husbands brother was dead and Naomi had no other sons. Boaz was not the closest blood relation to her husband but was at least twice removed from that status. And yet he was still considered a kinsman redeemer.

EDIT. After checking Josephus, he states that if the kinsman refuses, and she loosens his shoe, that she is free to marry whom she pleases.
 
ZecAustin said:
The whole point of the Levirate marriage was to bring up an heir for your brother. It had nothing to do with providing for widows.
Click to expand...

You are entirely correct, and then entirely wrong. The whole point was to bring up an heir for your brother whether or not you had to help out with the pregnancy part. This is where the whole widows and orphans phrases comes from. You were not obligated specifically for a widow or orphan outside your family, but were specifically obligated to care for family until your nephew came of age. And both were only obligated to provide one heir. (See Genesis 38). IF it was agreeable to both parties, more children could legitimately come of the union and would be considered the living brothers progeny. Deut 25:6

It’s also why the man in 1 Tim was specifically responsible for his widows.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Deuteronomy 25:5. . . . . The wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger.
Click to expand...

What is the Hebrew for stranger? On first glance the use seems to mean 'foreigner.' If so, she has much more latitude, though I would agree the immediate family or near relative is preferred.
 
I popped open Josephus last night to see what he had on it.

That was good and bad. He did confirm within the family unless the shoe had to be loosened, but I’d forgotten how much commentary he had on the Torah. Now I need to reread it again as it’s been several years since I finished it and I know so much more now to look for.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Deuteronomy 25:5. . . . . The wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger.

Also the story of Ruth. Her husbands brother was dead and Naomi had no other sons. Boaz was not the closest blood relation to her husband but was at least twice removed from that status. And yet he was still considered a kinsman redeemer.

EDIT. After checking Josephus, he states that if the kinsman refuses, and she loosens his shoe, that she is free to marry whom she pleases.
Click to expand...
Deuteronomy 25:5 only applies to Levitate marriage, a rather limited case. Normally widows would not be so constrained.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
You are entirely correct, and then entirely wrong. The whole point was to bring up an heir for your brother whether or not you had to help out with the pregnancy part. This is where the whole widows and orphans phrases comes from. You were not obligated specifically for a widow or orphan outside your family, but were specifically obligated to care for family until your nephew came of age. And both were only obligated to provide one heir. (See Genesis 38). IF it was agreeable to both parties, more children could legitimately come of the union and would be considered the living brothers progeny. Deut 25:6

It’s also why the man in 1 Tim was specifically responsible for his widows.
Click to expand...
This is a total load of garden fertilizer. Remembering the widows and orphans is a literal Law given to all believers; men and women. Where do you come up with this stuff? One of the controversies in the early church came about because of a disagreement about the general care for widows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top