• 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.

Poly Practised Elsewhere

MemeFan said:
Can we move this post to thread "Poly Practiced Elsewhere"?

Thread exist as archive for all such info. If post stay here seekers of additional info probably won't find it.
Click to expand...
Done, including subsequent discussion.
 
Just trying to wrap my head around this:
Bartato said:
I believe you are mistaken Steve. You seem to be assuming that "brother's wife" in Leviticus 20 verse 21 only refers to the present wife of a living brother, not his widow,.or divorced ex-wife.
Click to expand...
Joleneakamama said:
There is a verse that prohibits marrying your brother's or uncle's woman....assumed to be a former wife, as in divorced, or otherwise this is redundant.
Click to expand...
As obviously "brother's wife" doesn't mean his current wife, as that is prohibited anyway, everyone is applying this only to brother's ex-wife:

@Bartato believes "brother's wife" means brother's widow OR divorcee - any woman who has once been the brother's wife.

@Joleneakamama believes "brother's wife" means brother's divorcee, but not brother's widow. On the logic that "wife" actually means "woman belonging to a man", and a woman cannot belong to a dead man - but a divorced woman still belongs to her former husband so is still "his woman". Have I stated your reasoning correctly @Joleneakamama?

If I've got that correct, please clarify why you class a divorced woman as still belonging to her former husband - still being "his woman". Surely a divorce (not just putting away, a correctly executed divorce) makes her completely free as per Deuteronomy 24:2, free to remarry. So she is no longer "his woman".

I cannot see how, scripturally, a divorced woman maintains more connection to her former husband than a widow does. I can see how your logic works (there's a difference between a live man and a dead man), but I can't see that distinction in scripture. As far as I can tell, this argument is itself adding to scripture - just what you are accusing @Bartato of doing.

Given there is no relevant scriptural distinction given between widows and divorcees that I can see, is it not more reasonable to take the consistent approach that @Bartato has taken and apply this prohibition to both?
 
Last edited:
FollowingHim said:
If I've got that correct, please clarify why you class a divorced woman as still belonging to her former husband - still being "his woman". Surely a divorce (not just putting away, a correctly executed divorce) makes her completely free as per Deuteronomy 24:2, free to remarry. So she is no longer "his woman".
Click to expand...

Even today people use "my" when referring to an ex. I've heard it a lot. I'm not sure what that verse would have read like in Hebrew.
FollowingHim said:
Given there is no relevant scriptural distinction given between widows and divorcees that I can see, is it not more reasonable to take the consistent approach that @Bartato has taken and apply this prohibition to both?
Click to expand...
It may be.
The instruction on not marrying the woman is specific to the husband's brother. She is free to marry other men if divorced. My dad's mom divorced my grandpa and married his brother. I can't remember if it was before or after he died (I was 3) but my grandma had four sons so leverite marriage it was not.
The judgement is that it is wicked and they shall die childless. A deterrent for sure if you like and want children.
 
It is arbitrary and unreasonable to deduce what the Writer of the Bible means by what He doesn’t say.

Possible scenario: A husband destroys his family, one way or another, and his brother chooses to marry the woman as a sister wife, bringing the children into his family.
Fulfilling the Acts recommendation that the younger widows marry, while keeping extended family together.
(The word for widow does not specify the death of a husband, just that she was bereft of one)
 
steve said:
It is arbitrary and unreasonable to deduce what the Writer of the Bible means by what He doesn’t say.

Possible scenario: A husband destroys his family, one way or another, and his brother chooses to marry the woman as a sister wife, bringing the children into his family.
Fulfilling the Acts recommendation that the younger widows marry, while keeping extended family together.
(The word for widow does not specify the death of a husband, just that she was bereft of one)
Click to expand...
But then how do you understand Lev. 20:21?
What is wicked? Any man's wife is already forbidden and adultery, so why specifically talk about the brother's woman?
 
Joleneakamama said:
But then how do you understand Lev. 20:21?
What is wicked? Any man's wife is already forbidden and adultery, so why specifically talk about the brother's woman?
Click to expand...
I can only assume, and that is all that we are doing here, is that to take your brother’s wife from him is not only sin, but an especially wicked sin.
 
steve said:
I can only assume, and that is all that we are doing here, is that to take your brother’s wife from him is not only sin, but an especially wicked sin.
Click to expand...
I doubt we would have such detailed instructions if the take-home-message was that minor and near meaningless.
 
steve said:
I can only assume, and that is all that we are doing here, is that to take your brother’s wife from him is not only sin, but an especially wicked sin.
Click to expand...
But if the woman and man are divorced then they are NOT married and she is free to have a different husband(even ex's brother). To be "ex" is to be divorced. To be separated and not divorced is to be put away but still married. Divorce grants her freedom.
 
Maddog said:
But if the woman and man are divorced then they are NOT married and she is free to have a different husband(even ex's brother). To be "ex" is to be divorced. To be separated and not divorced is to be put away but still married. Divorce grants her freedom.
Click to expand...
One thing to consider in that equation is that, otherwise, a man would have the power to consign his woman to a life of abject loneliness and poverty just by putting her away.
 
Keith Martin said:
One thing to consider in that equation is that, otherwise, a man would have the power to consign his woman to a life of abject loneliness and poverty just by putting her away.
Click to expand...
maybe, if he has the Tower of London to "store" her in or the power of a monarch to decree such loneliness. Other than that, natural desires will get in the way and she will join another with or without a divorce. Women have libido too if they are healthy.
 
Maddog said:
maybe, if he has the Tower of London to "store" her in or the power of a monarch to decree such loneliness. Other than that, natural desires will get in the way and she will join another with or without a divorce. Women have libido too if they are healthy.
Click to expand...
Economics may have been more the driving factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top