• 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.

The duty of marriage. What is it?

V

Verifyveritas76

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Deu 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

I've always heard it said that the marital duty that shall not be diminished is the physical intimacy. I've had questions about it for a while and couldn't find anything conclusive other than it wasn't to be diminished to the first wife.

Does anybody else have something solid to refer me to? Extra biblical is ok. Preferably something pre 3rd century or ?
 
It seems that the brothers duty in the passage above, though it involves intercourse, is specifically to provide her with a son.
 
The word for "duty of a husbands brother" (yabam, Strongs H2992) has no relation to the "duty of marriage" not to be diminished mentioned in Exodus 21:10 (onah, H5772). Both are translated in the KJV using the English word "duty", but that is a bit of a red herring, in the Hebrew the words are completely different. Each could theoretically mean something entirely different.

The "duty of a husband's brother" is clearly to provide an heir, which obviously involves sexual intercourse to get there but isn't the duty in itself, as you point out.

The "duty of marriage" H5772 only appears in Exodus 21:10 so the meaning isn't able to be clarified from other verses, lexicons seem to define it as "habitation", presumably meaning living together. The LXX translates it "homilia" meaning "companionship, intercourse, communion". This appears once in the New Testament as "communications", 1 Corinthians 15:33. This would imply, but not require, sexual intercourse. As far as I can see it probably refers quite generally to companionship, sex, and everything in between.
 
Dr. William Luck believes that Exodus 21:10 defines the expectations of a husband in marriage: food, clothing, and conjugal rights. Even though this passage is referring to the treatment of a concubine when another woman is taken, it isn't a hard jump to see these as expectations for a husband relating to his non-slave wife too.

While I think the focus of Deuteronomy 25:5 is providing an heir for the brother, we would be remiss to overlook that the living brother took his deceased brother's woman to be his own. While the primary purpose might be to provide an heir for his brother, by taking the woman to be his own, the living brother seems to have other duties as well: food, clothing, and conjugal rights.
 
I'm not aware of any duties or responsibilities if the deceased brother already had a son. I understand it that she was free to marry another man, and her child would have been expected, had he been old enough, to help care for her.

On this topic and prior to the Law we see this "duty of a husband's brother" being played out:

Genesis 38:6 Judah took a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Yahweh. Yahweh killed him. 8 Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her, and raise up seed to your brother." 9 Onan knew that the seed wouldn't be his; and it happened, when he went in to his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. 10 The thing which he did was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and he killed him also. 11 Then Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law, "Remain a widow in your father's house, until Shelah, my son, is grown up;" for he said, "Lest he also die, like his brothers." Tamar went and lived in her father's house.

Of course, the outcome of this story is Judah impregnating Tamar and twins Perez and Zerah being born.
 
That is my take on it.
I find it interesting that if it were just to fulfill physical intimacy, there would be no need for Onan to die.
I also found it interesting that Judah in effect put her away. I believe that he took care of her but considered that his kinsman role sexually was fulfilled.

That, along with the attitude of Samuels mothers, and Leah & Rachel, leads me to wonder if the contractual duty does not consist more along the lines of a promise to provide children to take away reproach. I.e. that if you weren't having children, it was assumed that you were not finding favor with your Adonai, thus a reproach publicly.

A better way to look at it may be that if you were childless, it was assumed as evidence that your Adonai had privily put you away and hoped for reconciliation rather than a public putting away or writing of divorcement and sending you back to your fathers house.

The opposite side of the coin would be the idea that if the wife desired to please her Adonai by fellowship as well as a helpmeet to him to the best of her ability, submissive, honoring, and loving, the natural outflow of that would result in a Prov 31 mother who is recognized by the resulting children as being blessed - not by them - by her Adonai.
 
Kind of reminds you of the relationship between our Adonai and his bride.

If you apply yourself to the relationship in a manner that is honoring to Him, the natural result is the outflowing of the fruits of the Spirit whereby you would be considered publicly as being blessed - finding favor with ADONAI and Adonai. Fail to walk worthy of the 'calling' and you may find yourself on the shelf. Shamed before Him and able to present nothing of yourself but wood hay & stubble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top