Thoughts on levirate marriage

[Aaron_D]

I understand that the levirate marriage law provided for widows after their husband died by giving them a covering. But some other aspects of the levirate marriage law seem strange to me.

Like the brother's first son with the widow counting as the deceased mans son. I don’t see why someone would want that.

If I died without any children I wouldn’t care if my brother had a son on my behalf. Because my nephew is not actually my son even if he would be legally considered to be descended from me. And if I was a child born in that situation, I don’t think that I would consider my dead uncle to be my father. I would just consider my biological father to be my father.



I am also not sure why it is wrong for a widow to marry into a different family after her husband dies. If the brother of the deceased found a man that wanted to marry the widow, why could that not be a substitute for the brother’s obligation to cover her?

I know that if I had a brother who died I would rather that his widow marry someone who actually wanted to be with her rather than being forced to marry me because of an obligation.


I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on why God made this law.

 

[FollowingHim]

Like the brother's first son with the widow counting as the deceased mans son. I don’t see why someone would want that.

It's about inheritance. This means that there is a man who is the official heir of the dead man, and receives his property, and possibly his tribal position. This would make a lot of sense in some circumstances.

I am also not sure why it is wrong for a widow to marry into a different family after her husband dies. If the brother of the deceased found a man that wanted to marry the widow, why could that not be a substitute for the brother’s obligation to cover her?

Again, it's about inheritance. If the dead man's assets go to his wife and then to her new husband, and the new husband is outside of the tribe, those assets have just been lost to the tribe. Marrying the brother keeps the assets in the tribe.

 

[Maia]

Regulating inheritance is what lawyers are paid for. Automatically marrying a deceased husbands brother? Nooooooo.

 

[paterfamilias]

Regulating inheritance is what lawyers are paid for. Automatically marrying a deceased husbands brother? Nooooooo.

Legal complications and what not is also one of the refuges of the secular people I have debated time and again on plyg-life. Apparently much of the motivation behind it originally being shunned by the crotchety old Romans.
Part of why I like the idea of trusts

 

[frederick]

I understand that the levirate marriage law provided for widows after their husband died by giving them a covering. But some other aspects of the levirate marriage law seem strange to me.

Like the brother's first son with the widow counting as the deceased mans son. I don’t see why someone would want that.

If I died without any children I wouldn’t care if my brother had a son on my behalf. Because my nephew is not actually my son even if he would be legally considered to be descended from me. And if I was a child born in that situation, I don’t think that I would consider my dead uncle to be my father. I would just consider my biological father to be my father.



I am also not sure why it is wrong for a widow to marry into a different family after her husband dies. If the brother of the deceased found a man that wanted to marry the widow, why could that not be a substitute for the brother’s obligation to cover her?

I know that if I had a brother who died I would rather that his widow marry someone who actually wanted to be with her rather than being forced to marry me because of an obligation.


I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on why God made this law.

This can be difficult to understand without a knowledge of the foundation and structure of the nation of Israel. Each person was part of a tribe, and that tribe was allotted a portion of the Land. As @FollowingHim has correctly stated, ...

Again, it's about inheritance. If the dead man's assets go to his wife and then to her new husband, and the new husband is outside of the tribe, those assets have just been lost to the tribe. Marrying the brother keeps the assets in the tribe.

The land was to remain within the tribe to which God allotted the land and Levirate marriage was part of the means to ensure it did so. Neither me nor any of my family own land in Israel so it's not an issue for us. Cheers

 

[Bartato]

This can be difficult to understand without a knowledge of the foundation and structure of the nation of Israel. Each person was part of a tribe, and that tribe was allotted a portion of the Land. As @FollowingHim has correctly stated, ...


The land was to remain within the tribe to which God allotted the land and Levirate marriage was part of the means to ensure it did so. Neither me nor any of my family own land in Israel so it's not an issue for us. Cheers

I think you are largely correct, but I'm wondering about something.

We see the principal of something like levirate marriage in Genesis with Tamar, Er, Onan, Judah, Perez, and Zerah.

This is prior to the Law being given to Moses at Sinai and the tribes being given their allotted lands.

I still tend to think that it doesn't directly apply to us today, but I wonder a bit.

Perhaps it applied to Judah and his family because they were a part of the people who were to inherit the land in the future.

 

[Bartato]

I understand that the levirate marriage law provided for widows after their husband died by giving them a covering. But some other aspects of the levirate marriage law seem strange to me.

Covering the widow does not seem to be the primary concern here. Providing an heir for the deceased man is the point.

 

[Bartato]

Regulating inheritance is what lawyers are paid for. Automatically marrying a deceased husbands brother? Nooooooo.

The law only applied when the original couple was childless. Otherwise the widow could not marry the brother of the deceased.

The law is from God and it is good, though I don't think we are required to observe it today.

If a woman was worried about this, I guess she should have made sure to marry a man whose brothers weren't horrible.

 

[Mark C]

Yes, @FollowingHim is correct - it's largely about inheritance. (Never assume, however, that because we see A reason that it is His ONLY reason.)

I think you are largely correct, but I'm wondering about something.

We see the principal of something like levirate marriage in Genesis with Tamar, Er, Onan, Judah, Perez, and Zerah.

This is prior to the Law being given to Moses at Sinai and the tribes being given their allotted lands...

Perhaps at least part of the point in Scripture is that many of the "men of Yah" knew His Instruction (see "Noach," too) long before it was called the 'law of Moses.'


But don't overlook the fact that WHATEVER His reason:

It was serious enough that He took out BOTH of Judah's sons (first Er, then Onan) for rebellion to Him.

 

[Bartato]

Perhaps at least part of the point in Scripture is that many of the "men of Yah" knew His Instruction (see "Noach," too) long before it was called the 'law of Moses.'

The patriarchs definitely understood a great deal about how God wanted people to live prior to the Law being given at Sinai.

"For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” (Genesis 18:19 esv)

Joseph also understood that adultery was a very great crime in the sight of the Lord.

Even Abimelech (probably not a follower of YAHWEH) understood the law of marriage.

It was serious enough that He took out BOTH of Judah's sons (first Er, then Onan) for rebellion to Him.

It seems like the Lord killed Onan for refusing to fulfill the levirate law (while still enjoying Er's widow). That's pretty serious.

Judah also seems to believe Tamar was somehow right to trick him into providing an heir himself.

 

[Aaron_D]

Again, it's about inheritance. If the dead man's assets go to his wife and then to her new husband, and the new husband is outside of the tribe, those assets have just been lost to the tribe. Marrying the brother keeps the assets in the tribe.

Do the dead mans assets go to his wife? I thought that only men in Israel owned land, so why would the property be attached to the widow?

Covering the widow does not seem to be the primary concern here. Providing an heir for the deceased man is the point.

Why does the heir need to specifically come from the widow?

This can be difficult to understand without a knowledge of the foundation and structure of the nation of Israel. Each person was part of a tribe, and that tribe was allotted a portion of the Land. As @FollowingHim has correctly stated, ...


The land was to remain within the tribe to which God allotted the land and Levirate marriage was part of the means to ensure it did so. Neither me nor any of my family own land in Israel so it's not an issue for us. Cheers

If the living brother just inherited the land from his deceased brother then the inheritance would be kept within the same tribe without any need for the widow to be involved.

 

[Aaron_D]

Thank you to everyone who answered my questions. I have a few more.

If the levirate law was primarily for inheritance purposes, does that mean that the mans relationship with the first born son from the widow would be the same as with his other children? The only difference being that the first born son from the widow would have the legal inheritance rights to his uncle’s property instead of his father’s?



What is the disadvantage of someone having a son who counts as a descendant of their deceased brother for inheritance purposes? It seems like it could be a good thing. someone’s firstborn son with the widow would inherit different property so that the man’s other sons would not have to split the inheritance from their father with the son of the widow. I am not sure why Onan and Ruth’s kinsmen redeemer would be against having a son who would inherit their brother’s property instead of their own.

 

[FollowingHim]

Do the dead mans assets go to his wife? I thought that only men in Israel owned land, so why would the property be attached to the widow?

Women could certainly inherit property - when there was no male heir, the property went to a female heir. This is clearly spelt out in the law. The Israelites encountered this early on - Zelophehad had no sons, only daughters (Numbers 26:33). God commanded that they be given an inheritance (Numbers 27), and that when any man has no sons his property goes to the daughters. But it was then further commanded that, to ensure the property remained in the tribe, any daughter inheriting property had to marry within the tribe (Numbers 36).

Wives were not explicitly said to inherit property - Numbers 27 gives the priority of inheritance, and it goes sons - daughters - brothers - uncles - nearest male kinsman. So you would initially think the dead man's assets may not go to his wife. However, in the book of Ruth, it appears that Elimelech's land, after his sons died, now belonged to his wife Naomi (Ruth 4:3), at least temporarily until Ruth's marriage determined which relative it would go to.

But really, the dead man's assets are to ultimately go to a son. And the wife's son by his brother is deemed to be his son, so the assets go to his son, not the wife.

However, for the ~20 years until that son is a man, the assets will in practice belong to the wife, or the brother the wife has married (at least, one of them will be living in the house, managing the farm or whatever). And then, if he's raised in another tribe, the son will effectively be functioning as a member of another tribe. And if she turns out to be infertile and never actually has a son, they'll keep managing them indefinitely, it would be hard to get them back if she married outside the tribe. Lots of ways this could get complex. So marrying within the tribe would keep things much simpler.

 

[paterfamilias]

To throw in an off beat distraction to the conversation as is my normal want...

Stop rolling your eyes, you have not even heard it yet.

Every time I check to see what new remarks have popped up in conversations I am reading and I see this topic in the list I am treated with a peculiar mental inversion of the title and that I I am going asked to offer Thoughts on levitate marriage"

My flight of fancy goes to three woman in a sleepover scenario in pajamas with the detritus of snacks and monkeying with makeup in the background. One is lying on the floor rigid while the other two are on each side with their hands just under the presumably new wife, chanting "light as a feather, stiff as a board".

In this silly scene I have in my mind I walk in, raise an eyebrow and then just head back downstairs to report to the group... Ha, I told you mine were weirder than yours" and yes, that is a bit of a flex

 

[IndianaLife]

Like the brother's first son with the widow counting as the deceased mans son. I don’t see why someone would want that.

Because family is family. I'm not keeping a scorecard of how many biological children I can crank out. My stepfather raised me; I've never met my biological father. I consider my step-father my dad and my father my biological contributor.