Here we go with the outside sources again. Josephus can't "confirm" something that's not there.
-
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?
I assume you’re referring to Levirate marriage, not Levitate marriage. To recap, I posted some verses regarding Levirate marriage in the New Testament, you asked for proof and I provided a verse specifically dealing with Levirate marriage/responsibilities. I’m confused where the problem lies.
You mentioned that normally widows would not be so constrained. I’m assuming you are referring to them having to marry within their husbands family and biblical culture?
If so, perhaps you would clarify what you’re saying there and provide proof as well as thats not something I’m aware of.
The passage in 1 Timothy speaks of how a man or woman was responsible to care for their own widows and not to burden the church with something they should have been normally taking care of. The church apparently had women who had no one to care for them and that was the responsibility of the assembly in general to care for. You are confusing a general responsibility for a specific responsibility.
I was commenting earlier on a mans specific responsibility to care for his own widows, hence the link with the kinsman redeemer/Levirate marriage.
Speaking of garden fertilizer. . . . .
There's no connection between caring for widows and orphans and marriage. That's Bizarr-O world stuff. We are commanded to care for widows and orphans. We are commanded to raise up an heir for dead brothers if they don't have one. There is no connection between the two. Yes, it's possible to care for a widow by marrying her. But that's not laid in the Bible and it has nothing to do with Levirate marriage. A son would be required to care her his widowed mother and I don't think anyone would suggest at Levirate marriage would come in to play here.
You could care for a widow and her children quite well by setting up a monthly stipend or getting her oldest son a job. The requirements of scripture would have been met. Think about the lunacy of connecting Levirate marriage to the care of widows and orphans; the only widows who get cared for would be the ones who hadn't had a son. Boy orphans would be abandoned because an heir abrogates the need for Levirate marriage. This doesn't make sense. There is Levirate marriage, which would apply no matter what the economic need of the woman in question was. And there is the care of widows and orphans which would apply no matter the existence of a male heir. These two things are separate.
◄ 1 Corinthians 7:39 ►
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Here's the link to the Biblehub page, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/7-39.htm , if you would like to dig further but it seems pretty clear that the widow can marry who she wants as long as he is a believer. So are we gong to see a retraction? This is a pretty basic verse that is directly dealing with marriage. If you were unaware of this verse or how it applies to the remarriage of widows then it is possible that you are spending too much time in the wrong sources.
Yes - but only after around 15 years minimum depending on the economic environment, so it's a rather long-term investment. There's often still a need for provision from someone else in the meantime.
We are both saying the same thing.
Regarding the bold text above, (as he is a believer/ only in the Lord) is proof that this is a kinsman clause. She may be married to whom she will as long as the new husband is part of the old husbands family (ie. a believer). In the New Testament the model is still the same, it is just regarding a different kind of family.
I appreciate your proclivity to be the token contrarian here, but sometimes I question the benefit or contribution it gives to the conversation, forum or your own personal reputation.
Well you win. I'm not sure what you won but clearly you do.
Are you saying that Levirate marriage applies to the whole body of Christ? Because we're all brothers and sisters in Christ Levirate marriage applies to all of us and we're all required to raise up heirs to any and all fellow believers and this is how we care for widows and orphans except of course for male orphans and their mothers since they are already heirs and so Levirate marriage wouldn't apply. I have to admit that you've gobbsmacked me. I will have to go back through your comments in this thread because I was under the impression that you believed that widows were required to marry in their dead husband's family. Now apparently you say that family extends to all believers.
My understanding would be that it does extend to all believers but that it’s not necessarily a requirement to marry her...however it is a viable option. We are required to care for widows and orphans...
So this wasn't you asking me to prove that a widow is free to marry outside her dead husband's family?
Levirate marriage is a command to all Christian men to marry any widow who hasn't had a son in order to raise up an heir for that man and fulfill our command to care for widows and orphans?
How can a woman have a widow?! The inclusion of women in this verse should have been an obvious sign that it has no connection to Levirate marriage. They can't marry other women and they can't raise up heirs if they did marry them.
No that’s not what I meant. The commands to the church includes caring for widows and orphans. The moral connection to the law would be the levitate marriage thing. It’s one option for how to care for her but it’s no longer a command...
I can't believe I missed this chestnut. A verse thst says she's free to marry whatever Christian she chooses some how means she's bound to the next male heir but there's wiggle room. This verse has nothing to do with Levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is when a man dies without an heir and his brother, who lives with him, impregnates the dead brother's wife so that his name will not die out in Israel. There are many, many widows who do not fall under the Levirate marriage and some who do are by no means in need of being cared for. This might sound super deep and spiritual but its sophistry and some really weird Frankenstein concoction. What even is the point? What does this even accomplish?
The logical fallacy here is to assume that the Law (a command to care for widows and orphans) needs a moral connection to some other Law. There is some western bias underlying this that New Testament commands somehow are different than the Law.
The command to care for widows and orphans is a Law. You're looking for a legalsim that would presage this supposed higher spiritual reality that was revealed by the New Covenant. This is a very long standing tendency in the church and it's leading here, as it always does, to some very convoluted conclusions.
My understanding is that nothing new as far as commands is given in the New Testament other than church ordnance’s such as the Lords supper and Baptism. Most anything that is worded as a command has a moral connection based in Torah. So it’s mostly a rewording or clarification... I am perfectly willing to be shown where this idea is incorrect but it is my understanding...
It's hard to prove a negaitve. I can't convince you something isn't true but I would want to see such a big idea be positively laid out in scripture. Even if that is true though I don't think you can link these two ideas that way. The command to care for widows and orphans is not in any way connected to Levirate marriage.
I can see that there’s been a lot of posts about this since I’ve been here. I’ll try to cover all of em if I can.
OT Hebrews did have a command to care for the widows and orphans. In fact Isaiah 1 says that this is more important than keeping sabbaths, feast days, new moons, oblations and incense or even going to the Temple.
It is important to realize that the care of the widows and orphans is the responsibility of the husbands family first. Either a “kinsman redeemer” is appointed for her or one willingly agrees to the responsibility to care for his kin’s family until the heir is of age and can take care of his mother himself.
If there is no heir, the “kinsman redeemer” is responsible for providing an heir for his brother and maintaining him and the mother and instructing him until he is a son over his own house. IF the widow or the kinsman is content with only producing an heir, once he is born they may have no other sexual interaction. Until he comes of age, the kinsman has the responsibility to maintain his brothers family and steward his brothers portion of the inheritance for the heir. Once the heir comes of age, he is now responsible for his mothers upkeep and maintenance.
A woman may be responsible for a widow in certain rare conditions when 1)there is not a living son and 2) the woman is past childbearing possibility, and 3) her husband has no living male relatives or none that will consent to her care and 4) she may have a married daughter whose husband will accept the responsibility instead.
If a widow has no one, and/or her kinsman refuses the responsibility, her care then becomes the responsibility of the community at large.
The same conditions and restrictions and responsibilities apply under the New Covenant as they did under the Old Covenant. The only difference is that the family is defined differently. The kinsman can be any man in the Family of Christ, not just her husbands family. (Though my personal opinion is that this would potentially be the best arrangement if the husband has a good brother who is a believer as well).
If a believing widow has no one in her family to care for her, then it is the responsibility of the believing community to care for her.
There are additional considerations if the widow and the kinsman want to continue as husband and wife beyond their redeemer obligations, but that is another topic.
OT Hebrews did have a command to care for the widows and orphans. In fact Isaiah 1 says that this is more important than keeping sabbaths, feast days, new moons, oblations and incense or even going to the Temple.
It is important to realize that the care of the widows and orphans is the responsibility of the husbands family first. Either a “kinsman redeemer” is appointed for her or one willingly agrees to the responsibility to care for his kin’s family until the heir is of age and can take care of his mother himself.
If there is no heir, the “kinsman redeemer” is responsible for providing an heir for his brother and maintaining him and the mother and instructing him until he is a son over his own house. IF the widow or the kinsman is content with only producing an heir, once he is born they may have no other sexual interaction. Until he comes of age, the kinsman has the responsibility to maintain his brothers family and steward his brothers portion of the inheritance for the heir. Once the heir comes of age, he is now responsible for his mothers upkeep and maintenance.
A woman may be responsible for a widow in certain rare conditions when 1)there is not a living son and 2) the woman is past childbearing possibility, and 3) her husband has no living male relatives or none that will consent to her care and 4) she may have a married daughter whose husband will accept the responsibility instead.
If a widow has no one, and/or her kinsman refuses the responsibility, her care then becomes the responsibility of the community at large.
The same conditions and restrictions and responsibilities apply under the New Covenant as they did under the Old Covenant. The only difference is that the family is defined differently. The kinsman can be any man in the Family of Christ, not just her husbands family. (Though my personal opinion is that this would potentially be the best arrangement if the husband has a good brother who is a believer as well).
If a believing widow has no one in her family to care for her, then it is the responsibility of the believing community to care for her.
There are additional considerations if the widow and the kinsman want to continue as husband and wife beyond their redeemer obligations, but that is another topic.