Multiple Spouses, Close Relations, and the Levirate Institute
To further define the scope of marriage, God's Word does reveal some other restrictions (or in some cases allowances) within the institute of marriage. While not always fully understanding them, it would still do us well to study them and submit to them.
Multiple Spouses (and concubines)
This is certainly a difficult topic for us; and we realize we're surely going against the mainstream of conservative, evangelical thought; but one would be very hard-pressed to find in God's Word where it calls for civil legislative action (and punitive enforcement) against multiple wives and/or concubines.
It is clear in the New Testament that in order to be an officer in the church (that is, an elder/pastor or deacon), one can only be married to one woman at a time (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). But there is no indication that one must have a monogamous marriage in order to be an active member of the congregation in general. It's been argued that the qualifications of elders/deacons are in some sense to be applied to the whole congregation. Yet we find that lacking in that an elder must be "able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2), whereas not everyone in a local congregation should be in a teaching capacity (Jas. 3:1). Likewise, an elder must not be "a recent convert" (1 Tim. 3:6), whereas obviously many in a local congregation have every right to be a recent convert.
We are not here arguing for the moral validity of polygamous marriage. But while the New Testament barred polygamists from church leadership, the rest of Scripture does not really make a strong case against the practice (especially not in regard to civil leadership). To the contrary, when David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then murdered her husband, what did God say to him in his indictment?
Multiple Spouses (and concubines)
This is certainly a difficult topic for us; and we realize we're surely going against the mainstream of conservative, evangelical thought; but one would be very hard-pressed to find in God's Word where it calls for civil legislative action (and punitive enforcement) against multiple wives and/or concubines.
It is clear in the New Testament that in order to be an officer in the church (that is, an elder/pastor or deacon), one can only be married to one woman at a time (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). But there is no indication that one must have a monogamous marriage in order to be an active member of the congregation in general. It's been argued that the qualifications of elders/deacons are in some sense to be applied to the whole congregation. Yet we find that lacking in that an elder must be "able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2), whereas not everyone in a local congregation should be in a teaching capacity (Jas. 3:1). Likewise, an elder must not be "a recent convert" (1 Tim. 3:6), whereas obviously many in a local congregation have every right to be a recent convert.
We are not here arguing for the moral validity of polygamous marriage. But while the New Testament barred polygamists from church leadership, the rest of Scripture does not really make a strong case against the practice (especially not in regard to civil leadership). To the contrary, when David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then murdered her husband, what did God say to him in his indictment?
"I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms....And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight?" - 2 Sam. 12:8, 9
We realize there are certainly Biblical arguments for the moral validity of monogamous marriage; but here is where we must once again be careful to distinguish between how society ought to behave and where government is authorized to legislate morality. Again, just because something is a sin (and we think we're still pressed to make a strong case for polygamous marriage being a sin), it does not mean it should be illegal.(1)
Now, before anyone starts to get the wrong idea, we have no intention or desire to ever have anyone else in our lives as my wife other than the one lady per each of us we are currently married to. We love and adore our (respective) beautiful wives (that is, one wife for each of us) and want to be joined to her and to her alone until Christ comes or takes us home. But on principle (by God's grace in us), we have to be bound to the text of Scripture - wherever it leads.
Close Relations
The Bible is clearly prohibitive against incest (Lev. 18:16-17, 20:11, 12, 14, 17, 20, 21; Deut. 22:30, 27:20, 22, 23).
What is considered as incest in the revealed Law, though, is having sexual relations with or being married to one's "mother, father, step-mother, sister or brother, half-sister or half-brother, a grand-daughter, with a daughter-in-law (or son-in-law), with an aunt (or uncle), with a brother's wife, or with both mother and daughter."(2)
One thing that is absent from the texts in Scripture that prohibit what it deems as incest is the ability to marry (and correspondingly have sexual relations with) one's cousin (whether first, second, or on down the line).
Correspondingly, if we are to have a just society, our citizens must not engage in any of the marriages (or sexual relations) above, even if some of them are considered legal. Likewise, if we are to have a just government, our laws should reflect the laws above and should not restrict otherwise appropriate marriage unions (meaning the 31 states in the U.S. that have some sort of restriction on cousin marriage ought to change their laws regarding it).
The Levirate Institute
The Levirate Institute is the moral obligation for a man to raise up a family line for the sake of his brother in the event that both brothers were living together and the one brother dies without having any children. This is accomplished by the man marrying his brother's widow, and having sexual relations with her so that the first son they have together can be regarded as the deceased brother's child.
While ordinarily a man having sexual relations with his brother's wife is prohibited (Lev. 18:16, 20:21), this is obviously only applied if both brothers were living. If the above situation occurred, then it was the duty for the surviving brother to take his brother's widow as his wife (presumably his second wife if he was already married), and raise a family line for the sake of his brother (Deut. 25:5-6).
The question we face today is, does this still apply?
And I'm truly inclined to say "no." According to the text, the reason for the duty was so that the deceased brother's name might not be "blotted out of Israel" (Deut. 25:6, 7). The continuation of family lines was important for Israel as God's chosen nation from whom the Messiah would come (Rom. 9:5). As Jesus Christ has come and has changed the ceremonial priesthood (Heb. 7:12), there is no longer a need for each Israelite tribe to maintain its family name in this way.
(1) Refer to the Society section of this site regarding societal righteousness versus government sanctions, etc.
For more reading on the case against the moral validity of polygamous marriage, I recommend:
For more reading on the case against the moral validity of polygamous marriage, I recommend:
- Frame, John M., The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 2008: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, pp 754-755
- Wilson, Douglas., Reforming Marriage, 2005: Moscow, Idaho, Canon Press, pp. 13-21
- Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1973: Nutley, New Jersey, The Craig Press, pp. 362-368
(2) Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1973: Nutley, New Jersey, The Craig Press, p. 368