Skip to main content

A Biblical Catechism on Sex and Marriage: Polygamy, Concubinage, and Levirate Marriage

[This post continues a series of posts entitled 'A Biblical Catechism on Sex and Marriage'.  The intention is to provide basic material for further instruction by a trusted teacher of God's Word in a church that is committed to Biblical authority.  The Church’s mission is to invite all people to live under God’s righteous rule.]

Question 9. Does the Bible allow polygamy, concubinage, and levirate marriage?

Answer: The creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28) largely accounts for Old Testament practices of polygamy, concubinage, and levirate marriage in ancient Israel that are no longer practiced by Christians.

Comment 1: Polygamy is marriage where a person has more than one spouse at the same time.  Polygyny refers to a husband having more than one wife—a practice found in the Old Testament (and never a wife having more than one husband—polyandry.)  Concubinage is when a husband also has sexual relations with his wife’s maid servants.  Both polygamy and concubinage are permanent relationships (a man would not, e.g., have sexual relations with a married maid servant).  These were cultural practices in Old Testament times.  They are not sinful practices even if no longer practiced or even advisable.  They do not stem from the theology of ‘one flesh’ in Genesis 2:24, but can relate to being fruitful and multiplying (Genesis 1:28).  

Comment 2: The main purpose of polygamy or concubinage seems to be to multiply the size of the family.  Thus these arrangements were in fulfillment of the creation mandate.  In ‘levirate marriage,’ where the widow of a deceased man with no offspring could become the wife of his nearest kin, the purpose was to maintain property within the clan and to raise up children in the name of the deceased man (cf. Ruth and Boaz).  Thus these arrangements are more related to the early years of Israel, and are not noted in the New Testament.  Christians have usually opposed such practices, especially as they can place stress on the loving relationship of one man and one woman in a marriage.

Comments 3: Polygamy and concubinage are a permanent, marital relationship, as with any marriage and unlike having a mistress.  A wife was given to a man by her father, whereas concubines were servants given to the man by the man’s wife.  Concubines might be considered wives of lower status, but they, too, had a permanent relationship to the head of the household.  The story of Abraham dismissing Hagar is not meant as a positive example (Genesis 16).  Polygamy was not practiced as a form of divorce, when the husband was tired of the first wife (cf. Deuteronomy 21:15-17).

Comment 4: The polygamy of Israelite kings was a matter of status (2 Samuel 5:13) and/or political (1 Kings 11:1-3), a Middle Eastern practice of making treaties by marriage.  The practice is viewed unfavourably in Scripture (Deuteronomy 17:17; 1 Kings 11:1-8).


Comment 5: As polygamy, concubinage, or levirate marriage were not practices in Paul’s day or context, his words about an overseer, elder, or deacon being the husband of one wife do not refer to this practice.  As Paul encourages younger widows to remarry, he is also not referring to remarriage.  Thus, he must be restricting these roles in the church to persons who have not divorced and remarried.  (See Question 10.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alasdair MacIntyre and Tradition Enquiry

Alasdair MacIntyre's subject is philosophical ethics, and he is best known for his critique of ethics understood as the application of general, universal principles.  He has reintroduced the importance of virtue ethics, along with the role of narrative and community in defining the virtues.  His focus on these things—narrative, community, virtue—combine to form an approach to enquiry which he calls ‘tradition enquiry.’ [1] MacIntyre characterises ethical thinking in the West in our day as ethics that has lost an understanding of the virtues, even if virtues like ‘justice’ are often under discussion.  Greek philosophical ethics, and ethics through to the Enlightenment, focussed ethics on virtue and began with questions of character: 'Who should we be?', rather than questions of action, 'What shall we do?'  Contemporary ethics has focused on the latter question alone, with the magisterial traditions of deontological ('What rules govern our actions?') and tel...
Post a Comment
Read more

The New Virtues of a Failing Culture

  An insanity has fallen upon the West, like a witch’s spell.   We have lived with it long enough to know it, understand it, but not long enough to resist it, to undo it.   The very stewards of the truth that would remove it have left their posts.   They have succumbed to its whispers, become its servants.   It has infected the very air and crept along the ground like a mist until it is within us and all about us.   We utter its precepts like schoolchildren taught their lines. Its power lies in its claims of virtuosity, distorted goodness.   If presented as the vices that they are, they would be rejected.   These virtues are proclaimed from the pulpits and painted on banners or made into flags.   They are established in our schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries.   They are the hallucinogen making our own cultural suicide bearable, even desirable.   They are virtues, but disordered, or they are the excess or deficiency of...
Post a Comment
Read more

'Nature' and ‘Against Nature’ in Romans 1:26-27: A Study in the Primary Sources

Introduction In Romans 1:26-27, Paul distinguishes ‘unnatural’ from ‘natural’, saying that homosexual acts among both women and men are ‘unnatural’.  Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse [ physikēn chrēsin, natural use ] for unnatural [ para physin, against nature ],  27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse [ physikēn chrēsin, natural use ] with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. This understanding, however, has been questioned, and the debate centres around what Paul means by ‘natural’ ( physikon and kata physin ) and ‘unnatural’ ( para physin ).  Those questioning this understanding in recent years (it was not questioned in the history of the church until now) [1] focus on the notion of ‘natural’ rather than the Greek phrases, but bo...
Post a Comment
Read more