Book Review - Sex and the Believer
Levirate Marriage
We now come to the crux of Mr. Moshe Koniuchowsky’s argument regarding mandated polygamy. He begins with the verses in Deuteronomy 21 regarding the handling of women taken in warfare. It was quite common for the victor to take the spoils of war, including women, so Adonai wanted to ensure these women would be cared for properly, as if they were native-born women.
She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:13 - 14)
He follows these verses with this very bold statement, again based on speculation, not fact.
Naturally, some of the Yisraelite warriors were already married. YHWH here allows more wives to the faithful in Israel. Actually as seen in verse 13, once the warrior decided to keep her and go in to her, he MUST marry her. We see a clear case in this type of situation of commanded plural marriage.
The assumption made here is that a married man would be looking to take a wife for himself. I’m sure there are cases when that did happen, but was that the same assumption that Adonai made when He said this? Could it possibly be that He was speaking to those men who did not already have a wife? Since we have these questions, how can Moshe’s statement that this is a clear case be true?
Mr. Koniuchowsky makes another very bold statement when he says, “Then in Deuteronomy 25, we have an actual COMMAND of potentially MANDATED plural marriage.” Please notice that he emphasizes the words command and mandated while seemingly ignoring the very important key word, potentially. Bearing that in mind, let’s look at the verses in question.
“When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
“But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’
“Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’
“In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’” (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
Moshe K. follows the above verses with, “Now some brothers may already be married. Nevertheless he is COMMANDED to take his brother’s widow and enter her vagina, thus adding to the wife, or wives he already has!” At first glance, one can’t help but think, “Oh, my! He is right!” But does this argument stand up to scrutiny? Let’s find out.
Notice the first verse states, “When brothers live together.” According to Scripture, when a man married he leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, right? So, let’s say that the first son marries a nice girl, but they don’t leave the parent’s home due to the fact that he stands to inherit the family dwelling, thus they set up housekeeping within the parent’s home. The second son decides to marry, but he and his wife must find another place to live because the family dwelling will never be theirs so the parents give him his inheritance and sends him on his way. We can see this demonstrated in the life of Abraham.
Now Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac; but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east. (Genesis 25:5-6)
So, if these brothers are “living together,” it stands to reason that the younger brothers are not yet married. If this were the case, then Mr. K.’s arguments are a moot point; polygamy is not mandated here. But that is not the only problem I see with this argument.
The author continues, “Any brother, whether single, or married (many were no doubt married), who refused to obey YHWH, were no longer part of Israel, but of a new house. The House of Loosed Sandals.” These are strong words, but are they true? Again, let us go back to the verses in question. In verse ten we read, “In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’” Does this state that this brother will be removed from Israel? No. What it does state is that he will be called “The House of Loosed Sandals” WITHIN Israel. If the man is “in Israel” then how can he have been removed from Israel?
Looking at these verses we need to ask ourselves, “Did Adonai mandate polygamy in this case?” As far as I can see, he did not. If this were a case of mandated polygamy, why would He give men a way out of this? Sure, the man might be humiliated in front of his neighbors, but isn’t that better than having to have relations with a woman that you don’t even like, and then have to deal with her for the rest of your life? So it seems to me that the major crux of Mr. Koniuchowsky’s argument for mandated polygamy is based on presuppositions and a faulty interpretation of the Scriptures.
And what if the woman doesn’t want to have any thing to do with her brother in law? In a later chapter MK reveals to us the Talmudic view of this.
Under Talmudic law, the widow who does not want to take the brother as her husband may be raped, thereby affecting the marriage. [If she disobeys the Torah command to ALLOW a married brother in law to enter her vagina. *editor’s note]
Yes, you read that right; he is ALLOWED to rape her. Does this sound like a holy and just God to you? And, besides that, the editor/author has still yet to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Adonai commands plural marriage. Additionally, if Adonai gives the man a way out of this situation, why would He punish the woman so harshly?
We can see the Levirate marriage played out in the life of Ruth. Boaz was not the only “redeemer” that could have married Ruth. There was another man who actually had first dibs, so to speak, as Boaz himself states: “Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I.” (Ruth 3:12) In the next chapter we witness the exchange between Boaz and this other man.
Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz spoke was passing by, so he said, “Turn aside, friend, sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. He took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down. Then he said to the closest relative, “Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, has to sell the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech. So I thought to inform you, saying, ‘Buy it before those who are sitting here, and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if not, tell me that I may know; for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am after you.’” And he said, “I will redeem it.”
Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the deceased, in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance.” The closest relative said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, because I would jeopardize my own inheritance. Redeem it for yourself; you may have my right of redemption, for I cannot redeem it.” (Ruth 4:1-6)
Why is it, do you think, that this man (who remains nameless) would suddenly change his mind about the land he was going to redeem? It seems to me that it was because of Ruth. Was it because she was a Moabite? We could easily speculate that, but as the story continues this man gives his own reason for refusing his right of redemption. Once it was discovered that he would have to take Ruth as well, he told Boaz that he could not redeem the land, or his brother’s name, stating, “I would jeopardize my own inheritance.” How could this jeopardize his own land… unless it wasn’t his land that concerned him?
Could it be that the inheritance he refers to, the one he fears losing, is that of his own children? Could it be that his fear is that his wife would leave him as a result of taking Ruth, taking his children with her? We need to also ask ourselves, was this man removed from Israel just as his sandal was removed from his foot? Let’s see what happens next.
Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning the redemption and the exchange of land to confirm any matter: a man removed his sandal and gave it to another; and this was the manner of attestation in Israel. So the closest relative said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself.” And he removed his sandal.
Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses today that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. Moreover, I have acquired Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased will not be cut off from his brothers or from the court of his birth place; you are witnesses today.” (Ruth 4:7-10)
After this exchange, the unnamed relative is never mentioned again. Some may say that proves that he was removed from Israel, since his name is never mentioned again. To them I say, “Ah, but his name was never mentioned anyway.” I could also argue that this would be a perfect opportunity to make an example of this man, had Adonai been angered by this behavior, but Adonai does nothing, and neither do the men of the city. Could it be because he had done nothing wrong?
With such a strong example of Levirate marriage in action, why was this not mentioned by Mr. Moshe Koniuchowsky? In both of the cases mentioned above, there is a possibility of a married man taking advantage of these rules to legally (in God’s eyes) take another wife, but was that the original intent of these laws? On page 45 we are told, in bold and capital letters, “In order for any plural marriage to work well, the husband and wife must be in full and total agreement.” If a man is in another town, fighting a battle, and comes across a woman he desires, and brings her home, and the little woman who is already there does not approve, then what? We need to take all of these factors into account when seeking out the will of God.