The main point of these hard cases was to clarify your'e view and see how it applies, whether it is consistant.
The difficulty of the practice of law is that legal expression can be so specific as to hardly apply anyplace, or so general it smothers everything and demands constant qualifications. Perhaps consistency, if attempting to apply the law in unforseen circumstances, is an invalid effort. What kind of consistency? Perhaps a whole new approach is necessary. Polygamy was the original proposition, and a systematic answer was given consistent with several biblical data points. The test of the validity of the view presented does not depend on how well it might answer for different if related inquiries.
I was referring to cases where someones wives are related to one another. It is true that if any are the husbands relatives, it is a diffrent issue than polygamy.
Such cases as I mentioned are common, especially one's of a pair of sisters (consider Leah and Rachel).
In part, I misunderstood the question, as you specifically referred to
incest, which typically describes certain blood-relations for forbidden marriage (and yes, I am aware of the "affinity" connection to the term). If a convert has married sisters, where such a form was allowed in local custom, it hardly seems like Christian compassion to despise one or both those women as falsely married. When one considers the marriages of Leah and Rachel, it is clear that if no legitimacy was ever possible for sisters sharing a husband, then Jacob was in gross sin from the outset, never repented, and never sought him remedy.
You raised the possibility of a mother-daughter combination of wives; this appears to me a most illegitimate union, and I think most human societies would recognize it as some form of child abuse (like the man married a woman to get access to her children). Amos 2:7 and 1Cor.5:1 together bear witness to the universality of honest awareness that no cultural appeal can make certain unions tolerable.
Polyandry does exist, though it may not be common. I am not necessarily speaking of the full matriarchal society you are describing, perhaps just one that tolerates it and thus it happens at times. This, similarly to the incest question, was mostly to yest if there are further nuances in your'e view, and test it's consistency.
Again, please name or describe the actual culture (not a subculture, such as might exist in certain areas even in western nations, existence of which degraded estate depends on the wider culture with its laws and norms) where polyandry is practiced. It's one thing to recognize that isolated cases of women binding two or more men to her exclusive relationship must be possible. Courtesans have such a reputation, if not the legal recognition. These are almost always mercenary connections, with women few and far between. Limit the product, and high demand will command a high price. How does this not shortly devolve into pimp/madame controlled prostitution? I reiterate my belief that this estate is basically contrary to nature, inherently unstable, and cannot be perpetuated outside of isolation.
Here I can cite an actual example: that of the Bedouins in Israel. They certainly don't think of it as concubinage, but as full, religiously solemnized (though unregistered) marriage, though on second thought there are often stark paralells to concubinage in practice.
Either way, if putting away the second wife is "a cruel piece of legalistic morality", and continued marriage is otherwise lawful, wouldn't the magistrate, in effect, be rquiring divorce, which is a sin in and of itself?
Bedouin
subculture, in other words, sustained in whatever unnatural estate it may due to a more powerful social order providing the stability. Furthermore, they likely have them such wives as (presumably) their Muslim faith allows, while in practice conforming to whatever legal limits the secular overlords impose, thereby keeping the peace. I named the practice concubinage, because by whatever it is called the thing is what it is or most closely resembles. Concubines found in the Bible were (multiplied) wives, but not in name and legal recognition from the culture. Wives had a certain status and rights along with it; while concubines were closer to servants of a certain rank--again, Jacob's household provides us with illustration.
We have been discussing what the church, rather than the magistrate, should be imposing on it members. It seems to me, if a Bedouin with multiple women--a wife and one or more concubines--becomes a Christian, a pastor or session would be wise to consider the balance of previous higher authorities to which this man was once (and is still in some cases) submitted, as they consider how to advise him on a delicate moral dilemma. If the man
and those women consider that he is, in fact due to religion though not according to the laws of the state, married to them--then perhaps he actually is what he appears to be: a polygamist.
The same dilemma could be found in certain (subculture of a subculture!) Mormon communities in the USA. Yet, perhaps location and history demand greater weight in one case's consideration versus the other. Polygamy in the Muslim-dominated MiddleEast is a widespread cultural error requiring one form of patience and sensitivity. Polygamy in Mormon counter-culture is an act of religious and social rebellion; note its relatively recent origin, combined with the false-teacher pattern of 2Tim.3:6. The situation in this part of the world might demand a different resolution; but it still could compel the church to deal with providing ministry for a sinfully broken household.
In your part of the world, the secular magistrate appears already to not-recognize a second (third, etc.) marriage exists. You cannot divorce if you are not married. Our concern is not what the magistrate does, but what the church ought to do and recognize, and how it speaks to its members on their moral duties in the midst of their situation.
Could it be that your'e position in secceptible to a reductio ad absurdum here? Just imagine the lonely island with 49 singke men, Jeff, and Jeff's harem, or multiply someone's wife-count to absurdity, in a circumstance where the sham character cannot be discovered.
To clarify, I am seeking clarity on the doctrine of marriage with these questions. There is nothing here against you or necessarily the position you take.
It just seems to me that this partakes of my original objection (see above) that by some deconstruction of that position I advocate, a foundational principle or set of them can be discovered, from which a whole series of alternative results may come. And if more than a few of them seem confused or obviously false, or if I am unwilling to abide by those conclusions, therefore my original proposal lacks validity. This is not proper logic, not a proper
reductio. I am not concerned with providing a neat and tidy solution that solves for every theoretical hard case or cases.