• 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.

Adding my sister as a sister-wife?

Status
Not open for further replies.
what is encouraging to me regarding all of the people involved in Biblical Families, either through the forums or at the retreats, is that this is a BEREAN movement, in such, that this resurgence in plural marriage has come about as a result of men and women through various fellowships and faith backgrounds discovering this truth while openly studying the Word of God.

That is why I know that we are not just a flash in the pan, or a passing fad.

Each day, I am meeting new people online and offline who are coming into a revelation regarding this issue. And really, this is a gateway issue: once this truth begins to blossom, God begins open new truths and new depths in Him.

Blessings,
 
Hear Hear Doc!

Of course, there where quite a few Berean individuals that where silenced\shunned\killed for our cause in the past, but it doesn't seem like there was ever so many of us as there have been in the last few years.
 
Exchange Vows

Maribel. if all the parties are ready, a simple,exchange of vows before 2 or bible believing witnesses is all thats needed. No minister is needed. Simply exchange and MEAN the verbal vows.
rm
 
This thread concerns me a lot.

I am not yet convinced that a man is free to be married to two sisters while they are both alive. I have read what Shipley said and I wasn't convinced. If he's wrong, then the marriage is invalid and all children born to them are bastards. This is serious stuff.

Please, try to convince me that Shipley is right.
 
I haven't read Shipley, but Leviticus 18:18 does appear to have an exception built in. Perhaps the experience of Jacob is in the background. Jealousy is a normal factor in plural marriage to deal with, but the existence of rivalry or contention between sisters should be a deterrent to taking them both as wives. The Hebrew word tsarar means to show hostility toward, to treat as an adversary or enemy or to vex as a rival. Thus, the Hebrew syntax seems to suggest that the marriage is purposely to vex the wife. In other words, the man is not getting along with his wife so he takes her sister as revenge. Maybe he uncovers her nakedness (has sex with the second sister) in front of the first sister to further vex her. Bad news. Men can be stupid sometimes (well, maybe more often than that), but such a marriage would be like cutting off his nose to spite his face.

The main thrust of the Leviticus 18 prohibitions is banning relationships of a man's flesh and blood as indicated in verse 6. What is notable about the sisters marriage prohibition is that unlike all the other banned relations in this chapter, there is no punishment prescribed, not there, not in Leviticus 20 and not in Deuteronomy 27 where such curses and punishments are imposed. If the sisters have a positive relationship, the man loves both of them and will treat them fairly (Exodus 21:10), I personally don't have a problem with it.
 
Well, if it is permissible then how does one determine whether there is no rivalry? Imagine being part of a court of elders that had to judge whether offspring were legitimate or not. Perhaps a marriage could be entered into with no apparent rivalry, but it then develops and everything is brought into question. This interpretation is at odds with every single source I've found outside of Shipley - whether Christian or Jewish.

Your Leviticus 20 argument is compelling. I'm going to look to see if there are other forbidden unions in Leviticus 18 that do not have a penalty listed elsewhere. I'm also going to see if I can find anything in the Talmud that argues for this. One thing I've often found in Rabbinic writings is that someone often argues the opposite point and their dissent is noted. I wonder if any rabbis have tried to argue this idea concerning sisters. They're experts in Biblical Hebrew and I would hope that they could have caught this subtle distinction in an attempt to make Jacob look innocent. They argue that Abraham is innocent of marrying his sister and say that she was further in relation, but called sister. One thing I've learned from reading Rabbinic writings is that they'll seemingly do anything to justify the bad behaviour of their heroes. For example, they explain away King David's adultery by saying that Bathsheba wasn't actually married to her husband when he went off to war. Perhaps they're right about David, but I don't think so at this point.
 
The issue isn't whether a rivalry exists. It is what the purpose of the marriage was. If the marriage is to vex the other sister then it is forbidden. Of course there can be rivalry along the way, but there is in any situation. The law is to make it clear that it is not allowable for a man to use one sister to hurt another. It is about motive. Think about the beatitudes. They say that if a man has anger in his heart he has already committed murder. They say that if he looks at a woman lustfully he has already committed adultery. In this case, if he tries to hurt sisters by creating this rivalry then he is wrong.

And in actuality, no man should marry any wife in order to create problems with the first wife. That would be very stupid. Why would it be okay for a man to marry a second wife to vex his first wife as long as she is not a sister.

SweetLissa
 
I'm about to delve into the Leviticus 20 penalties and cross-reference them with Leviticus 18, but before I do I'd like to share what the commentary in my Chumash says concerning Leviticus 18:18,
You shall not take a woman in addition to her sister, to make them rivals, to uncover their nakedness of one upon the other in her lifetime.

18. ואשה אל–אחתה — A woman in addition to her sister. As the verse states below, the prohibition applies as long as the first married sister is still alive, even if she had been divorced. Upon the death of the first sister, however, the ex-husband many marry the surviving sister (Rashi).

לצרר — To make them rivals. This phrase indicates the reason for the prohibition. Sisters should live in love and harmony, not rivalry and strife. That is why the prohibition is removed upon the death of the first sister (Ramban).
Click to expand...
When I hear about my mother's relationship with her sister it was one that was often peaceful, but there was strife. I've grown up with seeing a small amount of rivalry between sisters and I wonder whether that is part of a "normal" family dynamic.
 
A quick comment on what Lisa said -

How can we know the motivation of a man's heart? Imagine you're an elder on a religious court and you have to decide whether it is a valid marriage. How can you judge the heart of another man? We can only judge someone's actions.

The tenth commandment does not have a penalty associated with breaking it, for there is absolutely no way a man can judge whether another man is guilty of coveting. However, our Master taught us that He knows our hearts in Matthew 5 and He said that He knows whether a man is committing adultery in his heart by coveting another man's wife.
 
Again, I believe that rivalry exists. It is something that we should fight. If a man takes a woman with the intention of vexing his wife that is the issue. The motive. If hubby were to marry a woman in order to vex me and T then it would be wrong. If he married the woman and there became problems that no one could have anticipated it would be up to us to fix those problems. No relationship is static. The relationships are always changing.

For instance, T and I are sister/wives (and sisters in Christ). We have a good working relationship most of the time. On those occassions when we are vexed with each other, does that make hubby a sinner because he married us? No. Not even if we were physically sisters.

As in the previous example though, if he had married her sister in an effort to make T angry then it would be his issue with God.

But if two sisters love each other and genuinely care for each other and the man, and if the man genuinely cares for the sisters and is going into the marriage with pure motives then I believe that that scripture doesn't apply. Because it is not "to vex" the first wife.

SweetLissa
 
sweetlissa said:
Again, I believe that rivalry exists. It is something that we should fight. If a man takes a woman with the intention of vexing his wife that is the issue.... For instance, T and I are sister/wives (and sisters in Christ). We have a good working relationship most of the time. On those occassions when we are vexed with each other, does that make hubby a sinner because he married us? No. Not even if we were physically sisters.
Click to expand...
Sister,

Just so that we're clear, the literal interpretation of this text has nothing to do with two ladies who are not blood sisters. We can take this verse and learn that it is unwise to take any wife if it would result in a rivalry, but that is not the plain, literal interpretation. I just wanted to say this so that we're all clear.

You made a good point though — it is not wise to take another wife if you know that it will be difficult for your other wife to accept. That is why I agreed that I would not take another wife unless my wife agreed to it, and that is part of our marriage contract.


Shalom,

brYce :D
 
I'm very grateful for good discussions. I am peering into this text in much detail and I'm learning more about marriage in the process! Baruch Hashem!

Here is something very interesting that I just read in my Chumash's commentary:
6-18. Forbidden Relationships. The laws governing sexual relationships are the key to Jewish holiness. As the Sages state, wherever one finds safeguards of chastity, there one finds holiness (Vayikra Rabbah 24:6). This concept is expressed in the first step of Jewish marriage, in which the groom betroths his bride and says, הרי את מקדשת לי, You are consecrated to me. The formula speaks of consecration because, from its outset, Jewish marriage is founded on holiness.
The name given to these illicit relationships is גלוי ערוה, the uncovering of nakedness or shame. Sforno comments that it would have seemed logical to permit close relatives to marry, since they would be suited to one another, and their common values and similar personalities would be likely to produce good offspring — witness the union of Amram and his aunt Jochebed, whose children were Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. That would be so if both partners to the marriage were dedicated to noble goals, but, human nature being what it is, the great majority of people seek pleasure, not challenge, and they would use the permissibility of close relatives to indulge in their lowest instincts. The result would not be spiritual greatness, but promiscuous hedonism. Consequently, close relatives are forbidden to marry one another. The Torah classifies the levels of forbidden closeness in terms of blood relationships, and it regards husbands and wives as having the same level of closeness. Therefore, for example, even after the death of fathers, uncles, and brothers, their widows remain forbidden to their former in-laws.
Click to expand...
Marriage is based on holiness. A woman is set apart through kiddushin for her husband. Who defines who can marry and who cannot? Hashem does. As the commentator pointed out above, Moses and his siblings were the product of a man who was married to his aunt. What then, is wrong with a man having babies with a woman he is closely related to? Perhaps there is an increased risk of genetic problems too? But, if two people who are close relations love each other? What's wrong with that? Hashem says it's wrong, that's what.

It is Hashem who decides what is permissible and what isn't. He speaks of holiness in Leviticus 11 too. There, we see holiness taught in relation to what we can, and cannot, eat. He forbids a lot of meat that is actually nutritious and beneficial for a human body. Some argue that the food commandments are based on health concerns, but that isn't so. Sure, someone can get trichinosis from pork, but deer meat is considered clean and you can get trichinosis from it too. While it can be said that most of the food laws make sense from a nutritional standpoint, that isn't true in all cases and that isn't why they were given. They were given so that we would know how to walk in a holy way — a way He commanded that is based on His commandments.
'Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean. 'For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. 'For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.' " This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten. (Leviticus 11:43-47, NASB)
Click to expand...
So, for me, the question still remains. Is it permissible for a man to marry his wife's sister IF there is no rivalry between them when he marries them? I'll keep digging. Discussions related to holiness are fascinating.
 
may i respectfully say:

medical science has found problems with pretty much all of the unclean meats
there were reasons for every law that He gave and i believe that in the present discussion the law against marrying the sister, if it is to vex her, stands.
 
Perhaps there can problems found with all of the meats the Bible calls unclean, but similar problems can be found in clean meats. The example I gave of deer meat having trichinosis is one example. I would love to debate the food laws, but perhaps we can do that in the thread that is already for that discussion. I only mentioned the parallel between holiness in the food laws and holiness in marriage to show that there is one. If you don't see it then fine, but let's not debate food in this topic — please.

Here is the food discussion that I'm involved in:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=128
 
And where did you learn this????? ... I grew up in a very religious home and it was taught against.
Would be interested in reading it for myself
 
It is found in the absence. There is no law against it. It is never spoken against by God, ever. All those things on who to be with and who not to. Not one mention of a cousin.

It is also found in culture. In many societies, the first cousins were kind of automatically expected of betrothal, as if the oldest ones belonged to the oldest counterparts and so on down the line (can't remember the details though... I might be getting things a little off, but I know it was first cousins). I also know from personal experience... the first person I had a desire for was my first cousin.

*Sigh* It would have saved a whole lot of trouble if marriage was only taught in the west and my first wife was picked for me at birth. Why, oh why, didn't my mother marry an African like she wanted to when she was young? At least they still do that kind of thing.
 
I was dissecting Leviticus 20 and I couldn't find any prohibition against marrying a niece. I then Googled it and found out that I was right. Go figure?!

Anyway, I would like to discuss the following commandment:
The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness — they are close relatives, it is a depraved plot. (Leviticus 18:17)
Click to expand...
This is the verse that immediately precedes the verse in question concerning two sisters.

Please carefully note that a man cannot marry a woman and her granddaughter. Wouldn't sisters be closer than a woman and her granddaughter? A man could marry a widow who already had children and then he would be forbidden marriage to his wife's granddaughter — even though there is no blood relation.

The Torah gives the penalty for sleeping with your wife and her daughter as death by fire (Leviticus 20:14). However, no penalty is listed for sleeping with your wife and her granddaughter, though it is said to be wrong in Leviticus 18:17. What do you think?
 
brYce said:
... wife and her daughter ... wife and her granddaughter ... What do you think?
Click to expand...

Dunno. Not too interested in either situation. Thus the prohibitions are not troublesome.

Sisters could conceivably be different. There are no issues of respecting those in one's lineage involved, as neither begat the other.
 
CecilW said:
Yeah, but then your name would be sadanmbawashante or some such, and that's even HARDER to pronounce! :lol:
Click to expand...
Actually, it would probably be Uchenna. Most of them are. I knew of 10 while I was in Cyprus, at a time before many Africans actually came there.

CecilW said:
HEY! Sir BumbleBerry!! Get off my keyboard!!!
Click to expand...
Aww, let the poor fella have some fun. :lol:

His posts and yours are always greatly enjoyed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top