• 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.
I think we should read Leviticus 18:18 in it's context, together with verse 17, and see what the passage says,
'You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness. You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness. (NASB version)
Click to expand...
Now, look at these verses from Young's Literal Translation,
`The nakedness of a woman and her daughter thou dost not uncover; her son's daughter, and her daughter's daughter thou dost not take to uncover her nakedness; they [are] her relations; it [is] wickedness. And a woman unto another thou dost not take, to be an adversary, to uncover her nakedness beside her, in her life.
Click to expand...
Please notice that verses 17 and 18 are joined together in the literal translation by the word "and". I looked it up in the Hebrew and verse 18 does indeed start with the word "and". This clearly connects the two verses and so we should attempt to see their relationship.

The reason why it is wrong in verse 17 for a man to marry a woman and her daughter or granddaughter is because they are related. It is called wickedness. How is it that Hashem suddenly says, in a connected sentence, that it is okay for a man to marry two sisters? They are related and it is wickedness. Further, we see from the strife in Jacob's family that marriage between sisters brings rivalry.
 
So why don't you answer the first part of my post? You keep telling us to answer the question, but you avoid talking about it when I make a good point.

SweetLissa
 
'You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
Click to expand...

This verse specifically says that they are blood relatives. Not what you said earlier about there being no blood relationship.

SweetLissa
 
sweetlissa said:
'You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
Click to expand...

This verse specifically says that they are blood relatives. Not what you said earlier about there being no blood relationship.

SweetLissa
Click to expand...
The man who married a widow is not blood relations with her daughter, or granddaughter, from the previous marriage. However, the ladies are blood relations with each other — just like the two sisters of Leviticus 18:18.
 
sweetlissa said:
So why don't you answer the first part of my post? You keep telling us to answer the question, but you avoid talking about it when I make a good point.

SweetLissa
Click to expand...
Sorry, exactly what are you asking me? I missed it. Please, clearly restate your question that I've overlooked.
 
Sorry, Bryce, but you DO ignore the very valid point that our articulate God DID see fit to include a qualifier. Don't like it? Fine. Don't marry sisters. Each should be convinced in their own mind. Lissa, and I, and others on this site find the qualifier phrase important, and a great clue to Father God's heart.

As to your question regarding the previous verse, it occurs to me that there is another element at play here when we have generational relatives rather than siblings.

The 5th commandment tells us to honor our parents. That honor would presumably extend to grandparents and in-laws as well. At the same time, a man is commanded to leave his parents and create his own household. Presumably NOT with HIS inlaws.

Once again this becomes easily understood. A woman should be on a more or less equal footing with any other wives in her own household. To do otherwise would be cruel.

So imagine the situation where a woman grew up under the authority of her mother. She's now a woman and wants to have her own home, under the authority of her husband, owing her own mom or grandmom nothing but respect. Now, she suddenly discovers that she's gotta live her whole bloomin' LIFE under their noses, trying to be her own person, and a complete wife to her husband, yet at the same time UNDER her mom or g'ma's same roof, etc. Unh, unh!!!! Cruel.

PLUS, allowing that would give easy rise to mom or g'ma making the decision of whom she is to marry, their own husband, while she is too young to make a good choice of her own ... much as we've heard of among the more or less outlaw FLDS groups. Not good. Not good.

As to Rachel & Leah, I'm inclined to attribute their rivalry at least as much to Jacob's husbanding error -- he played very open favorites. Made problems with his boys, too, you might have noticed. *grin* A lesson to us all -- playing favorites sucks eggs. Old ones.

The fact that rivalry MAY occur does not mean that rivaly necessarily MUST occur. The Bible doesn't do much reporting along the line that "so-and-so had a long and happy life without any real problems worth noting." It reports the problems and resolutions or lack thereof, for our instruction. So you're not likely to read that Jimmy married the twins Suzie and Shevon and they all lived happily ever after with their 12 sons, 9 daughters, 300 camels, 1200 sheep, and 7 porcupines. *grin*
 
Okay. I prayed about this subject again and had a brief re-look at the scriptures in question. This is what I am getting, (the same as before)...

I agree with Milton, (Don) that Leviticus 18:18 should be read in context, but I do not see the word incest in my Bible, so I will say that the context in which the scripture should be read is the context that God is telling His people NOT to be like the people of the land in which they are entering, or from which they came. Essentially all the scriptures in this part of Leviticus are doing thus. Therefore, they really do not as such necessarily apply to us today, since we are not entering the land of Canaan, (nor coming from Egypt) in which all kinds of perverted practices were being carried out, but are free from these restraints as the New Covenant allows. In that sense, we are to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and not the letter of the law, (see the book of Galatians for those who question this concept). If the people involved in the relationship are Spirit-filled Christians walking according to the fruits of the Holy Spirit, (against which there is no law, Galatians 5:22) and if something is wrong, then they will know it, by the Spirit. Anything else falls short of where we should be walking as Spirit-filled Christians. To try to split religious hairs in order to at best ‘guess’ what was behind the written Word in Leviticus will never solve the problem for all. We are free from this law, period. I Corinthians 6:12 tells us, (all quotes are NKJV)...

12All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

If we are filled with the Holy Spirit, then these things will be clear. If our heart is motivated by the love of God and by faith we do something that we feel the Holy Spirit is allowing or leading us to do, (such as marrying two sisters who dearly love each other and, as Cecil so aptly pointed out, would like to stay in such a relationship) that appears to go contrary to the law, is it sin? Was the law made for man or man for the law? Can I pluck grain on the Sabbath or not?

I Corinthians 2:9-16 -

9But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

God shows us through the New Testament scriptures that the old law was for spiritual babies walking in the flesh. Yes it still exists for the same, but for those of us who walk according to the Spirit, it has no power over us and we do not have to cling to it any more than we have to write our ABC’s within the lines on the paper as we did in grade school, (though maybe for some it would be good to go back and practice such things:))

If we are still under the old law, as some would have us believe, and have not been elevated in the Spirit to a greater law as the Word says, then Jesus died in vain...

Galatians 2:21 -

21“I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

Romans 8:1-11 -

1There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

As for me and my house, we will walk according to the Spirit. My stance on this situation after prayerful review remains the same. I do not believe that the Spirit of God has a problem with these two loving sisters being married to one loving husband, since love is the motivating factor and it covers a multitude of sins. I believe that their children will be loved and blessed of God.

Consider...

Leviticus 20:21 -

21‘If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.

Deuteronomy 25:5 -

5“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

The former was commanded to keep the ‘baby’ Israelites from doing what the Canaanites did, (as so with the commands of Leviticus 18). God qualified this with statements such as...

Leviticus 20:22-23 -

22‘You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and perform them, that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out. 23‘And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them.

God told Moses to command the Israelites NOT to do what the Egyptians did, nor what the Canaanites did. That is why He prefaced the commands in Leviticus 18 with the following statement...

Leviticus 18:2 -

2“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. 3‘According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances.

God had to give these ‘children’ the law and statutes because they did not have the Holy Spirit to guide them individually. That is not the case with those of us who have received Christ and been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Deuteronomy 4:6 -

6“Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’

For Spirit-filled Christians the following scripture supersedes that level of wisdom, (see also I Corinthians 2:13-16 above)...

James 3:13-18 -

13Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. 16For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. 17But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

I submit to you that as a Christian, I do not believe that I am under the old law or its commands. Anyone who wishes to put themselves under these commands, as I have said before, go for it. I am free and wish to remain free. The love of God through the Holy Spirit will be my guide to the deeper things of God.

Blessings,

Ray
 
If the verse was about incest then it would say that a man cannot marry sisters, period. Not that he cannot marry a sister in order to vex his wife. God isn't stupid and he wrote what he meant.

If it was an absolute then it would have said it absolutely, not with a qualifier there.
Click to expand...

This is the part I am referring to. God tends to say what he wants to say. The point was made and you got so worried about the crazy part of my post that you didn't even pay attention to this part.

If God said that it was wrong for a man to marry two wives he would had said it just like that, with no qualifier.

SweetLissa
 
CecilW said:
Sorry, Bryce, but you DO ignore the very valid point that our articulate God DID see fit to include a qualifier. Don't like it? Fine. Don't marry sisters. Each should be convinced in their own mind.
Click to expand...
Hashem also gave a "qualifier" in the previous, linked sentence. What was it?
they [are] her relations; it [is] wickedness.
Click to expand...
Are two sisters related? Yep. Is it wickedness? Perhaps it is.

Remember, it is even sin for a man to marry his deceased uncle's widow.
 
sweetlissa said:
If God said that it was wrong for a man to marry two wives he would had said it just like that, with no qualifier.
Click to expand...
You call it a qualifier, but I think it looks like commentary. In the linked, preceding verse He also says that marrying relatives is wickedness. IMMEDIATELY after he says it is wickedness He says "AND" do not take a wife and her sister to be an adversary while your wife lives. Hashem links the ideas of verse 17 and 18 together. Both verses are talking about marrying two women that are relatives.
 
brYce said:
Please notice that verses 17 and 18 are joined together in the literal translation by the word "and". I looked it up in the Hebrew and verse 18 does indeed start with the word "and". This clearly connects the two verses and so we should attempt to see their relationship.

The reason why it is wrong in verse 17 for a man to marry a woman and her daughter or granddaughter is because they are related. It is called wickedness. How is it that Hashem suddenly says, in a connected sentence, that it is okay for a man to marry two sisters? They are related and it is wickedness.
Click to expand...
Um... the same AND is used before the next few items. Are you saying a WOMAN and her PERIOD are BLOOD relatives?

Hebrew has "and" everywhere to begin sentences. And, we aren't supposed to use it in English to start sentences, but guess what... I DO IT ANYWAY. Take that, crazy English rule maker uppers!
 
Those verses are grouped together — clearly. They're talking about women who are relatives. The rest of those verses are related too. As Hashem started talking in verse 17 and linked all the sentences up to verse 23 together using "and". Let's look at them all and see where this verse that supposedly allows a man to marry two sisters at once lies (AND inserted where it is in the Hebrew text but not conveyed in the NASB):
Lev 18:17 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
Lev 18:18 AND 'You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:19 AND 'Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.
Lev 18:20 AND 'You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her.
Lev 18:21 AND 'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
Lev 18:22 AND 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Lev 18:23 AND 'Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
Click to expand...
Hashem groups this incestuous sin of marrying your wife's sister while she is still alive (and so causing her grief) with other sins like:
  • marrying a woman and her daughter (penalty is death by fire - Lev. 20:14) or granddaughter (no penalty listed, but still wrong);
  • sleeping with your wife during her time of menstruation (penalty is that both are cut off - excommunication - in Lev. 20:18);
  • sleeping with your neighbours wife (penalty is death for the man and woman - Lev. 20:10);
  • offering your children to Molech (penalty is stoning and excommunication by Hashem; anyone who does not hold him to justice is to also be stoned - Lev. 20:2-5);
  • a man who lies with another man as a woman (both men are to die - Lev. 20:13); and
  • people who have sexual relations with an animal (both the person and the animal are to die - Lev. 20:15-16)
Hashem doesn't want men committing incest with their wives' sisters. It's wrong. If you read on, it's what the nations do, not the people of Hashem. Shalom.
 
This thread started out with the observations that this commandment against marrying sisters was qualified in Scripture, in direct contrast to others, such as the commands prohibiting incest or bestiality.

While no penalty is directly specified, I don't see that as particularly compelling. Deuteronomy 28-30 outlines quite sufficiently that there are blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience. Yeshua clarified the situation as well, by simply noting that "IF you love Me, you will keep My commandments." The fact that this discussion is here indicates that all of us are concerned enough about the issue to seek His will.

I once saw the verse as a simple prohibition against marrying sisters, in spite of the EARLIER, and POSSIBILY inadvertant (now THERE'S a study!) actions of Jacob. I agree with Cecil that Jacob's criticism for favoritism (or even near-idolatry) is undeniable, and is a lesson for all husbands, regardless of their unique situation.

It has been said here that "to vex her", or other renderings implying rivalry, are specific. They are, although it is clearly harder to conclude that such a marriage is OK - and will NOT result in vexation or rivalry - than to refrain because it MIGHT. As such, caution is clearly warranted. But I also agree with those who (as I frequently do myself) argue that God unquestionably DOES NOT SIN. Therefore the prohibition CANNOT be general, for all the obvious reasons already outlined.

It has also been noted that "the sages" have long concluded that the qualifier was generally taken to have been a prohibition on taking a sister as a wife to one who was BARREN. That issue clearly "vexed" Rachel for a number of years.

Finally, since I see arguments against the qualifier from English variants, but no attempt to look at the Hebrew, here is what one (the BLB on-line) concordance says:

(and the two uses in Numbers 25 are both VERY interesting as well!)

Lexicon Results
Strong's H6887 - tsarar
צרר

Transliteration --- tsarar


Pronunciation -- tsä·rar' (Key)

Part of Speech -- verb


Root Word (Etymology) -- a primitive root

TWOT Reference

1973,1974
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) to bind, be narrow, be in distress, make narrow, cause distress, besiege, be straitened, be bound

a) (Qal)

1) to bind, tie up, shut up

2) to be scant, be cramped, be in straits

b) (Pual) to be bound, be tied up

c) (Hiphil)

1) to make narrow for, cause distress to, press hard upon

2) to suffer distress

2) to show hostility toward, vex

a) (Qal)

1) to show hostility toward, treat with enmity, vex, harass

2) vexer, harasser (participle)


The best advice I can give a man considering such a course of action is to "study, to show yourself approved", and to be like the Bereans, and search it out for yourself. Then, of course, pray and seek God's will in the matter.

God has already Written it down for us. To have the hubris to declare some other man's child a "mamser" or to rule over his house and choices seems very much like the hypocrisy of attempting to create "doctrine" by "adding to" God's Word.

A husband is responsible for his house, his wives, his children, and his choices.

As for me and MY house...we will serve Adonai,


Mark
 
Hear, hear! With Shalom and Aloha to all.
 
brYce said:
Those verses are grouped together — clearly. They're talking about women who are relatives. The rest of those verses are related too. As Hashem started talking in verse 17 and linked all the sentences up to verse 23 together using "and". Let's look at them all and see where this verse that supposedly allows a man to marry two sisters at once lies
.........
Hashem doesn't want men committing incest with their wives' sisters. It's wrong. If you read on, it's what the nations do, not the people of Hashem. Shalom.
Click to expand...
You make a point based on the AND connection. That point said that the blood relation reason was put from the first statement into the second because of the AND statement. Then AND statements were found all over the place. You then asserted that your point is true because all the things in the group of ANDed things were very wrong.

However, you didn't find a way to reassert that the "to vex her" statement was not a defining point. You did not turn the argument back on the family relation. You simply assumed it was there. This is wrong. You take away from the word of God in subtracting all meaning from "to vex her". That is also very wrong. Do not add tradition to the word of God, and do not subtract from what is written.
 
The verse is clearly about incestuous relations that occur when a man takes his sister's wife while his wife is still alive. If the husband divorces his wife because she was sexually immoral he cannot marry her sister, for to do so would be "to uncover her nakedness". A man is married to a woman and he cannot share that "nakedness" with her sister, for she is a close relation and that is incest. Why is that so hard to understand?

Read Leviticus 18 carefully. Look to see that it is addressing instances of incestuous relations. A man cannot marry any close relations, and a wife's sister is a close relation. You cannot to uncover someone else's nakedness.

What is the closest a man can get without being incestuous? Hashem is the One who defines that.
  • 1. He can marry his uncle's daughter (first cousin), but he cannot marry his uncle's widow. That is his uncle's nakedness.
    2. He can marry his brother's daughter (niece), but he cannot marry his brother's widow. That is his brother's nakedness. We see that the only way a man can marry his brother's widow is if he has to fulfil the Levirate obligation. Under normal circumstances, a man cannot marry his brother's widow.
You have to thoroughly understand the closeness of relationships and how Hashem considers things incestuous. It doesn't even have to make sense to you for it to be His commandment. You just have to accept what He says.

Why is it that so many in this board cannot see that Scripture calls relations between a man and his wife's sister incestuous if his wife is still alive? Do you want to alienate yourselves from your brothers and sisters even more than the truth of plural marriage already alienates you from them? What are your brothers and sisters to do when they come to the truth concerning plural marriage and you tell them they can go marry their wife's sister? You'll probably loose them. You might even become known as "the polygamists who believe in incestuous relationships." All of your efforts to be seen in as a respectable group of Christians can be shattered by something like this. I beg to to carefully reconsider your stance on this commandment.

Christian and Jewish scholars have good reason for understanding that Leviticus 18:18 forbids incestuous relations between a man and two sisters. It isn't about whether the ladies make some agreement to live together in peace. It has to do with Hashem saying that they are too close in relation. He says it is wrong.
 
Hello,

I do not have the time to deal with this subject indepth this time, I would like to make some general observations:

Hermeneutically speaking, Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. We know that God Himself has two wives by way of analogy. We also know from Scripture that these two wives are called sisters. Since we know that God is 100% holy and that He would not encourage His people by way of exampe to violate the Law, we know that the interpretion that suggests that one cannot marry sisters is an interpretation that does not agree with the very heart of God.

Leviticus 18:18 certainly has a conditional clause in it, which I will not even address this time.

However, We know that Jacob married sisters (howbeit by deception), nonetheless, God nor Scripture condemned him for this action. "And" in both the Hebrew and English function pretty much the same. It is used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses along or together with; as well as; in addtion to; besides; also; and moreover. Sometimes "and" can be used to communicate contrast, like "but" or "on the contrary". Moreover, "and", although a conjunction, can also function as a noun or part of an idium.

In essence, it is not wise to base one's doctrine upon one conjunction. Here is an interesting note from Dictionary.com:

"Both and and but, and to a lesser extent or and so, are common as transitional words at the beginnings of sentences in all types of speech and writing"

Doctrine should never be formed based upon a single conjunction. It must be based on the larger context of Scriptural truth.

Blessings!
 
DaPastor said:
We know that God Himself has two wives by way of analogy. We also know from Scripture that these two wives are called sisters. Since we know that God is 100% holy and that He would not encourage His people by way of exampe to violate the Law, we know that the interpretion that suggests that one cannot marry sisters is an interpretation that does not agree with the very heart of God.
Click to expand...
Do the metaphors Hashem uses have to be in-line with the Law of Moses? He speaks of us being His children and His bride. If we follow your logic then it would be incestuous for Him to be married to His children. I really don't think that the metaphors Hashem employs have to make sense. We often want to put Hashem in a box, but there isn't one big enough to hold Him.

DaPastor said:
However, We know that Jacob married sisters (howbeit by deception), nonetheless, God nor Scripture condemned him for this action.
Click to expand...
Scripture never condemned any of the "incestuous" couples that married their close relations before the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai either. The mighty prophet Moses, if judged by the Law of Moses, was a bastard along with his brother Aaron and sister Miriam. Their parents were close relations, and that was forbidden in Leviticus 18 — a man married to his aunt. A bastard cannot lead Israel or be the High Priest of Hashem. We find the same with Abraham and his sister-wife Sarah. Also, Jacob — who also broke the Torah and married two sisters.

The Torah of Moses hadn't been given yet, so Abraham, Jacob, and Amram (Moses' father) were not breaking the Law of God through their "incestuous" marriages.
 
DaPastor said:
Doctrine should never be formed based upon a single conjunction. It must be based on the larger context of Scriptural truth.
Click to expand...
The conjunctions provide ancillary evidence that, with the giving of the Torah of Moses, it is incestuous for a man to marry his wife's sister in her lifetime. I'm surprised that you thought that I was basing my argument on that single conjunction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top