• 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.

General Asking about Viewpoint from FAQ, Is Marrying Sisters Prohibited, and more

Keith Martin said:
  • I'm a proponent of being sex positive about intimacy between a man's wives, including threesomes, foursomes, etc. However, that isn't a blanket approval, because Leviticus 18 reigns over this subject area, so -- if a man has wives who are blood-related to each other, then those women shouldn't even be in bed with you when you're having sex with their blood relatives, much less having sex with each other, because those individuals are near kin. The euphemistic phrase, 'uncovering the nakedness of," always implies penile/vaginal penetration at the very least but is worthy of caution even in the case of two sisters -- or a mother and a daughter -- watching each other being penetrated.
  • Mother and her daughter are prohibited from having sex in front of each other in Leviticus 18:17 because they are near kin. Period. Mother and daughter are not prohibited from marrying the same man. To come to that conclusion requires inference combined with preferential personal interepretation. But if threesomes were absolutely prohibited, the particular example wouldn't even need to be mentioned.
Click to expand...
Just to ask, Lev 18(KJV) notes, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

When it mentions that "thou shall not take" referring to her grandchildren, is this reffering to sex or marriage?
 
Vector said:
Also, I wanted to ask you what you meant by intent. What classified as her being vexed or not based on your view?
Click to expand...
Let’s look at the verse:

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

The whole verse is about why the man is taking the sister to the wife. The first phrase, “18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister” is qualified by the next phrase, “to vex her”.

If you’re not doing it in order to vex the wife then you are not in violation of the verse. Remove that one aspect and you’re in compliance.

Two further notes, this is splitting hairs. I personally think that is the correct way to approach the direct commands in scripture. They are laws and they should be treated legalistically. I do not approach all scripture that way but I most certainly do with the commands.

Second, that last phrase, “in her lifetime” has me perplexed. I don’t know how it fits in to my interpretation. This is why I’m still a little cautious with this approach to this verse.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Second, that last phrase, “in her lifetime” has me perplexed. I don’t know how it fits in to my interpretation. This is why I’m still a little cautious with this approach to this verse.
Click to expand...
You even see good examples of marrying a sister after the wife's death in movies. The Patriot is an example. The aunt that already loves those children is a logical choice and maybe the best choice to raise them after their mother is gone.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Second, that last phrase, “in her lifetime” has me perplexed. I don’t know how it fits in to my interpretation. This is why I’m still a little cautious with this approach to this verse.
Click to expand...
Maybe you just don’t have to worry about whether it vexes her in her afterlife?
So reassuring and all. 😊
 
NBTX11 said:
Wonder why threads like these pop up all the time.

Solution - find someone other than your wife’s sister and you have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
You can't avoid it.

Jacob is righteous example of sororal polygyny (marrying sisters). So have proper example, not juat something theoretical. Mother-daughter combination can be avoided, but sisters can't.

And since we have example, it's likely to be followed in practice. And this requires answer is threesome with sisters OK.
 
MemeFan said:
You can't avoid it.

Jacob is righteous example of sororal polygyny (marrying sisters). So have proper example, not juat something theoretical. Mother-daughter combination can be avoided, but sisters can't.

And since we have example, it's likely to be followed in practice. And this requires answer is threesome with sisters OK.
Click to expand...
Mhm. The different variations of similar answers were very interesting to see with the reasoning. Especially when it came to the mother daughter points that were brought up. With agreeing that they should not be present in penial-vaginal, or penetrative intercourse or seeing each other nude here. But with their differences.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Let’s look at the verse:

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

The whole verse is about why the man is taking the sister to the wife. The first phrase, “18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister” is qualified by the next phrase, “to vex her”.

If you’re not doing it in order to vex the wife then you are not in violation of the verse. Remove that one aspect and you’re in compliance.

Two further notes, this is splitting hairs. I personally think that is the correct way to approach the direct commands in scripture. They are laws and they should be treated legalistically. I do not approach all scripture that way but I most certainly do with the commands.

Second, that last phrase, “in her lifetime” has me perplexed. I don’t know how it fits in to my interpretation. This is why I’m still a little cautious with this approach to this verse.
Click to expand...

Alright, but what about the next part that would add on, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

I'm a bit confused on if this is adding onto if there is a Vex. I believe you mentioned how this isn't the Vex itself, but is intention the only thing applicable here? If the man married the two intentionally to create competition between the two, versus if he married the two, and finds that they aren't very fond of each other. So he makes them bury the hatchet. Or what if they were close, and then had times where they were distant? Distant then close?

For part 2, the in her life time, I know you already said you don't know how it would fit. But could it possibly be fitting and applicable to the result of the vex, that being to not uncover the nude of the two via -some in their lifetime if that was the man's intention?

My other question here, this goes back a bit to Keith's initial response from yesterday where you disagreed with his interpretation of that
"Mother and her daughter are prohibited from having sex in front of each other in Leviticus 18:17 because they are near kin. Period. Mother and daughter are not prohibited from marrying the same man." That sex being defined as penis-vaginal or penetrative, or viewing each other nude while seeing that.

Your views being that the Bible doesn't allow that marriage at all. Could you elaborate on this viewpoint of yours?
 
Vector said:
Alright, but what about the next part that would add on, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

I'm a bit confused on if this is adding onto if there is a Vex. I believe you mentioned how this isn't the Vex itself, but is intention the only thing applicable here? If the man married the two intentionally to create competition between the two, versus if he married the two, and finds that they aren't very fond of each other. So he makes them bury the hatchet. Or what if they were close, and then had times where they were distant? Distant then close?

For part 2, the in her life time, I know you already said you don't know how it would fit. But could it possibly be fitting and applicable to the result of the vex, that being to not uncover the nude of the two via -some in their lifetime if that was the man's intention?

My other question here, this goes back a bit to Keith's initial response from yesterday where you disagreed with his interpretation of that
"Mother and her daughter are prohibited from having sex in front of each other in Leviticus 18:17 because they are near kin. Period. Mother and daughter are not prohibited from marrying the same man." That sex being defined as penis-vaginal or penetrative, or viewing each other nude while seeing that.

Your views being that the Bible doesn't allow that marriage at all. Could you elaborate on this viewpoint of yours?
Click to expand...
  • I'm a proponent of being sex positive about intimacy between a man's wives, including threesomes, foursomes, etc. However, that isn't a blanket approval, because Leviticus 18 reigns over this subject area, so -- if a man has wives who are blood-related to each other, then those women shouldn't even be in bed with you when you're having sex with their blood relatives, much less having sex with each other, because those individuals are near kin. The euphemistic phrase, 'uncovering the nakedness of," always implies penile/vaginal penetration at the very least but is worthy of caution even in the case of two sisters -- or a mother and a daughter -- watching each other being penetrated.
  • Mother and her daughter are prohibited from having sex in front of each other in Leviticus 18:17 because they are near kin. Period. Mother and daughter are not prohibited from marrying the same man. To come to that conclusion requires inference combined with preferential personal interepretation. But if threesomes were absolutely prohibited, the particular example wouldn't even need to be mentioned.
  • Besides, in my humble opinion, if YHWH intended to outlaw threesomes within marriage, He wouldn't have beat around the bush about it: Leviticus 18 would have included a 'thou shalt not' specifically about wives of one husband being sexually intimate with each other.

    In case I may have missed something.
 
frederick said:
You mean, like just about everyone else does?
Click to expand...
I'm just hear to learn, man. Beliefs can chance, ideas could change, opinions of others can too. I didn't know if it happened once or so and changed or if was just within that period before marriage that would register the part "for the rest of the wife's life".
 
Vector said:
"Mother and her daughter are prohibited from having sex in front of each other in Leviticus 18:17 because they are near kin. Period. Mother and daughter are not prohibited from marrying the same man." That sex being defined as penis-vaginal or penetrative, or viewing each other nude while seeing that.

Your views being that the Bible doesn't allow that marriage at all. Could you elaborate on this viewpoint of yours?
Click to expand...
Let’s look at the verse again:

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they areher near kinswomen: it iswickedness.

That exact phrase “uncover her nakedness” is used throughout used throughout chapter 18 as a euphemism for sex. It is the phrase used to forbid relations with one’s parents siblings, children and grandchildren. There is not even a hint that it is permissible to marry these relatives as long as one doesn’t have a threesome with them. In verses 6-16 it is unequivocal that the text is forbidding having sex with “near kinsmen”. I see no reason why the phrase would shift meaning in verse 17.

It is in verse 18 that we see a shift in the phrase itself, from “uncover her nakedness” to “uncover her nakedness beside her in her lifetime”. It is with a change in the phrase that we can admit a change in the meaning.
 
I just LOVE the phrase when "the Stupid said to the prudent...." LOL. Sorry, I cant have a stupid wife!
 
The Revolting Man said:
Let’s look at the verse again:

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they areher near kinswomen: it iswickedness.

That exact phrase “uncover her nakedness” is used throughout used throughout chapter 18 as a euphemism for sex. It is the phrase used to forbid relations with one’s parents siblings, children and grandchildren. There is not even a hint that it is permissible to marry these relatives as long as one doesn’t have a threesome with them. In verses 6-16 it is unequivocal that the text is forbidding having sex with “near kinsmen”. I see no reason why the phrase would shift meaning in verse 17.

It is in verse 18 that we see a shift in the phrase itself, from “uncover her nakedness” to “uncover her nakedness beside her in her lifetime”. It is with a change in the phrase that we can admit a change in the meaning.
Click to expand...
Sir, you should check the Hebrew - Greek concordance for better understanding of the word in the verse, that should give you more understanding of the word. Yah bless.
 
gemini156 said:
Sir, you should check the Hebrew - Greek concordance for better understanding of the word in the verse, that should give you more understanding of the word. Yah bless.
Click to expand...
Just to check, is this you disagreeing or you see more that can be added to what was explained here?
 
gemini156 said:
Sir, you should check the Hebrew - Greek concordance for better understanding of the word in the verse, that should give you more understanding of the word. Yah bless.
Click to expand...
I do sometimes but rarely do I find any additional clarity here that I didn’t find in checking multiple translations. Ultimately concordances are just translations too.
 
Vector said:
I had a few questions around the official statement around those who believe or support the viewpoint that marrying sisters as wives is biblically allowed, and not vexing or wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure that marrying sisters could be vexing for some men. But for the sisters it's sometimes a wonderful choice especially when they love each other and are not interested in being apart.

The pattern I usually see in life is an older sister marries and for whatever reason a younger sister ends up moving in with the married couple.

If the older sister is agreeable then the husband and younger sister start a marital relationship and things usually work out very well.

Where it goes sideways is when the husband and younger sister have an affair with predictable results. Just like any other affair this kind of thing is doomed.

So when you're interpreting sisters with the same man take this into consideration that informed consent for everyone involved is the key to success and the outcome of such marriages is in my opinion clearly in God's plan. I've never seen them fail when they get off to a good start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top