• 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

If the wife is happy to share her husband with her sister, then it isn't "to vex her". I'd argue it is allowed.

Even in Jacob's situation, he didn't marry Rachel "to vex" Leah. The vexation experienced by Leah and Rachel was a sad consequence of the situation created by deception of their father. Vexation wasn't the intention of Jacob.

Keith is wrong about the mother daughter granddaughter thing. That is all clearly prohibited. If you take a woman, you are prohibited from sexually taking her ancestors and descendents. This might relate to the commandment regarding honoring father and mother. Whatever the case, it is forbidden.
 
Bartato said:
I also love the movie.

It is however total fiction. The historical evidence shows that the British weren't the monsters that the movie portrayed them as.

Braveheart
We Were Soldiers
The Patriot

Mel has had some good war movies.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with that. The history is that the British were quite cruel in that war. Rebels were walking dead men anyway at the time.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I would disagree with that. The history is that the British were quite cruel in that war. Rebels were walking dead men anyway at the time.
Click to expand...
I thought I'd get your attention with that comment. 😁

One interesting thing that I've recently come to understand about the American Revolution is that a lot of the fighting actually took place between pro-independence and pro-crown local American militias.

It was more of a civil war than I realized, even between Americans.

A lot of Francis Marion's success was against the loyalist militias.

Marion was an excellent military leader.
 
Bartato said:
I thought I'd get your attention with that comment. 😁

One interesting thing that I've recently come to understand about the American Revolution is that a lot of the fighting actually took place between pro-independence and pro-crown local American militias.

It was more of a civil war than I realized, even between Americans.

A lot of Francis Marion's success was against the loyalist militias.

Marion was an excellent military leader.
Click to expand...
The Pinelander Podcast had an excellent three part series on the history of Unconventional Warfare in the Carolinas during the American Revolution.
 
Joleneakamama said:
I doubt anyone here was offended by your initial post. These conversations are common enough here. A point you might find interesting relating to what might happen in a marriage bed with more then one wife is that in the parable of the ten virgins five went into the marriages.
Here it is in our concordant version with the Greek alongside.View attachment 5905
View attachment 5906


The Bible says clearly women are not to put on that which pertains to a man. It also says there is nothing new under the sun. I think that prohibits strap on pretend things.
Click to expand...
"That which pertains to a man" . Let's try to rule a few items in or out: men and women have both worn robes / dresses in just about every culture at one time or another. Where is the scriptural line? Are kilts wicked?
What is the difference between shirts and blouses? The direction of the button flap? The style or print? Is our Maker losing any sleep over these things? The phrase in quotes above comes from an expression found nowhere else to compare it with, but the idea that seems to best fit it might be "armor" or a soldier's outfit.
Personally, I can imagine the Creator objecting to women being soldiers, police, prison guards, and carrying deadly weapons, etc. Just my take.
 
I am behind again, so if this redundant, forgive my oversight:
As to marrying blood sisters, doesn't scripture present Rachel and Leah as Abba's idea? And He claims to be married to sisters Judah and Israel? And if marrying twins is always wrong, why is there the qualification about vexing? We could have had a commandment like "thou shalt not steal to vex thy brother". Right?
 
Victorious said:
I am behind again, so if this redundant, forgive my oversight:
As to marrying blood sisters, doesn't scripture present Rachel and Leah as Abba's idea? And He claims to be married to sisters Judah and Israel? And if marrying twins is always wrong, why is there the qualification about vexing? We could have had a commandment like "thou shalt not steal to vex thy brother". Right?
Click to expand...
"To vex" addresses something defective in the man's heart. Men frequently vex their helpmeets, but shouldn't do so intentionally, especially with something so serious as marrying a woman's sister.
 
Bartato said:
I thought I'd get your attention with that comment. 😁

One interesting thing that I've recently come to understand about the American Revolution is that a lot of the fighting actually took place between pro-independence and pro-crown local American militias.

It was more of a civil war than I realized, even between Americans.

A lot of Francis Marion's success was against the loyalist militias.

Marion was an excellent military leader.
Click to expand...
There’s an excellent podcast called the History of the American Revolution you might enjoy too.
 
MeganC said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Firstly, kudos @MeganC for some great posts from the female perspective. Much appreciated.

In my view, a man who would have the open heart and spiritual capacity to both love and lead sisters is a courageous man. Even beyond what normal headship and leadership requires of us believing men. And it also requires courage and spiritual maturity in the wives.

It is a choice that could be rewarding domestically, but socially, it will be very difficult. It requires an understanding of home and family as one's tribe and a clear understanding of the "leave and cleave" concept, because outside of perhaps groups like this, which are small and like minded on core values, you're not going to find many people willing to grapple honestly with this or have a mature discussion. The churches I grew up in treated otherwise great men of God as embarrassing in their polygyny.

Even the most traditional of fathers might struggle with this concept. And be very hesitant, if not completely unwilling to give his blessing. And while women drawn to polygyny are often more content at home than in the "world" at large, this isn't only controversial with secular society (though they seem to tolerate just about everything else, at this point) but to call it controversial in the church, would be implying there's actual reasoned debate about it. For 99.9% of the church, this is a non starter. So if it's difficult to not be in fellowship with most of your church friends or family as a result of this, be aware.

This sounds like negativity, but my broader point is that salacious speculation aside, it takes a wise leader who correctly interprets Scripture, and sisters that truly are loving and loyal. And that can be a powerful, beautiful thing. But one needs to be an exceptional human being to undertake bold ventures like this and have a great deal of independence from social structures that may not be present once you do.
 
CountrySquire said:
Even the most traditional of fathers might struggle with this concept.
Click to expand...

I agree. And this is where economics comes into play as it impacts acceptance or tolerance of poly.

If 2024 sees the world slip into the Depression more and more people are forecasting (myself included) then I expect a few things:

1. Men whose situation can bear a bad economy will become much more attractive to women they're not married to.

2. Those women will be more open to considering poly with the man who is doing well for the family he already has.

3. The odds of one of those women wanting to have a sister she loves under that same roof will also increase.

4. The fathers who will be begrudgingly happy for their daughters in such a situation will also increase.
 
Good points but I'm not too certain about #4.

Reason being, in my cynicism and observance of human nature, particularly with the highly churched...

I think some people honestly believe that needless suffering is more noble or spiritually pure than entering into a plural marriage. Of course, I disagree, but if the church really took marriage and family seriously, and wasn't just indulging in "soft feminism" in the attitudes and conduct it implies, then they would be more candid about the fact that polygyny existed in Scripture and wasn't labelled as sinful.

Even if you don't "agree" that it should be practiced in modern times, at least have an honest discussion and be willing to grow spiritually. But instead of considering all the options, and laying them out there, the church would prefer to retreat while remaining comfortable.

The worst "pandemic" in human history was and is the destruction of traditional gender roles and the nuclear family. And many sinful, self-indulgent and immature "men" (I use the term loosely) have not helped the cause, but instead, have provided ammo to the feminist camp. @MeganC has spoken to this before, in her own experiences.

In my experience with legalists and people making rules where Scripture doesn't, many of them take pride in it. They underestimate God in the process, and overestimate their ability to avoid sin, so even when they're not doing anything on their particular denomination's list, they're very proud about it. Last I checked, that's a sin too.

Evangelical churches are filled to the brim with broken homes, single mothers, widows, actual victims of genuine abuse, women who struggle with addictions and challenges of health, mentally and physically. And we haven't done right by them for centuries. In the process, men have also withdrawn. People used to talk about the "battle of the sexes" but it seems a lot of people have retreated. Men "going their own way" and again, failing to lead or develop lives that can welcome in women in need. Women giving up on relationships, pouring themselves into fruitless careers, filling overpriced apartments with things that won't last. We've set both genders expectations too high on the inconsequential and small, and too low on issues of values and priorities regarding what lasts.

While I hate to see people suffer unjustly, I would like to believe that if what Megan describes happens, the results would be as outlined. But sadly, I wouldn't bet on it.
 
CountrySquire said:
Evangelical churches are filled to the brim with broken homes, single mothers, widows, actual victims of genuine abuse, women who struggle with addictions and challenges of health, mentally and physically. And we haven't done right by them for centuries. In the process, men have also withdrawn. People used to talk about the "battle of the sexes" but it seems a lot of people have retreated. Men "going their own way" and again, failing to lead or develop lives that can welcome in women in need. Women giving up on relationships, pouring themselves into fruitless careers, filling overpriced apartments with things that won't last. We've set both genders expectations too high on the inconsequential and small, and too low on issues of values and priorities regarding what lasts
Click to expand...

Wow….as someone who grow up in the evangelical church, I had so many faces of friends and family members flash through my mind with each of the categories and descriptions you listed, this hit hard.
May God’s Grace shine through all their pain and bring healing, and my He use me to chart a better course for my family.
 
Vector said:
Hello everyone, just a quick introduction. I am relatively new around here. I've been looking at the website for a bit before making an account interested in learning more about biblical polygyny and the points surrounding it.

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. I tried looking through the linked discussion to see if these has been addressed, but with and without an account, it had been deleted. I don't know who to talk to about this, so I posted here.
That link is right here: http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=4059

First question I had regarding this was the why in more detail regarding the arguments or sources used. I did not see any discussions or talks occurring with this, so I would be interested if people who saw/participated in those discussions or had an opinion about this could bring those up.

Second question I had, Leviticus 20:14 prevents a man from marrying a woman and her mother, noting this as wicked. This has been seen from me and others as proof of men not being able to marry a woman along with her blood relatives. For those who believe that a man can marry a wife and her biological sisters as described by the FAQ as "not vexxing", how would Lev 20:14 apply? Does it list the rule that the only blood relative of a wife a man could not marry would be her mother, and that if her cousin or aunt or grandmother were single and willing that he could take them in marriage along with the wife in polygyny? How far could this go? Or is there other arguments?

Final question, probably the most controversial of the three. I've looked through the forum, with there being men who believed that a man could have a threesome or foursome with his wives if he desired so and thought that it was biblical(from the biblical perspective, in modern day you need consent). If the bible is tolerant on the man getting pleasure from his wives sexually as he pleased and tolerant of a man marrying a wife's sister or if the line gets extended, her blood family members who were single and allowed, then what about combining both?

I know that just because something may be biblically allowed, it does not mean you should do it. That is obvious. The chances of this happening to someone is relatively very low. The chances for the wife or the people involved to be accepting or tolerate these viewpoints or intentions is zero unless the guy's a billionaire 6'5 gigachad PUA man who's built different mentally. For the record, I'm still learning about biblical polygyny, and not too much knowledge of these two viewpoints allowed here. Still, I do wish to push the limits here of those views and put personal feelings aside for the quest of knowledge in learning more about this position and the limits. Seeing how these beliefs would be.

Thank you
Click to expand...
If you need another opinion from a wife, I would definitely prefer we go together rather than get separated from my sister. That's probably a good case by case decision because I have yet another sister which whom lives right through the woods from my house but I would NEVER want to be paired up FOR LIFE! Hope that helps..
 
Sisters...
Hmm
Not sure about that really
If they grew up together then they are more accustomed to teamwork and by extension it is harder to vex a team.
I figure you only have 2-3 years of good vexing at the early stages of marriage until a woman gets used to you and your shenanigans. Two sisters have advantages which would force a man onto his toes and keep him working hard to get their collective goat.
Not 100% sure I approve
 
That is weird...the original post from @Bartato showed in my notifications and I thought he was reply to my being silly in how I was using vex. So replied saying a sense of humor update was needed, not remembering that he had initially used vex in another context.
So I deleted the remark. Would prefer to admit to acting a dumbass even if not witnessed rather than to display it widely.
Not sure why it was in notifications...or if I am smoking whacky tabaccy and then blanking it.
Definitely strange though
 
paterfamilias said:
That is weird...the original post from @Bartato showed in my notifications and I thought he was reply to my being silly in how I was using vex. So replied saying a sense of humor update was needed, not remembering that he had initially used vex in another context.
So I deleted the remark. Would prefer to admit to acting a dumbass even if not witnessed rather than to display it widely.
Not sure why it was in notifications...or if I am smoking whacky tabaccy and then blanking it.
Definitely strange though
Click to expand...
So, it's you too? Glad I'm not the only one! 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top