• 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.

Non-Biblical nature of the term "sister-wife"

Status
Not open for further replies.
BexyandBen

BexyandBen

New Member
We firmly believe in the concept of Plural Marriage. But the concept and term "sister-wife" we do not find to be scriptural.

This is the statement of seekers wanting to understand how it came to be in common parlance and not wishing to bash anyone's worldviews. :)

The biggest issue we have with the term "sister-wife" is the implications based on the word-pictures.

It implies:

1) That the women are sisters -- clearly a violation of Scripture
2) That the husband is either having relations with his siblings or his daughters -- also a clear violation of Scripture
3) That the relationship between the women must exist as though they were sisters -- implying that any love between them is incestuous.

Why does this word-picture persist?
 
While you ask some good questions, BexyandBen, this is actually one that I would counsel not to get too worked up about.

A person who calls me a 'brother' or 'sister' in Him may not be a blood relative, or share a physical parent with me either, but I don't object too much to the characterization. Like "sister-wife", it is doubtless intended as a term of endearment, and has a similar implication. Such wives, in a situation to be emulated, would tend to love one another as sisters, and share an intimate relationship to their covering that other women can rarely comprehend.


Blessings,

Mark


PS: Do read the Song of Songs (Solomon) as well! Even the qualification rendered as "to vex her" in the prohibition against marriage of sisters suggests that some of the characterizations you suggest may not be as "Biblical" as is often supposed. ;)
 
Mark,
We didn't want it to seem like we were "worked up". We're just curious why the term is so common if it's not scriptural.

Bex and Ben
 
I would also like to point out in Liviticuse were it states that if a man takes a rivil wife it shouldn't be her sister because this dishonors her. It also has an implication that they might be rivil wich does give you an image of sibbling hood doesn't it.
The word it's self to me is very new. I use it commonly like SW as if I've been using it for years but truely it's a new word. I think I prefur it to rivil. I can't remember Mark C but you once used a hebrew word for the woman that is also married to your husband. What was that? Is it biblical?
 
One of the topics we have talked about is a better "name" for these relationships. My husband's other wife just doesn't seem to work for most of us. I personally do not like the term sister/wife so I try to refer to T as T or as my sister. But sometimes that little bit of clarity is necessary and it is the most clear term we have right now.

I have heard suggestions of co-wife and partner-wife but co-wife seems corporate to me and partner-wife could be taken in even more ways than sister/wife.

My hubby put up a term that he found in the Jewish Law. I will have to see if I can find it. It had possibilities. I would never call my sw "rival". That has a very negative connotation and would be taken the wrong way every time.

SweetLissa
 
BexyandBen said:
Mark,
We didn't want it to seem like we were "worked up". We're just curious why the term is so common if it's not scriptural.

Bex and Ben
Click to expand...

Hope you didn't find the term too offensive, B&B - it's a way term that was intended to be lighthearted...

But your rephrased question is quite telling as well, and I want to repeat it:
"why [is] the term is so common if it's not scriptural?"

All kinds of similar examples come immediately to mind - from "Easter" to "Sunday" to "divorce". (The first two words are, of course, explicitly pagan in origin and antithetical to Scripture, while the latter is simply an English word that describes a condition which may, or may not, be; the Bible distinguishes in both Hebrew and Greek between "put away", and what might better be called "Lawfully put away, including a certificate(witness, aka 'get') of divorce, allowing remarriage".)

We live in a society where MOST of what is done is either "unScriptural" or worse. It's not at all surprising that the result is confusion (deliberate, of course, if one believes in the Adversary and "prince of this world"). Our search for "good words" thus, in too many cases, becomes a quest for a word which describes something that God sanctions, in a language and society which calls "good, evil", and "evil, good".

There's more - but that will have to be later (Song of Songs 4:9, 4:10; Lev. 18:18, etc.).

Blessings,
Mark
 
I think that for the most part the term is used because there is no other word that fits well. My wife's dad calls me son, but I am married to his daughter, so that would be weird, but people are used to those designations. I don't like the term SW because it is common to LDS and brings up bad thoughts for most people, just like the term polygamy.

I don't even use the words monogamy or polygamy or even marriage anymore, they are also not in scripture, just like the term, "plural marriage." I use the term "covenant" to describe everything.

The wife of my first covenant.
The wife of my second covenant.
The wives are not first or second, the covenants are. It is amazing to see the impact it makes when talking to people. After a while it starts to sink in to them that we are not polygamous, and they are not monogamous. We are the same. We have covenants. You have one, and so do I. And I also have another one. (not yet, but today is another day)

I think the only way to base what term to use is to come up with one on our own because there is no designation in scripture for it. I prefer for the women to say when asked who that person is,

"That is Judy, she is my friend." Or, "and she is also married to Bob. Yes, the same Bob that I am married to."

and the responses sometimes are....."What does that make you to each other?"
and a good response is "That makes us married to the same man."

"Does that make you sisterwives?"
"No, it makes us both wives."

"so how to you refer to her?"
"she is a person named Judy, and she is my friend, so I told you, that is my friend Judy. And that is my friend Christine."

" is Christine married to Bob as well!?!"
"No, I was just showing you how easy it is to understand. Christine is my friend, Judy is my friend, but Judy is also married to Bob, and so am I"

"So which one is first."
"Neither, I love Judy and Christine as friends equally."

"No, i mean are you first or Judy in your marriage?"
"Both of us. I am first in my covenant, and she is first in hers. Our covenants are with our husband, not with each other."

"Are you close with her?"
"Of course! We are married to the same man and we are friends, how could we not be?"
and so on, and so on.......they are not sisterwives, co wives, or anything other than wives. The only difference being that they chose to marry the same man. JMHO.
 
I like that comment, Paul, and of course share your disdain for the term "polygamy" as well. (Not only are there 'unScriptural' connotations, but the term is ambiguous, and misleading, since it INCLUDES the concept of forbidden polyandry. Like you, I frequently point out to others that there IS no word for any such concept or "type" of marriage in Biblical Hebrew; God simply ordains marriage.)

I would suggest (in advance, in some cases) that husbands have such a discussion with their wives. Whether "they decide" how to refer to one another or not, (and it may well be something which depends on context -- who is asking, and why) I submit that as covering and head of the house the husband should be "on board" with the implications.

And - speaking for myself - I have also long-preferred variants of the term "Covenant helpmeet" in most cases as well!
 
Thanks, Mark.

I get a little burned out debating sometimes. The issue is not that we need to keep justifying ourselves, just like I now make them prove why it is wrong, instead of trying to lay it all out, they get confused. The issue is that we are the ones that are not wierd, so we need to start acting like it. At least in my world. As DeeAnn says,

"They laugh at me because I am different, I laugh at them because they are all the same."

No, they are wierd, not us. Using different terms that actually represent what the Bible says is a great way to make an impact without even debating.
 
Re: "to vex her" and "sister"

Agreed, Paul. Perhaps that is one additional reason (beyond the obvious) why I enjoy looking at the Hebrew in such cases. It tends to highlight the fact that what He Wrote is often not at ALL what the "tradition of men" tries to teach as doctrine.

So - this is what I was working on in the meanwhile:


A couple of things have been mentioned above that are interesting studies. (Both have been discussed here before, probably at greater length, so I won't try to repeat all of that. :) )

Lev. 18:18 is pretty well-known among students of patriarchy, since it is utterly redundant if polygyny ITSELF were prohibited by the Bible:

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

While I won't try here to prove a conclusion, I would simply note that the prohibition against marrying sisters is NOT necessarily universal - it is apparently qualified. So the key is, what does "to vex her" mean?

The Hebrew word is Strong's H6887 - tsarar צרר
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)


I have heard a number of interpretations, including that it primarily refers to a situation where a sister might be taken as wife to provide offspring when the original is barren. In any case, it would at least seem to be a "caution", and a warning that anyone contemplating marriage to sisters should beware of sibling rivalry. But I think it is possible to conceive of situations where it might be acceptable, and Biblical.

As to the Song of Solomon/Songs, these verses (4:9-10) are certainly food for thought:

Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, [my] spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.

How fair is thy love, my sister, [my] spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!

Most here are no doubt already aware that the bride being described is a plural wife. The word used multiple times in this Book for "sister" is:
Strong's H269 - 'achowth
אחות

-- which can mean anything from sister or half-sister, to bride or beloved. (The word translated "spouse" in the KJV is Strong's H3618 - kallah
כלה
and might be rendered as 'bride' just as well as wife.)

I don't know that I draw any specific conclusions from these terms here alone, but I do think they tend to enhance our understanding of the Word.

Blessings,
Mark
 
One thing to consider, however, that you failed to mention in your comment on that verse...

"...to uncover nakedness..." is an idiom in ancient Hebrew that means "to commit the act of incest".

Therefore, when you see in scripture a references to "uncovering nakedness" is the the sin of incest.

It's, therefore, not even debatable whether you're "vexing" her or not--you're leading her into the sin of incest if you violate God's law in this way.
 
Then why did God allow both Leah and Rachael to be married to the same man? God cannot make us to sin.

SweetLissa
 
And considering the next verse Lev 18:19 I don't thing that "uncover nakedness" is translated as incest. Possibly pornea or sexual immorality, but how could it be incest at one time of the month and not the rest of the month?

SweetLissa
 
Leah and Rachel were permitted because it happened before the law was given not to do so.

I believe that Leah and Rachel identify exactly *why* sisters should *NEVER* be married to the same man. It is a life lesson. And after this life lesson occurred, God laid down the law and said, "Never do it this way."

Exactly the same reason why Seth was able to have relations with his sister to populate the earth before the law mandated that relations between brother and sister were forbidden.
 
sweetlissa said:
And considering the next verse Lev 18:19 I don't thing that "uncover nakedness" is translated as incest. Possibly pornea or sexual immorality, but how could it be incest at one time of the month and not the rest of the month?
Click to expand...

The idiom remains true. The Israelites labeled many forms of "sexual sin" as "incest". Much like they used the term "abomination" to mean anything from "don't eat shrimp" to "don't defile the temple of the Most High".

Bottom line: "uncover her nakedness" means "sexual defilement".

And the reason it "vexes" her is that it is "sexual defilement".
 
Are you saying that the people before Sinai never knew God's Law? That Abram did not know what adultery was or coveting? I am not challenging you, just asking.

Why did God say this to Abimilech?

Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Click to expand...

How did the pharoah know that he was plagued for taking Sarai?

Gen 12:17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
Gen 12:18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the Big Ten at Sinai were the first law, and the Levirate law was a continuation making the law more strict for God's chosen? In such a way that there was no law at all before Sinai?

Interested at your understanding of these, I have not formed an opinion yet.
 
Greetings All,

Just commenting on the whole "Rachel & Leah issue." No God doesn't force any of us to sin, as He has given us all free will & the fact that we're all born with the sin nature in us & thus all sinners until the day we die. With our free will, we can all make a decision to confess, repent, ask for forgiveness and ask Jesus into our hearts as our Lord & Savior. But our Salvation doesn't mean that we are free from falling into sin during our life time and walk with Jesus. So from time to time with our free will, it is We who choose to allow sin into our circumstances. I'm guilty of this truth myself at different seasons. However, if we humble ourselves, repent and do our best to turn from that sin, Then Yes - Yeshua is faithful & just to forgive us of that sin, pick up the pieces & press forward for that which lies ahead in Christ Jesus! :D

So yes Yeshua does allow us all to sin with the free will that He's given us. Just as he allows sickness, death and all other trials in our life. He allows us the choice to sin, but not without conciquences for our actions. Yes there is forgiveness but our sinful choices that we humans make effects us all in some form, and there is always some repricussion's on the part of our sinful choices, that can sometimes effect people for many generations to come! (Please forgive my horrible spelling!)

Besides, the whole Rachel & Leah issue is somewhat of a different issue as there was deception involved from the beginning. Anywho, just my two cents. Take care all & Keep on Keepin on with Yeshua, family & friends. Going forth in His Name, Might & Power, being a blessing to others & being blessed in return along the way! :) :)

FOR HIS GLORY ALONE,
Faithful Servant ;) ;)
 
Are you saying that the Big Ten at Sinai were the first law, and the Levirate law was a continuation making the law more strict for God's chosen? In such a way that there was no law at all before Sinai?

Interested at your understanding of these, I have not formed an opinion yet.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I see no mention of "thou shalt not take two sisters as wives" in the ten commandments.

Adultery is a completely different sin--it is breaking a covenant before God by usurping the covenant of another. Adultery is significant enough that God condemned it universally for all of mankind--and I firmly believe that this was commonly understood long before the Mosaic law was given.

I think you're muddying the waters of something that is very, very simple. God said,"Don't take two sisters--it is sexual defilement that vexes them". It doesn't matter if He didn't say it before Leah and Rachel. It doesn't matter that Leah and Rachel were the life lesson to teach all mankind that this is *always* a bad things. What matters is that *God said "don't do it"*.

He didn't say "don't do it *if they aren't vexed*." He said, "Committing this sexual defilement vexes them--don't do it."

It's not "if they are vexed" it's "this causes vexation". And the mandate is still there: DO NOT DO IT.

Is it one of the "big ten"? No. It's not. Does it please God to violate his Law and go against what he says is the right thing to do? That's for your conscience to decide and you to give answer for in the day of judgement.
 
He didn't say "don't do it *if they aren't vexed*." He said, "Committing this sexual defilement vexes them--don't do it."

It's not "if they are vexed" it's "this causes vexation". And the mandate is still there: DO NOT DO IT.
Click to expand...

While I understand your interpretation, B&B, I don't necessarily agree that the conclusion is proven. Nor am I attempting to argue that one SHOULD do such a thing, just that I do not agree that any prohibition is so absolute. The construction of the prohibition IS unusual, and so is the provision of the qualifier, since it clearly seems to imply a specific intent in the act which is the problem. Lastly, the usage of Lev. 18:19 DOES seem to be a good counter-argument; certainly so to those who conclude that intercourse during niddah between a husband and wife is thus to be avoided.

I am one who holds to the Truth that God "changes NOT" (Mal. 3:6) and is the same yesterday, today, and always (Heb, etc) and that our Savior did not change "one yod or tiddle" of His torah, or "teaching and instruction". That includes, but is not limited to, the "ten sayings". (I personally even conclude that pork and shellfish are simply "not food" -- even though we might be empowered to even eat poison if necessary :D )

But by the same token, whether it's sisters or remarriage after lawful 'divorce', I am inclined to be VERY careful about "forbidding to marry" without far more compelling witnesses (two or three, preferably) from Scripture.

Blessings,
Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top