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

[Paul not the apostle]

I hope that I did not offend you with my questions, as I stated I have not formed an opinion yet on this particular subject, and asked for clarification from you regarding your understanding of God’s Law in Leviticus, and how it relates to the Ten Commandments. I purposefully stated that I was not challenging you. My question was based on this sentence,

“And after this life lesson occurred, God laid down the law and said, "Never do it this way."

I understand now that you believe, regarding adultery, that

“this was commonly understood long before the Mosaic law was given.”

because

“Adultery is a completely different sin--it is breaking a covenant before God by usurping the covenant of another”.

I agree that this was known, and I believe that it was known because God told them, and this is why it was commonly understood. This has caused me to want to look at what law or instruction the people of the world lived under before Sinai. I have heard that there was no law. I have heard that the 10 was given to Israel, and so gentiles are not under the 10, but under the law that was given to the world through Adam, and then again to Noah. Those that believe this refer to themselves as Noah-ide. The belief is that the instructions were to hold God’s people to a higher standard than the world, and that these Leviticus passages do not have to concern a “gentile” because they are for “jews”.

I do find it interesting that the verses in Leviticus seem to be a mixture of adultery and incest bans. If adultery was known to the world as sin, then why is verse 16 mentioned? Or 14 and 15? I am not challenging you. The question is something that is raised in my own mind. If everyone knew that adultery was sin, then why put that in there? Why put in to the passage verses that dealt with sins that were already covered?

And why is the term “vex” only used in that one particular verse. It seems like other acts forbidden in this passage would “vex” as well. I can see how it would “vex” a mother to have her daughter be married to the mom’s husband. These are all interesting parts of this passage, and like I said, I am not challenging anyone, I have not formed an opinion yet.

In closing,

“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.”

This is a little hard to swallow. I did not say that I agreed or disagreed with you. The other members are the ones posting in a manner that would seem to be in direct opposition to your position on this particular topic. Asking a question in this manner seems rude and condescending. Who would say that it is proper to “violate his Law and go against what he says is the right thing to do”? I don’t think it is a matter of my conscience either, or has anything to do with my answer on judgement day because God is pretty specific about those that violate His Law. Those people don’t please Him. The question is whether or not marrying two sisters is against His Law, or if it is only against His Law if it is done to “vex” one in her lifetime. It seems like you are upset with me, to the point of bringing up concepts of me and what happens when I stand in front of God on judgement day, and I am sorry if I offended you. I prefer that this forum and message board be of a more relaxed nature, with discussion that goes back and forth for the benefit and edification of everyone. If my questions came across as a challenge, then I apologize. I specifically said that I wanted your understanding.

Did I say anything yet about not challenging and being sorry....

 

[BexyandBen]

Just an interesting research point. I searched for "uncover" and "naked*" to see what various explanations Scripture has for this *serious* sexual defilment in God's eyes.

Here's what we found....

Le 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Le 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Le 18:8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
Le 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Le 18:10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
Le 18:11 The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Le 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
Le 18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
Le 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Le 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Le 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
Le 18:17 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 are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Le 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Le 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Le 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Le 20:19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.


The word for "uncover" is 01540 01540 הלג galah gaw-law'. Essentially, it means nothing more than "reveal".

The word for "nakedness" is 06172 06172 הורע ‘ervah er-vaw’. Essentially "shamefulness".

So, even a word-for-word translation of the phrase is clear that any act of having relations with two sisters "reveals shamefulness". No wonder it causes vexation! God is clear that all these behaviors are shameful.

If it's okay to take a woman and her sister--which the Word says causes vexation--then it must be okay to take all the other situations, too. Which is *BAD* understanding of Scripture. We could go so far as to say "completely false," "man's doctrines," "an attempt to circumvent the clear teachings of scripture for the purpose of illicit lust."

It's not hard to see the truth of this--unless you really don't want to and have put up deliberate blinders against it.

 

[BexyandBen]

I hope that I did not offend you with my questions, as I stated I have not formed an opinion yet on this particular subject, and asked for clarification from you regarding your understanding of God’s Law in Leviticus, and how it relates to the Ten Commandments.

If my questions came across as a challenge, then I apologize. I specifically said that I wanted your understanding.

Paul,
We quoted you, but we were replying in "general" to any who would listen.

It amazes us that anyone cannot see the clear and obvious truth in these verses that *any* of these situations "reveal shamefulness" and *particualrly* when it is two sisters, it *CAUSES* vexation.

The verse does not have *any* linguistic cues to suggest that there is an "if/then" applied to that phrase. It is clear from the phraseology that it means "This act *causes* vexation--and you shall not do it." It is only unclear in the English and only if you are doing everything you can to defend a practice that God says "reveals shamefulness".

Rather than see it as a "condition"--that it is only disallowed *if* it causes vexation...

...read it the way that the Hebrew clearly indicates and see it as an even more serious violation than the rest of the admonitions:

"Having two sisters as wives to one man *reveals shamefulness--and causes vexation for their lifetime."

It is a much more accurate understanding of the Hebrew.

 

[Mark C]

...Just an interesting research point. I searched for "uncover" and "naked*"...

...So, even a word-for-word translation of the phrase is clear...

Sorry, but I checked the same wording before posting above, and cannot agree at all, B&B. I still contend that the phrasing of that verse, in particular when compared to the long list which precedes it, and the more general case which follows, prove the opposite.

"...at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deut. 19:15, etc)

Got another witness from Scripture?








PS> I've "got no dog in this hunt". But I do think that the burden of proof must be on the case for "forbidding to marry", given the many warnings. God tends to be very clear when it comes to "thou shalt NOT", IMO.


Blessings,
Mark

 

[Paul not the apostle]

why is the term “vex” only used in that one particular verse. It seems like other acts forbidden in this passage would “vex” as well. I can see how it would “vex” a mother to have her daughter be married to the mom’s husband. These are all interesting parts of this passage, and like I said, I am not challenging anyone, I have not formed an opinion yet.

quoting myself up there. I am interested in hearing your opinion on why the word "vex" is used in this verse and no other, or if there is not a reason, and it just happens to be there, or whatever.

 

[sweetlissa]

Mark and company,
DaPastor will have something to say about it, as soon as he gets home. Right now he is traveling and won't be near a computer for a few days.

SweetLissa

 

[BexyandBen]

The verse does not have *any* linguistic cues to suggest that there is an "if/then" applied to that phrase. It is clear from the phraseology that it means "This act *causes* vexation--and you shall not do it." It is only unclear in the English and only if you are doing everything you can to defend a practice that God says "reveals shamefulness".

Quoting our own post to answer the questions that came after. Apparently missing that we'd already made that point.

Rather than see it as a "condition"--that it is only disallowed *if* it causes vexation...

...read it the way that the Hebrew clearly indicates and see it as an even more serious violation than the rest of the admonitions:

"Having two sisters as wives to one man *reveals shamefulness--and causes vexation for their lifetime."

It is a much more accurate understanding of the Hebrew.

Again, to answer the question as to "why this is the only verse with that specific additional element."

As for the "two or three witnesses" we think the 15 other verses that use the same phraseology: "uncover nakedness" meaning "sexual defilement" or "revealing shamefulness" are those verses that "bear witness" to this fact.

The "to vex her" is clearly saying that this situation will specifically vex the sisters as a lifetime shame. Their own families would be shamed by their actions. Every society that they encounter would see their shame. Their shame would be visible to all, forever, for this behavior--moreso than any other situation. Hence why the Lord singled it out. He singled it out as a means of saying it is more heinous than all the other situations.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

I think that I am slow this evening.

So the reason that it is only used in that verse is because having two sisters as your wives is more heinous than the other things that were listed, and because it is a lifetime shame. I think I understand what you are saying, I just have not caught on to why it is more shameful than approaching your aunt or marrying a mother and her daughter, or any of the otherthings listed in the passage. I also have not caught on to why this would be not shameful one day, and then the next day be shameful. What if any of the people had married two sisters, and then they hear this new statute (if it means never do it) and are totally shamed. That would be bad.

I wonder if there is any documentation regarding the practices of the egyptians and whether or not they would specifically marry a wife's sister in order to "vex" her, in order to show that she should be disgraced by the new wife who was a relative bearing children in front of her. And I also wonder how much the older sister marrying before the younger sisters had to do with anything, it mattered to Laban.

I am asking about the historical side because the passage has several verses indicating that God is listing out stuff that the "bad" people were participating in, the egyptians,etc.


Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

Lev 18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

 

[Love]

I think that the term Sister wife is a cultural term that we use...most frequently heard in terms such as "sister church" and "sister hospital" ..ie. "Scott & White Hospital is a sister hospital to Mayo Clinic" and two cities close together are referred to as sister cities. It's not a term referring to two sisters who marry the same man.

 

[CecilW]

Weighing in ...

Bexy and Ben, the subject of marriage to two sisters is an old one on this site, and has been explored far more extensively elsewhere. I'll weigh in at this time by saying, "Follow your conscience. If you don't want to marry your wife's sister, or think that doing so would be shameful, then please don't. With all of our blessings." As for the rest of us, we've probably pretty much drawn conclusions already.

Oh, I might add that your conclusion that "uncovering someone's nakedness" is always sinful would seem more declarative than supportable. I certainly hope that you two uncover each others' on a frequent, and rewarding basis. It would seem to me to be a neutral term, made good or bad depending on the relationship of those involved.

Paul, I like your emphasis on the covenant. "That's my covenant marriage partner." or somesuch. However, I fear we will be justly accused of "using a 25 cent word when a nickel word will do". That isn't to say that I won't experiment with your concept, mind you.

But the object of speech would seem to be communication, right? And when I say "wife", communication takes place. As a general rule, in whatever society or language I'm using, the term is recognized and understood. So I'm happy with it. Same with "marriage."

And the same with "sister-wife". Either the person is familiar with the term, in which case communication takes place, or they aren't. If they aren't and ask for understanding, considerably MORE communication takes place. As you so eloquently mentioned the other night, "He's gonna PREACH now!" After which, communication tends to occur immediately the next time the term is used.

For the record, in 12 years of talking to folks about PM, even when I prolly shoulda kept my flappin' trap SHUT, I've never ever had the sort of mis-communication come up that BexyAndBen were so concerned about at the beginning of this thread. No-one has ever, EVER asked if I was implying that there was incestuous nastiness between the husband or any wives.

So, I'm still pretty comfortable with the term. However, if BexyAndBen's experience differs from mine, then I completely honor their choice to use a different term which equally or better causes communication to occur.

For that matter, I'm pretty comfortable with the non-Biblical term "space ship" instead of Ezekiel's "wheel in a wheel in a wheel" or whatever. Typically refer to the first day of the week as "Sunday", and the third "Thursday" of "November" as a "holiday", namely "Thanksgiving". All for purposes of facilitating that free and easy flow of "communication", which may well also be a term not found in Scripture.

Feel free to choose a different path. That might be why the Good Lord made us individuals, not clones.

As to the unchangeable nature of morality, the argument that certain laws were given for the Jews alone has been around for a long time. If that is how you wish to believe, good luck.

Others of us accept God's own statement that He, and thus His standard of righteousness, never changes. That the law of the Lord is PERFECT,converting the soul. That if it was possible for it to change, the sacrifice of Jesus' spilled blood would have been unnecessary -- God could have simply changed the laws.

We also note such things as the Sabbath having been made holy at creation, long before Sanai. That the Sabbath and Marriage are the two institutions clearly tracing their roots clear back to that point. That the difference between "clean" and "unclean" critters was already clearly understood by the Antediluvians since they entered the ark of safety in group sizes based upon this designation. And that the burden of proof would therefore seem to be upon those who wish to claim that the full extent of God's law did not exist, and/or wasn't known and in force prior to the giving of the law at Sanai.

I'll end this bit of observation by suggesting that the law wasn't "given to the Jews" as something new, but "entrusted" to them, that they might live it and in so doing become such a whole, healthy, holy, and attractive people that the rest of the world would be drawn to do likewise. Sadly, it seems to have been misappropriated into a sense of "We got it. You didn't. Na-na-na-naaa-na!" I bet that makes God alternatively sad and furious!

 

[marry-ella]

Oh Cecil, you got of topic and are Preaching.

 

[CecilW]

Ok. Here goes. Can't seem to help myself. Must be the caffeine just turned on my motor mouth.

If the object of the communication was to simply prohibit simultaneous marriage to sisters, "Don't marry two sisters while both are alive, it is sin," woulda done.

8th grade sentence diagraming comes in handy at this point. Remember dependent clauses, and modifying clauses? They ran off at an angle on the diagram to MODIFY the meaning of the basic statement?

"As rivals" and "to vex her" seem to fit right about there. Modifying clauses.

I choose to try to understand all such things by starting at the heart of the Lawgiver. It beats with compassion. I've known cases in the last twelve years where sisters were so close that REFUSING to marry both, and thus forcing them to separate, woulda been cruel. Others in which marrying them both woulda been cruel.

So let me paraphrase the relevant passage as it appears to me. Then if you disagree and still prefer to consider it always wrong, we can start competing polygamist denominations based on our doctrinal differences. Have tent meetings, revivals, street preaching ... Whee!

"Dude! If you're thinking about simultaneously marrying two sisters, let compassion and their own relationship be your guide. Yeah, it has potential. But get real! They've been sisters a long time. And if, after all that time, their relationship is rivalrous instead of companionate, then condemning them to a lifetime of more-of-the-same would be flat out MEAN! Don't DO dat! Their marriages should be places of safety and companionship, not rivalry! Compassion, dude! Compassion!"

That paraphrase works out pretty well here for me. Please note that it does NOT work with other situations lacking the modifying clause, such as mother/sister, two men, father's wife, etc.

 

[BexyandBen]

Oh, I might add that your conclusion that "uncovering someone's nakedness" is always sinful would seem more declarative than supportable. I certainly hope that you two uncover each others' on a frequent, and rewarding basis. It would seem to me to be a neutral term, made good or bad depending on the relationship of those involved.

And you'll note that nowhere in Scripture does God ever refer to married sex in this way--yet He does refer to it in this way if it is two sisters married to the same man.

Someone else asked, why would this be more heinous?

We can only surmise--perhaps because the genetic code is too close? Perhaps because wives married to the same man have more potential to become involved with one another when emotions and passions are extremely aroused? And perhaps it is a more heinous thing for sisters to be involved in such a thing--as direct relations--than the rest of those other relationships that are more distant. Again, however, this is only a guess. We only know that God said "don't do it" and didn't explain Himself.

8th grade sentence diagraming comes in handy at this point. Remember dependent clauses, and modifying clauses? They ran off at an angle on the diagram to MODIFY the meaning of the basic statement?

And if 8th grade English had any bearing on ancient Hebrew, you might have a point. However, English doesn't even come close to having all the detail of sentence structure that Hebrew has. Thus diagramming the sentence in English leaves you wide open to unscriptural interpretation based upon non-scriptural methodologies.

"Dude! If you're thinking about simultaneously marrying two sisters, let compassion and their own relationship be your guide. Yeah, it has potential. But get real! They've been sisters a long time. And if, after all that time, their relationship is rivalrous instead of companionate, then condemning them to a lifetime of more-of-the-same would be flat out MEAN! Don't DO dat! Their marriages should be places of safety and companionship, not rivalry! Compassion, dude! Compassion!"

Toss in "besides, it reveals shame that they have to live with for the rest of their lives" and you are starting to get there.

 

[CecilW]

Oh Cecil, you got of topic and are Preaching.

Off topic? Naaaw. Me? I think all of the above topics had been touched on in this thread.

Preaching? Well, yeah, I do that upon occasion. Just treat it as verbal Nyquil. Someone else near and dear to me who will remain nameless just now despite her loud "Meows" -- does. *grin*

Y'all'll have to excuse me while I quit preaching now and go "Woof" a while. *'nother grin* Hey, it's communication!

daPug

 

[CecilW]

Toss in "besides, it reveals shame that they have to live with for the rest of their lives" and you are starting to get there.

Sorry. Can't. Don't see that. The modifying clause matters, in my view. Guess we'll just have to disagree.

... Not that sister pairs are lining up begging me for marriage, mind you. Is this a particular problem y'all face?

 

[BexyandBen]

Sorry. Can't. Don't see that. The modifying clause matters, in my view. Guess we'll just have to disagree.

Really curious why you can't--when God did.

... Not that sister pairs are lining up begging me for marriage, mind you. Is this a particular problem y'all face?

It's a matter of purity to us. God clearly illustrated the problems of sisters married to one man through Leah and Rachel--then gave a clear statement "don't do this" and explained it in the same verse "because it vexes them for their whole lives."

Why question what God said? Why even open yourself up to it? Why not just understand that it's a bad, bad idea and don't do it?

We're very focused on pleasing God before pleasing ourselves. And this seems like one of those points to us--please God by obeying His mandates before we try to please ourselves by tagging a couple of sisters.

(However, to be blunt, if you knew my wife's sister, you'd agree that finding *any* excuse not to *ever* be with her would be advantageous! LOL)

 

[DaPastor]

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?

Hello,

1. It is not a violation of Scripture to have two sisters, or "sisters" in the Lord.
2. Like all idiums, "sister-wives" needs explanation until those near understand the term the same way. Hopefully, we do not need to go into a study on the history of idiums.
3. Their relationship is certainly to be sisters.

Moreover, the term "Scriptural" is not in the Scriptures. The term "plural-wives" are not in the Scriptures. If one were to use the argument "the implications based on the word-pictures" is why we have a issue with it, then come up with a better term.

I believe the argument you are trying to make is that believers are to use terms that are only contained in the words written in the Scripture. This is a most noble goal, provided it does not become a legalistic mandate. For to be truthful, there is not passage in the Scripture that demands that believers only use words contained in the Scripture to explain what they believe to be true.

If on the other hand, one must use terms in the Scripture, here are two for you:

Pilegesh: The Hebrew term for a concubine with similar social and legal standing to a recognized wife.

This term is usually seen as offensive to most Christian women. Although, there is a "Pilegesh Personals Website" for those who are Jewish.

or

Zarah: This is the term that is used in the Soncino Talmud.

zarah, [H] 'rival'. Where a husband has more than one wife, each woman is a zarah in relation to the other. The term is derived from [H] which signifies oppression, hence 'rival', 'adversary', as in I Sam. I, 6 (cf. Kimhi a.l.), or 'to tie up', 'to bind', hence 'associate', 'co-wife'.

However, as Christians, we desire for wives to go beyond the carnal attitudes of "rivalry".

or simply

Ishshah: woman, wife, female, woman (opposite of man), wife (woman married to a man)

For now, the term "sister wives" is a much better term then calling them "Pilegeshs", "Zarahs" or "Ishshahs"! When I introduce either of my wives, on the other hand, I do not say this is my "sister-wife". I say this is my wife.

My two cents!

 

[marry-ella]

:idea: with out even giving my true opinion I want to through a munky rench because it's fun. What if a man marries his only brothers wifes sister. Then his brother dies and under the law he is to marry his brothers wife making his new wife his wife's sister in her life time :?:

 

[sadanyagci]

Really curious why you can't--when God did.

You assume your point is the true one, when you have not proven that, nor have you worked through the many things that have been said here, except to acknowledge them as irrelevant. Cecil said that if God meant something so simple, He would not have put the qualifier in there to begin with. This applies to any language. You can't just throw that reasoning out as not applying to Hebrew.

You state that uncovering nakedness is evil in and of itself, instead of being a euphemism for intercourse, or even what it literally states. This is your assumption. You assume to make a law of this, when the language matches the other at least as much, if not more. You then press this upon others.

You see it as a reasoning, I and many others here see it as a qualifier. The reasoning itself doesn't make sense in our eyes, because we see other things. Cecil put it plainly that it's not good to separate some sisters. I see the same thing. I also see that this problem you mention... rivalry and vexing... was the exact problem, in the old days, that marrying sisters was supposed to solve. That's why this passage didn't make too much sense to me for a while. It doesn't agree with other scripture (God takes two wives, who are sisters), and it doesn't agree with the reasoning and experience of other cultures (if that was a reason stated, it would still end up invalid in cases where the reasoning did not stand), and it doesn't agree with the language. You are fitting your view upon the scripture, through your assumptions. That is the problem.

My mother was talking just yesterday about that. Christianity has completely left truth. It's now all assumptions. Reading it plainly, I see what others here have stated. I see that it agrees with God, whether you like it or not. If you don't, then that's fine, as others here stated many times. Just don't marry sisters. It's quite simple. But, to quote Paul, "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant?"
If God brings me sisters, so be it. The marriage would be valid in His eyes, and I see no condemnation of it. I would be following in the footsteps of God Himself even. I hope that your disagreement would not cause you to look down on His servant who simply disagrees with you on whether a statement in one odd scripture out of the whole of God's word is a reasoning or a qualifier. Such should not divide brothers and sisters in the Lord.

P.S. Over here we still use terms like brother, sister, uncle, etc... for anyone, as terms of respect. Sister-wife would be the same... simply stating a term of endearment with a stated reason for the connection, that of being wives of the same man. I don't see how such language could ever be confused on this part of the earth, or the part you are on. Such is a normal tendency of human speech.

 

[CecilW]

It's a matter of purity to us. ... We're very focused on pleasing God before pleasing ourselves. ...
(However, to be blunt, if you knew my wife's sister, you'd agree that finding *any* excuse not to *ever* be with her would be advantageous! LOL)

Seems like I see a theme here. When I first approached my younger brothers with what I was learning about PM, they said, "Why would you want to do THAT?!" Since one's wife was pretty abusive, it was understandable in much the same way as is your repugnance towards the idea of marrying your wife's sister.

But I DON'T see how that warrants overlaying your personal repugnance into scripture, and attempting to hold all believers to it, and then claiming it as being a matter of purity. That's quite a leap. If you can make it, and are satisfied with the results, more happiness to you. Me? I try to take one step at a time and avoid leaps, crotchety old rascal that I am. *drawing my worn shawl closer around my thin and shivering shoulders while peering over the reading glasses perched on the very tip of my ancient nose*

Every so often, when I'm tempted to take something God said to it's extreme in the name of purity, the following verse comes to mind:

Do not be overly righteous, nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
So not be overly wicked, Nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time? -- Eccl 7:16,17

Seems like the Teacher advocates a balance. Works for me.

Sometimes, in my case, balance requires a cane, but I do try. Sadan, now. ... He's young and agile. Perhaps he's into leaps ... oops! Guess not. Enjoyed your observations, Sadan. It's too early in the AM here. I'ma gonna shut back up!