• 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.

Marrying Twins

rockfox

rockfox

Seasoned Member
Real Person*
Male
This was started in the ‘Poly Practised Elsewhere’ Thread and moved here to separate out the discussion. See: Poly Practised Elsewhere

Frank S said:
http://trendingnews24h.blogspot.com/2015/03/viral-thai-man-legally-married-both.html
Click to expand...

Luckily, both of the twins said yes to him and even told him that ever since, they already promised to marry the same man.
Click to expand...

This seems to be a common phenomena among twins. Further marrying sisters is a historically common form of polygyny. I'm not sure how to rectify that with Lev 18:18 yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockfox said:
I'm not sure how to rectify that with Lev 18:18 yet
Click to expand...
Leviticus 18:18 (KJV) Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].
Just don’t do it if your motivation isn’t pure.
 
rockfox said:
This seems to be a common phenomena among twins. Further marrying sisters is a historically common form of polygyny. I'm not sure how to rectify that with Lev 18:18 yet.
Click to expand...

Since God who is perfect in all his ways showed Himself as concurrently (during their lifetime) married to two sisters, and since I can't find any sense wherein He somehow set things up so as to vex one with the other, then I'm having to conclude God got it right (of course!). My read of it is that He accomplished marital union with two sisters without the taking of them being the cause of vexation. Any disagreement they had between them was not stemming from some faulty act on His part.

In contrast to taking one to vex the other, I've heard of twin sisters who were forced apart by monogamy-only marriage, and for the rest of their days they had a form of vexation due to an extreme sense of loss. They were conceived together, born together, grew up together and were then forced apart for the rest of their days on earth. Talk about being vexed!

Imagine if God had applied monogamy-only to the two sisters He took and told one of them "you have to go away, you can't be mine because only one is allowed". That would have been awful and definitely vexing! No, in Leviticus 18:18 we are told what is wrong to do with sisters, then we have God's example of perfection with sisters that everyone has to concede is right. I take my cue from His example since it can't be improved upon, plus, I take the wisdom of Leviticus 18:18 and make sure that in my life I won't do that. Set before us in the Scriptures are both God's example of getting it right and Leviticus 18:18 telling a circumstance that would be wrong; neither contradicts the other. I don't believe God says one thing but then acts the opposite. People do that, but not God.

Have a look at expressions on the faces of those two ladies in the link - if the guy told either one of them to go away because he can only have one, I'm pretty sure that would have been the cause of rather serious vexation which neither lady would get over for the rest of her life. Such words from him would undoubtedly have caused vexation. Taking two sisters as God did just strikes me as a rather good example that cannot be improved upon, but it definitely is an example that can be followed. Who would say "don't follow His example"?
 
steve said:
Leviticus 18:18 (KJV) Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].
Just don’t do it if your motivation isn’t pure.
Click to expand...

Well certainly it would be vexing to a twin to tell her you WOULDN'T marry her sister as well. And yet one verse before...

You must not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. You are not to marry her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter and have sexual relations with her. They are close relatives; it is depraved.
Click to expand...

Since they are close relatives, it is depraved. What are twins but the closest of relatives?

Interesting thought... not vexing your first wife, that's a good scriptural argument against taking a second without the first on board.
 
The thing that makes the most sense to me is that you are not to marry your wife’s daughter, ie; your own daughter. She would be too close of a relationship.
Nothing else really fits.
 
frederick said:
Twins are sister, not a mother and daughter. It's the taking of a mother and daughter that is specifically prohibited.
Click to expand...

It was more than that...

woman and her daughter. You are not to marry her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter and have sexual relations with her.
Click to expand...

The reason given was they were close relatives to each other. How are not twins even closer than mother/daughter or mother/granddaughter?
 
rockfox said:
This seems to be a common phenomena among twins. Further marrying sisters is a historically common form of polygyny. I'm not sure how to rectify that with Lev 18:18 yet.
Click to expand...
Read it carefully and look what is actually being prohibited. It’s a legal document so it’s specific and explicit. All the terms are important. This was the passage that made me realize poly was Biblically acceptable. It was a mind bomb that flung me pretty far.
 
rockfox said:
Since they are close relatives, it is depraved. What are twins but the closest of relatives?
Click to expand...

rockfox said:
It was more than that...
The reason given was they were close relatives to each other. How are not twins even closer than mother/daughter or mother/granddaughter?
Click to expand...

Hi, @rockfox. [By the way, I'm going to look for an opportunity to do so in an appropriate thread, but be forewarned that I'm going to lean on the combination of your inclinations and expertise to request that you expound on Q.]

Anyway, I am very slowly working on a short book focusing on Leviticus 18-20. The 'uncovering the nakedness of' section that begins in Lev. 18 is addressed specifically to men, starts with a general prohibition against marrying/having sex with near kin, then lists specific examples, and finally addresses exceptions. What is being asserted are prohibitions for men regarding who they're not allowed to marry/have sex with. The fact that female twins are near kin to each other is irrelevant (even in the event that they purposefully or inadvertently physically enjoy each other in the course of being sexually intimate with their husband). What is relevant is that neither of them are near kin to the husband.
 
frederick said:
Twins are sisters, not a mother and daughter. It's the taking of a mother and daughter that is specifically prohibited.
Click to expand...

ZecAustin said:
Read it carefully and look what is actually being prohibited. It’s a legal document so it’s specific and explicit. All the terms are important. This was the passage that made me realize poly was Biblically acceptable. It was a mind bomb that flung me pretty far.
Click to expand...

@ZecAustin, you have zeroed in on the crux of this biscuit: (a) it's a legal document; and (b) everything about it is specific and explicit, right down to the use of ands and ors. If one drills down into the full distinctions of prepositions, qualifiers, syntax, tense and gender in the original Hebrew wording of these passages (just as with any other set of Biblical passages), the context of the mother-and-daughter phrase is entirely dependent linguistically on the use of 'and.' This is a passage that highlights by omission the fact that Scripture does not prohibit not only polygyny but also doesn't prohibit a husband from being sexual with more than one wife at a time, because it is a specific prohibition exception against specifically making love with a woman and her daughter [in this case, the daughter of a man who was previously married to the mother, whether the marriage ended due to death or divorce] simultaneously. Given the overall context and the very specific manner in which what preceded it was worded, this would have been worded distinctively differently had the intention been to prohibit being married to a woman and her daughter. Having sex with one's own daughter had already been mentioned, so this sentence couldn't possibly have been referring to one's own daughter. Because of the use of the word 'and' in its syntax with "uncovering the nakedness of," the phrase is specifically prohibiting getting into bed with both a woman and her daughter at the same time. It doesn't specifically prohibit being married to both of them.
 
Keith Martin said:
The fact that female twins are near kin to each other is irrelevant (even in the event that they purposefully or inadvertently physically enjoy each other in the course of being sexually intimate with their husband). What is relevant is that neither of them are near kin to the husband.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting point. But it depends on how you want to read the preceding verses...

You must not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. You are not to marry her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter and have sexual relations with her. They are close relatives; it is depraved.
Click to expand...

You say it's a legal document and syntax matters. The syntax of that sentence is it is talking about the relationship between a woman you're having sex with and another woman you want to have sex with. The man isn't mentioned. "You must not [have sex with 2 such peoples]. They are close relatives." 'They' is speaking about 2 women, not the man. Otherwise it would say, 'she is your close relative'. The relationship between the man and either woman is not discussed. That is why it say's "her daughter" and "her son's daughter". Remember, this is OT, this might be a widow or divorced woman with kids from prior relationships.

That female twins are near kin IS relevant because that was the justification for the prohibition in v17, and the relationship is closer than those in v17.

The only fly in the ointment of this is v18 wouldn't need to bother mentioning 'vex' if this was true. Maybe sisters was an exception for some reason? I don't know.

Keith Martin said:
this would have been worded distinctively differently had the intention been to prohibit being married to a woman and her daughter. Having sex with one's own daughter had already been mentioned, so this sentence couldn't possibly have been referring to one's own daughter. Because of the use of the word 'and' in its syntax with "uncovering the nakedness of," the phrase is specifically prohibiting getting into bed with both a woman and her daughter at the same time. It doesn't specifically prohibit being married to both of them.
Click to expand...

Maybe a Hebrew grammarian can correct me, but you can't get there from the English...

You are not to marry her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter and have sexual relations with her.
Click to expand...

"with her" not "with them both at the same time". You are not to MARRY [wife's close relative] AND have sex with HER. Nothing there is calling out threesomes specifically.
 
rockfox said:
It was more than that...



The reason given was they were close relatives to each other. How are not twins even closer than mother/daughter or mother/granddaughter?
Click to expand...

You may find some clarity if you consider that a widow may remarry and have a daughter that is quite young. I believe the prohibition had to do with the man maintaining a fatherly relationship with what we now call step daughters. YHWH certainly provided a multitude of other possible wives for men who are inclined to marry again. This restriction IF RESPECTED by men prevents incest by a man with his own daughters, but I believe it should also prevent women who were raised by non bio dads from being taken (used and abused is sadly too common) by their father figure.
 
rockfox said:
I'm not sure how to rectify that with Lev 18:18 yet.
Click to expand...

Back then they did not have a choice with arranged marriage. However, this verse does give sisters an option to not go to the same man if they do not want to. I do not believe that this verse prevents them from marrying the same man if they do want to.

They had a right to expect their own family when the left their original family, if that is what they wanted. They did not have to take their sister with them if they did not want to no matter what the father or prospective husband want.

A mother and daughter was always forbidden.
 
Last edited:
The key word is ‘vex’. In my studies, I came to the conclusion (taking into account Jacob married sisters) that each woman has her own distinct characteristics, wants and desires. If her very nature is a one on one relationship with her husband and is forced into a threesome, you are forcing that wife to go against her very nature, thus “vexing” her.

We all know what forced sex with someone is and if she is forced into an intimate relationship with someone of the same sex, she would be living a life of hell. Therefore, don’t marry the sister to vex her.
 
I just discussed this with my wife. Her take on the verse is ‘don’t marry the sister to tic off the first wife just to get even with the first wife or her back’.
 
There is a difference between....

#1) Leviticus 18:18 (KJV) Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

and...

#2) Leviticus 18:18 (KJV) Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister. (something is missing!)

The first is a conditional prohibition, the second is an unconditional across the board prohibition. What's the point of even talking about not vexing if the situation of marrying a woman in addition to her sister is not allowed in the first place? Do we have evidence God instigated vexing between sisters because of His marrying both of them? Nope! I don't believe He contravened Leviticus 18:18 when He married sisters.

Furthermore, if I proceed and marry sisters based on my understanding of what is written, and it is somehow off because of unclarity of my thinking or a verse's wording, then I've done it in ignorance. I believe there is grace for those who aim to glorify God to the best of their ability and don't always get it right. If I fail in ignorance, I believe such failing got covered back there at Golgotha along with all else that's been wrong with me.

At this point, that sorts it out pretty good in my thinking. I would marry sisters if all other usual conditions for marrying are fulfilled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top