Q. One verse that I have not yet seen addressed in the female bisexuality debate is 1 Corinthians 7:4, "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife" (KJV). Substituing plurals for the polygamous situation: "The wives have not power of their own bodies, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wives". In the NAS, "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does". In the Wesley NT, "A married woman is not mistress of her own person: her husband has certain rights. In the same way a married man is not master of his own person: his wife has certain rights. Do not refuse one another, unless perhaps it is just for a time and by mutual consent, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer and may then associate again; lest the Adversary begin to tempt you because of your deficiency in self-control" (vv.4-5). Plural: "Let a man pay his wives their due, and let the women also pay their husband his. Married women are not mistresses of their own persons: their husband has certain rights. In the same way a married man is not master of his own person: his wives have certain rights. Do not refuse one another, unless perhaps it is just for a time and by mutual consent, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer and may then associate again; lest the Adversary begin to tempt you because of your deficiency in self-control".

Verse 5 could be interpreted in a way to support full intimate contact between wives whereas verse 4 is definitely in support of husband-wife(wives) and wife(wives)-husband intimacy only. One wife cannot have control or demand her due from another wife unless verse 5 is broadly intrepreted in which case the whole point of marriage sex is to meet needs and cool passions through fulfillment.

Earlier: "But because there is so much fornication every man should have a wife of his own, and every woman should have a husband" (v.2). Later: "If, however, they cannot maintain self-control, by all means let them marry; for marriage is better than the fever of passion" (v.9).

The point of marriage for Paul is apparently to meet sexual needs and cool the fever of passion and to avoid fornication and to maintain self-control.

I think this is stretching the meaning of v.5 somewhat. To give it the meaning you are appently searching for does imply that the sister-wives are in some sort of marriage contract with each other in addition to the contracts they have with their husband. There is no evidence that I am aware of to suggest such contracts either existed then or before. Such is certainly absent from the Torah. And whilst such does not necessarily exclude a further development or unfolding that would include such an interpretation, this scripture can hardly be used as a reference to it.

Author: SBSK