• 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.

A Few Historical References

S

Shibboleth

Seasoned Member
Male
This isn't so much a review of any particular book, as it is a chain of historical references that I happened to come across tonight, which others may find of interest.

I am currently in the process of reading through a book entitled The Biblical Marriage: For God or Government?. It says nothing on polygamy, but makes a case for marriage without a state license. In the course of discussing the history of the marriage license, it goes back at least as far as the Council of Trent. Not being up on all my historical church councils, I hopped over to wikipedia for a quick summary (1545-1563; embodiment of the Catholic Counter-Reformation). There, it mentioned that this council also condemned concubinage.

Deciding that was an interesting historical fact, and worthy of follow-up, I Googled for information about concubinage before the Council of Trent, and came across a book on Google Books: Husbands, Wives, and Concubines: Marriage, Family, and Social Order in Sixteenth-Century Verona by Emlyn Eisenach. I probably won't buy this, but I skimmed a few pages available online from the beginning of Chapter 4 - Concubinage in Verona. If anyone is interested in the history of this topic, this book looks like a good place to start (surely I'm not the only one here who finds the Renaissance Period fascinating?). It's also well-researched, and contains numerous references to other works and sources in the footnotes. Excerpt:
Concubinage had a long history of acceptance on the Italian peninsula that only began to wane at the end of the sixteenth century. Through the Middle Ages and up until the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, secular and ecclesiastical law tolerated concubinage, particularly when both participants were unmarried, although in practice even technically adulterous relationships were widely known and often accepted. The Veronese legal code of 1276 protected a man's right to his concubine against kinsmen, and law codes as late as the sixteenth century from other Italian cities matter-of-factly included concubines in the list of people whom it was licit for a man to punish.
Click to expand...

One such footnote mentioned an article titled Concubinage and Marriage in Medieval Canon Law from the Journal of Medieval History I (1975). This doesn't appear to be online, except behind academic paywalls, but here's the abstract:
The medieval canon law adopted an ambivalent attitude toward concubinage among the laity. While the canonists disapproved of concubinage on moral grounds, they sought to assimilate the status of the concubine to that of the married woman and thus to legitimize concubinous relationships. In this process of assimilation the canonists made use of the institution of clandestine marriage, which created problems of its own. The crucial difficulty lay in constructing a satisfactory system of proof, so that it would be clear whether or not a given couple should be treated as married, or whether they should be considered legally as unmarried. The Council of Trent abolished lay concubinage and clandestine marriage, but thereby created a system of marriage law flawed with defects almost as serious as those experienced under the medieval law.
Click to expand...

However, in the "Related Books" section of that article, Google suggested another "book" -- more of a four-page letter, really -- entitled Bible View of Polygamy. This is available online for free (all four pages!). There's not really anything new here, but some folks might find it an interesting perspective, and it is a short read. It appears to have been written sometime during the American Civil War (1861-65), by someone who calls himself "Mizpah", and is addressed to one Reverend John Henry Hopkins, an Episcopalian Bishop (whose son, incidentally, wrote the hymn "We Three Kings of Orient Are").

A bit of historical context is needed for understanding some allusions in the preface of this letter. In 1856, the Republican Party, in its National Convention, had made as the first point of its political platform: "It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." Note that the mention of polygamy here is in response to the persecution of the Mormon church, and is essentially declaring polygamy to be a form of bondage as degrading as slavery. In 1861, around the time the Civil War was starting, the Reverend Hopkins published the pamphlet A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery, justifying that institution. Presumably, it was this pamphlet that "Mizpah" refers to as the inspiration that emboldened him to write this letter to the Reverend, defending polygamy as well. Its incidental support for slavery is rather offputting today, and frankly, makes this a terrible document to use in persuading anyone today about polygamy. Excerpt:
Thus the mistaken bigotry of the community, acting through the time-serving pliancy of politicians, has disfigured our statute-books with laws which place a ban upon this patriarchal institution. Noble Christian souls in our midst, yearning to revert to the hallowed rites of old, are obliged to practise them covertly, and under the opprobrious name of bigamists are tracked and persecuted as felons, martyred like the primitive Christians under Decius and Diocletian.
Click to expand...
 
"Bible view of polygamy" is certainly interesting. The full text is here. The introduction is certainly unlikely to persuade a modern reader to accept polygamy, given the author's quite incredible stated aim:
To aid in the light of truth through the accumulated darkness of our so-called modern civilization, in the hope that the time is not far distant when every citizen may have as many slaves as Abraham, and as many wives as Solomon.
Click to expand...
Yes, he really says that!

But the body of the letter makes no mention of slavery and is very soundly argued and concisely worded. Nothing new, but it's written well. Without the introduction, this could be a useful document for someone.
 
The booklet on slavery that this was written in response to ("A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery") is also an interesting read. Hopkins explains in great detail how Scripture does not condemn slavery per se, but rather condemns mistreatment of slaves. He expresses views that would be labeled as "racist" today, but at the same time argues strongly that all men are brothers and evolutionary ideas about some races being "less evolved" are false. He rails fervently against American Christians giving the Declaration of Independence a theological weight and basing their opinions on slavery on its statements about the rights of man. He covers every scripture relating to slavery in careful detail. It's very interesting and carefully written, whether or not you agree with the details. However he then turns around and argues that polygamy is nevertheless banned, using very loose reasoning with little scriptural backing. "Mizpah" clearly noted this inconsistency. His four-page letter is almost entirely quoted from Hopkins' own booklet on slavery, but with the word "slavery" replaced with "polygamy" and relevant scriptural references substituted. They are fascinating to read in parallel.

This is exactly the issue with most Christians today. They will carefully use scripture to build their theology on almost any other matter, but when it comes to polygamy they will throw away all sound scholarship in favour of their emotions. I find it fascinating to see this exact issue played out 150 years ago. I can readily picture any one of the men in this ministry as "Mizpah", writing such a letter to Ken Ham, James Dobson, or some such person, taking their arguments on any other topic and substituting in "polygamy". People are the same in all generations.
 
FollowingHim said:
"Bible view of polygamy" is certainly interesting. The full text is here. The introduction is certainly unlikely to persuade a modern reader to accept polygamy, given the author's quite incredible stated aim:

"To aid in the light of truth through the accumulated darkness of our so-called modern civilization, in the hope that the time is not far distant when every citizen may have as many slaves as Abraham, and as many wives as Solomon."

Yes, he really says that!
Click to expand...

Of course every citizen could not possibly have that many slaves, or wives! Lol

But slavery biblically was a very different thing, and probably far better then what passes for freedom in this modern world.

The dictionary will tell readers that the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution freed the slaves, and abolished involuntary servitude. In reality what actually happened is they just changed who owned the slaves, and made all men slaves of the federal government.
Just try not paying your income taxes (which was three months wages one year for my brother in law who had no dependents) and you will find out that freedom, so called, has been redefined since colonial times.

Welcome to the Babylonian captivity of the end times. Thank YHWH there is a happy ending prophesied!
 
Shibboleth said:
A bit of historical context is needed for understanding some allusions in the preface of this letter. In 1856, the Republican Party, in its National Convention, had made as the first point of its political platform: "It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery."
Click to expand...

I read a book that was the story of Ann Eliza Webb who was Brigham Young's 27th wife. She left him, and sued for divorce, then told her story all over the country, and was largely responsible for the emotional anti polygamy outrage that fueled the republican party's platform.

"The Twenty-seventh Wife" was written by Irving Wallace. I picked it up at a second hand store.
The book seemed well researched, objectively written, and was an interesting look at another time, place, and culture.

It is called a novel, but because of the political prominence and infamy of the abandoned husband, and the many speaking engagements of the deserting wife, the author had a lot of written material to piece the story together with.****correction*****
The author actually stated in his acknowledgments that there was very little written by other authors, and so he had to dig a lot, and rely on first hand (including her own) biographies to a large extent. (End of correction)

I really liked the author's acknowledgments, as his level of objectivity is rare indeed.
I enjoyed the book, and recommend it. I might even mail it to others interested in reading it, provided I eventually get it back. :)
 
Last edited:
Verifyveritas76 said:
It will never return!!! He, He
Click to expand...

Admittedly, this is a very possible outcome if I do send it, but it's a risk I would happily take. :) (one less book to dust....not that I do ;) hehe)
 
Joleneakamama said:
Of course every citizen could not possibly have that many slaves, or wives! Lol

But slavery biblically was a very different thing, and probably far better then what passes for freedom in this modern world.

The dictionary will tell readers that the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution freed the slaves, and abolished involuntary servitude. In reality what actually happened is they just changed who owned the slaves, and made all men slaves of the federal government.
Just try not paying your income taxes (which was three months wages one year for my brother in law who had no dependents) and you will find out that freedom, so called, has been redefined since colonial times.

Welcome to the Babylonian captivity of the end times. Thank YHWH there is a happy ending prophesied!
Click to expand...
Soooo true, we are a conquered sheeple told we are free. Free to obey and pay the beast? Wow, glad we have 4.4 percent of the world population and 23 percent of the world jail population. What happened? How is that more free?
 
Joleneakamama said:
Of course every citizen could not possibly have that many slaves, or wives! Lol

But slavery biblically was a very different thing, and probably far better then what passes for freedom in this modern world.

The dictionary will tell readers that the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution freed the slaves, and abolished involuntary servitude. In reality what actually happened is they just changed who owned the slaves, and made all men slaves of the federal government.
Just try not paying your income taxes (which was three months wages one year for my brother in law who had no dependents) and you will find out that freedom, so called, has been redefined since colonial times.

Welcome to the Babylonian captivity of the end times. Thank YHWH there is a happy ending prophesied!
Click to expand...

This is very bad thinking Joleneakamama, you can emigrate: something slaves, serfs, peons and other chattel are not permitted to do.

Because you can emigrate, working in one nation or another is YOUR VOLUNTARY CHOICE. The same as a choice of employer. Yes, the US gets a cut of your income: the same as if you worked for a temp agency. Libertarians are generally too stupid to realize that government isn’t doing anything that capitalists don’t do.

What libertarians usually want is to be free-riders: they want all the benefits of living in the US without the costs. Free-riding is a basic capitalist principle: privatize the benefits and socialize the costs.

cubanito, part of the reason for the large prison population is because of the state governments wanting to privatize prisons. Not every thing can be blamed on the federal government. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/private-prisons-buying-state-prisons_n_1272143.html
 
Whoa Sun! Back up a bit brother.

Many of us here consider ourselves more libertarian minded and feel it is not a stupid proposition. In fact, it seems much more Constitutional and even biblical (allowing us more $ to take care of "the least of these" around us without servitude to government taking our resources and distributing them outside of our input).

As far as slavery is concerned, it is VERY similar to polygyny. It may be politically incorrect, but totally within biblical allowance. A NT epistle was even written revolving around slavery. I would agree that treatment of slaves was a major problem within modern slavery. Not only that, but compulsory enslavement from birth, and only from within a certain race compounded that more. And, unlike biblical slavery, American slavery was a life sentence!

But, the difference is that we propose polygyny to be amongst consenting adults, and not compulsory.
 
What @Mojo said. @sun, it sounds like you a very outsider view of libertarianism, and you're basically attacking a straw man.
 
sun said:
Libertarians are generally too stupid to realize that government isn’t doing anything that capitalists don’t do.
Click to expand...


I personally feel that government does nothing....as in No Thing that the people couldn't do better without them.

People who vote, are participating in the insanity of trying to get out of the mess, by doing more of what got them IN the mess in the first place. And voting for the lessor of two evils, is still voting for evil.

You are welcome to have your own opinions about anything and everything. Here's my take on it.

Have you seen the funny definition of politics being defined poly ticks? That is actually, as far as I can see, the truth of it.
The international bankers are parasitic, producing nothing but debt with their usury, and profiting from wars and tragedies like Goldman Sachs recent buy up of Venezuelan bonds.
https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.c...-sachs-admits-it-bought-venezuelan-bonds/amp/
They are Mystery Babylon of revelation, ruling over the kings of the earth through their monetary control, and lobbying.
The politicians are just parasitic puppets, put in place by the huge financial interests they serve, who with campaign promises, buy votes from the parasitic welfare class with taxes collected from the shrinking group of people that actually DO something productive.

The people just prefer an evil piece of crap system they can SEE, to having real liberty in a theocracy under God. No different then the Israelites who wanted a king. History repeats.

Privileges are not freedom! But if you play the game the way they tell you to, and let them define everything for you, you may choose to believe you are free......and the system is good.
 
cubanito said:
Soooo true, we are a conquered sheeple told we are free. Free to obey and pay the beast? Wow, glad we have 4.4 percent of the world population and 23 percent of the world jail population. What happened? How is that more free?
Click to expand...
There are so many laws in the United States;
I remember one of the founding fathers said something like "too many laws breeds disrespect for the law"? Horrible paraphrase I'm sure. I'm going to guess Jefferson?

A friend of mine told me there is a book called something like "You may already be a 6 time felon".
The claim is essentially that because there are so many laws as the world's oldest democracy, it's really easy to throw someone in jail if they are an unsavory individual say a polygamist or political opponent.

Dinesh D'Souza is a fine example of someone jailed for something never before prosecuted in his situation. Donating more than the limit to a political person without there being any intent for a favor (corruption) -in his case helping out an old college buddy, and not even letting the buddy know it!

That'll teach him to make those documentaries about Obama and Hillary!

An Orthodox Rabbi I like to listen to makes the point that many of the laws in American are regarding things that have nothing to do with morality. For example, insider trading. In Israel there is no such crazy law that if you know someone who tips you off to good news about a company and you cash in hoping he's right and bam make some money...good for you. In the US that can be prison. It's ludicrous.
There's part of your 23%.
We have laws like this and then state sponsored murder of unborn children.
So someone can murder but not risk their own money on a tip that a stock may go up and their lives get destroyed (separated from families etc).

Abba help us.
 
Joleneakamama said:
I personally feel that government does nothing....as in No Thing that the people couldn't do better without them.

People who vote, are participating in the insanity of trying to get out of the mess, by doing more of what got them IN the mess in the first place. And voting for the lessor of two evils, is still voting for evil.

You are welcome to have your own opinions about anything and everything. Here's my take on it.

Have you seen the funny definition of politics being defined poly ticks? That is actually, as far as I can see, the truth of it.
The international bankers are parasitic, producing nothing but debt with their usury, and profiting from wars and tragedies like Goldman Sachs recent buy up of Venezuelan bonds.
https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.c...-sachs-admits-it-bought-venezuelan-bonds/amp/
They are Mystery Babylon of revelation, ruling over the kings of the earth through their monetary control, and lobbying.
The politicians are just parasitic puppets, put in place by the huge financial interests they serve, who with campaign promises, buy votes from the parasitic welfare class with taxes collected from the shrinking group of people that actually DO something productive.

The people just prefer an evil piece of crap system they can SEE, to having real liberty in a theocracy under God. No different then the Israelites who wanted a king. History repeats.

Privileges are not freedom! But if you play the game the way they tell you to, and let them define everything for you, you may choose to believe you are free......and the system is good.
Click to expand...

"The government basically sucks at everything except breaking things." - Ben Shappiro
www.dailywire.com
 
This thread took a different turn here, but hubby read a very good book called "Convicting the innocent" that detailed many sad stories of injustice perpetrated by the faulty American justice system.
One of the early Americans of note was quoted as saying he would rather see a hundred guilty men go free, then one innocent man wrongfully convicted. I fully share that sentiment, because I believe YHWH can take care of what man might miss.
I read Ted Weiland's book "Bible Law vs the US constitution" and highly recommend it. (Available to read free online at mission to israel) It really is eye opening as to how far we have strayed from the truth and righteousness of His law. It left me with a huge appreciation, and hunger for that kind of law and rule. Thankfully we can all look forward to it someday, and hopefully soon!
 
Joleneakamama said:
This thread took a different turn here, but hubby read a very good book called "Convicting the innocent" that detailed many sad stories of injustice perpetrated by the faulty American justice system.
One of the early Americans of note was quoted as saying he would rather see a hundred guilty men go free, then one innocent man wrongfully convicted. I fully share that sentiment, because I believe YHWH can take care of what man might miss.
I read Ted Weiland's book "Bible Law vs the US constitution" and highly recommend it. (Available to read free online at mission to israel) It really is eye opening as to how far we have strayed from the truth and righteousness of His law. It left me with a huge appreciation, and hunger for that kind of law and rule. Thankfully we can all look forward to it someday, and hopefully soon!
Click to expand...
See Jolene, we can agree on something!
 
IshChayil said:
There are so many laws in the United States;
I remember one of the founding fathers said something like "too many laws breeds disrespect for the law"? Horrible paraphrase I'm sure. I'm going to guess Jefferson?
Click to expand...
Different law, but otherwise not that different from Paul: the Law entered that the offense might abound. Which means that the government can now abound in their own version of grace... or choose not to, as they please.
 
Bringing this back full circle to marriage and church/state edicts, I cannot acknowledge one, single, legitimate reason for government to be involved in marriage...none! I am not a lawyer, but if individual spouses wanted to protect property for themselves or their children, etc. couldn't it be taken care of under contract laws and paternity laws?

This is why many of us are much more libertarian (not necessarily Libertarian party) around here. We've gotten tired of Caesar wanting to get his nose into things it doesn't belong in. He's already got his hands in my wallet, why does he want to see my bedrooms?
 
Mojo said:
I am not a lawyer, but if individual spouses wanted to protect property for themselves or their children, etc. couldn't it be taken care of under contract laws and paternity laws?
Click to expand...
Yes, it certainly could. Short version is that people should be able to contract whatever they want as far as property ownership, child custody, and how it all gets dissolved in the event of divorce (including why it gets dissolved--eliminate "no fault" divorce), within certain broad brush boundaries set by the civil government (in the same way that government presently won't enforce contracts to pursue illegal ends, such as drug smuggling or distribution or a contract hit). Government shouldn't be in the business of defining people's relationships, just settling disputes to pre-empt violence and self-help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top