• 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.

Poly Practised Elsewhere

Frank S said:
https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/4066...2-a-history-of-mistresses-in-the-philippines/
Click to expand...

....

Writing around 1604, the Jesuit Pedro Chirino observed, “…I suspect that the alliances formed by (Visayans) are not marriages, but rather the taking of concubines, considering the readiness with which they divorce and marry again, according to the custom of the country…

The Spanish official Antonio de Morga, in his “Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas” (1609) and republished by Rizal with commentary, also observed that Filipino “…marriages were annulled and dissolved for slight cause,” upon the examination and judgement of the relatives of both parties, and of the elders.”
Click to expand...

That is basically the same point I've made here that modern marriage is more like Biblical concubinage than Biblical marriage. They could see this because in their time marriage wasn't like that, being a lifetime endeavor and one entered into only with the permission of the father. Not that I expect most moderns to be able to admit this, given with how modern Christians are quick to condemn relationship forms unlike their own 'righteous marriage'.

“Those whom they kept besides her they considered as friends. The children of the first were regarded as legitimate and whole heirs of their parents; the children of the others were not so regarded, and were left something by assignment, but they did not inherit.”
Click to expand...

This is funny as it is exactly what Abraham did and exactly what ancient Mesopotamian law provided for in the Code of Hammurabi.

Fray Andres de San Nicolas, writing in 1664 of Cuyunon (of Palawan) and Kalaghans (of Surigao del Sur), noted that traditionally, “they had as many concubines as they could support.” That is, the first or legitimate wife headed the house, supervising the other women in household chores and productive enterprises (such as weaving). Polygamy was a way of expanding the alpha male’s labor force.
Click to expand...

Again as in ancient eastern (as opposed to greco-roman practice), the concubines were in the home. The prime difference between Roman and Hebrew practice of concubines was the later lived in the home and under the authority of the man as part of the household and family. The difference between the women being one of status and possibly household heirarchy.

Students of the reformation will find this sounding familiar...

Writing in 1852, Sinibaldo de Mas pointed out “…one cannot exaggerate the harm that a goodly portion of the friars are doing, and the moral force that our government is losing because of the manner in which they are living. The most general weakness is that of concubinage. Many keep a mistress (called a stewardess or despensera), inside or outside the convent.”
Click to expand...

Probably doesn't happen as much today however; what with the large number of gays in the priesthood.


Frank S said:
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/guinea-becomes-latest-african-country-to-legalise-polygamyy
Click to expand...

...

Until now, polygamy was prohibited for civil marriages in Guinea, even though it is widely practised in religious marriages and no one is sanctioned for that.

Under the revised Civil Code, however, men can choose between the matrimonial regime of monogamy and polygamy, with a maximum of four wives

Polygamy is a centuries-old practice in Africa that has yet to disappear from modern life. It has both cultural and religious origins, and it is generally accepted in 26 out of 54 African countries, particularly Muslim majority countries.
Click to expand...

You will often hear from people about how polygamy isn't common anymore or how it is banned in most countries. People are led to believe that because it is banned in some such African country is isn't practiced anymore or is immoral to practice.

But there is a difference between de facto and de jure law. Even in the United States, we in a huge number of cases run based on de facto law, not de jure. Just because the state doesn't recognize your form of marriage, doesn't reward it, doesn't mean it is morally wrong to practice it privately/religiously.

South Africa has also experienced polygamy for a time now – even its former president, Jacob Zuma was in power married to four women.
Click to expand...

Jacob Zuma was in the news in the US a lot the last couple of years. I bet you never once heard that he was a polygamist.
 
Joleneakamama said:
That suggestion to "Go find a married man and negotiate with his wife to become part of the family" doesn't set well with me. It is too much like acknowledging HER as the head! At the same time, selling a wife on what you have to offer is not exactly a bad idea.....I just don't think marrying a man who's wife speaks for him is smart.
Click to expand...
I absolutely hear you. (And here comes the but-monkey)
BUT, in this piece of advice it is the single woman who is choosing the family that she will approach. Presumably she will have the intelligence to avoid matriarchal families.
“selling a wife on what you have to offer is not exactly a bad idea”. Yes, when the family has been properly vetted it is a wonderful idea.
Any approach to a matriarchal family is bad. Period.
Run, do not walk to the nearest exit.
 
Joleneakamama said:
That suggestion to "Go find a married man and negotiate with his wife to become part of the family" doesn't set well with me. It is too much like acknowledging HER as the head! At the same time, selling a wife on what you have to offer is not exactly a bad idea.....I just don't think marrying a man who's wife speaks for him is smart.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see what you're saying. I do think there can be benefit in the potential co-wives getting to know each other and aim for finding common ground to build on. However, no conclusions they arrive at between themselves should be seen as something to pursue outside of the husband's headship. I kind of like the quote though seeing who it's coming from - Christina Landman. Yes, she is a noted theologian and could probably run circles around most pastors as far as knowledge goes of Greek and Hebrew. But she is an avowed feminist. Despite her feminist disposition, the reality on the ground in South Africa of there being so few marriageable men has forced her to see how the idea of one woman per man doctrine shuts out a huge number of women in that country from any chance at marriage. Feminists are usually not so poly-minded. Reality has forced her to say what she probably would not otherwise acknowledge. Personally, I would tend to run far and fast from the likes of Christina Landman. And yes, I agree with you @Joleneakamama, marrying a man who's wife speaks for him is not smart.

Edit: In addition to what I said above... I do have some commendation for the South African Dutch Reformed Church because they were wise enough to prevent Christina Landman from reaching her original aim of being a church pastor, though sadly, she became a professor of theology and influenced a lot of students toward quite liberal feminist thinking.

Additional edit: I should qualify what I said about liking the quote from Christina Landman. I like it because such a feminist had her views corralled by reality. Otherwise, I don't admire her feminist stance.
 
Last edited:
And just where does this Prime Minister of Israel think he and his fore-bearers came from? How ironic the Jewish state of today would outlaw the very family structure to which they owe their existence. Shame!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/248655

Quote from the article:

"I am not prepared to accept any situation of polygamy in the State of Israel - and this is my directive to the ministerial committee that discussed the matter," Netanyahu chirped.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top