We Want for Our Sisters What We Want for Ourselves: African American Women Who Practice Polygyny by Consent

By Patricia Dixon

Polygyny - the practice of having multiple wives - has existed since ancient times and is still practiced in many countries throughout the world. In We Want for Our Sisters What We Want for Ourselves, Dr. Patricia Dixon (aka Dr. Ra Heter) argues that the practice is one the African American community should consider adopting as well. Ac

• Language: English
• Publisher: Womanist Press
• Release date: Apr 6, 2018
• ISBN: 9780996800006

Patricia Dixon

Patricia Dixon lives in Manchester and is an international best-selling author of eighteen novels. She writes across genres including women’s fiction, historical fiction and psychological literary fiction. Her stories are often set in her home city and the Loire. Both places are close to her heart and from where she gathers inspiration for her characters and tales. In May 2017 she signed with Bloodhound Books, leading fiction publishers.

Book preview

Introduction

After ending a six-year relationship I had been in since my early years in college, I began to evaluate my life. It seemed I had nothing—no mate, children, or work—to give my life a sense of meaning or purpose. Although I had sister-friends whom I spent a great deal of time with, I went to a meaningless job and came home to an empty apartment. In search of someone to fill the space, I began dating. It seemed, however, that meeting a man who was willing to make a commitment to a relationship, let alone a monogamous one, was unlikely. I had heard quite often of the population imbalance between African American men and women in Washington, D.C., but it was not until I began dating outside of campus life that I began to understand what this meant. Essentially, it means that the higher number of men to women makes it easy for men to engage in relationships with multiple women simultaneously without having to be accountable to any of them. This makes it difficult for women to form stable, monogamous, committed relationships and marriages. When this became clear to me, I decided it might be better to seek meaning and purpose in something else. I applied to a doctoral program and left Washington, D.C.

While in graduate school at Temple University in Philadelphia, the situation—that is, the number of men available for a committed relationship or marriage—seemed to be worse. I worked on a research project in which the aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of several drug treatment programs in rehabilitating homeless men who were addicted, primarily to crack-cocaine. Approximately 95 percent of the 700 men in the study were African American. My first introduction to the homeless shelter was startling. My thought was, This is where the men are.

In the course of the research, I visited several shelters. I found predominantly African American men, primarily in their mid to late 20s and 30s, and some in their 40s and 50s. In some instances, they were wall-to-wall, like on a military base. I visited drug rehabilitation centers and again I found mostly African American men.

When I visit prisons and jails, I am absolutely astounded by the number of African American men I see. And as I visit inner cities across America, on any given weekday, I see African American males between the hours of 9 to 5, when one would typically be in school or working, outside of the opportunity structure, standing on street corners, leading unproductive lives.

It is these observations and experiences that led primarily to my exploration into the practice of polygyny. My thinking was that because racial oppression sets in motion dynamics that deplete African American men from the population and/or marginalizes them in the economic sector, making it impossible for every woman to have an exclusive mate, a practice such as polygyny is needed. Also, because the high ratio of African American females to males makes it easy for males, whether they are married or single, to engage in multiple relationships, something akin to polygyny is already being practiced. However, the closed, dishonest, and often dehumanizing manner in which it is practiced is not advantageous to women. I also began to think about how such a practice might be more advantageous for women.

As I ventured into the life stories of the men at the homeless shelter, it became painfully clear to me that it is oppression in its complex forms that leads many down the path of addiction. It is the way that it weighs on the human spirit that leads many to self-destruct. In my very first interview, the brother broke down and cried. The next three years only added to this experience. As a sister, potential wife, and mother, I could not help but to connect what the men were going through in their addiction, and their being unavailable as potential husbands and fathers, to my loneliness. I could not help but to connect the pain that they were experiencing to my own.

While I was in graduate school, I experienced some of the most trying times of my life. Not only did I not have my sister-friends, who had been my support system, I did not have a consistent partner to support me through the arduous endeavor of pursuing a doctoral degree. For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Enuf, the play written by Ntozake Shange in 1975, was never more real to me than during these years. I'd lie awake many nights reflecting on what I was learning in graduate studies about the connection between African American experiences in slavery and the experiences of the men in the shelter, and the connection between their being in the shelter and not having someone in my life. These experiences, at times, left me feeling lonely, saddened by the circumstances many African American men find themselves in, and hopeless in regard to finding a partner.

Although I have had such experiences at different times throughout my life, I know that I am not alone in this. From what I have observed while living in six metropolitan areas, and through my research on male-female relationships and the numerous conversations I have with the African American women I encounter on a day-to-day basis, both personally and professionally, I know that many are having similar experiences. Also, based on my observations of men throughout my life, and what I have discovered in my research and in conversations with them—which for me is always research—and because there seems to be general acceptance of it by men in U.S. society, I have come to believe that regardless of their marital status, engaging in multiple relationships is more the rule than the exception for them. The idea that polygyny is needed and that it is already being practiced began to weigh on me. Questions began to plague me: If engaging in multiple relationships is so common among males, then why is there no structure to support it? And since men cannot engage in such relationships without participation from women, how can they be structured in ways that are more advantageous for everyone involved?

I began to find answers to these questions while at Temple University. During this time, I was introduced to the concept of Afrocentricity. Although it proposes several things, two fundamental principles stand out to me. One is that it challenges hegemonic Eurocentrism in all its forms. The other is that, as African descendants, African Americans can turn to Africa for social structures that are more natural for us, and more conducive for our social reality. With this understanding, I began to explore African marriage and family systems. During the course of this research, I discovered that polygyny was widely accepted and practiced throughout Africa. In fact, it was virtually universal. Far more surprising, however, is that before European world conquest and domination, polygyny was practiced throughout most of the world.

As I continued to search, it became apparent to me that monogamy, as an exclusive marriage practice with closed polygyny, is advantageous for men, not women, especially when there is a surplus of women. Under such circumstances, instead of men competing (which is natural) with other men for women, women are put in the position of having to compete for men (which is unnatural). In other words, it gives men the edge in dating and mating. Because every woman will not be selected as a marriage partner, it allows men the opportunity to engage in sexual relations with those women who are not married, without having to be legally, economically, socially, or morally accountable to them. Clearly this is not advantageous for women.

It was my speculation that if polygyny were practiced openly, it would be more advantageous for women. I therefore began to search for models. In my search, I found three African American communities in which polygyny is openly practiced. In two of the communities, my speculation proved to be correct. What distinguishes these two communities from the third one, however, is consent by the women.

The purpose of this work, then, is to describe how polygyny is practiced in these three communities. More important, the aim is to show that when polygyny is practiced openly, honestly, and by consent, it can potentially be more advantageous for women.

Overview

In Chapter 1, I examine monogamy as an exclusive marriage practice and show how it is another form of Western cultural domination. In Chapter 2, I provide evidence of the prevalence of polygyny throughout the world, describe the perspectives and experiences of African women, and explain how Western cultural chauvinism, Christianity, and industrialization continue to undermine the practice throughout Africa. I also describe how what I am referring to as a peculiar form of polygyny was practiced among Western peoples in early Mesopotamia, and among the Greeks and Romans, in the form of concubinage and prostitution, but it was dehumanizing to women. In addition, I show how the European form of polygyny was carried over into early America with enslaved African American women and continues in contemporary times in various forms.

Since questions have been raised about whether there is a shortage of African American men, I explore this in Chapter 3 and, using census and other data, conclude that there is.

Chapters 4 through 6 include the research findings from the women in the three African American communities in which polygyny is openly practiced. Here, I show how African American women adjusted to the practice of polygyny, their motivations for engaging in it, what they perceive the advantages and disadvantages to be, and their general perspectives. In Chapter 7, I provide the research findings from the men in the three communities, describing why they are motivated to engage in polygyny, their challenges and difficulties, strategies they use to maintain balance and fairness, and their perspectives.

Chapter 8 provides a comparative summary of the three communities. In Chapter 9, I outline the moral, legal, cultural, and personal factors that need to be considered before entering into polygyny. Finally, in Chapter 10, African American women are urged to use a womanist ethic of care for sisters to move toward the practice of polygyny.

Limitations of the Research

This work has three primary limitations. One is the sample sizes. A small number of families were interviewed in the various communities. This is in part because of the small number of individuals who engage in polygyny even in the communities in which it is openly practiced. The samples from the Islamic communities are extremely small, considering that African American Muslims probably engage in polygyny more than any other African American group in the United States. This research primarily represents only two Islamic communities in one city.

The second limitation is the selection process. The African Hebrew Israelite community provided the members for me to interview. I was introduced to the Ausar Auset and Muslim communities through acquaintances. In the former case, the community may have introduced me to their model families. In the latter two cases, I interviewed those who were interested in being interviewed. There are other groups such as some Yoruba communities and the House of Israel that practice polygyny openly that were not interviewed. There are also others dispersed throughout the country who do not belong to polygynous communities who practice polygyny by consent. So this study does not include all of the communities or others who practice polygyny.

The third limitation of this work is that children were not included. Future research might include young adult children to ascertain their experiences in polygynous families. In spite of its shortcomings, I believe that this work provides a beginning.

Feminist Critique

Finally, I feel compelled to address potential feminist arguments against polygyny. In fact, I feel compelled to critique feminist analysis of patriarchy in general. A fundamental problem with some feminist analyses of patriarchy is that the Greco-Roman and European-American forms are often assumed to exist worldwide. Anthropologists have noted that the Roman Patria potestas, where the father dominated the clan, was an extreme form of patriarchy. Because the Greco-Roman and European-American forms of patriarchy are often used as the basis of feminist analysis, the social structures and practices of peoples in other cultures throughout the world are often inadequately examined, and others that may very well have nothing to do with patriarchy are assumed to be derived from it.

For example, there is a great deal of criticism by feminists of male dominance in public arenas throughout the world. The high prevalence of males in public arenas in societies in which the private and public are separate, particularly in those that have not been influenced by industrialization or Western systems of domination, however, does not mean that males dominate females in the manner they do in Western patriarchies. Nor does it mean that the structures males establish give them privilege over females. In many societies, there are male spheres and female spheres, and this does not mean that one is superior to the other. Nor does it mean that women do not have influence in those areas that affect their own lives. I wonder also if it occurs to those who make such analyses that women have not participated in the past or the present in certain public arenas on a large scale because they simply have had no interest in doing so?

Whatever the case may be, polygyny might be thought to stem from patriarchy. Potential feminist arguments against polygyny, then, might be that it is based on male dominance or that it privileges males over females and subjugates females under male rule.

I contend, however, that this is not necessarily the case. I do not think the practice of polygyny throughout the world has had as much to do with patriarchy as it's had to do with social circumstances, e.g., a sex ratio imbalance and natural tendencies of males to engage in sexual multiplicity. Many societies, understanding how the two phenomena can lead to family and community disorganization—leaving women and children without economic, social, and emotional or moral support (ills plaguing the Western world) —may have instituted polygyny to insulate against this. By contrast, it is those societies with exclusive monogamy and closed polygyny, with male superiority and female inferiority, where women are dichotomized into classifications of Madonna or whore, with the latter left for males to carry out their natural tendencies without accountability, which seem to disadvantage women the most. The fact is, polygyny can exist without patriarchy. And, rather than being male-centered, it can very well be female-centered and work to the advantage of women.

My position, then, is that because of the population imbalance between African American males and females, polygyny is needed. By contrast to the Western form, where there are little or no advantages under closed forms, open polygyny can potentially be more advantageous for women. The purpose of this work, then, is to show how African American women through love and dedication to each other, truth, and community, can, and are, making the male propensity to engage in sexual multiplicity work to their advantage. Finally, using their voices, this work shows how some African American women, by practicing polygyny by consent, have become agents in empowering themselves, their families, and their communities.

Chapter 1

Monogamy Only: The Trappings of Eurocentrism?

Marriage has assumed various forms throughout human history and experience. The primary forms include monogamy, cenogamy, polyandry, and polygyny. These four have been further divided into two forms: singular and plural (Lee, 1982). Monogamy, the only singular form of marriage, is the practice of being married to one person at a time. The other three are polygamy, or plural forms of marriage. Cenogamy, or group marriage, the least common form of plural marriage, is that between two or more individuals from each sex. Polyandry is the practice of having more than one husband at a time. Finally, polygyny, the most common form of polygamy, is the practice of having more than one wife at a time.

Monogamy is the only form of marriage that is socially accepted and morally sanctioned in the United States and most of the world. However, polygyny was also widely accepted and practiced throughout the world. It was not until after the 15th century, with European world conquest and domination, that the idea of polygyny as an inferior marriage practice and monogamy as the superior marriage practice came to dominate the world. Early Western scholars played a significant role in this, and Christian theologians provided moral sanction.

The Scholarly Case for Monogamy and Against Polygyny

Using an evolutionary paradigm, it was the general view by Western scholars that as humans evolved from lower to higher stages of development, marriage practices evolved from plural or inferior forms to a singular or superior form. In a seminal work, Ancient Society, Lewis H. Morgan (1963), divided human societies into three stages. These include savagery, which he considered to be the lowest stage, barbarism, an intermediate stage, and civilization, the highest stage. The types of family systems that evolved during these stages include the consanguine, punaluan, syndyasmian (pairing family), patriarchal, and monogamian.

The consanguine family, derived from how Malayans described their relations with brothers and sisters, was theorized by Morgan to be the first and most ancient family form and to have existed during the period of savagery. Because the Malayans described the children and grandchildren of their sisters and brothers and cousins as their own, it was thought that whole groups of men and women married their own brothers and sisters, and that this represented a period of sexual promiscuity and therefore an inferior marriage practice. However, there is no evidence to support the idea of group marriage and, therefore, none to support the notion of sexual promiscuity during this period.

The punaluan family, a name derived from the study of Hawaiian family organization, according to Morgan, is marked by a period when brothers and sisters were excluded from marriage relations. During this period, marriage could only occur between cousins. The term punaluan essentially means that all the sisters of a man's wife and her cousins are his wives, and he calls his wives' sisters' husbands punalua, which means intimate companion. Likewise, the woman calls her husband's brothers and cousins her husbands and her husband's brothers' wives punalua. The punaluan family is thought to have existed among all peoples, even those that eventually evolved to become monogamous, including the Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, Hebrews, etc. It is also thought that it is the organization of gentes (clans) that permanently excluded brothers and sisters in marriage, and that this practice eventually spread across tribes and became universal. Overall, both consanguine and punaluan marriage forms, which were plural forms of marriage, are thought by Morgan to represent human progress during the period of savagery.

The pairing family was theorized by Morgan to emerge during the lower stage of barbarism and is founded on marriage between single pairs, with several pairs usually living in communal households. Marriages in the pairing family were usually arranged by the mothers and, in some cases, the children were strangers prior to marriage. With the pairing family, generally, the parties stayed together as long as they were happy with one another. When either of the parties ceased being happy, both had the liberty to leave the marriage.

Morgan observes that even in the punaluan family there was a tendency to practice pairing, with each man having a principal wife among a number of wives and each woman a principal husband among a number of husbands (p. 466). What helped the punaluan family evolve to a pairing family was organization into gentes (clans). At first, organization into gentes did not immediately disrupt intermarriage; it narrowed its range. Over time, the structure and principles of the organization tended to create prejudice against the marriage of consanguine as the advantages of marriages between unrelated persons were gradually discovered through the practice of marrying out of the gens (p. 437). Thus, the progress of society under the gentes prepared the way for the pairing family.

As marrying out of gentes became the order, it created a scarcity of wives. This led to the acquisition of wives through negotiation and purchase. In addition, men did not confine themselves to their own, nor even to friendly tribes, but captured them by force from hostile tribes... (p. 467). Thus emerged the practice of obtaining wives by capture and purchase. Because of the effort involved in acquiring wives by capture and purchase, many men were not willing to share them. The effect of this was that a portion of the group not immediately associated for subsistence would be cut off, leading to reductions in the size of the family and the range of the conjugal system. The stabilization of subsistence and improved architecture enhanced protection of life and increased the formation of families consisting of pairs. The more these advantages were realized, the more stable such a family would become, and the more its individuality would increase (p. 469). From this type of family would eventually emerge the monogamous family. However, Morgan discusses some of the particulars of the patriarchal family as an intermediate stage in the evolution to monogamy.

Although he describes the patriarchal family as being founded upon the marriage of one man with several wives; followed in general by the seclusion of the wives, Morgan points out that polygyny is not the material principle of the patriarchal institution... The organization of a number of persons, bond and free, into a family, under paternal power, for the purpose of holding lands and care of flocks and herds, was the essential characteristic of this family (p. 474). Essentially, the patriarchal family form is that of a patriarch, or a chief, with authority over those held in servitude, employed as servants, and those joined in marriage. Morgan points out that the patriarchal family marks a peculiar epoch in human progress, a time when individuality of the person began to rise above the gens in which it had previously been merged. He also compares the patriarchal family form with its predecessors: In the consanguine and punaluan families, paternal authority was impossible as well as unknown; under the [pairing family] it began to appear as a feeble influence; but its growth steadily advanced as the family became more and more individualized and became fully established under monogamy, which assured the paternity of children (p. 475).

The patriarchal family has been found among Semitic peoples, primarily the Hebrews, and among Europeans—the Romans and Greeks. Among the Romans, the father had the power of life or death over his children and descendants as well as his slaves, servants, and his wife. Morgan, however, notes that the power of the Roman patriarch was an exceptional human experience and passed beyond the bounds of reason in an excess of domination (p. 475). Moreover, its general influence tended powerfully to the establishment of the monogamian family..., which emerged during civilization (p. 475).

Overall, the argument that Morgan makes is that as humans evolved from a lower stage of development, savagery, to a higher stage of development, civilization, so too did their marriage and family practices. The Malayans and Hawaiians were thought to still exist in a period of savagery (as well as others all over the globe, including Africans), and their marriage practices, which may or may not have been plural in form, were thought to be an indication of sexual promiscuity. By contrast, the Greeks, Romans, and others of Indo-European stock, although also thought to exist in savagery, continued to evolve. As they became more evolved, more civilized, so, too, did their marriage practices. That marriage practice is monogamy.

The notion that polygyny is inferior and that monogamy, which developed during civilization (essentially among European peoples), is superior, is evident in the work of other scholars. In The History of Marriage, a major anthropological work, Edward Westermarck (1922), provides extensive data to show the prevalence of polygyny throughout the world. He also provides possible explanations for its practice. However, in spite of this objective effort, Westermarck ends his discussion with an explanation for why societies, because of factors stemming from the progress made by Western civilization, have a natural tendency toward monogamy. What is revealing in this discussion is how polygyny is regarded in comparison with monogamy. What is also revealing is how people of color are referred to as savages as a manner of speech:

Our examination into the causes of monogamy and polygyny makes it possible for us to explain why progress in civilization to a certain point has proved favorable to polygyny, whilst in its highest form leads to monogamy. The first tendency is, as we have seen largely due to economic and social circumstances—the accumulation and unequal distribution of wealth and increasing social differentiation; but it should also be noticed that considerable surplus of females which among many of the higher savages is caused by their wars is not found at the lowest stages of civilization, where war does not seriously disturb the proportion of the sexes. The retrograde tendency towards monogamy in the highest grades of culture, again may be traced to a variety of causes. No superstitious beliefs keep civilised men apart from their wives during pregnancy and for a long time after child-birth. The desire for offspring has become less intense. A large family, instead of being a help in the struggle for existence, is often considered an insufferable burden. A man's kinsfolk are no longer his only friends, and his wealth and influence do not depend upon the number of wives and children. A wife ceases to be a mere labourer, and manual labour is to a large extent replaced by the work of domesticated animals and the use of implements and machines. The sentiment of love has become more refined, and, in consequences, more enduring. To a cultivated mind youth and beauty are by no means the only attractions of a woman, and besides, civilisation has given female beauty a new lease of life. The feelings of the weaker sex are held in higher regard, and the causes which may make polygyny desired by the women themselves no longer exist. The better education bestowed upon them, and other factors in modern civilization, enable them to live comfortably without the support of a husband. (pp. 104-105)

Westermarck then asks the question of whether monogamy will be the only recognized form of marriage in the future. The responses he cites from others also provide insight into views on monogamy. For example, according to Westermarck, although one scholar questioned monogamy as a superior marriage form and another speculated that European nations would eventually legalize polygyny, Herbert Spencer, considered the father of Western sociology, had this to say: The monogamic form of the sexual relation is manifestly the ultimate form; and any changes to be anticipated must be in the direction of completion or extension of it (p. 105).

Although it was the general view that monogamy is a superior marriage form, there are some scholars who challenge this idea. In The Mothers, R. Briffault (1993) points out that the cultural distaste of polygyny by Europeans stems from the Christian-European concept of sex as evil, the notion of exclusivity as a necessity for male-female relations, and misunderstandings of how women are treated under polygyny. As with other early scholars, although there are problems with the language Briffault uses, he nevertheless states:

Early Christian moralists who accounted marriage as a necessary evil, favored monogamy as a reduction of that evil to a minimum, but chastity and continence are not valued for their own sakes in uncultured societies. Monogamy accords with the sentiments of exclusive attachment which are assumed in European tradition to be the foundations of the union; but in primitive societies such a desire is not understood. Polygamy is thought to imply disregard for the feelings of women; but in uncultured societies women are the chief upholders of polygamy. (p. 210)

He further points out that among other peoples the European objection to polygamy is incomprehensible and is interpreted as a sign of mental degeneration (p. 211). In fact, according to Briffault, Polygyny is widely regarded as a moral virtue; to support as many fellow creatures as possible is not a mark of wealth but a form of philanthropy (p. 211). He further asserts,

[T]o term a people polygynous or monogynous, polygamous or monogamous, conveys little concerning the actual extent and character of their sex relations. Even in Europe, it has been said, monogyny has never existed. The Romans and Greeks were monogamous in their marriage institutions but scarcely monogynous in their sex relations (p. 213).

Finally, Briffault observes that among most peoples before the advent of Christianity there were no legal prohibitions against polygyny, and there were no words to describe monogamy or polygamy. The first legal prohibitions against it began with the Romans:

Uncultured races vary considerably in the extent to which polygyny is practiced, but no case is known outside Christian nations, of a people among whom it is morally reprobate... The prohibition of polygyny, which was alleged to be natural and to be met with among all nations in a state of refinement, was actually promulgated for the first time in the world in the code Justinian [among Romans] in the sixth century. (p. 212)

The Biblical Case Against Polygyny and for Monogamy

Although monogamy as an exclusive marriage form is culturally specific to Greek, Roman, and other Euro-descended groups, the Bible has been used by Christian theologians to make the case that monogamy is what God intended, and other forms of marriage, namely polygyny, are contrary to God's will (Cairncross, 1974; Hillman, 1986).

In Polygyny Reconsidered, Eugene Hillman (1986) provides an overview and analysis of how the Bible has been used to affirm monogamy's compatibility and polygyny's incompatibility with Christianity. Scriptures that have generally been used include those addressing the Creation (Gen. 1:26-28, 2:7-25); that a wife should be one with her husband (Gen. 2:24); prohibition of adultery and divorce (Matt. 5:27-32, Mark 10:2-12, Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:2-16, Eph. 5:22-33); the Covenant between Yahweh and his people (Isa. 50:1, 54:6-7; 62:4-5; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16; Hosea passim); and marrying multiple wives (Deut. 17:16-17). Scriptures have also been used to support a growing appreciation for monogamy (Prov. 5:15-19, 31:10-31; Eccles. 9:9; Job 8:6-7; Ps. 45:9-11, 128:3). In addition, it has been argued that while many of the great biblical figures were monogamists, the first recorded plural marriage occurred among the reprobate descendants of Cain (Gen. 4:19, 23) (p. 143).

With regard to Scriptures addressing the Creation (Gen. 1:27, 2:1825), it is generally argued by theologians that since God created one wife for Adam, monogamy is what was intended. Hillman, however, points out:, The method of interpretation... has been altogether too literalistic and focused too exclusively upon selected words. Instead of allowing these words to speak only as parts of a whole story, they have been lifted out of their proper contexts and analyzed with reference to an exclusively monogamous ideal of marriage which is... foreign to the socio-cultural ethos of the Old Testament (p. 150).

The Scripture in Genesis (2:24), which stipulates that the wife is to be one flesh with her husband, is also taken too literally to support monogamy. Hillman argues that the wider meaning ... found frequently in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 29:14, 37:27; Lev. 18:6; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1, 19:12-13; Neh. 5:5; Isa. 58:7) suggests kindred—whereby all the members of a single kinship group have one flesh which is conceived as a collective reality possessed by all (pp. 152-153). Moreover, it is highly unlikely that by using one flesh the author of Genesis intended to exclude or to derogate the customary [polygyny] permitted by Mosaic law, thus departing substantially from the traditional Judaic conception of marriage (p. 153).

The frequent biblical analogy of God's love for his people with a husband's love for his wife, where wife