Concubines: Biblical, Practical, and Worth Restoring

[The Revolting Man]

I don't disagree. Contracts don't change the nature of a marriage - but they have practical implications. If someone signed a historical contract saying, entirely hypothetically, "the house at Bethel which came from her father belongs to her, will be inherited by her children, and will go with her should I divorce her", that is an example of a marriage contract providing security. While today if someone gets a state marriage license which comes under legislation providing for property splitting in the event of divorce, that too is an example of a marriage contract providing security. The whole point of contracts is to deal with practical, secular, often financial matters such as these.

The details vary enormously of course, and some contracts may provide little security. But the woman without such a contract has none. Hence why both scripture and modern law has provisions to give a base level of security to such women.

That would be a divorce contract. It has no bearing whatsoever on the marriage.

 

[MemeFan]

Modern perceptions of "slaves" are very different to old testament reality. People hear the word "slave" and picture whips, chains and cotton-picking negros. Forget all that.

In the early stages of the Old Testament, MOST people appear to be slaves! Think about it. Abraham had 318 slaves (usually translated servants but it's the same word) who rescued Lot with him, and this was all the men of his house. Why were they slaves? Because people simply didn't use money much. You wouldn't get paid a daily wage, instead you'd be attached to an employer (tribal chief) and work for the tribe in return for your food and everything else you needed. And you would be committed to the tribe for an extended period of time. Technically, the arrangement a slave has. But it didn't mean they had no say in anything in their lives.

A great illustration of the actual relationship between a master and slave is shown when Saul and his slave/servant went hunting for his lost donkeys. They wanted to give a gift to Samuel, and discussed together what to do. Saul had no money on him, yet the slave did have money, so they used that. How did the slave have money, and the master had none? Why do they seem to be discussing what to do as near-equals? Because things really weren't how you imagine. The slave was a member of the household, a trusted part of the family.

Don't assume that just because someone is in an employment relationship where they are paid in food and clothing instead of cash, and have a long-term or permanent contract, that they are completely oppressed and have no say in anything. That is really jumping to conclusions.

Best way to make money of slave is to allow him to buy freedom.

 

[MemeFan]

Regarding marriage contracts.

In Bible are only mandatory parts: for what divorce is allowed, what are rights and duties......

Adding more conditions into deal isn't forbidden. Nothing stops gold digger and husband show-off-wife to add clauses concerning her looks, beauty routines, mandatory life in mansion etc...

 

[FollowingHim]

That would be a divorce contract. It has no bearing whatsoever on the marriage.

You didn't read what I wrote, you made up something else. I never mentioned any contract written at the time of divorce. Re-read my post.

 

[Mojo]

Modern perceptions of "slaves" are very different to old testament reality. People hear the word "slave" and picture whips, chains and cotton-picking negros. Forget all that.

In the early stages of the Old Testament, MOST people appear to be slaves! Think about it. Abraham had 318 slaves (usually translated servants but it's the same word) who rescued Lot with him, and this was all the men of his house. Why were they slaves? Because people simply didn't use money much. You wouldn't get paid a daily wage, instead you'd be attached to an employer (tribal chief) and work for the tribe in return for your food and everything else you needed. And you would be committed to the tribe for an extended period of time. Technically, the arrangement a slave has. But it didn't mean they had no say in anything in their lives.

A great illustration of the actual relationship between a master and slave is shown when Saul and his slave/servant went hunting for his lost donkeys. They wanted to give a gift to Samuel, and discussed together what to do. Saul had no money on him, yet the slave did have money, so they used that. How did the slave have money, and the master had none? Why do they seem to be discussing what to do as near-equals? Because things really weren't how you imagine. The slave was a member of the household, a trusted part of the family.

Don't assume that just because someone is in an employment relationship where they are paid in food and clothing instead of cash, and have a long-term or permanent contract, that they are completely oppressed and have no say in anything. That is really jumping to conclusions.

The relationships between slave/servant were such that they were sometimes adopted to be heirs.

Abram and Eliezer come to mind. Being childless, his first inclination for inheritance was Eliezer.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You didn't read what I wrote, you made up something else. I never mentioned any contract written at the time of divorce. Re-read my post.

I read your post. Your example covered a scenario involving a divorce. That would be a pre-emptive divorce contract. It’s very hard to come up with a contract that could be enforced while the marriage would be in effect; you could have a pre-marriage contract and a post/marriage contract but a marriage contract gets theologically difficult.

Can the church enforce a negotiated contract on Christ?

 

[Mojo]

I read your post. Your example covered a scenario involving a divorce. That would be a pre-emptive divorce contract. It’s very hard to come up with a contract that could be enforced while the marriage would be in effect; you could have a pre-marriage contract and a post/marriage contract but a marriage contract gets theologically difficult.

Can the church enforce a negotiated contract on Christ?

Along this line of thinking, would a contract describing expectations of how a husband is to treat, or what to expect of, his woman be seen as usurping his authority to rule his home in his own manner, and reserving all rights to change things as he sees fit, should the need arise? Culturally, and biblically, I don’t think most men would acquiesce.

 

[FollowingHim]

I read your post. Your example covered a scenario involving a divorce. That would be a pre-emptive divorce contract. It’s very hard to come up with a contract that could be enforced while the marriage would be in effect; you could have a pre-marriage contract and a post/marriage contract but a marriage contract gets theologically difficult.

Can the church enforce a negotiated contract on Christ?

No, what I described was a hypothetical contract between the father of a bride and her husband (as these things were), which ensured that whatever happened in life his assets that he had endowed to his daughter (in this case, a house) would remain in his family and be inherited by his grandchildren, not end up with the descendents of a different wife and lost from his line. That is a very reasonable sort of agreement I can imagine many fathers making in an otherwise lawless situation, especially in a polygamous society. The fact that it ensured this would occur even in the case of divorce was just a detail that ensured it was comprehensive. It was not in any way a preemptive divorce contract, it was if anything a will.

 

[FollowingHim]

Here is an actual example, the oldest known marriage contract, written on a clay tablet dated to about 2000BC:

"Laqipum has married Hatala, daughter of Enishru. In the country [Central Anatolia], Laqipum may not marry another [woman], [but] in the city [of Ashur] he may marry a hierodule. If, within two years, she [Hatala] does not provide him with offspring, she herself will purchase a slave woman, and later, after she will have produced a child by him, he may then dispose of her by sale where-so-ever he pleases. Should Laqipum choose to divorce her, he must pay [Hatala] five minas of silver – and should Hatala choose to divorce him, she must pay [Laqipun] five minas of silver."

4,000 year-old clay prenup mentions surrogate mothers and divorce taxes

The more things change the more they stay the same.

www.zmescience.com

It's not a good marriage contract - it's got many flaws - but it's real, it shows the sort of thing men were actually signing. And among the things it achieves, it gives the wife a degree of security in case of divorce. That is just reality, not something I am inventing.

 

[MemeFan]

Along this line of thinking, would a contract describing expectations of how a husband is to treat, or what to expect of, his woman be seen as usurping his authority to rule his home in his own manner, and reserving all rights to change things as he sees fit, should the need arise? Culturally, and biblically, I don’t think most men would acquiesce.

You can always limit yourself by your own free will.

I have limited myself by deciding to never be drunk. I have kept this.

So how can accepting some condition totally disable you?

 

[MemeFan]

I read your post. Your example covered a scenario involving a divorce. That would be a pre-emptive divorce contract. It’s very hard to come up with a contract that could be enforced while the marriage would be in effect; you could have a pre-marriage contract and a post/marriage contract but a marriage contract gets theologically difficult.

Can the church enforce a negotiated contract on Christ?

Church isn't being offer negotiable contract. It's take it all or nothing.

It's not that hard to enforce contracts in marriage. We just ain't used to since state has already decided most things.

Husband accuses wife on spending too much. Trusted third party gives wife 500 bucks per month on credit card. They also have to create paper trail to ensure traceability. Problem solved.