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...