Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.

[steve]

Out of the hundreds of concubines mentioned in the Word we only have the specific circumstances spelled out in 2 families.

1) In both families there was a felt need for offspring.
2) In both families the wives chose to handle the problem by giving their maids to their husbands as concubines.
3) In both families the maids produced offspring.

Is it fair to deduce that the reason that all concubines exist is to produce offspring?
Is it fair to deduce that all concubines are chosen and offered by the wife?
Is it fair to deduce that all concubines must be first a servant to the wife?
Is it fair to deduce that concubines are servants to the wife?

In one family the son and his mother were later sent packing, but in the other family all of the sons became heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. Yes, we do see human weakness involved when the father favored the long awaited son of his favorite wife. But on the whole we do not see the sons of the concubines treated differently than the other sons.

Did King David's wives give him their servants to wife? We can only guess. But I see no reason that he would want that.
What about King Solomon's wives? With 700 wives and 300 concubines, the math is not adding up. Were some wives more equal than others after all? Why would he marry the servants of some but not the others? 400 wives took a pass on having letting him have a go at their maids because, what? They just weren't into the whole "Notice Me!" thing? I am sure that that would be true of some of them, but well over half of them?

 

[steve]

Re: 3Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.

Also, the maid taken in war and married was not held to the same standard "till death do us part" as a normal marriage.

This is a bit of an aside, but I don't take Deut 21:10-14 that way. I read it as saying essentially "if you see a captive woman you want to marry, take her home, let her mourn her family for a month, and after then you can take her as your wife. But if at that point you actually realise she isn't suitable to be your wife, let her go free instead". I don't think this is allowing divorce, just ensuring the man doesn't mistreat her. Even today there is a lot of sexual abuse of woman in war, there was actually a UN summit on this specific issue this week. In the heat of the moment angry men can make bad choices. This law basically forces the men to have a month of cooling their emotions before they do anything about it, and it is quite likely that plenty of women who looked hot on the battlefield actually don't look so attractive after they've been living in your home for a month and you're considering them calmly and rationally. So verse 14 tells men how to honourably treat the woman they took rashly but actually don't intend to marry. It doesn't reduce these woman and give grounds for easy divorce, but actually upholds their rights to be treated fairly and not be sold as slaves.

well, lets look at what it actually says:

Deu 21:10
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

1) She is a slave when she is brought home from the war. She has no rights, but all slaves should be treated humanely.
2) If the choice is to take her for a wife a certain protocol must be observed which includes a month waiting period.
3) If the choice is made to make her a wife, then the husband must realize that he has just removed her from his asset column and put her in the family column. In other words, he is taking the chance that she will become an asset to the family but he has lost the value that she could bring if he sold her.
4) Notice that once her marries her, she is no longer a slave. To me that is a strong indicator that the assumption that concubines are servants to the wives is wrong.
5) Letting her go free is a divorce, if you are married. Unless you are suggesting that she remains your wife while she roams?

 

[steve]

Re: Re:2 Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.

We also read about David that he left ten concubines "to take care of the palace" (2 Sam 15:16). We know these were fully valid wives (2 Sam 12:11), but here they are called concubines. Why did he leave "concubines" to take care of the palace? I think this indicates that this was their normal job - they were domestic servants, who normally took care of the palace. Now if they were servants (which I admit I am just assuming), who were they subject to? If they were just under David's authority directly they would just have been called wives, because they would be no different to any other wife. To be servants they must have been under some additional authority - and being under the authority of one of his wives does make sense. Again, this passage does not prove this, but it is entirely compatible with it.

2Sa 15:16
And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the house.

keep, shamar
I.to keep, guard, observe, give heed
A.(Qal)
i.to keep, have charge of
ii.to keep, guard, keep watch and ward, protect, save life
a.watch, watchman (participle)
iii.to watch for, wait for
iv.to watch, observe
v.to keep, retain, treasure up (in memory)
vi.to keep (within bounds), restrain
vii.to observe, celebrate, keep (sabbath or covenant or commands), perform (vow)
viii.to keep, preserve, protect
ix.to keep, reserve
B.(Niphal)
i.to be on one's guard, take heed, take care, beware
ii.to keep oneself, refrain, abstain
iii.to be kept, be guarded
C.(Piel) to keep, pay heed

The word used is much more in keeping with overseers. Watchers.
What is the total number of servants that David left behind? f he only left the ten, then you might be right.
If the palace had 500 servants (including herdsmen, laundry workers, kitchen help, firewood suppliers, sanitation, etc.) it fits better that they were left in a supervisory position.
We just do not know the circumstances, that makes it useless as an argument to prove any position.


2Sa 20:3
And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.

It would seem odd to relieve servants of their responsibilities in serving the wives and give them a life of leisure, albeit lonely, because someone had committed adultery with them.

Is it just not possible that they were a different class of wife? That he left the second tier in charge?
Actually, you have already made a case for wives of a lower class by teaching that they were servants to the other wives.

 

[DealChief]

Really great thread here, thanks to all.

I had thought concubines and wives were modern differentiation of the same word in Greek, but now understand (due to Hebrew cited above) that there were indeed differences in rank. Wow!

I get the point made above that children of concubines under Hammurabi's code, and as practiced by Abraham, didn't automatically inherit. (This would match practice in much of Latin America today. Good men generally have to make sure to provide separately for children of mistresses.)

But still, we all know that children of servants were treated equally by Jacob (except for the firstborn getting double, Joseph of course supplanting Reuben due to to Reuben's misdeed)... and that by Moses's time, the Law enshrined equality of inheritance for all male children. The status difference between women does not extend to their children. Sons equal, women not necessarily so.

As stated above, the two-tier status of women sounds hard to pull off in real life. Mohammedan men certainly try to balance their treatment of wives, and that seems very practical.

I read somewhere, and I think it was alluded to above as well, that the "wife" came in with a dowry, and generally had a real wedding party, whereas the concubine was usually brought in more like, shall we say, an elopement.

Women are very status conscious creatures, I wonder if any other men here have found that exchanging vows with one wife, after telling her you're a polygamist etc, still led to her thinking she would be the only one? In other words, has the word "wife" become so loaded that it automatically implies monogamy, and creates problems down the road as her monogamist upbringing kicks in?

I tried the word "concubine" on a girlfriend or two in years past, in order to forestall that problem, and they didn't seem too pleased.

By the way, Nehemiah mentions the descendants of the slaves of Solomon, as if they are a separate tribe (rather than part of Judah, Solomon's tribe). Obviously this could have been a multiracial crew, with some foreign cultural traces, since they had presumably had foreign great-grandmas (or whatever). In any case, it doesn't seem that children of slaves were always well-integrated into the family... Jacob's sons notwithstanding.

Interesting stuff.

 

[cubanito]

Child support with no real parenting is a real possibility if she decides to leave you behind. Would you be ok with not being a real part of his or her life / upbringing? That is why it needs to be a more secure relationship. Choose as wisely as possible and listen to God carefully. A child is very permanent.

 

[Eristhophanes]

Child support with no real parenting is a real possibility if she decides to leave you behind. Would you be ok with not being a real part of his or her life / upbringing? That is why it needs to be a more secure relationship. Choose as wisely as possible and listen to God carefully. A child is very permanent.

Hola Cubanito.

You are correct that a child is very permanent. However, when there is more than one woman things are much different than monogamous. If done right, the court is practically forced to leave the children with the father. Family courts HATE polygyny. Especially if they married with a marital contract. Which is binding if well-written. If the woman wants out, she gets out. However, with poly it's not nearly the same as with a statutory monogamous marriage. If done correctly there is very little the courts can do. The fact is, the women will get more out of a poly marriage than they ever would out of a monogamous marriage.

My understanding of a concubine follows Exodus 21:7-10 in that a Hebrew woman could be sold as a man's concubine. What this really entailed was inheritance rights for her children, which were less or non-existent compared to a wife that was a free woman. She was his wife (Exodus 21:10- she had conjugal rights) but she wasn't free. If the man purchased her for his son, she was to be treated as one of the daughters, so she wouldn't be a servant to his son. There isn't a lot of text on that and I studied it once years ago, there is quite a bit of historical stuff on it.

And... child support with ZERO parenting is more than a real possibility right now when a WIFE wants to take the cash and prizes in return for blowing up her marriage and ruining her kids lives in this completely screwed up country that is the land of the fee and the home of the slave. It's easier to get out of a marriage than a cell phone contract.

 

[A&J]

Reading the posts here I am pulled to my thoughts on another off topic post regarding First Nation (Native American) questions of plural marriages and find the two very similar. In the Blackfoot Nation a mans first wife is the "sits beside him" wife and the families exchange gifts and there is a life long set of rules for the family and the husband and wife. A husband is allowed to take a second wife but he must show that he has the ability to care for her without taking anything away from his first wife, if he could not provide accordingly then he could not take a second wife and the process continued through each additional wife. Even though a man could take multiple wives his first wife always held within the community and in the home a specific position and any wife after her was, though treated fairly and taken care of, was not seated in a position of authority as is the first wife. While no one asked and most likely would view this as not pertaining as it relates to non biblical information I simply thought the parallel ideas was good to point out. Have a great day everyone and may The Lord bless you and yours.

 

[FollowingHim]

You are correct that a child is very permanent. However, when there is more than one woman things are much different than monogamous. If done right, the court is practically forced to leave the children with the father. Family courts HATE polygyny. Especially if they married with a marital contract. Which is binding if well-written. If the woman wants out, she gets out. However, with poly it's not nearly the same as with a statutory monogamous marriage. If done correctly there is very little the courts can do. The fact is, the women will get more out of a poly marriage than they ever would out of a monogamous marriage.

Could you elaborate on the legal side of this please? Usually, when things get messy, courts tend to send the children with the mother, fathers very rarely get custody and tend to be strongly discriminated against culturally. How would this be countered legally with marital contracts? Do you know of any real examples of marital breakups where the father retained custody of the children because he had a pre-existing civil marital contract that stated that as one of the conditions, or are you speaking theoretically?

 

[Eristhophanes]

Samuel, the entire issue begs the question of what marriage is. Which really begs the question of who your god is. Everything stated here applies to the United States. However, any of the commonwealth countries which derive their legal system from the English Common Law will probably find some interesting similarities.

Every state in the United States has a law that requires people who want to get married to get a marriage license. And you'd think that was binding, right? WRONG. According to the US Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore (1878), the law requiring a marriage license is "merely directory." Meaning that it's nothing more than a polite suggestion and there can be no consequences for disregarding it. Why? Because getting married is a natural right and you cannot be compelled to get permission to do something you have the right to do.

I don't want to turn this into a big thing about marriage licenses, but, in general a license is a permission granted by a competent authority to do something that would otherwise be illegal, a tort or a trespass. Possession of a license is the best evidence that you do not have the right to do something you have a license to do. And, the competent authority who issues the license has the right to make the rules for that licensed activity. The licensee has to follow them. Laws like no-fault divorce and all the rules associated with that.

A long time ago people got married with contracts because marriage was a serious business that involved the inheritance. The inheritance represented the collected lifetime's of work by the previous generations that was passed down. Nor was it to be stolen by a gold-digger, be they male or female. Understand, they married by right, using a contract of marriage which spelled everything out. Rights, duties, responsibilities, privileges, benefits, penalties, everything. Then the state came along after the civil war and they started passing laws requiring licenses to marry. Why? Because of the 14th Amendment. If one looks up marriage license in a legal dictionary, (Black's 5th edition was this way) one sees that a license is a permission to intermarry. Look up intermarriage and it says "See: miscegenation." Look up miscegenation and you'll find that a marriage license is a permission to marry someone who is not of your race. Literally, by definition, that is what it means.

And you went to the courthouse and got a marriage license? In doing so you publicly stated that you and your intended spouse were not of the same race and thus needed permission to marry. The state was happy to do so and because you took their license, the state became a party to your marriage and also gets to make the rules. That is the way it is and it won't change. And if you want to be a Don Quixote and go tilt at that windmill, be my guest. I choose to recognize it for what it is, the system that is in place. The state is trying to take the place of God, because in a lawful marriage God joined the two as one flesh. God created marriage, God gave us His rules for marriage and God is a party to the marriage by virtue of the covenant that He sealed when He made the two one flesh. Recognize this for what it is. God doesn't recognize the authority of the State to do something contrary to His word and the State does not recognize the authority of God when His rules are contrary to the State's laws.

The giant loophole is this: when is a marriage not a marriage in the eyes of the state? When there's more than one wife. If a monogamous couple don't get a license and marry with a contract, the State judge can still "deem" them to have a statutory marriage and proceed to throw out the contract as contrary to State law concerning marriage. But, what happens when there is more than one wife? You become the square peg that will not and cannot fit into the round pigeon-hole of marriage.

So, we have a situation in which the state only recognizes monogamy as marriage. In fact, a man having more than one licensed marriage at the same time is criminalized as the crime of bigamy. It is considered a crime against the family. And since the state only considers people to be married when they have a licensed marriage, those without a license are not considered to be married. Until the woman wants a divorce anyway, in which case the courts will "deem" them to be married and then proceed to divorce them.

However, if there is more than one wife, the court cannot deem them to be married because that is contrary to public policy. Without a marriage there can be no divorce and all the rules related to divorce such as property division and alimony do not apply. If there is a contract then it's viewed as a cohabitation contract and it can be a very binding contract if well-written. One major issue is consideration, but a good contract attorney can help with this. The contract is critical because it is the private law governing the marriage and with the contract in place, the judge can't decide what they think an equitable solution is.

IF the husband has children with more than one wife and they are all living together as a family, it is unlikely the marriage will blow up. I've seen them blow up early on, but once such a marriage is stabilized, they tend to be in it for the long haul. The thing is, if a woman wants to leave she will leave. She can't be kept captive. However, if she wants to leave then questions arise. Because the state cannot recognize the union as a marriage, there can be no divorce and not splitting of assets. What about the equity the other wife or wives have? This is literally a nightmare for the courts and there is not one iota of case-law to fall back. The only thing the courts can do is determine custody for the children.

The father and at least one other wife remain in the home. The children have known the other wife all their lives. She is another of the "mamma's" in the home. The children have their half-siblings in the home. The mother wants to leave and be a single mother. Which parent is in the best position to care for the child? Courts object to the separation of siblings. Even half-siblings being raised together. It is far more likely, given the facts of the case, that the father maintains custody of the children.

The end result is that the contract can and will determine the manner in which the woman leaves. The courts will be highly unlikely to award custody to the mother unless the child is an infant. Economically speaking, this is the opposite of monogamy, in which the wife is economically rewarded for blowing up her marriage and then receives a chilimony check monthly for many years to come. With a contractual polygynous marriage, the woman could easily forfeit everything she put into the marriage. Likewise it's likely the father will receive custody so she will be ordered to pay child support. This reverses the incentives for divorce.

So, in a nutshell, the contract determines how the marriage functions, what the rules are, how the inheritance works, how somebody gets out if they really want out, everything. In a normal marriage there are things like a prenuptial and postnuptial agreement which can be binding but judges like to throw them out and do what they want because such agreements take power away from the court. With a polygynous marriage there can be no divorce because the state cannot recognize the union as a marriage. With a contract in place, everything devolves to the contract and if it's well written it can't be thrown out.

This also eliminates things like venue shopping. In the US, it is in the best interests of a woman who has decided to divorce her husband to move to Massachusetts and establish residency. Once she's done that she can file for divorce under the Massachusetts law, which is draconian in terms of being anti-male when it comes to divorce and child custody. No marriage means no divorce. The husband should have already filed for custody of the children in his home state after perhaps a week of her separation in order to get custody of the children. That should be spelled out in the contract.

I have had attorneys try to tell me that this won't work and they gave me many examples of monogamous couples with contractual marriages getting screwed by the system. They were never able to give me an example of a poly family this happened to. It's unheard of. And there are reasons for that. If what I have described is done right there will be NO record of this "working" in courts. Because it won't go to divorce court because there isn't, according to the state's definitions, a marriage. And there can't be because there is more than one wife. In order to recognize a poly marriage (which is the LAST thing anyone should want) the entire body of law governing marriage would have to be thrown out. Gay marriage? Not a problem because the fundamental underlying principle on which it all rests is monogamy.

 

[UntoldGlory]

That's a great write up, and the logic all works, but the problem is the legal system doesn't feel particularly bound to follow logic, or even the law in many cases. For instance we have a local judge that deals with parental rights cases and a full 80% of their rulings are overturned. The other 20% aren't challenged, but I imagine many of those could be overturned as well.

It would be incredibly easy for child protective services to deem the whole situation "abusive", and either remove the kids from all parties or give them to the "heroic victim mother who was duped into an abusive situation but had the courage to leave in order to protect her children". Heck, that's basically a tagline for a lifetime television movie right there! Especially if the woman leaving can tell them that corporal punishment is used in the home.

Again, I think your logic is sound, but I don't think that it's reliable in practice. Better than nothing, sure, but not the rock solid protection you're thinking it is. Just look at the Brown's case in Utah. Just the fact that it's polygamy related has people so up in arms that they encourage the legal system to just strike it down, without much regard to how laws are actually written.

 

[Eristhophanes]

Again, I think your logic is sound, but I don't think that it's reliable in practice. Better than nothing, sure, but not the rock solid protection you're thinking it is. Just look at the Brown's case in Utah. Just the fact that it's polygamy related has people so up in arms that they encourage the legal system to just strike it down, without much regard to how laws are actually written.

In general and at the trial level, anything goes. However, I can pretty much guarantee you that you have never seen a case like this before because what I described is designed to keep the situation OUT of court. By definition, no marriage means no divorce. There must be a marriage in order to have a divorce. That only leaves child custody. Family courts rarely get overturned in their rulings, but as a rule, the court has to have a damn good reason to separate siblings. Yes, CPS can tell lies, but you're searching for exceptions and you're overlooking one HUGE issue, which is that there would be another WOMAN testifying on the other side of this. Like it or not, momogamy produces a man vs woman situation. Poly can produce a man and woman vs woman situation which turns the "the woman is always right" situation on its head. When there is another woman involved everything changes.

As for the Brown case, they won. Strike it down? That's not happening in all likelihood because they are on SOLID ground. The Supreme Court Case Meister v Moore is current case law and has been since 1878. With the Brown case the problem was that the law was clearly unconstitutional and violated their fundamental rights. They won at the trial level and the chances of them being overturned are somewhere in the neighborhood of nil and none. The reason is because marriage was described as a natural right by the Supreme Court. That is the same as a fundamental right. Which means the standard is strict scrutiny and the test is compelling interest. Normally, all the state has to do is state a rational basis for why the law exists. If they do that, they win. When dealing with fundamental rights, they must show why they are compelled to violate the rights of those individuals. That is damn near impossible.

The Brown case is now squarely in compelling interest territory and the State lost at trial.

 

[UntoldGlory]

I understand that what you have described is designed to keep things out of court, I'm just saying that in my *direct* experience that is unrealistic. Child custody is often tied to divorce proceedings, but child custody battles happen even if there is no marriage, even if they never live together. I'm not searching for exceptions, I'm speaking from experience. I've currently got one friend battling for custody because he didn't even know he *had* a child, the mother never told him. She has a ton of diagnosed mental issues and technically already lost parental rights yet she STILL has a ton of pull with the court system about placing the child with my friend. To make it even more directly applicable, he's married, and has not only his wife testifying to his ability to parent the child well (she's a nurse btw, not a disturbed person like the biomom), but a bevy of other character witnesses to call. It's still a fight to get custody. Perhaps in your state it's different, but at least here, the courts *hate* to give custody to the father. That's not even the only case going on in the lives of people that I know right now where there is a custody issue that never involved a marriage license between the bio parents. Once again I agreed that the idea was good, I just don't think it's as airtight as you believe it is. Heck, maybe where you are it would be, but it wouldn't here.

Now, on the topic of the Brown case:
Yes, they won. Then, the ruling was overturned. Then they tried to appeal to the circuit court but were shot down, not even allowed to re-plead their case. Last I saw, they were planning on taking it to the supreme court, but that hadn't actually happened yet. Did I miss something? Did they take it to the supreme court and win? Currently the Brown case being overturned would actually hurt any poly-related cases coming to trial, now if they go to the supreme court and win, that's a whole different ball game.

 

[FollowingHim]

Eristophanes, I agree with UntoldGlory that your proposal sounds great, and probably does offer some good legal benefits, but cannot be considered foolproof. The courts are used to dealing with de-facto polygamous custody situations, all sorts of messy situations like UntoldGlory describes. They've seen it all already, and they've got case law to deal with it. We're not actually very unique, in a legal sense, because normal secular people get themselves in similar situations (from a legal perspective) and make such a mess of it (since there is less commitment, often deceit etc) that they end up in court, so the courts are dealing with these issues all the time.

Regarding property separation, New Zealand law recognises couples as effectively being in the same legal position as a married couple once they have been living together for 3 years. And this applies to polygamy specifically, there are specific laws outlining how to calculate property division when there are multiple simultaneous relationships with claims on property. Such laws don't get written unless there is a need for them - the courts are well used to dealing with such situations.

If you can find an example of it working, then I'd be very interested. Until then it sounds like a wonderful fantasy, unfortunately.

 

[Eristhophanes]

child custody battles happen even if there is no marriage, even if they never live together. I'm not searching for exceptions, I'm speaking from experience. I've currently got one friend battling for custody because he didn't even know he *had* a child, the mother never told him. She has a ton of diagnosed mental issues and technically already lost parental rights yet she STILL has a ton of pull with the court system

OK, this is ugly as hell and you are correct. As a rule, have vagina and win. That is the way the system is set up.

However, I described something completely different. 1st, an intact family with more than one wife that cannot be defined as a marriage. Second, more than one woman with a claim to parenting the children, all of them. I know of several families that pass the kids around, all the women nurse all the children. Think about how that claim looks in court. "I nursed that child!" Backed up by testimony and possibly photos or video. We are talking about a completely different animal.

There is NO DIVORCE. There is only a custody dispute. Much more private.

It's still a fight to get custody.

No kidding. I am completely aware of that.

the courts *hate* to give custody to the father.

They hate to give custody to the father *alone* but when you introduce another woman who has been part of that child's life from the beginning, who is recognized as being equally "mamma" with the biological birth mother, everything changes. The "man" no longer applies as much.

If you can find an example of it working, then I'd be very interested.

This is not the sort of thing that makes it into the record. For obvious reasons. It's too weird. Too strange. Too different.

The courts are used to dealing with de-facto polygamous custody situations, all sorts of messy situations like UntoldGlory describes.

I would love to see some evidence of this. Seriously. The courts are NOT used to dealing with de-facto polygamous custody situations in any way because their rules and all their previous rulings tend to force them into fitting everything into a monogamous framework. I literally do not know of ANY poly situations that have been adjudicated by the courts AS poly situations. This is somewhat of a hobby of mine, but I'm not on the ground. I know a bunch of people who are and they send me stuff, but currently this is an area that is a black hole.

New Zealand law recognises couples as effectively being in the same legal position as a married couple once they have been living together for 3 years. And this applies to polygamy specifically, there are specific laws outlining how to calculate property division when there are multiple simultaneous relationships with claims on property. Such laws don't get written unless there is a need for them - the courts are well used to dealing with such situations.

Check with caselaw concerning cults. The point is that with more than two people they CANNOT deal with this the same as monogamously married couples. "Multiple simultaneous relationships" is NOT the same thing. As I said previously, this is the courts pushing this into a monogamous framework. Introduce real polygyny and the entire thing breaks down. To say that courts are well-used to dealing with "multiple simultaneous relationships" is NOT the same thing as saying that courts are used to dealing with polygynous relationships. When the true situation is brought squarely before the court, everything changes.

Last I saw, they were planning on taking it to the supreme court, but that hadn't actually happened yet.

Meister v Moore is still the applicable case law and highly unlikely to be overturned. The Brown ruling will most likely stand. There is literally nothing to stand on to overturn Meister.

 

[FollowingHim]

Eristophanes, I have an uncle who is a family court judge, and before that was a family court lawyer for decades. Trust me when I say they've seen virtually any situation you can think of and figured out a solution to it under secular law. In fact, we were talking the other weekend and he actually brought up multiple wives as an example of the weird situations he's had to deal with, without me prompting him at all. This is why I find your theories interesting hypothetically, but would need to see evidence of it actually working in practice before I took them seriously. And regarding "multiple simultaneous relationships" - regardless of how you might like to define polygamy, in the courts eyes it is multiple simultaneous de-facto relationships, and they've already got case law on that.

 

[Eristhophanes]

And regarding "multiple simultaneous relationships" - regardless of how you might like to define polygamy, in the courts eyes it is multiple simultaneous de-facto relationships, and they've already got case law on that.

You are in New Zealand, I am in the US.

I am not aware of the details of what your uncle might have experienced, but I would be astounded if he had every run across a family married with a contract. What I know about the US, in a situation in which the man is dwelling in the same home with multiple women and the women all have children by him, it is extremely difficult to separate things unless everyone wants out. When you add to that a well-written contract, it becomes pretty much impossible to throw out the contract and since the contract already spells out the procedure for dissolution if someone wants to leave, the court has nothing to decide about the situation. If someone wants to contest the contract or the terms, that is nothing but straight contract law.

Because a poly marriage is contrary to public policy, the relationship cannot be recognized as a marriage. Because of the living arrangements, it is not a case of separate relationships. Especially if they all share a bed. With a contract that spells out that they are NOT separate relationships, but one relationship and how dissolution is to happen, the contract rules and the only thing the court has before it is determining child custody. They need a very good reason to split up siblings and with another woman in the picture it is in the child's best interest (which is the gold standard) to stay with the father and their siblings in the home with the "other" mom they've known all their lives.

IF the menage could possibly be deemed to be a marriage, the court could pretty much do whatever it wanted to, but in this situation it cannot.

I sincerely doubt that your judge has ever had facts such as that presented before him. I'm also willing to bet that the whole "multiple simultaneous relationships" thing was dreamed up specifically to keep everything within a monogamous framework. The contract destroys that by declaring everyone to be part of the same relationship (marriage). Thus, case law does not apply because the facts are completely different. Keep in mind that the "multiple simultaneous relationships" is a judicial decision on the part of the judge, meaning that is what he chooses to see and nobody spelled it out for him any differently.

It is my sincerest hope that you never see any judicial proceedings on this, but I have encountered this attitude a lot, especially from the legal profession. When I drop it in their laps and say consider the facts as presented here, suddenly they are not so sanguine about anything because they've never seen anything like it before.

When I developed this years ago (2012) I took the plan to several retired judges and asked them how it should be written in order to keep it out of their court. What they all said was it required a well-written contract, not one-sided but fair, in which all parties had their own legal representation and adequate time to review the contract with no coercion prior to signing. The contract had to cover everything from beginning to end, all major anticipated events and lay out all the rules for the household. After that, everyone needed to be living in the same household as that was very important (domiciled together) and all adults sharing a bed was even better. The "multiple simultaneous relationships" was never mentioned, that was aimed at establishing the family as a single unit where the husband could not possibly be declared to be married to any particular one more than any other. The reasoning was if they were in separate housing the court would deem the one who brought the suit to be the married one and the other(s) were girlfriends/mistresses. They would proceed with the divorce and the husband and the other wives would get shafted. In case of children, all wives needed to have children by the husband. With those points met, the court would really have no choice but to go by the contract and the children would (in all likelihood) stay with the father.

The idea was to create a powerful incentive to solve problems and make the relationship work rather than pitch it in the trash. In monogamous marriages women are rewarded for blowing up their marriages because they get half the assets, almost guaranteed custody of the children (and years of child support checks) and possibly alimony as well, so it's no surprise that women file over 70% of all divorces. Under what I have just described, the person who wants to leave is penalized rather than rewarded.

I don't know how NZ courts are, but in the US a man's word is worth very little and as a rule, whatever the woman says (even when the court knows she is lying) is taken as truth. So, with no penalty and a lot to gain, women regularly lie to the court. However, with another woman living in the home capable of providing testimony, the court is in a much different position and the preponderance of evidence would go with the husband and remaining wife it their testimony contradicted the wife who wanted to leave. This is extremely important in child custody determination, which is where most of the lying takes place.

 

[FollowingHim]

I am glad to hear you have obtained legal input on this from retired judges, and that along with your further explanation certainly lends further credibility to your proposed strategy. Very worth considering by anybody. Without actually hearing of a case where it actually worked I'm still quite sceptical of whether it would be successful, but that's a healthy scepticism designed to ensure I don't put too much faith in legalese. To clarify, I certainly think your idea is good theoretically, so I'd certainly agree people should consider doing it, if it works that's awesome and if it doesn't it's hardly going to make things worse, so there's nothing to lose except legal fees. Good work.
Hopefully nobody who does it ever ends up in a situation where they need to test it - and hopefully if they do end up there, it works.

 

[Eristhophanes]

If you disregard the court system completely, it is still very beneficial to have a contract that spells everything out. I wrote a book on how to do the marital covenant in 2013 and I've revised it a couple of times, but in the past few years I've learned what the Bible actually says about marriage and I really just need to re-write the book again.

The idea of the book is for a poly marriage, each marital covenant will be unique so I wanted to provide the framework so the individuals could draw up their own covenant before bringing it to any attorneys. That way they would know what they were dealing with (which the attorney wouldn't) and save a lot of money.

The thing is, specifically in the US, attorneys don't learn law in law school. They learn procedure and how to think like a lawyer. One of my hobbies back about 25 years ago was working as a pro se civil rights litigant. I was considered to be competent and one judge didn't want me in his courtroom so he decided to teach me law. It helped that he was a friend of my father. He didn't teach anything about procedure, he had me reading Supreme Court cases for a couple of years. And it worked, I could see that some of my legal theories were completely wrong and eventually I realized that legal cases were a waste of time unless you're being paid to argue them. I wasn't.

However, the education was extremely beneficial in learning just how much the average attorney does NOT know. The truth is, if you're in trouble it's far better to hire the lawyer who plays golf with all the judges. If you're trying to stay out of trouble, especially with contracts, you pay whatever it costs to get the best.

 

[SouthernCross]

Can I bring the discussion back to concubines?

I've been reading through Exodus recently, and it seems to me that there is one aspect of the whole concubine question that has so far in this discussion been overlooked, and it's to do with the benefits gained by the woman herself.

When God prescribed the statutory law to Moses for the first time in Exodus 21-23, a couple of themes repeat 1) Taking personal responsibility for one's own welfare and the welfare of one's dependents 2) Accepting personal responsibility for one's errors, and making appropriate restitution directly to the affected parties 3) Preservation of human dignity 4) Caring for the poor, weak, needy, orphaned, widowed, etc. God cares so much about this last point, that in one place he basically says to Moses, 'If a person destroys the weak, I will destroy him.'

Exodus 21:2-11 talks about 'menservants' and 'maidservants'. Menservants served the master for 6 years, and in the seventh year were entitled to go free, or else commit to the master for life. Maidservants, on the other hand, were 'sold' (from the Hebrew it's more likely 'given over') to the master by their father, and then betrothed to him or his son in very clear marriage terminology. If the man betrothed the woman to himself, she became his wife; if to his son, she became his daughter-in-law. This context, coupled with the fact that the Hebrew word 'Amah' (which many translations have as 'maidservant' or 'female slave') is also given the meaning 'concubine' in Strong's Concordance, shows that the welfare given to others by a master differed depending on whether the recipient was male or female.

Which leads to the next question: 'Why would a man give over his daughter to become the concubine of another man?' The answer has nothing to do with becoming someone's sexual plaything, and everything to do with charity, welfare, provision, and protection. Ancient Israel did not have a central government providing general welfare to the population. If a woman, old or young, widowed or virginal, was not pursued by a man - in other words, if there was no passive prospect of a husband, brideprice (dowry) and children, which together guaranteed a woman's future security - then the woman's father (or if she was a widow, she herself) had a way of approaching another man directly, to 'give over' ('sell', but I don't believe for anything so crass as money) the woman into his care, to protect and provide for her as for any other of his wives.

So what's the main difference between a wife who is a concubine, and a wife who is not? I humbly suggest that it lies in the way each woman joins the master's household. A woman who is not a concubine has been courted, wooed, and endowed (given a dowry) by a man who pursued her, and is granted a 'ketubah' contract which includes rights of inheritance; a concubine, on the other hand, has sought the protection of a man's largess, and is not endowed, nor do her or her children have a share of the master's estate (although Jacob's sons by concubines clearly did). In either arrangement, however, the law preserves the dignity and welfare of women, something that is very much on God's heart.

The story of Ruth is a good example of a woman - in this case a widow - approaching a man with the intent to become his wife (concubine). It is clear that Boaz was already husband to many young women, and that Ruth was intimidated when comparing herself to them. Nevertheless, through her diligence, industriousness, humility, and intelligence, she commended herself to Boaz and he agreed to take her as a wife (concubine), giving her safety and children in return for her participation in the household industries.

So how might this apply to us today? Firstly, when it comes to hierarchy, there is nothing in the above exegesis to suggest that God approves of making some wives 'second class' or somehow subordinate to other wives. The head of a woman is always and only her husband, not another wife. Secondly, marriage is marriage, regardless of how it happens. Husbands are to love all their wives with fairness and equity. Thirdly, marriage is an opportunity to demonstrate generosity, compassion, and care for the weak and needy. We should never approach potential marriage partners thinking only about our own needs, but always be ready to put the needs of the other above our own.

 

[Eristhophanes]

So what's the main difference between a wife who is a concubine, and a wife who is not? I humbly suggest that it lies in the way each woman joins the master's household.

I agree, in part. However, one enters as a free woman, the other as a woman who is not free. Take note of Leviticus 19:20. The crime of adultery is not treated with the death penalty because the woman was not free. Which means that even though she was married, her status was not the same as that of a wife who was free.

Bilhah and Zilpah were servant girls who were given to Rachel and Leah, who gave them to Jacob, their husband. When Jacob "went into" them they became his wives. However, their children are listed as the children of Rachel and Leah. Because they were not free is the only conclusion you can come to. Which brings us to the big issue of inheritance. A concubine's children did not necessarily get a inheritance, or not the equal portion of inheritance due to the children of a wife who was free.

And, look at the woman taken in battle and made the man's wife. She did not enter the marriage free, but while he "humbled" her, she became his wife. Notice how the marriage can be ended (Deuteronomy 21:14). No mention of divorce, none of the "indecency" but rather if she doesn't please him. The fact that he is commanded not to sell her indicates that he had the authority to do so. Because she was not free.

It is clear that Boaz was already husband to many young women

I am genuinely curious how you got to that conclusion. One wife, sure. Perhaps two. But many?