Treating Wives the Same

[frederick]

I mentioned in another thread that I began reading the Bible to our maid, starting in Genesis, and it has opened up some excellent opportunities for discussions about all sorts of subjects in the Bible. I have discussed marriage at length with her because it comes up so often in the text, and that has included discussing having multiple wives and concubines.

Recently the maid asked me about Jacobs wives; did he treat them all the same? (This question has popped up a few times on the forum, so I found it interesting it has come to mind with the maid.) I pointed out that, although Jacob had taken Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah as his wives, Bilhah and Zilpah remained as maidservants to Rachel and Leah (c.f. Gen. 35:25, 26). The marital status hadn't changed the employment relationships between the women and therefore there would be a difference in the way they were treated, and the responsibilities they had. We discussed this and how it might be understood in a contemporary employment situation, and she seemed satisfied with my answer.

Question: Do any of you have any further insights into this particular situation regarding Jacob and his wives?

 

[steve]

I don’t buy the idea that using the word handmaiden to identify them (yes, they had been) is proof that they remained in that position.
There is certainly no indication that their sons had a differing status, which would suggest that the mothers had been accepted as simply wives working together.

It’s interesting, in most places they are all referred to as wives, but when dealing with Essau it is mentioned more than once two wives and two servant wives. One wonders why the distinction at that point.
I didn’t do an exhaustive study, so there may be additional details.

 

[steve]

Btw; oral tradition in Jewish lore is that they were all sisters from probably 3 (at least 2) different mothers.
Hmmm…….., never thought of this before, but were the handmaidens daughters of servant wives and had different status? A tradition that Jacob didn’t continue?

At any rate, I believe that at least one of them was Nubian.

 

[frederick]

I don’t buy the idea that using the word handmaiden to identify them (yes, they had been) is proof that they remained in that position.
There is certainly no indication that their sons had a differing status, which would suggest that the mothers had been accepted as simply wives working together.

It’s interesting, in most places they are all referred to as wives, but when dealing with Essau it is mentioned more than once two wives and two servant wives. One wonders why the distinction at that point.
I didn’t do an exhaustive study, so there may be additional details.

I see in Genesis 35:22 Bilhah is referred to as Jacob's concubine, so there does appear to be a difference in status.

 

[steve]

Yes, we have no distinct definition of concubine and how that affects status.
A difference that has been noted is the lack of a full wedding ceremony.

 

[Bartato]

When Jacob returned to Canaan, and met Esau, he placed the maidservants and their children out front, Leah and hers next, and Rachel and Joseph in the rear.

Then, as husband/father/leader of them all, he properly went out in front of everyone to meet Esau and his 400 men.

This seems to reveal a preference for Rachel over Leah, and Leah over Bilhah and Zilpah.

I don't think Jacob necessarily treated the wives equally, but I do think he generally treated them justly.

The sons all seem to have had equal status as legitimate sons (though Joseph was loved most deeply).

 

[MeganC]

Question: Do any of you have any further insights into this particular situation regarding Jacob and his wives?

Reality: First Wives deserve to be treated with deference from their husband and subsequent wives. They did the hard work of setting up a household, they lived and persevered through the lean years of early marriage, and they set the moral tone for the family almost as much as the husband should. She is a pillar of the family and should be recognized for this.

Reality: Subsequent wives seriously need to fit in with the existing family culture. It is absurd for a man who has been married ten or twenty years to treat a new wife as the equal of his wife who has been with him for decades. It's absurd of a new wife to expect to be treated as equal to the woman who's been with him for twenty years. Let me emphasize this: It's absurd.

More Reality: The husband and his new wife will have a honeymoon period where she gets a lot of his attention. It's normal. It's bonding. They'll have sex sometimes a lot more than the other pairings in the family. Which is also normal.

So all this nonsense about treating everyone equally is to me yet another example of Marxist thinking creeping into the faith and the family.

Families are not democracies. The husband isn't elected to be the husband. All wives are not equal.

Deal with it.

 

[frederick]

Families are not democracies. The husband isn't elected to be the husband. All wives are not equal.

Awesome. I'll keep this quote on hand.

 

[Mark C]

Yes, I agree with @MeganC that "treating them all the same," is BS. Women are by nature (as are we all) different, and must be treated as individuals.

But there is another issue. Scripture tells us (pretty clearly in fact) that Yakov erred in showing favoritism to Rachel and her son(s). No question but that he could have, and should have, done better there -- even if there may have initially been some "hard feelings" concerning how Leah came into the family.

 

[paterfamilias]

Reality: First Wives deserve to be treated with deference from their husband and subsequent wives. They did the hard work of setting up a household, they lived and persevered through the lean years of early marriage, and they set the moral tone for the family almost as much as the husband should. She is a pillar of the family and should be recognized for this.

Reality: Subsequent wives seriously need to fit in with the existing family culture. It is absurd for a man who has been married ten or twenty years to treat a new wife as the equal of his wife who has been with him for decades. It's absurd of a new wife to expect to be treated as equal to the woman who's been with him for twenty years. Let me emphasize this: It's absurd.

More Reality: The husband and his new wife will have a honeymoon period where she gets a lot of his attention. It's normal. It's bonding. They'll have sex sometimes a lot more than the other pairings in the family. Which is also normal.

So all this nonsense about treating everyone equally is to me yet another example of Marxist thinking creeping into the faith and the family.

Families are not democracies. The husband isn't elected to be the husband. All wives are not equal.

Deal with it.

Was not going to comment given that the question was about a specific biblical circumstance and that is not my forte. Now that Megan has come in with bucket of ice water, and who doest love a cold plunge, I will jump in.

First...based

Second...won't go into details but broadly speaking I have been through teething troubles with new woman in the home.
Part of the difficulty is a current year cultural thing where every woman is trained to believe that they are a special princess and unique jewel who should be the first priority in all circumstances. They absolutely are not trained to be part of a group a member of a team contributing to family success.

Yes a new wife should get treated well and loved and cherished...duh.
To my mind however, if a woman wants to be put over another wife and the rest of the family then she might be better served to stick to monogamy. My personal prediction is that the I am such a special princess attitude will result in serial monogamy, a disturbing stack of bodies and possibly "baby daddies"(retch).

Men and woman going into this equation need to NOT have themselves in mind. The family and Everyone else in the family should be considered before one's self. If you are self centered or selfish by nature then you will struggle.

 

[frederick]

The family and Everyone else in the family should be considered before one's self. If you are self centered or selfish by nature then you will struggle.

When you typed that, did you have a passage such as Roman 12:3 in mind? For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. Or perhaps the last part of Galatians 5:13; ...through love serve one another?

Pride, selfishness, and self-seeking are so very destructive in relationships, whether it's in marriage, business, or church. We are repeatedly warned and admonished in the Bible regarding pride and the need for humility. E.g. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6), Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up (James 4:10), Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time (1 Peter 5:6).

You put it quite succinctly above, @paterfamilias. Thank you.

 

[paterfamilias]

When you typed that, did you have a passage such as Roman 12:3 in mind? For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. Or perhaps the last part of Galatians 5:13; ...through love serve one another?

Pride, selfishness, and self-seeking are so very destructive in relationships, whether it's in marriage, business, or church. We are repeatedly warned and admonished in the Bible regarding pride and the need for humility. E.g. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6), Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up (James 4:10), Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time (1 Peter 5:6).

You put it quite succinctly above, @paterfamilias. Thank you.

You are entirely too kind.

I am the last guy you will find quoting scripture...well, beyond 1 Tim 4 as I point out that you should get lotsa lotsa married and eat lotsa lotsa meat. Cause both are demonstrably natural and better for you than the opposite.
So I suspect it is just a happy coincidence based upon life lessons learned.


Bit of a lateral shift but this also why in the man cave or one of the sleeping arrangements topics I have advocated for the husband not having a bedroom of his own.
Yeah I am head of the family and by extension in charge but by extension it means everything is my responsibility whether I am personally at fault or not. That i have a duty to provide for my wives and children's needs before my own. I might be the head but I am not first.

If I need an ego stroke at all infrequently then I can look to the caliber of woman who were silly enough to choose the big dumb ape and to the wonderful children we have produced. That is more than enough.

 

[FollowingHim]

Genesis 39:9-10
And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

Who is "thy mother" that Jacob is referring to? Joseph's mother Rachel is dead by this point. So who is considered his mother? And why is there only one of them, not three?

It's very loose evidence and can be interpreted various ways, but it MAY indicate that after Rachel's death Leah was considered to be the nominal mother of all the children, the head wife. This would indicate a continued lower status for Bilhah and Zilpah.

Having said that, I think that Jacob's favouritism to Rachel and then later to Joseph indicates he was a terrible organiser of his family, and we shouldn't really learn from his example in this particular field of life!

 

[steve]

Genesis 39:9-10
And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

Who is "thy mother" that Jacob is referring to? Joseph's mother Rachel is dead by this point. So who is considered his mother? And why is there only one of them, not three?

It's very loose evidence and can be interpreted various ways, but it MAY indicate that after Rachel's death Leah was considered to be the nominal mother of all the children, the head wife. This would indicate a continued lower status for Bilhah and Zilpah.

Having said that, I think that Jacob's favouritism to Rachel and then later to Joseph indicates he was a terrible organiser of his family, and we shouldn't really learn from his example in this particular field of life!

Interesting observation.
Remaining a maidservant would be much different than being a less-than-head wife, though.

 

[frederick]

This would indicate a continued lower status for Bilhah and Zilpah.

Thanks for that observation. It does help explain the reference to Bilhah and Zilpah as maidservants.

If a married business woman had a female employee who the business woman's husband then married, it wouldn't necessarily require a change in the employment relationship of the women. It likely would have some extra challenges, but I don't see anything wrong in the relationships.

 

[FollowingHim]

If a married business woman had a female employee who the business woman's husband then married, it wouldn't necessarily require a change in the employment relationship of the women.

The problem is in the financial side of things. You don't employ a wife and pay her a salary, you make them part of the family with access to funds as required. She could obviously retain the same role in the business, but you'd have to work out what the financial side of things looked like.

 

[frederick]

The problem is in the financial side of things. You don't employ a wife and pay her a salary, you make them part of the family with access to funds as required. She could obviously retain the same role in the business, but you'd have to work out what the financial side of things looked like.

If it was the wife's business and the husband wasn't employing her, might there not be some resentment if the employee suddenly stopped being paid?

 

[FollowingHim]

If it was the wife's business and the husband wasn't employing her, might there not be some resentment if the employee suddenly stopped being paid?

Might there not also be some resentment if instead of being paid she was just handed the husband's bank card to buy whatever she needed, like a normal monogamous wife?

There isn't a clear answer. You'll have to find your own one.

 

[frederick]

Might there not also be some resentment if instead of being paid she was just handed the husband's bank card to buy whatever she needed, like a normal monogamous wife?

There isn't a clear answer. You'll have to find your own one.

Maybe she could have both(?) The first wife might even be drawing a salary from her business and have that benefit already. There are a number of possibilities and each would require godly wisdom to avoid creating problems.

I don't have that as a challenge to deal with, but I do want to give sound answers to the maid since she asked.

 

[steve]

If it was the wife's business and the husband wasn't employing her, might there not be some resentment if the employee suddenly stopped being paid?

Why would she stop being paid if she is still doing work that the business needs done?
The family dynamic of how income is handled would be the focus going forward.
If she were to get a different job, she would get a paycheck and the business that she left would have to hire a replacement.