• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Concubines: Biblical, Practical, and Worth Restoring

@steve, I am certainly not saying "don't take a concubine". On the contrary, I am saying "go ahead".

However the question is "what is a concubine?". There I think we may be diverging.

I see "concubine" as a synonym for "de-facto wife" - in the sense of informal wife without any paperwork, not just a wife without a government marriage license. Anyone who has taken a wife without either writing a formal Ketubbah/contract or getting a state marriage license has a concubine. It's common practice and completely scriptural.

If however you are suggesting taking women in ways that may be contrary to Scripture, and labelling it "concubinage", that I would oppose. Not because I am opposing concubinage, but because I am upholding Biblical marriage.
 
I can’t remember if I’ve stated this publicly before but I’ve actually had an evolution on this topic in recent years. I’m willing to admit that there could be a definition of concubine BUT if there is it’s the woman who was bought as a servant and made a wife and she actually has MORE rights and protections than a regular wife.

This would be the famous passage where it says if her portion was diminished by a subsequent wife she could leave free and clear. If someone is willing to accept that definition then I’m willing to say there’s a category we could call a concubine.
 
FollowingHim said:
And Keturah is called a "wife" in Genesis and a "concubine" in Chronicles, confirming that point. However we don't know any more detail about her than that, we don't know why she is called a concubine - we don't know the circumstances of her marriage, we don't know if she was a slave or a free woman for instance, or if she would have had a marriage contract, so it does not help us confirm or reject the definition I was using. The same goes for all other concubines in scripture.

Bilhah is unique as we know much more about her - we know who she was before her marriage, and we know the circumstances of her marriage. This lets us compare her situation to the definition of "concubine", and check if the definition is consistent with her situation. Which it is.
Click to expand...
I do not stand in opposition to your position. I believe that ALL concubines are wives.
I take it further though. I also believe that all concubines are not free women. They do not have personal decision making authority.
 
We have yet one more example of this. That is Hagar.

She was given to Abraham to wife. Who gave her to him? The one who had authority over her, Sarah. She remained Sarah's handmaid throughout this time though.

Gen_16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

After this, she began to despise her mistress, Sarah. Sarah was STILL her mistress.

Gen_16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

Then Sarah decided she wanted Abram to send Hagar away. Abram said to her, it is YOUR maid, you do what you will.

Gen 16:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
Gen 16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

Then Hagar was away from them and an angel came to her and told her to return and submit herself unto her mistress. She was still Sarah's slave.

Then at his death, the status of his wives becomes known for certain.

Gen 25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
Gen 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.


Then to confirm that this is not thought in confusion, Paul affirms what I am presenting here also.

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


This should make it abundantly clear that Hagar was indeed a wife AND a concubine and a bondwoman/slave/not free.
 
Last edited:
steve said:
There is a difference between trying to resurrect something and exploring it.
I understand the fear that exploring leads to practice, but that is not a reason to quell exploration.
Click to expand...
Biggest risk is creating new institution carrying just name of old one.

For example, roman dictator. In early republic he was guy charged with saving republic and going home after job was finished. In late republic, well word has taken current association.
 
MemeFan said:
Concubines personal decision authority is irrelevant in today's legal system. All women have it.
Click to expand...
Ahh.... So perhaps, if we are applying the word as the bible defines it and there is no modern situation to which it would apply, then we should not apply that word to something else. Calling it concubinage would be doing disservice to the word as used in the bible.

Call it something else if it is something else. Friends with benefits? Sexual Girlfriend? Lover? Dalliance?
 
I believe that the reason men want to call their lovers a concubine is to simply give status to the relationship that would not be condemned by biblically minded people. It promotes what they are doing to a righteous thing which..... If we are being honest, is not how a concubine is presented to us in scripture.

Men should see their woman as wives. In all cases. Getting to that legal status is important though. Imagining her to be your woman is not the same as she actually being your woman.
 
FollowingHim said:
If however you are suggesting taking women in ways that may be contrary to Scripture, and labelling it "concubinage", that I would oppose. Not because I am opposing concubinage, but because I am upholding Biblical marriage.
Click to expand...
That’s why I attempt to discuss it, which concepts are contrary to Scripture, and which concepts are merely contrary to tradition?

I have given an example (multiple times) where it might actually be helpful to a woman, but nobody ever deals with it.
Presumably because it is inconvenient to tradition.
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
Getting to that legal status is important though. Imagining her to be your woman is not the same as she actually being your woman.
Click to expand...
Ummm, you lost me there.
How many wives can have legal status in your world?
 
steve said:
I have given an example (multiple times) where it might actually be helpful to a woman, but nobody ever deals with it.
Click to expand...
Your example, and correct me if I am wrong, is to call a temporary / less committed marriage (where the woman can leave if she doesn't like it) "concubinage", and then say that this could be beneficial to some women. This I reject, for two reasons.

Firstly, the Bible is very clear that marriage (of which concubinage is but a form) is intended to be permanent, and divorce is strongly discouraged and only permitted in certain circumstances. Weakening the restrictions on divorce is contrary to Scripture, whatever logical reasoning we might use to justify it.

Secondly, because the idea that concubinage is a less secure form of marriage is an assumption from some isolated examples of the treatment of certain women, which can be interpreted in various ways and do not carry the weight of law.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I can’t remember if I’ve stated this publicly before but I’ve actually had an evolution on this topic in recent years. I’m willing to admit that there could be a definition of concubine BUT if there is it’s the woman who was bought as a servant and made a wife and she actually has MORE rights and protections than a regular wife.

This would be the famous passage where it says if her portion was diminished by a subsequent wife she could leave free and clear. If someone is willing to accept that definition then I’m willing to say there’s a category we could call a concubine.
Click to expand...
We are thinking nearly the same. On that verse, I don't think it is intended to give more rights and protections than any other wife - you must remember that if a wife has a marriage contract, that contract exists to give her rights and protections, whether written in the contract itself, or in a wider body of law and custom which the contract refers to. However the woman without a contract has no such protection.

This passage gives a base level of protection to such women, in the same way that modern laws about the rights of de-facto partners give a base level of protection. It is reasonable to assume that most marriage contracts would convey more protection than this.
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
I do not stand in opposition to your position. I believe that ALL concubines are wives.
I take it further though. I also believe that all concubines are not free women. They do not have personal decision making authority.
Click to expand...
Man_in_the_Middle said:
We have yet one more example of this. That is Hagar.
Click to expand...
You are making a chain of debatable assumptions to get to your conclusion.

Firstly, we cannot assume Hagar (or anyone else) did not want to be a concubine and had no say in the matter. For all we know Hagar had been eyeing Abraham for years, and was a very willing participant. For all we know Sarah might have asked her opinion before offering her. On the other hand, she may have had no say in the matter. We have no statement on this in scripture.

Secondly, whether or not Hagar had any say in it does not mean this was the case for all concubines. Just that it was Hagar's situation.

Thirdly, if we say all concubines have no say in their marriage, then in permitting concubines we are advocating forced marriage. Which I cannot see in scripture. The closest example we have in scripture is the woman captured in war, and even she is given a month living with her captor in which she can make herself very undesirable in order to influence him to let her go if she doesn't want to be his wife, so has a considerable amount of leverage over her fate.

Far better to stick to the definition we have recorded, and not add anything to it at all.
 
FollowingHim said:
You are making a chain of debatable assumptions to get to your conclusion.

Firstly, we cannot assume Hagar (or anyone else) did not want to be a concubine and had no say in the matter.
Click to expand...
Since when do slaves get to choose their status or position? I think this may be an uncomfortable thought but I do not see a slave having autonomy in anyway. Nor does the bible seem to support that they would.
 
FollowingHim said:
We are thinking nearly the same. On that verse, I don't think it is intended to give more rights and protections than any other wife - you must remember that if a wife has a marriage contract, that contract exists to give her rights and protections, whether written in the contract itself, or in a wider body of law and custom which the contract refers to. However the woman without a contract has no such protection.

This passage gives a base level of protection to such women, in the same way that modern laws about the rights of de-facto partners give a base level of protection. It is reasonable to assume that most marriage contracts would convey more protection than this.
Click to expand...
Remember that I don’t believe in marriage contracts or that they can alter the basic obligations and parameters scripture puts on marriage. Essentially they’re unenforceable.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Remember that I don’t believe in marriage contracts or that they can alter the basic obligations and parameters scripture puts on marriage. Essentially they’re unenforceable.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
Since when do slaves get to choose their status or position? I think this may be an uncomfortable thought but I do not see a slave having autonomy in anyway. Nor does the bible seem to support that they would.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top