• 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.

Concubinage

Status
Not open for further replies.
MarvelousMarvin

MarvelousMarvin

Member
Real Person
Male
If this has already been discussed, please forgive me and point me to the thread. I've been looking through BFF for over a month and have not found this question asked or answered...

What is the difference between a wife and a concubine?

What I finally settled on to use in my Doctoral Dissertation was that the difference between a wife and a concubine was the way in which she became part of her husband's family – a wife got a dowry, a concubine didn't. I had to use something, and that seemed at least somewhat reasonable given that it was a secondary issue in the dissertation, plus considering time constraints for research. But that really does not satisfy me, because the difference between a wife and a concubine seems to be much more than that.

For example, Hagar, a concubine, was called Abraham's wife, yet she was also at the same time Sarah's servant. Some commentaries say that a concubine had the same rights and priveleges in the household as a regular wife, others say that a concubune was of inferior social status.

What I found during research for the dissertation was that few, if any, "Christian" commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias promoted anything other than the false monogamy-only doctrine. So how can we trust them to have the truth about anything else related to marriage, such a what was a concubine?

And a related question: should modern Biblical Marriage include concubinage, assuming we can really determine what that meant in the OT and that there was some significant difference?

I'd love to hear what others have found in your studies.
 
What has been found here on BF is that we end up removing all threads on this topic if I remember correctly. Some of the ladies get a little cross at this topic when it is discussed.

There might be a thread still in existence in the men's private section.
 
Oh my mercy me alive heavens to betsy goodness grace great ball of fire...... 8-)

That is a touchy subject.

I'm going to say as little as I can here and if you want to know more we can discuss this one when we talk again by phone!

Numerous proposals have been made by scholars, laymen, some better than others, but ultimately in comparing everything I have seen it boils down to one key issue.

There is a legal difference in some way between the ladies. One may have a set up where she is not to receive an inheritance as the first and the first's children. Or it might be that she retains for herself some different legal position such as ownership of certain things remains distinct and separate so she did not have all the same legal rights as another lady. Ultimately what I am saying is that in some way or another it is a legal provisional difference that distinguished one from another in some way shape or form in one degree or another however so slightly or greatly.

One example, if a man in war went in and city was destroyed and she had no provision she would sometimes become a concubine. She did not get to inherit everything like the other ladies because God was concerned with economic stability. If she was brought in under such terms like that would she one day work in such a way behind the scenes (manipulation) to pressure the man (through manipulation) to put her and away so she could just get some of the piece of the man and family's land, money, etc. Basically in that legal format it was a protection for the family against a woman having the same legal position and thus she used that position for the purpose of fraud through manipulation. thus, if she came in as a concubine she was provided for and the family too was protected.

Now there are all kinds of other weird stuff out there. Some from they were just extra mistresses with no real connections. It is true that some concubines were sexual experts of their day, but a concubine as far as I can tell had a relational status but just a different legal status in the protective nature of the covenant that had variations and degrees in it that were honored legally.

Some today every time this subject comes up they also due to immaturity want to rush out go grab themselves a concubine just so they can have more sex. For those it is TRULY ALL ABOUT SEX AND SEX ALONE. DUMB DUMB DUMB! And MORE DUMB! So if you are reading this post and that thoughts jumps into your mind then rush to the cross and ask for protection from that thought.
 
There are some pretty reasonable people on this board. I think that this should be discussed. I want to know the difference too. Perhaps we could discuss this under the watchful eye of the moderators. I know that they have the ability to delete posts that are inflammatory. Even the word concubine makes my hair stand on end... but that could simply be cultural bias and ignorance that is upsetting me. :?
 
As far as I know, a concubine is a woman who while is 'kept' by a man, has no legal protection if he wishes to end the relationship and is also considered one who has a lower status than the wife, traditionally were often the servants of the wives.

B
 
WOW.

Sure did not mean to hit such a nerve! Paul, had I known the history of the subject's discussion on BFF, I would never have asked the question!

I really don't think it should be discussed in the men-only forum since it concerns women as much as men. Maybe there should be another private forum separate from the existing member's-, men's-, and women's-only forums, with a great big warning sign to be read before applying for membership in it...

...that forum could also be used for other "touchy" subjects. Just a thought.

And no, Dr. Allen and anyone else who reads this, to me it is NOT about sex. It was meant to be a serious academic question, as was the related question.

I believe Ephesians 5:25 (along with other verses that say something similar) is the most important verse in the Bible relating to marriage. Therefore, if a concubine is somehow inferior to a "real wife" within the family, that would answer the related question...but if a concubine was somehow different but equal, that question might still be open.

Sorry if the questions ruffled some feathers. That was not the intent. If the moderator(s) wish to remove this thread, I will not object...but if it stays, or gets moved to a private forum where I can become a member, I will participate in the discussion.
 
Dr. George,

The director here might indeed want to move it. I'm sure he'll move it or suggest something as an alternative if he thinks so. I'm not sure what he or the others on the staff might think about it and an open discussion of it if it is properly monitored. They may be fine with it. Speaking as only one of the team I am fine with an academic discussion of this. It comes up in question from from time to time in Q & A sessions and even in chat forums etc.

I know you and your heart for academics and I truly do appreciate that. Your in depth and careful analysis is so very refreshing and rewarding for all of us. So we know your heart and we know you have no intent on setting forth any storm and thus we are not fearful of you in that regard at all.

But it might be something better for the private member's forum. I do not know. Then again maybe enough introductory warnings here has set the proper tone for the discussion of this, and thus it can be done with maturity without sarcasm, belittling of another, or without anger and tension arising from one to another in such a away that is disrupts the harmony of the Holy Spirit between brethren.

We'll see.......

Oh, and yes, the "oneness" is truly there in a concubine relationship.....but the variation of degree of provisions differed. So yes, one yet different is how I would formulate the substantive essence of the answer though with due recognition that some particulars may be different from one angle to the next in this matter.
 
Great idea to discuss concubinage. It is certainly in the Bible. Why does the study have to be academic only? We should not be afraid of words or concepts, or their application today. Do we have a list of forbidden topics here - like slavery, birth control, manifest destiny of the USA and the w word perhaps? Seems like bizarre Western sensibilities to me - we can have heated discussions on gambling (not particularly covered in the bible) but not concubinage (I seem to recall one being cut up and posted in pieces). I would have thought a good discussion of concubinage would help to define the edges and borders of marriage? Perhaps the 'trial poly marriages' and 'relationships with potentials' that people discuss from time to time are really concubinages? ylop
 
You didn't actually hit a nerve for any of us PolyDoc! :D I am glad that you brought it up. I agree that it should be discussed. I have many preconceived notions about concubinage and I am curious to see if they have merit.

Carry on guys. I want to see what you scholars think of the subject...

Thanks for not using the "W' word Ylop. You are a sensible character. If somebody used the "C" word in reference to me (with my preconceived notions) I would be offended and let everyone know about it. We all know the definition of a "W", I am not sure about the definition of a "C"! We can discuss this as long as long as nobody calls me a concubine until I have decided if it is a good thing or BBBbbbadd thang! :lol:
 
Lysistrata - your post made me smile. I dare you to start a new thread titled "The C word"!
ylop treading in dangerous territory
 
Do ya double dog dare me Ylop? ;)

You mentioned that concubines may be the women who are in "trial poly marriages". I had to stop and think about that one. Are you saying that a concubine could be any woman who was not the legal first wife? The one who could be dumped on the curbside? A concubine would then be a sort of legitimate "W" in a way?

By "western sensibilities", do you mean our beliefs in equality and equal protection under the law for all men and women. Could it be that we are afraid to admit that Christian polygamists are essentially putting women back into "concubinage"? I see what you are saying here. It is kind of eye opening to think that women who are treated as disposable wives today may in fact be modern day concubines. They say that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

Thank you for this Ylop. I think that you are onto something here. I think that we need to discuss this, define what is happening today, and take a stance against modern day concubinage.
 
Sort of. What I was meaning was, these temporary relationships, where a husband takes on a second wife in a loose and undefined way, and then it "doesn't work out" seem to have much more in common with concubinage or even the Muslim temporary wife practice; than it has in common with Biblical marriage.

For Western sensibilities, what I mean is twofold - firstly the subtle impact that 100 years of feminism has had on the way we think about male/female issues even in the church; and secondly the influence of Christian church doublethink, whereby we have purity pledges and WWJD bracelets and more bible commentaries than you could burn in a bonfire, when simultaneously many people are fornicating, aborting and divorcing. We are reluctant to discuss concubinage but at the same time most people are not virgins upon marriage.

ylop
 
PolyDoc said:
should modern Biblical Marriage include concubinage
Click to expand...

No, it shouldn't. If a man is going to marry a woman, whether she is his first wife or a subsequent wife...she should have the status of "wife". All wives should be on equal footing and have the same rights.

Hagar was a concubine and it would be difficult to have a positive opinion of Concubinage after reading her story. Hagar did not have the same rights and privileges as Sarah did. Hagar was essentially used by Sarah & Abraham, treated badly and then cast out. Not my idea of a marriage!
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
I am not a huge fan of concubinage and am a proponent of long-term full commitment, however...

To prohibit concubinage from our rich equal-rights Western perspective will have a similar effect in male-female relations to the creation of a minimum-wage for the employment market.

The impact of a minimum-wage is as follows:
. Those with productivity less than the prescribed hourly-rate are forced into unemployment or working in the black market.
. Increases unemployment because businesses can no longer employ people for low value jobs - cleaning, parking cars, preparing cups of coffee etc
. Skilled workers benefit from reduced competition.
. Certain groups of workers greatly disadvantaged - young, inexperienced, disabled, elderly, immigrants without formal qualifications.

In the same way, concubinage may allow women not fully 'qualified' for the marriage market to achieve a marriage-like relationship that would be otherwise unattainable. Hagar would just be one of many unnamed slaves lost to history, instead of the mother of a great nation.

So please do not eliminate concubinage from our discussion without a thought for those from less-priviledged birth nations or even domestic circumstances.

ylop
 
So ylop, you would advocate sex slavery? Where a woman, for purely economic reasons will become a concubine and (as Fairlight points out) can be cast out like Hagar was because the legal wife feels she has done her duty or ceased being useful? Is that how Christian men would want to treat women? If that is the case I am glad I am off out of it.

B
 
I am not advocating sex slavery or concubinage. By contast, I have started threads about the importance of long-term commitment to wives.

What I am saying here is that inequality will always exist in this world. Prohibiting concubinage from a sense of moral outrage will merely drive these relationships underground into prostitution, casual relationships or simply women being abandoned and in poverty. And it would be the children that would really suffer in that scenario, and do.

The moral position of rejecting concubinage would be much like the christian temperance movement achieved prohibition of alchohol sales in the 1920's in the USA.

ylop
 
Why does the study have to be academic only? We should not be afraid of words or concepts, or their application today.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe that is what some think of when they hear the term academic but that is not what I am meaning by it.

An academic study ought to be practical and all theology is to be applied. By the term academic I mean for there to be an emphasis on the mental approach to a subject over that of an emotional approach. Sometimes it is called a formal approach.

In other words when I said an academic study of the subject is beneficial I was saying so long as people do not begin to react in an emotional manner foremost over the matter in dialog. When people lose control of their emotions and the mind becomes subservient to the emotions they at that point are moving into subjectivity and that often leads to personal conflict where people get mad with one another.

Thus if this topic can be discussed with a priority given to the mind instead of to emotionalism it will probably go well. If not it probably will not.
 
ylop said:
I am not advocating sex slavery or concubinage. By contast, I have started threads about the importance of long-term commitment to wives.

What I am saying here is that inequality will always exist in this world. Prohibiting concubinage from a sense of moral outrage will merely drive these relationships underground into prostitution, casual relationships or simply women being abandoned and in poverty. And it would be the children that would really suffer in that scenario, and do.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to say to that ylop, those things already exist in the world, there is no prohibition really are we talking about what will happen in your own special future utopia or what happens now, because now we already have these things and concubinage wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. What is the difference between a man having a concubine and him having a mistress? One is supposedly secret and lives independently and the other is supposedly openly tolerated (because she is not considered a threat) to the wife. Who would most men go for? The independent woman of course because if he doesn't HAVE to keep her and come out and tell his wife that he has this woman he wishes to sleep with on occassion and pay her to do so.

What I am opposed to, is the idea that a woman, any woman feels that she must sell herself to a man for material comfort but without any independence, to me, that is slavery, in the same way that women who are beaten and forced by Pimps to work the streets are sex slaves. A woman who is a Mistress, most likely doesn't depend on the man for anything more than treats and occasional and possibly infrequent emotional support. A concubine is likely to need that relationship for material security, her children are not guaranteed to be taken care of and she can be used and abused as a domestic servant by the wife. I see a bit of a difference in status and intent with this. Therein, lies the problem.
The moral position of rejecting concubinage would be much like the christian temperance movement achieved prohibition of alchohol sales in the 1920's in the USA.

ylop
Click to expand...

No it isn't, because you are not banning anything that doesn't exist in another form elsewhere, in fact, even concubines exist elsewhere but they are just called by their real name, which is sex slaves.
Women in third world countries are often trafficked to the west to work for rich patrons, they get bed and board, have to do the wife of the house's bidding and are told they must sleep with the husband to keep their place. Is this a concubine? What if she knew this would happen anyway but just choose it because it was better than staying in her little village and dying of starvation? Does that make it any more moral?
WWJD?


B
 
I think we have got ahead of ourselves here, and missed the important and useful bit, which would be the defining of concubinage and comparing and contrasting it with marriage.

ylop the alleged concubine enthusiast
 
I have already defined it for you. I am Mistress of the DEFINITIONS universe!!!!

OK, I was going by my own definition, which was posted previously, which is, a woman whose relationship to a man is based purely on his desire to maintain it, where she has no legal recognition or rights to be taken care of in the case of loss of desire for her company, incapacity or pregnancy. She is under the authority of any woman with the status of wife (legal or non legal) and can be told what to do by her/them. Her children by him may or may not be acknowledged by him and may or may not be financially supported by him if he chooses to end the relationship.

Of course, this is my definition but obviously, there have been others which are less harsh it seems which has to do with dowries and inheritance, if it was just that though I would think that, at least here in the west due to lack of legal recognition, just about any Poly wife is essentially a concubine, in which case, we don't really need this conversation, we got it sussed!!

B
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top