• 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.
So what do our scholars say concubinage is? Are we seeing modern day concubinage with Christian poly "marriages".

Ylop, I agree with you 100% that in history, concubinage was a necessary evil. What is so cool though, and gives me goosebumps in excitement, is that we are on the forefront of CHRISTIAN Polygyny! As followers of Christ, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I know that some may come back with accepting your position as a slave in joy and with hard work, but I say that we do not ever even think of asking women to step into slavery again, whether it be here in this blessed country or anywhere. That is what will set CHRISTIAN polygyny apart from Muslims and Hindus and OT polygyny. I think that we are embarking into a very cool era in marriage that has never been seen before, much like the world had never seen Christ before.

I agree with Fairlight that Hagar was treated very badly indeed. I believe that one action of terrible cruelty by Abraham had dire consequences. That was a wrong relationship that came about because of unfaithfulness and then cruelty upon the heart of Sarah and Abraham. Hagar was also just a wee bit hot headed and demanded recognition and equality with Sarah. Once she had given Abraham his child, she figured that she didn't have to be a slave any longer. We all then witnessed the concern and love that was given to Hagar and her child by God Himself. Praise Him for his love and mercy and I hope that all Christians would follow His example.

I am going to put my foot down and state that under no uncertain circumstances should there be concubinage encouraged or winked at within Christian polygyny IF the term concubine is what I think it is. If the term refers to a lower status of wife within the family.

However, we can certainly not look down upon those people in other countries who do keep concubines who are treated well. As a Christian woman with "Western sensibilities", I would have to open my mouth and advocate for equal protection for her under the law, just in case a man decided to cave into the displeasure of his first wife. You see, those safeguards need to be in place in the event of spinelessness on the part of husbands because even Abraham himself had a moment of spinelessness. We all have those moments; unfortunately for Abraham, his spinelessness was highlighted for everyone in history to read. We can also read about the consequences of his actions.

Come on scholars, help us out here. :D Define concubinage so that I can farther my stance against it if it is a bad, bad thing. If not, then we need to know that too.
 
Lysistrata said:
That is what will set CHRISTIAN polygyny apart from Muslims and Hindus and OT polygyny.
Click to expand...

I am not being argumentative or anything Lysistrata, I agree with the main of your post but I just need to point out that Polygamy is not supported in Hinduism, Hindus and Muslims lived side by side for many years, what one faith supported and encouraged you can be sure that the other disproved of it! :D

B
 
I think it is a mistake to call concubinage a necessary evil. That would be what most ordinary christians call polygamy.

Also, Abram is getting a bit of a hard rap there. Giving Hagar to Abram as a wife was Sarai's initiative. And quite a normal cultural practice. They didn't have IVF or surrogacy back then (no I am not endorsing those practices). He wasn't necessarily being unfaithful. Although sending her out into the desert is rough. But God intervened. Anyway, this man is commended later for heading up a hill with his son and a knife. I have problems with that one but know the problem is mine and not God's.

Furthermore, Isabella I think your definition fits that of a mistress and not a biblical concubine. A BC does attract certain rights (although not as many as a full wife) and cannot be dumped. I am out of time to post now, will someone please post a summary of bible verses.

ylop
 
Ylop and Isabella,

The point I do believe of Dr. George's post was for us to

be the defining of concubinage
Click to expand...

as ylop noted.

From what I can tell by other scholars is that we would affirm that the lady is a true mate but there is some difference in her legal provisions. The difference in legal provisions or in the inheritance seems to be the difference.

In other words, if there is a lady that has full inheritance rights and one that does not one may have been considered to be the concubinewoman. I purposefully put those two words there together because keep in mind there is no WIFE word in Hebrew or Greek. The term is simply a possessive contruction of the hebrew or Greek term for lady/woman.

So in essence a man's woman could be a woman with full legal provisions for inheritance or she could be a man's woman who had a different set of legal provisions that provided less for her upon the man's death or upon the break up of the union.

And back to the academic portion of it, some get very bent out of shape for the very reason that our terms when discussing this are in 21st century language and thus we make an emotional distinction of good versus bad because we see one as a "full wife" and another as a less than "wife."

When such words like that are ussed it creates an inferior and superior varnacular that sparks emotional responses.

I think the goal, if I understand Dr. George rightly, is that we want to properly define the term. As it looks to me, and from reading works like Dr. Walter' Elwell's Encyclopedia of the Bible, the difference is not in the POSSESSION sphere, as both ladies were with and under the man, but that there was a different legal provision for one than the other.
 
Verses:

Gen. 22:24; 35:22; 36:12; 49:1-28;
Jdgs 8:31; 19; 20; 21
2 Chr. 11:21

would be a few of the verses that speak to this subject.
 
I think the goal, if I understand Dr. George rightly, is that we want to properly define the term.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

I, for one, could never "own" one lady and give her less love, support, rights within the family, and material possessions than any other lady I might "own." (I put "own" in quote marks for the same reason Dr. Allen put the two words together - concubinewoman - in the previous post, since, as he pointed out, neither Greek nor Hebrew have different words for "wife" and "woman" as does 21st century English.) Therefore, if a concubine is in any way inferior in status to other ladies a man "owns," concubinage is of interest only for academic/historical purposes and helping to define the bounds of marriage.

But, as has been said already, concubinage is in the Bible, so it should be "fair game" for our "academic big guns" and other interested parties to discuss.

We need to be extremely careful to NOT put down women IN ANY WAY in this discussion. Women are a blessing from God, and I love and respect them as such.

And while I'm on that soapbox: any man who abuses a woman or child, whether that abuse is verbal, emotional, or physical, is not really a man. IMHO, such a one should be stoned to death, not allowed to "go poly" and have a "harem" full of victims.
 
In all honesty, we cannot do right by the subject and have realistic opinions, until we have a solid Biblical definition and example of concubinage. Regardless of our personal feelings, stirred up by the word, we would do well to lay such aside until we have that definition. For the sake of investigation, I would ask, does the claim that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines reflect on our definition. I am concerned about the logic that one of the most wealthy and powerful men in the world would resort to servant girls for sexual experience when he had several hundred legitimate wives, many of which were princesses. How does this reflect upon concubinage in the Biblical situation? Anything maybe abused by the world and usually is.
 
PolyDoc said:
And while I'm on that soapbox: any man who abuses a woman or child, whether that abuse is verbal, emotional, or physical, is not really a man. IMHO, such a one should be stoned to death, not allowed to "go poly" and have a "harem" full of victims.
Click to expand...

AMEN!
 
Who chooses this life of a concubine for a woman? Does a father tell his daughter that one day she is going to grow up to be a concubine? Does a husband decide to "demote" his wife to a concubine status? I'm really confused who in America would be considered a concubine? I mean we aren't a conquered nation where women are slaves here. What would I say if my daughter said she wanted to be a concubine? Does the Bible speak about how one was acquired this "status"?

My cousin was working in a strip club and met a man from China who considers her his concubine. They have three children together. He made her stop working at the club. He bought her a house and sends her money. He visits her from time to time. He is married and as other concubines in various areas. Is this a good definition of concubine?
 
James Hunt

I don't think we as men should be considering a second wife or any other wife to be our concubine. I know that the term has been used in the bible but I think we should not be using it to relate to our wives. The definition says she is of lower social rank than the man (including slave status) or because the man is already married. I don't believe that is how we should look at any of our wives. Granite each wife is going to be different and we as men should always try to treat them the same even though we sometimes don't practice what we preach. No woman is the same but if she is going to be my wife she will be treated the same. I want my wives to walk beside me and not behind me. I am sure most ladies feel the same. When I picture a concubine and the wife I see the hubby walking beside the wife and the concubine behind them and that is not how we want it to be.

Lot of great post on this topic.

God Bless All,
James
 
Let's try this.

Would a different legal status, that the woman by voluntary choice made for herself, be an accurate starting point for a definition?

For example, Bobby (age 40) is joined in covenant with Jane (age 40). They then 10 years later meet Vicky who is an older woman and a widow (age 65). Jane has 5 kids and a rather large estate that she would like to leave behind to her kids.

She is attracted to Bobby and he and Jane and Vicky agree they want to become a family. But Vicky wants to keep her assets set to the side for her children as she is older and will die first of the family (in probability).

Bobby's first lady Jane on their covenant has full inheritance rights and her children will receive all that Bobby has when he dies (if he dies first). Or she dies first all she has goes to Bobby and their kids but not to Vicky's children. But Vicky agrees that she does not want to be placed in a position to inherit anything should Bobby or Jane die and she does not want anything from Bobby to go to her five kids should he die. But she does want her assets to be given to her five kids upon her death.

Everyone agrees and they come together with each other. With Vicky having a different legal status would that not technically make her different position something like what we see in the OT?

Dr. Allen
 
In society today we have "Legal Separation" available instead of divorce. I think this is kind of like concubinage in reverse.

A concubine should be contractually obligated to the man she is a concubine to and him to her as well (my personal opinion) - I would use a modified Ketuba for this purpose and have a betrothal period, ceremony, contract (Ketuba) then consummation would finalize it. I have read however that the difference between a wife and a concubine is only that the concubine lacks a Ketuba (written contract).

I do not have any concubines, but if I did I would want them treated the same as another wife by others and see them in that way myself.
 
James said:
James Hunt

I don't think we as men should be considering a second wife or any other wife to be our concubine. I know that the term has been used in the bible but I think we should not be using it to relate to our wives. The definition says she is of lower social rank than the man (including slave status) or because the man is already married. I don't believe that is how we should look at any of our wives. Granite each wife is going to be different and we as men should always try to treat them the same even though we sometimes don't practice what we preach. No woman is the same but if she is going to be my wife she will be treated the same. I want my wives to walk beside me and not behind me. I am sure most ladies feel the same. When I picture a concubine and the wife I see the hubby walking beside the wife and the concubine behind them and that is not how we want it to be.

Lot of great post on this topic.

God Bless All,
James
Click to expand...

I agree. That's the same picture I get and I think most get.
 
Dr. Allen,

Thank you for explaining this the way you did. The legal status makes perfect sense the way you described it! I'm glad to hear that the man on this forum would treat the concubine the same as their wives.
 
Dr. Allen,

Thank you for explaining this the way you did. The legal status makes perfect sense the way you described it! I'm glad to hear that the man on this forum would treat the concubine the same as their wives.
Click to expand...

You are welcome.

Yeah I too think it comes down to having the same love for the lady even if it is legally established with differing provisions. I don't see it as a love more love less type of deal but rather as an agreed upon provisional difference in regard to legal distribution of some material provision.

But that is the best I have been able to figure thus far.
 
lutherangirl said:
I'm glad to hear that the man on this forum would treat the concubine the same as their wives.
Click to expand...

If a husband loves the "concubine" the same as his wife and treats her the same, why can't she simply be referred to as his "WIFE" ? why would different legal arrangements change the terminology (especially since the term "Concubine" has such a negative connotation) ?
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Dr. Allen's explanation of the different legal status appears to be right on.

And Fairlight said,
If a husband loves the "concubine" the same as his wife and treats her the same, why can't she simply be referred to as his "WIFE" ?
Click to expand...
To which I say, "Amen!"
 
To me it seems that all that legal stuff could be accomplished through a will so I don't really understand why a secondary class of "wife" would be necessary.

SweetLissa
 
Well that terminology might be because we are working with Hebrew and Greek into English.

Keep in mind that the way they thought was "my man or may woman" terms. That would be the closest mental construct we can think of when getting rid of the term wife, which was really developed in the 1400's or 1500's.

So the term concubine would have been an adjective to describe the different legal status in their culture in regard to a type of woman. It may be obsolete in our day and era since we are English speaking people by our place of origin.

But I'm not even sure that Solomen would have walked in and said, "Hey Gideon when you come over tonight for supper I'll ntroduce you to my new concubine." I think he would have said, "Hey Gideon, when you come over I'll introduce you to my new woman."

The concubine, non-concubine status, would be something that came up in discussion of legal rights and wills, and inheritance issues and the things like that and probably not in common day to day discussions because the essence was relating to the possessed or non-possessed status of the lady.

And yes I know Gideon and Solomen were not in the same time period. Just the name which came to mind for illustration purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top