Concubines: Biblical, Practical, and Worth Restoring

[Jason Cook]

Greetings brothers and sisters,

As we rebuild our households according to God's unchanging Word, it's time we revisit a topic long buried by modern traditions: concubines.

Contrary to modern assumptions, concubines were not prostitutes or side women, they were legitimate, lesser wives, women under a man’s protection and provision, but without the full covenantal status or inheritance rights of a primary wife. The Law made room for this structure (Ex. 21:7–11), and righteous men, Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David, Solomon, had concubines without rebuke from God.

In a time when countless women are unmarried, unprotected, and unguided, the biblical model of concubinage offers a solution that is both holy and practical. Not every woman needs to be a full wife in the legal or covenantal sense to be under godly headship. In fact, many would be better off with the covering of a righteous man than wandering uncovered in a lawless culture.

We need to stop letting pagan legal systems and emotional baggage define our understanding of marriage. The Bible already did that; our job is to obey.

Let’s bring concubinage back. It is lawful, it is merciful, and it is God's order.

Looking forward to the discussion.


In strength and truth,
Lord Redbeard

 

[MeganC]

Oh, I so totally agree here.

I have long made the case that a plural is not the equal of a first wife. Not ever and especially not at first.

The first wife sets the tone for the House, she picks the linens, sets up the kitchen, starts a family and household culture, and then a plural comes into this and has to fit into the existing order and not try to remodel it to her own liking.

The plural is necessarily not equal to the first wife.

As someone who came into a family as a plural it was early on that I thought of myself as a concubine. My #1 job at first was having sex with my husband and bearing babies for him. I grew into my role as a wife over time.

IMHO it is much more fair to a plural to be thought of as a concubine at first for many reasons.

It defines her role in the family as new to the family.
It relieves her of any pressure to try to match the first wife in everything.
It allows her time to assimilate into the family and to find her way.
It can be kind of enjoyable to just accept the role of concubine.

The plural being recognized as a concubine at the start is also respectful of the first wife who earned the title of wife through her work in those hard years of starting the family.

In some ways it is no different than when a soldier joins the military. He doesn't automatically get the rank of general, does he? It is a rank that has to be earned over time.

Ditto with being a wife.

 

[Jason Cook]

Oh, I so totally agree here.

I have long made the case that a plural is not the equal of a first wife. Not ever and especially not at first.

The first wife sets the tone for the House, she picks the linens, sets up the kitchen, starts a family and household culture, and then a plural comes into this and has to fit into the existing order and not try to remodel it to her own liking.

The plural is necessarily not equal to the first wife.

As someone who came into a family as a plural it was early on that I thought of myself as a concubine. My #1 job at first was having sex with my husband and bearing babies for him. I grew into my role as a wife over time.

IMHO it is much more fair to a plural to be thought of as a concubine at first for many reasons.

It defines her role in the family as new to the family.
It relieves her of any pressure to try to match the first wife in everything.
It allows her time to assimilate into the family and to find her way.
It can be kind of enjoyable to just accept the role of concubine.

The plural being recognized as a concubine at the start is also respectful of the first wife who earned the title of wife through her work in those hard years of starting the family.

In some ways it is no different than when a soldier joins the military. He doesn't automatically get the rank of general, does he? It is a rank that has to be earned over time.

Ditto with being a wife.

Sister, your insight is deeply appreciated, and I agree with much of what you’ve shared. It reflects both personal experience and Scriptural alignment. The reality is—household order matters, and a woman entering an established home must do so with humility, respect, and a willingness to be grafted in, not to uproot what’s been built. Your analogy to the military is particularly apt: a new recruit doesn't step into command. Rank is earned. Order is upheld. And honor flows through service, not assumption.

You’ve articulated well the natural and respectful place of a new plural wife, especially in households that have already been built with love, labor, and established traditions by a faithful first wife. The role of a concubine at the start brings peace to the home and clarity to everyone involved. It protects the unity of the household and gives the new wife time to grow without the pressure of instant parity.

That said, I also believe there are households, and situations, where a plural wife may be received immediately as a full wife. For example, in homes where both wives are joining at the same time, or where a seasoned, virtuous woman is brought in and with the wisdom to honor what’s already in place, there may also be cases where it is necessary due to pre-existing emotional damage etc. In such cases, she may be immediately worthy of that title, not because she demands it, but because she embodies it or it is necessary.

Scripture gives room for both. Leah and Rachel entered at different times, both full wives. Keturah, later in Abraham’s life, is called both wife and concubine depending on the context. The key is not the title alone, but the order, the fruit, and the peace of the household.

So yes, most often, it is wise and fitting for a new wife to enter in the posture of a concubine, growing into her role. But we also leave room for the husband, as the head of his house, to raise a woman to the full station of wife from the beginning, if such order is appropriate for the household he governs.


Thank you again for your wisdom, it strengthens the body.
Lord Redbeard

 

[IshChayil]

I think failure to recognize the legitamacy of the concubine relationship (Hebrew: Pilagesh), has resulted in driving away countless people from the faith who were in committed "living together" relationships.
in the foolishness of my youth I remember failed ministry opportunities where people were interested but they didnt want to hear that they had to get a legal marriage to stay together.
So many simply call to this day those relationships "living in sin" while they are often very committed to one another. Surely we are living in the days when what is good is called evil and what is evil is called good....

 

[Jason Cook]

I think failure to recognize the legitamacy of the concubine relationship (Hebrew: Pilagesh), has resulted in driving away countless people from the faith who were in committed "living together" relationships.
in the foolishness of my youth I remember failed ministry opportunities where people were interested but they didnt want to hear that they had to get a legal marriage to stay together.
So many simply call to this day those relationships "living in sin" while they are often very committed to one another. Surely we are living in the days when what is good is called evil and what is evil is called good....

Brother, you’ve hit on a deeply important point, one that the modern Church is tragically unequipped to handle. The refusal to recognize biblical concubinage (pilagesh) as a legitimate, God-ordained structure has indeed driven many sincere souls away from the faith.

We’ve replaced the Word of God with the paperwork of Caesar, demanding state-issued licenses as the only valid proof of marital commitment. Meanwhile, Scripture never once mandates a civil contract to establish headship, provision, or covenantal union. What it does require is order, provision, protection, and sexual exclusivity within a man’s household.

The tragedy is this: when we call every non-state marriage “sin” by default, we blaspheme God's allowance for polygyny, concubinage, and household arrangements that He Himself blessed. Are we wiser than Abraham, Jacob, or David?

You're absolutely right, many couples are faithfully bound in heart, body, and life, yet are treated by the Church as fornicators simply because they didn't register with the state. And so, instead of shepherding them into deeper understanding and structure, we cast them out under manmade definitions.

Isaiah warned us well: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil...” (Isaiah 5:20). We must return to God’s law, not man’s paperwork. Concubines are not second-class sinners; they are a legitimate part of biblical household structure when rightly ordered under the authority of a godly man.

Thank you for speaking this truth. It’s time the Church repents of siding with Babylon over the Bible.


In strength and restoration,
Lord Redbeard

 

[UtahLife]

Given I'm not invading foreign lands, I have no business taking a concubine.

 

[Jason Cook]

Given I'm not invading foreign lands, I have no business taking a concubine.

Thanks for your comment. It’s a common assumption that concubinage was only for times of war or conquest, but that’s not actually supported by Scripture.

Biblically, a concubine is simply a wife of lower status, often without a formal dowry or full inheritance rights for her children, not a woman taken solely in battle. Many righteous men had concubines without any connection to warfare. Abraham had Hagar, not taken from conquest. Jacob had Bilhah and Zilpah, household maidservants. Gideon had a concubine in his own city. None of these instances were wartime acquisitions, they were practical, relational, and household-expanding decisions.

The idea that concubinage was only justifiable after military conquest is a modern projection, not a biblical pattern. In reality, concubinage was part of normal, godly household structure, providing care for women, expanding the man’s dominion, and multiplying godly offspring, goals that still apply today.

This is why restoring concubinage, like polygyny itself, is biblical, practical, and worth restoring, not as a war measure, but as a righteous, ordered option for expanding a man’s house under God’s law.

Happy to continue the conversation anytime.

 

[Mojo]

This topic has been addressed here many times over the years. I believe that concubinage was/is a legitimate and condoned relationship in scripture. All offspring were recognized as legitimate.

But, I’ve never read a convincing argument for what concubines were/are. I believe it’s cultural understanding has been lost to time.

For our modern purposes, how would a concubine be treated differently than a wife/woman under a man’s care?

 

[Jason Cook]

This topic has been addressed here many times over the years. I believe that concubinage was/is a legitimate and condoned relationship in scripture. All offspring were recognized as legitimate.

But, I’ve never read a convincing argument for what concubines were/are. I believe it’s cultural understanding has been lost to time.

For our modern purposes, how would a concubine be treated differently than a wife/woman

---

Great question, and you’re right, this subject has often been misunderstood due to cultural amnesia and modern sentimentality.

In Scripture, a concubine is a woman under a man’s headship in a binding covenant, not a fling, not a harlot, but a legitimate partner, typically of lower legal or social rank than a wife. She’s joined to the man in flesh, bears children for his house, and is provided for. Her children are legitimate, as seen in the sons of Abraham, Jacob, and Gideon.

The key difference between a wife and a concubine is rank and formality. Wives often came with dowries or political alliances and received full household honors. Concubines might not have had a formal marriage ceremony or legal standing in the broader community, but they were still under the man’s covering and expected to remain faithful to him.

Practically today, a concubine would be a woman taken into a man’s household under covenant, without the full public or legal ceremony of a wife, but still faithfully loved, protected, and fruitful within his domain.

In today’s degraded culture, this is offensive to modern sentiment. But in God’s order, it is a merciful and righteous solution for many women who would otherwise be left uncovered and childless. It is a way to rebuild the household, care for more women, and multiply godly seed in an age of collapse.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

---

Great question, and you’re right, this subject has often been misunderstood due to cultural amnesia and modern sentimentality.

In Scripture, a concubine is a woman under a man’s headship in a binding covenant, not a fling, not a harlot, but a legitimate partner, typically of lower legal or social rank than a wife. She’s joined to the man in flesh, bears children for his house, and is provided for. Her children are legitimate, as seen in the sons of Abraham, Jacob, and Gideon.

The key difference between a wife and a concubine is rank and formality. Wives often came with dowries or political alliances and received full household honors. Concubines might not have had a formal marriage ceremony or legal standing in the broader community, but they were still under the man’s covering and expected to remain faithful to him.

Practically today, a concubine would be a woman taken into a man’s household under covenant, without the full public or legal ceremony of a wife, but still faithfully loved, protected, and fruitful within his domain.

In today’s degraded culture, this is offensive to modern sentiment. But in God’s order, it is a merciful and righteous solution for many women who would otherwise be left uncovered and childless. It is a way to rebuild the household, care for more women, and multiply godly seed in an age of collapse.

in cases where the matter can be known, the bible always refers to slaves converted to wives as concubines. Thus, they are both a concubine and a wife. They are not freed upon becoming a wife. They remain a slave. See Hagar was still a slave to Sarah...

 

[Maddog]

Much has been said about the headship over a woman. Is it possible to be a woman's headship without the sexual aspect? I have a few single women friends (without benefits) that welcome my praying over them and giving advice and helping them around their houses. Thoughts?

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Much has been said about the headship over a woman. Is it possible to be a woman's headship without the sexual aspect? I have a few single women friends (without benefits) that welcome my praying over them and giving advice and helping them around their houses. Thoughts?

oooph! Yeah... Women love free attention. I used to give it without thought. It has a high price though... It is your time and brain space so value it and only give up what you want to give up.

I spent over 30 years on one in particular and it was not even appreciated....

 

[Mojo]

---

Great question, and you’re right, this subject has often been misunderstood due to cultural amnesia and modern sentimentality.

In Scripture, a concubine is a woman under a man’s headship in a binding covenant, not a fling, not a harlot, but a legitimate partner, typically of lower legal or social rank than a wife. She’s joined to the man in flesh, bears children for his house, and is provided for. Her children are legitimate, as seen in the sons of Abraham, Jacob, and Gideon.

The key difference between a wife and a concubine is rank and formality. Wives often came with dowries or political alliances and received full household honors. Concubines might not have had a formal marriage ceremony or legal standing in the broader community, but they were still under the man’s covering and expected to remain faithful to him.

Practically today, a concubine would be a woman taken into a man’s household under covenant, without the full public or legal ceremony of a wife, but still faithfully loved, protected, and fruitful within his domain.

In today’s degraded culture, this is offensive to modern sentiment. But in God’s order, it is a merciful and righteous solution for many women who would otherwise be left uncovered and childless. It is a way to rebuild the household, care for more women, and multiply godly seed in an age of collapse.

Isaac didn’t have a public ceremony. The formality of union doesn’t make it less.

In today’s practicality, it’s just a wife. I don’t see why we need a distinction without a difference.

 

[The Revolting Man]

As we rebuild our households according to God's unchanging Word, it's time we revisit a topic long buried by modern traditions: concubines

And here is where you will completely fall apart, you see, God doesn’t define concubines and sometimes women referred to as concubines are later referred to as just wives. If you’re building your home by God’s Word then you can’t have a concubine because He doesn’t tell you what it takes to have one, or how she would differ from a regular wife.

Also, marriage is a living testament to God’s relationship to Israel and Christ’s relationship to the church. Does God have concubines?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, let’s see how much I’ve grown of late.

The refusal to recognize biblical concubinage (pilagesh

You would have to show me biblical concubinage, where God regulated it, His definitions surrounding it and so on and so forth. There is not one verse in all of scripture which hat defines or regulates concubines.

We’ve replaced the Word of God with the paperwork of Caesar

But we can’t do hen replace Caesar’s paperwork with the wild speculation of a mature historians thousands of years removed from the events they’re blindly guessing about.

What it does require is order, provision, protection

Where is this in scripture?

Biblically, a concubine is simply a wife of lower status, often without a formal dowry

Again, do you have any scripture to back this up?

full inheritance rights for her children,

What piece of trash father would penalize his kids because of the way he took their mother? This is the single worst idea around this topic I hear. Does God have children of lesser status? Do you have any scripture to back up this frankly silly idea? The answer is no, you do not but feel free to look.

The idea that concubinage was only justifiable after military conquest is a modern projection

Everything about concubinage is a modern projection.

In Scripture, a concubine is a woman under a man’s headship in a binding covenant, not a fling, not a harlot, but a legitimate partner, typically of lower legal or social rank than a wife. She’s joined to the man in flesh, bears children for his house, and is provided for. Her children are legitimate, as seen in the sons of Abraham, Jacob, and Gideon.

Again, any scripture at all would go a long way towards making the case.

In Scripture, a concubine is a woman under a man’s headship in a binding covenant

You would need to show where a covenant is a necessary part of any marriage, let alone a concubine’s.

But let’s assume for a minute you can have a concubine, what’s the difference between that and a wife? From scripture, what’s the difference? There’s only one possibility and it affords the concubine more protections than the “wife”.

You haven’t studied this topic out. I will be happy to have this debate (I would be ecstatic to have this debate) but you’re not ready for it. You need to firmly root your understanding of it in God’s Word, not man’s conjecture.

 

[MemeFan]

Given I'm not invading foreign lands, I have no business taking a concubine.

Don't worry.

You can always do friendly visit to help reduce number of lonely women.

Just sometimes you look as Rambo, your favourite movie character.

 

[MemeFan]

Much has been said about the headship over a woman. Is it possible to be a woman's headship without the sexual aspect? I have a few single women friends (without benefits) that welcome my praying over them and giving advice and helping them around their houses. Thoughts?

Off course they love it.

They get household help without providing wifely duties enabling them to keep searching for another man.

 

[steve]

You would have to show me biblical concubinage, where God regulated it, His definitions surrounding it and so on and so forth. There is not one verse in all of scripture which hat defines or regulates concubines.

But yet they, Biblically, exist.

Where does the Bible state that something doesn’t exist unless Yah defines it?
You look to be adding to the Word.

 

[steve]

You have a lot of good information here, Jason.
Where did you find it all? The knowledge isn’t that common.

 

[Maddog]

oooph! Yeah... Women love free attention. I used to give it without thought. It has a high price though... It is your time and brain space so value it and only give up what you want to give up.

I spent over 30 years on one in particular and it was not even appreciated....

I get that. That was embodied by the ex.