Meat Virgins or bridesmaids

[steve]

And since you’re man enough to take it I would ask why you would take such a woman at all?

I was willing to give her a chance to become that which she is not.
Which, now that I think about it, is the chance that the Father takes with us. Maybe some days we are closer to being concubines than is comfortable to admit. He doesn’t choose for us to be concubines, it is our choice to walk the walk or not.
The story of the ten brides, 5 didn’t make it to the wedding feast. Concubines that couldn’t hang?

Why would you lie with a woman if she is not willing to be fully submitted?

1). Don’t assume.
2). Every one of us is fully submitted, until we run headlong into a situation where it costs more than we are willing to pay. Then we start stripping the transmission trying to get it into reverse.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I presented this scenario, that is not just about the inheritance of children (although it may affect them), and has a potentially valid reason behind it. What are your thoughts on this scenario?

So why does this scenario need the word concubine? Would this only be possible if she a concubine? Did you know this about her when your married her so that she was always a concubine? This runs afoul of much of the advice given on the forum about choosing a wife by the way. Or did you only learn about it later and so demoted her to concubine status? If so the wife label is meaningless (an idea @Pacman Pointed out and I agree with) so what’s the point of concubine? You can do whatever you want with the wife. What exactly is a concubine for? We don’t know because God didn’t tell us. Your second wife in this scenario doesn’t need to be a concubine. Giver her whatever you want. There’s nothing in scripture that you have to leave a regular wife any inheritance. Screw ‘me both. Go out in a blaze of strippers and crystal meth. It’s your money and no designation gives them claim to it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I was willing to give her a chance to become that which she is not.
Which, now that I think about it, is the chance that the Father takes with us. Maybe some days we are closer to being concubines than is comfortable to admit. He doesn’t choose for us to be concubines, it is our choice to walk the walk or not.
The story of the ten brides, 5 didn’t make it to the wedding feast. Concubines that couldn’t hang?

1). Don’t assume.
2). Every one of us is fully submitted, until we run headlong into a situation where it costs more than we are willing to pay. Then we start stripping the transmission trying to get it into reverse.

If nothing can be assumed then maybe this woman wasn’t a concubine but rather a woman you cared about and were ministering to. At least one thing should be able to be assumed with a concubine.

 

[steve]

If nothing can be assumed then maybe this woman wasn’t a concubine but rather a woman you cared about and were ministering to. At least one thing should be able to be assumed with a concubine.

That’s your particular hang up.
I believe that it takes more than sex to be married and that it’s possible to be married without sex.
Yes, yes, I know that you totally reject that. Be that as it may.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

We’re requiring proof for our extra-biblical sources now?

You said something was so, I wondered where you’d gotten that idea from. Are you saying that the source of your statement was extra biblical?

 

[steve]

Are you saying that the source of your statement was extra biblical?

Somebody fan me, I think that I may have the vapors.

 

[Pacman]

Based upon . . .?

Bro the fact is our human relationships that we label as marriage are supposed to be a reflection of Messiah and the assembly. That is Master / bondslave. If other arrangements are made by the husband with regard to her personal possessions then that's the man's choice and he can make those arrangements with her father if he so chooses but short of him making that commitment ahead of time then all her assets should become his upon beginning the relationship.

 

[FollowingHim]

So why does this scenario need the word concubine? Would this only be possible if she a concubine? Did you know this about her when your married her so that she was always a concubine? This runs afoul of much of the advice given on the forum about choosing a wife by the way. Or did you only learn about it later and so demoted her to concubine status? If so the wife label is meaningless (an idea @Pacman Pointed out and I agree with) so what’s the point of concubine? You can do whatever you want with the wife. What exactly is a concubine for? We don’t know because God didn’t tell us. Your second wife in this scenario doesn’t need to be a concubine. Giver her whatever you want. There’s nothing in scripture that you have to leave a regular wife any inheritance. Screw ‘me both. Go out in a blaze of strippers and crystal meth. It’s your money and no designation gives them claim to it.

It does not "need" the word concubine. However, you asked the question:

what the hell, if any, difference is there between a “wife” and a “concubine”? It seems like they’re both women who have been mastered by a man and have the same obligations and expectation (they won’t be unlawfully put away) as the other. So the question(s) becomes, is it important to you to cut some of your children out of your will and can you even justify that by the Law? Because that seems to be the only even speculative idea anyone can give me.

Which I took to mean "if the only difference is the inheritences given in your will, why would you assign different inheritences to women, that would flow-on to their children, and how could that be biblical?". So I presented a very realistic modern example of two women with very different inheritance rights from the same man.

I am not talking about deliberately taking a dodgy woman. I am talking about the situation where a man with a long-standing wife (say 20 years), whom he has built a family and business with, takes on a new wife who has not contributed to their assets. Although he has chosen her carefully, expects her to stick around, and would not have married her otherwise, he does recognise she has had a difficult background and he cannot predict the future - he also knows that polygamy is hard work and has risks. So for the protection of wife 1 and her children in a worst-case scenario he explicitly wills the assets that wife 1 helped create to her (and their children by extension), and only gives wife 2 a stake in assets relating directly to her or acquired by the family after she arrived.

Incidentally, that scenario is actually based on New Zealand inheritence law, which explicitly gives two women both in relationships with a man disproportionate rights to his assets depending on the length of their relationships and their personal contributions to those assets. I have deliberately aligned the scenario with secular law for reasons that will become clear below.

Can I pare back past the emotion please, and ask three simple questions about this practical scenario.

1. Assuming they are called "wife 1" and "wife 2", not even a hint of the word "concubine" anywhere, could this unequal treatment of the wives in the man's will be considered reasonable? (not claiming it's perfect, I don't want to debate minutae, the question is "could it be considered reasonable?").
2. Now let us call these same two women "wife" and "de-facto partner", as they are viewed in secular law. Let us assume that the marriage contract itself that "wife" has, and the time she has been married to her husband, automatically entitles her to the asset split above. And the "de-facto partner" also automatically receives the above split in assets due purely to the fact that she entered into the family later. The same inheritance split applies, but is now automatic due entirely to their legal and practical statuses as "wife of 20 years" and "new de-facto partner". Can this automatic unequal treatment of "wife" and "partner" under the law be considered reasonable?
3. Now let us assume this exact same family is living in ancient Israel. Wife is called "wife", partner is called "concubine". But the exact same inheritance split has been assigned to the two, for the exact same reasons, either by the husband explicitly or by the society in respect of their differing positions in the family. Can this unequal treatment still be considered reasonable?

I really don't like arguing over words (2 Timothy 2:14), what really matters in my mind is reality, whatever you call it. And if the main reality of a concubine is a difference in inheritence, the question is not "is it ok to have a concubine", which is a meaningless question if "concubine" is undefined, but rather "is it ok to give two women different inheritence rights". That's a clearly defined question we can actually discuss without confusion.

 

[rockfox]

So.... am I getting that... you basically can't have a virgin as a concubine, because the law says that if you sleep with her you have to marry her unless the father says you can't have her at all.
And since the law also says that a woman who becomes married and is found not to be a virgin must be stoned, does that mean that according to the law marriages are for virgins, and any woman not a virgin could only be a concubine?

This thread has got me wondering the same thing. I'm not sold on it, but the implication is there. A system based on Ex 22 would have most women married off as virgins by agreement of the father upon payment of bride-price. Concubines tended to be other categories (slaves, seduced free women, etc). There is a strong implication in the scriptures that women are in two camps: virgins for wifely marriage and harlots. But applied to today that leaves a lot of unmarriageable women. Concubinage would solve that dilemma.

And since you’re man enough to take it I would ask why you would take such a woman at all? Why would you lie with a woman if she is not willing to be fully submitted?

Because he doesn't want to be a eunich? Many if not most Christian women do not seem capable of fully submitting. Only 1 in 10 women is actually a virgin and much of the rest have a high likelihood of leaving.

So why does this scenario need the word concubine? What exactly is a concubine for?

Worthy discussion questions.

For example let's say the wife/concubine distinction is dowry/brideprice vs. not. There may be some women who want a man but can't get one as a wife: loose women, divorced women, women who can't convince a man to pay for them, a woman whose father refused to marry her to her seducer, a woman interested in a man who can't afford a dowry, a woman who didn't want to get stoned on her fathers doorstep. Such women could offer to be a concubine. They would also be of lower social status in many ways.

If the difference is instead contract vs. not as it was for the Assyrians (who ruled over the Hebrews for some time), then wife vs. concubine is the ancient equivalent of today's wife vs. live in girlfriend/fiance/life partner/ltr. We don't use the word concubine anymore so we made up a bunch of other terms. And if that is the case then it means a whole bunch of preachers are calling good evil and this discussion has serious spiritual implications.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You said something was so, I wondered where you’d gotten that idea from. Are you saying that the source of your statement was extra biblical?

Of course I’ve already said that it’s not addressed in scripture. We were off on a rabbit trail. That’s the only time I will bring in extra biblical sources.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It does not "need" the word concubine. However, you asked the question:

Which I took to mean "if the only difference is the inheritences given in your will, why would you assign different inheritences to women, that would flow-on to their children, and how could that be biblical?". So I presented a very realistic modern example of two women with very different inheritance rights from the same man.

I am not talking about deliberately taking a dodgy woman. I am talking about the situation where a man with a long-standing wife (say 20 years), whom he has built a family and business with, takes on a new wife who has not contributed to their assets. Although he has chosen her carefully, expects her to stick around, and would not have married her otherwise, he does recognise she has had a difficult background and he cannot predict the future - he also knows that polygamy is hard work and has risks. So for the protection of wife 1 and her children in a worst-case scenario he explicitly wills the assets that wife 1 helped create to her (and their children by extension), and only gives wife 2 a stake in assets relating directly to her or acquired by the family after she arrived.

Incidentally, that scenario is actually based on New Zealand inheritence law, which explicitly gives two women both in relationships with a man disproportionate rights to his assets depending on the length of their relationships and their personal contributions to those assets. I have deliberately aligned the scenario with secular law for reasons that will become clear below.

Can I pare back past the emotion please, and ask three simple questions about this practical scenario.

1. Assuming they are called "wife 1" and "wife 2", not even a hint of the word "concubine" anywhere, could this unequal treatment of the wives in the man's will be considered reasonable? (not claiming it's perfect, I don't want to debate minutae, the question is "could it be considered reasonable?").
2. Now let us call these same two women "wife" and "de-facto partner", as they are viewed in secular law. Let us assume that the marriage contract itself that "wife" has, and the time she has been married to her husband, automatically entitles her to the asset split above. And the "de-facto partner" also automatically receives the above split in assets due purely to the fact that she entered into the family later. The same inheritance split applies, but is now automatic due entirely to their legal and practical statuses as "wife of 20 years" and "new de-facto partner". Can this automatic unequal treatment of "wife" and "partner" under the law be considered reasonable?
3. Now let us assume this exact same family is living in ancient Israel. Wife is called "wife", partner is called "concubine". But the exact same inheritance split has been assigned to the two, for the exact same reasons, either by the husband explicitly or by the society in respect of their differing positions in the family. Can this unequal treatment still be considered reasonable?

I really don't like arguing over words (2 Timothy 2:14), what really matters in my mind is reality, whatever you call it. And if the main reality of a concubine is a difference in inheritence, the question is not "is it ok to have a concubine", which is a meaningless question if "concubine" is undefined, but rather "is it ok to give two women different inheritence rights". That's a clearly defined question we can actually discuss without confusion.

I’m not sure that this ended up where it started off to but I would argue that no woman has rights to her husband at all, let alone inheritance rights. It’s not an idea brought forth in scripture and it does violate the bondservant relationship (thank you @Pacman I don’t know that you meant to help me but you just clarified things for me) and so that explanation is actually directly unbiblical. So we don’t even have a highly speculative distinction anymore. And since the women have no rights whatsoever the man can leave any inheritance he doesn’t blow and strippers and crystal meth.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This thread has got me wondering the same thing. I'm not sold on it, but the implication is there. A system based on Ex 22 would have most women married off as virgins by agreement of the father upon payment of bride-price. Concubines tended to be other categories (slaves, seduced free women, etc). There is a strong implication in the scriptures that women are in two camps: virgins for wifely marriage and harlots. But applied to today that leaves a lot of unmarriageable women. Concubinage would solve that dilemma.



Because he doesn't want to be a eunich? Many if not most Christian women do not seem capable of fully submitting. Only 1 in 10 women is actually a virgin and much of the rest have a high likelihood of leaving.



Worthy discussion questions.

For example let's say the wife/concubine distinction is dowry/brideprice vs. not. There may be some women who want a man but can't get one as a wife: loose women, divorced women, women who can't convince a man to pay for them, a woman whose father refused to marry her to her seducer, a woman interested in a man who can't afford a dowry, a woman who didn't want to get stoned on her fathers doorstep. Such women could offer to be a concubine. They would also be of lower social status in many ways.

If the difference is instead contract vs. not as it was for the Assyrians (who ruled over the Hebrews for some time), then wife vs. concubine is the ancient equivalent of today's wife vs. live in girlfriend/fiance/life partner/ltr. We don't use the word concubine anymore so we made up a bunch of other terms. And if that is the case then it means a whole bunch of preachers are calling good evil and this discussion has serious spiritual implications.

All very cogent, lucid thoughts, very well reasoned and excellently articulated and not anywhere in the Bible.

 

[FollowingHim]

Good points @rockfox, the only problem is that if someone already considers the word "concubine" to mean "lustful immoral fling" or some such thing, your above post can be misunderstood to be an encouragement to do what the reader assumes you're talking about, even though you are not thinking that yourself... Read it twice from two different viewpoints and you get two different impressions. Words are slippery things.

I think it's important to remember that concubines ARE wives. (They are women, belonging to a man, translated "wives", and the words are used interchangeably for some concubines).

So if someone who is able to become a concubine, is able to become a wife (by definition, as all concubines are wives, though not all wives are concubines), then the ultimate implications of your above reasoning are:

1. Non-virgins can be given the opportunity to become wives.
2. Naturally rebellious women can be given the opportunity to become wives.
3. Women who do not come with a dowry can be given the opportunity to become wives.
4. Women whom no man is willing to pay a bride-price for can be given the opportunity to become wives.
5. Women taken without contracts are wives.

I'm not saying any of those points are true or false, just following the logic through for logic's sake!

 

[FollowingHim]

I would argue that no woman has rights to her husband at all, let alone inheritance rights. ... And since the women have no rights whatsoever the man can leave any inheritance he doesn’t blow [on] strippers and crystal meth.

So it's entirely acceptable to take two women and assign them two different levels of inheritence.

If this is so, given their children will end up with their inheritence eventually, it must be acceptable to do this even though it will result in different children being treated differently.

If this is common in a society for one reason or another, would it also be acceptable to assign different cultural labels to "lots-of-inheritance-woman" and "not-so-much-inheritance-woman", for convenience?

 

[The Revolting Man]

If this is common in a society for one reason or another, would it also be acceptable to assign different cultural labels to "lots-of-inheritance-woman" and "not-so-much-inheritance-woman", for convenience?

I fail to see the convenience argument. Concubine has more syllables and is harder to say that wife. Unless you were calling the wife receiving the smaller inheritance “broke ass ho” ....

 

[FollowingHim]

But pilegesh has only three syllables while ishah has two, and they're both equally hard for me to say...

Convenience may be the wrong word. It's inconvenient to label two women "wife" and "de-facto partner", but is a practical designation today that has real implications even if we don't like them much. I can see there being a practical reason to have a label "concubine" as a subset of "wife", even if those reasons are no longer relevant.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Of course I’ve already said that it’s not addressed in scripture. We were off on a rabbit trail. That’s the only time I will bring in extra biblical sources.

Sorry I’m not keeping up with the thread. And I’m ok with extra biblical sources for historical context, I just havent seen that position supported in anything I’ve seen. I’m curious what your sources are for that perspective.

 

[tps26]

A concubine is just not fully his woman, in that she retains some aspect of her own will apart from his in her heart. (There are many practical reasons she may enter the family without the initial intent of being the patriarch's woman: She may work as a handmaid, she may have come into the family as a captive, or been mercifully taken in from hardship/orphan-hood/widowhood, she just is not proven or fully committed, at least at the present)

Do you have any scriptural source for this idea that a concubine is not fully his woman?

What is the basis of this idea? It's not one I've seen articulated in scripture or history.

While the whole post is good and I agree with it overall this statement is an assertion based on opinion. I don't see this particular distinction made in Scripture.

What I was trying to express here is along the lines of where it looks like this discussion has been leading to. And yes, it is opinion, not made explicit in scripture but I think there are inferences that point to this conclusion.
The sons who are in the image of their father are heirs of him. Of his name, teachings, purpose, and resources to accomplish that purpose. The inheritance has a purpose. The mother plays a critical role in that she processes the son in the image of his father.

The following interview clip better articulates a solid understanding of concubines than I can. 8 minutes well spent: Listen from 1:04:54 - 1:12:45. The timestamp bookmark I made might not be 100% accurate because of ads.

I think there is some latitude in the relationship of how men can cover women as long as we are faithful to our women (do not treacherously send them away) because what does the one God seek? Godly offspring. If producing Godly offspring is our ultimate (but not necessarily only) purpose for that woman then we will naturally do right by her. And by producing I mean conception through the time they leave in adulthood.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Bro the fact is our human relationships that we label as marriage are supposed to be a reflection of Messiah and the assembly. That is Master / bondslave. If other arrangements are made by the husband with regard to her personal possessions then that's the man's choice and he can make those arrangements with her father if he so chooses but short of him making that commitment ahead of time then all her assets should become his upon beginning the relationship.

Regarding the comparison you’ve listed: Messiah and assembly = Master/bondslave I will agree with you 100%. The reason we enter his family that way is because we are righteously bankrupt and have nothing to commend us to him for positive consideration. We have no assets. We literally have no negotiation position, thus, our covenant is an unconditional covenant, much like the bondslave that is elevated to concubine/wife status.

I think you are making a fundamental mistake comparing that bondslave relationship to a freeborn wife relationship, as there is a massive difference in covenant.
1) her covenant is typically not an unconditional covenant, at least historically, especially if there was a dowry.
2) she typically has a father or male advocate to ensure that the conditions in her covenant are equitable/favorable and kept over time. If she has neither, there was always a petition to a judge.

In short, a man marrying a freeborn woman would have to have that conversation with her father about those possessions, prior to a confirmed covenant, while the same conversation would be irrelevant for a concubine who had nothing.

A father today, who would knowingly marry off his chaste, talented, beautiful daughter, without ensuring that proper parameters are in place for her well being, spiritually, physically, etc. as well as the subsequent children, is playing Russian Roulette with his heritage and has failed it and her.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sorry I’m not keeping up with the thread. And I’m ok with extra biblical sources for historical context, I just havent seen that position supported in anything I’ve seen. I’m curious what your sources are for that perspective.

Maybe we’re miscommunicating. I am under the impression that a dowry is a well known concept. Are you talking about something else. Here’s the wiki on dowry if that helps.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry