• 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.

Is Concubinage Fornication?

The Revolting Man said:
The idea of lower social status is almost antithetical to scripture.
Click to expand...
Yet exists in reality, even in scripture. It is impossible to read Genesis without noting the obvious difference in social status between Leah/Rachel and Bilhah/Zilpah, it permeates every passage they are mentioned. As long as scripture has this in it, people will ask the question. And as long as you deny them an answer that accounts for this, they'll be unsatisfied and keep asking, and you'll keep getting frustrated by the fact the topic keeps coming up...

The answer to me is simple. Social status differences are a social reality. We have commanders & underlings, masters & slaves, bosses and employees, elected officials and the general public, judges and the accused... Wives and concubines. Social status differences are undeniably real.

But in God's eyes, all are equal. We are not to treat people differently, we are not to be a "respector of persons". In God's eyes, all men are equal. The private soldier is equal to the general, the politician to the checkout lady. The wife and the concubine. All have the same spiritual status.

We do not need to pretend social status differences don't exist. They're real, only a fool would deny a general and private are different. We should however act as though they do not exist when it comes to interpersonal relationships.

So we can understand what scripture is talking about when concubines are mentioned - they were quite truly wives of lower social status.

While we can simultaneously decide that following Jesus correctly means treating all our women alike, and not make such status distinctions.
 
Last edited:
@FollowingHim

Thank you for that post. You've said something I haven't ever been able to articulate and I am grateful for your wisdom here.

You're right that all wives should be equal but the reality is that a first and legal wife is going to have more status and standing than subsequent wives. I've experienced this first hand over the years as my role in the family evolved. I've been the concubine, and then the wife, and then the legal 'first' wife. Each experience was unique to itself.

Starting out my role in the family was to have sex and have babies. Period.
Then I became the family cook, the mom who would nurse a baby when the birth mom couldn't, and then I started doing more things of values around the house. When Christie passed away I became the legal wife and also the 'first' wife and the change to my social status and my place in the family was immediate.

The biggest difference I observed when I took on the role of the first wife is that I make decisions now. And people come to me for wisdom which sometimes terrifies me. I still feel like the barely literate, naïve, impulsive, and incompetent 18 year old train wreck I used to be and it's humbling to have people look to me for guidance or to make a decision.

To some degree I think mono wives go through the same evolution. They start out as the sexy bride, then they become the young mom, and eventually they become the trusted source of experience and wisdom.

It isn't wrong to see this distinction and while God views us all the same the fact is that we are not all the same. But it's also not like our status is permanent. It changes as we grow and our credibility starts to assume authority.
 
FollowingHim said:
But in God's eyes, all are equal. We are not to treat people differently, we are not to be a "respector of persons". In God's eyes, all men are equal. The private soldier is equal to the general, the politician to the checkout lady. The wife and the concubine. All have the same spiritual status.
Click to expand...
I'm certain not completely equal. I'm missing words, but Lord doesn't treat everyone same. Yes, there are some things everyone gets, but not all.

People who do more for His kingdom do deserve better. Anything else wouldn't be fair. In next life there will be social differences when somebody gets hut and neighbor mansion. Houses are exmple.

Verses 10-15:

www.blueletterbible.org

1 Corinthians 3 :: King James Version (KJV)

1 Corinthians 3 - If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
www.blueletterbible.org www.blueletterbible.org
 
How many verses could we come up with that promote some form of equality? I can think of several right now, but how ever many it is it’s that many more than the verses telling us what concubines are in God’s economy. Because there are none of those.
 
NBTX11 said:
The question is, what is the difference. That is the answer many of us are looking for. Is it a wife by another name. Is it a lesser wife. Is it a wife without a contract. Is it a sexual partner that belongs to the man. If it is simply a wife, then why isn't it called wife in every instance. Why bother with concubines. Just say Solomon had 1,000 wives. I get it, wives and concubines are somewhat interchangeable and some women are called both. But, what specifically is the difference. If we don't know then just say we don't really know.

Maybe as someone said they are de-facto wives. I agree they are wives, but what exactly is the difference. Does anyone really know.
Click to expand...

It helps to, as @YAHites suggests, to not use the word wife. In Hebrew the term for wife is just woman. Both a 'wife' and a 'concubine' were women who belonged to a man. However the distinction applied to 'concubine' denoted they were different than a normal woman who belongs to a man.

In some places she was a slave given him. Others a war bride. Others a woman without a marriage contract. Others a relationship founded on romance instead of dowry with a father. In all of these there is some aspect of the concubine relationship being of lower social status.

The nearest analogy in our culture would be a licensed wife with a marriage ceremony vs. a long term relationship or partner or girlfriend.

The word itself is a loan word from older languages. In the most ancient languages the word means 'enchantress'. Think, "that hussy who seduced her way into my husbands house, stealing his attention, instead of being dowered in like a proper wife." For much of history romance/eros was looked down upon (see the 7 year itch to divorce pipeline).
 
Well I still need that dreaded unnecessary lexicon and his brother the concordance. My memory of college Greek is foggy so I use tools to accomplish study. Even with that the scriptures are a bit tricky in english, so I am a constant student. I will give a nod to the Scholars here as they have pointed out items seemingly "left out" of the lexicon. As well there are many cultural nuances from centuries past that I learn about here. Thank you Ladies and Gents for your coloring of my "black and white" TV episodes. Heck, did you know Lucille Ball had red hair? I didnt know that till I was in my 40's. I had to have some " 'splainin" from the "Rickies" here. -M
 
Maddog said:
Well I still need that dreaded unnecessary lexicon and his brother the concordance. My memory of college Greek is foggy so I use tools to accomplish study. Even with that the scriptures are a bit tricky in english, so I am a constant student. I will give a nod to the Scholars here as they have pointed out items seemingly "left out" of the lexicon. As well there are many cultural nuances from centuries past that I learn about here. Thank you Ladies and Gents for your coloring of my "black and white" TV episodes. Heck, did you know Lucille Ball had red hair? I didnt know that till I was in my 40's. I had to have some " 'splainin" from the "Rickies" here. -M
Click to expand...
No you don’t.
 
Maddog said:
Well I still need that dreaded unnecessary lexicon and his brother the concordance. My memory of college Greek is foggy so I use tools to accomplish study. Even with that the scriptures are a bit tricky in english, so I am a constant student. I will give a nod to the Scholars here as they have pointed out items seemingly "left out" of the lexicon. As well there are many cultural nuances from centuries past that I learn about here. Thank you Ladies and Gents for your coloring of my "black and white" TV episodes. Heck, did you know Lucille Ball had red hair? I didnt know that till I was in my 40's. I had to have some " 'splainin" from the "Rickies" here. -M
Click to expand...
Some German friends were involved in translating the Bible into an Indonesian dialect. The had gone to a remote island to reach the people with the gospel. They translated from the Hebrew and Greek texts and I know they relied on many sources to understand both the original and local language to translate as accurately as possible. Dictionaries and other resources are essential for such work.
 
frederick said:
Some German friends were involved in translating the Bible into an Indonesian dialect. The had gone to a remote island to reach the people with the gospel. They translated from the Hebrew and Greek texts and I know they relied on many sources to understand both the original and local language to translate as accurately as possible. Dictionaries and other resources are essential for such work.
Click to expand...
Yes, however would one ever communicate with the servants without one?

However did the Bible ever get translated before unbelieving scholars got involved and wrote books thousands of years later?

God was so stupid to fail to give us a lexicon for 1,700 years. Thank someone smarter than Him that we fixed that problem for Him.
 
@The Revolting Man have you ever learnt a language other than English? Did you manage to do that without ever using a dictionary?

For that matter, have you managed to use English all your life without ever using a dictionary for that?

This insistence of yours that dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek are somehow evil or something is absolutely nonsensical. Is there something about Hebrew and Greek that makes the writing of a translating dictionary for them evil, while it is simultaneously completely fine to carry a French-English dictionary when on holiday in Europe? You're making no sense. If there is an explanation that demonstrates that what you are saying is not completely batshit crazy, please elaborate.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Nothing is being hidden from you.
Click to expand...
The translators changed much from the Greek to the KJV. They changed Jesus's words to support monogamy onlyism. I have a problem with that. They literally took plural words and made them singular because it would have been a slam dunk destruction of their doctrine of devils. That sounds like someone suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Despite that, there is power enough to save. But I do not trust translations as being 100% infallible.
 
FollowingHim said:
@The Revolting Man have you ever learnt a language other than English? Did you manage to do that without ever using a dictionary?

For that matter, have you managed to use English all your life without ever using a dictionary for that?

This insistence of yours that dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek are somehow evil or something is absolutely nonsensical. Is there something about Hebrew and Greek that makes the writing of a translating dictionary for them evil, while it is simultaneously completely fine to carry a French-English dictionary when on holiday in Europe? You're making no sense. If there is an explanation that demonstrates that what you are saying is not completely batshit crazy, please elaborate.
Click to expand...
Calm down. If your buddy needs that much protection you’re not doing him any favors by giving it to him.

I never said lexicons were evil. I said they weren’t necessary. In my experience they seem to correspond heavily with knowledge abounding and understanding being scarce.

We don’t need secret decoder rings to understand our faith. We don’t need priests or divine mystics. We do need degrees or mountaintop experiences.

We need the Bible and a simple faith that God can and does communicate with us.
 
NickF said:
The translators changed much from the Greek to the KJV. They changed Jesus's words to support monogamy onlyism. I have a problem with that. They literally took plural words and made them singular because it would have been a slam dunk destruction of their doctrine of devils. That sounds like someone suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Despite that, there is power enough to save. But I do not trust translations as being 100% infallible.
Click to expand...
Nothing was suppressed though. Monogamy only is easily refuted through the use of the KJV, or any other translation. Which proves my point, even if there’s an attempt to pervert the Bible, it fails. God preserves it in every generation.
 
FollowingHim said:
If there is an explanation that demonstrates that what you are saying is not completely batshit crazy, please elaborate
Click to expand...
And what is bat shit crazy about not putting faith in a book written by men that makes no claim to divine inspiration? Does bat shit crazy have a different definition down there? It seems bat shit crazy to assume a book that made it through the modern academic and publishing world was somehow an accurate representation of God’s Word but that believing translators, some of who were martyred to give us an accurate copy of the Bible, perverted it on purpose.

But yeah, I’m the bat shit crazy one. Modern skeptics, publishers and universities can be trusted but not millenia of believers attempting to provide accessible translations to their generation. No, it’s only the incredibly devout modernists who can be trusted. And anyone who says different is bat shit crazy.
 
FollowingHim said:
while it is simultaneously completely fine to carry a French-English dictionary when on holiday in Europe?
Click to expand...
Who said it was fine to do any of this? I wouldn’t carry a French dictionary anywhere, nor would I holiday in Europe.

You’ve lost all perspective when it comes to me. I appreciate your loyalty to Freddy, as misplaced as it is, but it’s clouding your judgement and leading you to make inaccurate statements and logical fallacies.
 
@The Revolting Man, I'm not here to defend @frederick. @Maddog was talking about the value of a lexicon/dictionary, and you were telling him he shouldn't need a dictionary. This came across as ridiculous. You then made a particularly sarcastic post in response to @frederick, the tone of which certainly influenced the tone of my response as I assumed a similar level of sarcasm, but the topic of my post was still to point out what I see as logical fallacies in your own opinion as presented to @Maddog.

You are saying that we can completely trust the translations - but cannot trust the tools the translators used to produce those translations. We can trust the words of scholars when printed as a Bible, but cannot trust the words of the same scholars when printed in a dictionary.

This, to me, appears highly illogical - illogical enough to be deserving of a degree of ridicule to highlight it.

I completely agree with you that all we NEED for faith in God is the Bible. However, when we're trying to figure out the detail of an issue on which different translations disagree, and we want to dig deeper, we need a knowledge of how the translators got there. And we get this knowledge through studying the original languages and using basic tools like dictionaries.

I cannot understand your level of militant anti-scholasticism. Why do you feel so strongly about this issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top