• 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.

“Mark’s” concubine?

steve

steve

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
So I heard about a guy that I will call Mark who has more than one wife. His second wife (let’s call her B.) is friends with a lady (C.) who was interested in the family, but she had seen failed relationships up close and personal and was skittish about the prospect.
B was praying about the situation and felt that YHWH told her to tell C to do a 60 day trial in which she would let Mark lead and she would just follow and see how it went.
B told Mark about this, whereupon Mark stated “I don’t think that y’all realized this, but she just agreed to be my concubine for 60 days, nothing sexual though.”
The interesting thing is that financial problems came up during this time and he realized that since he was her de-facto leader/husband for the time being, that he was required to step up and ante up. No one had anticipated this part of the experiment, but he couldn’t just shrug his shoulders and ignore the problem.
The last that I heard is that the 60 aren’t up yet and that she is presently planning to extend her enlistment period by another 60 days. Seemingly getting more comfortable with the relationship.

For anyone who is unaware, one of the factors that defines a concubine relationship is often a time limit. An expiration date, if you will.
With some it is not a specific date, but the option to go their separate ways at any point. Kinda like the normal Western marriage.
 
What's clearly most significant about this is that Mark, B, and C were in such harmony that they tuned into the same message or idea about how to proceed, and appear to be growing together. What a blessing!

But some might see only a discussion about the particulars of what a concubine is or isn't. If it's not the intent of @steve to go in that direction here, then I hope they don't post, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
mystic said:
But some might see only a discussion about the particulars of what a concubine is or isn't. If it's not the intent of @steve to go in that direction here, then I hope they don't post, but I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
I have long been more about actual lives than theory, but there just haven’t been any real life examples of concubineage to discuss.
I have believed that it does have a place, but primarily (as in this situation) for the sake of working through a relationship that might otherwise not come to pass due to the fears that a woman could realistically have about living under the headship of a male.
So I am somewhat hesitantly open to discussion of the pros and cons and the actual definition of the concept.
 
Btw: while there are examples of slaves being taken as concubines in Scripture, I wholly reject that as the definition.
King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. To believe that he was so randy that he had to have the servants in addition to all of those wives is an arrogant insult to his legacy. Yes, he did get led astray by his foreign wives, but that was the extent of it.
 
mystic said:
What's clearly most significant about this is that Mark, B, and C were in such harmony that they tuned into the same message or idea about how to proceed, and appear to be growing together. What a blessing!
Click to expand...
AMEN!
 
Do keep us posted. This is very interesting.

I believe the Father is teaching us so many things, and not as theoretical ideas, but practical hands on in a bid to prepare us for where He is taking the Body.
 
steve said:
Btw: while there are examples of slaves being taken as concubines in Scripture, I wholly reject that as the definition.
King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. To believe that he was so randy that he had to have the servants in addition to all of those wives is an arrogant insult to his legacy. Yes, he did get led astray by his foreign wives, but that was the extent of it.
Click to expand...
I am going to steadfastly resist the temptation to violate @mystic 's gentle admonition to make this about the definition of a concubine and just take the human story at face value. Interesting arrangement. I look forward to hearing how it works out.
 
We can get all hung up on definitions. There's nothing sexual here (so they say anyway!) so you could just call this intense courtship. It's really hard to see what definition to apply to it. Personally I think the word "concubine" is being misapplied, but again that's just my opinion and doesn't really matter. It's just a word.

If this "intense courtship / non-sexual concubinage" period is successful and results in a permanent arrangement, including sex, whether they call it concubinage or marriage is immaterial - it worked, and that's awesome.
If they don't go there, find it doesn't work out, and stop amicably, then that's also great.
If it turns out she's just in it for the money and runs off after getting what she wanted, then it was a silly mistake.
If they find the closeness too tempting, take it too far and then wish they hadn't because they didn't really want to be together after all, then it was a more serious error.

There are very few rules, and this fits within them fine. Could be a great success, could be a disaster. It will be interesting to watch, keep us posted.
 
FollowingHim said:
We can get all hung up on definitions. There's nothing sexual here (so they say anyway!) so you could just call this intense courtship. It's really hard to see what definition to apply to it. Personally I think the word "concubine" is being misapplied, but again that's just my opinion and doesn't really matter. It's just a word.
Click to expand...
Since the only thing that anyone seems to agree on is that concubineage is “not quite a normal marriage”, it seems to fit quite well.
Can you show me an example in Scripture where the man takes full responsibility for her finances during the courtship and still leaves the door open for an easy exit should she (or he) choose to not proceed with the relationship?
With a “no harm, no foul” attitude if his not insubstantial “investment” doesn’t pay off?

Ps, I have given help to women before and had one of the wives look askance at me.
My response is generally “It was a lot cheaper than marrying her.”
(Reframing level: Expert)
 
steve said:
Since the only thing that anyone seems to agree on is that concubineage is “not quite a normal marriage”, it seems to fit quite well.
Click to expand...
I actually think that Kevin solved this issue by showing that there is pretty solid rabinnical agreement that a concubine is a wife without a ketubbah - in other words comparable to what we'd call a "de-facto partner". Which means in this context that a concubine is someone you're sleeping with, and until you sleep with her she's not a concubine (as with neither contract/ketubbah nor sex no element of marriage is present). Meaning that a woman with neither contract nor sex is single. One with contract only is betrothed. One with sex only is a concubine. And one with both is a wife. Very simple.

But it really doesn't matter, it's just words. As I said, good on them trying what they're doing, whatever they call it, will be interesting to see how it turns out.
 
FollowingHim said:
Very simple
Click to expand...
Except that it is not that simple.
What percentage of Rabbis agree on this? I will guarantee that a much higher percentage agree that Yeshua wasn’t the Messiah.

I will just point out that this theory would mean that Solomon chose simply to have a Kettubah with 700 of his wives, but not with the other 300.
Sorry, that’s a little too simple for me.

What was Eve’s Kettubah?
 
FollowingHim said:
But it really doesn't matter, it's just words.
Click to expand...
Verbal and written communication is with “just words”.
Words mean things and without them our communication is severely crippled
 
steve said:
Except that it is not that simple.
What percentage of Rabbis agree on this? I will guarantee that a much higher percentage agree that Yeshua wasn’t the Messiah.

I will just point out that this theory would mean that Solomon chose simply to have a Kettubah with 700 of his wives, but not with the other 300.
Sorry, that’s a little too simple for me.
Click to expand...

The marital contract being the difference between wives and concubines is a practice that the semitics across the region followed at least as far back as Abram's time and probably a good deal longer.
 
Cap said:
So are we saying that to have sex with a woman and a contract is marriage? And sex without a contract is concubinage and not fornication?
Click to expand...

I'm not making a claim about what Biblically starts marriage. I'm talking about the difference between marriage and concubinage in practice amoung the semitic peoples (broader than just the Hebrews). I'm speaking very specifically here because the Bible doesn't define concubinage; what we know we only know from history (and the history of the cultural influences on the Hebrews is complex to say the least).

Both would be live in relationships, often with children. Marriage would be formed by agreement with the father with contract, dowry and bride price. No contract, no marriage. Concubinage was without any of those, and either purchased via slavery, taken in conquest, given by the first wife, or just plain seduced as in modern day marriages.

One night stands, girlfriends, prostitutes or other women you slept with but who did not live with you under your authority would not be considered concubines. I'm not aware of any kind of 'temporary marriage' in the history of those peoples, but I may simply be ignorant. And I could believe slave women were treated in such a manner (but don't know if that was practiced or cultural acceptable).

I'm sure also that these practices shifted with time and place. We are talking about a history a couple thousand years long spanning several different empires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top