“Mark’s” concubine?

[FollowingHim]

Further to that: When we look at how ancient Semitic people defined concubinage, we are not looking to find out what God authorises. On the contrary, we are simply finding out "When the ancient author of this passage used the word 'concubine', what did they understand it to mean?". That's all. It helps us to understand the meaning of a passage.

And concubinage IS marriage. Concubines in scripture are referred to also as wives. Which means it's actually clearer to call them concubine-wives. The distinction is only very slight, and doesn't have any moral implications that I can see.

I also see the distinction as entirely a human invention. In God's eyes, men have women (wives). In man's eyes, distinctions are drawn between "legal wives" and "de-facto partners" (in our culture), or "wives" and "concubines" (in ancient culture) and so forth. But that's complicating something that is far simpler in the eyes of God.

What was Eve’s Kettubah?

Eve was a wife. Whether she would be referred to as a "wife" or a "concubine-wife" in ancient Hebrew culture, or a "legal wife" vs "de-facto partner" in our own, is completely irrelevant. At the time of Adam and Eve humans hadn't got around to inventing any of this complexity. Nobody had invented either a ketubbah or a marriage licence.

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?

I'm saying that men have "women" (wives). In ancient Hebrew culture, a wife who did not have a ketubbah (ie a contract that specified her inheritence rights) was called a "concubine", and that helps to explain things like why Abraham just gave gifts to the children of his concubines but they did not inherit alongside Isaac. But it's only a legal distinction with a narrow application to things like inheritance. When we read "concubine" we can know something more about the nature of the relationship between the husband and that wife, but in most cases that detail isn't very relevant. God saw both as wives.

In the same way, in our culture, men have "women" (wives). Some of those have legal contracts that give them legal inheritance rights ("legal wives"), some do not ("de-facto partners"). This distinction is real, but only has a narrow application to matters of inheritance and secular law. It doesn't affect God's much simpler view of the situation.

 

[FollowingHim]

This does raise the interesting question of what is a contract vs covenant, are they the same thing, and is one needed for marriage to be valid. I would say that a concubine does have a covenant (she has her husband's commitment and intent to keep her as a wife, provide for her etc). However she doesn't have a legal written contract that binds the husband to provide her with an inheritance etc in secular law. Just as a "de-facto partner" can have a covenant without a contract.

 

[Cap]

I'm saying that men have "women" (wives). In ancient Hebrew culture, a wife who did not have a ketubbah (ie a contract that specified her inheritence rights) was called a "concubine", and that helps to explain things like why Abraham just gave gifts to the children of his concubines but they did not inherit alongside Isaac. But it's only a legal distinction with a narrow application to things like inheritance. When we read "concubine" we can know something more about the nature of the relationship between the husband and that wife, but in most cases that detail isn't very relevant. God saw both as wives.

In the same way, in our culture, men have "women" (wives). Some of those have legal contracts that give them legal inheritance rights ("legal wives"), some do not ("de-facto partners"). This distinction is real, but only has a narrow application to matters of inheritance and secular law. It doesn't affect God's much simpler view of the situation.

I agree with all you said, here I see the relationship between man and woman to be as varied as life itself. Men can have a array of relationships with women. Some defined the same, and some not. Some can be a hard marriage definitions, and some on the lines of, well, girlfriend, for lack of a better word. The idea that PM is based on a 'marriage' doesn't really include all the possibilities. Just as @steve 's friend Mark is doing, he is defining a PM relationship that fits his needs.

This does raise the interesting question of what is a contract vs covenant, are they the same thing, and is one needed for marriage to be valid. I would say that a concubine does have a covenant (she has her husband's commitment and intent to keep her as a wife, provide for her etc). However she doesn't have a legal written contract that binds the husband to provide her with an inheritance etc in secular law. Just as a "de-facto partner" can have a covenant without a contract.

Are you saying that a marriage contract must include provisions for it to be valid? A written contract? Or is the typical reciting the usual 'vows' what is need? Before witnesses?

 

[FollowingHim]

Are you saying that a marriage contract must include provisions for it to be valid? A written contract? Or is the typical reciting the usual 'vows' what is need? Before witnesses?

I'm not talking about validity at all.

• In God's eyes, you agree to marry, sleep together, and you're married. No scriptural need for a written contract. Or even vows for that matter. The marriage is valid.
• If you ended up divorcing though, or one dies and you're sorting out inheritances, the presence or absence of written contracts (marriage licences, wills, pre-nups, private marriage contracts) will make a large difference to the result. Hence the practical distinction between a wife-with-a-contract ("legal wife") and wife-without-a-contract ("concubine", "de-facto partner").

 

[Hisdaughter]

I guess my question would be how do the current wives feel about Mark's concubine? And how does this lady feel about being called a concubine? At least where I come from there is such negativity associated with the word that I wonder how they feel about it??

 

[steve]

I guess my question would be how do the current wives feel about Mark's concubine? And how does this lady feel about being called a concubine? At least where I come from there is such negativity associated with the word that I wonder how they feel about it??

Good questions.
I will check with him.

 

[Patricia C]

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.

So what separates this from courtship? Can you help me understand the difference? Isn't a serious courtship the same as a non sexual concubine? Also Biblically isn't the husband sexual with a concubine?

 

[rockfox]

When we read "concubine" we can know something more about the nature of the relationship between the husband and that wife, but in most cases that detail isn't very relevant. God saw both as wives.

God saw both as women possessed by that man. "wife" and "marriage" are terms which would not enter the language for several thousand years. When we say 'marriage' today we mean a higher order concept which includes a lot of cultural and legal baggage added over the years. To a modern, leave out any one of those additions and it's no longer 'marriage'. But that's not how God saw it.

I'm not talking about validity at all.

• In God's eyes, you agree to marry, sleep together, and you're married. No scriptural need for a written contract. Or even vows for that matter. The marriage is valid.
• If you ended up divorcing though, or one dies and you're sorting out inheritances, the presence or absence of written contracts (marriage licences, wills, pre-nups, private marriage contracts) will make a large difference to the result. Hence the practical distinction between a wife-with-a-contract ("legal wife") and wife-without-a-contract ("concubine", "de-facto partner").

This is accurate. I would be curious though to know if there was any history of concubinage practiced with a time limit. I suspect not. The very agreement to a time limit maks it a relationship founded by contract (e.g. a wife not concubine). It may be however that ancient concibinage was, lacking a contract, something much like modern marriage: no restriction on her leaving or him sending her away. But that is pure conjecture at this point.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

If I remember correctly from Kevin, a concubine was usually (though not always) a woman who had entered the home as a Hebrew bondmaid that was later converted to a wife.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

but she had seen failed relationships up close and personal and was skittish about the prospect.

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.

I see a few interesting factors in the 1st post. 1.) "C" perhaps desires and needs covering, but because of the "failed relationships up close and personal" that she's experienced, "was skittish about the prospect" of taking "B's" suggestion. 2.) Because Mark was willing to give it a 60 day trial with no strings attached, it gave C the breathing room she needed so that both of them (Mark and C) as well as "A" and "B" could figure out the dynamics. 3.) No one could have anticipated the financial crisis. 4.) To Mark's credit he meant what he said when he entered the 60 day trial period--what a man! 5.) "C" obviously has benefited from the arrangement, but at her suggestion to extend the 60 day period, she must be seeing more than just money that is causing her not to feel skittish. A financial crisis doesn't last long--not usually. However, the memories of pain and heartache from failed relationships do last a lifetime (most of the time) unless something better enters ones domain that erases and eases the pain.

I echo the thoughts of others to please keep us posted, and thank you.

 

[steve]

Sorry to be MIA for so long, I become something of a perfectionist at times and the attempts to communicate accurately via written communication tends to get a bit overwhelming in the midst of a busy life.

Let me address the contract vs no contract definition of concubineage.
Any agreement is a contract, the fact that a woman is in an exclusive relationship with the man, for whatever period of time, is evidence of some level of contract.
Many don’t understand what a Kettubah is, it has generally been a prenuptial agreement that defined a husbands responsibility to financially provide for his wife, even after his death, or in the event of their divorce.
In today’s usage it has devolved, among many communities, to simply an agreement to love and honor each other. Much like the typical Western wedding vows. And I was under that impression also, so I thought that all marital agreements were Kettubahs. Studying Mark’s situation has been an eye opener for me.
Karin was telling me about her friends situation that has been quite illustrative for me. This friend is married to a man who has 3 wives and 3 concubines. All 6 of them have contracts, but only the three wives have contracts that are actually called Kettubahs and promise financial support. Each of those contracts is personal as to the details and I am not sure what all is in them.
The walkout is that each of the wives with Kettubahs are provided for financially and do not take paying jobs. They are expected to spend their time in philanthropy, volunteering their time to help others.
Meanwhile the concubine wives are self supporting and there is not a promise of “until death do us part”.

I am not saying that his lifestyle is the ultimate definition, just that “boots on the ground” has a bit of weight.

 

[steve]

If I remember correctly from Kevin, a concubine was usually (though not always) a woman who had entered the home as a Hebrew bondmaid that was later converted to a wife.

While we have specific examples that some concubines did come from the servant population of the household, that’s not definitive.
It doesn’t pass the smell test for me that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines if taking the servants to bed was the way to make concubines. By expending any of his energy with the servants that his wives would have literally begged him for, I cannot see as anything other than abusive and non-Biblical.

 

[FollowingHim]

I agree. I think that Solomon's wives were the foreign women he married, who came with formal alliances and other complex paperwork. While his concubines were more likely local ladies he took because he actually personally wanted them, and who didn't come with such complexities.
I expect most of the wives and concubines were then given jobs in the household, as you wouldn't have a thousand (or even 700) women sitting around idly eating peeled grapes. Since you've got them anyway they can at least do the cooking, cleaning and sewing, and probably a lot more.

 

[steve]

I think that Solomon's wives were the foreign women he married, who came with formal alliances and other complex paperwork.

You are missing the logistics aspect of it, brother.
A formal Israelite wedding had many steps and a marriage feast that could last for an entire week. Times 700.
I believe that most of his wives were of the alliance and/or gift variety given by every leader of every town, province, etc. that wanted to be aligned with him. It only makes sense that he would give greater honor, thus the full wedding to the gifts from the leaders that were more important to him and his nation. Triage weddings , if you will, seeing as there are only 52 weeks in a year.
We do see the possibility that concubines might have greater responsibilities in the running of the household when we see King David leaving concubines in charge after his evacuation.

I believe that this is what we see in the book of Ruth. She was offering herself as a concubine, but he chose to give her the full marriage.

 

[steve]

So what separates this from courtship? Can you help me understand the difference? Isn't a serious courtship the same as a non sexual concubine? Also Biblically isn't the husband sexual with a concubine?

First, Mark made the relationship non sexual because C had only agreed to a relationship in which he was her leader. She hadn’t signed up for anything beyond that.
What separates this from a serious courtship? I have never heard of a courtship in which she completely submits to his leadership and he takes responsibility for her finances. That doesn’t usually exist even during the betrothal period.
Yes, the husband is normally sexually active with a concubine. She is his wife.

 

[steve]

I guess my question would be how do the current wives feel about Mark's concubine? And how does this lady feel about being called a concubine? At least where I come from there is such negativity associated with the word that I wonder how they feel about it??

B has more of a relationship with her than does his first wife, building relationships takes time. Proximity also makes a big difference in moving forward and they are not near each other.
How does she feel about the classification? She seems to have an unusual understanding of the fact that it is not an insult. That it is a reasonable description of the process that they are going through. The interesting thing about how they view the concept is that they believe that a woman can move from concubine to non-concubine status, which is not at all typical, in my understanding.
They also realize that there is a historical aspect in walking out and modeling a concept that was lost when polygyny was left behind.

 

[steve]

Btw: C has come through the first 60 days and re-upped for a second 60 as they continue to build their relationship.

 

[FollowingHim]

I believe that most of his wives were of the alliance and/or gift variety given by every leader of every town, province, etc. that wanted to be aligned with him.

I agree, just elaborating: They are specifically described as "princesses" or "daughters of nobility" ('sarah') in 1 Kings 11:3, and as "queens" likely meaning of royal birth in Song of Solomon 6:8, as opposed to the concubines. 1 Kings 11:3 states that it was these wives, not the concubines, who turned away his heart towards foreign gods. This means that at least a number of them must have been foreigners. But you're right, many could have been from Israelite nobility also.
The "wives" were of some sort of alliance / gift arrangement, and likely given the full wedding treatment as a result, and the "concubines" were the women he took without such formality.

We do see the possibility that concubines might have greater responsibilities in the running of the household when we see King David leaving concubines in charge after his evacuation.

Actually, I think this reflects his pragmatic need to maintain alliances. If he abandoned the daughter of some important nobleman, then he'd suddenly have more enemies at a time when he needed as many friends as possible. Best to keep the wives safe and let the concubines take whatever risks may exist. It's not as cold-hearted as it sounds since he probably had no idea his concubines would be mistreated so badly.

 

[rockfox]

Sorry to be MIA for so long, I become something of a perfectionist at times and the attempts to communicate accurately via written communication tends to get a bit overwhelming in the midst of a busy life.

Let me address the contract vs no contract definition of concubineage.
Any agreement is a contract, the fact that a woman is in an exclusive relationship with the man, for whatever period of time, is evidence of some level of contract.
Many don’t understand what a Kettubah is, it has generally been a prenuptial agreement that defined a husbands responsibility to financially provide for his wife, even after his death, or in the event of their divorce.
In today’s usage it has devolved, among many communities, to simply an agreement to love and honor each other. Much like the typical Western wedding vows. And I was under that impression also, so I thought that all marital agreements were Kettubahs. Studying Mark’s situation has been an eye opener for me.
Karin was telling me about her friends situation that has been quite illustrative for me. This friend is married to a man who has 3 wives and 3 concubines. All 6 of them have contracts, but only the three wives have contracts that are actually called Kettubahs and promise financial support. Each of those contracts is personal as to the details and I am not sure what all is in them.
The walkout is that each of the wives with Kettubahs are provided for financially and do not take paying jobs. They are expected to spend their time in philanthropy, volunteering their time to help others.
Meanwhile the concubine wives are self supporting and there is not a promise of “until death do us part”.

I am not saying that his lifestyle is the ultimate definition, just that “boots on the ground” has a bit of weight.

A couple notes on this. When I speak of concubinage being a relationship without contract, I am talking about something much more ancient that predates the kettubah. The contract (and the things which go with it, namely dowry/brideprice) being what defines marriage is a practice which goes back to the Assyrians, the Babylonions, and the ancient Mesopotamians. To the peoples and time from which Abraham left.

And while yes, an agreement is a contract at some level, verbal agreements even today do not carry near the same effect as written ones and are often null and void in a court of law when a written contract is present. When someone speaks of 'a contract' that implies something formal and written.

It became the practice of the Jews at some point (birth of Christ give or take a couple hundred years? I can't remember when, only that it changed much later on) to give concubines a kettubah, just not with all the same benefits as a wife. But that was not the historic practice. But the spirit of what he is doing is in keeping with the historic practice in that both are kept in the home (as opposed to the Roman Greek concubinage which is akin to a mistress) and there is a status difference between them.

His contractual difference reminds me of Isaiah 4:1. I know some Chrisitans would be offended that he's not being a beast of burden and fully financially supporting all of them; but I cannot object to it given the full testimony of scripture. Really, the ability to have some women work, some watch kids, some do philanthropy, etc. makes polygamy a very powerful and attractive form of marriage. So much good that could be done. It's a very anti-fragile way of organizing the household.

 

[steve]

His contractual difference reminds me of Isaiah 4:1. ........................ Really, the ability to have some women work, some watch kids, some do philanthropy, etc. makes polygamy a very powerful and attractive form of marriage. So much good that could be done. It's a very anti-fragile way of organizing the household.

BOOM

Although the difference between this and the way some run their households is that they are looking for income producers who add to the family coffers, as opposed to women that want to be attached to the family but supply all or most of their own support.