Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.

[rockfox]

There is only one standard, the one God laid out. He didn't lay out a standard foe concubines. He didn't lay out a standard for inheritance. As far as I can tell a marriage contract isn't even scriptural. It certainly isn't commanded or even mentioned that I can tell.

This is the great danger in filling in the supposed blanks. We find out we're just coloring outside the lines. Abraham slept with his sister and then tried to pawn her off on a couple of his buddies to save his own hide from an imagined threat. Just because a righteous man did something doesn't mean you should imitate it or that it was God's will. It just means it happened.

What you're doing is assuming there are no blanks or if there are, they can't be filled. But it could alternatively be true that blanks were left by God to us to fill in. Or that they weren't blanks, but commonly understood cultural practices that weren't necessary to expound upon. IOW, you're making scripture to be more all encompassing than it actually is.

The scriptures are law, but they don't give detailed definitions like modern law. They were more like protections added to common practice than all encompassing definition.

For example, the Bible referenced dowry's for wives. But what is the dowry for? Who gets it? How much should it be and who decides how much? All those are blanks left open in marriage. If you want a biblical marriage to a wife you HAVE to fill in the blanks. No way around that. And the presence of dowry potentially implies a contract and points to the fact that the law is buttressing/correcting the cultural practice of the day.

If you want to understand how the Ancient Hebrews did dowry, you'll have to look at contemporary secular law; which as it so happens also explains concubinage to an extent.

There is no explanation of concubinage made in scripture. We can't add one. No matter how you slice it, in God's eyes your concubine will just be a wife that you treat differently. And that's the real question to be asking here, not whether or not we can be having sex with some woman without having a permanent responsibility to God for her (which is what is at the heart of a lot of the concubine questions) or find a work around to marry an ineligible woman. How does God differentiate between these women? How is the relationship started and ended any differently than a marriage?

Where is it said we can't add a definition if it's not given? And I'm not even trying to 'add' one, but rather understand from the historical record what they meant when they used the word concubine. Thats not 'adding', its basic reading comprehension.

Nor am I looking for an out to have sex without responsibility. Hebrew concubines weren't mistresses, they were kept in house and cared for; generally for life. Though Abraham does bring up an argument for them not being permanent I couldn't say either way yet for sure.

You have to remember that there isn't even a word for wife or marriage so that they can be differentiated from a concubine. There are simply women who are mastered. That's all the language tells us. So if there is no such thing as a wife how can we differentiate her from a concubine? And if there's no difference then who cares?

That is not consistent with ancient practice nor the language. Concubines were a different thing. We don't get to lump them in with wives just because they also happen to be women. The common practice of marriage was just what women did generally; no name was needed for the default. But when a different alternative came along it got a new name to differentiate it from usual practice. That doesn't mean the standards of the common practice apply to the alternative. They might; but it could also strongly imply they don't.

 

[rockfox]

I'm sorry Kevin but are to sure that polygyny is only referenced in relation to concubinage? I will have to check but I think that's not correct.

My problem with the while concubine debate is that it is always assumed that concubines are some God endorsed form of marriage and so the line of inquiry is to see how they fit into God's plan. No one starts with asking do they fit in at all. That's the first question. Explain to me how they are part of what God has ordained for marriage and I'll be happy to see how it should work.

God clearly ordains polygyny so that's a false comparison.

Concubinage was no more endorsed than polygamy[edit: I meant 'no less']. And like polygamy it was also regulated in the law. He doesn't need to command or endorse it to be acceptable practice, only fail to condemn it.

Or one could put it this way: How should one 'do marriage'? We don't do it today the way the Ancient Hebrews did. And they did it three different ways themselves. But all were 'one flesh' relationships. Why should we pick one and exclude all others?

 

[Shibboleth]

(quick audio-book update: chapter 3 was about covenants - specifically, the history of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and whether children should be allowed to participate in communion, and chapter 4 was about the UK's slide into becoming a Socialist state. Interesting stuff, but I get the impression this guy is just rambling on... Chapter 5, starting at 1:45, is finally just getting around to mentioning wives and concubines.)

 

[mystic]

I'm just skimming the posts, as this is getting rather long for me, but—

I'd like to have a rough go at translating the core point […] so you can check that I've got this right.

Basically,

• a woman who enters the family with formal contractual arrangements (marriage contracts, documents denoting inheritance etc) is a "wife".
• a woman who moves in without such formal contracts (or with fewer contracts) is a "concubine"

If so, this actually aligns quite well with modern practice, and fits fairly seamlessly into a modern context. Wife = wife, concubine = de-facto partner. Roughly.

This prompted an idea for me. I grew up hearing (as did many of us) that the word "ain't" isn't a real word and — or because — it isn't in "the" dictionary (never mind that there are different dictionaries and they change). Later I heard, however, that "ain't" is found in literature going back hundreds of years — exactly the test used to legitimate any other words granted recognition! The point then was made that societies thus reserve words for use in transgressive ways, and that by withholding acknowledgement they allow these words to retain a certain power they would not otherwise have. This withholding is by necessity unspoken, off-the-books, implicit, or — to mirror the term Samuel used — de facto.

So the idea I got is that the intended meaning of the word "concubine" may have come to be left out of the canon in a similar way or for similar reasons: "Okay, and while y'all are looking for legal loopholes in this yarn I'm tellin' ya, lemme just say this fella crossed the river with ALL his women — or I'll jus' say his wives and his concubines in case y'all wanna argue that some o' his women wasn't really "wives" and got left behind."

In that sentence I switched into the "folksy" voice to signal an intent to "cut past the bullshit" and speak a truth that normal framing would inhibit. Perhaps concubine is undefined, or has at best fuzzy and arguable definitions, exactly because it's that kind of word, the kind that must remain somewhat unrecognized by the respectable arbiters of meaning to remain meaningful — in this case to denote a certain specific and somewhat transgressive reality about relations between men and women.

It may mean "wives including the ones that you or someone else may not wish to acknowledge for whatever reason". Because human societies do that — we squabble and question the legitimacy of what an opponent is doing. Nailing down the words used in such a fight doesn't settle any fights, just makes the nailed words useless.

Maybe I'm wrong. And if Hammurabi's Appendix A shows up and we're all left saying, "Oh, THAT'S what all the ancient writers assumed we knew they meant," well okay then. I ain't too attached to my little yarn.

 

[andrew]

Interesting thought. I have no idea what the Hebrew scholars will have to say about that, but it makes a lot of sense logically.

 

[mystic]

Put more briefly: "Concubine" may be to biblical law as "ain't" is to the English language, in that we all know what it means but there's an unspoken agreement (unrecognized by some) that it's not to be precisely defined. Maybe.

 

[Shibboleth]

Put more briefly: "Concubine" may be to biblical law as "ain't" is to the English language, in that we all know what it means but there's an unspoken agreement (unrecognized by some) that it's not to be precisely defined. Maybe.

The first rule of Concubine Club is that no one talks about Concubine Club.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What you're doing is assuming there are no blanks or if there are, they can't be filled. But it could alternatively be true that blanks were left by God to us to fill in. Or that they weren't blanks, but commonly understood cultural practices that weren't necessary to expound upon. IOW, you're making scripture to be more all encompassing than it actually is.

The scriptures are law, but they don't give detailed definitions like modern law. They were more like protections added to common practice than all encompassing definition.

For example, the Bible referenced dowry's for wives. But what is the dowry for? Who gets it? How much should it be and who decides how much? All those are blanks left open in marriage. If you want a biblical marriage to a wife you HAVE to fill in the blanks. No way around that. And the presence of dowry potentially implies a contract and points to the fact that the law is buttressing/correcting the cultural practice of the day.

If you want to understand how the Ancient Hebrews did dowry, you'll have to look at contemporary secular law; which as it so happens also explains concubinage to an extent.



Where is it said we can't add a definition if it's not given? And I'm not even trying to 'add' one, but rather understand from the historical record what they meant when they used the word concubine. Thats not 'adding', its basic reading comprehension.

Nor am I looking for an out to have sex without responsibility. Hebrew concubines weren't mistresses, they were kept in house and cared for; generally for life. Though Abraham does bring up an argument for them not being permanent I couldn't say either way yet for sure.



That is not consistent with ancient practice nor the language. Concubines were a different thing. We don't get to lump them in with wives just because they also happen to be women. The common practice of marriage was just what women did generally; no name was needed for the default. But when a different alternative came along it got a new name to differentiate it from usual practice. That doesn't mean the standards of the common practice apply to the alternative. They might; but it could also strongly imply they don't.

Well there is no point in continuing this. Filling supposed blanks is what Mohammed and Jim Jones did. Nothing can be certain if anyone can decide something is missing and just add it in.

If you're interested in the cultural practice of concubines then knock yourself out. If you're looking for God's take then let me save you a lot of time. If you have sex with her then you married her or committed adultery and there are no other options in the Bible.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Zec, I see in scripture were G-d calls Concubines, wives. If a man takes a concubine, what has he done that is reprehensible before G-d?

 

[Barry]

Zec, I see in scripture were G-d calls Concubines, wives. If a man takes a concubine, what has he done that is reprehensible before G-d?

Nothing.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, I see in scripture were G-d calls Concubines, wives. If a man takes a concubine, what has he done that is reprehensible before G-d?

So first off, what's the reference? And second off, wouldn't that just prove my point that concubines are really wives in God's eyes? And third off, who said concubinage was reprehensible? I just said it wasn't a thing to God. To Him you're either married to her or committing adultery.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Nothing.

You're exactly right Barry. He has done nothing wrong. He's just taken a wife which God says is a good thing.

 

[rockfox]

Put more briefly: "Concubine" may be to biblical law as "ain't" is to the English language, in that we all know what it means but there's an unspoken agreement (unrecognized by some) that it's not to be precisely defined. Maybe.

Along those lines, so far as I can discern the word 'concubine' itself came about 6000 years ago in the earliest of languages as a swear word by first wives for the new young women that a man brought in. Especially if they weren't added in the formal way or were lower status for some reason.

 

[rockfox]

ouldn't that just prove my point that concubines are really wives in God's eyes?

I agree and disagree with that. Concubines are wive's in God's eyes in that they are 'your women'. However thats not what modern's think of when someone says 'wife' as the modern conception of 'wife vs. not wife' excludes a lot of women that God/OT/Ancient Hebrews included.

To Him you're either married to her or committing adultery.

This is the problem with simplistic absolutist takes on scripture. The case in the OT of taking a virgin without the father's permission disproves that (Ex 22:16-17). If the father declines to assent to marriage then you're neither married nor in adultery; just in debt.

there are no other options in the Bible.

I don't see the Old Covenant as a list of allowable options, thats the tyrannical 'only allowed if prescribed' perspective. Rather it was mainly a list of protections and prohibitions, the 'allowed unless proscribed' perspective.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I agree and disagree with that. Concubines are wive's in God's eyes in that they are 'your women'. However thats not what modern's think of when someone says 'wife' as the modern conception of 'wife vs. not wife' excludes a lot of women that God/OT/Ancient Hebrews included.



This is the problem with simplistic absolutist takes on scripture. The case in the OT of taking a virgin without the father's permission disproves that (Ex 22:16-17). If the father declines to assent to marriage then you're neither married nor in adultery; just in debt.



I don't see the Old Covenant as a list of allowable options, thats the tyrannical 'only allowed if prescribed' perspective. Rather it was mainly a list of protections and prohibitions, the 'allowed unless proscribed' perspective.

You've endowed her to be your wife. You formed a one flesh relationship. You got married the father just has a small window of opportunity to annul it.

Like I said, there is very little that we will agree on so there is no point in boring everyone else.

 

[steve]

1 Kings 11:3 (KJV)
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

For some reason, unknown to us at this point, YHWH chose to differentiate between the two sets of wives.
Dismissing the category because He didn’t give us Concubines for Dummies is not an option.
As I see it, allowing Him to speak to our hearts about His purposes on the matter (after digesting ever word that He gave us in scripture about it) is the only way forward.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Could it be that most of Solomon’s Concubines were Jewish girls given to Solomon by fathers wanting to raise their family status? Were his wives perhaps mostly foreign women that were princesses which he paid a bride price for, in order to establish alliances with kings? It lists wives and Concubines and then says his wives turned his heart away. Just a thought.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Along those lines, so far as I can discern the word 'concubine' itself came about 6000 years ago in the earliest of languages as a swear word by first wives for the new young women that a man brought in. Especially if they weren't added in the formal way or were lower status for some reason.

I’d be greatly interested in the source for this if it’s readily available

 

[eye4them]

If you have sex with her then you married her or committed adultery and there are no other options in the Bible.

I'm not sure I can completely agree with that. I don't see how there could be a such a thing as prostitution if there were only three kinds of sex; married sex, marring sex, and adultery sex. Please see my comments about prostitution shortly after cnystrom's post here; http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/germania-tacitus.13724/#post-154278

 

[andrew]

1 Kings 11:3 (KJV)
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

For some reason, unknown to us at this point, YHWH chose to differentiate between the two sets of wives.
Dismissing the category because He didn’t give us Concubines for Dummies is not an option.
As I see it, allowing Him to speak to our hearts about His purposes on the matter (after digesting ever word that He gave us in scripture about it) is the only way forward.

Harumph, harumph!! <bangs ale mug on table several times>

What steve said.