• 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.

Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.

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

Fits nicely with mystic's speculation and what we can observer all around us about how that word is in fact mostly used.

And anything that helps us figure out how to communicate among ourselves and with the outside world about what exactly we're doing with these 'illegitimate' (not state-sanctioned) women is not a waste of time at all.
 
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

This is exactly the case that proves the point. What does Paul say happens when you join your body with a harlot? The words there are the exact same ones, its translate one flesh I believe, that Christ uses when He talks about divorce. Paul says, directly, that if you have sex with a prostitute then you're one flesh with her. That's marriage. How much more so if she's not a prostitute?
 
@ZecAustin, I appreciate your passion to ensure that people do not do anything sinful and justify it by appealing to a personal understanding of concubinage that is heretical (whether they realise it or not).

However, I think you are letting your passion take such hold on you that you are assuming the most conservative theological interpretations out of emotion, regardless of their compatibility with each other, and ending up in logical fallacies.

Some key points you make here, all valid-sounding conservative positions that are intended to encourage people towards sinless behaviour:

1) There is no such word as "wife" or "marriage", God rather simply gives rules for how to act towards a woman you are the head of:
God's system only has a category for women you've mastered with a small subset inside of that for women you bought and then mastered.
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?
2) Sex can be within or form a marriage, or can be adultery, there are no other options:
If you have sex with her then you married her or committed adultery and there are no other options in the Bible.
3) Sex = one flesh = "marriage", so if you have sex with a prostitute you are married to her.
Paul says, directly, that if you have sex with a prostitute then you're one flesh with her. That's marriage.
To express this logically:
  1. Marriage = ownership
  2. Sex with virgin = marriage
    Sex with married woman = adultery.
  3. Sex with prostitute = one flesh
    Sex = one flesh = marriage
But if we combine those, we get:
  • Prostitute's first sexual encounter = marriage
  • Prostitute's subsequent sexual encounters = adultery
  • Sex with prostitute = one flesh = marriage
  • Sex with prostitute = you now own the prostitute
  • Sex with prostitute = adultery.
  • Adultery = one flesh
  • Marriage = one flesh
  • Adultery = marriage
It doesn't work (see the two italicised points in particular). There's a logical error here. As far as I can see, remove the "one flesh" = "marriage" assertion and everything works logically. Keep it in, and the result is a confusing mess, logically speaking. If you never sleep with a prostitute then it doesn't matter that the logic is a confusing mess, you can avoid sin without getting all the logic right. But I'm the sort of guy who never feels comfortable until the pattern all fits together and makes sense, hence I can't help pointing it out.

We're all as passionate as you about avoiding sin. Don't think this cold, analytical, mathematical approach to the matter is anything other than an attempt to understand God better. It's not a justification for sin. It's just an attempt to fit together the puzzle pieces accurately.

But also, this is getting further and further off topic, this thread was supposed to be about concubines...
 
What does Paul say happens when you join your body with a harlot? The words there are the exact same ones, its translate one flesh I believe, that Christ uses when He talks about divorce. Paul says, directly, that if you have sex with a prostitute then you're one flesh with her.
One flesh, yes, but I would think marriage involves both cleaving to her, as well as becoming one flesh. The becoming-one-flesh is merely a sign, or a seal, of the agreement-to-cleave. Insofar as becoming-one-flesh implies an agreement-to-cleave (a covenant) between the two, the father still has the right to veto his daughter's agreement if she made it while still under his authority.

Prostitution, it seems to me, is becoming one flesh without intention of cleaving (at least in the strict sense... There's also an argument to be made for a wider sense of the word that encompasses all sexual immorality: beastiality, incest, homosexuality, and adultery). In this sense, it would be farcical: like taking the Lord's Supper as an unbeliever, or waving a flag and refusing to pay taxes.

There's a logical error here... But I'm the sort of guy who never feels comfortable until the pattern all fits together and makes sense, hence I can't help pointing it out... Don't think this cold, analytical, mathematical approach to the matter is anything other than an attempt to understand God better.
Hello, my fellow INTP! :D:cool:
 
Follow up on the audio book. I quit it. Chapter 6 was on Christian art and censorship, and then when chapter 7 started, on prayer and healing, I gave up, embarrassed that it took me so long to realize that wives and concubines were clearly not the overall topic of this book (just chapter 5), and that it was actually just a collection of disparate essays.

Now Chapter 5 was indeed on wives and concubinage. Specifically, the history of the UK government taking over the "role of the church" in the christian institution of marriage. It went into clandenstine marriage, and Hardwicke's marriage act of 1753 (which, IIRC, was the impetus behind Thelyphthora). I don't recall him discussing a biblical definition of concubinage, but rather using the modern definition of it, and lamenting that so many people were living in that state rather than true marriage. And also lamenting that state marriage no longer involved the church.

And this is where I think the Church has gone wrong with marriage, in trying to define marriage as a "Christian institution" that should be under the jurisdiction of the church. God has already defined it, and written it into "natural law". Marriage is a universal blessing to all mankind, the same way that God sends the rain on the just and the unjust. @ZecAustin isn't wrong in principle that a marriage is a dead simple thing to create: a man and woman agree to stick together and have sex, to make babies. No church or state needed (at least not until the agreement is broken). That the church and state want jurisdiction over it comes off as a power play.
 
I realise my last post could be somewhat confusing. Here's the short version:
If sex = one flesh = forms a marriage, a prostitute is to be considered married to her first client, all subsequent ones committing adultery. With this assumption:

Does a man committing adultery become one flesh with the woman he is with?

If no, then how do you become one flesh with a prostitute?

If yes, then how can one flesh = marriage?
 
I realise my last post could be somewhat confusing. Here's the short version:
If sex = one flesh = forms a marriage, a prostitute is to be considered married to her first client, all subsequent ones committing adultery. With this assumption:

Does a man committing adultery become one flesh with the woman he is with?

If no, then how do you become one flesh with a prostitute?

If yes, then how can one flesh = marriage?

The answer to all of these questions is yes.
 
The answer to all of these questions is yes.
I got a new point of view from @Zecs last post (maybe we should break all this off the concubine thread)

Adultery equals Polyandry.
 
Last edited:
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.

@andrew @Verifyveritas76

This is me reading into the history a bit and summing a lot of things up. Hence the 'so far as I can discern' part. I am piecing together things from history and different sources. This is complicated so will be long....

The English word comes from the Latin, and literally translates to 'woman your having sex with' or maybe 'cohabitate with'. etymonline makes the Latin sound like cohabitation but I suspect common practice also included we'd call today a 'fuck buddy' or mistress. I'd have to ask a Roman historian to say for sure and late roman practice does seem to be like cohabitation. The English usage is closer to what we call cohabitation or LTR -- which is closer to the Hebrew practice -- but also mistress and girlfriend.

But there is another word (or two) in Latin (pellex or paelex) meaning mistress/concubine. I'm not sure how that differs from the Latin concubina, but it is related to the Greek/Hebrew words. However based on this discussion of the practice in both Rome and Greece, which is rather more detailed than I've found yet, I think concubina was a nicer, more polite term.

Note early Hebrew practice comes from southern Mesopotamia. The sanscrit word used in the ancient laws for second wife I havn't been able to decipher yet (as to whether it means simply 'second wife' or 'concubine') but near as I can tell in practice means secondary wife (and the social distinction in Meopotamia was VERY strong).
Different sources have different ideas about where from and the meanings given vary or seem unrelated. So its a bit of a mystery, and many sources say the meaning is 'unknown'. But other sources give some hints.

Concubine in Greek (pallakís) and Hebrew (pilegesh) is a loan word from another language. Some say its a loan from Greek, but that also is a loanword from an unknown language. Some point to Phonetician and I suspect it actually comes down from proto-Indo-European (search pallakís); so the oldest of our languages. Ancient Sanskrit has a similar word (Palagali).

According to wiktionary pallakis is related to Pallás...

From παλλακίς (pallakís, “concubine”), most likely from Proto-Indo-European *parikeh₂ (“concubine, wanton woman”), related to Avestan‎ (pairikā, “demonic courtesan”) and Manichaean Parthian pryg‎ (parīg)

A wanton woman basically being a woman who is unchaste, lewd, lavish, lustful, sensual, playful, flirting, or causing sexual excitement. I.e. HOT. I.e., that young woman who seduced your husband into taking her on as a second wife; unlike you who were properly contracted to him. A seductress.

The male version of that Ancient Greek comes from a word meaning to “to poise, sway, or swing” which itself comes from a proto-IE meaning “to drive, swing, shake”. In other words, provocative swaying of the hips. (interesting note: some women do this intentionally to attract your eye, but they'll also do it subconsciously around a man they find attractive).

This is also related to the Greek pallax (youth, maiden) which brings to mind the idea of a young attractive woman.

Not circle back to the Avestan pairikā, listed as demonic courtesan (courtesan meaning lover). It is listed as a source for the Persian word used to denote a witch, fury, and beautiful woman and this one defines pairikā as "sorceress,witch" and related to other words meaning 'witch', 'female demoness'.

This source defines pairikā as “sorceress, witch, or enchantress.” and lists possible etymologies as 'belonging to others, enemies' (think woman seduced away from someone else or maybe spoils of war), 'foreign women' (think spoils of war), 'fullness' (allusion to breasts?), 'demoness of fullness' (IDK, something interesting going on there but reminds me of the OT test of an adulteress), 'demons opposed to Fire, Water, Earth, Ox, and Plant' (think homewrecker), 'demoness of sensuality who steals and destroys' (homewrecker again), and various other uses involving demons (think succubus).

Remember, the traditional Hebrew concept (probably received from Mesopotamia) of concubine as a wife without marriage contract ? How would that happen? A wife is gotten by contractual agreement with the father. But a concubine, is seduced, no agreement, you just convince her to join you (or she convinces you to take her).

So, if you were the first wife and your husband brings in a second wife who is a pretty young thing that seduced your husband and convinced him to marry her, you might slander her as a witch (which I notice has near spelling to bitch all the way back to Old English). What is another word for witch? Enchantress, which is a "witch/sorceress" or a "fascinating or beautiful woman".

This all gets back to the very very old ideas of romantic love and how it was often viewed negatively or as an uncontrolled, dangerous, or otherworldly thing. Think love potions, enchantments, cubids arrow, lovestruck and the like. I.e. A seductress. So again, a woman who stole your man's heart or maybe one who came in by romance/seduction and not by contract.

This is another way in which modern marriage (based on romance) is more like concubinage than historical marriage (usually by contract).
 
Last edited:
Adultery equals Polyandry.
A few thoughts, in the order they arrived, taking Kevin's Equation as a given:
  1. So the Bible doesn't have a word for marriage itself, nor for monogamy or polygamy, but does have one (and it happens to be in the "thou shalt not" department) for polyandry. God's order doesn't need special words — departures from it do.
  2. Fits the temple symbolism. Only the high priest is to enter the Holy of Holies. Anyone else defiles it.
  3. A pro-polygamy argument here: The Bible speaks clearly against one kind of polygamy (adultery, which we read as polyandry), making it all the more distinct that it does not speak against the other kind (polygyny).
Put another way, the answer to the question, "Does the Bible say polygamy is a sin?" is yes because it specifically says women are not to do it.

And the answer to the silly egalitarian remark, "Well, then, it should be okay for a woman to have more than one husband!" is no because the Bible repeatedly calls that out, and even assigns a word to it: adultery.
 
Interesting line of thinking developing here about the way we think about women's sexuality. And when I say "we", I think we have to distinguish 'the way men think about women's sexuality' from 'the way women think about women's sexuality'. There's probably a better way to analyze that (maybe female-sexuality-positive and female-sexuality-negative, each of which could then have male or female proponents), but to me it is seeming clearer all the time that this sort of grey area around male/female sexuality and relationships (except for Zec...;)) is a tension or struggle that has been going on for a looooong time.
 
And the answer to the silly egalitarian remark, "Well, then, it should be okay for a woman to have more than one husband!" is no because the Bible repeatedly calls that out, and even assigns a word to it: adultery.

Ok that is brilliant and a huge argument in favor of the Bible not condeming polygyny!
 
Summary of my conclusions on this matter, as posted elsewhere:

The more I have pondered concubinage, the simpler it has become. From the ancient Jewish references @Kevin (I think) gave in a recent discussion, it became very clear that concubinage is simply a no-paperwork relationship. If you see "marriage" as being something where there's paperwork, and "concubinage" as being the same thing where there isn't, it translates directly into modern thinking, because they become synonyms for "marriage" and "de-facto". And scripture doesn't really distinguish between them, treating both identically except possibly with some minor inheritance details, which comes back to the contract anyway so isn't anything religious just a practical matter. With that viewpoint, every time "concubine" is mentioned becomes a reminder "hey, all this biblical stuff about marriage even applies to YOU and that woman you're sleeping with, you can't think it doesn't just because you haven't decided you're 'married' yet, you might have more obligations than you thought"... It's suddenly completely relevant, and really really simple.

I also agree with this summary by @Ancient Paths
@FollowingHim , agreed. Concubinage is very simple: married with no contract/ketubah. She has ALL the rights and protection of a covenant wife except inheritance, and he has ALL the responsibilities. Where Christendom gets hubg up is the errant idea that she is a sex slave or object of his passion. When compared to defacto/no contract marriage, the stigma melts away.
 
To me, the best example is Ruth offering herself to Boaz in (my opinion) a concubine marriage and him rejecting it for a full, legal, marriage.

But you are extremely right, Samuel, that people be concubining all over the place. Some pretending that it is completely honoring to the woman and some denying that it had any meaning.
 
...From the ancient Jewish references @Kevin (I think) gave in a recent discussion, it became very clear that concubinage is simply a no-paperwork relationship. If you see "marriage" as being something where there's paperwork, and "concubinage" as being the same thing where there isn't, ...
According to the Yavitz (Rabbi Jacob Emden) a very influential authority in Azhkenazi thinking, a substantial difference is that a concubine has the right to terminate the relationship for any reason whereas a wife has no such right. In the Jewish perspective a man "purchases a wife", both from her father and from herself (the amount entitled to her to set up a household and also written in her "gett" in case he divorces her later for a non-adultery related reason). Concubine gets none of those financial protections and she can split if she wishes.

I think I mentioned this earlier in this thread somewhere with a link to a translation of Rabbi Emden's work on pilagesh but I'm not sure... I think they needed a contract of sorts also though nothing like the ketubah marriage contract.
 
Back
Top