• 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 vs. Wives

sixth_heretic

sixth_heretic

Member
I understand that we men can have as many wives as we can meet the sexual emotional and physical needs of.

Exod.21
[10] If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

But what about concubines? What is a Concubine. What make her different then a wife. What are the responsiblities that a man has towards a concubine? I ask this since I can find no prohibition to haveing concubines and there is little information on the subject other then the fact that many biblical polygynists had many concubines as well as wives. Are we modern polygynist supposed to have concubines. what is the concubines purpose. Thanks for letting me ask my questions.
 
This is taken from an article I have on Biblical Polygyny but I do not have the authors name handy. Hope this helps.




Concubines

Some people today may think that concubinage in the Scriptures was a form of an immoral sexual relationship, similar to having a personal mistress. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the Hebrew word pilegesh (Strong's #6370) is used, it speaks of a female concubine that is MARRIED to her male partner.

Keturah is called Abraham's concubine in 1 Chronicles 1:32, but in Genesis 25:1, she is called Abraham's wife. David's ten concubines are indeed called concubines, but they are also called his wives by Yahweh Himself (2 Samuel 12:11; 16:21-22). In Judges 19 and 20, the Levite's concubine "committed whoring against him" (Judges 19:2) and left "her husband" (Judges 19:3). She is called a concubine in Judges 19:1,2,9,24,25,29; 20:4 and 5, yet at the same time, her male partner, the Levite, is called "her husband" in Judges 19:3 and 20:4. In addition, the concubines father is called the "father-in-law" (Judges 19:4,7,9), and the Levite is called the "son-in-law" (Judges 19:5). Clearly, concubinage is displayed as a marital commitment.

So then what is the difference between a "wife" and a "concubine"? Wives are free; concubines are not. It's as simple as that. Scripture portrays concubinage as the marriage of a slave girl, without the ceremony of betrothal and without property jointure.
'And when a man has intercourse with a woman who is a female servant, engaged to a man, and who has not at all been ransomed or redeemed, there should be an inquiry. But they are not put to death, because she was not free.' (Leviticus 19:20, The Scriptures)
In the above example, we have a slave girl who has been engaged or betrothed (married without the marriage having been consummated) to a man. Being a slave, she is not killed as a free woman would be for having committed adultery (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), precisely "because she was not free".

In Judges, the concubines husband is twice called "her master" (Judges 19:26,27). Other concubines are identified likewise. Bilhah, Jacob's concubine (Genesis 35:22), whom Rachel gave to him for a wife (Genesis 30:3-4), was a slave (Genesis 35:25, "female servant"). Likewise, Zilpah was a slave-wife (Genesis 35:26; 30:9). Marrying a slave girl was not only practiced, it was legislated in the Torah as well.
"And when a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she does not go out as the male servants do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who has engaged her to himself, then he shall let her be ransomed. He shall have no authority to sell her to a foreign people, because of him deceiving her. And if he has engaged her to his son, he is to do to her as is the right of daughters. If he takes another wife, her food, her covering, and her marriage rights are not to be diminished. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out for naught, without silver." (Exodus 21:7-11, The Scriptures)
Notice that it doesn't say, "He cannot take another wife". It says, "If he takes another wife". Here we have another law concerning polygyny and it is not forbidden. Although there are people today who view concubinage as an evil deed, Leah, in the Scriptures, viewed it as part of that which pleased Elohim.
And Elohim listened to Le'ah, and she conceived and bore Ya'aqob (Jacob) a fifth son. And Le'ah said, "Elohim has given me my hire, because I have given my female servant to my husband." So she called his name Yissaskar. (Genesis 30:17-18, The Scriptures)
Leah had given Zilpah, her maidservant, to Jacob as a wife because she had perceived that she had stopped bearing children (Genesis 30:9). Yet, she continued to pray for more sons. Elohim heard her plea and Leah understood this to be a reward from Him for giving Jacob a concubine.
 
You have the correct technical understanding of OT Concubines (free vs not, children inherit vs not). But really, I think we have enough issues to grapple with, in restoring polygamy, that we should let this one go. Surely under the new covenant we recognize that all are "free" in Christ, and surely we want to provide a proper and full "spiritual inheritance" for all our children. IMO, we should leave concubinage in the past, and recognize that there should be no more "2nd class" wives under the new covenant - just as there are no "2nd class" believers, if they call upon the name of the Lord.
 
Brother Nathan,
I agree totally with you on that there should be NO second class wives, etc and that the issue of concubines should be a non-issue. Was just providing info that I had about the difference between the two.
 
And the women on this website breath a collective sigh of relief!! :roll:
 
:lol: That's funny enough Maria, that us guys will forgive for you for posting in the Gentlemen Only forum!! :D
 
Well seeing as though there are not slaves in this socity then it would not be possible to have concubines. I was just curious about the difference.
BTW Can guys post on the females forums and vice versa? I wasnt sure if that was allowed?
 
We especially want the ladies to have a place to post without interference or reply from guys, so yes the rule was no "cross-gender" posting - but I see that sometimes it's hard because we like to view by "Active topics", and then it's not always obvious what section you are in. We can delete when that happens - but Maria's is too funny to delete!
 
Ok I just wanted to be clear. I am new here and did not want to do the wrong thing. Thanks for the heads up?
 
Nathan7 said:
We especially want the ladies to have a place to post without interference or reply from guys, so yes the rule was no "cross-gender" posting
Click to expand...

That brings up a good point. Would it be considered inappropriate to merely READ the posts in the opposing forums? I only ask because I've occasionally read some of the posts in the Women's only forum to gain a better insight into various views and I've learned quite a lot from some of the posters there (specifically, finding out about the "Created to be his help meet", which was a fascinating read. My wife reads it all the time and really enjoys it). I certainly wouldn't post in their forums but I just wanted to make sure there's no objection to reading messages in the other's forums, due to some sense of privacy or something. I'd rather remain ignorant than to cause someone to become uncomfortable posting, knowing some men were reading their responses.

David
 
That is a good question? Mods any help?
 
I thought about reading the posts in the Ladies Only forum and decided not to. Instead, I ask my wife if there are any interesting subjects and what the overall view is about them. I do the same for her, but we decided to show respect by honoring the request. That's okay, Maria, you're special to all of us here! We could never pounce on you for that. lol

Tom
 
I feel that it is ok for a wife or husband to read either one, just so long as they do not post. Even thought this is a board that needs a log in name and password to post, it is a forum that is open to the general public. I too have gained some insight into what my wife may be thinking by reading what some of the other ladies have posted and thus brought about additional discussion between her and I over those issues. My wife has read some things in the mens only that, though we had some prior discussion on that subject, what someone else posted made better sense than what I was trying to tell her. We are ALL HERE TO LEARN.....regardless how long one has lived as a Biblical Family or wishing to do so.......The more that is openly shared here on a CHRISTIAN forum by ALL the more that ALL can learn. Yahweh has each and every one of us on a personal, as well as, a family learning "trip" through the study of HIS word here, the sharing of knowledge with each other here, the lifting up of each other in prayer as well as our own trips into the Biblical Family life. I wish to applaud Pastor Randy and Nathan, along with others, who have set up the various retreats as a means to study, learn, meet each other and grow, for if we, those wish or living this life style, do not support each other, nobody else will.


My 2 cents before Church this morning
 
so to summerize we can look but not comment in the other genders forum.
 
I suggest we keep honor system at this point. Be aware that some amount of cross-reading is expected, but let's keep it "don't ask, don't tell!" - so if your wife posts in the Women's section, and is really honest, and it doesn't necessarily make you look, or feel, good - no fair giving her a hard time about it! You gotta ignore it.

If we accidentally cross-post, just go back and delete it when we figure it out (or get a PM from someone). Everyone can delete their own posts (I think?), or us moderators can at least.

If the ladies ever tell us they want their own really private forums, with login protection, even for reading - we could set that up.
 
I figured it wouldn't even let me go there, so I didn't even try... :oops:
maybe I'll keep it that way.

I personally had wondered about concubine v/s wives as well, and wonder if the practice didn't start up with men simply caring for women who had no headship. caring without physical intimacy but with all other headship and helping the woman raise her children from a previous relationship whether widowed, divorced or single mom.
Part of the reason this came to me was Abraham gave gifts to his concubines sons and sent them away, they were recorded as the woman's sons, but not as Abrahams. Always wondered about the significance of that.
 
And now for something completely different....

There seems to be a consensus here that concubinage is somehow "second class". I'm not so sure about that.

First point: Social standing is all relative. Imagine you're a sixteen year old girl in an impoverished family with limited prospects. What are the relative merits of (a) having your father marry you off to the dirt-poor, day-laborer boy down the street (you're still poor, but at least you're a "wife"--you have some kind of abstract, if not practical, legal rights and social standing), versus (b) having your father sell you to be a maidservant in the home of a prosperous, gentle, loving man. You don't have the legal rights and social standing of a "wife", but that's not because your husband/master is exploiting you or has condemned you to "second class wife" status. It's because your family has no means to provide you with the kind of match that would give you a shot at being a "wife" in an upper (or maybe even middle) class house. You were a "second class citizen", if that's the way we're going to think about this, BEFORE the match, because your family was poor and had limited prospects. Understanding the economics of that, then life as a concubine--in the right house, of course--might very well be a significant step UP from any other alternative.

That's all presupposing that concubinage = servanthood.

Second point: What if a culture (all hypothetical of course) replaced honest servanthood with a kind of pseudo-servanthood based on economic oppression? It would have the appearance of "freedom", because it would permit certain kinds of social freedom, and no "master" could compel any particular "servant" to do any particular task or live any particular way. Economically, though, the underclass would have no better prospects (and in some cases worse) than their historical predecessors. They just wouldn't think of themselves as "servants" (even though a widely used and understood concept would be that of the "wage slave".) At some level, women (at least women who value home and children) are going to ask serious questions about a prospective husband's ability to provide, and in the economy we live in, I can see how a woman would rather be the fourth wife of a man who could offer her real financial security than the only wife of a man of questionable means. It's a question of trading the abstract benefits associated with the title for the practical benefits associated with the reality of the situation.

Third point (and actually most important): The word wife doesn't mean anything unless it describes a woman with a certain set of recognized and enforceable legal rights and social status. And we live in a monogamy-only culture: The state doesn't recognize more than one wife, and neither do most of the people you meet on the street. The end result is that in this culture, it would make more sense to think of extra-legal 'wives' as concubines than it does to think of them as wives. In fact, they aren't "wives" in the full and undiluted sense of the word, because they aren't recognized as such by the greater society, and saying it's so doesn't make it so. In fact, guys like Tom Green get on tv and talk about their "covenant wives" or "spiritual wives" or whatever and go to prison. So as much as we all dearly wish that we could see and feel and participate in a culture where multiple WIVES are recognized as such and given full rights and status, the truth of our culture is that that ain't the way it is. Legally and socially, anyone other than a lawful, ONLY wife is functionally a concubine: a woman living in a committed relationship with a man that doesn't have the full package of legal rights and status that go with "wifeness". You can call that "second class" or you can just call that the burden of living in a screwed up culture, but that's what we're up against.
 
I can think of many applications for that 'burden of a screwed up culture' comment.
Excellent explaination of several viewpoints, I like when an individual can look at something from several angles. More people should try that
 
I like your answers. Some might find them offensive but accurate none the less. I hadnt even thought to look at second wives as concubines just because you can not legaly marry them. I wouldnt go blabbing that notion around to the "wives" in here but I do like the answer. it answers alot of my own questions about concubines. thanks.
 
In some ways though, society does recognise a second wife as a wife even though you can't get 'legal' status or 'protection'
You mentioned Tom Greene, they didn't try to prosecute him for having several wives, they only went after him because he violated their minimum consent age.
It takes a while to change culture, and it takes bold people to do so. If everyone sat around wringing their hands because society didn't accept things, absolutely nothing would change. My hat is off to the women who accept the scorn of society because of the love of and from a man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top