There’s no doubt that there are benefits to being a wife, especially to the wife of an exceptional man. I was thinking more about what are the rights God absolutely gives her in His Word.
-
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.
Is Concubinage Fornication?
- Thread starter Kiwi_Lion
- Start date
Where do you see bought?
I see only take like "get married" which includes all wives.
This question should be a thread
Lol,!it is many threads.
The passage starts in verse 7. “She” is the daughter that was sold by her father with the possibility of being a wife.
Of course, although it is only mandatory for those that are purchased, it's a useful guideline when determining how to treat any wife well.
It’s only a useful guideline if it’s properly identified as merely a useful guideline.
Perhaps we could consider concubinage in the modern context and apply Biblical wisdom to how it is today.
Seriously, women in the West are very rarely sold by their fathers to their husbands.
However, I would say that arranged relationships (defacto marriages) are occurring with greater frequency but it is men and women arranging these things via dating sites and things like that instead of the more traditional way of getting to know people you often encounter.
IMHO concubinage in the modern sense takes place anytime there is a sexual relationship that isn't a complete marriage.
Friends with benefits? Concubinage.
Mistresses? Concubinage.
Boinking the babysitter? Concubinage.
And quite frankly new plurals in a family are often going to be concubines in practice if not in fact.
Marriage can arise out of concubinage, certainly. But plenty of FWB, mistresses, and proverbial babysitters end up cast aside when the man chooses his existing wife and marriage over the other woman. She is not a wife and will not have the benefits of marriage.
She's a concubine.
Seriously, women in the West are very rarely sold by their fathers to their husbands.
However, I would say that arranged relationships (defacto marriages) are occurring with greater frequency but it is men and women arranging these things via dating sites and things like that instead of the more traditional way of getting to know people you often encounter.
IMHO concubinage in the modern sense takes place anytime there is a sexual relationship that isn't a complete marriage.
Friends with benefits? Concubinage.
Mistresses? Concubinage.
Boinking the babysitter? Concubinage.
And quite frankly new plurals in a family are often going to be concubines in practice if not in fact.
Marriage can arise out of concubinage, certainly. But plenty of FWB, mistresses, and proverbial babysitters end up cast aside when the man chooses his existing wife and marriage over the other woman. She is not a wife and will not have the benefits of marriage.
She's a concubine.
With a concubine - she is still the wife of her (shared) husband. She can not sleep around with other men - as it would be adultery. The husband guarantees her food, shelter, and clothing for life. Also, the children are taken care of. From my understanding - the only difference between a concubine wife and a wife - is that the concubine doesn’t have access to an inheritance. But that doesn’t mean that the husband can not choose to give the wife or children an inheritance.
I guess a similar thing today - if a husband wants to have multiple wives - only one wife can be legally set up with the state. If he is married to more than one wife - with the state government - he’s breaking the law. So, legally speaking, if the husband dies only the wife that’s legally married to him has access over the inheritance. However, that does not mean the husband can not set up the other wives with an inheritance - one way or another.
I guess a similar thing today - if a husband wants to have multiple wives - only one wife can be legally set up with the state. If he is married to more than one wife - with the state government - he’s breaking the law. So, legally speaking, if the husband dies only the wife that’s legally married to him has access over the inheritance. However, that does not mean the husband can not set up the other wives with an inheritance - one way or another.
Though I understand both positions, I would actually say that it is not just for those that are bought and it is more than a guideline because when we read Isaiah 4:1 the daughters of Zion from chapter 3 use the same criteria and they are not bought, they are giving themselves to a man. So, it seems to be an expected standard of some sort.
Indeed, that is the understood position of those who see it as a 'minimum standard' for marriage (and a ketubah) upon which other elements may be voluntarily added.
The ancient logic (embraced frequently by Paul, among many) is, "if this is so, how much more..."
Sometimes called 'the heavy and the light' - it amounts to:
if this is the standard for a wife who is NOT FREE, then HOW MUCH MORE SO for one who chooses the union?
I don't intend to debate this with @MeganC, I understand her position as it is how she genuinely felt about her own marriage. However, for the sake of other readers, I just want to point out that the idea of a sexual relationship not being "a complete marriage" depends on having a clear definition of what a "complete marriage" is. And if that definition includes things like government paperwork, vows or whatever, then it's not a Biblical definition. So I think that Megan's way of looking at things may be a hepful way to think about it loosely, but it falls apart if inspected in too much detail. It's not where to start when building a technical, theological definition of concubine, but may be emotionally helpful for someone when considering their own life. It has a place.
Last edited:
Just to retain my sanity this close to a retreat I’m not going to engage all the lunacy that just got spouted from otherwise trusted and valuable people.
I will just repeat for the umpteenth time, only God gets to define these things. Only God’s commands and instructions are relevant. If you have to fill in a blank or make an assumption then you are far in to the weeds UNLESS you clearly identify your statements as general guidelines that you find useful for actually helping you obey the letter of the law.
The letter of the law is the starting point though and is the constraining force. Anything we say has to fit inside the letter of the law (New and Old).
I will just repeat for the umpteenth time, only God gets to define these things. Only God’s commands and instructions are relevant. If you have to fill in a blank or make an assumption then you are far in to the weeds UNLESS you clearly identify your statements as general guidelines that you find useful for actually helping you obey the letter of the law.
The letter of the law is the starting point though and is the constraining force. Anything we say has to fit inside the letter of the law (New and Old).
Can you find me one scripture that ties concubines to inheritance or gives “wives” some extra right of inheritance. Let me save you some time, no you can not.
I am late in replying to this, but here are my findings with regards to fornication: the Greek word for fornication is "porneia", and it includes any kind of immoral sexuality. Now this is a broad term but unfortunately it I used too broadly today. It does not include "sex before marriage", there is actually no law against this is the Bible. It does include adultery, harlotry, some forms of incest (we know certain forms were permitted), and idolatry. Now, harlotry is interesting as there are various words relating to this word in the Greek and Hebrew. The two main words I've usually seen are "qedeshah" and "zanah". From what I've gathered, the former means "temple devotee" and the latter simply a "harlot/prostitute". And from my understanding, generally when Paul and others speak against fornication, they are speaking against "qedeshah" or temple prostitutes. Why? Because sexual acts with these temple devotees were a form of worship to other "gods"; it was idolatry. Now, when I've seen "zanah" used in the Old Testament, it's not always negative. For example, a non-negative use is in Judges 16:1 where Sampson sleeps with a "zanah". I say non-negative because we do not see condemnation for this act. Whether it is positive or not is up to one's own view of regular prostitution. So, coming back to concubinage being fornication; it cannot be. Fornication is either idolatry or theft within the sexual sphere.
I would like to end by stating that these are my findings. I always am open to correction if someone has found new information regarding the hermeneutics of Biblical texts. Thus, please do your own research, don't take my word for it.
With peace and love
I would like to end by stating that these are my findings. I always am open to correction if someone has found new information regarding the hermeneutics of Biblical texts. Thus, please do your own research, don't take my word for it.
With peace and love
*it is used too broadly