Now there is an interesting thought. I don't know if it bears out, but I've heard of distinctions between wives and covenant wives before.
-
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.
Not in the market, but...
- Thread starter Shadowjak's Dancer
- Start date
This is my understanding also. The amounts of the bride price varied initially based upon the wealth of the man or family. Later it was standardized to 200 Zuz (Ive heard it is about 100 lbs of silver but that seems high and I havent been able to corroborate). Biblically it was about 50 shekels for a virgin and half that for a non virgin or widow.
This is interesting, can you explain further?
Just speaking for our family I met my sw online and IRL for coffee like three times before I ever met the man who would be my husband. And when I was just looking and curious I tended to respond more if it was a woman contacting me instead of a man.
On the one hand, I have heard it argued that in instances of polygamy in Scripture, only one of the wives is designated as the Eyshet. Proponents of this distinction claim that the letter Tav on the end of the word indicates a covenental sign. I have not verified this independently.
Alternately, one view has suggested something along the lines akin to what was suggested in a post above, namely someone for whom the Virgin brideprice was paid. In this view, the taking of virginity is part of establishing a special covenant in that when virginity is taken, and the hymen is broken, there is blood. It has been speculated that this is the blood of the covenant of marriage. Thus, according to that view, a virgin wife is a specially covenanted wife, whereas a non-virgin wife is still a one-flesh wife, but not a "blood of the covenant of marriage wife". Like the former view, I haven't studied this enough to give an educated opinion, or even flesh out the variations to the general ideas broadly covered here.
So, while we have discussed around the topic, I see no one has actually stepped forward among the women to assert that they were keen on being someone's Concubine. I find that interesting as it seems as though lots of women operate thus functionally. Or at least thats the idea I get from society.
There's a non-trivial argument that in western society today, ANY plural wives (after the first 'legal' wife) are de facto concubines, regardless of what we call them among ourselves. They do not have the same legal protection or social recognition as monogamous or 'first' wives, and that's that. I think we just stay off the terminology because within our community we see it differently. Context is everything....
That's a very interesting perspective, Andrew.