Meat Virgins or bridesmaids

[rockfox]

That is not a dowry, a dowry is paid by a girl’s family to her prospective husband. A bride price is paid by the groom to the bride’s family. A dowry doesn’t show up anywhere that I’m aware of.

And an interest in concubines is not an interest in Biblical marriage because the Bible does not prescribe it or define it or regulate it. You are going outside the Bible; Talmud, Code of Hammurabi, crazy speculation, to try and fill in the blanks that are a clear sign that this is not from God.

The Bible does not prohibit it and many godly men engaged in it. Therefor I can not call it unbiblical. Besides, the Bible does not contain a dictionary; your logic could apply to any number of words used.

That is not a dowry, a dowry is paid by a girl’s family to her prospective husband. A bride price is paid by the groom to the bride’s family.

The translation I read said dowry (and the concepts are related) so I got sloppy, you are right it speaks of bride-price. But the point is still the same either way. God in the law expected that men are paying money to father for virgins to marry even though no where in the law is that proscribed or regulated.

 

[The Revolting Man]

But the problem is that concubines are clearly in scripture, just undefined.
What you are doing is legislating against a Biblical reality simply because it isn’t defined.

But again, all kinds of things are mentioned in scripture. Homosexuality, murder, mass circumcisions as a tactic in achieving revenge fueled genocide. A mention in scripture doesn’t mean it’s behavior God endorses. We certainly can’t find it in the New Testament anywhere, even in the implied ways we find poly.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The Bible does not prohibit it and many godly men engaged in it. Therefor I can not call it unbiblical. Besides, the Bible does not contain a dictionary; your logic could apply to any number of words used.



The translation I read said dowry (and the concepts are related) so I got sloppy, you are right it speaks of bride-price. But the point is still the same either way. God in the law expected that men are paying money to father for virgins to marry even though no where in the law is that proscribed or regulated.

God holds men who seduce virgins liable for the bride price, that passage has no broader implication past that.

Look as long as you don’t think you can treat your “concubine” any differently than your “wife” it’s fine.

 

[Pacman]

But again, all kinds of things are mentioned in scripture. Homosexuality, murder, mass circumcisions as a tactic in achieving revenge fueled genocide. A mention in scripture doesn’t mean it’s behavior God endorses. We certainly can’t find it in the New Testament anywhere, even in the implied ways we find poly.

One major difference between concubinage and the examples you gave is that concubinage is never forbidden or spoken ill of in any way. If it's not forbidden by YHWH we should not forbid it. The fact is there is a different word used throughout the Tanakh when referring to these ladies. The details of why they are called by that title is in question and should be left to the men involved to decide. But there is no prohibition or even principle in Scripture against having two different classifications for your women, and there may be circumstances where that structure will work the best within a man's household.

 

[Pacman]

Look as long as you don’t think you can treat your “concubine” any differently than your “wife” it’s fine.

Not sure I agree with this. People are treated differently than others many places throughout the scriptures. Why is this your standard?

 

[steve]

Zec, you have no use or the need for any theory of concubineage, so you reject it for everyone.

Meanwhile, out here in Realityville I have lived it.
One in which I gave a woman the chance to be a wife without making a commitment to her that I suspected that she would probably break.
The reason that I had the wisdom to take her as a concubine instead of a full o holds barred wife was because of my previous experience with a wife who turned out to have been a concubine from the get-go. She came into the marriage with a spirit of unbelief and “knew” that it was temporary. Despite het vows.

Come on down from your theory high-horse and let’s deal with reality.

 

[steve]

And Zec, your argument is pretty weak when you have to compare it to two things that are expressly forbidden and one that was a single occurrence.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Exodus 22:16 & 17

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins

That is not a dowry,

You are correct here. This English word “dowry” is the Hebrew mohar or mahar which means a bride price in definition and context.

a dowry is paid by a girl’s family to her prospective husband.

This is incorrect. A dowry is the daughters portion of her fathers inheritance and is entrusted to the daughter.

A dowry doesn’t show up anywhere that I’m aware of.

Joshua 15: 18,19 would be an instance of a “dowry” inheritance given directly to the betrothed/married daughter

Also 1 Kings 9:16 and Exodus 18:2. Pharoah gives his daughter cities as a dowry and Moses sends his wife home with her dowry.

This does not legislate giving a dowry, but does give examples of dowry’s as being to the daughter, not the son in law

 

[Slumberfreeze]

So.... am I getting that... you basically can't have a virgin as a concubine, because the law says that if you sleep with her you have to marry her unless the father says you can't have her at all.
And since the law also says that a woman who becomes married and is found not to be a virgin must be stoned, does that mean that according to the law marriages are for virgins, and any woman not a virgin could only be a concubine?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Not sure I agree with this. People are treated differently than others many places throughout the scriptures. Why is this your standard?

And here is the danger. If you are made one flesh with a “concubine” then you can not send her away except for sexual immorality. She is in all ways a wife. When we make this category of concubine we are enabling someone to say “Oh she’s just a concubine. I can cut her loose if need be.” That man is then barred from taking anymore wives and anyone who takes up with that former “concubine” is now an adulterer. Because “marriage” is so important to God and because there appears to be no practical distinction between a concubine and a “wife” I think the concept is very dangerous.

 

[FollowingHim]

And here is the danger. If you are made one flesh with a “concubine” then you can not send her away except for sexual immorality. She is in all ways a wife. When we make this category of concubine we are enabling someone to say “Oh she’s just a concubine. I can cut her loose if need be.” That man is then barred from taking anymore wives and anyone who takes up with that former “concubine” is now an adulterer. Because “marriage” is so important to God and because there appears to be no practical distinction between a concubine and a “wife” I think the concept is very dangerous.

That depends what you think "treat her differently" actually means. If this means "assume you can divorce her even where scripture forbids it", then yes, I agree with you, that's dangerous.

However, if "treat her differently" means that "wife" of 20 years whom you're confident will stick around (and who has many children) owns half the house and will inherit all if you die, while "concubine" whom you don't trust as much given her background and has no children yet is specifically excluded from major assets by legal protections just in case she does a runner - that is different treatment but may be very fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Most of the difference I see in scripture is regarding inheritance, and this sort of difference would be completely consistent with that and understandable in real-world practical terms. I think we'd all have no problem with it - the issue seems to be only when people apply the term "concubine" to such an arrangement.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And Zec, your argument is pretty weak when you have to compare it to two things that are expressly forbidden and one that was a single occurrence.

You are of course right. I should have used something neutral like chariots or sheep.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, you have no use or the need for any theory of concubineage, so you reject it for everyone.

Meanwhile, out here in Realityville I have lived it.
One in which I gave a woman the chance to be a wife without making a commitment to her that I suspected that she would probably break.
The reason that I had the wisdom to take her as a concubine instead of a full o holds barred wife was because of my previous experience with a wife who turned out to have been a concubine from the get-go. She came into the marriage with a spirit of unbelief and “knew” that it was temporary. Despite het vows.

Come on down from your theory high-horse and let’s deal with reality.

And since you’re man enough to take it I would ask why you would take such a woman at all? Why would you lie with a woman if she is not willing to be fully submitted?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Exodus 22:16 & 17

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins

You are correct here. This English word “dowry” is the Hebrew mohar or mahar which means a bride price in definition and context.


This is incorrect. A dowry is the daughters portion of her fathers inheritance and is entrusted to the daughter.


Joshua 15: 18,19 would be an instance of a “dowry” inheritance given directly to the betrothed/married daughter

Also 1 Kings 9:16 and Exodus 18:2. Pharoah gives his daughter cities as a dowry and Moses sends his wife home with her dowry.

This does not legislate giving a dowry, but does give examples of dowry’s as being to the daughter, not the son in law

The dowry in later culture was deliverable on marriage and was the husband’s as was (is) everything about his wife. In some instance it was recoverable in case of divorce or something similar.

 

[FollowingHim]

Joshua 15: 18,19 would be an instance of a “dowry” inheritance given directly to the betrothed/married daughter

Also 1 Kings 9:16 and Exodus 18:2. Pharoah gives his daughter cities as a dowry and Moses sends his wife home with her dowry.

The book of Tobit also includes a dowry - Sara comes with half her father's wealth when she marries Tobias, with the remainder promised upon her parents deaths. She was an only child.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The dowry in later culture was deliverable on marriage and was the husband’s as was (is) everything about his wife. In some instance it was recoverable in case of divorce or something similar.

Based upon . . .?

 

[Pacman]

And here is the danger. If you are made one flesh with a “concubine” then you can not send her away except for sexual immorality. She is in all ways a wife. When we make this category of concubine we are enabling someone to say “Oh she’s just a concubine. I can cut her loose if need be.” That man is then barred from taking anymore wives and anyone who takes up with that former “concubine” is now an adulterer. Because “marriage” is so important to God and because there appears to be no practical distinction between a concubine and a “wife” I think the concept is very dangerous.

I do not support divorcing her unjustly. That's not the only way a man can "treat her differently"

 

[The Revolting Man]

I do not support divorcing her unjustly. That's not the only way a man can "treat her differently"

And so here we come full circle, what the hell, if any, difference is there between a “wife” and a “concubine”? It seems like they’re both women who have been mastered by a man and have the same obligations and expectation (they won’t be unlawfully put away) as the other. So the question(s) becomes, is it important to you to cut some of your children out of your will and can you even justify that by the Law? Because that seems to be the only even speculative idea anyone can give me.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Based upon . . .?

We’re requiring proof for our extra-biblical sources now?

 

[FollowingHim]

And so here we come full circle, what the hell, if any, difference is there between a “wife” and a “concubine”? It seems like they’re both women who have been mastered by a man and have the same obligations and expectation (they won’t be unlawfully put away) as the other. So the question(s) becomes, is it important to you to cut some of your children out of your will and can you even justify that by the Law? Because that seems to be the only even speculative idea anyone can give me.

I presented this scenario, that is not just about the inheritance of children (although it may affect them), and has a potentially valid reason behind it. What are your thoughts on this scenario?

However, if "treat her differently" means that "wife" of 20 years whom you're confident will stick around (and who has many children) owns half the house and will inherit all if you die, while "concubine" whom you don't trust as much given her background and has no children yet is specifically excluded from major assets by legal protections just in case she does a runner - that is different treatment but may be very fair and reasonable in the circumstances.