-
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.
“Mark’s” concubine?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
I can't decide. Does this testify to the wisdom of that approach.... how much more drug out and messier would it have been if they went full no-end marriage. Or does it testify to the folly... easy come easy go, no commitment, no desire to work out differences and no desire to mold herself to his desires.
Good question.
In this day and age I am kinda drawn to finding out if it is a fit. We cannot ascertain from the community who each other is as easily as it was done in ancient days. It is easy to understand why both males and females nowadays are afraid to risk making a lifelong commitment, only to find that it wasn’t what they had anticipated.
IMO a limited contact “concubinage/pilegash” (among adults) where she has opportunity to be a potential part of the family for a set period of time to determine compatibility could be a great way to check every one out on all sides. If it was stipulated that there would be no sexual interaction (and abided by) until after witnessed vows were exchanged, I see nothing but upside for all parties.
I think I can agree to this... call it a very hardcore reality check, but many potential stumbling blocks should get exposed.
So, roommates?
If there's no then why the need for a contract? That would just be an intenser level of dating. There's no need to make it more than that.
Contact. Not contract.
Sorry. I flashbacked to older, slightly related threads.
IMO there are usually going to be issues that two people don't see eye to eye on. In a situation like this it gives each person the opportunity to see how the other handles conflict and resolution. Is this something where compromise can be had or is it a deal breaker. However just one issue, one disagreement shouldn't be an end all.
I don't know the details of your friend Marks relationship so this may not apply but sometimes we all need our "other person" to not give up but be lovingly persistent.
We are all coming out of this world and so few of us come without insecurities or baggage.
Anyway that all
I don't know the details of your friend Marks relationship so this may not apply but sometimes we all need our "other person" to not give up but be lovingly persistent.
We are all coming out of this world and so few of us come without insecurities or baggage.
Anyway that all
Well said.
I am going to be bold here and say that I would still consider a one year concubine marriage with full benefits if that was what the woman felt that she needed.
The sad possibility of a woman staying single because of what she has seen and experienced and not being able to trust deeply enough to commit to a forever agreement is heartbreaking.
Being roommates may be actually torturous for that woman, while another woman might rather just be roommates forever and thus part of the family in that way.
The sad possibility of a woman staying single because of what she has seen and experienced and not being able to trust deeply enough to commit to a forever agreement is heartbreaking.
Being roommates may be actually torturous for that woman, while another woman might rather just be roommates forever and thus part of the family in that way.
You've got a tender heart underneath your crusty core. Most would not see it from her side of the pain and struggle of not being able to trust deeply. I can't imagine giving a whole year of my life living in close proximity in order to see if it could work to ditch it all and walk away. This has been an interesting thread @steve. I feel like I've learned a lot. Thanks.
Last edited:
@rejoicinghandmaid I agree
@steve thank you for sharing your friends journey with us it has been a lesson and given us a lot to think about
@steve thank you for sharing your friends journey with us it has been a lesson and given us a lot to think about
I want to thank everyone for the positive response to my reporting of this situation.
I have long felt that we need to re-dig the old wells that YHWH has for marriage in the past.
Sometimes it seems so much easier to just accept the monogamy-only standard plus one or two or.... just ignoring the complications of concubines, who needs that when we can keep it cut and dried? Besides, don’t we already get enough flak from the monomaniacs without making it worse by adding in an antiquated marriage model?
But I feel that the complexities of people’s lives nowadays makes the option of a more customizable relationship maybe even more important than it was in ancient history.
Simple might be easier to manage, but at what cost?
Who does it eliminate from being in a positive relationship?
I have long felt that we need to re-dig the old wells that YHWH has for marriage in the past.
Sometimes it seems so much easier to just accept the monogamy-only standard plus one or two or.... just ignoring the complications of concubines, who needs that when we can keep it cut and dried? Besides, don’t we already get enough flak from the monomaniacs without making it worse by adding in an antiquated marriage model?
But I feel that the complexities of people’s lives nowadays makes the option of a more customizable relationship maybe even more important than it was in ancient history.
Simple might be easier to manage, but at what cost?
Who does it eliminate from being in a positive relationship?
I'd love to hear more thoughts on this. Looking at history I never got the impression of concubinage as a temporary or time limited thing. But then I can also see examples of them leaving or being sent away.
We've talked a lot about concubinage here in the last year, but the time aspect is something everyone stayed away from.
In this particular situation, the time aspect did become the focal point. It was the part of concubineage that became the basis for there even being a possibility of a marriage, without it there couldn’t have been a trial run.
In the normal pattern of relationships I see concubineage as giving a woman more independence, if that is what she needs. We see this in Isaiah 4:1, I believe. With that independence comes the responsibility of providing for themselves.
(I have long believed that the seven women are attaching themselves to a proven family with a proven leader who is pretty maxed out providing for 2 or more wives, thus the “we will provide for ourselves “)
In the normal pattern of relationships I see concubineage as giving a woman more independence, if that is what she needs. We see this in Isaiah 4:1, I believe. With that independence comes the responsibility of providing for themselves.
(I have long believed that the seven women are attaching themselves to a proven family with a proven leader who is pretty maxed out providing for 2 or more wives, thus the “we will provide for ourselves “)
I definitely understand this as being a possibility. But I have a feeling the details of it will be as varied as the number of patriarchs involved... for instance a wife is often perfectly capable of earning enough income to support herself. That particular portion of the prophesy doesn’t mean it’s not wives... but obviously it’s just as possible in a lot of cases those women will not be wives... The statement is vague enough to easily include both options as well as everything in between...
For sure it will be varied, that is why I included “customizable” in the previous post.
I don’t know how else to make this distinction, so I am going with “full wife” as opposed to concubine.
A concubine IS a wife, but not quite as much as a full wife is. I believe that YHWH wants all wives to be full wives, it just doesn’t seem possible in all situations. So a middle ground as opposed to an all-or-nothing mentality is what I see.
Sure, many full wives could support themselves independently, but should they?
Are the women in the prophecy wives? I think that they clearly are offering to make themselves his women. I see no other point in them asking for his name.