Concubinage vs marriage

[FollowingHim2]

A few comments regarding concubinage vs marriage were made in another thread and I thought it was best to start a new thread to have that discussion. It is something I am keen to learn more on so would appreciate people's input.

Firstly: by Isabella

I am quite concerned by the trend towards people thinking they are doing PM, but it is really closer to concubinage than marriage.

Secondly: by Hugh McBryde

If you compare most of what we call marriages today, to what was seen as marriage in the Bible, they're concubinage, not marital relationships.

Would you both like to expand your comments to explain more what you mean please.

Thank you.

 

[Isabella]

Gladly Sarah, my reasoning is probably a little different from Hugh's but it is certainly a certain mindset I observed.

It is often when the wife is instigating and taking the lead in seeking out Polygamy. She often tends to work with a 2+1 mindset, she is usually after a woman who fulfils a certain role towards 'her' that takes precedence over this other woman's role as a wife. Whereas men who are looking for another wife, tend to look for a wife for himself who will also compliment the family.
I feel the 2+1 structure immediately puts the second wife at a disadvantage, gives the first wife authority over the second and means that the second wife's status as a wife is completely at the bidding of the first wife and will only last as long as the first wife wishes it. The husband has no authority in this situation either and it is more likely he will bend to the will of his first wife with regards to letting go of the second wife, if the first wife doesn't receive what she wants from the new person in the relationship.

Sounds like a Concubine or even worst, a Handmaid to me......

Bels

 

[CecilW]

Splendid observation, Bels!

 

[Isabella]

Thank you Cecil

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Handmaids (Hagar, Zilphah, Bilhah) were often made into concubines. In these cases the wives (Sarah, Rachel and Leah) owned the girls and could designate them as a sort of "womb annex." This concept is ratified by God who recognizes the children of Zilphah and Bilhah as children of Rachel and Leah.

Apparently, this was a condition needing the ratification of the husband and/or wife owning the handmaid (see Ishmael).

What distinguishes a marriage in Biblical terms is different than what we tend to call marriage. Casting off for the moment a woman's second marriage, or widowhood or divorce, we are left with certain elements of marriage in the Old Testament.

Permission of the parents/father or mother in the case of at least the bride. Discussions of the groom are more complex.

A dowry, which apparently went with the bride to her new home.

A bride price, paid by the groom's family to the bride's family.

The mutual agreement of the contracting parties (usually the parents) then formed the basis for what we referred to as marriage.

Abraham's children by his concubines (Hagar & Keturah) are given gifts and sent away. Children of marriage inherit. We find the same pattern in David's household.

Children of concubines are shown to go with their mothers in cases of separation.

Children of marriage stay with their father.

Based on these things then, what would you say the majority of our "marriages" look like?

 

[FollowingHim2]

Thank you both for your responses. You're both right, and have certainly made me think about things in more depth.

 

[sharonr]

Isabelle, well said! I'm observing myself and don't want to be a first wife like that. I want to trust my husband in his decision making for a first wife, at last its his wife, and he knows best, for this family.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

The structure of the Biblical narrative about the three women we know started out as "handmaids" and ended up wives is this:

Two out of the three were given to wives by their father.

Genesis 29:24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid.

Genesis 29:29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid."

We now have handmaids shown as being part of the dowry of the bride and thus property of the bride. Since we know they belong to the bride, this would provide a basis for them being treated as an extension of that bride's womb, for God does indeed ratify these children as children of Rachel and Leah through their inheritances later in Israel and by naming them as children of Rachel and Leah.

Moving on to Hagar, we know she is an Egyptian from Genesis 16:

Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar."

In all cases the original word is the same, the meaning having been established by the relationship of Hagar to Sarai, it's the Hebrew שִׁפְחָה (shiphchah [shif·khä']).

It is this woman who is in the power of her mistress, not the concubines (in general) of the man/husband. We know that Sarai has power over her handmaid when she sends that woman away with her son who she also disavows in the process. It is most probable that Hagar came into Sarai's possession as a gift of Pharaoh when he sent her out from his house after mistaking her for an eligible bride (Genesis 12).

From study, a concubine is a woman sold into slavery who then becomes the possession, absent any other covenant, of the man to whom she is sold. From Genesis 25 we know that Hagar was classed as a concubine, but also as a "Handmaiden" or שִׁפְחָה (shiphchah [shif·khä']). Hagar, Zilpah and Bilhah are all concubines and handmaidens. The handmaid of a wife was the one who was under the command and authority of that wife, not the other concubines of a man.

 

[steve]

while it can be proven that slaves who were taken as wives are concubines, i do not think that it can be proven that all concubines had once been slaves or handmaidens.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I think if we want to be honest about scripture and what it says Steve, essentially all wives are a slave of some variety. As nearly as I can figure out a concubine was a woman who had been sold but came to her husband as a wife (remember the Hebrew word for "wife" is identical to that of "woman") without a dowry. Wives of marriage came with a trousseau (which means among other things "dowry") which also included many times a maid servant or two.

A slave to a slave.

Think of a marriage wife as a "house slave."

A concubine's child had no inheritance rights of any consequence. Their children's future was as a slave or day laborer. They received no lands in the estate of their "Lord" or father. Research has led me to believe that the mother of Jephthah was a "אשה 'ishshah / זנה zanah." The first word is the same as wife or woman, the second a modifier that says she had been unfaithful or "played the harlot." This corresponds with the penalty of a seduced virgin whose father refused her to her seducer and got in the place of a husband for his daughter, a price equivalent to the bride price. One would assume from the passage about Jephthat that such women were commonly (or almost always) then sold as concubines. I would note that Jephthah's brothers flatly refused him a place in his father's inheritance, stating that his mother was a "אשה 'ishshah / זנה zanah." Thus concubines came from poverty (not being able to pay a dowry) or misbehavior (playing the harlot, this is slightly speculative).

For those that would bridle at my use of the term "slave," I would refer them to scripture:

Genesis 18:12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"

The Hebrew "אָדוֹן ('adown)" means "Master" or "King." The Apostle Peter later doubles down on this saying it was proper, intentional and an example in 1st Peter 3:6:

Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement."

The Greek word here is "κύριος" which means "to possess, decide, Prince, King."

I'd understand if Bels bucked this assessment as wrong, but the rest of you claiming Christianity would have to go with what Peter is just shown to believe, since he was writing scripture for our instruction in the LORD.

 

[Isabella]

I'd understand if Bels bucked this assessment as wrong, but the rest of you claiming Christianity would have to go with what Peter is just shown to believe, since he was writing scripture for our instruction in the LORD.

Please don't bring me into your conversation.

B

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I always appreciate your polite tolerance Bels. Please don't take as a slap something I meant as a tip of my hat. You don't seem to get that I respect your position, I just don't accept it.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think if we want to be honest about scripture and what it says Steve, essentially all wives are a slave of some variety...

The term "slave" is not a good one to apply to a wife in our culture, because of the connotations of that word in our society. The word "slave" conjures up images of shackles, whips, and cotton plantations, which isn't at all what you are meaning by it.

A Christian wife is under the authority of her husband. But he must use this authority in an extremely loving manner, being willing to even die to protect her - we will agree on this, I write it for the benefit of other readers. This is an entirely different relationship to that which most people will think of with the word "slave".

So I agree with what you are actually meaning, but I think we need to be careful with the terminology here, to minimise the possibility of someone misunderstanding the intent of a statement and thinking polygamists must be wife-beating slave-drivers...

The line between concubine and wife is very blurry. Basically, each is a woman with a formally understood relationship with a man. The key thing to remember is that in each case, the man was referred to as her husband, and was bound by all the biblical commands around loving and providing for her etc. Likewise, the commands to obey her husband apply to both a wife and a concubine.

A wife must obey her husband just as any employee must obey their superior. We can use the term "slave" to describe this, but I think it has the potential to be more harmful than helpful.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

The term 'slave' is not a good one to apply to a wife in our culture, because of the connotations of that word in our society. The word 'slave' conjures up images of shackles, whips, and cotton plantations, which isn't at all what you are meaning by it."

I agree that slavery conjures up a host of secondary meanings in the minds of most. In scripture, it described a spectrum of relationships.

As with most things, I may be right, I may be wrong, but I haven't said this casually. Nehemiah 9:36:

Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that you gave to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts, behold, we are slaves."

The threshold for describing someone as a slave was a lot lower than we set today. The mere payment of tribute or property tax made you a slave in the eyes of an Israelite. Genesis 47:19:

Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh. And give us seed that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate."

The word Nehemiah uses to describe him and his people as slaves, is the same word as used by the Egyptians who sold themselves into service to Pharaoh. They're slaves. In the prior verse they call Pharaoh the same thing Sarah called Abraham; "אדון 'adown."

So, while the word may not be appealing in our eyes, I would acknowledge that I am a slave to this country, and if you pay property tax (the thing instituted in what then became feudal Egypt), you're a slave too. God intended that women know their husbands were their masters, just as we are to know the rulers we serve, are our masters as well, and the rulers we serve in a church, also rule over us.

In short I meant to use the word and chose it deliberately.

 

[captainjonathan]

WOW!!!! This topic went a LOT farther than I thought it would, and as always when I read here, I am learning. Bels, your response was spot on. I have always struggled with the full understanding of the difference between the two and wanted to find the truth and what God's word said in it original language and intent. I thank all of the people who have studied the original language and apply it.

THANK YOU

 

[sola scriptura]

Scripture uses the phrases "purchased possession" and "bondslave of Christ", so I think we should, too. He who defines the terms wins the argument. Letting society define terms by their (false) standards does neither us nor them any good. Hold fast to that which is good. If scripture says it in a positive way, then it must be good!

Katie

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Kinda my point there Katie

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Here's another way to view the whole issue of slavery or servitude. A bit of a preamble to set the table: Many of the great truths of the Bible (The WORD of God, which ranks right up there with his NAME), are found by what IS NOT THERE.

For instance:

Nowhere in scripture can you find jail or prison sentences in the Law of God. This is a fact missed by most of us in a reading of scripture. In fact all through scripture, up to and through the New Testament, the nearly universal perception of the WORD is that prison or jail is a horror. In places it is equated with Hell itself.

Nowhere in scripture can you find marriage performed in a church, temple or synagogue or presided over by a civil official or religious one.

Think about that for a while, and realize the following:

Rights are given only to SLAVES in scripture. The more free the society, the greater the potential cost to the individual in it, but they are said in scripture, prior to the imposition of civil government, to do whatever was "right, in their own eyes." That's pretty free. Rights are sanctions against those persons who have POWER over you.

If, as Katie says, we are defining things as opposed to having things defined for us (a loser's position), shouldn't we realize what we are?