• 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.

Meat Concubines and Slavery

TheSeeker

Member
Right, I've put the MEAT prefix on this one as it might strike a nerve for some.

And yes, it may have been discussed before, I know.

But I wanted to discuss slavery. Particularly Biblical slavery, but not indentured slavery which was only one form of slavery in the Bible.

We know that slavery in ancient Jewish culture was highly regulated. Slaves owned by Jewish people had quite a few rights protecting them from abuse and mistreatment. This is already a stark contrast with other forms of slavery at the time and even more modern slavery.

Now, Hebrew men were allowed to take female slaves after a war as many women of the enemy's side would have been left widowed. This, I understand, was to protect the women as they would have fallen into disrepute if no man took them. Many of these men may have already been married so this again would have been a situation where polygamous marriages would have occurred by the taking of these slaves. This is intertwined with concubinage, although not exactly the same.

One might think this is useless to mention as we live in modern times, but not all places are "modern". Many areas, especially in the east, still practice similar forms of slavery, some forms malicious and some more benign.
Now I would like to pose the question, albeit hypothetical in many ways, does anyone here think that this system may still be relevant today for Christians? Or does anyone think otherwise? Please know, I am not going to judge either reply. If there's one thing I've learned about the Bible is that it's neither left nor right about these issues, and some things we agree with today, the Bible may not agree with, and vice versa.

For those that are accepting of this practice, your motivations are either to care for the woman or to have her to satisfy desires. Again, either or both are fine, hence concubinage being accepted on a similar basis. To the women in such marriages, how would you feel if your husband took a wife under such circumstances?

Furthermore, if such a patriarchal system was instituted again, does one not think it would help the rampant problem of prostitution in war-torn places? Given slavery is usually negative across cultures and times, I don't think this would ever be instituted again. But I do think it's interesting to view our modern world in the lense of the old and perhaps see how the ancients may have solved these problems.

I humbly ask that if you're here to judge me or tell me that this has already been discussed, then please don't comment here. I've opened this for those who want to talk about it, not those who don't want to.

With peace and love
 
You're certainly hitting all the most controversial topics possible @TheSeeker! What's next on your list after we've dealt with slave wives? :)
Furthermore, if such a patriarchal system was instituted again, does one not think it would help the rampant problem of prostitution in war-torn places?
The whole point of the system was to protect women by discouraging rape. Rape is common practice in war - young man has been fighting for his life, seen his mates die beside him, doesn't know whether he'll be alive tomorrow, takes over a town and sees an attractive woman, he's amped up on adrenaline and with all this death around him just wants to experience life... So he rapes her. I'm not excusing him at all, that's a heinous crime, I'm just outlining why rape has always been associated with war and always will be (Hamas fighters were raping Jewish women just a month ago).

Just telling the soldiers "no, don't touch the women" won't work. Firstly, they'll probably just ignore the law, because it goes directly against their natural instinct. And if they can't have the women, there's no reason to keep them alive. This won't work.

Scripture takes a very pragmatic approach, and says "yes, you can have that woman. BUT you aren't allowed to sleep with her yet. Don't worry, she's yours, feel free to capture her, but don't sleep with her. Take her home and have her live in your house for a month. If you still want her then you can have her." This does not deny the man what he is wanting, it actually says he can have her - which means he's likely to actually obey this law not ignore it. What is more, he will protect her from harm - she is his prize, so he'll keep her alive. However, it forces him to wait until he is well past that moment of high adrenaline, wait until he's calm and thinking clearly - and so is she. Wait until he's lived with her for a few weeks and seen her as a person, not just an object of lust. Also wait until she has had a chance to process the fact that her family is dead, and think about what she wants for the next step of her life (if she doesn't want to be with him, she can easily behave in a way that will ensure he dislikes her and decides to let her go, while if she assesses her options and decides this is her best one she can easily persuade him to keep her - she really has a lot of agency in this situation even though it doesn't appear that way on the surface). Then make a calm, rational decision about what to do next.

To see this as negative is to completely misunderstand the harsh realities of war and human psychology. This is an incredibly wise approach to use, to take the lusts of an angry young soldier, prevent rape, and instead gently steer him around towards marriage.
 
You're certainly hitting all the most controversial topics possible @TheSeeker! What's next on your list after we've dealt with slave wives? :)

The whole point of the system was to protect women by discouraging rape. Rape is common practice in war - young man has been fighting for his life, seen his mates die beside him, doesn't know whether he'll be alive tomorrow, takes over a town and sees an attractive woman, he's amped up on adrenaline and with all this death around him just wants to experience life... So he rapes her. I'm not excusing him at all, that's a heinous crime, I'm just outlining why rape has always been associated with war and always will be (Hamas fighters were raping Jewish women just a month ago).

Just telling the soldiers "no, don't touch the women" won't work. Firstly, they'll probably just ignore the law, because it goes directly against their natural instinct. And if they can't have the women, there's no reason to keep them alive. This won't work.

Scripture takes a very pragmatic approach, and says "yes, you can have that woman. BUT you aren't allowed to sleep with her yet. Don't worry, she's yours, feel free to capture her, but don't sleep with her. Take her home and have her live in your house for a month. If you still want her then you can have her." This does not deny the man what he is wanting, it actually says he can have her - which means he's likely to actually obey this law not ignore it. What is more, he will protect her from harm - she is his prize, so he'll keep her alive. However, it forces him to wait until he is well past that moment of high adrenaline, wait until he's calm and thinking clearly - and so is she. Wait until he's lived with her for a few weeks and seen her as a person, not just an object of lust. Also wait until she has had a chance to process the fact that her family is dead, and think about what she wants for the next step of her life (if she doesn't want to be with him, she can easily behave in a way that will ensure he dislikes her and decides to let her go, while if she assesses her options and decides this is her best one she can easily persuade him to keep her - she really has a lot of agency in this situation even though it doesn't appear that way on the surface). Then make a calm, rational decision about what to do next.

To see this as negative is to completely misunderstand the harsh realities of war and human psychology. This is an incredibly wise approach to use, to take the lusts of an angry young soldier, prevent rape, and instead gently steer him around towards marriage.
Even I'm scared as to what's next, because i don't know ;)

You bring another element into the explanation of this, the steering of soldiers away from raping and the allowance of a mourning period, I forgot about that allowance.

Growing up, we only ever hear of slavery in the negative sense, but I thought it was high time we started teasing this apart some more too. I often wonder what the world would be like if we didn't let neo-con, liberal, or unbiblical conservativism dictate policy today. Maybe we as a human race could have saved a lot more people with such a method as is being discussed here.
 
Was the slave who was given the full protocol of having her head shaved and a month to mourn her family a full wife, or just a concubine?
The reason that I ask is that if the man decided that it wasn’t working out, he was not to treat her as a slave and sell her to someone else. He was required to set her free if he couldn’t make the marriage work.
In reality he was taking a chance in marrying her and elevating her above slavery, because if he just kept her as a slave he had every right to sell her at any point. And some believe that slaves were available for whatever the master *cough, cough* needed them for.

Hence the question, was she a wife in the full sense of the word, or just a concubine?
 
Was the slave who was given the full protocol of having her head shaved and a month to mourn her family a full wife, or just a concubine?
The reason that I ask is that if the man decided that it wasn’t working out, he was not to treat her as a slave and sell her to someone else. He was required to set her free if he couldn’t make the marriage work.
In reality he was taking a chance in marrying her and elevating her above slavery, because if he just kept her as a slave he had every right to sell her at any point. And some believe that slaves were available for whatever the master *cough, cough* needed them for.

Hence the question, was she a wife in the full sense of the word, or just a concubine?
I think she was just a concubine... I must study this part up again
 
Yes. Study concubines and find God’s definition of them. Look at all the laws surrounding them. I’d be interested in your conclusions.
And I'd still be curious to hear your take on the clause about the wife still being alive in Leviticus 18:18... maybe when you have a gap, we should have a private discussion
 
Hence the question, was she a wife in the full sense of the word, or just a concubine?
Yes - because a concubine is a wife in the full sense of the word! :-)

But you're right @steve that she was not a slave, she was required to be elevated above slavery and made a wife. Which is a point that I missed which further highlights how this whole passage elevates women, it does not denigrate them.
 
Yes - because a concubine is a wife in the full sense of the word! :)

But you're right @steve that she was not a slave, she was required to be elevated above slavery and made a wife. Which is a point that I missed which further highlights how this whole passage elevates women, it does not denigrate them.
If feminists really cared about women, they would not slam the patriarchy like they do, for the exact reason you mention above. I have not seen feminism come up with a better means of protection for women
 
And I'd still be curious to hear your take on the clause about the wife still being alive in Leviticus 18:18... maybe when you have a gap, we should have a private discussion
Read my response in the daughter thread. It's mostly a translation problem, which interferes with taking it in the context of being a dependent clause.
 
One might think this is useless to mention as we live in modern times, but not all places are "modern"...
And in a land of debt-bondage and people who have "traded essential liberty for temporary security", and where the IRS doesn't even let their slaves loose if they expatriate, much less after just seven years of bondage, and STILL charge over twice what Pharoah did (time of Josesph) of his slaves...

Many areas, especially in the east, still practice similar forms of slavery, some forms malicious and some more benign.
Now I would like to pose the question, albeit hypothetical in many ways, does anyone here think that this system may still be relevant today for Christians?
Yeah, this has been discussed, and not just the "war bride" part noted above.

It's relevant because most 'xtians' don't even know who they really serve, much less why Paul was right in Romans 6, "You are his slave to whom you submit yourselves servants to obey..."
BTW, I largely agree with most of Samuel's comments above re: the war bride, and related, and have a number of extensive teachings on-line. The parsha is called "Ki Tetzi," and includes Deuteronomy chapters 21-25, most recently here:

Likewise, "slavery" -- as opposed to the term I prefer for discernment -- the Hebrew version of "bondservice," is described in a number of places, most specifically the notable parsha "Mishpatim," which includes Exodus chapter 21:
 
Right, I've put the MEAT prefix on this one as it might strike a nerve for some.

And yes, it may have been discussed before, I know.

But I wanted to discuss slavery. Particularly Biblical slavery, but not indentured slavery which was only one form of slavery in the Bible.

We know that slavery in ancient Jewish culture was highly regulated. Slaves owned by Jewish people had quite a few rights protecting them from abuse and mistreatment. This is already a stark contrast with other forms of slavery at the time and even more modern slavery.

Now, Hebrew men were allowed to take female slaves after a war as many women of the enemy's side would have been left widowed. This, I understand, was to protect the women as they would have fallen into disrepute if no man took them. Many of these men may have already been married so this again would have been a situation where polygamous marriages would have occurred by the taking of these slaves. This is intertwined with concubinage, although not exactly the same.

One might think this is useless to mention as we live in modern times, but not all places are "modern". Many areas, especially in the east, still practice similar forms of slavery, some forms malicious and some more benign.
Now I would like to pose the question, albeit hypothetical in many ways, does anyone here think that this system may still be relevant today for Christians? Or does anyone think otherwise? Please know, I am not going to judge either reply. If there's one thing I've learned about the Bible is that it's neither left nor right about these issues, and some things we agree with today, the Bible may not agree with, and vice versa.

For those that are accepting of this practice, your motivations are either to care for the woman or to have her to satisfy desires. Again, either or both are fine, hence concubinage being accepted on a similar basis. To the women in such marriages, how would you feel if your husband took a wife under such circumstances?

Furthermore, if such a patriarchal system was instituted again, does one not think it would help the rampant problem of prostitution in war-torn places? Given slavery is usually negative across cultures and times, I don't think this would ever be instituted again. But I do think it's interesting to view our modern world in the lense of the old and perhaps see how the ancients may have solved these problems.

I humbly ask that if you're here to judge me or tell me that this has already been discussed, then please don't comment here. I've opened this for those who want to talk about it, not those who don't want to.

With peace and love
When I got married I became my husband's slave/wife.
 
Back
Top