• 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.

Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.

I have seen just how the use of that word causes beastie to go into full harrasment bite mode. Is like interactions with a demon characters in the movies. It must have spiritual overtones too.
That word paints a red big bulls eye on your back.
Is interesting how the adversary is activated with some wording and ritual mechanical, procedures. I guess after all, it's a territorial created being.
 
Last edited:
The birthright shows the rank of children for inheritance. Joseph received the birthright not by virtue of being chosen but rather by proper obligation. Ruben the 1st son of the 1st wife dishonors his father and loses his right to the birthright which then passes to Joseph. Although Joseph is the 11th son, he is the 1st son of the 2nd wife. Therefore Joseph was the next in line for the birthright. If the wives sons were all dead then the concubines sons could make a claim. Simeon was 3rd in line and Benjamin was actually 4th. if Simeon was disqualified then Benjamin becomes next after Joseph.

The act of Ruben taking his fathers concubine was not necessary an act of love but a power play to become equal with the father and inherit all, thus robbing his brothers of their inheritance until his (Ruben's death) I believe the concubine saw this also as an opportunity to gain status as first wife and was agreeable to the plan. (she was probably old enough to be his mother)

Hopefully a righteous man today would treat all of his children as children without distinction between the mothers. Hopefully all of his children would be born out of lifetime committed relationships regardless of secular 'legal' status.
 
The birthright shows the rank of children for inheritance. Joseph received the birthright not by virtue of being chosen but rather by proper obligation. Ruben the 1st son of the 1st wife dishonors his father and loses his right to the birthright which then passes to Joseph. Although Joseph is the 11th son, he is the 1st son of the 2nd wife. Therefore Joseph was the next in line for the birthright. If the wives sons were all dead then the concubines sons could make a claim. Simeon was 3rd in line and Benjamin was actually 4th. if Simeon was disqualified then Benjamin becomes next after Joseph.

The act of Ruben taking his fathers concubine was not necessary an act of love but a power play to become equal with the father and inherit all, thus robbing his brothers of their inheritance until his (Ruben's death) I believe the concubine saw this also as an opportunity to gain status as first wife and was agreeable to the plan. (she was probably old enough to be his mother)
Sounds plausible.
This is why Solomon had his brother Adonijah put to death (Adonijah wanted to marry David's virgin concubine Abishag after he already had tried to be King in Solomon's stead)...

Hopefully a righteous man today would treat all of his children as children without distinction between the mothers. Hopefully all of his children would be born out of lifetime committed relationships regardless of secular 'legal' status.
amen
 
Re: Concubines... just a bit fo mental jousting.

Paul said to avoid fornication (sex among unmarried) you should marry. So I think having sex while unmarried, provided the women isn't another mans wife, would be the sin of fornication.

If you look up the Greek root words (Strongs) for the loose English translation of 'fornication', you will find that there are about 5 or so Greek words the English translators bundled up as one word ie: 'fornication'.
In reality, the worst is 'pornos' which means 'male prostitute'. Incidently, the translation of 'whoremonger' in the KJV is the same word in Greek - 'pornos'. In modern translations 'whoremonger' or 'pornos' is translated as 'sexually immoral', which can mean many things to many people. Although correct from one aspect, as 'pornos' is sexually immoral, the true intent of the verse is lost and diffused through translational error, bias or ignorance. The other Greek words all relate to elements of prostitution usually in connection with idolatory and playing the whore ... Idol worship is also referred to as 'adultery'.

Going back to Paul, on a number of instances, he appears and admitted to having his own ideals ie: a preference for celibacy and other issues (although he does not forbid marriage and states it is wrong to do so). There are the Principles of Truth in the bible and that is what the Inspired Word of the Most High is; however there are other elements that are of man/translators errors/biases etc. An example is 'easter' instead of 'passover' from the world 'pascha', 1 John 5:7 - taken from a monks footnotes who was called 'Froy', and other verses which appear to be very much what Constantine would love to hear aka council of nicea. I personally suspect some verses where changed to empower the government and not question it. I do however believe Paul was misread and misquoted out of context in many instances.

Its important to note that much changed at the council of nicea. Constantine hated the Jews and did everything to create a dichotomy between Judaism and the new religion of rome - paganised Christianity (different from True Christianity or 'followers of the Way'). Examples are changing the 'Lords day' to sunday from Shabbat - the 7th day, the true birthday of Messiah from around 1st Oct (7th month from the original start of year being April - were those who kept it were mocked and called 'april fools' because they did not honor the roman alleged two-faced 'god' called 'janus'; keeping 'christmas' instead which celebrates any pagan roman diety ie: mithras, tammuz (nimrods son), easter - which is supposed to honor Ishtar semiramis (nimrods mother and 'wife'), and a ham instead of the Lamb - to introduce the unclean in place of the clean. This is all constantines doing and is related to the 3rd horseman which had balances and scales on a black horse, symbolic of the darkness coming into the 'church' and how things were being balanced and altered to suit the agenda of rome. The last horseman representing the world 'church' is the one with death as its rider and hades following it, on a grey-greenish horse.

Quoting Paul, its also important to note, that regarding 'elders having one wife' (1 Timothy 3:2) the greek translation is 'mia' which from what I have read, primarily is translated as 'first' in the bible, but which could also mean 'one'. What this means to me, is that the elder according to this verse must have the love and consideration for their first wife, and not discard her for whatever reason, ie: 'deal treacherously with the wife of thy youth' Malachi 2:14-16.
Concubines were mentioned in the OT and there were specific regulations regarding fairness and consideration to them.
 
Welcome, Lial.
That's quite a shotgun-style first post. Some dip their toes; others jump in. ;)
We've covered some of the topics you've mentioned in other threads. Please feel free to look around or use the search function so you can share your thoughts in those specific areas. In fact, there's a really in-depth "mia" thread going on right now. I don't think we've done much on the horsemen...
If you could tell us a little something about yourself in the Introductions section, we'd love to hear more about you.

Again, Welcome.
 
If you look up the Greek root words (Strongs) for the loose English translation of 'fornication', you will find that there are about 5 or so Greek words the English translators bundled up as one word ie: 'fornication'.
In reality, the worst is 'pornos' which means 'male prostitute'. Incidently, the translation of 'whoremonger' in the KJV is the same word in Greek - 'pornos'. In modern translations 'whoremonger' or 'pornos' is translated as 'sexually immoral', which can mean many things to many people. Although correct from one aspect, as 'pornos' is sexually immoral, the true intent of the verse is lost and diffused through translational error, bias or ignorance. The other Greek words all relate to elements of prostitution usually in connection with idolatory and playing the whore ... Idol worship is also referred to as 'adultery'.

Going back to Paul, on a number of instances, he appears and admitted to having his own ideals ie: a preference for celibacy and other issues (although he does not forbid marriage and states it is wrong to do so). There are the Principles of Truth in the bible and that is what the Inspired Word of the Most High is; however there are other elements that are of man/translators errors/biases etc. An example is 'easter' instead of 'passover' from the world 'pascha', 1 John 5:7 - taken from a monks footnotes who was called 'Froy', and other verses which appear to be very much what Constantine would love to hear aka council of nicea. I personally suspect some verses where changed to empower the government and not question it. I do however believe Paul was misread and misquoted out of context in many instances.

Its important to note that much changed at the council of nicea. Constantine hated the Jews and did everything to create a dichotomy between Judaism and the new religion of rome - paganised Christianity (different from True Christianity or 'followers of the Way'). Examples are changing the 'Lords day' to sunday from Shabbat - the 7th day, the true birthday of Messiah from around 1st Oct (7th month from the original start of year being April - were those who kept it were mocked and called 'april fools' because they did not honor the roman alleged two-faced 'god' called 'janus'; keeping 'christmas' instead which celebrates any pagan roman diety ie: mithras, tammuz (nimrods son), easter - which is supposed to honor Ishtar semiramis (nimrods mother and 'wife'), and a ham instead of the Lamb - to introduce the unclean in place of the clean. This is all constantines doing and is related to the 3rd horseman which had balances and scales on a black horse, symbolic of the darkness coming into the 'church' and how things were being balanced and altered to suit the agenda of rome. The last horseman representing the world 'church' is the one with death as its rider and hades following it, on a grey-greenish horse.

Quoting Paul, its also important to note, that regarding 'elders having one wife' (1 Timothy 3:2) the greek translation is 'mia' which from what I have read, primarily is translated as 'first' in the bible, but which could also mean 'one'. What this means to me, is that the elder according to this verse must have the love and consideration for their first wife, and not discard her for whatever reason, ie: 'deal treacherously with the wife of thy youth' Malachi 2:14-16.
Concubines were mentioned in the OT and there were specific regulations regarding fairness and consideration to them.
Shalom @LoveisaLion Welcome to Biblical Families.
If you want to interact with Torah-keepers, you may enjoy our Biblical Families: Messianic and Hebrew Roots forum
 
Welcome, Lial.
That's quite a shotgun-style first post. Some dip their toes; others jump in. ;)
We've covered some of the topics you've mentioned in other threads. Please feel free to look around or use the search function so you can share your thoughts in those specific areas. In fact, there's a really in-depth "mia" thread going on right now. I don't think we've done much on the horsemen...
If you could tell us a little something about yourself in the Introductions section, we'd love to hear more about you.

Again, Welcome.
Thanks NetWatchR... :-)
 
Shalom @LoveisaLion Welcome to Biblical Families.
If you want to interact with Torah-keepers, you may enjoy our Biblical Families: Messianic and Hebrew Roots forum
Shalom IshChavil...
My attitude is that I honor the Truth-Eternal Good - that is the Most High, and recognise by Grace; by the Spirit of Truth/Ruach Ha Kodesh Eternal Principles that are indicative of the Truth that sets us free and complete; and the Character of the Most High - that king David meditated on (ie His laws - which I believe were the Principles he saw that reflected the Character of the Most High). Wherever I see that and recognise that - I honor that... :-)
 
We all know, by faith in God's Word that Polygamy has God's blessing and in fact command. There are also many examples in the Bible about concubines. So why not have those?

I have also read/ heard that the phrase "adultery" in the Bible refers to a woman (married female) having sex with someone who is not her husband and to a man having sex with another man's wife. (redundant I know)

When you combine these two, does it mean that a married man sleeping with a single (never married) female is not a sin?

(again, I believe in the "stay as far from the edge of the cliff as possible" mentality so I WILL NOT be sleeping around)
You are correct. Adultery, the crime, is a married woman having sex with a man not her husband...or...a married man having sex with a married woman not his wife. Both of these God hates, abominates. Both are punishable by death for both parties. Why? Both tend to destroy the covenant family. In both cases, likely both covenant families. So, the death penalty actually serves to release the surviving spouses to remarry and thus preserving the respective covenant families
Now a married man that has sex with an unmarried woman, this is not a crime at all. While it may be a sin (fornication) there is no criminal penalty set forth in scripture. Further, the penalty is——marriage.
Concubines— a concubine is simply a successive wife that has no right to inheritance. It is a bit nicer to say wife. It doesn’t mean that the offspring of the concubine cannot inherit anything, it simply means that the offspring of the concubine cannot receive an inheritance which would reduce the inheritance of the sons of the first wife.
 
Concubines— a concubine is simply a successive wife that has no right to inheritance.
Really?
That’s all?
 
Really?
That’s all?
Not “all.” But that is the only characteristic which is unique from the first wife.
A careful study of the life of the patriarchs reveals that, for example, Abraham had other wives and concubines and fielded over 300 soldiers from his own household to rescue his nephew, Lot, from the king of Sodom. But his inheritance was dedicated to the son of his first wife, Sarah. But there was no shortage of love, devotion and protection for his entire household. We see that even Ishmael returned to him in his old age.
 
But his inheritance was dedicated to the son of his first wife, Sarah.
That was his choice not a mitzvah. Look a Jacobs sons they all received an inheritance and most of them where sons of concubines. Ge 30:3-6 Bilhah’s sons would be regarded by Rachel as her own and would thus share the inheritance with Jacob’s other sons. See also Ge 30:9; Ge 16:1-2; Gal 4:22-23
 
That was his choice not a mitzvah. Look a Jacobs sons they all received an inheritance and most of them where sons of concubines. Ge 30:3-6 Bilhah’s sons would be regarded by Rachel as her own and would thus share the inheritance with Jacob’s other sons. See also Ge 30:9; Ge 16:1-2; Gal 4:22-23
No. It is a command and part of Mosaic case law. Yes, other sons can receive an inheritance, but the firstborn son receives double. The definition of “concubine” designates, primarily, no right to household inheritance beyond what is accumulated by the mother/concubine.
A father is not permitted to divide the inheritance due to the son(s) of his first wife with the offspring of a concubine.

With the exception:
A father is not permitted to leave an inheritance to an apostate son. This means that if the children of the concubine are believing children, then they WOULD be the beneficiaries of the blessing instead of an apostate son. Even the child of a slave in the household is eligible ahead of an apostate son.
 
Kevin,
I get what you are saying— the example you give is of a woman owned by wife and given to her husband. Kind of a gray area where the law is concerned. Technically she is simply a physical extension of Rachel.
And, of course, Leah did the same thing in a full-on contest to have more sons.
Which is the best sort of contest.
 
offspring of the concubine cannot receive an inheritance which would reduce the inheritance of the sons of the first wife.
A father is not permitted to divide the inheritance due to the son(s) of his first wife with the offspring of a concubine.

With the exception:
A father is not permitted to leave an inheritance to an apostate son. This means that if the children of the concubine are believing children, then they WOULD be the beneficiaries of the blessing instead of an apostate son. Even the child of a slave in the household is eligible ahead of an apostate son.
First the way you worded made it appear like you were saying the sons of concubines could not inherit. Any time a son beyond the first inherits the inheritance of the first is reduced. The mitzvah is that he is still to receive double what the next son would inherited, the next would get a share, then next....
 
Last edited:
First the way you worded made it appear like you were saying the sons of concubines could not inherit. Any time a son beyond the first inherits the inheritance of the first is reduced. The mitzvah is that he is still to receive double what the next son would and he double the next....
The sons of concubines cannot inherit anything that would reduce the inheritance of the sons of the first wife.
 
The term in Hebrew is pilegesh, the equivalent of Greek pallakis(παλλακίς) and Latin pellex. Among the Assyrians the concubine (esirtu) gained the rank of wife only after the veiling ceremony conducted by her spouse, if he so chose to elevate her (Assyrian Code A, 41). The legal formalities, if any, are not described in the Bible. A concubine did not always reside in her husband's home (Judg. 8:31), but such was not the general rule (Judg. 19–20). Her spouse was called the son-inlaw (ḥatan) of her father, who was the father-in-law (ḥoten). Therefore, the concubinage relationship could partake of many aspects of regular marriage. Two famous concubines are mentioned in the Bible. Rizpah the daughter of Aiah the concubine of Saul (II Sam. 3:7) whose moving display of maternal love so moved David that he had her children buried in the family sepulcher (21:8–14) and the concubine of Gibeah whose rape and murder brought about the death of 25,000 members of the tribe of Benjamin and the ban against members of the other tribes intermarrying with them (Judg. 19–21).

Royal concubines were standard among the kings of Israel and Judah, just as in any ancient Near Eastern kingdom (Song 6:8–9). They were clearly distinguished from the wives (II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:13; IIChron. 11:21). To lie with a monarch's concubine was tantamount to usurpation of the throne (II Sam. 3:7; 16:21–22). For this reason Abner took Rizpah (II Sam. 3:7). The same concept stands behind Ahitophel'sadvice to Absalom, to "go into his father's concubines" (16:21), and Adonijah's request for Abishag the Shunamite was clearly associated with this custom (I Kings 2:21–24). The harem was usually in the charge of a eunuch (Esth. 2:14; cf. II Kings 9:32). The role of the concubine as the mother of venerable ethnic groups is not overlooked in the genealogies. Their descendants are usually classed as secondary or subsidiary tribes (Gen. 22:24; 36:12), especially the Abrahamic groups (Gen. 25:6; I Chron. 1:32). Within Israel, some of the clans were also the offspring of concubines (I Chron. 2:46; 7:14). In one instance, the term concubine is applied to a handmaiden (shifḥah and aʾmah) who had borne children to her mistress' husband (Gen. 35:22). Such a relationship was usually established because the legal wife was barren (Gen. 16). Ancient marriage arrangements often stipulated that if the wife was barren, she must provide a handmaiden for her husband Naming the handmaiden given to the bride by her father in such cases was evidently related to this practice (Gen. 29:24, 29). If the wife later bore children of her own, they took precedence in the inheritance over those of the handmaiden Gen. 21:12, although the latter did receive a share. Israelite law provided safeguards for the rights of Hebrew girls sold as handmaidens who were to be wed to their purchaser or to his son (Ex. 21:7–11). If the handmaiden bore children for her mistress and then sought to place herself on an equal footing, she normally could not be sold, although she could be reduced to the status of a slave again Gen. 21:12–14, where the slave-concubine and her child are both expelled.

A concubine is firstly defined by Jewish laws as a woman dedicating herself to a particular man, with whom she cohabits without*kiddushin (see *Marriage ) or *ketubbah .

"What is the difference between wives and concubines?

Wives have ketubbah and kiddushin, concubines have neither" (Sanh. 21a; Maim. Yad, Melakhim 4:4; Leḥem Mishneh and Radbaz, ad loc.).

Not all the scholars adopt this reading, however, and Rashi, for instance, comments: "wives with kiddushin and ketubbah, concubines with kiddushin but without ketubbah" (Comm. to Gen. 25:6; see also Comm. Hagra, EH 26, n. 7). This latter reading is apparently that of the Jerusalem Talmud too (TJ, Ket. 5:2, 29d and Hagra, ibid.; but see Mareh ha-Panim thereto). The majority of the *posekim accept the former reading as the correct one (Radbaz to Yad, Melakhim 4:4; Kesef Mishneh and Leḥem Mishneh, as against the Maggid Mishneh, to Yad, Ishut, 1;4; Radbaz, Resp., vol. 4, no. 225; vol. 7, no. 33; Naḥmanides, commentary to Gen. 19:8; 25:6; Ralbag to Judg. 19:1; Rashba, Resp., vol. 4, no. 314). Hence a concubine is to be distinguished both, on the one hand from a married woman, i.e., by ḥuppah ("marriage ceremony"), kiddushin, and ketubbah, and on the other from a woman who does not dedicate herself to one particular man exclusively, but who prostitutes herself; i.e., the harlot (Hassagot Rabad to Ishut 1:4 and see also Rema to EH 26:1).

I hold what you are saying to apply here.

Inasmuch as a concubine does not acquire the personal status of a wife (eshet ish: Tur EH 26; Sh. Ar., EH 26:1), she has no ketubbah; therefore, in accordance with the rule providing that the "terms and conditions of the ketubbah [tena'ei ketubbah] follow the [prescribed] ketubbah" (Ket. 54b; Rashi ibid. S.V. tena'ei ketubbah) she does not acquire any of the wife's pecuniary rights – especially she is not entitled to maintenance – as all those rights stem from the ketubbah. Nor does living with a man as his concubine create a kinship as an impediment to marriage between herself and any of the man's relatives, or between the man and her relatives, as would be the case if she would be considered to be his wife (Rosh, Resp. no. 32:1; Oẓar ha-Posekim, EH 26, n. 3). For the same reason there is no need in principle for her to obtain a get (see *Divorce ) in order to be permitted to marry any other man (Oẓar ha-Posekim, loc. cit.; Sefer ha-Tashbeẓ 3:47). However in the opinion of some of the posekim, for the sake of appearances, in view of the parties having lived together, the matter should be approached stringently and the woman should not be permitted to marry another man without obtaining a prior "get out of stringency" (get me ḥumrah) from the man with whom she has lived; but whenever the latter's refusal to grant her the get is likely to entail the risk of her becoming an *agunah , she may certainly be permitted to marry without getting such get (Oẓar ha-Posekim, EH 26, n. 3). Moreover, the status of the mother does not impair the personal status of children born of the union, nor their rights of inheritance according to law (Rashba, Resp. vol. 4, no. 314).

When it came time to divide, the father’s estate was apportioned into equal shares. Assigning specific shares to each heir was likely done by casting lots. Deut 21:17 suggests that typically the eldest son received two shares and other sons one each. A father could, by virtue of a testament, designate a younger son as the “firstborn” and reassign the right to a double share to him. He could not do so, however, if he was married to multiple women and had previously chosen to “hate” (probably meaning “demote”) the mother of the biologically oldest son. In this case, the oldest retained the status of firstborn (Deut 21:15-17).

The sons of concubines cannot inherit anything that would reduce the inheritance of the sons of the first wife.

Your statement also is usally backed up with

Judges 11:2

2Gilead's wife also bore him sons; and when his wife's sons grew up, they drove Jephthah away, saying to him, “You shall not inherit anything in our father's house; for you are the son of another woman.”

Jephthah was the son of a prostitute.
 
Last edited:
You are correct. Adultery, the crime, is a married woman having sex with a man not her husband...or...a married man having sex with a married woman not his wife. Both of these God hates, abominates. Both are punishable by death for both parties. Why? Both tend to destroy the covenant family. In both cases, likely both covenant families. So, the death penalty actually serves to release the surviving spouses to remarry and thus preserving the respective covenant families
Now a married man that has sex with an unmarried woman, this is not a crime at all. While it may be a sin (fornication) there is no criminal penalty set forth in scripture. Further, the penalty is——marriage.
Concubines— a concubine is simply a successive wife that has no right to inheritance. It is a bit nicer to say wife. It doesn’t mean that the offspring of the concubine cannot inherit anything, it simply means that the offspring of the concubine cannot receive an inheritance which would reduce the inheritance of the sons of the first wife.

So just to recap, concubines are not defined in scripture so it becomes problematic for us to start providing a definition. There are certainly no connections made with inheritance. This is all highly speculative.

Also, and you will find this debated in multiple places throughout the forum, there is no "sin of fornication." If you're interested I this then look up the word porneia and start following the rabbit trail.
 
So just to recap, concubines are not defined in scripture so it becomes problematic for us to start providing a definition. There are certainly no connections made with inheritance. This is all highly speculative.

You could make that same objection for 3/4 of the words in the OT. Words mean things. The scriptures document history and are not a dictionary. We don't get to just write concubine out of scripture or redefine it simply because it wasn't defined.

When it came time to divide, the father’s estate was apportioned into equal shares. Assigning specific shares to each heir was likely done by casting lots. Deut 21:17 suggests that typically the eldest son received two shares and other sons one each. A father could, by virtue of a testament, designate a younger son as the “firstborn” and reassign the right to a double share to him. He could not do so, however, if he was married to multiple women and had previously chosen to “hate” (probably meaning “demote”) the mother of the biologically oldest son. In this case, the oldest retained the status of firstborn (Deut 21:15-17).

Abraham gave his concubines son's gift's and sent them away. They did not inherit. (Gen 25:5-6) Whereas Jacob's were counted as son's and did receive inheritance (in a manner of speaking).

We see here it could go either way. One might say it was the father's choice (at least before the covenant). But it may also have come down to whether the father regarded them as his son's or not. You see that in the difference between how Jacob and Abraham treated their offspring. And this is consistent with the culture and law of the day; which protected against abuses such as in the case of Jephthah.

Now the Deuteronomy 21 laws on inheritance refer's to wives; but that word is the generic term for woman. So one could make an argument either way with respect to concubines. I wouldn't be quick to levy the post covenant story of Jephthah to argue against inheritance for concubine's son's. Not with the way the Lord elevated him above all Israel as Judge. It could simply be his brothers did him wrong.
 
Back
Top