• 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?

steve said:
these qualify as a concubine marriage.
Click to expand...

Additionally...
  • She came into the marriage without a contract.
  • The man did not pay a dowry for her.
  • He got her in marriage via romance.
  • Independent legal/financial existence from the man.

All these things also were in the past traits of concubinage.


FollowingHim said:
In our culture, we ALSO have different names for a man's woman, and these are culturally defined rather than scripturally. In Western culture, a man's woman may be called his:
  • Girlfriend
Click to expand...

Now there is a can of worms.
 
MeganC said:
I'd like for government to get out of the marriage thing altogether and let us call ourselves whatever we want to.
Click to expand...
Patriarchy is a huge threat to complete government control.
Small families, and broken families, do not have the strength to resist, and may even need to depend on government for survival.
Large stable families are strong, independent, do not need the government. So they are seen as a threat.
This is why patriarchy is illegal while all other relationships are given a pass.
 
FollowingHim said:
Each to their own. You're welcome to use whatever terminology you like. Properly understood, the word "concubine" is not at all insulting. But most women would probably find it insulting anyway...
Click to expand...
My one and only wife likes the term concubine for herself. :D
 
Philip said:
Patriarchy is a huge threat to complete government control.
Small families, and broken families, do not have the strength to resist, and may even need to depend on government for survival.
Large stable families are strong, independent, do not need the government. So they are seen as a threat.
This is why patriarchy is illegal while all other relationships are given a pass.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point. I think you are totally right about that. I would like to add a bit to it. It isn't just "total government control", but also "total tyrannical control".

The political right tends to see the threat of oppressive control by big government.

The political left tends to see the threat of oppression by large corporations.

I think they both have a point. Big government and big crony corporate capitalism work hand in hand to oppress the people.

We have seen this very clearly over the last year with the covid pandemic-scamdemic. Big oppressive government has worked hand in hand with big corporations to deceive and defraud the public.
 
There are no clear-cut scriptures to define what a concubine is. Maybe this is because it varies for each man and his intentions when he takes a concubine whether it's for household help, sexual relations, or having children, ect. It seems Yahua allowed men to define their definition of what they would take a concubine for and in the scriptures there were various reasons. This is why it's so difficult for anyone to pinpoint exactly what a concubine is. Men can take concubines for a variety of reasons. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that it is a wife or woman of lower status as far as dowries and inheritance are concerned.
 
I continue to conclude that there was no reason to define 'concubine' back when Scripture was written, because it was something everyone back then understood. The Greeks formalized the definitions in the 6th Century BC in their efforts to initiate monogamy-only between husbands and formal wives, but their as their private writings inevitably became available, it became clear that it had been their intention all along to eventually terminate the legitimacy of having concubines or mistresses. They have predominantly been successful in their intentions.

But back then everyone knew exactly what a concubine was; it may have been lesser in some ways, much like a sous chef is lesser than a master chef, but it was not a role to be denigrated. In recognition of this, in the initial stages of monogamy-only, the Greeks gave the concubines far more privileges than they gave to wives. Wives got the highest status, but concubines got far more freedom, even though many if not most of them were technically slaves.
 
There are Jews today that have both wives and concubines. Just a different relationship and status.
It has nothing to do with slavery, in fact the wives are more “owned” than are the concubines.
 
steve said:
There are (LOTS OF MEN) today that have both wives and concubines. Just a different relationship and status.
It has nothing to do with slavery, in fact the wives are more “owned” than are the concubines.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. ;)
 
Just from my own experience I felt more owned as a concubine (not the legal wife) than I do as the legal wife. As the legal wife it's not so easy to break up with your husband and I know it's a paradox but that makes me feel more free.
 
MeganC said:
Just from my own experience I felt more owned as a concubine (not the legal wife) than I do as the legal wife. As the legal wife it's not so easy to break up with your husband and I know it's a paradox but that makes me feel more free.
Click to expand...
True paradox: more owned and more free at the same time.
 
MeganC said:
Just from my own experience I felt more owned as a concubine (not the legal wife) than I do as the legal wife. As the legal wife it's not so easy to break up with your husband and I know it's a paradox but that makes me feel more free.
Click to expand...
It would seem that the word “secure” is part of that feeling.
 
steve said:
I don’t know about that many, but I am happy to take your word for it. :)
Click to expand...

It isn't always about sex. That's why the term office wife has come up a lot lately.

If you think about it the office wife is a kind of concubine.
 
MeganC said:
It isn't always about sex. That's why the term office wife has come up a lot lately.

If you think about it the office wife is a kind of concubine.
Click to expand...
Too true.
 
Bartato said:
This is a very good point. I think you are totally right about that. I would like to add a bit to it. It isn't just "total government control", but also "total tyrannical control".
Click to expand...
I wanted to say tyrannical but I couldn't figure out how to spell it.
 
Bartato said:
With the use of spell check, my spelling ability has declined dramatically. I am forgetting how to spell all sorts of words. Sad
Click to expand...
I couldn't even spell it close enough for the spell check to be able to help me. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top