• 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.

Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship?

Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

But where do widows fit into this since they're obviously non-virgins but free to re-marry, not become concubines?
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

Becoming a widow and being raped. Nether are good when they happen. But it does. And the results are still the same. The widow on the other hand has been freed vs breaking of the covenant. That if anything makes her more desirable. She may have a good standing name from her previous husband. That everyone could see she was a good wife. A good mother and a good teammate / best friend.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

What if the purest form of marriage is the Gold Standard?

What if anything less than the Gold Standard can still be awesome and wonderful, but still not technically quite up to Gold Standard specs?

If this is true, it would be very humbling for our society to accept. In fact, it will not accept it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

What if my marriages were less than the Gold Standard?
1). I wouldn't have done anything different.
2). They still deserved better than the man that they got, but boy-howdy am I glad that they got stuck with me. For my sake, not theirs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

Indeed. My aim was not to be little any one or their marriage in sharing this thought. But to get the pros and cons. Supports and non-supports of scripture, logic and reasoning. If it flows and floats. Let us change. If not. Let it go down to ashes.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

steve said:
The fact that she was advised to offer herself under cover of darkness to Boaz is anything but a standard marriage proposal. It would scream mistress in most societies. Concubinage seems the only reasonable goal that Naomi was headed toward.
Click to expand...
I agree. By my reading, nobody was obligated to take Ruth in a levirate marriage. Nor Naomi, since she had already had sons and was now too old to have more. Ruth does appear to have been humbly asking for Boaz to support her in any way, concubinage or whatever. It is Boaz's generosity, or possibly the generosity of the society in general if they had made it their custom to be this generous, that causes him to go beyond the call of duty and take her as a wife.
steve said:
tls never said that all concubines were non-virgins, he proposed that all non-virgins were concubines.
Click to expand...
True, thanks for the correction.

I still think it is pure speculation. We have no scriptural evidence that all non-virgins were concubines, just a suggestion that they might have been. If we are to try and answer this definitively, the burden of proof would be on tls to prove it from scripture, not on me to disprove it. I can't see this stated clearly in scripture, or even vaguely, it just comes across as purely speculative. I can't see much scripture either supporting or opposing it. The very notion isn't even touched on.
ZecAustin said:
But where do widows fit into this since they're obviously non-virgins but free to re-marry, not become concubines?
Click to expand...
torahlovesalvation said:
The widow on the other hand has been freed vs breaking of the covenant. That if anything makes her more desirable. She may have a good standing name from her previous husband. That everyone could see she was a good wife.
Click to expand...
"if anything", "may" etc - this just illustrates my point that this is all speculation. Zec's objection is entirely valid, so tls then modifies the speculative idea to allow an exclusion for widows. Which he can do because it's speculative and can be whatever he wants it to be!

By the way, I like speculation. I'm not criticising it. Just concluding that I can't see any reason for this particular speculation to be correct.
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

Bigger picture thinking: It doesn't really matter.

Personally, I don't care whether I call my woman a "wife" or a "concubine". It's incredibly difficult to see the difference anyway. Often the two terms are used interchangeably, with the same woman being called both at different times. Whatever term I use for our relationship, she's my woman, I will love her and treat her accordingly. I really don't think we need to understand the difference completely.

However, the fact that it is possible to have legitimate relationships that do have some differences in scripture, even if we can't understand the differences, can teach us to not be too dogmatic about our own views. Not everyone's marriage (or concubine relationship!) will necessarily be under the same terms as our own. And that might be entirely ok. And it also means what Steve said:
steve said:
What if anything less than the Gold Standard can still be awesome and wonderful, but still not technically quite up to Gold Standard specs?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

Quick question.

If a girl's hymen breaks when she's horse-riding, is she then unable to be a full wife and can only be a concubine? Or has she made a convenant with the horse?
 
Samuel, you are right about Naomi not being in line for a Levirate marriage. I was tired last night and my brain slipped a cog.
But what do you read that says that nobody was obligated to take Ruth in a Levirate marriage?

Yes, tls's theory is speculation. But it is not baseless speculation. It is based on the concept of blood covenants seen all through scripture.

It seems entirely reasonable that a woman who had a blood covenant with her husband and then became a widow through no fault of her own would be treated with honor.
A woman who was raped is not in the same category, as I see it. This is why young ladies in Islam are fiercely protected and never allowed to be put in a vulnerable position. Could it be that we have not put proper value on something very important to YHWH? That we do not protect it enough?

Excellent point about riding horses. Could it be that in the past "ladies" did not fork a horse for that very reason? A lady rode sidesaddle, and many with extreme skill.
I hate that being a tomboy was looked down on. But maybe there were important reasons for not allowing a girl to run wild. It would be extremely confining in this day when most standards have been thrown out of the window.

Maybe it is time to start teaching our children some standards that we never realized existed.
Every path has two ditches and while I do believe that Islam is in the opposite ditch on this, the true path might be somewhere between our position and theirs.

This doesn't denigrate any marriage. It would just establish a level of perfection above where we have put it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine

On further thought, Ruth probably was in line for a levirate marriage. I had dismissed this idea because Ruth's dead husband had no living brothers to marry her, Boaz was not her husband's brother, and so it didn't seem to apply. However the Hebrew word for "brother" is used loosely for close male relatives at times, so Boaz may have been obligated to marry her. My misunderstanding.

I agree that a blood covenant is very important, because of this sex with a virgin carries particular rules that don't necessarily apply to a non-virgin, and we should work to protect virginity. Where I'm struggling to see scriptural support is for the idea that this has anything to do with the distinction between wife and concubine.
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

For some reason YHWH has chosen to list Solomons' wives separate from his concubines.
Therefore there is a distinction that is important to Him.
We have no hope of any revelation on the subject by ignoring it.
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

I was pondering his wives & concubines this morning actually. This throws an interesting aspect into it:
1 Kings 11:3 said:
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. (KJV)
He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. (NIV)
Click to expand...
The distinction seems to be purely who they were. It sounds like his wives were the children of neighbouring rulers whom he married for political alliances etc (we're told a lot about Pharoah's daughter, to whom this certainly applies), while his concubines were those he married for other reasons (to run the house, sexual attraction etc). Interestingly, this means that his wives would have beem mainly foreign, so any Israelite women he had would probably have been concubines.

Remembering that when David fled Jerusalem at one point he left 10 concubines to keep the palace, concubines clearly had a role in general housework. Presumably 700 wives weren't all lazing around eating peeled grapes but also had their own jobs - but they may have been different. Possibly some of them were butt-ugly and he put them in isolated palaces where he never even visited them, spending his time with the local girls he'd chosen because he actually had a fancy for them - ie his concubines, who were busy taking care of the palace so were actually where he saw them and could have casual conversations with them every day (and snatch moments of intimacy also).

Ok, I'm speculating a lot now. But it's an interesting reversal of role!

It would mean that a "wife" today, with a traditional role (running a home) and traditional reason for being chosen (attraction), may actually be more like a concubine. While an arranged marriage may be more of a true wife.
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

One would have to see the justification for the NIV distinction, but your speculations are interesting.

Here is a question:
Was King Solomon's mother a concubine?
I am doubting that she got the full blown wedding, being a fresh widow and preggers. Did David just absorb her into his household and do a private wedding?
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

I think that the NIV's version is just a clearer way of writing "princesses", can't see a problem with it.

Here's a question behind your question: Would she need a full-blown "wedding" to be a wife? What is a full-blown "wedding" anyway, in the context?
I assume David did just absorb her into his household, and didn't have any ceremony whatsoever, beyond commanding as king that she was now his wife which is about as official as you can get. But would that affect anything?
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

From what I have read, full blown weddings in those days lasted for a week. Pure speculation based on the temah laws was that it involved the fact that she was temah for a week after the consumation of the wedding and the ending celebration was them being back together again.

But back to the subject at hand. If weddings were a week long, 700 weddings back to back would be13.5 years. Concubine weddings were much less formal and that might have been the main reason for not giving wives from small city/states full status. Leaving wives that were not as important politically in the palace would make sense.
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

FollowingHim said:
"Princesses" is the Hebrew "sarah", H8282, meaning a woman of noble birth. So either translation looks ok.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 8282&t=KJV
Click to expand...
That may very well fit. The daughter sent by the mayor of Timbuktoo may not have been considered a noblewoman.
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

There weren't 700 kings around him. So I would think he'd have had to class the daughter of the mayor of Timbuktoo as a noblewoman.

Yes, wedding feasts lasted a week. However we could assume from the parable of the ten virgins that it is possible to marry multiple women at once. It may be that when a pile of different kings all sent tribute and various gifts to Solomon, some included noblewomen as part of this to buy favour, and so he could end up with a number of new women to marry at the same time. He might have done this efficiently, particularly if he were just marrying them for political reasons and really didn't care to spend a week with each of them individually.

We also don't have any commandment that a wedding feast is necessary for a marriage, it just seems to be a celebration of that which had already been consummated. It could be longer than a week (in the book of Tobit, Tobias and Sara have two wedding feasts, one 14 days long and the other 7 days, one with each side of the family). So it's flexible, and might be a detail a king could simply skip.

Bathsheba's son inherited the kingdom. Presumably she had to be considered a wife for her son to inherit anything.
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

Is it insignificant that God frequently describes Himself as having wives but never as having concubines? I can promise you I wasn't a spiritual virgin when He got me. The whole concubine thing really bothers me, and I'm not exactly a feminist.
 
Re: Could the Woman At The Well be in concubine relationship

Concubines have bothered me less and less the more I have realised how close to a "full wife" they are. The words are used so interchangeably about the same people that it's clear a concubine is a wife. There is a distinction, and it's interesting to figure out, but not something that should bother us much. Here's an interesting passage from 1 Esdras (Catholic bible) that I find enlighnening, it's the most personal account of the relationship between a man and his concubine that I know of, and it shows her great worth.

Note the context. Three men are debating what is "the strongest". The first said wine, the second said the king, and the third said women and truth. The third won the debate. And this was part of his evidence:
1 Esdras 4:18-19 said:
Yea, and if men have gathered together gold and silver, or any other goodly thing, do they not love a woman which is comely in favour and beauty?
And letting all those things go, do they not gape, and even with open mouth fix their eyes fast on her; and have not all men more desire unto her than unto silver or gold, or any goodly thing whatsoever?
...
And now do ye not believe me? is not the king great in his power? do not all regions fear to touch him?
Yet did I see him and Apame the king's concubine, the daughter of the admirable Bartacus, sitting at the right hand of the king,
And taking the crown from the king's head, and setting it upon her own head; she also struck the king with her left hand.
And yet for all this the king gaped and gazed upon her with open mouth: if she laughed upon him, he laughed also: but if she took any displeasure at him, the king was fain to flatter, that she might be reconciled to him again.
O ye men, how can it be but women should be strong, seeing they do thus?
Click to expand...
That's not a slavewoman, or a secret mistress, or anything denigrating. Here is a woman who sits at the right hand of the king (the place of greatest honour), teases and jokes with him, and whom the king is so eager to please that he'll do anything to try and win her favour if she is annoyed at him. She's even used as evidence that a woman is stronger than the king! That's very much a well-loved wife. And she's called a "concubine". Which just shows that we shouldn't be bothered by the word, it's not a negative word at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top