It does.It takes time to make that bond and to make the relationship into a devoted relationship.
No matter what anyone says it takes time and intentiality to become one on anything more than a basic level.
It does.It takes time to make that bond and to make the relationship into a devoted relationship.
Why would it matter what she agrees to? Her submission is expected in all things, with the exception of sex. But even the absence of sex doesn’t allow her to leave and remarry.Would you then assert that it would be entirely acceptable scripturally for a man to enter into a one-flesh relationship with a woman who voluntarily enters into it and agrees that she will have no right to expect protection, provision and due benevolence?
There is a category that fits this definition, it called betrothal. Also known as WHAFY. Or “woman he hasn’t had coitus with yet”.I will steadfastly claim, in spite of all previous denunciations by learned men, that there is a place for a woman who is not ready to commit the rest of her life to a man.
A woman who is willing to try it for a year or six months to see if it is something for her isn’t the same as a wife who can commit fully.
Despite protests to the contrary, this can only be considered a concubine, as far as I can see. If you have another designation, I’m happy to consider it.
I take itfrom what @MeganC has said that this is a bit of the path that she walked.
I believe that this was the basis for Naomi having Ruth offer herself to Boaz in the middle of the night.
He chose to give her the full-meal-deal wife treatment.
No, he can’t, because there is nine. As much as I respect the venerable @steve in almost all things, in this matter he’s mistaken. Every body gets one freebie.Yaknow, I want to dig into this. Very curious cause I think you might be on to something. Can you point me at scriptural references?
Under your rules, yes.There is a category that fits this definition, it called betrothal. Also known as WHAFY. Or “woman he hasn’t had coitus with yet”.
And mine are borrowed from….Under your rules, yes.
But your rules are just as arbitrary as mine, except that mine are borrowed from the Jews.
He Ain't?WHAFY
There is a category that fits this definition, it called betrothal. Also known as WHAFY. Or “woman he hasn’t had coitus with yet”.
@Luke S, as you can already see, you've waded into a very controversial topic on which people have very firmly established views!Ooooh, now I have more to dig into! I certainly came at this from a view contrarian to the one stated here. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of the thread(s) that discuss this? I'd like to read up on the topic before I give a full response!
Kiddushin is formal betrothal. Ketubbah is a formal marriage contract.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.).
For more information (including a lot of detailed posts from @The Revolting Man where he lays out his concerns about this whole issue), read the original mega-thread these quotes were taken from that has been running for 9 years now:That is fascinating @Nikud, thankyou. I'd like to have a rough go at translating the core point there into English and a modern context, if I may, removing all the hebrew words like ketubah, for the benefit of readers and so you can check that I've got this right.
Basically,
If so, this actually aligns quite well with modern practice, and fits fairly seamlessly into a modern context. Wife = wife, concubine = de-facto partner. Roughly.
- a woman who enters the family with formal contractual arrangements (marriage contracts, documents denoting inheritance etc) is a "wife".
- a woman who moves in without such formal contracts (or with fewer contracts) is a "concubine"
The take-away message being that we must consider both formal wives and de-facto wives to be women who are to be treated as scripture tells us to treat our women. The only real difference may be when it comes to inheritance. We are able to treat both completely equally with regards to inheritance, as Jacob did. However, if because of the particular circumstances we leave different assets to each and their children, that is allowed for also and is not condemned, because we are to treat them fairly but not necessarily equally. For instance, a wife who spent 20 years building a business with you may inherit that business along with her sons, while you may choose to not give a de-facto second wife who came in later a share in that in your will for reasons of fairness.
For our purposes, we can take a second "wife" by giving her suitable written marriage contracts (not legal marriage paperwork, but a ketubah etc). Or we can take a second woman without such formal contracts, and that's also completely acceptable - but because she had no contracts, she'd have more limited inheritance rights. That's just a practical legal fact. And scripturally, a woman without such inheritance rights would be termed a "concubine" - which is just semantics and not derogatory in any way, it's just a word describing her real situation.
Yours are assumed.And mine are borrowed from….
My views on one flesh are based solely on the scriptures that reference one flesh without adding one thing to them. You can disagree with me but you can’t pretend I don’t have basis for those beliefs.Yours are assumed.
Oh yeah, I had no idea that it was so controversial! I just thought everyone was on the same page that all concubines are wives but not all wives are concubines -- mostly just because Keturah, Hagar, and Bilhah are each referred to with both terms -- I was just trying to ask about how we apply Exodus 21:10. The question still stands as to whether the verse applies to marriages outside of the purchased servant context -- though I certainly could have avoided the hot term in asking that!@Luke S, as you can already see, you've waded into a very controversial topic on which people have very firmly established views!
@The Revolting Man is our resident passionate defender of all wives being wives, and he gets quite concerned when people start using the word "concubine" to describe some wives, as it sounds to his ear like they may be using that term to justify poorer treatment of some women.
@steve is our resident boundary-pusher, who actually does use the word "concubine" as an opening for the idea of temporary marriage that is permitted by some Islamic and Jewish writings (for the record, I am NOT meaning that when I use the word).
Combine those two, plus everyone else's opinions between and around these near-opposites, and the moment the word "concubine" arises a long debate is guaranteed!
If you search the forum for the keyword "concubine" you'll be reading for a long time. Here are some key quotes that clarify it in my opinion. On each quote, if you click the little up arrow to the right of the person's name, top of the quote, you'll be taken directly to the original post it is taken from and can read the context.
The ultimate definition of concubine, from ancient Jewish sources that simply define the word:
Kiddushin is formal betrothal. Ketubbah is a formal marriage contract.
For more information (including a lot of detailed posts from @The Revolting Man where he lays out his concerns about this whole issue), read the original mega-thread these quotes were taken from that has been running for 9 years now:
And search for the keyword "concubine" to find many other discussions.Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.
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...biblicalfamilies.org
I think people are mostly on the same page with that, historically speaking. The problem comes when people start saying "well, does that mean I could have a concubine today?". Then the battle-lines quickly open up again between two sides that have proved irreconcilable for years. I try to sit in where I think is the middle, but that means I'm being hit from both sides.I just thought everyone was on the same page that all concubines are wives but not all wives are concubines -- mostly just because Keturah, Hagar, and Bilhah are each referred to with both terms
The first retreat I went to, I had very limited time there (I only had a few days off work and had to spend as much time on aeroplanes going both ways as I actually had to spend at the retreat). So I actually stayed awake one entire night discussing scripture. A portion of that discussion was about concubines, come to think of it...I can’t wait to get to the retreat and discuss this for 12 hrs straight
Oh okay, but I would say owning concubines today is a separate deal. If indeed a concubine is still a wife, no qualms, of course, but the conundrum we have today as believers is inherent in two parts.I think people are mostly on the same page with that, historically speaking. The problem comes when people start saying "well, does that mean I could have a concubine today?". Then the battle-lines quickly open up again between two sides that have proved irreconcilable for years. I try to sit in where I think is the middle, but that means I'm being hit from both sides.
The first retreat I went to, I had very limited time there (I only had a few days off work and had to spend as much time on aeroplanes going both ways as I actually had to spend at the retreat). So I actually stayed awake one entire night discussing scripture. A portion of that discussion was about concubines, come to think of it...
Wrong assumption.I don't see how we could take on a believer as a concubine without causing her to violate that imperative.
Perhaps, indeed, I have not yet had the time to properly study through the resources I have been given now, but -- would the assumption at least apply in the case of purchase and bondservanthood, as is in Exodus 21:10??Wrong assumption.
You are using a definition of concubine that doesn’t cover all of them