• 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.

Is Concubinage Fornication?

Kiwi_Lion

Kiwi_Lion

New Member
I have been getting thru my research topics related to Polygyny in the bible but I came across a fascinating issue. If concubines were allowed in the Torah why were those men with concubines not accused of fornication? Supposedly any sex outside of marriage is fornication but I am starting to lean towards fornication actually being sex without the intention of providing for, covering and having a relationship for life.

Even tho they are not married they would still form a one flesh union and be treated in much the same way as a wife, being loyal only to one man. So clearly sex outside of marriage is not a sin if it's with a concubine and an intention to marry is not even required.

Do anyone have any thoughts about concubinage or what fornication actually is?
 
Kiwi_Lion said:
why were those men with concubines not accused of fornication?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that, for the discussion at hand, the Hebrew and Greek words translated to "fornication" actually mean "sexual immorality". And whatever process was going on with respect to a man having a concubine, it does not involve any sexual immorality. And we know for certain that concubinage is permissible based on King David having ten concubines, and 1Ki 15:5 saying "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."

Concubinage is a difficult to thing to speak particularly about, and opinions vary wildly. I think one of the reasons for that is it took place in the bible over many hundreds or thousands of years spanning many different cultures. Undoubtedly they each had slight differences in how they did it and what they considered acceptable practices and not. Even in our own Western culture, the institution of "marriage" has evolved quite significantly in the last 50 years.

I believe that "fornication" is what the English dictionary calls it "sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.", and that it has little or no place in English translations of the Bible.
 
Concubineage is a form of marriage.
This topic has been beat to death in other threads.
 
NVIII said:
I wish for us late to the party that there was some sort of topical index to the old threads.
Click to expand...
There are threads listed below our conversation here.
 
Kiwi_Lion said:
(Does) anyone have any thoughts about concubinage or what fornication actually is?
Click to expand...

A concubine is basically a plural but calling her a concubine just sounds less Mormon than calling her your 'second wife'. :cool:
 
Kiwi_Lion said:
If concubines were allowed in the Torah why were those men with concubines not accused of fornication?
Click to expand...
Concubines are not a separate category in the Law. Women are women, if you take one then you got one. There is a category that gets slightly more protections than any other but it’s a very limited scenario involving the most vulnerable women.
Kiwi_Lion said:
Supposedly any sex outside of marriage is fornication
Click to expand...
It is not. Fornication (porneia) is the entirety of the sexual Law. To abstain from fornication is to keep all of the Law surrounding sex.
 
Kiwi_Lion said:
I have been getting thru my research topics related to Polygyny in the bible but I came across a fascinating issue. If concubines were allowed in the Torah why were those men with concubines not accused of fornication?
Click to expand...
Because they were "married" to their concubines.
Kiwi_Lion said:
Do anyone have any thoughts about concubinage or what fornication actually is?
Click to expand...
Do a search on the word and read the threads where this is hashed out at great length.
 
eye4them said:
I'm pretty sure that, for the discussion at hand, the Hebrew and Greek words translated to "fornication" actually mean "sexual immorality". And whatever process was going on with respect to a man having a concubine, it does not involve any sexual immorality. And we know for certain that concubinage is permissible based on King David having ten concubines, and 1Ki 15:5 saying "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."

Concubinage is a difficult to thing to speak particularly about, and opinions vary wildly. I think one of the reasons for that is it took place in the bible over many hundreds or thousands of years spanning many different cultures. Undoubtedly they each had slight differences in how they did it and what they considered acceptable practices and not. Even in our own Western culture, the institution of "marriage" has evolved quite significantly in the last 50 years.

I believe that "fornication" is what the English dictionary calls it "sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.", and that it has little or no place in English translations of the Bible.
Click to expand...
it's interesting how many concepts have a modern definition that differs from the biblical definition, such as adultery.

It seems like the entire claim that the New Testament instituted monogamy rests on just two verses Matthew 19:5 and 1 Corinthians 7:2. The first is about divorce and the one flesh union and the second promoting marriage to avoid fornication.

If a married man has an affair, which is not adultery, he would be obliged to marry his mistress (plus pay 50 shekels of silver to her father) and stay married to his first wife. But I imagine they would not likely have had full blown wedding ceremonies in the case of concubines.

Do you think concubines would be treated the same as a wife in terms of divorce? As Hagar was send away by Abraham without the cause of Adultery.
 
Concubines are wives. For one example, Genesis 16:3 calls Hagar Abraham's "wife". They're just a type of wife.

The word concubine simply denotes social status. As you'll see in other threads, we disagree a bit on the detail - for instance some like myself believe it means a wife-without-paperwork, so is essentially synonymous with "de-facto", others believe it means a slave wife. We also disagree on whether it's relevant to today - anyone who holds that concubine means "slave wife" or anything similarly unfavourable does not believe anyone should have a concubine today, while those who believe concubine simply means "de-facto" or something similarly innocuous even class many of the wives of people on this forum as concubines! And this brief summary is by no means exhaustive.

But what there is no dispute on is the fact that a concubine was a type of wife (i.e. a type of woman a man could have), and not fornication.

Remember that in Hebrew there is no word for "wife", the original word is "woman". Everything scripture says about how we are to treat our "women" (translated "wives") applies to all women a man might have, whatever other descriptors might be applied to them.
 
Kiwi_Lion said:
If a married man has an affair, which is not adultery, he would be obliged to marry his mistress (plus pay 50 shekels of silver to her father)
Click to expand...
If this is in reference to Exo 22:16-17, then I think the prescribed process would only apply if the woman in question had been a virgin before the affair.

Kiwi_Lion said:
Do you think concubines would be treated the same as a wife in terms of divorce?
Click to expand...
I would think that it would depend on how closely her status as concubine lines up with the status of a wife. For example; I believe it is lawful a woman meeting certain criteria to work as a harlot. And if that's the case, then suppose the concubine in question is a woman who could lawfully be a harlot, but who is simply continuing with a man while it suited her. In her case, I would think there is no process of separation other than she walking out.. just as a harlot could.
 
In the past Megan mentioned that she viewed her marriage early on as concubinage.

I personally don't like the thought of concubinage, but the Law clearly treated it as legitimate. Many righteous men had concubines.

Abraham and Hagar are both righteous.

I would prefer to call a woman "my woman" rather than "my concubine".
 
eye4them said:
If this is in reference to Exo 22:16-17, then I think the prescribed process would only apply if the woman in question had been a virgin before the affair.


I would think that it would depend on how closely her status as concubine lines up with the status of a wife. For example; I believe it is lawful a woman meeting certain criteria to work as a harlot. And if that's the case, then suppose the concubine in question is a woman who could lawfully be a harlot, but who is simply continuing with a man while it suited her. In her case, I would think there is no process of separation other than she walking out.. just as a harlot could.
Click to expand...
I can't think of anywhere harlotry is presented in a positive light. Polygyny and concubinage are portrayed positively, for example at the end of Ruth.

"And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, “We are witnesses. The Lord make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem." (Ruth 4:11 NKJV)

Dang it!!!!

I just answered my own question with the next verse! 😳

"May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the Lord will give you from this young woman.” (Ruth 4:12 NKJV)

Then again, was Tamar practicing harlotry proper, or rather a somewhat skewed version of kinsman redeemer or levirate marriage?
 
The word has gotten a bad rap, but did Yah ever use it negatively?
Solomon had 300 of the critters, and I’ll bet that they were happy to be one. It was a good gig if you could land it.
 
Kiwi_Lion said:
Do you think concubines would be treated the same as a wife in terms of divorce? As Hagar was send away by Abraham without the cause of Adultery.
Click to expand...
No. Because this is a question largely around what assets someone takes with them on separation, and that issue is not addressed in scripture. It is a matter of fairness. Someone who has brought more into the family will leave with more, someone who brought nothing would leave with little - even according to modern secular laws around property distribution. If a concubine is a lower status wife, e.g. a slave, she brought little into the marriage, so would leave with little. So you can expect to see differences in the treatment of concubines on divorce, but those differences do not imply they had any less of a marriage.

Regarding Hagar - that occurred prior to the Mosaic Law being issued. So it was not yet unlawful for him to send a wife away for lesser cause than required in the Law.
 
Bartato said:
I can't think of anywhere harlotry is presented in a positive light
Click to expand...
Neither can I. In fact I think harlotry is fairly well spoken against, but not specifically prohibited.
Can you find a place where harlotry is prohibited?

Notwithstanding, a woman being a harlot really isn't the topic here, but rather a woman who could be a harlot, but who is being a concubine, and how that would affect her going out from the man she's with.
 
Bartato said:
I can't think of anywhere harlotry is presented in a positive light. Polygyny and concubinage are portrayed positively, for example at the end of Ruth.

"And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, “We are witnesses. The Lord make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem." (Ruth 4:11 NKJV)

Dang it!!!!

I just answered my own question with the next verse! 😳

"May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the Lord will give you from this young woman.” (Ruth 4:12 NKJV)

Then again, was Tamar practicing harlotry proper, or rather a somewhat skewed version of kinsman redeemer or levirate marriage?
Click to expand...
Great verse. A verse speaking very highly of two of Jacob's wives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top