And indirectly also approving the concubinage of Jacob with Bilhah and Zilpah
-
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?
- Thread starter Kiwi_Lion
- Start date
It helps to understand the history of words. 'Wife' is only around 200 years old. 'Marriage' is a word in the ancient Greek, but not the ancient Hebrew. 'Concubine' is older than all of those, so old it's word meaning is almost lost to history and its practice varied greatly from culture to culture. 'To marry' in Hebrew is a translation of 'take', 'purchase, or 'dower'.
My understanding of scriptural usage, which you'll find debated in past threads, is that marriage is the state of a woman belonging to a man; a relationship of headship and authority. A woman would be called 'his woman' or 'his concubine' based on how she came to be in that relationship. The former, if she came by dowry (and agreement with the father), the latter, if she came as a war bride, a slave, or romantic seduction (without contract/dowry/permission and hence she might in some cases be able to leave at will).
I'll leave it to you to guess which one of those types marriage today looks most like.
My understanding of scriptural usage, which you'll find debated in past threads, is that marriage is the state of a woman belonging to a man; a relationship of headship and authority. A woman would be called 'his woman' or 'his concubine' based on how she came to be in that relationship. The former, if she came by dowry (and agreement with the father), the latter, if she came as a war bride, a slave, or romantic seduction (without contract/dowry/permission and hence she might in some cases be able to leave at will).
I'll leave it to you to guess which one of those types marriage today looks most like.
Last edited:
I was hearing a discussion on relations in the early christian centuries- the anglo-saxon and danish royal families in particular. It appeared that girls who became second or successive partners of a noble had the status of a wife; but the church had not formalised exactly what a marriage was. The children of such a relationship had succession rights, and very accomplished women were happy to take on such a commitment
That phrase really grabbed my attention. Marriage has existed since the garden of Eden. That was several thousand years earlier. Even the written Law of Moses predated this era by 1500-2000 years. There is no excuse for the church to not know what marriage is.
Adam knew. Cain and Seth knew. Enoch knew. Noah and his family knew. Abraham knew. Isaac knew. Jacob and. Esau knew. Joseph knew. Moses knew. Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi all knew. Gideon knew. Samuel knew. David knew. Daniel knew. Jeremiah knew. Ezekiel knew. Malachi knew. Peter knew. Paul knew. John knew. James knew.
We all really know.
It is what the Bible says it is. It is intended to be a lifelong union of a man and a woman. It is a patriarchal covenant, where the man leads, provides for, protects, and cherishes a woman. The woman is the helpmate of the man. She submits to, helps, respects, and follows him. The woman can only be married to one man. The man can be married to one, or more women.
It's all right there is Genesis.
Yup. "Wife" was a role that I grew into later on.
I have a thread about this.
Read all mentions of Bilhah and Keturah in scripture and you will find both referred to interchangeably as "wife" and "concubine". Bilhah is usually called Jacob's wife, and only once his concubine.
That tells us clearly that concubines are wives.
Beyond that, there is no clear scriptural definition, hence the controversy. A clear definition can be found in extrabiblical Jewish writings (that a concubine is a wife without a ketubah, or marriage contract). If that is rejected as inadmissible for being extrabiblical then you're down to assumptions, and people assume many different things. This is a word that is rarely used in scripture so simply not defined within the Bible, and like any other obscure word not defined in scripture we have to draw on all available sources to understand it.
That tells us clearly that concubines are wives.
Beyond that, there is no clear scriptural definition, hence the controversy. A clear definition can be found in extrabiblical Jewish writings (that a concubine is a wife without a ketubah, or marriage contract). If that is rejected as inadmissible for being extrabiblical then you're down to assumptions, and people assume many different things. This is a word that is rarely used in scripture so simply not defined within the Bible, and like any other obscure word not defined in scripture we have to draw on all available sources to understand it.
Beautifully succinct...
From my understanding a concubine has responsibilities / dedications / servitude / contract etc that may exclude her from exclusively being a "help meet" to the man...
for example as Bilhah & Zilpah have been used in this thread, they were maids to Leah & Rachel. They were Sexually exclusive to Jacob but not exclusive with regards to servitude / responsibilities / dedications / contract etc
Whereas Leah & Rachel had been acquired and they helped / served no one else but Jacob
All four were "wives" but only two were exclusive in "helping" the man.
That is an interesting distinction, and it certainly covers some of the most common concubines in the Bible.
But if we choose that as the definition, we are being arbitrary. There are other possibilities that may also be true, and it wouldn’t be right to exclude them.
All the right questions, there is no biblical definition of a concubine. They differ from wives not at all.
No, because it never says that.
It never specifically requires any wife to have a contract.
Again, where is that specified?
I was speaking about if he wanted to divorce her or if she committed adultery. What steps should he take.
I fully realize God does not look kindly on divorce.
Any act of sex other than rape requires emotional agreement between the parties, this is a form of mental contract.
So, in that sense, a concubine has a contract. Arbitrarily requiring her to leave in a way that isn’t acknowledged in that contract doesn’t seem right.
So, in that sense, a concubine has a contract. Arbitrarily requiring her to leave in a way that isn’t acknowledged in that contract doesn’t seem right.
You have two different questions here.
Adultery is unacceptable and would be reason for telling her that it is over.
If the contract between them allows for other partners, he is totally out of line for having that in the agreement.
“Marriage”, more correctly called one flesh, is a a metaphor. The relationship between a man and a woman is supposed to be a living testament to the relationship between God/Israel or Christ/church both corporately and individually. God and Christ don’t have concubines. They have brides. There are no categories of brides, no hierarchies among the wise virgins.