Is Concubinage Fornication?

[FollowingHim]

So could we essentially say a concubine is a woman has exclusive sex with a man and belongs to him but without a contract. And does he have to divorce her if he sends her away and out of his house.

The "contract" I referred to when mentioning a Jewish definition of concubine (Jewish ketubah), has nothing to do with the marriage at a spiritual level - just as a marriage licence today has nothing to do with whether a couple are married. Think of it like a pre-nuptial agreement - it outlines things that are important to the couple for various reasons, and may affect how the marriage is conducted and property division on divorce / death, but it does not make the marriage. The marriage is formed by God when it is consummated.

In our society, we have "wives" and "de-facto wives" - but in God's eyes they are equal, and our responsibilities to them are identical. The difference simply relates to the social norms of today. Likewise, within the culture of ancient Israel, there were "wives" and "concubine wives" - and whatever difference there was simply related to the social structure of the time. In God's eyes they were the same.

God tells us how to treat our women / wives - all our women. Nowhere in scripture is that qualified to give any different instructions if that woman happens to be a "concubine", whatever the word means. The word is irrelevant when it comes to God's instructions around marriage.

As a wife, she must be treated as wife must be treated, according to scripture.

 

[NBTX11]

The "contract" I referred to when mentioning a Jewish definition of concubine (Jewish ketubah), has nothing to do with the marriage at a spiritual level - just as a marriage licence today has nothing to do with whether a couple are married. Think of it like a pre-nuptial agreement - it outlines things that are important to the couple for various reasons, and may affect how the marriage is conducted and property division on divorce / death, but it does not make the marriage. The marriage is formed by God when it is consummated.

In our society, we have "wives" and "de-facto wives" - but in God's eyes they are equal, and our responsibilities to them are identical. The difference simply relates to the social norms of today. Likewise, within the culture of ancient Israel, there were "wives" and "concubine wives" - and whatever difference there was simply related to the social structure of the time. In God's eyes they were the same.

God tells us how to treat our women / wives - all our women. Nowhere in scripture is that qualified to give any different instructions if that woman happens to be a "concubine", whatever the word means. The word is irrelevant when it comes to God's instructions around marriage.

As a wife, she must be treated as wife must be treated, according to scripture.

Thank you. Exactly the information I was looking for. Much appreciated.

 

[NickF]

The marriage is formed by God when it is consummated.

If that is so, then why is the punishment exactly the same for a betrothed woman and a married woman caught in adultery? No consummation, but equal treatment as being bought and possesed by the bridegroom? There seems to be equal amounts of evidence to assume a betrothal equals the defining transition between the woman being under her father's authority to being under her bridegroom's authority. And what is the thing we call marriage if not ownership/responsibility/headship? Naturally I'm not saying betrothal equals a full transfer of that headship like occurs when she actually leaves the house of her father and joins the bridegroom's house.

Marriage cannot be consummation as scripture is clear on that matter. Prostitutes, whores, did not get serially married. Tamar, David's daughter and Dinah both would have been married. But alas, they were not married to their rapists. Additionally a man who enticed a maid was required to endow her to be his wife. That's like saying the guy who stole a car and wrecked it owned it as soon as he stole it. No, the guy who stole the car and crashed it is required to pay for the car, and only after receiving title to the car does it become his.

Ergo, marriage cannot logically be formed when sexual union occurs. It's simply scripturally proven to not be the case. What we call marriage is a woman belonging to a man, being under his authority and headship, where sexual union is permitted to occur.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What we call marriage is a woman belonging to a man, being under his authority and headship, where sexual union is permitted to occur.

And how is that achieved?

 

[frederick]

If that is so, then why is the punishment exactly the same for a betrothed woman and a married woman caught in adultery? No consummation, but equal treatment as being bought and possesed by the bridegroom? There seems to be equal amounts of evidence to assume a betrothal equals the defining transition between the woman being under her father's authority to being under her bridegroom's authority. And what is the thing we call marriage if not ownership/responsibility/headship? Naturally I'm not saying betrothal equals a full transfer of that headship like occurs when she actually leaves the house of her father and joins the bridegroom's house.

Marriage cannot be consummation as scripture is clear on that matter. Prostitutes, whores, did not get serially married. Tamar, David's daughter and Dinah both would have been married. But alas, they were not married to their rapists. Additionally a man who enticed a maid was required to endow her to be his wife. That's like saying the guy who stole a car and wrecked it owned it as soon as he stole it. No, the guy who stole the car and crashed it is required to pay for the car, and only after receiving title to the car does it become his.

Ergo, marriage cannot logically be formed when sexual union occurs. It's simply scripturally proven to not be the case. What we call marriage is a woman belonging to a man, being under his authority and headship, where sexual union is permitted to occur.

Precisely. And unless the man already has that right, sexual union is not permitted.

 

[FollowingHim]

If that is so, then why is the punishment exactly the same for a betrothed woman and a married woman caught in adultery? No consummation, but equal treatment as being bought and possesed by the bridegroom? There seems to be equal amounts of evidence to assume a betrothal equals the defining transition between the woman being under her father's authority to being under her bridegroom's authority. And what is the thing we call marriage if not ownership/responsibility/headship? Naturally I'm not saying betrothal equals a full transfer of that headship like occurs when she actually leaves the house of her father and joins the bridegroom's house.

Marriage cannot be consummation as scripture is clear on that matter. Prostitutes, whores, did not get serially married. Tamar, David's daughter and Dinah both would have been married. But alas, they were not married to their rapists. Additionally a man who enticed a maid was required to endow her to be his wife. That's like saying the guy who stole a car and wrecked it owned it as soon as he stole it. No, the guy who stole the car and crashed it is required to pay for the car, and only after receiving title to the car does it become his.

Ergo, marriage cannot logically be formed when sexual union occurs. It's simply scripturally proven to not be the case. What we call marriage is a woman belonging to a man, being under his authority and headship, where sexual union is permitted to occur.

I was summarising with "the marriage is formed by God when it is consummated", and was speaking so briefly that holes can certainly be picked in those words. I did not intend to reopen the entire debate on what marriage is. I think you and I are actually in substantial agreement on that, and I could take another page or two of back-and-forth to find that out again, but I can't be bothered today!

I was making a simple point that concubines are real wives, contract or not. I don't think we disagree on that.

 

[MeganC]

I was summarising with "the marriage is formed by God when it is consummated", and was speaking so briefly that holes can certainly be picked in those words. I did not intend to reopen the entire debate on what marriage is. I think you and I are actually in substantial agreement on that, and I could take another page or two of back-and-forth to find that out again, but I can't be bothered today!

I was making a simple point that concubines are real wives, contract or not. I don't think we disagree on that.

100% agreement here.

Still, just from my own point of view I felt like less than a wife when I was first married. More than a girlfriend, but not quite a wife. Concubine seems a decent word to best describe how I felt.

Like I had all of the commitment but not all of the responsibilities or leadership in the family.

 

[steve]

Like I had all of the commitment

Did you feel fully committed at that time?

 

[rockfox]

there is no biblical definition of a concubine. They differ from wives not at all.

They are two different words, they are used differently in the Bible and in various human cultures. They are not the same thing. Both are a woman who belongs to a man, but the fact there are two different words makes plain there is a difference between them.

As a wife, she must be treated as wife must be treated, according to scripture.

Which begs the question, what if she's not really a wife? In the west the man no longer has true authority over a 'wife'. He doesn't even have conjugal rights anymore (exclusive or otherwise). The law set's her up as head of the relationship. Just because we call a woman a wife, doesn't make her one.

Particularly since Biblical wives were frequently, if not always, had by dowry.

 

[The Revolting Man]

They are two different words, they are used differently in the Bible and in various human cultures. They are not the same thing. Both are a woman who belongs to a man, but the fact there are two different words makes plain there is a difference between them.



Which begs the question, what if she's not really a wife? In the west the man no longer has true authority over a 'wife'. He doesn't even have conjugal rights anymore (exclusive or otherwise). The law set's her up as head of the relationship. Just because we call a woman a wife, doesn't make her one.

Particularly since Biblical wives were frequently, if not always, had by dowry.

Okay then, make the case. Show us the Biblical definition of a concubine and how she differs from a wife.

 

[rockfox]

Okay then, make the case. Show us the Biblical definition of a concubine and how she differs from a wife.

The Bible is not a dictionary it doesn't define everything. If it did we wouldn't need lexicons. It is plain from the usage in scriptures and the etymology and historical usages of both terms in various cultures that they are different.

"And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart."

The fact that it lists wives and concubines separately proves they are different things. Two different words are used. What the difference is is a point of contention but that there is a difference is plain to any with eyes to see.

 

[NBTX11]

The question is, what is the difference. That is the answer many of us are looking for. Is it a wife by another name. Is it a lesser wife. Is it a wife without a contract. Is it a sexual partner that belongs to the man. If it is simply a wife, then why isn't it called wife in every instance. Why bother with concubines. Just say Solomon had 1,000 wives. I get it, wives and concubines are somewhat interchangeable and some women are called both. But, what specifically is the difference. If we don't know then just say we don't really know.

Maybe as someone said they are de-facto wives. I agree they are wives, but what exactly is the difference. Does anyone really know.

 

[frederick]

The question is, what is the difference. That is the answer many of us are looking for. Is it a wife by another name. Is it a lesser wife. Is it a wife without a contract. Is it a sexual partner that belongs to the man. If it is simply a wife, then why isn't it called wife in every instance. Why bother with concubines. Just say Solomon had 1,000 wives. I get it, wives and concubines are somewhat interchangeable and some women are called both. But, what specifically is the difference. If we don't know then just say we don't really know.

Maybe as someone said they are de-facto wives. I agree they are wives, but what exactly is the difference. Does anyone really know.

Just because a female belongs to a man doesn't mean we use the word "wife" to define her or the relationship she has with him. A man can have a daughter; a daughter is not a wife or a concubine therefore we have a different word to refer to her and to define the relationship. A concubine is different from a wife and we know that because there is a different word for her and to refer to her relationship with her man. That seems simple to understand but then again, I like to keep things simple.

 

[JudahYAHites]

Having read through this thread and presented my own definition I see two glaring errors that are causing unnecessary confusion.

Firstly we need to stop using the word "wife" because it was never in the original script, it is a translation addition/corruption that came from minds that had already been saturated in pagan ideals. It also detaches woman from the purpose function and design woman was created for. I personally use the word 'ishshah in my day to day conversations and teaching.

Secondly we have to understand that the scriptures are practical. They trace the experiences and accounts of men who obeyed and disobeyed YAH in their lives on a practical level. There are many things in the law, the prophets and the testimony of the apostles that are only truly understood by living it out practically day by day. When we attempt to understand from a theoretical point of view before obedience and practical living in our personal lives we miss the opportunity of knowing him and his ways by walking with him, and fall, into a snare of knowing about him and about his ways.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. — John 8:31-32 KJV

...Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. — Mark 10:15 KJV

 

[FollowingHim]

A concubine is different from a wife and we know that because there is a different word for her and to refer to her relationship with her man.

Except that in scripture both words are applied to the same woman. Keturah is called Abraham's "wife" and his "concubine". Bilhah is almost always called Jacob's "wife", but once called a "concubine". And Zilpah is never called a concubine, even though we think of her as one, she's only called a "wife".

If wives and concubines were different, what were these women?

 

[The Revolting Man]

The Bible is not a dictionary it doesn't define everything. If it did we wouldn't need lexicons. It is plain from the usage in scriptures and the etymology and historical usages of both terms in various cultures that they are different.

"And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart."

The fact that it lists wives and concubines separately proves they are different things. Two different words are used. What the difference is is a point of contention but that there is a difference is plain to any with eyes to see.

We don’t need lexicons. They’re useful but not necessary. If they were necessary God would have given us one.

On top of that you’re indulging in the classic description vs. prescription fallacy. More dangerous than normal in this case as concubines aren’t even described in scripture.

 

[MeganC]

All the right questions, there is no biblical definition of a concubine. They differ from wives not at all.

The Bible might be silent on what is a concubine yet the difference and distinction is there all the same or the Bible would make no such distinction between wives and concubines in the first place.

The online definition seems about right and you can square it with the Bible by noting that a man is committed to a concubine the same as a wife yet she is not a wife.

1. A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The Bible might be silent on what is a concubine yet the difference and distinction is there all the same or the Bible would make no such distinction between wives and concubines in the first place.

The online definition seems about right and you can square it with the Bible by noting that a man is committed to a concubine the same as a wife yet she is not a wife.

1. A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.

Neither of those conditions exist anywhere in scripture. The idea of lower social status is almost antithetical to scripture. The idea of a legal marriage is of course absurd from a scriptural standpoint.

 

[MeganC]

Neither of those conditions exist anywhere in scripture. The idea of lower social status is almost antithetical to scripture. The idea of a legal marriage is of course absurd from a scriptural standpoint.

I know. Yet this is still a distinction that exists in reality.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I know. Yet this is still a distinction that exists in reality.

Obviously I don’t think so, not in a way that matters. All of the divorce and adultery laws would apply. We still don’t know how to establish a marriage let alone a concubineship. Frankly the whole topic just frustrates me.