I like that! I am going to use it. That is very astute!
I like that also. Never thought of it that way.
-
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.
Meat Virgins or bridesmaids
- Thread starter Paulsen
- Start date
I misspoke in the first post and corrected in the second. The difference is not that she was a free woman, necessarily, but primarily the difference between a ketubah’d wife and a concubine was the concubine entered as a servant or without a dowry and the free born entered with a dowry and ketubah.
As to the inheritance, I think you’ve got it a bit wrong. The inheritance was from the grandfathers, usually held in trust by the parents. A ketubah’ed wife came into the marriage with her future children’s inheritance from her father (which was her dowry) Her children would also have a share from their paternal grandfather. A concubine’s children had no portion except from the paternal grandfather.
I'm curious of your source?
Of which part?
All of it. I know the first paragraph is how it's traditionally viewed but I have never seen any historical source for it. Also I struggle to make that hard line distinction in Scripture. It seems more squishy...
The second I am completely unaware of scripture support for. So I am assuming there is some historical evidence?
http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/index.html
This will have a lot of this info in it. Kethuboth is the tractate on most things dealing with ketubah/marriage. Including children and inheritance and dowry.
Sorry this is such a broad answer, as there is a lot of reading here, with some bones and lots of meat. When I have more time, I may be able to look thru my notes and post excerpts.
This will have a lot of this info in it. Kethuboth is the tractate on most things dealing with ketubah/marriage. Including children and inheritance and dowry.
Sorry this is such a broad answer, as there is a lot of reading here, with some bones and lots of meat. When I have more time, I may be able to look thru my notes and post excerpts.
Philo. The special laws III
On the other hand, a father was bound to provide a dowry (nedan, nedanjah) for his daughter conformable to her station in life; and a second daughter could claim a portion equal to that of her elder sister, or else one-tenth of all immovable property. In case of the father’s death, the sons, who, according to Jewish law, were his sole heirs, were bound to maintain their sisters, even though this would have thrown them upon public charity, and to endow each with a tenth part of what had been left. The dowry, whether in money, property, or jewellery, was entered into the marriage contract, and really belonged to the wife, the husband being obliged to add to it one-half more, if it consisted of money or money’s value; and if of jewellery, etc., to assign to her four-fifths of its value. In case of separation (not divorce) he was bound to allow her a proper aliment, and to re-admit her to his table and house on the Sabbath-eve. A wife was entitled to one-tenth of her dowry for pin-money. If a father gave away his daughter without any distinct statement about her dowry, he was bound to allow her at least fifty sus; and if it had been expressly stipulated that she was to have no dowry at all, it was delicately enjoined that the bridegroom should, before marriage, give her sufficient for the necessary outfit. An orphan was to receive a dowry of at least fifty sus from the parochial authorities. A husband could not oblige his wife to leave the Holy Land nor the city of Jerusalem, nor yet to change a town for a country residence, or vice versa, nor a good for a bad house. These are only a few of the provisions which show how carefully the law protected the interests of women. To enter into farther details would lead beyond our present object. All this was substantially settled at the betrothal, which, in Judaea at least, seems to have been celebrated by a feast. Only a bona fide breach of these arrangements, or wilful fraud, was deemed valid ground for dissolving the bond once formed. Otherwise, as already noted, a regular divorce was necessary. According to Rabbinical law certain formalities were requisite to make a betrothal legally valid. These consisted either in handing to a woman, directly or through messengers, a piece of money, however small, or else a letter, provided it were in each case expressly stated before witnesses, that the man thereby intended to espouse the woman as his wife.
According to Jewish law there were four obligations incumbent on a wife towards her husband, and ten by which he was bound. Of the latter, three are referred to in Exodus 21: 9, 10; the other seven include her settlement, medical treatment in case of sickness, redemption from captivity, a respectable funeral, provision in his house so long as she remained a widow and had not been paid her dowry, the support of her daughters till they were married, and a provision that her sons should, besides receiving their portion of the father’s inheritance, also share in what had been settled upon her. The obligations upon the wife were, that all her gains should belong to her husband, as also what came to her after marriage by inheritance; that the husband should have the usufruct of her dowry, and of any gains by it, provided he had the administration of it, in which case, however, he was also responsible for any loss; and that he should be considered her heir-at-law.
Also interesting is the Code of Hammurabi, numbered 150 ish to 180 ish
On the other hand, a father was bound to provide a dowry (nedan, nedanjah) for his daughter conformable to her station in life; and a second daughter could claim a portion equal to that of her elder sister, or else one-tenth of all immovable property. In case of the father’s death, the sons, who, according to Jewish law, were his sole heirs, were bound to maintain their sisters, even though this would have thrown them upon public charity, and to endow each with a tenth part of what had been left. The dowry, whether in money, property, or jewellery, was entered into the marriage contract, and really belonged to the wife, the husband being obliged to add to it one-half more, if it consisted of money or money’s value; and if of jewellery, etc., to assign to her four-fifths of its value. In case of separation (not divorce) he was bound to allow her a proper aliment, and to re-admit her to his table and house on the Sabbath-eve. A wife was entitled to one-tenth of her dowry for pin-money. If a father gave away his daughter without any distinct statement about her dowry, he was bound to allow her at least fifty sus; and if it had been expressly stipulated that she was to have no dowry at all, it was delicately enjoined that the bridegroom should, before marriage, give her sufficient for the necessary outfit. An orphan was to receive a dowry of at least fifty sus from the parochial authorities. A husband could not oblige his wife to leave the Holy Land nor the city of Jerusalem, nor yet to change a town for a country residence, or vice versa, nor a good for a bad house. These are only a few of the provisions which show how carefully the law protected the interests of women. To enter into farther details would lead beyond our present object. All this was substantially settled at the betrothal, which, in Judaea at least, seems to have been celebrated by a feast. Only a bona fide breach of these arrangements, or wilful fraud, was deemed valid ground for dissolving the bond once formed. Otherwise, as already noted, a regular divorce was necessary. According to Rabbinical law certain formalities were requisite to make a betrothal legally valid. These consisted either in handing to a woman, directly or through messengers, a piece of money, however small, or else a letter, provided it were in each case expressly stated before witnesses, that the man thereby intended to espouse the woman as his wife.
According to Jewish law there were four obligations incumbent on a wife towards her husband, and ten by which he was bound. Of the latter, three are referred to in Exodus 21: 9, 10; the other seven include her settlement, medical treatment in case of sickness, redemption from captivity, a respectable funeral, provision in his house so long as she remained a widow and had not been paid her dowry, the support of her daughters till they were married, and a provision that her sons should, besides receiving their portion of the father’s inheritance, also share in what had been settled upon her. The obligations upon the wife were, that all her gains should belong to her husband, as also what came to her after marriage by inheritance; that the husband should have the usufruct of her dowry, and of any gains by it, provided he had the administration of it, in which case, however, he was also responsible for any loss; and that he should be considered her heir-at-law.
Also interesting is the Code of Hammurabi, numbered 150 ish to 180 ish
167. If a man marry a wife and she bear him children: if this wife die and he then take another wife and she bear him children: if then the father die, the sons must not partition the estate according to the mothers, they shall divide the dowries of their mothers only in this way; the paternal estate they shall divide equally with one another.
So basically these are extra biblical sources that are evidence of how it was handled but in no way authoritative about how it must be handled. Code of hammurabi carries zero weight.
Bro. This ministry is called "biblical families" we shouldn't be making definitive statements about how these matters should be handled unless those positions are defendable from scripture. These statements you made are not defended by scripture. What is evidenced in scripture is that much of these issues are determined based on the decisions of the men involved in the agreement. (father/groom etc... )
Point being please make it clear that you are explaining your view of how it was handled in the past but that it's not necessarily a scriptural requirement to do things that way.
Bro. This ministry is called "biblical families" we shouldn't be making definitive statements about how these matters should be handled unless those positions are defendable from scripture. These statements you made are not defended by scripture. What is evidenced in scripture is that much of these issues are determined based on the decisions of the men involved in the agreement. (father/groom etc... )
Point being please make it clear that you are explaining your view of how it was handled in the past but that it's not necessarily a scriptural requirement to do things that way.
There is no definition of concubine in the scriptures. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You can only get that from related cultural documents. And yet concubinage is clearly a Biblical thing.
Kethuboth gets into how the post-exile jews did concubinage. Code of Hammurabi goes into how Abraham's ethnic culture did concubinage. Beyond a few hints in the OT narratives, language and other associated cultures, that's just about as close as you can get. There isn't a hard and fast sure definition. I'm not sure VV got it exactly right; but I think its closer to right than most practices of marriage is to biblical marriage (unless you paid dowry for your virgin bride that is).
As concubinage is not defined in scripture, we have little option but to look to extrabiblical sources to understand what the definition of the word is. Obviously we have to hold the details loosely - some legal requirement elsewhere in Babylonian or Talmudic laws is not at all a legal requirement on us. But these sources do show us what the author was probably visualising when writing down the word "concubine".
I think these just give us examples of what a concubine can be. I don't think we need to figure out "a concubine has precisely X, Y and Z characteristics". A wife with a lesser legal standing in one way or another, e.g. regarding inheritence, is referred to as a "concubine". That's simple. The details of how this could look like in the past are interesting, but not necessarily exhaustive.
The point is that a wife of any standing is still recognised in God's eyes. (1) A woman taken as a wife with a legal marriage certificate and vows, (2) a woman taken without legal recognition but with full inheritance rights secured using a will or other legal instrument, (3) a woman taken openly but with lesser inheritance rights than another wife explicitly defined in a will, (4) a woman taken informally without making any legal provision for inheritence, and even (5) a woman taken in secret and deceptively (even though immoral), are still recognised by God.
You could call the last three "concubines" if you liked, and that would align with the examples given by @Verifyveritas76. But the examples are not prescriptive, simply examples. And the word you use really isn't important, it is the practical reality that matters (whether you call the woman in situation 3 a concubine or a wife could be debated at length but would make absolutely zero practical impact on her life).
The biggest distinction not mentioned yet is that 'wives' were usually had from fathers via dowry (early on it there was only the implied contract, but later the presence/lack of a written contract is what defined wife vs. concubine) whereas concubines were mostly taken in on the basis of romantic entanglement without contract/dowry (or other lessor status means such as slaves/handmaidens, also a non-contractual taking). Yes romancing a woman to be your wife was considered lower status; just do a word study on Eros in the scriptures to see how dimly they held it.
We don't have marital contracts today, and to the extent we do they are dimly enforced. There are vows, but they are a meaningless fiction. There is the social contract, partially established in the statutes, but they create not a marriage but a matriarchal slave like arrangement which is subject to change at any time.
We don't have marital contracts today, and to the extent we do they are dimly enforced. There are vows, but they are a meaningless fiction. There is the social contract, partially established in the statutes, but they create not a marriage but a matriarchal slave like arrangement which is subject to change at any time.
Dude! Really?
You asked for historical evidence, I gave historical evidence, then you give me grief for giving historical evidence.
Yes, there are biblical references as well. Find em yourself.
Sorry bro. You're right I asked for historical refference because I was suspecting something like the code of hammurabi or Talmud. Your initial statement seemed authoritative. I like many others have mentioned can find no authoritative definition of these things in Scripture.
The Bible is my sole authority for life (at least that's the goal). What I gather from the Bible on these issues is that they are "squishy" that leads me to believe that like many other things in Scripture it should be left to the discretion of the men involved in the situation. We shouldn't be making rules about such things based on historical records and passing them off as if they are authoritative.
Let's all stop trying to put men in an artificial box. Support men making and standing firm on their decisions. Ruling their own households as they see fit.
Last edited:
Is concubinate an escape clause where we get to make up an alternative form of marriage that suites each one of us? Or do we instead need to just understand what those people meant by concubine when they used the word by examining other historical sources. Such work is at the base of our understanding of everything in the scriptures, it is how ancient language dictionaries are made to enable translation work or deep study of the scriptures.
If you have a better source, I’m open to it. I think there is (or could be) a distinction between what scripture or history records happening and how it instructs us to do the same thing.
All I was saying re inheritance was this is how it actually worked then. IMO, they had a very good, workable balanced system of inheritance that worked extremely well for a polygynous society.
IMO, trying to understand scripture without a historical/cultural context is a waste of time and leads to the cultural drift we see evidenced in the present vast chasm between how scripture was interpreted then and utilized, versus how we’ve been told it should be interpreted today.
I’ll be the first to stand in defense of Patriarchy. Unfortunately the definition of patriarchy seems to be one of those squishy issues that most men wanna be able to conveniently define for their own home. We’re all trying our best to be a patriarch of our own home.
Patriarch by definition and etymology is simplest defined as a “Pater over Paters”. Most of us are attempting to be patriarchal in mindset and rule but are having difficulty realizing that successful patriarchy demands more than lip service to its principles.
Inheritance is just one aspect of patriarchy. Proverbs 13:22 says that a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children. Not to his children. How does he do that in real life? Our society today says that he hangs onto everything he can until the last minute and then passes it to his children. Hebrew society then says that he sends the portion out with the bride as a dowry/inheritance. Those assets are to be stewarded in a manner that preserves the asset for later inheritance and the usufruct utilized for the production of heirs and their upkeep. It’s actually a remarkable system that encourages the patriarchs to invest in the next generation (grandchildren) allowing the new couple to jumpstart the family financially and incentivized them to actively work to increase the profitability of the family and the assets available for inheritance.
And yet the new pater does not have carte blanch with the inheritance. There are expectations from both patriarchs and certain parameters within which it is to be utilized. The saying “to whom much is given, much is required” comes to mind.
This method of (maternal) inheritance division ensures that the inheritance actually goes exclusively to the maternal grandchildren (quite important in a polygynous society) unless there are none and only then does the husband become the heir if he outlives her.
Obviously the paternal inheritance is divided amongst all the children, either thru dowry for the girls or lot for the boys.
I think I’ve come to the point where I’m gonna support Christ honoring marriage/patriarchy. Supporting anything else just perverts the perception of Christ and our relationship thru him to the Father.
If that's how you want to word it then go ahead. Imo if it doesn't violate a 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not' then we shouldn't condemn it.
I get that with regard to defining words. I am not opposed to that, but the inheritance details and the exact structure of the relationship between a man and his women are not the same thing as defining a word. Comare scripture with scripture and you will find there is no exact structure in place as it relates to the master/ concubine relationship.
This is my point. Just because we find how it was done in history that doesn't mean it has to be done that way.
Thank you for clarifying because it didn't seem like that was what you were saying earlier. On this I think we mostly agree. It was likely a good way to handle it.
I am failing to see a distinction between this:
And this:
A man ruling his own household is the biblical model of Messiah and the Assembly...
I’d say that I see the difference between a man ruling his own household, and a man ruling his own household like Messiah would. . . . .
One more again people, there are no concubines in God’s economy. He makes no provision for them anywhere in His Word. There is only the barest of protection for a slave girl taken as a wife which means she’s treated better than a regularly acquired wife. Marriage is a metaphor for God’s relationship to us and there are NO CONCUBINES AMONG US. This is a fruitless line of inquiry. God’s Laws are clear and easily followed. He did not give us an definition of a concubine or how they were to distinguished from wives. I’m sorry but if you sleep with her you’re stuck with her and there are no other categories.