Meat Virgins or bridesmaids

[rockfox]

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.

Are you saying that the scriptures document different structures in different places for concubines? Or that they just don't document it at all?

NO CONCUBINES AMONG US

How can you say that? There are concubines all through the OT; pre and post Moses.

He did not give us an definition of a concubine

He didn't give us a definition of dowry either; and yet it was also widely practiced and even commanded in one case.

It would be more accurate if you said there are no wives amoung us, since few to none of us dowered for our women.

 

[tps26]

I apologize if I ignited some contention here. I think the label "wife" is cause for a lot of confusion and I agree with @The Revolting Man on the assertion that there are no concubines in the body of Christ, and accordingly in the parable of the virgins.

Here's where I am coming from: As many of the more studied men on this forum have pointed out, there is no word for "wife" in the Bible. It's always "Abraham's woman", "David's woman", etc. The word "wife" actually just means "woman" (hence midwife) but it now (in the last several centuries) has become a social title and carry's a lot of baggage that results directly yet discreetly from a monogamy only culture.

Because the word "wife" has been compromised in this way it is helpful to just set it aside until you are comfortable enough mentally substituting it's synonym: "woman".

All a man's women are indeed "his women", but yet we have within another distinct catagorical term, concubine, for a woman that belongs to a man, and therefore it must come down to that relationship of belonging.

A concubine is just not fully his woman, in that she retains some aspect of her own will apart from his in her heart. (There are many practical reasons she may enter the family without the initial intent of being the patriarch's woman: She may work as a handmaid, she may have come into the family as a captive, or been mercifully taken in from hardship/orphanhood/widowhood, she just is not proven or fully comitted, at least at the present). The concubine is his physically, but not with all her heart, soul, and strength. Compare this to living out the letter of the law without it written on your heart. You are holding something back. Outwardly you may appear to belong to the lawgiver, but inside you are not his. You are a spiritual concubine.

"Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."
Galatians 4:21‭-‬26

@The Revolting Man is right, in that there are no concubines among us in the body of Christ:

"But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.""
Galatians 4:30

This is the inheritance I am getting at, not so much the cultural legalities of their day.

Sarah is free not because she can get up and leave whenever she wants, she is free because she is fully submitted, fully comitted, fully Abraham's woman; she is not in bondage to anything but her lord. Her son inherits.

But the reality is there are still concubines among us in modern marriage. If your woman is not yours with heart, soul, and strength, then she is a concubine to you. She is yours in letter, (literally by license in some cases) but not in spirit. She is holding something back. She is not yours.

This is why God cares about the content of our hearts so much. Without our hearts fully submitted to him we are not his. We are then the foolish virgins, obedient to bring our lamp as instructed, but not submissive enough to bring the needed oil. It's the oil that sets apart the anointed for service, Christos, of which you are a member.

 

[Pacman]

Are you saying that the scriptures document different structures in different places for concubines? Or that they just don't document it at all?

The relationship structure seems different in every instance. There appears to be no consistency over the span of scripture.

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.

Or perhaps it's the other way around. They are all concubines? Remember we import our cultural understanding of the word "wife" there is no Hebrew or Greek word to match our English word for wife. Just a thought. I know there are holes in that assertion. Just trying to get us to stop inserting our bias into the text when we read the word wife...

 

[Pacman]

A concubine is just not fully his woman, in that she retains some aspect of her own will apart from his in her heart.

While the whole post is good and I agree with it overall this statement is an assertion based on opinion. I don't see this particular distinction made in Scripture. It is possible that it's the other way around. Perhaps a concubine is more invested and committed than a woman who is not labeled as a concubine...

 

[steve]

The common beliefs these days that women can divorce their husbands and retain ownership of the children are more descriptive of an O. T. concubine relationship.
Add in the lack of dowery or bride price....

 

[steve]

Zec, I find your position altogether too legalistic.
Applying your standard, Yah could not have divorced Israel.

I do believe that the scripture about letting the tares grow up with the wheat, with them being separated after the harvest is very close to the concubine idea.
Receiving the same benefits during life, but not the final benefit. Not a perfect parallel, but they never are. The tare, in this scenario, could convert to full standard wife anytime that it chooses. But in the end, because it doesn’t, the judgment is I never knew you.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Wow. This one has taken an interesting turn. Lots of food for thought. Thanks

 

[rockfox]

A concubine is just not fully his woman, in that she retains some aspect of her own will apart from his in her heart.

What is the basis of this idea? It's not one I've seen articulated in scripture or history.

 

[FollowingHim]

Because the word "wife" has been compromised in this way it is helpful to just set it aside until you are comfortable enough mentally substituting it's synonym: "woman".

All a man's women are indeed "his women",

That far I agree.

A concubine is just not fully his woman, in that she retains some aspect of her own will apart from his in her heart. (There are many practical reasons she may enter the family without the initial intent of being the patriarch's woman: She may work as a handmaid, she may have come into the family as a captive, or been mercifully taken in from hardship/orphanhood/widowhood, she just is not proven or fully comitted, at least at the present). The concubine is his physically, but not with all her heart, soul, and strength. Compare this to living out the letter of the law without it written on your heart. You are holding something back. Outwardly you may appear to belong to the lawgiver, but inside you are not his. You are a spiritual concubine.

Do you have any scriptural source for this idea that a concubine is not fully his woman?

I think it's a lot simpler than this. A man's woman is his woman. Some of these women may have different inheritence arrangements, some may be classed using different legal terms (concubine vs woman in scripture, de-facto partner vs wife (sometimes vs civil union) in modern Western jurisdictions). These have practical implications, but don't change the spiritual reality in any way.

I agree in spirit with @The Revolting Man but disagree in terminology. All in Christ are united to him in the same way, all our women are united to us in the same way. He objects to the word "concubine" as he sees it as denoting something lesser, as suggested by @tps26 above. I do not object to the word, as I do not see it as denoting anything lesser at all in this sense. But I do object to the concept of her being legitimately less than fully submitted to her husband, because that has problematic spiritual implications as stated by @The Revolting Man.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The relationship structure seems different in every instance. There appears to be no consistency over the span of scripture.



Or perhaps it's the other way around. They are all concubines? Remember we import our cultural understanding of the word "wife" there is no Hebrew or Greek word to match our English word for wife. Just a thought. I know there are holes in that assertion. Just trying to get us to stop inserting our bias into the text when we read the word wife...

So to borrow from The Incredibles, if all of them are concubines then none of them are? I’m actually okay with that. I use the term wife with all of it’s baggage because it’s simply easier than the paragraph it would take to be Biblically correct. If concubine means “what the Bible says about women who are to be in submission to a specific man” then go with it. I will just fight tooth and nail a secondary class of women who are in submission to a specific man.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Are you saying that the scriptures document different structures in different places for concubines? Or that they just don't document it at all?



How can you say that? There are concubines all through the OT; pre and post Moses.



He didn't give us a definition of dowry either; and yet it was also widely practiced and even commanded in one case.

It would be more accurate if you said there are no wives amoung us, since few to none of us dowered for our women.

Deep sigh. Here we go again. Concubines are described as existing in the Bible, as are homosexuals and murderers, there are no Laws surrounding them at all. They are not defined, their status and role are not addressed, they are not even mentioned in the Law. The servant girl who is bought as a wife is referred to the same way as the woman who is captured in war who is referred to in the same way was the woman you buy from her father with an unspecified bride price. I am unaware of where a dowry is mentioned incidentally.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, I find your position altogether too legalistic.

Thank you. I’m trying. It’s very encouraging that someone I admire as much as you has noticed it.

Applying your standard, Yah could not have divorced Israel.

I would disagree obviously. I was talking about what constitutes a marriage and how there is only one kind that is only formed one way. I did not mean to comment on divorce.

 

[The Revolting Man]

That far I agree.

Do you have any scriptural source for this idea that a concubine is not fully his woman?

I think it's a lot simpler than this. A man's woman is his woman. Some of these women may have different inheritence arrangements, some may be classed using different legal terms (concubine vs woman in scripture, de-facto partner vs wife (sometimes vs civil union) in modern Western jurisdictions). These have practical implications, but don't change the spiritual reality in any way.

I agree in spirit with @The Revolting Man but disagree in terminology. All in Christ are united to him in the same way, all our women are united to us in the same way. He objects to the word "concubine" as he sees it as denoting something lesser, as suggested by @tps26 above. I do not object to the word, as I do not see it as denoting anything lesser at all in this sense. But I do object to the concept of her being legitimately less than fully submitted to her husband, because that has problematic spiritual implications as stated by @The Revolting Man.

It still seems like a distinction without a difference. How are concubines to be treated any differently than wives? Can they be divorced? The inheritance issue is interesting until you realize it means a man values his children based on how he acquired his wife. Would a godly man do that? I know I’m going to get Hagar thrown in my face here but I don’t think it changed our reality. Are your children less valuable because their mother is less valuable?

It seems sometimes that the fascination with concubines stems from a fascination with an exotic sex slave you can use however and whenever you want and send her back to work when you’re done. And I agree that is an exciting idea. But that’s what our wives are for. We don’t need another category of women to treat this way.

The underpinning of valuing one wife a certain and a wife assigned the title concubine is monogamist. There is a legitimate wife that you have to treat well and a less legitimate wife you can treat the way you wish you could treat the other one.

 

[rockfox]

I am unaware of where a dowry is mentioned incidentally.

Exodus 22:16

The law expects that virgins were dowered for.

It seems sometimes that the fascination with concubines

My fascination stems from a desire to understand what the scripture speaks about polygamy and marriage how marriage should be. Concubines are a common example of both in the scriptures. Even David, a common example and justification for polygamy, had concubines.

So what is the difference between generic woman of a man and a concubine? It was a common enough practice over a long period of time by the Hebrews. Obviously the practice had value, the concept had meaning to them. If the law did not see fit to limit or prohibit concubinage then what is the problem?

 

[rockfox]

Would a godly man do that? I

Both David and Abraham had concubines. Were they godly?

 

[FollowingHim]

Which indicates that whatever a "concubine" is, it is not an ungodly sex-slave.

We've gone round and round on this one for years.

@The Revolting Man, some people are probably interested in the idea of concubines because they'd like a live-in sex slave. I think the best way to counter that is to show them very clearly that yes, concubines existed - but they were not anything of the sort. It's just another name for a "wife" ("woman"). The difference is in minor details that don't give you a sex-slave, so forget it. All women must be treated morally.

I think objecting to the suggestion that people may have concubines today simply affirms the idea that they might be some sort of sex-slave, because they're clearly something people find objectionable, but they are in scripture, so I'm going to disagree with this person telling me I can't have one and I'm just going to have a sex-slave anyway and call her my concubine... The objector thinks they've done a good service, while the reader has gone off and abused a woman regardless.

Far better to teach "yes, you can have a concubine, just like Abraham! This is what she will be. Interestingly, she's actually almost no different to any other wife. In fact, there's so little difference you may as well just call her your wife and forget the idea of calling her a concubine...".

Of course, most of us are simply interested in the term because we'd like to understand the scriptures, as @rockfox said. But I do think your concern is real, because some foolish men are drawn to the idea of polygamy because they want more sex, but would like it with the minimum of commitment. At the same time I think your way of addressing it risks perpetuating the problem rather than solving it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Exodus 22:16

The law expects that virgins were dowered for.



My fascination stems from a desire to understand what the scripture speaks about polygamy and marriage how marriage should be. Concubines are a common example of both in the scriptures. Even David, a common example and justification for polygamy, had concubines.

So what is the difference between generic woman of a man and a concubine? It was a common enough practice over a long period of time by the Hebrews. Obviously the practice had value, the concept had meaning to them. If the law did not see fit to limit or prohibit concubinage then what is the problem?

That is not a dowry, a dowry is paid by a girl’s family to her prospective husband. A bride price is paid by the groom to the bride’s family. A dowry doesn’t show up anywhere that I’m aware of.

And an interest in concubines is not an interest in Biblical marriage because the Bible does not prescribe it or define it or regulate it. You are going outside the Bible; Talmud, Code of Hammurabi, crazy speculation, to try and fill in the blanks that are a clear sign that this is not from God.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Both David and Abraham had concubines. Were they godly?

We have established that men in the Bible had wives they called concubines. This is not in dispute. What you don’t have is somewhere that God tells what it is and how to do it. You show me that and then you’ll have something.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Which indicates that whatever a "concubine" is, it is not an ungodly sex-slave.

We've gone round and round on this one for years.

@The Revolting Man, some people are probably interested in the idea of concubines because they'd like a live-in sex slave. I think the best way to counter that is to show them very clearly that yes, concubines existed - but they were not anything of the sort. It's just another name for a "wife" ("woman"). The difference is in minor details that don't give you a sex-slave, so forget it. All women must be treated morally.

I think objecting to the suggestion that people may have concubines today simply affirms the idea that they might be some sort of sex-slave, because they're clearly something people find objectionable, but they are in scripture, so I'm going to disagree with this person telling me I can't have one and I'm just going to have a sex-slave anyway and call her my concubine... The objector thinks they've done a good service, while the reader has gone off and abused a woman regardless.

Far better to teach "yes, you can have a concubine, just like Abraham! This is what she will be. Interestingly, she's actually almost no different to any other wife. In fact, there's so little difference you may as well just call her your wife and forget the idea of calling her a concubine...".

Of course, most of us are simply interested in the term because we'd like to understand the scriptures, as @rockfox said. But I do think your concern is real, because some foolish men are drawn to the idea of polygamy because they want more sex, but would like it with the minimum of commitment. At the same time I think your way of addressing it risks perpetuating the problem rather than solving it.

I don’t have a problem with people having concubines. They can call their wives whatever they want. It’s none of my business. My dad called my mom Swamp Witch for years. Now he calls her Buddy. She’s still his wife and the names change nothing.

What I have a problem with is men wanting to write in to scripture. It’s not in there.

 

[steve]

What I have a problem with is men wanting to write in to scripture. It’s not in there.

But the problem is that concubines are clearly in scripture, just undefined.
What you are doing is legislating against a Biblical reality simply because it isn’t defined.