Right, and all concubines would be “his women” because they aren’t anyone else’s and they aren’t free agents.
-
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.
Concubines: Biblical, Practical, and Worth Restoring
- Thread starter Jason Cook
- Start date
I agree with what both @frederick and @steve have said above. All concubines are a man's woman, but they are a particular class of women a man can have, which I have gone on to define.
Edit: Which means that every single statement in scripture about the relationship between a man and his woman, and between a woman and her man, apply equally to "concubines" as they do to "normal wives". The temptation some men succumb to is to see designating a woman as a "concubine" a way of avoiding scriptural commands, for instance restrictions on divorce, and have a woman who they have less commitment to or otherwise vary from biblical marriage. There is zero room for any such wriggling in scripture.
Edit: Which means that every single statement in scripture about the relationship between a man and his woman, and between a woman and her man, apply equally to "concubines" as they do to "normal wives". The temptation some men succumb to is to see designating a woman as a "concubine" a way of avoiding scriptural commands, for instance restrictions on divorce, and have a woman who they have less commitment to or otherwise vary from biblical marriage. There is zero room for any such wriggling in scripture.
Last edited:
Ah, no.
You have defined certain situations, but you have not defined concubines.
Zec is right that we don’t have an actual definition, even though the relationship existed.
What we don’t know about Bilhah is whether Jacob ever gave her equal status to the rest of his wives.
I did define the word, in my own words, but shall quote my source.
I am using the Talmudic definitions from Sanhedrin 21a:
"What is the difference between wives and concubines? Wives have ketubbah and kiddushin, concubines have neither."
And Ketubot 5:2:
"wives with kiddushin and ketubbah, concubines with kiddushin but without ketubbah."
These sources disagree on kiddushin (betrothal) but agree on Ketubbah (marriage contract). So the consistent definition that both sources agree with is that wives have a marriage contract and concubines do not.
I am being very careful to use this definition from people who lived closer to the time and were far more familiar with the culture than I am. It is a very clear definition, extremely simple and logical, consistent with scripture, and not something I am inventing.
It is very dangerous to assume we have no definition so can make it up, when we do have a clear historic definition written in black and white.
I am using the Talmudic definitions from Sanhedrin 21a:
"What is the difference between wives and concubines? Wives have ketubbah and kiddushin, concubines have neither."
And Ketubot 5:2:
"wives with kiddushin and ketubbah, concubines with kiddushin but without ketubbah."
These sources disagree on kiddushin (betrothal) but agree on Ketubbah (marriage contract). So the consistent definition that both sources agree with is that wives have a marriage contract and concubines do not.
I am being very careful to use this definition from people who lived closer to the time and were far more familiar with the culture than I am. It is a very clear definition, extremely simple and logical, consistent with scripture, and not something I am inventing.
It is very dangerous to assume we have no definition so can make it up, when we do have a clear historic definition written in black and white.
Yes, that defines the legal difference.
But it doesn’t define life as a concubine.
As an example, in some Jewish groups, I don’t know what percentage of them, the children of a concubine belong to their mother Whereas a non-concubine wife acknowledges that her children belong to her husband.
The wife cannot leave taking her children with her, while the concubine can.
Agreed. It is not uncommon to gain a more full and clear understanding of words used in Scripture by looking into the usage of these same words in secular sources. The writers of Holy Scripture used language they were familiar with to communicate the truth to people who lived at that time. The responsibility we have is to understand those words used in Scripture in the same way as the original audience understood them.
The practices of some Jewish sects around child custody arrangements in the event of divorce are a very niche question that has very little relevance to whether or not a Christian can take a concubine. We are told to avoid divorce anyway, and if it still happens should be aiming to have the children still having contact with both parents, so this has no relevance to most marriages anyway - and in the rare cases where it is relevant, it's very dubious if the extra-biblical practices of some Jews have anything to say to a Christian. If there is a clear relevance I have failed to understand, please give a reference for this info and explain why it matters.
Nice job of ignoring the point.
I give up.
@steve I won’t attempt to speak on behalf of Sam, but I think I understand his point, or at least, how I apply his post.
In an attempt to define concubinage and its various applications, we seem to be grasping. It leads us primarily to extra biblical sources. As biblical believers, most of us would consider scripture to be primary, secondary, and even tertiary source material when it comes to interpretation. Seeking guidance for understanding this issue from sources not directly related to our faith, even if they worship the same God, is not consistent with how we approach other matters of our faith. It’s only reference material.
If it’s not exactly how Sam sees it, he can speak for himself. It’s just how I mostly see it.
In an attempt to define concubinage and its various applications, we seem to be grasping. It leads us primarily to extra biblical sources. As biblical believers, most of us would consider scripture to be primary, secondary, and even tertiary source material when it comes to interpretation. Seeking guidance for understanding this issue from sources not directly related to our faith, even if they worship the same God, is not consistent with how we approach other matters of our faith. It’s only reference material.
If it’s not exactly how Sam sees it, he can speak for himself. It’s just how I mostly see it.
I am looking to the Bible to define everything about how marriage should work.
When confronted with a word that is not defined in scripture, I look to extrabiblical sources solely to get the definition of that word. This is normal practice for any translator.
I then apply that definition to scripture so I can understand how God tells us marriage should work.
There are hundreds of historical examples of people in many cultures doing marriage in a whole range of ways. Just because someone somewhere did something does not mean it is guidance for us. Even if they are a Jew, given the history of the Jews is one of God struggling with their rebellion and trying to get them to turn back to him, the example could be one of rebellion not obedience. You yourself @steve say that only some Jewish groups did things that way, which means others did not, and maybe it was those other groups who were in the right, or maybe all were wrong - so we really can't assume the practices of a few are relevant to us.
Our guide to marriage is the Bible.
When confronted with a word that is not defined in scripture, I look to extrabiblical sources solely to get the definition of that word. This is normal practice for any translator.
I then apply that definition to scripture so I can understand how God tells us marriage should work.
There are hundreds of historical examples of people in many cultures doing marriage in a whole range of ways. Just because someone somewhere did something does not mean it is guidance for us. Even if they are a Jew, given the history of the Jews is one of God struggling with their rebellion and trying to get them to turn back to him, the example could be one of rebellion not obedience. You yourself @steve say that only some Jewish groups did things that way, which means others did not, and maybe it was those other groups who were in the right, or maybe all were wrong - so we really can't assume the practices of a few are relevant to us.
Our guide to marriage is the Bible.
True, for some reason Yah chose to not give us the details and nuances of the lives of concubines, so information that we glean from other sources is grist for the mill.
If Yah wanted the concept to be verboten, He could very well have mentioned it. At least in passing. But no, He gave us examples of their existence. In fact, a large number of the twelve tribes of Israel descended from two concubines.
To take the position that if it isn’t spelled out in the Bible, it must be eschewed would put us very close to the Amish/Mennonite brethren, who I much admire but am not in complete agreement with. And I don’t see anyone advocating that.
So the Bible is a buffet? We are going to pick and choose what extra-Biblical concepts we are going to censor? Except that it clearly isn’t an extra-Biblical concept.
The argument that it isn’t for today strongly reminds me of the very argument against polygyny, with the exception of the few verses that actively support it.
The thing is that it is nowhere near a doctrinal issue. Those absolutely must be supported by Scripture.
We have long had a tradition that each man stands alone before Yah regarding the decisions that he makes in his family. We don’t have standards for how, why, and when a man takes another wife. We don’t have standards for what a man should believe in regards to intimacy between wives. Let’s avoid making standards about things that the Bible doesn’t give us enough information about, that was what the Pharisees did.
As I have said in other threads on the subject, the only reason that I would consider taking a concubine would be if a woman, for various reasons, was too afraid to commit to the family indefinitely. If she could only handle the idea of signing up for a year or two, I would accept that. All the while hoping that she would feel safe enough to make it permanent.
About the definition, a Ketubah or a marriage license defines a woman as a wife, but it totally fails to define what a wife is. I think that you can see my point there about Samuel’s “definition”.
@Mojo I want to thank you for actually moderating, the concept has been in rather short supply around these parts lately.
I think your point stands without a second category though. There can certainly be statuses and levels and spheres of influence inside the marriages. That doesn’t change the basic definition of the institution though.I suppose some of my perspective here is of respect especially for the First Wife who married her husband when things were probably not easy, who saw him through the hard times of starting a business, the lean times of paying off a home, she raised children, etc.
And then someone walks in the door demanding instant equality without ever having made the sacrifices necessary to create the home the plural now enjoys.
You folks feel free to slice and dice the titles and the subtle nuances of Scripture and translations on this subject I am just saying the First Wife should be accorded her due respect. This above other concerns.
Then add to this that for some plurals not being expected to be equal to someone who in some cases resembles a superhero can help take off a lot of pressure.
Actual picture of Jolene* before her coffee:
View attachment 11258
*IMHO
Whoa! Great work! The only clearly labeled concubine is also labeled a wife. That seems to be pretty good circumstantial evidence there.
Thank you for the props. Appreciated.
I understand your concern about one brother discouraging another brother from an activity, unless it’s strictly forbidden in scripture. I, for one, am not promoting that.
I’ll speak for myself in that my big concern is attempting to resurrect a practice that we have very little but speculation to stand on. In an attempt to live out a biblical practice, we may actually be acting contrary to God.
If a man wants to take a woman, lie with her, give her different rules and expectations from his “proper” wife and give her free and easy access in and out of his domain, but still lead and provide, then I’m going to give him grace and wish him well. I wouldn’t call it sinful. I wouldn’t do it that way, and I’d warn about the potential pitfalls on that.
In my mind, it still falls under the umbrella of a biblical family, and doesn't violate scripture. The fascination with calling it concubinage baffles me, but that’s just me.
There is a difference between trying to resurrect something and exploring it.
I understand the fear that exploring leads to practice, but that is not a reason to quell exploration.
The original post told us to bring it back.
Before it can be brought back, I’d like somebody to tell me what we’re bringing back.
Actually, I don’t think it’s ever left. Prior to the feminists, the practice of having a known woman that was supported, but not acknowledged legally, was common in most of Latin America, Italy, Spain....wherever puritans didn’t roam. That’s now being overrun, but it was a thing.
Man_in_the_Middle
Member
He said the only clearly named concubine which we ALSO know their marital status is Bilhah...
I would add Keturah to that short list though....
There are other named concubines in the bible..
In addition to Bilhah, we have Reumah, Timna, Rizpah, Keturah, Ephah and Maachah.
Those are all named concubines in the bible. There are clearly more concubines than that but they seem to be mentioned without stating their names.
Can anyone find more??
Gen_22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.
Gen_35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:
Gen_36:12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife.
2Sa_3:7 And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father's concubine?
Gen_25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
1Ch_1:32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
1Ch_2:46 And Ephah, Caleb's concubine, bare Haran, and Moza, and Gazez: and Haran begat Gazez.
1Ch_2:48 Maachah, Caleb's concubine, bare Sheber, and Tirhanah.
Last edited:
And Keturah is called a "wife" in Genesis and a "concubine" in Chronicles, confirming that point. However we don't know any more detail about her than that, we don't know why she is called a concubine - we don't know the circumstances of her marriage, we don't know if she was a slave or a free woman for instance, or if she would have had a marriage contract, so it does not help us confirm or reject the definition I was using. The same goes for all other concubines in scripture.
Bilhah is unique as we know much more about her - we know who she was before her marriage, and we know the circumstances of her marriage. This lets us compare her situation to the definition of "concubine", and check if the definition is consistent with her situation. Which it is.