Concubines: Biblical, Practical, and Worth Restoring

[FollowingHim]

@steve, I am certainly not saying "don't take a concubine". On the contrary, I am saying "go ahead".

However the question is "what is a concubine?". There I think we may be diverging.

I see "concubine" as a synonym for "de-facto wife" - in the sense of informal wife without any paperwork, not just a wife without a government marriage license. Anyone who has taken a wife without either writing a formal Ketubbah/contract or getting a state marriage license has a concubine. It's common practice and completely scriptural.

If however you are suggesting taking women in ways that may be contrary to Scripture, and labelling it "concubinage", that I would oppose. Not because I am opposing concubinage, but because I am upholding Biblical marriage.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I can’t remember if I’ve stated this publicly before but I’ve actually had an evolution on this topic in recent years. I’m willing to admit that there could be a definition of concubine BUT if there is it’s the woman who was bought as a servant and made a wife and she actually has MORE rights and protections than a regular wife.

This would be the famous passage where it says if her portion was diminished by a subsequent wife she could leave free and clear. If someone is willing to accept that definition then I’m willing to say there’s a category we could call a concubine.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

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.

I do not stand in opposition to your position. I believe that ALL concubines are wives.
I take it further though. I also believe that all concubines are not free women. They do not have personal decision making authority.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

We have yet one more example of this. That is Hagar.

She was given to Abraham to wife. Who gave her to him? The one who had authority over her, Sarah. She remained Sarah's handmaid throughout this time though.

Gen_16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

After this, she began to despise her mistress, Sarah. Sarah was STILL her mistress.

Gen_16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

Then Sarah decided she wanted Abram to send Hagar away. Abram said to her, it is YOUR maid, you do what you will.

Gen 16:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
Gen 16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

Then Hagar was away from them and an angel came to her and told her to return and submit herself unto her mistress. She was still Sarah's slave.

Then at his death, the status of his wives becomes known for certain.

Gen 25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
Gen 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.


Then to confirm that this is not thought in confusion, Paul affirms what I am presenting here also.

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


This should make it abundantly clear that Hagar was indeed a wife AND a concubine and a bondwoman/slave/not free.

 

[MemeFan]

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.

Biggest risk is creating new institution carrying just name of old one.

For example, roman dictator. In early republic he was guy charged with saving republic and going home after job was finished. In late republic, well word has taken current association.

 

[MemeFan]

I do not stand in opposition to your position. I believe that ALL concubines are wives.
I take it further though. I also believe that all concubines are not free women. They do not have personal decision making authority.

Concubines personal decision authority is irrelevant in today's legal system. All women have it.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Concubines personal decision authority is irrelevant in today's legal system. All women have it.

Ahh.... So perhaps, if we are applying the word as the bible defines it and there is no modern situation to which it would apply, then we should not apply that word to something else. Calling it concubinage would be doing disservice to the word as used in the bible.

Call it something else if it is something else. Friends with benefits? Sexual Girlfriend? Lover? Dalliance?

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I believe that the reason men want to call their lovers a concubine is to simply give status to the relationship that would not be condemned by biblically minded people. It promotes what they are doing to a righteous thing which..... If we are being honest, is not how a concubine is presented to us in scripture.

Men should see their woman as wives. In all cases. Getting to that legal status is important though. Imagining her to be your woman is not the same as she actually being your woman.