Concubines: Biblical, Practical, and Worth Restoring

[NBTX11]

Much has been said about the headship over a woman. Is it possible to be a woman's headship without the sexual aspect? I have a few single women friends (without benefits) that welcome my praying over them and giving advice and helping them around their houses. Thoughts?

The question is, why? This is a bad idea. You’re giving away the duties of husband for free, while receiving no wife benefits in return. All the while she’s free to pursue other men. This sounds like a terrible idea to me. Not that you can’t help them once in a while, but to provide “headship”, performing husband like duties indefinitely seems like a waste of time. Help them find an actual husband or become one yourself.

If the relationships are actually headed towards marriage or you think it might be, then knock yourself out.

We see this in reverse all the time. Women giving away wifely duties (usually sex) for free without any permanent lifelong commitment by the man.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I get that. That was embodied by the ex.

well, in my case, an actual sister. I felt sorry for her because she always had so much she wanted to talk about and her (multiple through the 30 years) men would tell her she talks to much and to shut up. I listened to it all. Business ideas, boyfriend troubles, husband troubles, divorce, miscarriages, baby, work woes, you name it. In a conversation one year ago, where I pointed out that the language she was using is the exact same language that women use when they have decided to divorce their husband without cause, (she was protesting that she did not want a divorce and that there was no reason for one), yet the language she was using was the same language I had heard from others. It made her angry and she told me that I did not care about anything women say.

This after listening to her crap for 30 years so that she would have an outlet..... Geesh! I expect to talk to her again as things happen, weddings and funerals etc. But I will not give her an outlet to vent ever again. I am done with that crap!

My wife, now she is altogether another story.... I will continue to make time for her. She knows I listen and that I care.

But, as with my sister, if it is not appreciated, why do it?

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

BTW, less than 2 months after that conversation, my sister had moved out and had her own place. Still no divorce yet so who knows where it will end up....

 

[The Revolting Man]

But yet they, Biblically, exist.

Where does the Bible state that something doesn’t exist unless Yah defines it?
You look to be adding to the Word.

No. I’m refusing to add to the word. There is no definition of a concubine anywhere in scripture. We can’t add one.

 

[Joleneakamama]

What piece of trash father would penalize his kids because of the way he took their mother?

I think you are looking at this from a single perspective. Just for another angle...

I answered a business phone for 20 years without "pay" and helped build my husband's business. Our sons also worked for years building the business....investing money earned back into it. My husband didn't feel right about splitting that off and giving it to his step son, or newborn son who did nothing to earn it. Innstead of giving them an inheritance (give a man a fish?) he purposes to give them opportunities, like our sons had, to earn property and build their own businesses.

My sisterwife can expect to be cared for same as myself should something untimely happen to our husband, but if her sons are old enough to help provide for her it will absolutely be expected of them to do so.

What if our husband took on another? What if he trusted his older sons to manage his holdings and left them in charge? I believe they would be fair by their younger brothers in giving them a start and opportunities. That I think is enough.
To just give is not always the best.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Off course they love it.

They get household help without providing wifely duties enabling them to keep searching for another man.

Saw my hubby get used that way long time ago. He also took care of his mom, nieces, sisters. I think it's nice that now he has another who helps care for him!

 

[UtahLife]

Thanks for your comment. It’s a common assumption that concubinage was only for times of war or conquest, but that’s not actually supported by Scripture.

Biblically, a concubine is simply a wife of lower status,

Yes and I don't want either of these defitions:

" a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives."

"a mistress"

This isn't The Handmaid's Tale. *Wives* are plenty fine, I don't need to make a woman be second-class.

 

[UtahLife]

Don't worry.

You can always do friendly visit to help reduce number of lonely women.

Just sometimes you look as Rambo, your favourite movie character.

And then I can take them as *wives*, not as a second-class citizen in my household.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I think you are looking at this from a single perspective. Just for another angle...

I answered a business phone for 20 years without "pay" and helped build my husband's business. Our sons also worked for years building the business....investing money earned back into it. My husband didn't feel right about splitting that off and giving it to his step son, or newborn son who did nothing to earn it. Innstead of giving them an inheritance (give a man a fish?) he purposes to give them opportunities, like our sons had, to earn property and build their own businesses.

My sisterwife can expect to be cared for same as myself should something untimely happen to our husband, but if her sons are old enough to help provide for her it will absolutely be expected of them to do so.

What if our husband took on another? What if he trusted his older sons to manage his holdings and left them in charge? I believe they would be fair by their younger brothers in giving them a start and opportunities. That I think is enough.
To just give is not always the best.

I would never presume to tell another man how to handle his estate and certainly not his business. I’ve never built one and don’t know the first thing about it.

I don’t think the analogy holds though on a number of levels; first off his sons could never have an equitable split based on labor contributed. The oldest will have contributed more than the next and on down the line. We have a parable where workers who came to the field later received the same pay. But their claim isn’t on their labor, that would be paid in wages. Their claim is on their connection to their father; that is equal no matter what unless you going to adhere to the double portion for the first born. Do daughters get an equal share? In the case of a heavily labor intensive business they’ve contributed less as well.

But even setting aside the practicalities the analogy doesn’t fit. In the case of the concubine the children would allegedly (remember this idea appears nowhere in scripture) be devalued in their father’s eyes due to their mother’s status which was dictated by their father. It’s not about economic contribution but rather relative worth.

 

[Mojo]

In 2025, what does concubinage look like to you? How would you locate and identify one? That’s what I’d like to know.

 

[FollowingHim]

But, I’ve never read a convincing argument for what concubines were/are. I believe it’s cultural understanding has been lost to time.

The Talmudic explanation is that a concubine is a wife without a written marriage contract. In a modern context, that makes "concubine" equivalent to "de-facto" or "common law" wife. So, a very common and normal situation even today, not something strange and novel.

This is consistent with the idea that a concubine is a "lesser status" wife, because things like inheritance are contractual arrangements which are either directly addressed in or influenced by a written marriage contract. A de-facto wife does not have the benefit of any such formalities, so depending on the legal environment has lesser legal standing than a formal, documented wife.

It is very dangerous to get too enthusiastic about concubines and think they are something different and exciting, something we could have today for extra sexual pleasure for instance. Too many men have been caught in this trap. As the word "concubine" is not defined in scripture itself, and most people are either unaware of the Talmudic definition or would understandably reject anything from the Talmud anyway (I'm uncomfortable using it to define the word myself, only using it as scripture does not give us a definition and I am not willing to just invent one), it is possible to redefine "concubine" to mean almost anything you want it to mean. So men can behave in ways that most of us would condemn as sinful, but label it "concubinage" and convince themselves it is ok, making it right in their own eyes.

This is why @The Revolting Man has always been so against promotion of concubines - and he's right to be concerned. We have seen this used to excuse sin and ruin people's lives.

Here be dragons.

But there is no danger whatsoever if we simply see "concubine" as a synonym for de-facto / common-law wife, because that is a relationship we all accept as valid. It is also completely consistent with the usage of the word every single place it occurs in scripture. It is a safe, conservative definition that does not risk justifying error. Given the uncertainty around the word, assume the most conservative definition that does not risk leading you into sin if you happen to be wrong.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The Talmudic explanation is that a concubine is a wife without a written marriage contract. In a modern context, that makes "concubine" equivalent to "de-facto" or "common law" wife. So, a very common and normal situation even today, not something strange and novel.

This is consistent with the idea that a concubine is a "lesser status" wife, because things like inheritance are contractual arrangements which are either directly addressed in or influenced by a written marriage contract. A de-facto wife does not have the benefit of any such formalities, so depending on the legal environment has lesser legal standing than a formal, documented wife.

It is very dangerous to get too enthusiastic about concubines and think they are something different and exciting, something we could have today for extra sexual pleasure for instance. Too many men have been caught in this trap. As the word "concubine" is not defined in scripture itself, and most people are either unaware of the Talmudic definition or would understandably reject anything from the Talmud anyway (I'm uncomfortable using it to define the word myself, only using it as scripture does not give us a definition and I am not willing to just invent one), it is possible to redefine "concubine" to mean almost anything you want it to mean. So men can behave in ways that most of us would condemn as sinful, but label it "concubinage" and convince themselves it is ok, making it right in their own eyes.

This is why @The Revolting Man has always been so against promotion of concubines - and he's right to be concerned. We have seen this used to excuse sin and ruin people's lives.

Here be dragons.

But there is no danger whatsoever if we simply see "concubine" as a synonym for de-facto / common-law wife, because that is a relationship we all accept as valid. It is also completely consistent with the usage of the word every single place it occurs in scripture. It is a safe, conservative definition that does not risk justifying error. Given the uncertainty around the word, assume the most conservative definition that does not risk leading you into sin if you happen to be wrong.

This is a stance I can coexist with.

 

[MemeFan]

Saw my hubby get used that way long time ago. He also took care of his mom, nieces, sisters. I think it's nice that now he has another who helps care for him!

Not the same situation as @Maddog.

Your husband is helping family. Some obligation here can be expected, even if not returned.

However, he was helping single female friends. Any of them could accept him as husband, none did.

Between friends is obligation to return received value.

 

[MemeFan]

And then I can take them as *wives*, not as a second-class citizen in my household.

I will leave you to worry about exact legal situation.

For me, it's enough that she is mine.

 

[MemeFan]

In 2025, what does concubinage look like to you? How would you locate and identify one? That’s what I’d like to know.

You like together without papers.

Some call you boyfriend and girlfriend. You can correct them.

 

[Mojo]

The Talmudic explanation is that a concubine is a wife without a written marriage contract. In a modern context, that makes "concubine" equivalent to "de-facto" or "common law" wife. So, a very common and normal situation even today, not something strange and novel.

This is consistent with the idea that a concubine is a "lesser status" wife, because things like inheritance are contractual arrangements which are either directly addressed in or influenced by a written marriage contract. A de-facto wife does not have the benefit of any such formalities, so depending on the legal environment has lesser legal standing than a formal, documented wife.

It is very dangerous to get too enthusiastic about concubines and think they are something different and exciting, something we could have today for extra sexual pleasure for instance. Too many men have been caught in this trap. As the word "concubine" is not defined in scripture itself, and most people are either unaware of the Talmudic definition or would understandably reject anything from the Talmud anyway (I'm uncomfortable using it to define the word myself, only using it as scripture does not give us a definition and I am not willing to just invent one), it is possible to redefine "concubine" to mean almost anything you want it to mean. So men can behave in ways that most of us would condemn as sinful, but label it "concubinage" and convince themselves it is ok, making it right in their own eyes.

This is why @The Revolting Man has always been so against promotion of concubines - and he's right to be concerned. We have seen this used to excuse sin and ruin people's lives.

Here be dragons.

But there is no danger whatsoever if we simply see "concubine" as a synonym for de-facto / common-law wife, because that is a relationship we all accept as valid. It is also completely consistent with the usage of the word every single place it occurs in scripture. It is a safe, conservative definition that does not risk justifying error. Given the uncertainty around the word, assume the most conservative definition that does not risk leading you into sin if you happen to be wrong.

This is a reasonable explanation, especially, regarding the “no contract” portion. If true, that would likely make orphans, slaves, and war booty candidates for concubinage. Culturally speaking, they all lacked agency. As women and those who lacked a father or male representation, they couldn’t enter into a contractual agreement.

It’s reasonable to ASSUME that this is what the scriptures described as concubinage, but we can’t say for certain. It’s shaky ground.

Even if it indicates a lack of formal contract, it doesn’t indicate a lack of normality. It still fits the model of what we all condone: patriarchal marriage. This woman is still under the authority of that man and he is still obligated to lead and provide.

As I contend, a distinction without a difference.

 

[MeganC]

And then I can take them as *wives*, not as a second-class citizen in my household.

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:



*IMHO

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

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.

... I am just saying the First Wife should be accorded her due respect. This above other concerns.

This is very important.... Always show respect for those that go before us.

In the work I have done as a software contractor, sometimes I would walk into a coding mess. BUT, I gave props to the people who made that mess because they did the hard work of creating something that was even worthy later of paying others to come in and work on. It is easy to think that we are the super hero when we walk into what some might call a mess and then work to make it better. The reality is that we are all just doing our part in the time line we are in.

Much respect to you Megan for the insights you have shared in the past with regard to how it really is vs. conjecture on how it should be.

Shalom!

 

[FollowingHim]

This is a reasonable explanation, especially, regarding the “no contract” portion. If true, that would likely make orphans, slaves, and war booty candidates for concubinage. Culturally speaking, they all lacked agency. As women and those who lacked a father or male representation, they couldn’t enter into a contractual agreement.

The only woman clearly labeled as a concubine, whose marital situation we also know clearly, is Bilhah.

First note she is usually called a "wife" and only called "concubine" in one verse. This shows us that a concubine is a wife.

Marital paperwork in scripture appears to relate to agreements with her father, or her family. This is clear in Tobit (in the apocrypha), which discusses the actual writing of a marriage record. The point of the paperwork is to record the arrangements that affect other people - dowries, inheritance, anything that actually needs to be written down because someone might need to read it one day. It is addressed to others, e.g. lawyers or family members, not really to the spouse. An arrangement solely between two people needs no written record.

Bilhah came to Jacob as a slave. If she had any paperwork transferring her to him it would have related to this employment situation, showing others that she now belonged to him. She was formally transferred to his headship, but not as a wife.

Later, when he took her as a wife, if he was to consult with her male head about that, who would he talk to? Himself. She is already his. If they decide to sleep with each other, that is now their business alone, nobody else has any claim on her or need to have a new written document. She is already his. So their marriage becomes a completely informal matter needing no paperwork.

So we can see why Bilhah is usually called a wife, but can also be called a concubine.

Does this prove the definition I am using? Certainly not, I am making a lot of assumptions. But it shows her situation is completely consistent with that definition and can be clarified using it. And the simplest explanation is usually right.

We also see that Solomon's wives were women of noble birth, frequently married formally as part of diplomatic alliances. While we see David's concubines being left to care for his house. It's slim evidence, but suggests their wives were taken formally, while their concubines were servants with jobs around the house which may occasionally or eventually have been slept with - very similar to Bilhah. Again, not proof, but shows the definition has explanatory value in every example we can find.

 

[frederick]

First note she is usually called a "wife" and only called "concubine" in one verse.

The word wife is the english translation of the usual Hebrew and Greek constructions for "his woman." Concubine is from a completely different Hebrew word which defines a specific relationship.