• 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?

B

Bartato

Seasoned Member
Real Person*
Male
I've seen people reference concubines a few times around here, and I'm not quite sure what they mean by the term. I also don't know if it is relevant to our culture today.

I know the word is used a lot in the Bible, and here is my understanding of what it meant.

It seems to refer to marriage of a lower status than usual. For example a man usually paid a bride-price to the father of the young woman he wanted to marry. On the other hand, if a woman was widowed, divorced, or came from a background of prostitution, a man might want her for a wife but not be willing to pay the bride price for her.

Also (and probably more frequently) a woman who was a slave or servant could become a man's wife. Sometimes men would buy a slave in order to get a wife.

Some notable examples would include Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah. The woman was required to be monogamous to her man/master/husband, and the union was supposed to be life long.

The children born of these unions were considered legitimate, and may or may not inherit property along with their other brothers.

Am I missing anything? Does some of this apply in our culture?
 
Concubines may have had a bit more freedom to walk away from the relationship in that they could have entered without ketubah... in many respects, today's 'wife' acts and relates more as a concubine than as a covenanted woman in most 'marriages.'

Concubines could be taken for a variety of reasons.. Solomon's huge number may have functioned more a palace servants that he had access to v uncovenanted women who could potentially be a hindrance to him. Other reasons for a concubine included bearing sons, love, travel companion, etc..
 
The meaning 'concubine' varies across cultures. Remember these same cultures didn't have a word for wife. A woman either belonged to a man or she didn't, and a concubine was a different status or type of woman who belonged to a man.

The word itself in the original (most ancient) languages confers a meaning of either lower status (as in the unflattering nickname the other women used for her) or one who became a man's woman by way of romance.

In Biblical terms you could think of a concubine as one who wasn't taken by way of dowry. Though I can't think of any case where widow's were ever referred to by this term in the scriptures. It was often a slave, but not always.

The distinction about ketubah is a later development.

There is not universal agreement on the meaning of concubine, most opinions you'll see out there are ill-studied at best. There are many discussions about it here in the archives and I think we've discussed it in greater depth than anywhere else I've seen.
 
Last edited:
This topic has been discussed at length here many times over the years, if you do a search for "concubine" you'll be busy reading for hours. A key thread to get you started is:
https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/concubines-just-a-bit-of-mental-jousting.12172/

In summary, as I have come to understand it: Men take women to be their own wives. Some of these wives were also referred to as "concubines". A concubine is simply a type of wife. There are cases in scripture of the same woman being called both "concubine" and "woman / wife", showing these terms are somewhat interchangeable.

The word "concubine" is a cultural term. It is not defined in scripture. It is a description of a cultural reality. There are some very compelling explanations of precisely when and why a certain woman would, in that culture, be called a "concubine" and it is fascinating to dig into this. But whatever your conclusion as to the detail - she's still a wife.

In our culture, we ALSO have different names for a man's woman, and these are culturally defined rather than scripturally. In Western culture, a man's woman may be called his:
  • Girlfriend
  • De-facto partner
  • Civil union partner (in some jurisdictions)
  • Mistress
  • Wife
These terminology differences are largely due to peripheral details, such as legal paperwork. They don't really have anything to do with the fundamental reality of how God sees the relationship.

If you were writing about a man and his de-facto partner today, there's a good chance you would at least sometimes refer to her as his partner. Even if you personally consider her his wife. Because that is who they see themselves as, how everyone refers to them, and what their legal status is. Nevertheless, if she's his woman, then she is ALSO his wife - and every obligation of marriage in scripture applies to them. So you might in other contexts refer to her as his wife.

In the same way, in ancient culture, there were various different names for a man's woman. She might be called his:
  • Concubine
  • Maidservant (though obviously not all maidservants were wives, a servant who was a sexual partner and therefore a "wife" might still be referred to as a maidservant depending on the context).
  • Wife
  • Queen
These terminology differences are also due largely to peripheral matters, such as paperwork (ketubah / marriage contracts) or other matters as stated by others above and in previous threads. But none of those terminology differences fundamentally change the reality either.
 
Last edited:
FollowingHim said:
This topic has been discussed at length here many times over the years, if you do a search for "concubine" you'll be busy reading for hours. A key thread to get you started is:
https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/concubines-just-a-bit-of-mental-jousting.12172/

In summary, as I have come to understand it: Men take women to be their own wives. Some of these wives were also referred to as "concubines". A concubine is simply a type of wife. There are cases in scripture of the same woman being called both "concubine" and "woman / wife", showing these terms are somewhat interchangeable.

The word "concubine" is a cultural term. It is not defined in scripture. It is a description of a cultural reality. There are some very compelling explanations of precisely when and why a certain woman would, in that culture, be called a "concubine" and it is fascinating to dig into this. But whatever your conclusion as to the detail - she's still a wife.

In our culture, we ALSO have different names for a man's woman, and these are culturally defined rather than scripturally. In Western culture, a man's woman may be called his:
  • Girlfriend
  • De-facto partner
  • Civil union partner (in some jurisdictions)
  • Mistress
  • Wife
These terminology differences are largely due to peripheral details, such as legal paperwork. They don't really have anything to do with the fundamental reality of how God sees the relationship.

If you were writing about a man and his de-facto partner today, there's a good chance you would at least sometimes refer to her as his partner. Even if you personally consider her his wife. Because that is who they see themselves as, how everyone refers to them, and what their legal status is. Nevertheless, if she's his woman, then she is ALSO his wife - and every obligation of marriage in scripture applies to them. So you might in other contexts refer to her as his wife.

In the same way, in ancient culture, there were various different names for a man's woman. She might be called his:
  • Concubine
  • Maidservant (though obviously not all maidservants were wives, a servant who was a sexual partner and therefore a "wife" might still be referred to as a maidservant depending on the context).
  • Wife
  • Queen
These terminology differences are also due largely to peripheral matters, such as paperwork (ketubah / marriage contracts) or other matters as stated by others above and in previous threads. But none of those terminology differences fundamentally change the reality either.
Click to expand...
I feel like I could cry.
 
FollowingHim said:
This topic has been discussed at length here many times over the years, if you do a search for "concubine" you'll be busy reading for hours. A key thread to get you started is:
https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/concubines-just-a-bit-of-mental-jousting.12172/

In summary, as I have come to understand it: Men take women to be their own wives. Some of these wives were also referred to as "concubines". A concubine is simply a type of wife. There are cases in scripture of the same woman being called both "concubine" and "woman / wife", showing these terms are somewhat interchangeable.

The word "concubine" is a cultural term. It is not defined in scripture. It is a description of a cultural reality. There are some very compelling explanations of precisely when and why a certain woman would, in that culture, be called a "concubine" and it is fascinating to dig into this. But whatever your conclusion as to the detail - she's still a wife.

In our culture, we ALSO have different names for a man's woman, and these are culturally defined rather than scripturally. In Western culture, a man's woman may be called his:
  • Girlfriend
  • De-facto partner
  • Civil union partner (in some jurisdictions)
  • Mistress
  • Wife
These terminology differences are largely due to peripheral details, such as legal paperwork. They don't really have anything to do with the fundamental reality of how God sees the relationship.

If you were writing about a man and his de-facto partner today, there's a good chance you would at least sometimes refer to her as his partner. Even if you personally consider her his wife. Because that is who they see themselves as, how everyone refers to them, and what their legal status is. Nevertheless, if she's his woman, then she is ALSO his wife - and every obligation of marriage in scripture applies to them. So you might in other contexts refer to her as his wife.

In the same way, in ancient culture, there were various different names for a man's woman. She might be called his:
  • Concubine
  • Maidservant (though obviously not all maidservants were wives, a servant who was a sexual partner and therefore a "wife" might still be referred to as a maidservant depending on the context).
  • Wife
  • Queen
These terminology differences are also due largely to peripheral matters, such as paperwork (ketubah / marriage contracts) or other matters as stated by others above and in previous threads. But none of those terminology differences fundamentally change the reality either.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the lengthy response, and for the link. I should have assumed that there would already be a fair amount of information on that topic on a website like this.
Thank you once again
 
NeoPatriarch said:
Would it be legitimate then to call a second wife a concubine to circumvent such laws that forbid even to proporting that a second woman is a wife?
Click to expand...
You may circumvent the law but it might not go well in your home. One of those emotional struggles that seems to spring up with women is the concern about order/equality in the relationship when they have different identities.

Personally, I avoid calling them 1st or 2nd wives and treat them as equals, relating to them as individuals equal in our relationships. The authorities might not be as big a battle ground if you go down that path. Just saying. ;)
 
NeoPatriarch said:
Would it be legitimate then to call a second wife a concubine to circumvent such laws that forbid even to proporting that a second woman is a wife?
Click to expand...
I would agree with Frederick on this. You might circumvent a lawless "law", but saying something like that would seem to disrespect or dishonor the second wife. I don't think we should do that.
 
Bartato said:
I would agree with Frederick on this. You might circumvent a lawless "law", but saying something like that would seem to disrespect or dishonor the second wife. I don't think we should do that.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that Michael Windham calls this second a concubine very openly.
 
frederick said:
You may circumvent the law but it might not go well in your home. One of those emotional struggles that seems to spring up with women is the concern about order/equality in the relationship when they have different identities.

Personally, I avoid calling them 1st or 2nd wives and treat them as equals, relating to them as individuals equal in our relationships. The authorities might not be as big a battle ground if you go down that path. Just saying. ;)
Click to expand...
Underrated comment.
 
NeoPatriarch said:
Would it be legitimate then to call a second wife a concubine to circumvent such laws that forbid even to proporting that a second woman is a wife?
Click to expand...

My sister Christie was Steve's first plural and when people asked who she was to him she'd almost always say she was his mistress and they'd let it go. She thought this was such hypocrisy because society was okay with her being a mistress but if she called herself a wife they'd call the police. o_O:rolleyes:

Just me, but when I first joined my family I sometimes thought of myself as a concubine just because it seemed kind of naughty and fun! :p
 
As long as the woman is not made to feel, less than, or undignified in some way as image bearers.

What would you prefer to be called if you were free?
 
NeoPatriarch said:
As long as the woman is not made to feel, less than, or undignified in some way as image bearers.

What would you prefer to be called if you were free?
Click to expand...
I’d be interested in hearing you unpack your post a bit more.

If she were free, she would have the title of Single, but I would bet dollars to donuts that I am not understanding you.
 
steve said:
I’d be interested in hearing you unpack your post a bit more.

If she were free, she would have the title of Single, but I would bet dollars to donuts that I am not understanding you.
Click to expand...

You would win that bet.

Freedom from the state would not make her single.

It is because the state rules, ie we are not free, that a man may not call his woman his wife if he already has one. (At least in some states.) This impedes freedom of speech.

What would you call her if you were free to choose?Woman, wife, mistress, or other?

That was the flow of thread.
 
Modern marriages pretty much include these things for the woman:
1). The ability to leave the marriage.
2). The ability to remove the children.
3). The need to be somewhat financially self-supporting during the relationship.

Among some of the Jewish communities, these qualify as a concubine marriage. And yes, they still exist in the middle of Western culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top