No, she is either a adulteress or an unlawfully divorced woman. At least that's the best I can come up with.
-
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.
Sex, marriage & emotions- ramblings of a FW
- Thread starter WifeOfHisYouth
- Start date
@Kathy, check out:
Keturah, Abraham's "wife" (Genesis 25:1) and "concubine" (1 Chronicles 1:32).
Bilhah, Jacob's "wife" (Genesis 30:4), and "concubine" (Genesis 35:22).
A concubine is a wife.
By using your definition, then, she is both an adulteress and a polyandrist. Each time she engages with a John, she is getting married and therefore committing adultery to each previous John, each of whom is still her husband.
OT required the man to consent to divorce iirc. If the Johns don't consent, then it's not unlawful divorce...it's nonexistent divorce....(adultery).
She would have to revisit each previous encounter, see if they choose to divorce her for her fornication, then get divorced from each. Then, she would have to remain unmarried to all her previous Johns because a divorced husband shouldn't take her back after she's been with another man......which means she would have to find a new man to marry and add to her growing total of men serviced.......whew!
These complex implications lead me more to the opinion that the term "one flesh" here speaks simply about the level of intimate contact, not formation of multiple marriages. Far simpler view:
Man 1: took her virginity, obliged to marry her as per Torah. Not actually her husband unless he marries her, just obliged to do so. He didn't marry her, and therefore sinned.
Men 2-200: No clear prohibition of prostitution in Torah, just temple prostitution. But Christian men instructed not to use them. So unbelievers are just behaving as unbelievers do, their lives are already sinful, whether this is sin for them or not doesn't really change their status as sinners. The detail could be debated for ever since there isn't a clear "thou shalt not be a prostitute" statement in Torah, but whatever conclusion we came to wouldn't really change much. Christians must not do this. Whatever mess is created, it will be forgiven on true repentance.
Man 1: took her virginity, obliged to marry her as per Torah. Not actually her husband unless he marries her, just obliged to do so. He didn't marry her, and therefore sinned.
Men 2-200: No clear prohibition of prostitution in Torah, just temple prostitution. But Christian men instructed not to use them. So unbelievers are just behaving as unbelievers do, their lives are already sinful, whether this is sin for them or not doesn't really change their status as sinners. The detail could be debated for ever since there isn't a clear "thou shalt not be a prostitute" statement in Torah, but whatever conclusion we came to wouldn't really change much. Christians must not do this. Whatever mess is created, it will be forgiven on true repentance.
@ followinghim
I haven't done much research but what I have looked up a concubine is of a lesser status then a wife . Thus a concubine can become a wife but a wife can not become a concubine. So to me it seems as if in the Bible these two words aren't used as the same but most likely meaning these one time concubines became wives at a later date thus they would have been called both.
I haven't done much research but what I have looked up a concubine is of a lesser status then a wife . Thus a concubine can become a wife but a wife can not become a concubine. So to me it seems as if in the Bible these two words aren't used as the same but most likely meaning these one time concubines became wives at a later date thus they would have been called both.
It is my understanding that a "concubine" in the Bible is simply a wife for whom no bride price was paid. All concubines are wives, but not all wives are concubines. That would mean, technically almost every wife in America is a concubine.
Last edited:
I remember hearing that a concubine was a wife who's children did not inherit.
That would really not be a big deal in much of the modern world, where many don't inherit anything but debt.
That would really not be a big deal in much of the modern world, where many don't inherit anything but debt.
The sons of Jacob received an inheritance. Sons of wives and concubines didn't seem to be treated differently in this instance. It's interesting though that Joseph didn't become the tribe of Joseph, but instead the half tribes of ephriam and manasseh. Joseph was the son of a "wife". I don't think the difference is a big deal. Wives are wives and concubines are wives.
@Kathy, in both the scriptural examples I cited, the women are called wives when first married, then later are referred to as concubines. They did not start as concubines and later become wives. They were always wives.
You may have researched this by simply reading the writings of others saying what they think the words mean. There are men with every conceivable opinion somewhere, and each opinion has been written by someone, so everything must be taken back to the Bible. Please just read the scriptures I cited, the Bible makes this extremely clear.
You may have researched this by simply reading the writings of others saying what they think the words mean. There are men with every conceivable opinion somewhere, and each opinion has been written by someone, so everything must be taken back to the Bible. Please just read the scriptures I cited, the Bible makes this extremely clear.
Last edited:
What if the wife/concubine distinction is not one God made but just is just a relating of a cultural reality in the context of the historical narrative? Concubines aren't defined in scripture and it doesn't square with the God who elevated Ruth, Rabab, Esther, Mary Magdalene or the church to stations of honor to then also endorse a second tier wife for us. It doesn't fit with the rest of His metaphor.
You're making it sound absurd to avoid the main point. Prostitution results in the same one flesh status as a marriage, however you want to define that. You can either devalue the marriage one flesh to keep the prostitution one flesh meaningless or you can greatly increase the significance of the prostitution one flesh in order to preserve the importance of the marriage one flesh. But there is no denying that the two are both linked back to what transpired between Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
The broader point here is not prostitution, which no one would argue is acceptable, but the concept of sex outside of marriage. If every sexual coupling results in a one flesh status then there is no such thing as premarital sex. This makes sense to me as scripture doesn't deal with the topic which seems like a major oversight. But if the opposite is true and one flesh is no big deal, even though being one flesh with a prostitute links the Body of Christ to her as well (seems like a big deal) then it sure seems like God would have said something.
Instead, everything He said has sex being a very big deal. It doesn't square with me that there is this category of women, widows and divorcess, that He doesn't care about and slip through the cracks of His laws.
And I will make this bold and unequivocal statement right now, no mature Christian man should avail himself of this loophole if it does exist.
Fully agree. We can all debate (and have done often) the precise details of this matter. But the practical advice we would all give to people is essentially identical - and ultimately, it is what we actually do that actually matters more than the precise reasons why we think we're doing it.
I hope it doesn't seem like I am advocating for prostitution or wonton sexual escapades...definitely not me, or my point. I'm as straight edge conservative as they come...point being, I didn't decide to sex up my prospective and pronounce marriage. It's not like that between us.
MY broader point is that we are speaking past each other and possibly using terms differently. One flesh and marriage are to me different things. Just as "sex" is translated euphemistically as "knowing" someone, so is one flesh a euphemism for myriad things we cannot begin to understand (how do we begin to fathom Christ marrying the church???).
I proposed in a different thread that it could mean family in OT. Does it convey the exact same thing to Paul in NT?? I'm not sure. I believe one flesh is very significant, and not to be taken lightly, especially in looking at NT and its implications with harlotry.
But "marriage" itself is not used in OT. It's a binding contract/covenant BEFORE sex and reinforced by "knowing" someone, not the other way around. All good Hebrews would have understood this. Paul speaks predominantly to either wayward Jews or Gentiles who are confused in a very sex crazed pagan society (I realize the debate on the phrase Gentile with some, so please bear with me).
I just don't see sex defined as marriage anywhere else. You can't change the terms and definitions as the circumstances change either. You said harlotry created either adultery or unlawful divorce, but not marriage (polyandry), but then say all sex is marriage everywhere else, just not here. Which is it?
To boil everything down to simplest terms, God created intimacy to be between a husband and a wife as a picture of His relationship with us. He didn't create it to be a brief moment of pleasure and then be discarded, but as a beautiful picture to be returned to again and again, to be built on for a lifetime.
We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a man who has sex with a virgin has endowed her to be his wife. There does not need to be a covenant or a contract. He has created a one flesh situation. Ignore for a moment the father's ability to nullify it. The act of having sex with a virgin creates a one flesh. Full stop. Period. Close quotes.
We also know that sex with a prostitute makes a one flesh situation. It's not debatable. Scripture uses the exact phrase "one flesh" to describe it and even goes a step farther to say you're roping Christ in to this thing.
You are perfectly right that there is no real term for marriage, husband or wife used. It is always man, woman and some euphemism for sex. Some guy might have laid with her, known her, mastered her or become one flesh with her. There is no command or description of a ceremony, a covenant, magic phrases, special words, incantations, secret hand shakes or any manner of extraordinary mumbo jumbo hysterical tribal dance based hijinks or hoopla. It doesn't exist. God brought Eve to Adam and they had sex. That's it. Jesus references this very event when he endorses the then historical norm for marriage for the "new" covenant.
Now you want to figure out what happens when we break that mold. What happens when a non-virgin who is eligible from marriage has sex. Fine. Let's talk about it. But an eligible non-virgin is very different than a prostitute. The eligible non-virgin is righteous in this matter, otherwise she wouldn't be eligible. The prostitute is not righteous in this matter and we can't use here situation to clarify the righteous. All of her liaisons are by definition sinful. They are all tainted by the first adultery. Her way back into righteousness is through repentance not by getting a divorce from all of her clients.
But the important part of your question is how do we classify a woman who is having sex with multiple men. Is she a polyandrist? And for our purposes I say absolutely not. God defines marriage and He is clear that there can be only one husband in a marriage. She is an serial adulteress. She repeatedly is breaking one flesh with a string of men. The men are also in adultery since they are becoming one flesh with a woman who is already clearly one flesh (according to scripture) with another man.
This is an important point. Adultery and idolatry are linked so closely that the original words are as almost indistinguishable as they are in English and both carry a death sentence.
If sex doesn't create a one flesh situation then you have to find some other thing that does. It doesn't show up in scripture. We have to turn into exegetical Stretch Armstrongs to make one up. Sex is one flesh. Sin destroys that and in many and myriad ways. But that doesn't change the fact that if you lay with a woman, if you know her, if you have mastered her then you have either taken ownership of her or destroyed some other man's title to her.
We also know that sex with a prostitute makes a one flesh situation. It's not debatable. Scripture uses the exact phrase "one flesh" to describe it and even goes a step farther to say you're roping Christ in to this thing.
You are perfectly right that there is no real term for marriage, husband or wife used. It is always man, woman and some euphemism for sex. Some guy might have laid with her, known her, mastered her or become one flesh with her. There is no command or description of a ceremony, a covenant, magic phrases, special words, incantations, secret hand shakes or any manner of extraordinary mumbo jumbo hysterical tribal dance based hijinks or hoopla. It doesn't exist. God brought Eve to Adam and they had sex. That's it. Jesus references this very event when he endorses the then historical norm for marriage for the "new" covenant.
Now you want to figure out what happens when we break that mold. What happens when a non-virgin who is eligible from marriage has sex. Fine. Let's talk about it. But an eligible non-virgin is very different than a prostitute. The eligible non-virgin is righteous in this matter, otherwise she wouldn't be eligible. The prostitute is not righteous in this matter and we can't use here situation to clarify the righteous. All of her liaisons are by definition sinful. They are all tainted by the first adultery. Her way back into righteousness is through repentance not by getting a divorce from all of her clients.
But the important part of your question is how do we classify a woman who is having sex with multiple men. Is she a polyandrist? And for our purposes I say absolutely not. God defines marriage and He is clear that there can be only one husband in a marriage. She is an serial adulteress. She repeatedly is breaking one flesh with a string of men. The men are also in adultery since they are becoming one flesh with a woman who is already clearly one flesh (according to scripture) with another man.
This is an important point. Adultery and idolatry are linked so closely that the original words are as almost indistinguishable as they are in English and both carry a death sentence.
If sex doesn't create a one flesh situation then you have to find some other thing that does. It doesn't show up in scripture. We have to turn into exegetical Stretch Armstrongs to make one up. Sex is one flesh. Sin destroys that and in many and myriad ways. But that doesn't change the fact that if you lay with a woman, if you know her, if you have mastered her then you have either taken ownership of her or destroyed some other man's title to her.
Fully agree sex = one flesh. The debate is whether one flesh = marriage. You assume this in this post, but it can be the subject of long debate. I'd prefer not to thrash this out again here, just clarifying what is in question here to hopefully aid the discussion.
I agree she cannot be a polyandrist. If any of her unions have formed a marriage, she will certainly be an adulteress as described, not a polyandrist. Throughout Proverbs, the wayward woman a man is being warned against is constantly described as the wife of another man, and she must be avoided because to sleep with her would be adultery, this interpretation is therefore consistent with Proverbs.
Taking my post back 
Wives submit to your (as in the man you belong to, not own) husband, husbands love your wife or wives as Christ loves the church and everyone follow Christ's leading in your life.
Wives submit to your (as in the man you belong to, not own) husband, husbands love your wife or wives as Christ loves the church and everyone follow Christ's leading in your life.
I can't. If it was a marriage, the man would have to present a bill of divorcement to her and I don't see that prescription here. No divorce means there was no marriage.
What the man has done requires him to take her as his own and provide for her as a husband. It is God's mercy for his daughters of Israel. To not marry her is a dereliction of duty and diminishes her ability to be taken care of in the future. Why? To be frank, she was "damaged goods". It was her status as a pure virgin in question, not her status as someone else's wife. Her prospects for marriage in the future were now greatly diminished. There was no welfare...so...No husband, no eat.
Iirc, the man had to pay the father either way, correct? Why? If she isn't able to secure a man, her future is still taken care of. Moral to men "keep it n your pants, cuz you'll pay either way." God took care of his daughters.
As far as Paul bringing Christ into the one flesh of a harlot, the circumstances define the term here. These harlots in NT times were not just good time girls. The served pagan purposes. Having sex with them as part of their known duty in pagan practices was tantamount to sacrificing to idols and worshiping another god...that was definitely not kosher! Christ could not be intimate with a false god and neither can we if we claim his ownership. We are either in God's family or not (keeping the family/one flesh metaphor I proposed). That was the true adultery!
I will retire now. I hope you know this isn't personal.
Last edited:
It's all yours again. I retired.Taking my post back
Wives submit to your (as in the man you belong to, not own) husband, husbands love your wife or wives as Christ loves the church and everyone follow Christ's leading in your life.
Guys, guys, guys.... SMH. 
You really know how to derail an otherwise beautiful post. That argument has already been (is continuing to be) hashed out in another thread. I think it would have been better to simply state that a disagreement exists and suggest that one follow a link to that thread if they so chose. Some of you (you know who) have a tendency to make each new thread that mentions Topic X or Y into a brand new platform. Repent, link and hi-jack no more.
@WifeOfHisYouth, you made a wonderful observation and I admire the way you were able to change your outlook on the subject.
You really know how to derail an otherwise beautiful post. That argument has already been (is continuing to be) hashed out in another thread. I think it would have been better to simply state that a disagreement exists and suggest that one follow a link to that thread if they so chose. Some of you (you know who) have a tendency to make each new thread that mentions Topic X or Y into a brand new platform. Repent, link and hi-jack no more. @WifeOfHisYouth, you made a wonderful observation and I admire the way you were able to change your outlook on the subject.