• 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.

Meat Does Exodus 21:10 apply to non-concubine wives?

L

Luke S

Member
Real Person
Male
Well, the title gets pretty straight to the point. I feel like we use this verse and passage in ways it may not be intended.

---- Hear me out though,

I'm not saying that a man should not provide food, clothing, and marital rights to his wives. I'm not trying to advocate favoritism in any way with this post. I think it good that the man provides such provision to all of his wives, and would even say that he is expected to do so.

But, contextually, Exodus 21:10 is specifically speaking of concubines, is it not? The passage is about purchasing servants. Thus, I do not feel as though we can apply it as a blanket statement to all polygynous marriages and families.

Perhaps the provision for the concubine is a wage? We are here told that we cannot reduce that?

Either way, though, the passage is still an example of God regulating polygyny, so it is still very applicable for our apologetics and hermeneutics!

What are y'all's thoughts though?
 
What does "servant" mean? What does "wife" mean? If a wife is to obey her husband, is she not his servant? We may not like that term when applied to a wife, it seems offensive, but when you think about it the line between "submissive wife" and "maidservant whom I have sex with" is rather blurry.

After many years of discussion of this topic on this forum, I have learned that the fundamental difference between a "concubine" and a regular "wife" is quite simply that a "wife" has some sort of formal marriage contract / covenant / ketubah and a "concubine" does not. Basically, a concubine is what we would call a "de-facto" or "common law" wife - she has been taken informally. A servant who becomes a wife (as in this passage) is an obvious example of a concubine - but not necessarily the only example.

I think what this verse is doing is ensuring that the servant (concubine), despite the fact that they have no written contract outlining the terms of their marriage, has a set of basic protections guaranteed in the law. A woman who has a marriage contract that gives her some other guarantees has no need of this protection, hence why this is written about maidservants / concubines. Modern secular law does the same thing whenever it recognises de-facto unions / common-law marriage, and defines when such relationships are deemed to begin and end, and gives protections for the parties e.g. with property division. This is the Biblical version of such laws - it's quite different but addresses the same basic problem.

@Luke S, do you have a marriage contract with your wife that outlines what you will provide for her? If so, this is irrelevant as it is covered by that agreement. If not - your wife may be a concubine, and this is 100% relevant.
 
Samuel answered exactly what I was gonna say but he did it prettier than me. So I won’t subject you to my keyboard mashings. Excellent summary.
 
FollowingHim said:
What does "servant" mean? What does "wife" mean? If a wife is to obey her husband, is she not his servant? We may not like that term when applied to a wife, it seems offensive, but when you think about it the line between "submissive wife" and "maidservant whom I have sex with" is rather blurry.

After many years of discussion of this topic on this forum, I have learned that the fundamental difference between a "concubine" and a regular "wife" is quite simply that a "wife" has some sort of formal marriage contract / covenant / ketubah and a "concubine" does not. Basically, a concubine is what we would call a "de-facto" or "common law" wife - she has been taken informally. A servant who becomes a wife (as in this passage) is an obvious example of a concubine - but not necessarily the only example.

I think what this verse is doing is ensuring that the servant (concubine), despite the fact that they have no written contract outlining the terms of their marriage, has a set of basic protections guaranteed in the law. A woman who has a marriage contract that gives her some other guarantees has no need of this protection, hence why this is written about maidservants / concubines. Modern secular law does the same thing whenever it recognises de-facto unions / common-law marriage, and defines when such relationships are deemed to begin and end, and gives protections for the parties e.g. with property division. This is the Biblical version of such laws - it's quite different but addresses the same basic problem.

@Luke S, do you have a marriage contract with your wife that outlines what you will provide for her? If so, this is irrelevant as it is covered by that agreement. If not - your wife may be a concubine, and this is 100% relevant.
Click to expand...
Ooooh, now I have more to dig into! I certainly came at this from a view contrarian to the one stated here. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of the thread(s) that discuss this? I'd like to read up on the topic before I give a full response!
 
Luke S said:
Well, the title gets pretty straight to the point. I feel like we use this verse and passage in ways it may not be intended.

---- Hear me out though,

I'm not saying that a man should not provide food, clothing, and marital rights to his wives. I'm not trying to advocate favoritism in any way with this post. I think it good that the man provides such provision to all of his wives, and would even say that he is expected to do so.

But, contextually, Exodus 21:10 is specifically speaking of concubines, is it not? The passage is about purchasing servants. Thus, I do not feel as though we can apply it as a blanket statement to all polygynous marriages and families.

Perhaps the provision for the concubine is a wage? We are here told that we cannot reduce that?

Either way, though, the passage is still an example of God regulating polygyny, so it is still very applicable for our apologetics and hermeneutics!

What are y'all's thoughts though?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as concubines in the Law. Full stop, end of story. The passage applies to exactly who it says it applies to.
 
Luke S said:
contextually, Exodus 21:10 is specifically speaking of concubines, is it not? The passage is about purchasing servants. Thus, I do not feel as though we can apply it as a blanket statement to all polygynous marriages and families.
Click to expand...
The Revolting Man said:
There is no such thing as concubines in the Law. Full stop, end of story. The passage applies to exactly who it says it applies to.
Click to expand...
Luke S said:
Purchased maidservants taken as wives?
Click to expand...
The Revolting Man said:
Yes. It’s as simple as it sounds and there’s no need to complicate it.
Click to expand...
The opposite of complicating it, though, is to assert that, no matter whether we are talking about concubines, maidservants, slaves, or so-called 'proper wives,' Yah has asserted in Exodus 21:10 that even a woman with as low a status as we may choose to infer He was referring to must be treated equally in those manners, so the point you're trying to make in this instance, @Luke S, is moot. It doesn't matter that an equal-status wife wasn't mentioned, because it would be nearly universal implication mean that it would apply just as much to a woman of equal status.
 
Speaking only for myself here I will say my relationship with my husband was a process and it was some time before I felt like I was his wife.

There was a time when I would half-joke that I was his concubine and to some degree I was also serious because that's how I felt. Looking back at it it's probably not a bad description.

But what matters is that no matter how a woman comes into relationship with her husband it should be understood that she will be his wife and not something less-than a wife.
 
Keith Martin said:
The opposite of complicating it, though, is to assert that, no matter whether we are talking about concubines, maidservants, slaves, or so-called 'proper wives,' Yah has asserted in Exodus 21:10 that even a woman with as low a status as we may choose to infer He was referring to must be treated equally in those manners, so the point you're trying to make in this instance, @Luke S, is moot. It doesn't matter that an equal-status wife wasn't mentioned, because it would be nearly universal implication mean that it would apply just as much to a woman of equal status.
Click to expand...
I disagree and have said so on many occasions. A wife who has been bought has extra protections that a voluntary wife does not. Exodus 21:10 is protecting the most vulnerable wives, not all wives.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I disagree and have said so on many occasions. A wife who has been bought has extra protections that a voluntary wife does not. Exodus 21:10 is protecting the most vulnerable wives, not all wives.
Click to expand...
Would you then assert that it would be entirely acceptable scripturally for a man to enter into a one-flesh relationship with a woman who voluntarily enters into it and agrees that she will have no right to expect protection, provision and due benevolence?
 
Keith Martin said:
Would you then assert that it would be entirely acceptable scripturally for a man to enter into a one-flesh relationship with a woman who voluntarily enters into it and agrees that she will have no right to expect protection, provision and due benevolence?
Click to expand...
Isaiah 4 comes to mind. To at least partially answer your question.
 
I will steadfastly claim, in spite of all previous denunciations by learned men, that there is a place for a woman who is not ready to commit the rest of her life to a man.
A woman who is willing to try it for a year or six months to see if it is something for her isn’t the same as a wife who can commit fully.

Despite protests to the contrary, this can only be considered a concubine, as far as I can see. If you have another designation, I’m happy to consider it.

I take itfrom what @MeganC has said that this is a bit of the path that she walked.

I believe that this was the basis for Naomi having Ruth offer herself to Boaz in the middle of the night.
He chose to give her the full-meal-deal wife treatment.
 
Last edited:
steve said:
I will steadfastly claim, in spite of all previous denunciations by learned men, that there is a place for a woman who is not ready to commit the rest of her life to a man.
A woman who is willing to try it for a year or six months to see if it is something for her isn’t the same as a wife who can commit fully.

Despite protests to the contrary, this can only be considered a concubine, as far as I can see. If you have another designation, I’m happy to consider it.

I take itfrom what @MeganC has said that this is a bit of the path that she walked.
Click to expand...
Yaknow, I want to dig into this. Very curious cause I think you might be on to something. Can you point me at scriptural references?
 
Last edited:
NickF said:
Yaknow, I want to dig into this. Very curious cause I think you're right my dude.
Click to expand...
My giftings in this area run in the practical.
In other words, I am interested in living real life.
Other people operate in the theoretical.
 
Ahh, I just said that because I thought I remembered running across some laws on children staying with a master in Exodus. Just looked it up and that was specifically in reference to a master giving a manservant a wife. If he is freed, she stays with the master. Definitely throws a wrench into the "married forever" idea. Hmmm
Also edited my above post to clarify my (not all-in-edness)
 
steve said:
I will steadfastly claim, in spite of all previous denunciations by learned men, that there is a place for a woman who is not ready to commit the rest of her life to a man.
A woman who is willing to try it for a year or six months to see if it is something for her isn’t the same as a wife who can commit fully.

Despite protests to the contrary, this can only be considered a concubine, as far as I can see. If you have another designation, I’m happy to consider it.

I take it from what @MeganC has said that this is a bit of the path that she walked.
Click to expand...

I think you see it like I do. I had three babies before I was starting to feel like a wife and not just someone my husband happened to have babies with. That's why I often say it was a process for me to feel married to my husband. I also believe it's the same kind of thing even for many newlyweds is that just because they did a ceremony they're not automagically husband and wife. It takes time to make that bond and to make the relationship into a devoted relationship.

No matter if it offends anyone one of the definitions of concubine is:

A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.

Guess what? That applied to me. It can also apply to others.
 
NickF said:
Yaknow, I want to dig into this. Very curious cause I think you might be on to something. Can you point me at scriptural references?
Click to expand...
I believe that the Boaz story shows that there was a large difference in the way that a marriage could be made.
Also Isaiah 4 shows a difference.
Abraham and Hagar shows a sad difference.

But a lot of what I go to is how Jews actually understand the situation. It was their Bible before it was ours. They just might have understood some things that weren’t written down. It was ALL oral history before it was written.

But it all comes down to this; is there a way to live it in a righteous manner? Does it give any options that could bless a family/woman in a way that doesn’t violate Yah’s intentions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top