It does.
No matter what anyone says it takes time and intentiality to become one on anything more than a basic level.
-
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?
- Thread starter Luke S
- Start date
No matter what anyone says it takes time and intentiality to become one on anything more than a basic level.
Why would it matter what she agrees to? Her submission is expected in all things, with the exception of sex. But even the absence of sex doesn’t allow her to leave and remarry.
There is a category that fits this definition, it called betrothal. Also known as WHAFY. Or “woman he hasn’t had coitus with yet”.
No, he can’t, because there is nine. As much as I respect the venerable @steve in almost all things, in this matter he’s mistaken. Every body gets one freebie.
Under your rules, yes.
But your rules are just as arbitrary as mine, except that mine are borrowed from the Jews.
And mine are borrowed from….
He Ain't?
LOL! I am soooo sharing this one with my husband!
@Luke S, as you can already see, you've waded into a very controversial topic on which people have very firmly established views!
@The Revolting Man is our resident passionate defender of all wives being wives, and he gets quite concerned when people start using the word "concubine" to describe some wives, as it sounds to his ear like they may be using that term to justify poorer treatment of some women.
@steve is our resident boundary-pusher, who actually does use the word "concubine" as an opening for the idea of temporary marriage that is permitted by some Islamic and Jewish writings (for the record, I am NOT meaning that when I use the word).
Combine those two, plus everyone else's opinions between and around these near-opposites, and the moment the word "concubine" arises a long debate is guaranteed!
If you search the forum for the keyword "concubine" you'll be reading for a long time. Here are some key quotes that clarify it in my opinion. On each quote, if you click the little up arrow to the right of the person's name, top of the quote, you'll be taken directly to the original post it is taken from and can read the context.
The ultimate definition of concubine, from ancient Jewish sources that simply define the word:
Kiddushin is formal betrothal. Ketubbah is a formal marriage contract.
For more information (including a lot of detailed posts from @The Revolting Man where he lays out his concerns about this whole issue), read the original mega-thread these quotes were taken from that has been running for 9 years now:
Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.
We all know, by faith in God's Word that Polygamy has God's blessing and in fact command. There are also many examples in the Bible about concubines. So why not have those? I have also read/ heard that the phrase "adultery" in the Bible refers to a woman (married female) having sex with...
biblicalfamilies.org
Yours are assumed.
My views on one flesh are based solely on the scriptures that reference one flesh without adding one thing to them. You can disagree with me but you can’t pretend I don’t have basis for those beliefs.
Oh yeah, I had no idea that it was so controversial! I just thought everyone was on the same page that all concubines are wives but not all wives are concubines -- mostly just because Keturah, Hagar, and Bilhah are each referred to with both terms -- I was just trying to ask about how we apply Exodus 21:10. The question still stands as to whether the verse applies to marriages outside of the purchased servant context -- though I certainly could have avoided the hot term in asking that!@Luke S, as you can already see, you've waded into a very controversial topic on which people have very firmly established views!
@The Revolting Man is our resident passionate defender of all wives being wives, and he gets quite concerned when people start using the word "concubine" to describe some wives, as it sounds to his ear like they may be using that term to justify poorer treatment of some women.
@steve is our resident boundary-pusher, who actually does use the word "concubine" as an opening for the idea of temporary marriage that is permitted by some Islamic and Jewish writings (for the record, I am NOT meaning that when I use the word).
Combine those two, plus everyone else's opinions between and around these near-opposites, and the moment the word "concubine" arises a long debate is guaranteed!
If you search the forum for the keyword "concubine" you'll be reading for a long time. Here are some key quotes that clarify it in my opinion. On each quote, if you click the little up arrow to the right of the person's name, top of the quote, you'll be taken directly to the original post it is taken from and can read the context.
The ultimate definition of concubine, from ancient Jewish sources that simply define the word:
Kiddushin is formal betrothal. Ketubbah is a formal marriage contract.
For more information (including a lot of detailed posts from @The Revolting Man where he lays out his concerns about this whole issue), read the original mega-thread these quotes were taken from that has been running for 9 years now:
And search for the keyword "concubine" to find many other discussions.Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting.
We all know, by faith in God's Word that Polygamy has God's blessing and in fact command. There are also many examples in the Bible about concubines. So why not have those? I have also read/ heard that the phrase "adultery" in the Bible refers to a woman (married female) having sex with...
But thank you for the directions, I have much to delve into now! And since I'm still learning how to navigate here, the direct directions helps a lot
I think people are mostly on the same page with that, historically speaking. The problem comes when people start saying "well, does that mean I could have a concubine today?". Then the battle-lines quickly open up again between two sides that have proved irreconcilable for years. I try to sit in where I think is the middle, but that means I'm being hit from both sides.
The first retreat I went to, I had very limited time there (I only had a few days off work and had to spend as much time on aeroplanes going both ways as I actually had to spend at the retreat). So I actually stayed awake one entire night discussing scripture. A portion of that discussion was about concubines, come to think of it...
Oh okay, but I would say owning concubines today is a separate deal. If indeed a concubine is still a wife, no qualms, of course, but the conundrum we have today as believers is inherent in two parts.
1) do not be unequally yoked to unbelievers. I would say that applies to us not taking unbeliever concubines.
2) not causing a fellow believer to stumble. Given that 1 Corinthians 7 tells us that we were bought at a price and are not to become bondservants of men, I don't see how we could take on a believer as a concubine without causing her to violate that imperative.
Thus, we cannot take an unbeliever as a concubine, and we cannot take a believer as one either, which would effectively eliminate all women from being eligible to be taken as concubines. However, I would say that if a man does have a concubine, whether he has one before coming to faith or if he took one improperly, she is still his wife and he does not sin to have her, of course.
Wrong assumption.
You are using a definition of concubine that doesn’t cover all of them
Perhaps, indeed, I have not yet had the time to properly study through the resources I have been given now, but -- would the assumption at least apply in the case of purchase and bondservanthood, as is in Exodus 21:10??