I'm going to research my books a bit more (I don't have access to them at the moment), but does anyone know how the concubine system worked?

Were concubines mistresses? Girlfriends?

What was the legal difference between a wife and a concubine? Why would a man keep one?

Is that something we could do today, biblically, since the patriarchs did it? Or was that a local custom?

GAIL
it must have been custom, now if it was a pagan custom
that the isrealites addapted or it was also their custom
as well. I JUST look up concubines in the concordance
and there were 22 listings of concubine and 17 listings
of concubines all in the old testament.

the definition of concubine is 1: a women who cohabits with
a man although not legally married to him. 2: in certain
polygamous socities, a secondary wife, of inferior social
and legal status.

so now we have are home work cut our for us.

dgrimm60

According to the Theological Wordbook of the OT, a concubine was a true wife but of secondary rank

Gerry

So was a concubine a good thing or a bad thing? Would I have been proud to have been one, if I had lived back then?

from the Bible Encyclopaedia, via Google -

Concubine
in the Bible denotes a female conjugally united to a man, but in a relation inferior to that of a wife

Among the early Jews, from various causes, the difference between a wife and a concubine was less marked than it would be amongst us. The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Ex. 21:7; Deut. 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Gen. 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household government.

The immediate cause of concubinage might be gathered from the conjugal histories of Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 16). But in process of time, the custom of concubinage degenerated, and laws were made to restrain and regulate it (Ex. 21:7-9).

Christianity has restored the sacred institution of marriage to its original character, and concubinage is ranked with the sins of fornication and adultery (Matt. 19:5-9; 1 Cor. 7:2).



Don't think it would have been my first choice for an existence, but if there was a scarcity of males - eg after a series of wars - I guess it would provide a socially acceptable role for women. Presumably only those capable of supporting them, took on concubines.

That would depend on your point of view. With all the wars going on back then that killed so many men, there just wasn't enough men to go around. So, you could stay single and not be a secondary wife, or be a secondary or even a tertiary wife, but enjoy some semblance of security. People's social security until recent times depended on having children to take care of them in their old age. That can't happen being single. There was/is onus on illegitimate children.

Gerry

The SDA commentary dictionary gives this insight:

"Concubines were sometimes taken from among slaves (Gen 16:2,3) and could be divorced more easily than regular wives (ch 21:10-14). Their sons were also considered inferior to those born to the full-fledged wives (Gen.25:6; Jgs 8:31)"

So it seems that the practice was established to help provide some physical security to single women, as has been pointed out

Gail, I am sure that provided some justfication for the practice. It would be interesting to know whether that was the reason the practice began, or whether the male of the species was giving an excuse for wandering eyes. Guess that is a rather cynical view point though.

Cynical maybe -- but I bet it was true! Just think of Solomon -- 1000 women! The mind boggles! What else did he do with his time?

I think that was just one of those things that God "tolerated". I don't recall anywhere where He condoned it!

Beryl

I think the situation with someone like Solomon was that a wife had a certain rank - the wives were often princesses of other countries, married to seal alliances. OK, 1000 might be a bit excessive, but in answer to Gail's question about whether she'd want to be one... it's possible that a concubine could be a woman who was not royal and qualified for an arranged marriage for political purposes, but was someone the man really loved for herself. Just a scenario...

...and I think we tend, in our culture, to be overly obsessed with the sexual aspects of this situation, and not think about the other implications. Same with polygamy... perhaps men with more wives do have more sex, but probably not dramatically more, just different. They also have more responsibilities and more posibilities for conflict, and more children to parent and...

I believe monogamy is God's ideal for us but that, for example, being a concubine is superior to being a prostitute, which may have been the alternative for many women. If we think of Solomon's 300 wives and 700 concubines, not as a massive harem from which he was free to select for his pleasure, but as a massive group of women who were fed and protected and cared for, some of whom may not have had other options...

What are the odds that some zealous scribe slipped in a zero or two to make it look more astounding? Some of the numbers stated in the dedication of the temple appear to be logistically impossible. The number of animals slaughtered would seem to exceed any credible possibility

mel

That´s very unlikely.
¨Nothing was left to the decision of the scribes, neither the length of lines and columns, nor the color of the ink to be used. The words of each book were counted, and its middle word established, to provide means for checking the accuracy of new copies. At the end of each book a statement was attached giving the number of words the book contained and also telling which was the middle word, besides some other statistical information.¨ (SDA Bibel Commentary, VI, p.35)

Well the original author used round figures which might indicate some guesswork there! (or is it a translation problem?)

mel

As to the number of Solomons's wives and concubines, I have no comment on the accuracy of the numbers in the Biblical record. My gut response is it is obscene!! Just my female opinion.

I have been reading your comments with interest, and finally decided to chime in with some information re: concubines that I had read recently in a book written by a woman who was raised in the palace of the king of Morocco. She had first hand knowlege of their living situations as she was part of the harem.

She was first btought to the palace as a serrogate sister for the kings young daughter, roughly her age, 5, I believe. She lived, slept, ate, and went to shcool with this girl. I don't recall the exact events that brought her inside of the palace, but she was eventually brought into the harem and lived with all the women. These were young girls who dreamed of a life of luxury, and found it in the palace. The king chose the girls via something like beauty contests.

He had an official wife. She had a separate apartment where she lived and more access to the king than the others. The king did have relations with whoever he wished, whoever flirted with him the most on certain occassions, or whatever. She wrote of how all the harem ladies and the king lounged in the pools naked and cavorted down the halls naked to and from the pool. She wrote how at first when she was young it didn't bother her, but as she started to mature, she was mortified to be seen naked. She tried leaving her panties on on one occassion, the king became very angry and ripped them off of her.

The concubines also had children, and they had jealousies among themselves as to which child the king would favor above the others. But, of couse when the wife had sons, they would be the heirs and favored ones.

The concubines were very much sheltered from the outside world. It was like they were prisoners, actually. They were not allowed to go outside of the palace walls, period. There were certain times that outings were arranged for them, then they were like school girls in their excitement to go out. But, they were all in a group and closely supervised. They were not allowed contact with their families on the outside, if I remember correctly.

The young girls' story went on to describe how she begged to go back to live with her family, the times she tried to call her mother, sometimes successfully and most of the time not. Her father was part of the military, and opposed the king on some issues, was part of an uncuccessful assination plot. In the end, the father was killed by the government, and the girl and her whole family were placed under house arrenst. The rest of her story involved the hellish years of this imprisionment, poverty, near starvation, and isolation from their family, and the world. It is a heart wrenching story how their lives were, indeed, "stolen" as they endured this imprisonment for 20 years.

So, from this story, I would conclude that being part of a harem is really not all it might seem to someone on the outside. There was luxury, to be sure, fine clothing and housing, liasons with the king, but no legal standing. The children that they bore were not theirs legally, and they were cut off from the outside world and families. Doesn't sound like such a good deal to me........a kept prostitue.

But, as mentioned, perhaps a "better" life than being a street prostitute in that their food, clothing, and shelter were provided. They did have the protection of the palace as long as they didn't make waves, if they did, the king was free to "dispose" of them as he saw fit. Or, as this unfortunate lady found out, if one of the parents came into disfavor with the palace, the whole family could be disposed of in the most cruel way.

So, that is my take on the modern version of concubines from Morocco. Not a particularily pretty picture. The name of the book is "Stolen Lives".

Morning Glory

Alden Thompson in his book "Inspiration" discusses the use of numbers in the Old Testament. Has to do with multiple meanings for certain Hebrew words. Probably we should not assume too much about the accuracy of some of the large numbers in those days.

mel

Here is a twist-

Do you think that by just participating in multiple marriages contributed to Solomon's spiritual downfall? I just read the EGW account in Prophets and Kings and I got the feeling that she was implying that not only the wives themselves were an influence but just the idea of taking on so many helped him on the way to spiritual infidelity.

Possibly! Same might be true of David but have you ever wondered why Bathsheba was exposing herself when she knew who lived next door?

mel

I don't know if she was exposing herself intentionally. In those days, a roof was used as another room and bathing on it could have been as private as they could get at that time. Although David's building was high enough that he had a view, I'm not sure that a lot of other people's buildings were.

On the other hand she could have had her eye on the first lady position in the palace.

mel

Some men are pigs and oppressors, and are to one wife and would be to many wives and concubines. Others are kind and sweet, and would be to many as well as to one. Now if *I* had a harem... {/runs away}

Was there anything in David's previous behavior that would have made Bathsheba think David would do what he did? Did he ever do that sort of thing again?

Was Bathsheba the kind of person who would have any plans like those, which would include the killing of her husband? David and Bathsheba could both legally have been stoned to death.

There is nothing to indicate that she protested or refused him what he wanted is there? Did he force her in any way?

mel

Bathsheba was between a rock and a hard place-- on the one hand, refusing a king's request in those days could be punished with death, and on the other, she knew she would be committing adultery if she submitted to it. And the fact that she did not cry out in protest against David meant that she qualified for punishment by stoning, according to the law of Moses. Uriah was well known for his faithfulness to the king and for his bravery. He might have taken revenge against the king by taking his life or by exciting the nation to revolt against David.

I don't find anything in David's life or background up to that point that would have made his behavior with Bathsheba predictable. On the contrary, it is written of him that David "executed judgment and justice unto all the people" (2 Samuel 8: 15). Nor do we know anything about Bathsheba's character to make us think she took her bath on the roof-top with the plan of causing the king to do what he did. The Bible says that what David did displeased the Lord. David alone was evidently completely responsible for his sin.

I stay by my assessment of the situation. I think yours lacks credibility but enough said. You have your opinion and I have mine.

mel

In any case, after his encounter with Bathsheba you don't hear anything about any of the other wives.

What made her different enough to gain status of a wife and not concubine (to stay on topic)

Probably the fact that her son was chosen to be the next king would have made her number one wife and the record seems to indicate that she wielded some power.

mel

Prophecy and Abba's workings. It was through the line of Solomon the Messiah came.

Be realistic:

I will suggest that some of the wives were just for show.

1,000 women, 1,000 nights?

Wow that IS a delayed reaction Gregory! Did you just wake up :-)

Yes if you would allow a two week "honeymoon" for each of the thousand it would have been one long honeymoon all his years as king. Much more likely the numbers are skewed.

mel

Well, Leah only had a 1 week honeymoon when she deceived Jacob. Don't think that would have been a very happy honeymoon at all! But God had decreed that the husband could not "short-change" the unloved wife!

Beryl

Excellent study: But an interesting thing I've noted is in conservative western society, especially in conservative Christianity, although having only the one spouce, what is pictured as the ideal wife is not the Biblical discription of a wife but the Biblical discription of a concubine.

A fascinating observation...