How does the churches interpret concubines

[precepts]

Sheya's

No, as I and others have already pointed out, the concubine is not a mistress; she is a wife but with lesser status than a regular wife. Whether a slave wife or a secondary wife in a polygamous situation, the concubine is still a wife, married to the man of the family.

In your opinion, I know for a fact that there was no marriage between Jacob and his wives handmaids.

Sheya's

Once again, in the case of the concubine in Judges 19-20, we have this verse:

Jdg 20:4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge.

The man identifies the woman as his concubine, and is himself identified as the woman's husband. If she had been merely a mistress, he would not have been spoken of as her husband.

It can be a misinterpretation by the interpreters.

Sheya's

Also, the relationship of Keturah to Abraham is spoken of here as wife

Gen 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

but here as concubine

1Ch 1:32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.

The evidence of Scripture shows that the concubine was not merely a mistress but an actual wife.

And you can't explain why. Why would the interpreters use two different words if they mean the same?

Onelight's

Strange how we have given proof against this belief that concubines were not considered wives. Can you give proof to back your understanding. I have personally shown you how the Hebrew word meant a lesser wife.

And I have proven to you that because they were of a lesser class they couldn't be wives but mistresses. Jacob never married his handmaids nor Abraham.

Onelight's

Is this to be ignored so you can back up some idea that the church brushes aside fornication?

The point is, couples living together are not committing adultery, common law knows this.

shiloh's

It would appear someone is trying to justfy sin.

It would appear someone is trying to edify/define the word fornication.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh's

QUOTE

It would appear someone is trying to justfy sin.

It would appear someone is trying to edify/define the word fornication.

No, you are trying to redefine to either justify what you have done or plan on doing.

[OneLight]

Onelight's

Strange how we have given proof against this belief that concubines were not considered wives. Can you give proof to back your understanding. I have personally shown you how the Hebrew word meant a lesser wife.

And I have proven to you that because they were of a lesser class they couldn't be wives but mistresses. Jacob never married his handmaids nor Abraham.

This is your understanding only. The word means what it means whether you wish to believe it or not.

Onelight's

Is this to be ignored so you can back up some idea that the church brushes aside fornication?

The point is, couples living together are not committing adultery, common law knows this.

So, the truth comes out. Common law overrides Gods law to you. Sex outside of marriage is fornication. When it includes another married person, then it becomes adultery.

[precepts]

shiloh's

It would appear someone is trying to justfy sin.

It would appear someone is trying to edify/define the word fornication.

No, you are trying to redefine to either justify what you have done or plan on doing.

I'm edify, you're judging.

Onelight's

Strange how we have given proof against this belief that concubines were not considered wives. Can you give proof to back your understanding. I have personally shown you how the Hebrew word meant a lesser wife.

And I have proven to you that because they were of a lesser class they couldn't be wives but mistresses. Jacob never married his handmaids nor Abraham.

This is your understanding only. The word means what it means whether you wish to believe it or not.

Why would I believe your definition when your definition is vague. According to the blue letter bible dictionary, a concubine is a woman of lower class that is unworthy of marriage. So what definition am I refusing to believe? You want to believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts, the churches aren't perfect.

Onelight's

Is this to be ignored so you can back up some idea that the church brushes aside fornication?

The point is, couples living together are not committing adultery, common law knows this.

So, the truth comes out. Common law overrides Gods law to you. Sex outside of marriage is fornication. When it includes another married person, then it becomes adultery.

You're being irrational. When did I say comman law overrides God's law? I can only lead a horse to water.....

[BlindSeeker]

It can be a misinterpretation by the interpreters.

Yeah . . . that must be it.

You know, there are interpreters and then there are interpreverters . . .

[OneLight]

Onelight's

Strange how we have given proof against this belief that concubines were not considered wives. Can you give proof to back your understanding. I have personally shown you how the Hebrew word meant a lesser wife.

And I have proven to you that because they were of a lesser class they couldn't be wives but mistresses. Jacob never married his handmaids nor Abraham.

This is your understanding only. The word means what it means whether you wish to believe it or not.

Why would I believe your definition when your definition is vague. According to the blue letter bible dictionary, a concubine is a woman of lower class that is unworthy of marriage. So what definition am I refusing to believe? You want to believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts, the churches aren't perfect.

Never said anything about the church here, just your understanding about the word concubine.

The blue letter bible is very vague in their answers. Here is what I said, and I give you the resource.

Concubine

H6370

פילגש

piylegesh

resource: The Complete Word Study Dictionary

A concubine was a legitimate wife; however, she was of secondary rank. This is evident by the references to teh concubine as having a husband (Judges 19:2). Concubines were presented opposite the wives of higher rank. The ability to have and to keep a concubine was a sign of wealth, status and royalty.

H3904

לחנה

lĕchenah (Aramaic)

resource: The Complete Word Study Dictionary

Refers to secondary wives, a feature of royal, ancient Near-Eastern culture.

Onelight's

Is this to be ignored so you can back up some idea that the church brushes aside fornication?

The point is, couples living together are not committing adultery, common law knows this.

So, the truth comes out. Common law overrides Gods law to you. Sex outside of marriage is fornication. When it includes another married person, then it becomes adultery.

You're being irrational. When did I say comman law overrides God's law? I can only lead a horse to water.....

You are right, you never said that. Yet, when you use the word adultery, you lead one to believe that one was married, and then claiming common law in this case would lead on to believe that you are placing it over Gods law. Analyze your own words. If you are talking about fornication, then again, one can only deduce the same out of your words, whether you say it or not.

Gods word is never going to agree that fornication is not sin, nor is adultery. Hebrew dictionaries are not going to agree with what you say wither.

By the way. You claim that the Blue Letter Bible stated that a concubine is not a married woman, well, here is what it days.

piylegesh

1) concubine, paramour

...a) concubine

...b) paramour

Once, in Judges 19:1, the word concubine has two references, one is piylegesh , which is above, and the other is H802 'ishshah (אשה), which the BLB states;

1) woman, wife, female

...a) woman (opposite of man)

...b) wife (woman married to a man)

...c) female (of animals)

...d) each, every (pronoun)

From the The Complete Word Study Dictionary:

A feminine noun meaning woman, wife, or female. The origin of this word is recorded in Genesis 2:23, where Adam said, "She shall be called Woman ('ishshah), because she was taken out of man.

Sad, but true, I can lead you to water, but you refuse to drink. Neither will you see until you open your eyes.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

It would appear someone is trying to justfy sin.It would appear someone is trying to edify/define the word fornication.

No, you are trying to redefine to either justify what you have done or plan on doing.

I'm edify, you're judging.

You are not edifying anyone. You are putting evil for good and good for evil. You are here masquarading as a Christian while trying to justify sin.

[Smalcald]

So obviously concubines, prostitutes, one night stands we may pick up at a bar or an immoral sexual relationship you end up living with, having an affair within marriage; are all sin, are all living in death and without repentance will send us to hell.

A concubine is a mistress.

Well a mistress would be fornication according to the New Testament according to Christ and acceding to Paul. What people do in the OT was true historically, but it may have nothing to do with moral behavior of Christians who are following Christ and His teachings.

But of course why live together? The only reason people live together is they don't want to make a commitment to marriage as they know divorce is a hassle and they know deep in their hearts that they will likely break up at some point and want to keep their options open, this is why people live together. Marriage takes all of 15 minutes and has tremendous benefits; there is NO good moral reason to live with someone in the US outside of legal marriage. It is fornication and is simply a way to have sex without commitment to play house, which is why it is called shacking up. It's not rocket science.

[Smalcald]

Well a mistress would be fornication according to the New Testament according to Christ and acceding to Paul. What people do in the OT was true historically, but it may have nothing to do with moral behavior of Christians who are following Christ and His teachings.

But of course why live together? The only reason people live together is they don't want to make a commitment to marriage as they know divorce is a hassle and they know deep in their hearts that they will likely break up at some point and want to keep their options open, this is why people live together. Marriage takes all of 15 minutes and has tremendous benefits; there is NO good moral reason to live with someone in the US outside of legal marriage. It is fornication and is simply a way to have sex without commitment to play house, which is why it is called shacking up. It's not rocket science.

[Guest Butero]

Hi Butaro,

I basically agree with your answer.

How do you interpret what Christ said below about marriage though in light of allowing polygamy?

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

This seems to be very singular in its intent, the two becoming one, not the many becoming one.

I do believe it is God's best for a man to have one wife, rather than having several wives and concubines. When he created Adam and Eve, I believe that was his intention. At the same time, polygamy was never outright forbidden, and it was even regulated in the law of Moses. God has allowed it for certain reasons. I believe it will be necessary at a future time because of a shortage of men as a result of war.

Some people believe that Jesus came and changed the law in the gospels. It is my belief that he cleared up false teachings by the Pharisees and Sadducees from the law. When he was speaking here, he was addressing the matter of divorce and re-marriage. Once a man and woman enter into a marriage covenant, they become one flesh, and if that marriage is disolved, it is sin in the sight of God. If a person gets re-married for any reason other than fornication, they are guilty of adultery. I do not believe polygamy is considered adultery in the sight of God, or else the patriarchs came about as the result of adultery and God answered the prayer of an adulterous named Hannah when she prayed for a son. This doesn't make any sense.