There is some confusion about biblical concubines because (to our Western minds) they often summon images of a harem from the east where a sultan had many mistresses kept for his pleasure. (The image for this post depicts such a scene.) However, biblical concubines weren’t like those concubines, which we’ll see in a minute.
Spoiler (supported Biblically below). Concubines are wives, but a specific type of wife. Thus, all biblical concubines are wives, but not all wives are concubines.
We’ll get into the specific type of wife later in the article. For now, we’ll establish that biblical concubines are indeed wives. Outside of the Bible and in other cultures perhaps not, but they are wives in the Bible.
(Part of the reason I’m writing this article is because I’ve had commenters say that God is fine with sex outside of marriage, arguing that concubines were unmarried mistresses. This article will answer that, and I have an article entitled Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong to prove that sex outside of marriage is wrong.)
The Concubine in Judges 19
One of the more disturbing stories in the Bible begins in Judges chapter 19. It serves as an excellent warning of how depraved man can become when he ignores God, but we’ll leave the story before we get that far since it’s only the intro that’s relevant to the topic today. (Plus the story goes until the end of Judges, so it’s quite long.)
Judges 19:1-10
1 Now it came about in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite staying in the remote part of the hill country of Ephraim, who took a concubine for himself from Bethlehem in Judah.
2 But his concubine played the harlot against him, and she went away from him to her father’s house in Bethlehem in Judah, and was there for a period of four months.
3 Then her husband arose and went after her to speak tenderly to her in order to bring her back, taking with him his servant and a pair of donkeys. So she brought him into her father’s house, and when the girl’s father saw him, he was glad to meet him.
4 His father-in-law, the girl’s father, detained him; and he remained with him three days. So they ate and drank and lodged there.
5 Now on the fourth day they got up early in the morning, and he prepared to go; and the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, “Sustain yourself with a piece of bread, and afterward you may go.”
6 So both of them sat down and ate and drank together; and the girl’s father said to the man, “Please be willing to spend the night, and let your heart be merry.”
7 Then the man arose to go, but his father-in-law urged him so that he spent the night there again.
8 On the fifth day he arose to go early in the morning, and the girl’s father said, “Please sustain yourself, and wait until afternoon”; so both of them ate.
9 When the man arose to go along with his concubine and servant, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, “Behold now, the day has drawn to a close; please spend the night. Lo, the day is coming to an end; spend the night here that your heart may be merry. Then tomorrow you may arise early for your journey so that you may go home.”
10 But the man was not willing to spend the night, so he arose and departed and came to a place opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). And there were with him a pair of saddled donkeys; his concubine also was with him.
Hopefully, that passage cleared it up for you that concubines are wives. If not, We’ll look at the original words to make the case ironclad for the skeptics
The word translated “husband”
Now, the word translated “husband” in verse 3 is “אִישׁ” (ish, pronounced “eesh”). It’s also used in Genesis 3:16:
Genesis 3:16
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband (ish), And he will rule over you.”
It’s used over 2000 times in the Old Testament and most of the time, it’s translated “man/men”. However, it can also mean “husband” as you just saw, and there are plenty of other examples. One clear example is Leah saying various forms of “now my husband (ish) will love me” after she had given birth to her various children in Genesis 29:32, Genesis 29:34, Genesis 30:18, and Genesis 30:20.
The word simply means a man, married or not.
The context tells you if “husband” was intended, and here it clearly seems to be. Some skeptics might not accept this as evidence, and that’s fine because there’s plenty more evidence.
The words translated “son-in-law” and “father-in-law”
Now, the word translated “son-in-law” is very telling. It’s the word “חָתָן” (chathan), and here’s the definition #1 in the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon:
1 in relation to a father, daughter’s husband, or bridegroom
2 in relation to the bride, bridegroom
That the word means “son-in-law” is crystal clear, and being a son-in-law obviously requires marriage. Thus, the concubine was the man’s wife.
The word translated “father-in-law” is equally clear. It’s the word “חָתַן” (chathan), which confusingly seems like it’s the exact same word as above. However, this one is #2859 and a verb (usually used as a noun), whereas the previous one is #2860 and is an actual noun. They are different in use because of the way Hebrew works, but I won’t explain because you’re not here for a Hebrew lesson. (You can follow the links to verify definitions.)
Anyway, the definition is:
1. masculine wife’s father
2. feminine wife’s mother
So when it’s inflected as a masculine word, it means the “wife’s father”, when inflected as feminine it means “wife’s mother”. It’s masculine in this verse, hence the translation of “father-in-law”.
Thus, since the concubine’s husband was her father’s son-in-law, and since the concubine’s father was her husband’s father-in-law, then the concubine was obviously married to her husband. I know this seems painfully obvious, but I often get pushback from those who want to say that the existence of concubines in the Bible indicates that God approves of sex outside of marriage.
He doesn’t.
Again, I have a whole article devoted to that topic which you can read if you are in doubt.
Keturah, Abraham’s Third wife
We know almost nothing about her other than the two verses below, but Abraham did get married again after Sarah died in Genesis 23. The woman’s name was Keturah and here’s what scripture says:
Genesis 25:1-5
1 Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.
2 She bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak and Shuah.
3 Jokshan became the father of Sheba and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim and Letushim and Leummim.
4 The sons of Midian were Ephah and Epher and Hanoch and Abida and Eldaah. All these were the sons of Keturah.
5 Now Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac;
6 but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east.
Notice that in verse 6, Abraham had “concubines”. Plural. Remember that because we’ll come back to it in a moment.
Now, everything we saw about the word translated “husband” in Judges 19 also applies to the word translated “wife” in verse 1 above. The word is “אִשָּׁה” (ishshah, pronounced “ish-shaw”). Pretty much every lexicon had the exact same basic definition:
woman, wife, female
It means a woman, married or unmarried, but context determines the intent. To “take in marriage” is a common phrase in the Old Testament, and it’s used in the New Testament as well. The definition for the word translated “take” here — “לָקַח” (laqach) — recognizes this:
e. especially take in marriage: (I) for another, especially a son, with לְ, וְלָקַחְתָּ֫ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי, Genesis 24:4 and thou shalt take a wife or my son, so Genesis 24:7; Genesis 24:38; Genesis 24:40; Genesis 24:48 (all J), Genesis 21:21 (E), Jeremiah 29:6b; (2) more often for oneself, usually with לְ reflexive (sometimes + לְאִשָּׁה), Genesis 4:19; Genesis 6:2; Genesis 11:29; Genesis 12:19 (all J), + often; without לְ Genesis 20:2,3(E), etc.
So Keturah was definitely Abraham’s wife. She is mentioned in only one other place, and importantly she’s called a wife in Genesis but a concubine in this next passage.
1 Chronicles 1:28-33
28 The sons of Abraham were Isaac and Ishmael.
29 These are their genealogies: the firstborn of Ishmael was Nebaioth, then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam,
30 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema,
31 Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah; these were the sons of Ishmael.
32 The sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine, whom she bore, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan were Sheba and Dedan.
33 The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida and Eldaah. All these were the sons of Keturah
Again, Keturah is called a wife in Genesis and a concubine in 1 Chronicles. This should make it fairly obvious that she was indeed Abraham’s wife, and also his concubine.
Thus, concubines are indeed wives.
Remember that Genesis 25:6 talks about Abraham’s “concubines”, and notice that it’s plural. Thus, Abraham had (at least) two concubines. The obvious candidates are Hagar and Keturah. I’m glad we have the Chronicles passage to make things crystal clear, but even without it, it seems like Genesis 25 calls Keturah both a wife and concubine in the same chapter.
This clarifies that Hagar was indeed a concubine. This is actually an important point for several reasons unrelated to our topic. However, I want to keep this article short and focused so we won’t go into it more today. (I hope to write a follow-up article about biblical betrothal vs modern engagement because the two are nothing alike. Hagar will be somewhat important there.)
“So what type of wife is a concubine?”
The short answer is, usually a wife who was also a slave. From encyclopedia.com:
The Biblical references to concubines are confined to the Old Testament and connote an institution that was an offshoot of polygamy. The English word concubine may give a false connotation, suggesting a kept mistress. In reality, a concubine was a genuine wife. She was not a woman who cohabited with a man while unmarried to him. In the family the concubine held an intermediate place between the wife of first rank and an ordinary slave. In most cases she was a slave raised to a higher dignity by marriage to the master (Gn 16.3). The concubine held position as a wife of inferior or secondary rank.
Now, as is always the case when slavery in the Bible comes up, I want to make it clear that “slavery” in the Bible isn’t what most Westerners think of these days. It would be more accurately called “indentured servitude” and was for a limited period of time and the “slave” went free after that limited time and God commanded that he be released with a bunch of valuable “stuff”. It effectively functioned as the Hebrew “bankruptcy system” so someone who was destitute wouldn’t die of starvation or exposure.
(And yes, I realize I’m skipping all kinds of nuance and some exceptions, mostly because that’s not this article’s topic.)
If you want more information on that, Mike Winger has a video on YouTube that does a pretty good job of giving an overview. I keep wanting to write an article on the topic that would go into more detail than he does, but my time is quite limited right now.
Now, swinging back to the topic of concubines, they are indeed wives.
I hope this is obvious from what we’ve covered.
An Addendum (or three)
Now, I probably should just leave this article here. However, people will probably ask about a few topics in the comments, so let me preemptively answer a few questions that will probably come up.
Some people will say that it’s still wrong because concubines didn’t have equal legal protections as “normal” wives. Actually, despite a concubine being a lower-status wife, they were given full legal protection under the Mosaic Law. (You could even argue that they had more legal protection.) I go into a bit of detail on this in my monster-length article on divorce, at least as it concerns a concubine’s ability to get a divorce if she was mistreated. Please see that article for details.
Additionally, someone will likely say that a man marrying a concubine in addition to an existing wife/concubine means that the man is committing adultery, so it’s still wrong. However, there are two problems with that argument. First, nothing stopped a man in biblical times from having a concubine as his only wife. The (horribly wicked) man in Judges 19 appeared to only have one wife, the concubine in the story, so that’s certainly possible.
The second problem is one of definition. I have an article entitled: What Jesus Meant by Adultery in Matthew Chapters 5 and 19 that goes into detail, so I’ll just give the highlights here and you can check the article for the evidence.
Biblical adultery only occurs when a man (married or unmarried) has sex with another man’s wife. If a married man has sex with an unmarried woman, that’s the (deadly serious) sin of fornication, not adultery. God promises to judge both adulterers and fornicators in Hebrews 13:4. Just like rape and murder are both deadly serious sins but not the same sin, likewise adultery and fornication are both serious sins but not always the same sin.
(Technically, all adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. Both are extremely serious sins.)
Lastly, someone will probably bring up the topic of polygamy and ask how concubines figure in. I’ll direct you to my article on polygamy if you have questions about that.
Conclusion
Concubines were wives. Any attempt to say that they weren’t fails rather spectacularly given the passages above. Thus, the men who had them weren’t having sex outside of marriage. Concubines had a lower social status than “normal” wives and most often were slaves, but they had full legal protection under the Mosaic Law.
Thank you for giving us insight concerning concubines but I would ask you to talk more about song of songs because I noticed most who believes in sex before marriage they quote song of songs as their back up scripture.
I mentioned that I wanted to write an article about the difference between biblical betrothal and modern engagement. I’ll cover Song of Songs in that article because it’s more relevant to that one. Spoiler: a betrothed woman was legally considered a wife in a not-yet-consummated marriage. Since they were betrothed/married, there was no sex outside of marriage. Details and proof in the follow-up article. 🙂
Both Greek and Jewish men often had sex with their female slaves who weren’t considered wives in any sense.
Here’s a scholarly article about it.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1341.2015.2838
Additionally, a Jewish man could “put away” a concubine without issuing her a “Get” or bill of divorce. There was no formal marriage ceremony for concubines and the relationship could be dissolved without a legal divorce. Does not sound like a wife to me.
If it doesn’t sound like a wife to you, then it’s a good thing that God clarified it for us in scripture. 🙂 I noticed that you didn’t disagree with any point in the article, just the conclusion. Can you show that the evidence in the article is somehow incorrect?
To what you said, just because Greek and Jewish men did something, that doesn’t mean that God approved. Additionally, Isaac and Rebecca don’t appear to have had a formal marriage ceremony either and they were definitely married. (That’s partially because of how betrothal worked; I’m working on an article about it). As for divorce, a writ of divorce wasn’t necessary because of her status as a slave. The writ of divorce allowed a woman to get remarried, but since the former concubine/wife was still a slave, no one else could give her in marriage except her master, and he obviously already knew that she was divorced. (This is because of betrothal again; I need to finish that article.)
Did you read the paper I linked to? Jewish authors didn’t seem to think that God disapproved of it, so maybe you should find out why they thought it was ok. Who is more likely to understand the Bible better, it’s original readers or a 21st century American?
To your question, I would like to point out that the Jews misapplied and misunderstood scripture all the time. One need only read Jesus’s words to various religious groups in the New Testament to see this. Thus, while their understanding can be valuable, it’s hardly infallible.
To the article, I was only able to read the summary. However, it almost doesn’t matter because you didn’t engage with the scriptures cited in this article you’re commenting on. If you can show that scripture doesn’t call concubines wives, then secondary sources like scholarship are very useful. But where scholarship contradicts the Bible, I will go with the all-knowing God of the universe, not mere men. (especially since scholarship changes so often) So, if you can show that the verses in this article don’t portray concubines as wives, I’m open to alternate interpretations.
These verses seem to be entirely ironclad that concubines are wives, but my understanding isn’t infallible. If you show me where the error in this article’s understanding of scripture is, I’ll either pull the article or turn it into a refutation of what it currently argues for. But again, show me using scripture first. (Unless the article does touch on these specific passages, in which case please email me a copy of the article and I’ll read it. My email address is on the contact page.)
You have it backwards. You need scholarship to understand the Bible. You can thank scholarship for the fact you can even read the Bible.
We know that before the post-exilic period, Jewish men freely had sex with prostitutes and slaves. After contact with Hellenic culture, Jewish culture tightened its sexual ethics to differentiate itself from the impure Gentiles. Some Jewish writers like Philo and some Jewish sects like the Essenes came to believe that it was immoral to have sex with your own wife if it wasn’t for procreation. But most Jews of the time considered it no sin for a householder to have sex with his female slaves.
You need to read scholarship and you need to read primary sources from the period to understand what the Bible means.
If your understanding of the text conflicts with its ancient readers then you need to find out why and figure out they saw in the text that you didn’t.
You said: “most Jews of the time considered it no sin for a householder to have sex with his female slaves.” I’m happy to grant this premise, but also, most Jews didn’t consider it a sin to sacrifice their infants to Molech either at certain points either. 1 Kings 19:18 tells us that only 7000 men in Israel hadn’t bowed the knee to Baal at one point. The majority isn’t always right, and the majority of Israel was usually falling away and wrong. (as the entire Bible testifies)
When it comes to morality, I don’t care what the majority of Jews did or thought was right; I care what God wants us to do and what He thinks is right. I care about truth.
Hypothetically, let’s pretend there was a scholarly article that conclusively proved that most Jews in the second temple period though that a man having sex with another man’s wife was morally permissible. That still doesn’t make it moral since God declared the opposite.
That said, can you show that the scriptures cited in this article have been misunderstood or misapplied? I will never allow scholarship to override the clear teaching of scripture, with the obvious caveat that sometimes scholarship does shed more light on word definitions/meanings, which can indeed alter our understanding of the text.
And may I point out yet again, you haven’t engaged with the scriptures in the article. Please do so if you wish you change the mind of anyone who takes scripture seriously.
Jewish/Canaanite syncretism is not a good analogy here, because the biblical canon is pretty clearly against it and because the famously puritan (when it came to religious practices anyway) Jews of the 2nd temple period were strongly against it. These were the people who nearly rioted when Roman legionary eagles were brought into Jerusalem. You can go back to the story of the Maccabees to find the origin of their hypersensitivity to anything remotely pagan.
“Part of the reason I’m writing this article is because I’ve had commenters say that God is fine with sex outside of marriage, arguing that concubines were unmarried mistresses”.
There is nothing to engage with because, even if its true that concubines were considered wives, I’ve provided a different example of sanctioned extramarital sex that Jews of the 2nd temple period practiced and that the Bible does not directly condemn.
Go read the sources and find out why Jews of that period did not consider it sexual immorality.
Are you trying to argue that sex outside of marriage is permissible between a master and his female slaves? Are you sure that’s a position you want to take? To paraphrase Jesus: “Did you never even read the scriptures?”
Notice, no exception is made for if the girl is a slave. Now, you could argue that he wouldn’t have to pay the fine on a technicality if the girl was a slave, but the marital requirement is definitely there. The penalty makes it clear that it’s a sin, even if he could (maybe and debatably) get out of paying it on a technicality. Depending on how you do the conversion to modern currency, the bride-price/fine would be either $6k-$8k, or $20k-$25k. That’s no small fine.
Regardless, if your position is as it seems, then you’re ignoring the New Testament completely. While you might possibly be able to find some sexual sin that wasn’t explicitly forbidden by the Mosaic Law (and I would argue that it is forbidden), such is not the case with the New Testament. All sex outside of marriage is clearly an unequivocally condemned in the New Testament; see this article for proof: Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong
I am arguing that 2nd Temple Jewish culture considered it permissable. Pre-exilic Jewish culture was even more sexually permissible. If the notoriously puritan 2nd temple Jewish culture that obsessively read and followed the Mosaic Law did not consider it a sin then you need to find out what they saw in the text that you didn’t.
My point is that Jewish culture was very different from ours. If you see going to be such a stickler for Jewish morality then you’re the one who is going to have to accept that a master can sleep with his female slaves. You’ll find that blindly following puritanical Jewish views of morality is going to lead you down a lot of roads you won’t want to go down.
I agree that Jewish culture was very different from ours, but you incorrectly assume that I’m a “stickler for Jewish morality”. I’m not. I’m a stickler for God’s standard of morality. 2nd temple Jews aren’t the arbiters of morality; God speaking through scripture is. The 2nd temple period was rife with practices that ignored the explicit commands of the Mosaic Law, as Jesus repeatedly pointed out. That’s part of the reason that I’m not “blindly following puritanical Jewish views of morality”. That would be folly since they regularly approved of sin, again as Jesus repeated points out.
Now, it seems that you are unwilling to engage with scripture at all. You have repeatedly ignored every verse I have brought up in favor of saying (I’m paraphrasing) “the 2nd temple Jews say it’s fine”. That’s a wonderful argument IF you think 2nd temple Jews are the arbiters of morality. I don’t. If scripture will convince you, then please engage with the passages I’ve cited. If scripture won’t convince you, then you will likely never agree with any serious Christian, including me.
You don’t understand the Bible and you don’t understand morality.
From a very good blog post on the subject:
“Everything in the bible about sex is a commentary, explanation, or clarification of the final commandment’s application to sex, marriage and children:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
And nothing the bible says about sex makes sense except in this context. If people jump on a line somewhere in the bible and start holiness spiraling on it so that it swallows and destroys the commandments, they are doing what the Jews did to get themselves exiled from Israel.
In a social environment where women are unowned and are frustrated by lack of ownership, old type Christian rules are inapplicable to banging any women you are likely to meet, because old type Christian rules are intended and expected to apply to women in the possession of some man. Fornication is making use of another man’s daughter without his permission, adultery another man’s wife or betrothed. But in today’s society, if a father attempts to restrain the sexual activity of his nine year old daughter, Child Protective Services is apt to take his children and his house away, lose track of his daughter, and sell his sons to a “married” gay couple. (Demand for prepubescent children to sexually exploit is primarily demand for small boys, so Child Protective Services cannot get much of a bribe for whoring out his nine year old daughter, so they leave it to her to whore herself out.)
Furthermore, the Old Testament does not make clear, but the Lord Jesus Christ does make clear, that the law and the prophets are to be interpreted and applied in such a way that they work, that they accomplish their intended purposes, have the intended effect. The spirit, not the letter. By their fruits you will know them.
Incel and female immorality is not the intended effect, is the grossest possible violation of the commandments.
Christianity leading to inceldom, is like the Jews getting so fussed about the commandment on contamination by blood, that in order to avoid walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, they coveted and seized the land that the landord had leased to a Greek, and when the Roman cops came to restore order and respect for property rights, they got themselves covered in the wrongfully spilt blood of a Roman cop who was impartially doing his duty to enforce a fair and necessary law that protected Jew and Greek alike. And thus it came to pass that for holiness spiraling the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit, the Jews got expelled. As prophesied, they were expelled for violating the Lord’s commandments. The spirit and intent of the law on contamination by blood refers to kind of contamination by blood that contaminated Lady Macbeth. References in the Old Testament to this law, as for example: “their heads were covered in blood” are in context referring to the kind of blood that Lady Macbeth had on her, the kind of blood you get on you by killing a cop who is performing his duty in the face of danger, not the kind of blood that gets spilled on the ground when you kill a chicken.
Incels are usually incel in part because they are violating the laws of [God] , and if they invoke Christianity to justify their inceldom, it is usually because they are weak and afraid, not because they are Christian.
Christians who apply old type Christian rules, intended for a society where a woman’s sexual and reproductive services were clearly under control of some man, intended for a society where patriarchs acquired wives for their sons from other patriarchs, are in our collapsed society, violating, not, observing, the commandments.
In a society that does not respect or protect ownership of land, a farmer must still grow potatoes, and to do so, has to anarchically and illegally take possession of some land, breaking numerous erratically, unpredictably, arbitrarily, and infrequently enforced laws and regulations in the process.
And we must anarchically and illegally take possession of women…
In an orderly society, you first acquire a field, and then you plough it. In a disorderly society, you first plough it, so that other people will know you have a reason to defend it, and think you have a decent chance of succeeding, and then you eventually own it when no one manages to take your crops away from you, or graze his horses on your standing corn. Which likely requires you to have a weapon handy during ploughing and harvest. [God] does not intend you to starve, and he does not intend you to be incel. You are required to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile, but by the time that it is time to plough that field, you are already out of cheeks and have walked far too many miles.
Fornication is a particular application of the final commandment.
When you apply those commandments, and read people applying them to sex and family, then unless those people are moderns you need to read them in the social context that the unit of society is the household not the individual, and that men are not women and women are not men.
The prohibition of incest and divorce do not follow directly from the ten commandments, but adultery and fornication does.
And the trouble is that giving fornication a meaning that does not follow from the ten commandments leads directly and immediately to breaking them, as when the Roman Catholic Church before the French Revolution so easily ruled that a marriage was nullified because the woman had not really given consent, or when it encouraged daughters to defy fathers and wives to defy husbands.
This parallels the Jews of the time of Jesus holiness spiraling the law on blood, so that they could wrongfully spill blood, and claim they were acting in accordance with the law of Moses.
To understand what old type Christians meant by whoring, fornication, and adultery, we cannot look at their words, for the meaning of their words has been changed underneath us. We should instead look at what people of that faith who had power, who had legitimate authority, who used that language, actually did, in order to understand what those words actually meant when the faith was live and in power.
They did not suppress men from having sex with unowned women, or even suppress unowned women from having sex. They suppressed unowned women from being unowned. The biblical penalty for sex and/or abduction of a married or betrothed woman is death. The biblical penalty for abduction of a virgin is indissoluble shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for abduction of a unmarried, unbetrothed, non virgin …
The story of Tamar and Jacob makes no sense at all if we suppose Tamar was going to be burned alive for prostitution or sex outside of marriage. Makes perfect sense if we suppose she was going to be burned alive for sex outside of and in defiance of the framework of male property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive services.
Similarly, consider how the authorities in late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century Australia dealt with the problem of a whole lot of casual sex going on. They applied swift shotgun marriage, and supported the authority of the husband in those marriages by disturbingly drastic means. They did not punish men or women for having sex in a beach party. They made women get married, and punished them for speaking back to their husbands.
If you give the biblical laws on sex and family, the biblical condemnation of adultery, fornication, and whoring, an interpretation that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and that families do not exist, only individuals, you are turning the Law upside down, resulting in a blue pilled Christianity that tells men that God does not want them to have wives and children”.
I’ll skip past our (many, many) areas of disagreement and suggest you read this article of mine to address what you seem to be concerned about. Based on what you’ve said, you aren’t yet aware of the full scope of the problem nor its true root. You are indeed aware of the primary symptom of the problem, but not what’s causing that symptom, and instead are confusing the symptom for the root cause. The true source of the problem is two whole levels deeper than you appear to be aware of. (I’ve spent many years studying this and a fraction of the data I’ve collected is in that article. Spoiler, the solution is greater obedience to God, not less.)
Your one source is a book from the 1920’s. If we are going to talk about books from the 1920’s, then go read Oswald Spengler’s Decline Of The West. These cycles are inevitable and irreversible.
You will never see your patriarchal, polygamist fantasy world come into fruition.
You are just like the Jews who were expelled for purity spiralling. You are breaking the law by keeping it. I am keeping the law by breaking it.
You might’ve noticed that I edited out the long and irrelevant quote from your comment. Please refrain from posting such long and irrelevant quotes since they do nothing but clog the comments section. If you want to engage with the scriptures, I will continue this discussion. If you don’t, then I see no point.
You say that you are “keeping the law by breaking it”, but Jesus said: “If you love Me, you’ll keep my commandments”. In Matthew 7, it’s “lawlessness” (Disregard for God’s commands) that causes God to say “Depart from Me, I never knew you”. By your own admission, you are happy to violate God’s commands. That’s a dangerous place to be and the only proper response is for you to repent because “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just so He might forgive us our sins and cleanse us from every unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) Please, repent.
I don’t need to repent. You need to repent for your myopic puritanism and your wilful refusal to learn.
And if you’re going to censor my comments then I’m done here. Let other readers consider this a warning about the kind of person you are.
In hindsight and despite its length and complete irrelevance to the article or our discussion, that was a mistake. I woke up at 2-something in the morning after sleeping poorly and apparently wasn’t thinking clearly. I have a personal rule about not changing anyone’s comments except to delete profanity and I broke that rule. I’m not sure why except that I wasn’t thinking clearly. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have done that I and won’t again.
That said, I’ll stand by my “myopic puritanism” until someone can convince me that God commands something else in scripture.
Go and read the passage I quoted earlier.
The Bible does clearly say that “the law and the prophets are to be interpreted and applied in such a way that they work, that they accomplish their intended purposes, have the intended effect. The spirit, not the letter. By their fruits you will know them”.
You are doing the opposite. And scripture is also clear that myopic puritanism leads to ruin, just like the Jews learned in AD 70 when they broke the law in the name of keeping it and ended up expelled.
How will you respond to that lesson?
And what is your response to me saying that the Sexual Revolution already happened and we will not see it overturned in our lifetimes? What is your response to my point, citing Spengler, that this was inevitable and irreversible?
What is your response to me pointing out that you will never see your polygamist, patriarchal society be implemented, outside of an Islamic takeover? I don’t think that is a road you want to go down. Read Houellebecq’s novel Submission for more information.
You willfully refuse to learn or read any of the resources I have given you. A Christian who only reads the Bible and not Dante and Shakespeare is worse than an unbeliever.
Your quote that: “the law and the prophets are to be interpreted and applied in such a way that they work, that they accomplish their intended purposes, have the intended effect. The spirit, not the letter. By their fruits you will know them”, where does that come from? It doesn’t appear to be a Biblical quote, but is more like a mismash of biblical and non-biblical phrases assembled to create a very non-biblical idea. The Bible — both Old and New Testament — is very clear that we are to obey the letter and the Spirit.
To the Jews being kicked out because they “broke the law in the name of keeping it”, I’ll need chapter and verse for that. I cannot recall a single instance where Jesus criticized them for following the law, though again I’m a bit tired today (even after a nap) so maybe I’m just not remembering. In fact, he criticized them for not keeping that law:
As for 70 AD and the destruction of the temple, The clearest statement of why that happened is in Matthew 23:34-36, and the stated reason is because they killed the prophets, ultimately culminating in them killing Jesus as well. Jesus tells several parables where the killing of slaves (analogous to prophets) is the reason that judgement comes as well, making the connection clearer.
To the rest, let’s set that aside for a moment to concentrate on the moral aspect. Once we agree on an ideal, then we can talk about how close/far we are from it and practical solutions.
That quote is from the passage I quoted earlier in this comment thread. It’s from a blog post. For reference sake, here is a link to the whole blog post.
https://blog.reaction.la/politics/make-women-property-again/
Indeed, this is primarily a disagreement about morality and the purpose thereof. I believe that books can’t make decisions and that the Bible is not a suicide pact. I also believe that the Sabbath was made not man and not man for the Sabbath.
You clearly believe the opposite.
“Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white.”
We are reading the same text and getting very different conclusions from it. Don’t try to claim that you read the text with no presuppositions, because every reader comes to it with presuppositions.
the Sabbath was made FOR man and not man for the Sabbath
I hope its obvious what I meant but still..
The problem that Jesus was pointing out with the Sabbath is that it was supposed to be a day of rest, but the Jews had added so many requirements to it that the day of rest became a day of extra burdens. Jesus wasn’t critiquing the Sabbath; He was critiquing their additions to God’s commands concerning the Sabbath.
You said: “I believe that books can’t make decisions and that the Bible is not a suicide pact.” I agree with the statement, but not the intent/spirit behind it. God made some decisions about how mankind should behave and wrote them down in the Bible. If you are unwilling to even consider obeying God’s commands to mankind in the Bible (regardless of the reason), then this website won’t help you.
This website was named for the Bereans of Acts 17:11 and their daily examination of the Bible to test what they were being told (and they were called “noble” for doing so). The Bible declares that God is good and that His laws and commands are good; thus I think obedience will lead to the best possible outcomes. But even if they wouldn’t, even if — hypothetically — obeying God’s commands in the Bible would turn the entire world into post-apocalyptic hellscape, I would rather obey the almighty, eternal, all-knowing, all-wise judge of the universe than operate in rebellion to Him. In the Garden, man thought that disobedience would lead to better outcomes as well; look at how that turned out. Disobedience always has consequences. Always.
No, this is very much like the Sabbath example. “Traditional” sexual mores were supposed to encourage family formation and having lots of children. Now the law has the opposite of its intended effect. Following traditional Christian mores will make you MORE likely to end up alone and childless at 40. It is now a burden. If you want to get married and have a family you have to participate in the modern dating market and all it entails. We do not live in a society where teenagers have arranged marriages.
Books can’t make decisions. It is a book. It does not have a brain and it cannot think. My own copy of the Bible is about 1000 pages, others may vary depending on print size and other things. That 1000 pages cannot possibly address every single one of the infinite possible issues that humans may have to deal with. It was also written in a very different culture than ours. It does not mention the Sexual Revolution or 21st century post-industrial society. I have found little to nothing in the Bible that is applicable to the present day sexual marketplace. So, someone has to make a judgement call.
“If — hypothetically — obeying God’s commands in the Bible would turn the entire world into post-apocalyptic hellscape, I would rather obey the almighty, eternal, all-knowing, all-wise judge of the universe than operate in rebellion to Him”.
Then you are insane. You may take that as an insult but that is the only possible response to that. That attitude will lead to ruin. I recall you mentioning that you’re already married. You have received your reward in full. But many people who listen to you and others who preach the same message will meet with ruin.
I suppose I can live with being insane then, 🙂 because I won’t (intentionally/knowingly) violate God’s commands. If you don’t consider scripture’s commands authoritative, then we will never agree. Thus, I don’t think it would be profitable for anyone for us to continue this conversation.
No, berean patriot is totally correct. You are the insane one coming here and shitting up the forum. The fact that you said this: “Books can’t make decisions. It is a book. It does not have a brain and it cannot think. My own copy of the Bible is about 1000 pages, others may vary depending on print size and other things. That 1000 pages cannot possibly address every single one of the infinite possible issues that humans may have to deal with. It was also written in a very different culture than ours. It does not mention the Sexual Revolution or 21st century post-industrial society. I have found little to nothing in the Bible that is applicable to the present day sexual marketplace.” This tells me you have very poor understanding of the bible. For I know, you could be a paid shill.
“Following traditional Christian mores will make you MORE likely to end up alone and childless at 40.”
Lol, our culture is sick and is rapidly collapsing precisely BECAUSE we did not enforce Christian mores. Look at the results of the sexual revolution, and tell me we are not heading for rapid societal collapse.
The fact that you can say “that attitude will lead to ruin” and actively preach against what the Bible is saying in the same breath is hilariously hypocritical. Are you even a Christian?
Eric, I’ve been reading through all your comments and each and every one of them is complete drivel.
“Indeed, this is primarily a disagreement about morality and the purpose thereof. I believe that books can’t make decisions and that the Bible is not a suicide pact. I also believe that the Sabbath was made not man and not man for the Sabbath.
You clearly believe the opposite.”
The bible is an instructional guide on how to live your life and how to structure a civilization. It clearly highlights what is moral and what isn’t, even setting in stone specific laws in exact details. Saying “books can’t make decisions” doesn’t mean anything. The book in this case laid down a law and we make the decision to follow it. Are you suggesting to ignore what the bible says? And where, in any of Berean Patriot’s articles, did he ever condone what you call a “suicide pact”. Can you point to the exact word and article where he says this?
I don’t have a dog in the fight about sabbath, I don’t care that much about that topic.
“We are reading the same text and getting very different conclusions from it. Don’t try to claim that you read the text with no presuppositions, because every reader comes to it with presuppositions.”
Everyone reads with presuppositions, but all theorems are derived from logical proofs. Everyone who earnestly and rigorously derives truth will come to the same conclusions. You can come with a presupposition that the sky is red but the moment you look for the data to support your hypothesis, you will revise your thinking. Berean Patriot has clearly studied the bible and the historical context of each passage and written out his thoughts in a structured logical proof with sound logical form. He uses modus tollens, modus pollens, demonstration by substitution, generalizing from the particular case and conditional statements masterfully. Something you have not demonstrated.
If you want to assert your own conclusions separate from his, then write a proof and explain why you are right. Then we can evaluate it on its own merit and decide if there are any fallacies in your premises, predicates, arguments and conclusions. The fact that you have written none and simply come on this site asserting you are right and throwing around accusations and insults just tells me you are just an idiot.
“Look at the results of the sexual revolution, and tell me we are not heading for rapid societal collapse”.
It already happened. It’s over. The Sexual Revolution obliterated the social structures that made traditional marriage possible. Christian marriage no longer exists and we will not see its return anywhere in our lifetimes. The toothpaste will not go back into the tube.
And I’ve never been called a paid shill before. That’s an amusing accusation.
Where does the Bible mention the Sexual Revolution and post-industrial North American society?
Eric, it’s funny that you ask that question. Do you think the sexual revolution is new? Do you think feminism is new? Do you think a rapid expansion of manufacturing capability is new? The answer is no: it has happened many times in history. And this is what the bible has to say on the consequences of allowing women too much political power and sexual freedom:
Isaiah 4:
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.
3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:
4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.
5 And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence.
6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the day time from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.
Proverbs 5:3-22:
3 For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil;
4 but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword.
5 Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave.
6 She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it.
7 Now then, my sons, listen to me; do not turn aside from what I say.
8 Keep to a path far from her, do not go near the door of her house,
9 lest you lose your honor to others and your dignity to one who is cruel,
10 lest strangers feast on your wealth and your toil enrich the house of another.
11 At the end of your life you will groan, when your flesh and body are spent.
12 You will say, “How I hated discipline! How my heart spurned correction!
13 I would not obey my teachers or turn my ear to my instructors.
14 And I was soon in serious trouble in the assembly of God’s people.”
15 Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer— may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.
20 Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife? Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?
21 For your ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all your paths.
22 The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare them; the cords of their sins hold them fast.
Yes the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s was a total break with the past. Many things lead up to it but that was where the decisive rupture happened (at least when we are talking about realm of sex).
Biblical society was agrarian and the extended family was the basic unit of society. People usually married out of economic necessity and marriages were usually arranged.
Modern society is post-industrial and the basic unit of society is the individual. Marriage is based on personal fulfillment and being “in love”.
Nothing in the Bible addresses a society like ours. It just isn’t applicable.
For others who read the comment I’m replying to, it’s factually inaccurate concerning historical marriage and sexuality practices. Thinking 1st century Rome was this way actually made it into my article: The Biggest Mistakes Most People Make When Studying the Bible. You can read that, or if you’d prefer longer and more scholarly sources, (both of which I quote in the linked article) you can try here and here (pages 392-399 for Rome in the second link).
If you know history (true history and not the pop Christian “history” that everyone “knows”), you’ll know that the societal conditions in the 1st century Roman empire — to which the epistles were addressed — were shockingly similar to those our of society. This should not be surprising, for it is written:
No, they weren’t similar at all.
What books have you read? You clearly haven’t read the books I have read.
Go and read the following books for starters:
From Shame To Sin by Kyle Harper
Dominion by Tom Holland
The Romantic Ethic And The Spirit Of Modern Consumerism by Colin Campbell
The Rise And Triumph Of The Modern Self by Carl Trueman
Sexual Utopia In Power by F Roger Devlin
You should read them in that order as well. The first book is about Greco-Roman sexual ethics and the Christian sexual ethic that replaced it. The next book is about how almost all modern moral theories have their root in Christian thought, even in the case of a mutant offshoot like liberalism. The Greco-Roman moral worldview, on the other hand, was so alien that most people can’t comprehend it. The next two demonstrate that the individualism that took root in the 18th and 19th century developed and culminated in the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s. The Sexual Revolution was the final step in the process of consumerism and expressive individualism. It is interesting to note that the “sexual revolution” was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism.
“As the lovely word ‘household’ suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market”, as French writer Michel Houellebecq sums up.
The last book, Sexual Utopia In Power is about the nature of the post Sexual Revolution world we have now. The Sexual Marketplace favours women and a few successful men. We have a de facto soft polygamy where those successful men hook up with most of the women.
First century Rome was highly patriarchal and collectivist. 21st century North America is feminist and individualist.
If you think otherwise then you haven’t read enough.
Eric, throwing around random books is not an argument. We’re not going to formulate your logical proofs for you. Write out your logical proof and explain how each book forms a predicate to your conclusion, and how you derived your truth values.
“The first book is about Greco-Roman sexual ethics and the Christian sexual ethic that replaced it. The next book is about how almost all modern moral theories have their root in Christian thought, even in the case of a mutant offshoot like liberalism. The Greco-Roman moral worldview, on the other hand, was so alien that most people can’t comprehend it. ”
Wrong. Christian sexual ethnic did not replace Greco-Roman sexual ethnics. You are assuming Christian sexual ethnic was new, when in actuality it was shockingly similar to ancient Chinese dynasties legal codes. The reason why Greco-Roman sexual ethnics evolved to be more similar to Christian sexual ethnics is because pandemics started spreading in 300AD, leading to a more conservative stance on sexuality.
“Modern moral theories have their root in Christian thought”
Citation needed.
“The Greco-Roman moral worldview, on the other hand, was so alien that most people can’t comprehend it. ”
Also citation needed. Imo, this is nonsense.
“The next two demonstrate that the individualism that took root in the 18th and 19th century developed and culminated in the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s. ”
Individualism has existed much longer than collectivism. The transition from hunter-gatherer societies towards agricultural societies marked the beginning of collectivist attitudes taking root. Sexual Revolution is not new; the Bible has much to say on this topic and its destructiveness.
“The Sexual Marketplace favours women and a few successful men. We have a de facto soft polygamy where those successful men hook up with most of the women.”
This I agree with. At least currently.
“First century Rome was highly patriarchal and collectivist. 21st century North America is feminist and individualist.”
You’re wrong. It was during the Second Punic War and the 50 years after in 200 BC where Rome was highly patriarchal and collectivist. By 0AD and 200AD, women had huge political influence as well as ethnic minorities. Edomites/Pharisees/Descendants of Modern Day jews had prominent positions in the Roman Republic and essentially controlled large portions of the economy and religious laws. They agitated for ethnic diversity and for ex-slaves to have the same rights as Roman Citizens. 0AD-200AD Rome was very liberal, it wasn’t until the three-state crisis did Rome make another sharp swerve back to a more conservative culture, but by then, it was too late, and Rome was on the path to collapse.
You clearly haven’t read your history very well.
“It was shockingly similar to ancient Chinese dynasties legal codes”
Contact between China and Rome during this period was very limited. Trade goods made their way back and forth between them but they were transported over long distances and both empires had another large empire, the Parthians, between them. If Christian sexual mores had any resemblance to Chinese legal codes then it would almost certainly be a coincidence. I know of no early Christian author who cited or mentioned reading Chinese legal codes.
My citation is the list of books I gave you. You can read them and see all of the information for yourself.
But to sum up, from Kyle Harper’s From Shame To Sin:
“The sexual culture of the high Roman Empire was dominated by the imperatives of social reproduction. The symphony of sexual values, in all its various movements and complex harmonies, was set to the rhythms of the material world: early marriage for women, jealous guarding of honorable female sexuality, an expansive slave system, late marriage for men, and basically relaxed attitudes toward male sexual potential, so long as it was consonant with masculine protocols and social hierarchies. Moral expectations were in tune with social roles, and social roles strictly determined both the points of release and the rigid constraints in ancient sexual culture. The value of a sexual act derived, first and foremost, from its objective location within a matrix of social relationships”
Roman culture was an honour/shame culture when it came to sexuality. Sexual immorality was the act of having sex with an honorable woman. A virgin daughter, an honoured widow, a wife.
A free Roman man was however free to have sex with whoever he wished, male or female, as long as he played the dominant role and it was with a dishonourable person like a slave or prostitute (which were often the same thing). The slave and/or prostitute often had little to no say in the matter. We’d call that rape nowadays.
Roman women were married very early while Roman men married later, usually in their 30’s. Roman men would, of course, be far from virgins when they married.
In Jewish culture, both men and women married early. Polygamy was still widespread by the 2nd Temple period. If a Jewish bride married a much older man it would have been a situation where her husband was taking an additional wife. He would have been about the same age as his first wife.
In the Talmud, a Rabbi is quoted as saying:
“Until one reaches the age of twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a man, saying: When will he marry a woman? Once he reaches the age of twenty and has not married, He says: Let his bones swell, i.e., he is cursed and God is no longer concerned about him”.
Another rabbi is quoted: “The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen, I would have said to the Satan: an arrow in your eye!”
Elsewhere a rabbi comments that men should be married somewhere between 16 and 22 years old.
As I pointed out before, Jewish culture also considered it no problem for a man to have sex with his female slaves. What this proves is that the word we translate as “porneia” did not mean what most people think it means. For the original audience of the Bible it did not necessarily refer to all sexual activity outside of marriage. The meaning has changed. You have to use the definitions of words that were used when the text was originally written.
The Romantic movement of the 18th and 19th century, prioritized what Carl Trueman calls “expressive individualism” and personal fulfilment. This developed into the consumerism of the 20th century, which in turn developed into the Sexual Revolution. This Sexual Revolution is just consumerism applied to sex, the last area of life to be commodified.
Hunter gatherer societies are not individualist. Not by a long shot. They are instead intensely tribal. The “expressive individualism” is a new development in history and the Bible, written in an agrarian society where the basic unit was the extended family, does not adress it.
theyre basically just slaves the master has sex with, elevated only because of this association. it seems they have no agency since their mistress (the highest wife, a hierarchy of wives shows how messed up it is to treat different wives discriminatory) can give them over to the husband for impregnation, for surrogacy, making her a walking incubator, baby producer. e.g, Hagar, Jacobs wives who were just given over. If theyre wives why did Abraham kick his wife out into the dessert? Thats divorce
And no, “biblical” adultery concerns a married man having sex with anyone other than his wife. The Mosaic law is mutual. Also see Hosea 4:14, which would not make sense without mutuality
The reason Hagar was “given over” as you put it is because that’s how they contracted marriage. I’m working on an article to explain it fully and it’s nearly done.
As far as adultery goes, please read my article on the topic, where I go through the definitions of every single Greek and Hebrew word as well as several lexicons and also Biblical usage. Hosea 4 makes perfect sense with either understanding and thus doesn’t weigh in. If you disagree, please provide lexical proof or a usage in the Bible where a man having sex with an unmarried woman is called adultery.
The Mosaic Law is in no way mutual; please see my article: The Biggest Mistakes Most People Make When Studying the Bible, under the heading: “Assuming that the Bible always addresses both men and women”.
theyre not really wives in a good sense. They only reason theyre given over as wives is when the wife couldnt conceive and he needs to have sex. Theres no other reason, theyre just used as incubators. But its fine with you since you think those who have “authority” over slaves and daughters have the right to give them off to whoever they please, allowing marital rape, and men raping women, according to you, is not as bad as a woman doing adultery since thats how you interpret the law. The mosaic law is mutual since there cannot be different morality for men and women, who are both made in God’s image. In the beginning adam and eve were equals, equally in God’s image, and morality applied to them equally. e.g when it says you shall not marry an aunt or a niece it also applies to women marrying an uncle or a newphew. Faithfulness concerns both parties. marriage is not a purchase of a female, it is an equal union as seen in Eden
lol dude i bet you even believe its a sin for women to be pastors 😂 i feel sorry you will be the few left with these strange sexist interpretations in the future of the church where women understand their standing and carry out their god given ministries
Just a point of reality….
Whoever wrote of 0AD doesn’t understand there was no zero AD.
It went from 1BC to 1AD
Since you are all arguing over minutiae.