Concubine

The Scripture meaning of this name was not as opprobrious as it is in modern times. A concubine, indeed, in all ages, was not as highly ranked as a wife. She was ever considered as secondary and subordinate to the person to whom the husband and father of the family was married. But in those dark and ignorant times, when men were allowed (or rather allowed themselves), many wives, a concubine meant, one that he acknowledged for a wife, or a subordinate and inferior degree. And the children of this connection did not, by any right of their own, possess or claim the inheritance of their father. And there was this farther distinction between the lawful wife, and the concubine, there was no religious ceremony used at the taking of a concubine; whereas, the lawful wife was usually betrothed to her husband before marriage, and sometimes, from the very childhood of the respective parties. And when the time appointed for the consummation of the marriage arrived, this was always done with great order and solemnity: and all the friends of the respective parties were invited to the wedding. I hope the reader will not lose sight of the marriage of Jesus with our nature, in this view of the subject, and will remember, that the union of Christ with his church, is uniformly set forth in the most blessed similitudes and figures of this kind through the whole Bible. Jesus was set up, as the glorious Head and Husband of his church, from everlasting. And, in fact, the whole of the union, in the present state, is but a betrothing. (See Hos. 2: 19, 20.) At the final consummation of all things, Jesus will bring home his bride, and then will be the marriage - supper of the Lamb in heaven. (Rev. xix. 9.)

I beg to make a farther observation on this subject, while I am upon it, and to call the reader to remark with me, that even in those times of ignorance, when men gave loose to their corrupt affections, yet, the very law of usage concerning concubines carried with it a decided testimony, that even in the very moment they gavel way to their unbridled passions, yet, by the reverence shewn the lawful wife, they tacitly confessed the just and honourable appointment of the Lord. It was well known, and well understood, that at the beginning the Lord made our first parents, and united them together; teaching, that when thus formed in holy wedlock, they were no longer considered, in His eye, as separate, but one. The Lord himself said, "They shall be one flesh? And our Lord’s own comment upon it decidedly determines the point. "What therefore (saith Jesus) God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Compare Gen. 2: 24. with Mark x. 9.) Now the introduction of a concubine, of how inferior a degree soever she may be, is, to all intents and purposes, a destroying this junction, and, by so much, a breach of the original appointment of the Lord. And it were devoutly to be wished, that men would consider the subject in this point of view, for it is to be apprehended, by what passeth too often in common life, men have not accustomed themselves to this consideration of it. I am not now taking up the subject in respect to the sad immorality of it, though the awful consequences, in the instances of thousands, too loudly condemn daily the breach of the marriage vow on that score; but I am carrying the matter higher, in shewing the awfulness of it, as a defiance of the divine appointment. Hence, when the Pharisees came to our Lord to ask the question about putting away their wives, and pleaded Moses’s permission in certain cases, our Lord expressly said, that Moses’s permission was from the hardness of their heart, but from the beginning (saith Jesus), it was not so. The man and woman once united in wedlock, were no longer separable but by death. (Matt. xix. 3 - 9.) And his servant, the apostle, finished the matter from his Masters authority, when he saith, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (1 Cor. 7: 2.) I must not finish the subject without first desiring the reader to take with him that sweet thought, that in the marriage of the Lord Jesus with our nature (which the marriage - state in nature is a type of), both in the general purpose of it with his church at large, and with the person of every individual member of his mystical body in particular, there is no concubine to interrupt the present and everlasting happiness of our union with Christ Jesus. Though we have, indeed, proved unfaithful, yet hath not Jesus. Though, we have played the harlot with many lovers, yet still he saith, "I am married to you, saith the Lord." Oh! what unknown, what unspeakable glory is there in those words of our Lord - - "I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in mercies; I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord." (Hos. 2: 19, 20. See the whole chapter.) And think reader, what will it be in that day of final consummation, when the Lord shall bring home his church, and every individual of his mystical body shall be found one with the Lord, in an everlasting union never to be dissolved! Oh, the joy in Jesus’s own declaration, "At that day ye shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you!" (John 14. 20.)

פילגש . This term, in western authors, commonly signifies, a woman, who, without being married to a man, yet lives with him as his wife; but, in the sacred writers, the word concubine is understood in another sense; meaning a lawful wife, but one not wedded with all the ceremonies and solemnities of matrimony; a wife of the second rank, inferior to the first wife, or mistress of the house. Children of concubines did not inherit their father’s fortune; but he might provide for, and make presents to, them. Thus Abraham, by Sarah his wife, had Isaac, his heir; but, by his two concubines, Hagar and Keturah, he had other children, whom he did not make equal to Isaac. As polygamy was tolerated in the east, it was common to see in every family, beside lawful wives, several concubines. Since the abrogation of polygamy by Jesus Christ, and the restoration of marriage to its primitive institution, concubinage is ranked with adultery or fornication.

A term which, in modern authors, commonly signifies a woman who, without being married to a man, lives with him as his wife; but in the Bible the word concubine is understood in another sense- meaning a lawful wife, but of a secondary rank. She differed from a proper wife in that she was not married by solemn stipulation, but only betrothed; she brought no dowry with her, and had no share in the government of the family. She was liable to be repudiated, or sent away with a gift, Gen 21:14, and her children might be treated in the same way, and not share in their father’s inheritance, Gen 25:6 . On cause of concubinage is shown in the history of Abraham and Jacob, Gen 16:16 . Concubinage, however, became a general custom, and the Law of Moses restricted its abuses, Exo 21:7-9 Deu 21:10-14, but never sanctioned it. The gospel has restored the original law of marriage, Gen 2:24 Mat 19:5 1Co 7:2, and concubinage is ranked with fornication and adultery.\par

Cocubine. The difference between wife and concubine was less marked among the Hebrews than among us, owing to the absence of moral stigma. The difference probably lay in the absence of the right of the bill of divorce, without which, the wife could not be repudiated.

With regard to the children of wife and of concubine, there was no such difference as our illegitimacy implies. The latter were a supplementary family to the former; their names occur in the patriarchal genealogies, Gen 22:24; 1Ch 1:22, and their position and provision would depend on the father’s will. Gen 25:6. The state of concubinage is assumed and provided for by the law of Moses. A concubine would generally be either

(1) a Hebrew girl bought of her father;

(2) a Gentile captive taken in war;

(3) a foreign slave bought; or

(4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free.

The rights of the first two were protected by the law, Exo 21:7; Deu 21:10-14, but the third was unrecognized and the fourth prohibited. Free Hebrew women also might become concubines. To seize on royal concubines for his use was probably the intent of Abner’s act, 2Sa 3:7, and similarly, the request on behalf of Adonijah was construed. 1Ki 2:21-24.

The desire of offspring in the Jew was associated with the hope of the promised Redeemer. This raised concubinage from the character of gross sensuality which ordinarily it represents, especially when a wife was barren. This in some degree palliates, though it does not justify, the concubinage of Nahor, Abraham, and Jacob. The concubine’s children were adopted, as if they were the wife’s own offspring; and the suggestion to the husband often came from the wife herself (Genesis 30). The children were regarded, not as illegitimate, but as a supplementary family to that of the wife. Abraham sent them away with gifts during his lifetime, so as not to interfere with the rights of Isaac, the son of the promise.

The seeming laxity of morals thus tolerated is a feature in the divine scheme arising from its progressive character. From the beginning, when man was sinless it was not so; for God made male and female that in marriage "they TWAIN should be one flesh" Mat 19:4-5; Mat 19:8). But when man fell, and, in the course of developing corruption, strayed more and more from the original law, God provisionally sanctioned a code which imposed some checks on the prevalent licentiousness, and exercised His divine prerogative of overruling man’s evil to ultimate good. Such a provisional state was not the best absolutely, but the best under existing circumstances. The enactment was not a license to sin, but a restraint upon existing sin, and a witness against the hardness of man’s heart.

The bondmaid or captive was not to be cast away arbitrarily after lust had been gratified (Exo 21:7-9; Deu 21:10-11); she was protected by legal restraints whereby she had a kind of secondary marriage relationship to the man. Thus, limits were set within which concubinage was tolerated until "the times of this ignorance" which "God winked at" (Act 17:30) passed by, and Christ restored the original pure code. Henceforward, fornication is a sin against one’s own body, and against the Lord Christ, with whom the believer is one in body and spirit (1Co 6:15-20). To take the royal concubines was regarded as tantamount to seizing on the throne. (See ABNER; ADONIJAH.)

(פִּילֶגֶשׁ, pile’gesh, deriv. uncertain, but apparently connected with the Gr. πάλλαξ [fully in the plur. נָשִׁים פִּילִגְשִׁים, 2Sa 15:16; 2Sa 20:3]; Chald. לְהֵנָה lechenah’, Dan 5:2-3; Dan 5:23), denotes in the Bible not a paramour (Gr. παλλακή), but only a female conjugally united to a man in a relation inferior to that of the regular wife (אִשָּׁה). SEE WIFE.

The positions of these two among the early Jews cannot be referred to the standard of our own age and country; that of concubine being less degraded, as that of wife was, especially owing to the sanction of polygamy, less honorable than among ourselves. The natural desire of offspring was, in the Jew, consecrated into a religious hope, which tended to redeem concubinage from the debasement into which the grosser motives for its adoption might have brought it. The whole question must be viewed from the point which touches the interest of propagation, in virtue of which even a slave concubine who had many children would become a most important person in a family, especially where a wife was barren. Such was the true source of the concubinage of Nahor, Abraham, and Jacob, which indeed, in the two latter cases, lost the nature which it has in our eyes, through the process, analogous to adoption, by which the offspring was regarded as that of the wife herself. From all this it follows that, save in so far as the latter was generally a slave, the difference between wife and concubine was less marked, owing to the absence of moral stigma, than among us. We must therefore beware of regarding as essential to the relation of concubinage what really pertained to that of bondage.

The concubine’s condition was a definite one, and quite independent of the fact of there being another woman having the rights of wife towards the same man. The state of concubinage is assumed and provided for by the law of Moses.

A concubine would generally be either

(1) a Hebrew girl bought of her father, i.e. a slave, which alone the rabbins regard as a lawful connection (Maimonides, Halach-Melakinm, 4), at least for a private person;

(2), a gentile captive taken in war;

(3), a foreign slave bought, or

(4), a Canaanitish woman, bond or free.

The rights of (1) and (2) were protected by law (Exo 21:7; Deu 21:10), but (3) was unrecognized, and (4) prohibited. Free Hebrew women also might become concubines. So Gideon’s concubine seems to have been of a family of rank and influence in Shechem, and such was probably the state of the Levite’s concubine (Judges 20). The ravages of war among the male sex, or the impoverishment of families, might often induce this condition. The case (1) was not a hard lot. The passage in Exodus 21 is somewhat obscure, and seems to mean, in brief, as follows: A man who bought a Hebrew girl as concubine for himself might not treat her as a mere Hebrew slave, to be sent “out” (i.e. in the seventh year, Deu 21:2), but might, if she displeased him, dismiss her to her father on redemption, i.e. repayment probably of a part of what he paid for her. If he had taken her for a concubine for his son, and the son then married another woman, the concubine’s position and rights were secured, or, if she were refused these, she became free without redemption. Further, from the provision in the case of such. a concubine given by a man to his son, that she should be dealt with “after the manner of daughters,” we see that the servile merged in the connubial relation, and that her children must have been free. Yet some degree of contempt attached to the “handmaid’s son” (בֶּן אּ אָמָה), used reproachfully to the son of a concubine merely in Jdg 9:18; see also Psa 116:16. The provisions relating to (2) are merciful and considerate to a rare degree, but overlaid by the rabbis with distorting comments.

Concubinage therefore, in a scriptural sense, means the state of cohabiting lawfully with a wife of second rank, who enjoyed no other conjugal right but that of cohabitation (q.v.), and whom the husband could repudiate, and send away with a small present (Gen 21:14). In like manner, he could, by means of presents, exclude his children by her from the heritage (Gen 25:6). Such concubines had Nahor (Gen 22:24), Abraham (Gen 25:6), Jacob (Gen 35:22), Eliphaz (Gen 36:12), Gideon (Jdg 8:3), Saul (2Sa 3:7), David (1 Samuel 5:13; 1Sa 15:16; 1Sa 16:21), Solomon (1Ki 11:3), Caleb (1Ch 2:46), Manasseh (ib. 1Ch 12:14), Rehoboam (2Ch 11:21), Abijah (2Ch 13:21), and Belshazzar (Dan 5:2). Their issue was reputed legitimate (though the children of the first wife were preferred in the distribution of the inheritance), but in all other respects these concubines were inferior to the primary wife, for they had no authority in the family, nor any share in household government. If they had been servants in the family before they came to be concubines they continued to be so afterwards, and in the same subjection to the mistress as before. If a woman were made captive in war she was allowed a month in which she was at liberty to mourn the loss of her parents and friends; and neither father nor son was permitted to take her as a concubine until the expiration of that time (Deu 20:10; Deu 20:14). To judge from the conjugal histories of Abraham and Jacob (Genesis 16, 30), the immediate cause of concubinage in patriarchal times was the barrenness of the lawful wife, who in that case introduced her maid-servant of her own accord to her husband for the sake of having children. Accordingly, we do not read that Isaac, son of Abraham, had any concubine, Rebecca, his wife, not being barren. In process of time, however, concubinage appears to have degenerated into a regular custom among the Jews, and the institutions of Moses were directed to prevent excess and abuse in that respect by wholesome laws and regulations (Exo 21:7-9; Deu 21:10-14). The unfaithfulness of a concubine was regarded as criminal (Jdg 19:2; 2Sa 3:7-8), but it was not punished as was that of a wife (Lev 19:20). SEE ADULTERY.

Such a case, however, as that mentioned (Judges 19), where not only is the possessor of the concubine called her “husband” (Jdg 19:3), but her father is called his father-in-law and he his son-in-law (4, 5), shows how nearly the concubine approached to the wife. Hired women, such as “uxores mercenariae conductae ad tempus ex pacto,” whom Ammianus Marcellinus attributes to the Saracens (Jdg 14:4), were unknown among the Hebrews. To guard adult male offspring from debauchery before marriage, their parents, it appears, used to give them one of their female slaves as a concubine. She was then considered as one of the children of the house, and she retained her rights as a concubine even after the marriage of the son (Exo 21:9; Exo 21:19). When a son had intercourse with the concubine of his father, a sort of family punishment, we are informed, was inflicted on him (Gen 35:22; 1Ch 5:1). Where polygamy was tolerated — as it was among the Hebrews — the permission of concubinage would not seem so much at war with the interests and preservation of society as we know it to be. Christianity restores the sacred institution of marriage to its original character, and concubinage is ranked with fornication and adultery (Mat 19:5; 1Co 7:2). SEE POLYGAMY.

In the Talmud (tit. Cetuboth), the Rabbins differ as to what constitutes concubinage, some regarding as its distinguishing feature the absence of the betrothing ceremonies (sponsalia) and of the dowry (libellus dotis), or portion of property allotted to a woman by special engagement, and to which she was entitled on the marriage day, after the decease of the husband, or in case of repudiation; others, again, the absence of the latter alone. In the books of Samuel and Kings the concubines mentioned belong to the king, and their condition and number cease to be a guide to the general practice. A new king stepped into the rights of his predecessor, and by Solomon’s time the custom had approximated to that of a Persian harem (2Sa 12:8; 2Sa 16:21; 1Ki 2:22). To seize on royal concubines for his use was thus a usurper’s first act. Such was probably the intent of Abner’s act (2Sa 3:7), and similarly the request on behalf of Adonijah was construed (1Ki 2:21-24). For fuller information, Selden’s treatises De Uxore Hebraea and De Jure Vatur. et Gent. v. 7, 8, and especially that De Successionibus, cap. 3, may, with some caution (since he leans somewhat easily to rabbinical tradition), be consulted; also the treatises Sotah, Kidushim, and Chetuborh in the Gemara Hierosol., and that entitled Sanhedrin in the Gemara Babyl. The essential portions of all these are collected in Ugolini, vol. 30, De Uxore Hebroeae. See also Otho, Lex. Rabbin. p. 151; Selden, De Successionibus, 3; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, 1:455-466.

The Roman law calls concubinage an allowed custom (licita consuetudo). When this expression occurs in the constitutions of the Christian emperors, it signifies what we now sometimes call a marriage of conscience. The concubinage tolerated among the Romans, in the time of the Republic and of the heathen emperors, was that between persons not capable of contracting legal marriage. Inheritances might descend to children that sprung from such a tolerated cohabitance. Concubinage between such persons they looked on as a kind of marriage, and even allowed it several privileges; but then it was confined to a single person, and was of perpetual obligation, as much as marriage itself (Gaii, Institut. lib. 1, § 109 sq.; Justin. Institut. lib. 1, tit. 10). Hottoman observes that the Romans had allowed concubinage long before Julius Caesar enacted the law by which every one was at liberty to marry as many wives as he pleased. The emperor Valentinian, Socrates tells us, allowed every man two. Concubinage is also used to signify a marriage with a woman of inferior condition, to whom the husband does not convey his rank. Dajos (Paratilla) observes that the ancient laws allowed a man to espouse, under the title of concubine, certain persons who were esteemed unequal to him on account of the want of some qualities requisite to sustain the full honor of marriage; and he adds that, though such concubinage was beneath marriage both as to dignity and civil rights, yet was concubine a reputable title, and very different from that of “mistress” among us. The connection was considered so lawful that the concubine might be accused of adultery in the same manner as a wife (see Smith’s Dict. of Class. Antiq. s.v. Concubina).

This kind of concubinage is still in use in some countries, particularly in Germany, under the title of halb-ehe (half-marriage), left-hand or morganatic marriage, in allusion to the manner of its being contracted, namely, by the man giving the woman his left hand instead of the right. This is a real marriage, though without the usual solemnity, and the parties are both bound to each other forever, though the female cannot bear the husband’s name and title. SEE MARRIAGE; SEE CONCUBINAGE.

Concubine. A secondary wife. The practice of having concubines probably grew out of a desire for numerous offspring, and this also was one support of polygamy: when there was a plurality of wives, some were placed in an inferior grade. Concubines are mentioned very early in Scripture, as in the history of Abraham, Gen 16:1-16, of Nahor, 22:24, of Jacob, 30. Sometimes wives, as in the cases of Sarah, Rachel and Leah, gave their servants to their husbands for concubines, in order to obtain children, and the children so born were then reckoned as belonging to the wife whose servant the mother was. Keturah is said to have been Abraham’s wife, Gen 25:1; and yet, 5, 6, all Abraham’s sons save Isaac are called the sons of concubines. We must, then, conclude that the concubines had a recognized position, and that the children were legitimate, though more dependent, perhaps, upon the father’s will for any share in his inheritance than the sons of the actual or chosen wives. The law of Moses did not stop the practice of having concubines, but modified it. Exo 21:7-9; Deu 21:10-17. Concubines were often servants or captives, Exo 21:7-11; Deu 21:10-14; but this was not always the case. The Levite’s concubine, Jdg 19:1-30, was neither; and it is observable that her father is called the Levite’s father-in-law. After the establishment of the Israelitish monarchy, the kings increased the number of concubines; and the right over those of one monarch, accrued to his successor; so that to seize on any of them was regarded as an overt act of rebellion. 2Sa 3:7; 2Sa 12:8; 1Ki 2:22; 1Ki 11:3. The New Testament teaching restores marriage to its original character, requiring a man to be the husband of one wife. Gen 2:24; Mat 19:6; 1Co 7:2.

CONCUBINE.—See Family, Marriage, § 6.

Israelites of the Old Testament era lived in a world where a common practice was for a married man to take additional wives, known as concubines. The practice was contrary to God’s plan for marriage (namely, one man and one woman united for life, to the exclusion of all others; see MARRIAGE), but human society had moved far away from God’s plan (Rom 1:20-32).

Moses introduced laws to protect concubines for much the same reason as he introduced laws to protect slaves. Both slavery and concubinage were wrong, but the practices were so deeply rooted that they could not be removed immediately. However, laws could control them and so start a movement that would lead to their eventual removal (Exo 21:7-11; Deu 21:15-17; see also SLAVERY).

A man obtained his concubines sometimes by choosing them from among his slaves or war captives, and sometimes by receiving them as gifts. Through bearing him children, concubines helped strengthen his household and increase his social influence (Gen 16:1-2; Gen 25:1; Gen 29:24; Gen 29:29; Gen 30:4-13; Gen 36:12; Deu 21:10-11; 2Sa 5:13-14; 2Ch 11:21). Although Israelite law tolerated concubinage, it did not tolerate sexual relations with a person who was not one’s marriage partner. To commit adultery with another man’s wife was a far worse sin than to have several wives oneself (Lev 20:10; 2Sa 11:2-5; 2Sa 12:11-12).

God warned Israelite kings against glorifying themselves through building large harems, but most kings ignored his warnings (Deu 17:15-17; 2Sa 15:16; 1Ki 11:3; 2Ch 11:21; cf. Est 2:14). People considered the harem to be such a symbol of kingly power, that a new king established his claim to the throne by claiming the former king’s harem (2Sa 3:7-8; 2Sa 12:7-8; 2Sa 16:20-22; 1Ki 2:21-22). Yet concubines proved to be a source of trouble to Israel’s kings. The presence of so many wives and children in the palace created family conflicts (2Sa 3:2-5; 2Sa 13:20-22; cf. Gen 21:8-10; Jdg 8:31; Jdg 9:2-5), and the idols that foreign concubines brought into the palace led believers away from God (1Ki 11:4).