Fornication definition

[MarkSB]

Porneia definition:

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
   2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
2. metaph. the worship of idols
   1. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

It is clear that porneia was an all-inclusive term used to define all forms of sexual immorality - not just sex with temple prositutes. Homosexuality, fornication, even beasteality is included in the definition. Not sure where you guys find it to include only sex with prostitutes.

 

[chingchang]

HuntingMan,

Absolutely false.
Where on earth do you get the impression that EVERY possible 'sin' is listed in Gods word?

I didn't say that...you did. I would never say that...but I do believe we can know if something is sin that is not specifically listed by testing it against God's laws and commands. In the sexual arena...God was VERY specific about sin and listed them in Leviticus 18 and Dueteronomy 22. Another principle you agreed with is that God doesn't change. So if something was permissible in the OT...then unless God established a new law or command against it since then...it is permissible now.

Ill say it AGAIN....having sex with a child is NOT mentioned in the list of sexual sins that Ive ever seen yet we KNOW that God would take offense at that heinous crime.

I agree...but exactly HOW do we know that? We know that because it violates God's command (through His son Jesus) to "love your neighbor as yourself". Do you agree that your sexuality and your body are your property? (yes...I realize that our property is ultimately God's...just work with me here) If someone molested you as a child they would be stealing your property and stealing is a breaking of the 10 commandments. Just as a wife is the property of the husband and the husband is property of the wife...so is your sexuality before marriage the property of you.

Now, now...you JUST said that "but in order for something to be sin it absolutely has to violate God's laws/commands."
Youre all over the place here, poster...which is it...is it sin only if it violates Gods laws /commands or not ?
Let me guess...YOU get to decide which is which, correct?

You're not even attempting to understand this. You're bent on ignoring the rest of the Bible and clinging to your understanding of 1 Cor 7. Paul was not a Prophet. All of God's laws and commandments...which Paul said following (laws/commandments) was the most important thing...were established before he came along. Most of what Paul said was instruction from him...not God. Certainly Paul is an authority and perhaps the greatest Christian to ever live...but if premarital sex is sin we should be able to arrive on that conclusion excluding all of Paul's letters.

This is a VERY nice try but Im not playing along.
This 'sexual sin' is not listed in the law...nor anywhere in the NT...youre not getting off by twisting this into an issue of stealing.

Youre fooling yourself, for sure.
The only thing I see is just one more person bent on twisting Gods word into allowing sexual immorality.

I'm confident in what I believe given the entire Word of God. Again...if you read Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8...then let is sink in I think you'll at least be less agressive about your position. I don't twist God's Word...I have a deep need to know the truth...and the modern Church as failed us in that regard...especially when it comes to sexual sin. I've noticed that you refuse to touch some of the arguments I've put up. Like Judah having sex with Tamar thinking she was a prostitue. No condemnation from God. Samson had sex with a prostitute...no condemnation from God. Men of Israel took some of their enemy's women captive and made them slaves...and had sex with them. No condemnation from God. Shoot...I could go on...but at this point it has become painfully obvious that you are not interested in change...but clinging to dogma that is thinly supported.

This will be my last reply on this topic...but not yours.

Hugs Brother!
chingchang

 

[HuntingMan]

I'm confident in what I believe given the entire Word of God.

And ?
You apparently cannot support your views, so the confidence seems to be somewhat misplaced.

I've noticed that you refuse to touch some of the arguments I've put up.

I dont refuse to touch anything.
I simply know what is NOT actually relevant to a particular point. I wont spend time on points that arent relevant to the issue at hand since these discussions are taxing enough as it is.

Like Judah having sex with Tamar thinking she was a prostitute. No condemnation from God.

WHERE is it shown that God was 'ok' with it with what Judah did ? There is no immediate condemnation mentioned for two young ladies getting their dad stoned and 'doing' him either, so I guess thats fine too..kwim ?

Samson had sex with a prostitute...no condemnation from God.

Pretty funny seeing how Sampson's life turned out, ya know?
You dont think that his ends may have been a direct result of his lifestyle whether any specific sin was mentioned or not ?

and to rejoice: for they said, our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hands;
for though Samson's harlot had done it, and they had paid her for it, yet they attribute it to their god, such was their blindness and stupidity; and yet this may shame us believers in the true God, who are so backward to ascribe to him the great things he does for us, when such Heathens were so forward to give glory to their false deities, without any foundation for it.
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
​

I guess by YOUR logic this is ok too since I dont see any immediate condemnation in the text ?

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
(Gen 19:30-38 KJV)
​

No condemnation mentioned so hey...getting a parent stoned and breeding with them just HAS to be 'ok' with God

Men of Israel took some of their enemy's women captive and made them slaves..

And now youre getting into a realm that has less to do with marriage and more to do with Gods soveriegn plan and will....those events do NOT promote individual promiscuity, Im afraid.
If GOD told a man to sacrifice his own son, do you believe that its 'ok' for you or I to do the same?

Shoot...I could go on...but at this point it has become painfully obvious that you are not interested in change...but clinging to dogma that is thinly supported.

what Im not interested in is allowing distorted logic such as 'Hey, ISRAEL was allowed to RAPE and PILLAGE so *I* should be allowed to TOO ! "

This will be my last reply on this topic...but not yours.

Why should I stop posting just because you cannot support your supposed claim that unmarried sex is 'ok' with God ?

Hugs Brother!
chingchang

ditto

 

[The Gregorian]

K, let's go by your definition:

G4202

πορνεία
porneia
Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
​

​

Those are the contemporary definitions we've attached to porneia... not the definition of the word itself... Come on... "Sexual intercourse with a divorced person?" ... you realize divorced people can be remarried, morally if the divorce was on biblical grounds. Also, all of that speaks specifically of "sexual intercourse" ... so there's no way you can justify "Non-penile/vaginal sexual activity" as counting. Of course, the church tells us that if you touch any part that would normally be covered by undergarments, THAT IS SIN! Do you consider (close your eyes if you're sensitive) oral sex (k, open them) to be included in the definition of porneia?

NOTHING in the context of 1 cor 7 causes the MEANING of porneia to be RESTRICTED to 'temple prostitution'.

The word is FAR broader than some of you want to accept.

A: It's prostitution in general... the term USUALLY refers to the temple prostitutes because that was a particularly common form of pagan worship. On top of prostitution.
B: Show me a secular source defining porneia as you described above. Yes... we know the church describes it as "anything pleasurable" ... a back rub could be porneia... simply THINKING a person is attractive is porneia according to fundamentalists... what fundamentalists think is not NECESSARILY always true. Please, give me a source without religious bias.

 

[The Gregorian]

... hrm... I'm done for a while... this is getting too legislative. This is supposed to be a friendly conversation and people seem to be getting too riled up. Moreover posts are getting long and repetitive.

No, porneia is not JUST temple prostitution, and no, casual sex and cheating are not acceptable. But in the bible, people WERE ordered (by their wives as well as God) to sleep with people other than their wives, and many people had sexual relationships with people other than their wives. This leads me to the logical conclusion that not all physical intimacy outside of marriage is automatically wrong.

... people have stated their opinions of penetrative penile/vaginal intercourse quite a few times... but everyone's avoided a main part of the topic: "Non intercourse sexual activity."

Some churches claim that oral sex is sinful even within the marriage. But in a society where temple prostitution was common place and people regularly had multiple wives, I REALLY doubt such an idea was not thought of in those days.... and a known act that was likely just as common then as it remains today not being spoken against shows that it is not likely something that a couple should be forbidden from doing... POSSIBLY married or not (of course, I'm not talking about meaningless intimacy... this is still assuming a meaningful caring relationship such as with a concubine... but still outside of marriage.)


That being said... let me know if someone wants a normal discussion. When people start using big red letters... I leave.

 

[HuntingMan]

... hrm... I'm done for a while... this is getting too legislative. This is supposed to be a friendly conversation and people seem to be getting too riled up. Moreover posts are getting long and repetitive.

Highlighting to draw attention to certain points isnt 'riled up'. Its entirely apparent that MUCH of what gets posted ISNT even being read so Im hoping that if I post in BOLD RED letters that at least those points will be noticed by someone if nothing else does.
'legistlative'..absolutely.

No, porneia is not JUST temple prostitution,

Correct. And nothing in 1 Cor 7 gives us any reason to narrow it to that meaning either. Precisely what this issue revolves around.

But in the bible, people WERE ordered (by their wives as well as God) to sleep with people other than their wives, and many people had sexual relationships with people other than their wives.

Oh good grief. Could someone PLEASE CITE scripture so that we can EXAMINE it for ourselves to see what the context is?
Its ridiculous to keep making these assertions while not at least presenting the book, chapter and verse to support the claim so we can discern *IF* it actually does support it or not.
I want to SEE what it is you are talking about so *I* can determine for myself if what you are claiming is true and in the same sort of context we are talking about.

For example someone saying that two women got their dad drunk and 'molested' him so it MUST be 'ok' since they werent 'condemned' isnt presenting the whole story....such as Mosaic law later would condemn this sort of incest...and since laws are usually made in RESPONSE to a wrong being committed, it is probable that God was not happy with what these ladies did even tho the written law did not yet exist to condemn their act.

PLEASE at least give the book/chapter/verse you are talking about so WE can look at it for ourselves

So far EVERY instance where you or someone else has made such a claim when its been examined its very clear that there was MORE to the story than just 'this guy had sex with someone he wasnt married to"
For example, and yet one more time...

And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
(Gen 16:3 KJV)

This was NOT some promiscuous sexual relationship and DOESNT support UNmarried sex.

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
(Gen 38:8-9 KJV)

Which later became law (yet again Im having to repeat myself) and yet again DOESNT support UNmarried sex.

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
(Deu 25:5 KJV)

​

Are there any others ? This covers BOTH that you mentioned, I believe and in BOTH cases these seem to end up being "wives" to these men.
So from what I can determine you did not actually present ALL of the relevant details.
As for the 'others' I have dealt with them in another post that seemingly you will refuse to acknowledge because I used too much red. I'll REpost it in all black text so we can have a "normal discussion' :

This leads me to the logical conclusion that not all physical intimacy outside of marriage is automatically wrong.

And the rest of us remain in the dark since we have NO idea what you are talking about.

Im fully willing to look at ANY valid evidence from Gods word, Gregorian...that is exactly why I changed my views on polygamy.
A poster kept presenting the evidence from Gods word that I had not taken into consideration even tho Id read it before many times and I ended up having to amend what I believe because of he presented EVIDENCE to back his claims. Evidence that actually supported what he claimed.

Its VERY helpful in any discussion where ideas are going back and forth to actually present something to support ones assertions, but MOST of the time in these threads you guys are stating things but rarely actually citing the material in question.
Ive had to go digging for some of the evidence myself for a few of the claims here only to find that not all of the facts are being presented.

Its really not going to be a very productive discussion if you keep claiming that such and such happened yet refusing to provide the relevant material to support the assertion.

Some churches claim that oral sex is sinful even within the marriage.

And there is no evidence to back that viewpoint. I spent a couple months trying to figure out just what the sexual rules are for marriage and the only things I could figure out is that the marriage bed is to be undefiled...no adultery, etc.....and that we are to take time off from sex on occasion to devote ourselves to prayer (which I sincerely doubt many of us actually bother with). Other than these, it was not really easy to find much more as far as what a MARRIED man and woman can and cannot do, giving me the impression that God simply did not list this out because theyre married and allowed to do what they want to do. If OS is agreeable to them both, then apparently its fine.
There IS, however, evidence that shows that God created sex FOR marriage between man and woman.

But in a society where temple prostitution was common place and people regularly had multiple wives, I REALLY doubt such an idea was not thought of in those days.... and a known act that was likely just as common then as it remains today not being spoken against shows that it is not likely something that a couple should be forbidden from doing... POSSIBLY married or not (of course, I'm not talking about meaningless intimacy... this is still assuming a meaningful caring relationship such as with a concubine... but still outside of marriage.)

And again you seem to believe that a concubine was some UNcommitted sexual relationship. Scripture doesnt back that at all.
This concubine argument doesnt have a leg to stand on because concubines, as far as Ive seen, were simply secondary wives.

*I* offered up the words of at least one scholar who has drawn the same conclusion as I have on that matter.
Scripture absolutely seems to support the idea that they were some sort of secondary 'wife' given the relationship shown between men and their concubines as a whole....yet you seem to want to persist in making some point with them that says that it was what?....uncommitted sex ?...and that is somehow supposed to be support for what ? UNcommitted sex ?
WHAT point is it, exactly, that you are trying to present with this concubine issue ?

Tell you what.... *IF* you want to have a few 'concubines' for yourself...AND if you treat them in the SAME manner they were treated as a whole in Gods word THEN I will support your decision to have a few.
*IF* you are equating this to UNcommitted sex in order to support UNmarried sex, however, Im sorry but I simply do not agree with your view on the matter of what concubines seemingly were.
And yes, I know you didnt say you wanted any, Im just generally speaking to show my own frame of mind on the matter.

That being said... let me know if someone wants a normal discussion. When people start using big red letters... I leave.

Ive explained that situation. If highlighting is that offensive and the reason you want to stop the discussion, i guess that just how its going to be.

 

[HuntingMan]

Those are the contemporary definitions we've attached to porneia... not the definition of the word itself..

The definitions are conclusion gleaned from the USE of the word in question.
Its how things work, Im afraid....words are defined by how they are used...precisely why 'gay' now takes on a meaning of sexual orientation where it did not before.

. Come on... "Sexual intercourse with a divorced person?" ... you realize divorced people can be remarried, morally if the divorce was on biblical grounds.

And if you study that one out its very apparent that Thayer allowed his own personal doctrinal twist to be presented in the definitionon that particular item. But when we study that one out its VERY easily concluded that there is no basis for that part of the definition because 'porneia' doesnt even occur in the very passage that Thayer uses for his support.

The rest of the definition has some merit that Strongs definitely seems to support.

Also, all of that speaks specifically of "sexual intercourse" ... so there's no way you can justify "Non-penile/vaginal sexual activity" as counting.

Really ?
Then tell me this, poster....how does Levitical law fit in here when it tells a man not to lie with a man as one does a woman ?

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
(Lev 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(Lev 20:13 KJV)
​

Can you tell me how a man even CAN lie with another man AS one does a woman if vaginal sex is ALL that sex is ?
Levitical law has no logic at all *IF* SEX = penile/vaginal contact solely.

So, absolutely YES....oral sex IS 'sex'.

Of course, the church tells us that if you touch any part that would normally be covered by undergarments, THAT IS SIN! Do you consider (close your eyes if you're sensitive) oral sex (k, open them) to be included in the definition of porneia?

See above.
Levitcal law has no logic whatsoever *IF* lying with a person (sex) ONLY included the penis and vagina.

A: It's prostitution in general... the term USUALLY refers to the temple prostitutes because that was a particularly common form of pagan worship. On top of prostitution.

No friend..it is 'sexual immorality' in general including incest and adultery and bestiality where NO 'prostitution' is even remotely present.

B: Show me a secular source defining porneia as you described above. ...Please, give me a source without religious bias.

So if I dont present some godless resource for you our scholars just arent quite knowledgable enough.
Ive offered evidence/support...if you want something beyond that do your own research.

 

[HuntingMan]

Im REposting this and removing all text color in order to have a 'normal discussion'.
Gregorian, if you wouldnt mind addressing what is presented, it would be appreciated


==============

Read closer.

I HAVE read it closer. Hundreds of times at this rate, maybe more.
I LIVE inside my bible pretty much EVERY single day of my life...and you ?

The 1-2 says that he suggests men do not touch women at ALL.

Uh...yeah
Meaning its GOOD not to touch a woman....not to marry at all. The SAME idea is REPEATED later in this very chapter both with UNmarried widow(ers) and UNmarried virgins.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
(1Co 7:25-26 KJV)

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
(1Co 7:32 KJV)

etc, etc, etc
​

.. but if they HAVE to, then they should get married... he goes on to say that all this is specifically NOT a divine mandate, but is his own opinion.

Thats a VERY nice try but the issue is to 'avoid fornication'...not just some good idea on Pauls part.
And youre being a bit misleading. The WHOLE passage there was NOT meant to be covered by Pauls speaking by permission not commandment.

1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission,....
Referring either to what he had said before, though not to all; not to 1Co_7:2 that for the avoiding of fornication, every man should make use of his own wife, and every woman of her own husband; since this is not by permission, but by command, Gen_2:24 that carnal copulation should be between one man and one woman in a married
John Gill Exposition of the bible
​

... anywho... as far as the verse you presented... where do you see anything about unmarried sex?

I think Ive made it VERY clear that the ONLY remedy given by Paul is to have ones OWN husband or wife.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:1-2 EMTV)

Does it say to avoid this sexual sin let each have their own boyfriend/girlfriend ? Their own lover ?
No, it quite clearly shows that we are to have our own husbands or wives to avoid this sexual sin REGARDLESS of what it actually might be.
​

I dont really know how much more clearer it needs to be made for some here, but Paul DOESNT offer ANY other options in avoiding this sexual immorality OTHER than to be with ones own spouse.
1+1=2....at least for most.

Literally translated, he's saying that if you have to "sow your oats," it's better to get a wife than a prostitute.

So you'll be showing us your credentials as a scholar in Koine Greek then ?

No, LITERALLY it says nothing of the sort..that is YOUR own paraphrase that rejects the CLEAR definition of 'porneia' that not one single person of your error has proven is NARROWED in meaning to 'temple prostitution' in 1 Cor 7.
You folks keep making the claim yet NONE of you has actually supported that assertion.

The literal meaning is precisely what the text shows....to avoid fornication/sexual immorality let every person have their OWN spouse....ONE option, no more.
*IF* you are going to have sex, to avoid immorality, do it with your OWN husband or wife. NO other options provided and that is pretty much factual an in agreement with the whole regardless of the error being presented by some.

-irrelevance snipped-

Which is it? Union or marriage? Do you agree that the idea of a concubine is biblically acceptable?

I agree that Concubines were some sort of secondary 'wife'...not some harlot or bar girl for a one night stand as some here might want to proclaim to make their error work.

Sarah wasn't rushing God at all... he didn't tell her SHE'D give birth until after Ishmael was born.

You might want to actually read the material before next time before posting.
Abraham KNEW about his 'seed' in Genesis 15 BEFORE Sarah did what she did with Hagar in Genesis 16.
Liz and I JUST covered this like last week !

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
(Gen 15:13 KJV)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
(Gen 15:18 KJV)

​

Sarah would have KNOWN what God had promised Abe being his wife and all
Sarah KNEW about what was promised to Abes SEED above....ABES...get it ? She wasnt 'required' for ABE to have seed that is shown in the prior chapter.
Sarah, being old herself, then tried to RUSH the issue and gave Hagar to Abe to give him "seed".

Not to mention the most OBVIOUS reason for her action

But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
(Gen 11:30 KJV)
​

AFTER her little mistake THEN God tells them she will have the child.

Gen 16:1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bare him no children,....
She is before said to be barren, and he to be childless, Gen_11:30; God had promised him a seed, but as yet he had none, which was a trial of his faith; he had been married many years to Sarai his wife, she was his wife when they came out of Ur of the Chaldees, and how long before cannot be said; they stayed and dwelt some time at Haran, the Jews (x) say five years, and they had been now ten years in the land of Canaan, Gen_16:3; and were advanced in years, the one being seventy five, and the other eighty five, so that there was no great probability of having any children, wherefore the following step was taken:
John Gill Exposition of the bible

Gen 16:1-3
Sarai, no longer expecting to have children herself, proposed to Abram to take another wife, whose children she might; her slave, whose children would be her property. This was done without asking counsel of the Lord. Unbelief worked, God's almighty power was forgotten. It was a bad example, and a source of manifold uneasiness. In every relation and situation in life there is some cross for us to bear: much of the exercise of faith consists in patiently submitting, in waiting the Lord's time, and using only those means which he appoints for the removal of the cross. Foul temptations may have very fair pretences, and be coloured with that which is very plausible. Fleshly wisdom puts us out of God's way. This would not be the case, if we would ask counsel of God by his word and by prayer, before we attempt that which is doubtful.
Matthew Henry concise commentary
​

She WAS trying to rush the issue by giving Abe Hagar so he would have 'seed' thru her since Sarah was old enough to believe that she could even have a child....you DO remember their reaction when God told them she would have a child, right ?

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
(Gen 17:17 KJV)

And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
(Gen 18:10-12 KJV)
​

Neither of them believed that a woman her age would bear a son.
THAT would have been the reason why she would have given Hagar to Abraham. She knew what God had said in Genesis 15 and then tried to RUSH the issue by giving Abe Hagar to have 'seed' with.
1+1=2

Every detail lines up to show a desperate woman trying to rush a situation that she believed impossible.

Apparently Im going to have to do an article on the point to keep from having to retype this out every week.
Sarah tried to rush God by giving Abe Hagar

And remember, that wasn't the first example of polygamy.

And ?
I havent said a single thing against polygamy (spelling ?).
Polygamy, as much as it disgusts me, IS a marriage covenant, not harlotry or promiscuity.
I use that polygamy was not prohibited for my own arguments
Evidences of Remarriage II - Polygamy

Judah had three sons. His first married a woman, but died with no heir. His second was commanded BY GOD to impregnate her... but he slept with her and purposefully did not impregnate her, thereby disobeyed God, so he was killed. The third was too young to impregnate her.... Eventually she saw the third was old enough to impregnate her, so she dressed as a shrine prostitute to go have her way with him... but Judah happened by her first and she got what she wanted from him.

So... you know... God COMMANDING someone to sleep with someone other than his wife... kinda a good indication that he doesn't find it sinful.

Can you show me where God "commanded" this ?
I want to see the what it is you are refering to EXACTLY so I can look at the context myself.
Im betting my last dollar that there is more to this than you are providing such as (for an example) when a man childless and his brother is to take his widow AS his wife and give seed to his brother, which ended up being IN the law itself, so apparently is just something God finds to be important and in NO way promotes promiscuity.

Is THIS it, possibly ?
Where Onan was instructed to MARRY his brothers widow and give her seed ?

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
(Gen 38:8-9 KJV)
​

Which ended up being godly law...

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
(Deu 25:5 KJV)
​

I don't know that any particular SPECIFIC sexual act is mentioned in great detail in the bible. Is one position OK, while another is not? Do you agree that solomon was a good example? Married to THAT many women, with THAT Many concubines... and do you honestly think none of them ever "cooperated?"

cooperated? What on earth are you talking about ?

... with all the examples of polygamous relationship... it's sort of assumed that that sort of thing would happen.

Polygamy is 'marriage' so I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

 

[NHB_MMA]

I personally just dont see that any monkey wrench is present at all.

I am speaking in general terms in regards to orthodox teachings of the church on sexuality. My upbringing was Wesleyan with some Baptist influence from my private high school. I was always taught "one man, one wife, for live" without any exceptions. Clearly, the most simple examinations of the Scriptures leads one to find that laughable. There was never any good explanations provided for the multiple wives of some men of the OT. Most teachers just taught me that these men were sinners for such actions, but the Bible sure is absent of such condemnation, which I find puzzling given the size of the Scriptures and the various account in them.

I think where these women called 'concubines' are concerned that we need to look at the relationship/situation and determine whether these were just 'casual sex' scenarios or if the man took care of these women as he would a 'wife'.

Well, it's not like much is written about what was or was not a concubine or wife of that time, so everything here is speculation. I doubt we're simply talking about a casual sex relationship. As I explained a few posts ago, I don't think casual sex can be justified in most any scenario, regardless. A quick Google search from a few references says a concubine is a relationship that has many similarities to a marriage, but some differences too. Although there was usually some cohabitation, concubines were not entitled to all the rights of a proper wife and had no say at all in matters of the household. That sounds like a step BELOW two unmarried people typically found cohabitating in our contemporary times, because they will at least usually strive for some equal say in the matters of the household.

If she stays with him like a wife would, if she is taken care of in a similar regard, if she bears him children (or not), etc, then its easy enough to discern that this isnt a situation of what we would necessarily see as premarital or UNmarried sex

Everything I have read suggests they were not entitled to the full privileges as a "wife" was. So, we can debate how "similar" it was, but it sounds remarkably like a cohabitating couple in many ways, except as I pointed out a woman in such a relationship would normally have her due say in matters of the household.

What if the the word 'concubine' is simply understood as something like a 'secondary wife' to the men who had them ? The relationship definitely seems to show overall that these women werent tramps, harlots or one night stands,

No doubt they were NOT harlots or one-night stands.

but the instances Ive seen so far in scripture seems to present a woman thats about as near to being an all out 'wife' as one can get.

or every bit as close to a "live-in" in today's terms

Based on the relationships overall where concubines are concerned, I simply do not feel that they are any sort of argument for UNmarried sex.
Gen 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah,....
Not an harlot, but a secondary wife, who was under the proper and lawful wife, and a sort of a head servant in the family, and chiefly kept for the procreation of children; which was not thought either unlawful or dishonourable in those times such as was Hagar in Abraham's family:
John Gills Exposition on the Bible

I think Mr. Gills' explanation falls short. These were not simply a secondary wife that was subservant to the primary or original wife. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. 700 women were given the privileges that came with being a wife, while 300 were deemed appropriate for a lesser status or relationship. Now, they were likely loved and taken care of, but why not simply have 1,000 wives and no concubines? Clearly, Solomon's actions of having sexual relations with women that he was not willing to commit with quite as strongly as his wives was found acceptable.

Therefore, while there is no justification for playing with a woman's emotions or manipulating her into bed for my own gratification, how different is it if I love someone very deeply and make her a vital part of my life but I'm not quite 100% sure I am willing to take the marriage vow? I can't see much difference at all.

 

[NHB_MMA]

Those are the contemporary definitions we've attached to porneia... not the definition of the word itself...

I'll agree that "porneia" most literally translates into "prostitution" and the other terms are assumptions that have been linked into it. However, I believe most of the rest of the mix is covered by numerous verses condemning "sexual immorality".

What I don't buy is this argument that it's only "temple prostitution". There has not been one shred of evidence to support that, but merely people attempting to read Paul's mind on it. It's hard to believe, with the frequent consequences of a lifestyle of prostitution, that such acts would not qualify under "sexual immorality" too.

I have made a case where I think it is reasonable to at least be open and consider there that may be circumstances when a sexual relationship is permissible before a couple says "I do" and pays "Caesar" for a legal piece of paper recording the event. That being said, sex is nothing to take lightly. There are real emotions and people do get hurt when they do not have a proper understanding of the relationship. Given everything the Bible says about how we are to treat one another and the various condemnations of "sexual immorality" I find the idea that a person can justify whoredom or a one-night stand to be appalling.

 

[HuntingMan]

Well, it's not like much is written about what was or was not a concubine or wife of that time, so everything here is speculation.

I disagree, of course.
Understanding Gods word doesnt come down to something as simple as 'do this and dont do that'.
We look very much and VERY closely to the examples presented in scripture...what was the relationship with concubines...how were they treated, what was expected of them...etc.
I dont think that it is speculation at all, quite frankly. I see that a concubine was seemingly treated pretty much like a wife was treated. She stayed with the man, bore him children, was provided for by him, etc. So I dont see that there is any problem in determining their position as some 'secondary wife' as some scholars present.

A quick Google search from a few references says a concubine is a relationship that has many similarities to a marriage, but some differences too.

eh...Im not overy interested in what google might toss up. Im more interested in the EXAMPLES of concubines and how they were treated and waht was expected as presented in GODS word than what some website has to say on the matter...because I dont know what their sources may be.
Some countries allow men to treat their wives worse than their livestock....so I woundnt trust anything but Gods word on the matter as far as understanding how GODly men were with their concubines.

Everything I have read suggests they were not entitled to the full privileges as a "wife" was.

Ok...and did I not present that these were 'secondary wives' of sorts?

or every bit as close to a "live-in" in today's terms

*IF* by 'live-in' you mean something that isnt just until we're tired of it, then Id be somewhat inclined to agree.
If 'live-in' means 'I can ditch this whenever I want to' then I dont agree at all.

I think Mr. Gills' explanation falls short.

And in my studies I believe he's pretty close.

These were not simply a secondary wife that was subservant to the primary or original wife. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. 700 women were given the privileges that came with being a wife, while 300 were deemed appropriate for a lesser status or relationship. Now, they were likely loved and taken care of, but why not simply have 1,000 wives and no concubines? Clearly, Solomon's actions of having sexual relations with women that he was not willing to commit with quite as strongly as his wives was found acceptable.

I dont see how your argument does away with this 'secondary wife' idea.

And let me ask you something...do you think Solomon was 'godly' in his behavior on the matter of taking so many wives and concubines ?
Just because Solomon did something doesnt make it ok or right with God. Nor does they way he treated wives or concubines or the situation.

Therefore, while there is no justification for playing with a woman's emotions or manipulating her into bed for my own gratification, how different is it if I love someone very deeply and make her a vital part of my life but I'm not quite 100% sure I am willing to take the marriage vow? I can't see much difference at all.

Interesting.
So because SOME men in the OT MAY have gotten away with something, then YOU think that its 'ok' if you slide by having sex with a woman you 'might not want to commit to' ?
Let me ask you something...do you see anything about concubines in Pauls teachings ? Christs ? Peters ?
Doesnt that say anything to you ?
I just did a quick text search of a number of bible versions and the word doesnt seem to exist in the NT. Only wives are discussed.
Are you entirely sure that this concubine situation WAS even really that ok with God ? Sure enough to have your entire belief system and sense of morality guided by what men under the old covenant may have done ?


You'll have to forgive me if I dont buy that God is at all pleased with that sort of thinking.

 

[HuntingMan]

Lets look at some passages about concubines and see if they are in any way like a wife and see if Gills thoughts about a concubine being a 'wife' of sorts has any merit, shall we ?

And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.

And his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there. And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry. And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.

And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them. And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.
(Jdg 19:1-9 KJV)

​

The word 'father in law' is this

H2859
חתן
châthan
BDB Definition:
1) to become a son-in-law, make oneself a daughter’s husband
1a) (Qal) wife’s father, wife’s mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law (participle)
1b) (Hithpael) to make oneself a daughter’s husband

H2859
חתן
châthan
khaw-than'
A primitive root; to give (a daughter) away in marriage; hence (generally) to contract affinity by marriage: - join in affinity, father in law, make marriages, mother in law, son in law.

​

And "son in law" is this

H2860
חתן
châthân
BDB Definition:
1) son-in-law, daughter’s husband, bridegroom, husband
Part of Speech: noun masculine

H2860
חתן
châthân
khaw-thawn'
From H2859; a relative by marriage (especially through the bride); figuratively a circumcised child (as a species of religious espousal): - bridegroom, husband, son in law.

​

Now, Im not the brightest bulb in the pack by ANY means, but if this doesnt sound like a 'married' woman to whatever extent then horse whip me and call me Shirley.
Based on the wording used, its almost like Gods word itself is lying if this woman ISNT actually 'married' to whatever extent...kwim ?


.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think Mr. Gills' explanation falls short. These were not simply a secondary wife that was subservant to the primary or original wife. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. 700 women were given the privileges that came with being a wife, while 300 were deemed appropriate for a lesser status or relationship. Now, they were likely loved and taken care of, but why not simply have 1,000 wives and no concubines? Clearly, Solomon's actions of having sexual relations with women that he was not willing to commit with quite as strongly as his wives was found acceptable.

From my research, it had little to do with the husband's commitment, but with how he acquired the wife or concubine. A wife was acquired by contracting a marriage with a virgin's family, or with a free widow or free divorced woman. A concubine was bought as a slave, or perhaps, in the case of Solomon, a female slave given to him as a gift. Solomon received her as a slave, and not as a free woman or virgin daughter of a free man.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Lets look at some passages about concubines and see if they are in any way like a wife and see if Gills thoughts about a concubine being a 'wife' of sorts has any merit, shall we ?

And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.

And his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there. And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry. And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.

And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them. And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.
(Jdg 19:1-9 KJV)

​

The word 'father in law' is this

H2859
חתן
châthan
BDB Definition:
1) to become a son-in-law, make oneself a daughter’s husband
1a) (Qal) wife’s father, wife’s mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law (participle)
1b) (Hithpael) to make oneself a daughter’s husband

H2859
חתן
châthan
khaw-than'
A primitive root; to give (a daughter) away in marriage; hence (generally) to contract affinity by marriage: - join in affinity, father in law, make marriages, mother in law, son in law.

​

And "son in law" is this

H2860
חתן
châthân
BDB Definition:
1) son-in-law, daughter’s husband, bridegroom, husband
Part of Speech: noun masculine

H2860
חתן
châthân
khaw-thawn'
From H2859; a relative by marriage (especially through the bride); figuratively a circumcised child (as a species of religious espousal): - bridegroom, husband, son in law.

​

Now, Im not the brightest bulb in the pack by ANY means, but if this doesnt sound like a 'married' woman to whatever extent then horse whip me and call me Shirley.
Based on the wording used, its almost like Gods word itself is lying if this woman ISNT actually 'married' to whatever extent...kwim ?


.

Funny you should treat this story as exemplary. Did you read the rest of it?

The Levite certainly did not treat his concubine as a wife.

David similarly treated his wives and concubines differently when Absalom was about to attack. Neither the Levite's concubine nor David's concubine were "taken care of like a wife."

 

[HuntingMan]

Isnt it funny how some folks read FAR too much into a mans post and MISinterpret simple FACTS as being understood as 'exemplary' instead ?
Its almost as if certain types cant read a persons posts without INSERTING emotional mindsets INTO them....

For you DISCERNING readers...there is NO emotion or sense of MORALITY that needs to be ADDED into the simple ASSESSMENT of this post that is ONLY to derive the INFORMATION that a CONCUBINE seems to be some sort of WIFE.

If you readers see even ONE hint beyond that in this post that is YOUR OWN addition to this post and your OWN agenda and bias being inserted.
Doesnt matter what is ACTUALLY said on these forums...someone is ALWAYS perverting and twisting it beyond recognition...

Lets look at some passages about concubines and see if they are in any way like a wife and see if Gills thoughts about a concubine being a 'wife' of sorts has any merit, shall we ?

And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.

And his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there. And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry. And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.

And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them. And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.
(Jdg 19:1-9 KJV)

​

The word 'father in law' is this

H2859
חתן
châthan
BDB Definition:
1) to become a son-in-law, make oneself a daughter’s husband
1a) (Qal) wife’s father, wife’s mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law (participle)
1b) (Hithpael) to make oneself a daughter’s husband

H2859
חתן
châthan
khaw-than'
A primitive root; to give (a daughter) away in marriage; hence (generally) to contract affinity by marriage: - join in affinity, father in law, make marriages, mother in law, son in law.

​

And "son in law" is this

H2860
חתן
châthân
BDB Definition:
1) son-in-law, daughter’s husband, bridegroom, husband
Part of Speech: noun masculine

H2860
חתן
châthân
khaw-thawn'
From H2859; a relative by marriage (especially through the bride); figuratively a circumcised child (as a species of religious espousal): - bridegroom, husband, son in law.

​

Now, Im not the brightest bulb in the pack by ANY means, but if this doesnt sound like a 'married' woman to whatever extent then horse whip me and call me Shirley.
Based on the wording used, its almost like Gods word itself is lying if this woman ISNT actually 'married' to whatever extent...kwim ?


.

 

[HuntingMan]

double posted....

 

[HuntingMan]

Maybe the following will help simplify the INTENT for anyone who cant simply READ and understand without ADDING to that intent.
Pay CLOSE attention the the RED part

A concubine was a 'wife'
Wm Tipton
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/posting.php?mode=edit&f=22&p=443

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To simply show that a concubine was not a harlot or a casual sexual affair but was instead a 'wife' to whatever extent.

Supporting Evidence

And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.

And his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there. And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry. And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.

And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them. And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.
(Jdg 19:1-9 KJV)

The word 'father in law' is this

H2859
חתן
châthan
BDB Definition:
1) to become a son-in-law, make oneself a daughter’s husband
1a) (Qal) wife’s father, wife’s mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law (participle)
1b) (Hithpael) to make oneself a daughter’s husband

H2859
חתן
châthan
khaw-than'
A primitive root; to give (a daughter) away in marriage; hence (generally) to contract affinity by marriage: - join in affinity, father in law, make marriages, mother in law, son in law.

And "son in law" is this

H2860
חתן
châthân
BDB Definition:
1) son-in-law, daughter’s husband, bridegroom, husband
Part of Speech: noun masculine

H2860
חתן
châthân
khaw-thawn'
From H2859; a relative by marriage (especially through the bride); figuratively a circumcised child (as a species of religious espousal): - bridegroom, husband, son in law.

 

[NHB_MMA]

I disagree, of course.
Understanding Gods word doesnt come down to something as simple as 'do this and dont do that'.
We look very much and VERY closely to the examples presented in scripture...what was the relationship with concubines...how were they treated, what was expected of them...etc.
I dont think that it is speculation at all, quite frankly. I see that a concubine was seemingly treated pretty much like a wife was treated. She stayed with the man, bore him children, was provided for by him, etc. So I dont see that there is any problem in determining their position as some 'secondary wife' as some scholars present.

I do not believe it is discussed much.

I peaked ahead and saw you brought a passage out of Judges that shows the use of the word. I would be interested in looking further for any references that mention the term.

eh...Im not overy interested in what google might toss up. Im more interested in the EXAMPLES of concubines and how they were treated and waht was expected as presented in GODS word than what some website has to say on the matter...because I dont know what their sources may be.
Some countries allow men to treat their wives worse than their livestock....so I woundnt trust anything but Gods word on the matter as far as understanding how GODly men were with their concubines.

There is a logical contradiction here in that you have said we cannot rely on the Bible to list everything that could possibly be a sin, if I'm not mistaken. Yet, you refuse to consider any other source for knowledge or clarification at all? The Bible does not cannot an all-inclusive and exhaustive lists of everything that could ever be sinful, nor does it necessary provide an exhaustive explanation of the finer points of a concubine relationship.

Well, try it when you get a chance before you dismiss it as "the vast left-wing conspiracy". The results showed some Biblical sources and the Wikipedia article made it sound remarkably similar to any Biblical source I read.

Again, I have been through most of the OT and concubines were mentioned, but I do not remember an exhaustive amount of details on the relationship.

Ok...and did I not present that these were 'secondary wives' of sorts?

Yes, and it's likely a good comparison/analogy. The question remains: Why have "secondary wives"? Why not only primary wives?

*IF* by 'live-in' you mean something that isnt just until we're tired of it, then Id be somewhat inclined to agree.
If 'live-in' means 'I can ditch this whenever I want to' then I dont agree at all.

I can tell you I would never feel comfortable with such a relationship where the attitude is "this is cool till something better comes along". That is playing with someone's emotions anyway and not being completely honest. Therefore, that is sinful in and of itself, as I've explained in previous posts.

And let me ask you something...do you think Solomon was 'godly' in his behavior on the matter of taking so many wives and concubines ?
Just because Solomon did something doesnt make it ok or right with God. Nor does they way he treated wives or concubines or the situation.

Wouldn't that be a reasonable assumption, unless we read otherwise? Solomon may have been the "mack daddy" (again) with women, but he was hardly the only person with multiple wives or "secondary wives" with less privileges. And not one word of condemnation? From a book so large it takes many months if not years to get through it? In a book that addresses adultery, sex immorality, prostitution, etc. hundreds of times?

Yes, if I do not see a marked "Do Not Enter" sign, logic tells me it's a two-way street.

Let me ask you something...do you see anything about concubines in Pauls teachings ? Christs ? Peters ?
Doesnt that say anything to you ?

Logically, the strongest argument is if there is no mention but the practice seems acceptable then nothing changes, thus it's acceptable.

Are you entirely sure that this concubine situation WAS even really that ok with God ? Sure enough to have your entire belief system and sense of morality guided by what men under the old covenant may have done ?

Sure? No!!! There are a million theological questions I have. The whole point of a site like CF is to debate issues like this and a thousand others so that everyone learns and grows.

You'll have to forgive me if I dont buy that God is at all pleased with that sort of thinking.

I scrutinize and question out of sincerity. God has big enough shoulders to handle whatever I might throw at Him. If God is appalled by the very idea that something might raise and eyebrow and cause me to look at what I've been taught and make sure it's logically and accurate, then frankly I'd be disappointed in Him. I don't know your beliefs (and I'm uncertain of my own) but if you believe that questioning is offensive to God then, logically, you must consider Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. to be among the worst tyrants Christianity has ever seen.

Lets look at some passages about concubines and see if they are in any way like a wife and see if Gills thoughts about a concubine being a 'wife' of sorts has any merit, shall we ?

The Judges passage describes a close relationship that sounds like any marriage we'd refer to and "concubine" is used there. Where I said Gills' explanation fell short was his terminology made it sounds as if "concubine" referred to all others, besides the first wife as if simply a term for plurality...and clearly there were multiples of each.

The questions remain unanswered: Why the distinction? Why not only wives and no concubines? Was the difference purely social status, with concubines being from peasants (doesn't seem Godly to me) or was there a difference in the relationship?

The questions cannot be easily answered. As I said, I have read through the entire OT in the past and there is not great detail about these relationships. For me to say it's okay for me to sleep with my girlfriend (I don't have one) is speculation at best. What is factual is that sex occurred in the OT in relationships that, while similar, were not quite the same as our marriages today.

Now, Im not the brightest bulb in the pack by ANY means, but if this doesnt sound like a 'married' woman to whatever extent then horse whip me and call me Shirley.

There is no need to patronize me with the definitions you listed. The issue is how the concubine relationship compares to some others today that are less than a formal marriage. Every relationship is different and there cannot be a universal answer. Remember, I'm hardly an ultra-liberal here, as I've clearly stated if there is justification for sex outside of formal marriage it's in only certain circumstances.

 

[The Gregorian]

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To simply show that a concubine was not a harlot or a casual sexual affair but was instead a 'wife' to whatever extent.

You're fighting very fervently to disprove that concubines are harlots... Problem is, you're responding to an argument NO ONE is making.

A concubine is still a binding relationship... and a relationship with a concubine is likely to be stronger than some marriages.

The point of this thread is to show that sexual activity is not biblically restricted to one man the one woman to which the man is legally married.

All those posts and your supporting evidence is completely off of that topic because you're latching onto fighting an assertion that no one is making.

Does anyone here think "Concubine" is synonymous with a one-night stand situation? Or that such relationships are ethical/moral? Because I don't think anyone does.

The article in question is "what restrictions are there (based on biblical examples/teachings... NOT church doctrine with no biblical basing) on physical intimacy?" No one's claiming that unbridled lust is acceptable, or cheating. But, is it moral to sleep with someone to whom you are engaged, but not yet married? And, what if sex isn't involved, is just "sleeping" together wrong? Is it a sin to kiss before marriage? Where is the line? Or is there a line other than the ones our conscience guides us to with the help of prayer (assuming you're honestly listening to your conscience, not your pants)?

We're asking this not to push that line... but to greater know God and his intentions for us.

 

[HuntingMan]

I peaked ahead and saw you brought a passage out of Judges that shows the use of the word. I would be interested in looking further for any references that mention the term.

So you dont believe Gods word in Judges ?

Why the distinction? Why not only wives and no concubines?

HOnestly, I dont know or care to even find out 'why'.
Ive never had a problem with trying to force Gods word to be ok with UNmarried sex, so I just accept that there is a reason for the difference and to ME it makes NO difference since *I* dont have a concubine nor do I know anyone who does.

Logically, the strongest argument is if there is no mention but the practice seems acceptable then nothing changes, thus it's acceptable.

Hmmm.
So marrying a 13 year old girl is 'ok' then ?

Sure? No!!! There are a million theological questions I have. The whole point of a site like CF is to debate issues like this and a thousand others so that everyone learns and grows.

Well, ok but sometimes these posts sound less like a quest for truth and more like a firm assertion that something is 'true'.
Half the time Im discussion something with someone it starts out with their pushing their views on everyone else....then about 10 pages later they either give up or finally come to the conclusion that they shouldnt maybe have been so assertive in the beginning until they had seen more of the evidence.

ive provided VERY clear evidence for you that a concubine IS some sort of 'wife' to her 'husband'.
Is it enough for you to maybe look at the facts and just accept that this is the case, or do you keep looking for that needle in the haystack that 'might' keep a shadow of doubt on the situation ?

When I study Gods word I try to look at it logically and consistently and try to harmonize every detail into a perfect whole. Something presented here always ends up lining up with something said elsewhere, but each individual piece doesnt usually present the whole picture.
What what Ive seen of concubines I draw the conclusion that if they werent a 'wife' then they were as close as one can get without actually being so.
What does that end up meaning ? I have NO clue. But what I DO know is they WERENT just casual affairs and there DOES seem to be a lot of commitment on BOTH parts where concubines and their 'husband' was concerned.
Your earlier post made it sound as tho the argument is that maybe its not so 'committed', but I just dont see that from Gods overall word.

There is no need to patronize me with the definitions you listed.

You folks simply must stop reading emotion into everyones posts. Its only a couple here that do it, but its quite annoying to have to watch every single letter in a post worrying that someones going to read too much into it.
So now its DEFINITIONS that are offending ?
I offered those as EVIDENCE and you take them as OFFENSE !

Maybe we need to just let this discussion end here because if a definition meant to help EXPLAIN the facts is offending you, I dont want to take any more chances in this discussion with you

God bless