Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    My dictionary says that a concubine is a woman who cohabits with a man
    she's not married to.  THere's no mention of the relationship beyond
    cohabitation.  I suppose you mean something more?

    MY GUESS is that being a concubine was a common thing for women in that
    culture since women typically weren't afforded the status men were of
    that time.  How they were treated and what was considered appropriate,
    I don't know.  I will say that from what I've seen in Old Testament
    accounts, they were not always treated right...as we saw in the Book of
    Judges.  
    
    -Jack

    My dictionary has a 2nd entry for concubine that is probably closer
    to the situation in the Bible where concubines are mentioned. The
    definition is "A secondary wife in certain polygamous societies."
    As far as I am aware, the Bible never gives approval to polygamy or
    concubines, nor do we see the practice being declared a "sin". It
    simply reports the existence of the practice. We do see a number of 
    issues and problems arise from the practice in certain cases. I am 
    not sure how it was that polygamy has disappeared (more or less).

    Leslie

As I understand it, a concubine did not enjoy the social or legal
status of a wife.  The children of such a union were nevertheless
usually considered legitimate.

Shalom,
Richard

    >nor do we see the practice being declared a "sin".
    
    Does adultery fit here?

    Very good question!  Take Jacob for example.  Husband of Leah, husband
    of Rachael.  The twelve sons of Jacob came from three women!
    
    -Jack

I think a concubine had some sort of status, but not the full status of
wife which is why the dictionary said a "secondary" wife. I am not sure
how it was established as to whether one was a concubine or a wife. 
Soloman and David also had multiple wives. (& concubines I think) Moses had 
more than one wife, but it may be that his second wife did not become his 
wife until after the death of Zipporah, I've forgotten. Anybody know offhand?

Leslie

    Ummmmmm.... unless the definition of adultery was changed since then,
    weren't all those guys guilty of this sin?   God said "Thou shall not
    commit adultery", right?  Then many of the OT heros have concubines?
    
    Am I missing something here?
    


    
    

    This isn't biblical, but my family history includes a man whose wife
    became bedridden (sp?).  They had many children.  He needed someone to
    take care of the children and his wife.  It was considered improper to
    have a live-in housekeeper, but it was okay to have a concubine.  
    (??? never did understand that logic.)  I've never checked it out, but
    family legend has it that he is buried somewhere in Boston with his
    wife on one side and seven concubines on the other.

>    >nor do we see the practice being declared a "sin".
    
>    Does adultery fit here?

I suppose we could exempt some on account of the 'grandfather clause,'
that is, that the commandment against adultery was issued after the time
of Abraham and Jacob.

Shalom,
Richard

    >I suppose we could exempt some on account of the 'grandfather clause,'
    
    Does that go for "I am the lord thy god..." and the other 8 as well?
    
    I'm not trying to discredit the OT.  Just trying to understand it a bit
    more and observe the method of reconcilling situations like this
    when they pop up.
    
    -dave
    
    

    .11
    
    I really didn't intend my 'grandfather clause' exemption to be taken
    too seriously, Dave.
    
    Richard
    

    .9
    
    Interesting.  Do you have an idea of the time in which this took place?
    
    Richard
    

 Z    I really didn't intend my 'grandfather clause' exemption to be taken
 Z    too seriously, Dave.
    
    Actually, I took it as a legitimate point.  Pauls letter to the Romans
    states that "...where there is no law, sin is not imputed."  "To him
    that knoweth what to do and doeth it not, to him it is sin."  Abraham
    may not have thought anything of concubines because it didn't occur to
    him he was doing anything wrong.  Adultery was not a commandment as of
    yet.
    
    -Jack

    So, you're saying you believe something is not wrong until it's
    understood that it's wrong?
    
    I don't think so.
    
    Richard
    

    But didn't some of the Jews build a golden calf (transgression of
    commandment #1) prior to their recieving the commandments?  Why was
    this not grandfathered?  
    
    (the issue of post 10 commandment concubines remains unresolved)
    
    Maybe the meaning of the word "adultery" differs then to now?
    
    It appears that the Mormons have no problem with polygamy.  How do they
    justify this?
    
    -dave

    Not exactly Richard.  I personally believe it was wrong all the time. 
    But the penalty of the transgression was not imputed to Abraham since
    the law had not been established.
    
    Consider Cain for example.  He was a murderer but was not put to death
    for his sin.  There WAS sin, but there was no transgression since the
    law had not been established.  Had he did his deed in the Mosaic
    period, he would have been put to death.
    
    -Jack

     I will have to verify this as my memory about it is vague & I am unsure
     about what I am about to say. But I think that if you read the 
     laws in Leviticus & Deuteronomy concerning adultry, it is mostly
     about having sexual relations with the wife of another man. If a
     man was caught having sexual relations with an unmarried woman, he 
     either had to marry her, or pay the family the normal "bride price",
     but if he were caught having sexual relations with another man's
     wife, both he and the woman could be put to death by stoning.

     I don't think very many people in David & Soloman's day actually had
     multiple wives and concubines because they could not materially
     provide for or support them. I think this was primarily a practice 
     amongst the wealthy.

     Although these things existed - polygamy and concubines, I don't think
     the Bible puts them forward as okay just because it reports the 
     practices. I think, but I could be wrong, that God's ideal is for a
     marriage to be between one man and one woman because I don't think a
     man can cleave to his wife any other way (Genesis). In dealing with 
     some of the things we do wrong, the Bible is sometimes more compassionate
     and makes more allowances for our short comings than we do.

     Leslie

================================================================================
Note 271.405           Christianity and Capital Punishment            405 of 405
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10"                         9 lines  24-JAN-1996 18:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1211.17
    
    Well, this will come as no surprise.  I disagree.
    
    Yes, Cain killing Abel was wrong.  However, I don't believe Cain wasn't
    murdered in turn on the grounds that he predated Mosaic Law.
    
    Richard
    

The concubine in Judges 19 belongs to a Levite, which as I recall is the
priestly tribe of Israel.  Judges 19 doesn't mention the Levite having
a wife.

Richard

    re: .13
    
    Well, not exact.  The graveyard in question is one of those that is
    part of the walking tour in Boston, I think.  I'll try to remember to
    ask my mother or sister.

> Why do we as a society no longer have concubines?

	Because men have become so advanced that they realize they have
met their match in just one woman.

8*)  8*)

    Who needs a concubine in the 90's anyway?  Seems to me that this
    "function" has been effectively replaced with cheating, wife swapping 
    and remarrying.
    
    -dave
    
    

>    Who needs a concubine in the 90's anyway?  Seems to me that this
>    "function" has been effectively replaced with cheating, wife swapping 
>    and remarrying.

Ya know, I've always suspected that was going on a lot, but I've
never found out where I can get "my share".

Maybe this is the place.  Where do I sign up?

Tom


:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)  

    .21
    
    Debby,
    
    By default it has to be sometime in the last 500 years, I guess.  I was
    just curious about how recent it might have been.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re: .13 (Richard)
    
    Well, I had dinner with my mother last night and got the date.  This
    relative was John Faunce and he came over on the Queen Ann in 1623.  He
    married in 1633, so it would have been mid to late 1600's.  My mother
    didn't have the death date, but he is buried in Copp's Hill Burial
    Ground which is one of the Boston Freedom Trail Sites.

1121.26

Thanks, Debby.  From the dates given, I sense the arrangement was largely
pragmatic.

Shalom,
Richard