(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
1 Kings 11:1-3-But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites—. 2 from the nations of whom the LORD had said to the children of Israel, “You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.
Did God approve of men in the Old Testament having multiple sex slaves?
That is an allegation often made regarding the “concubines” in the Old Testament.
What are the facts?
Let’s study.
In our modern terminology, the word “concubine” is often used to refer to a woman who has a sexual relationship with a man outside of the boundaries of the marriage covenant. This is certainly an acceptable definition of the word as we use it in our day and age, yet it is sometimes argued that the word originally had reference to a sex slave during the days of the Old Testament. As such, some claim that when the Bible talks about kings like David and Solomon having multiple concubines, it was an example of God showing approval of the sexual trafficking of women.
The facts, however, paint quite a different picture.
The first thing to draw attention to is the fact that the word “concubine” did not mean a sex slave in the Bible. Indeed, the Bible evidence for this clearly demonstrates that the word “concubine” was used to refer to a type of secondary wife.
“Second, although it might have been unusual for the terms “wives” and “concubines” to be used interchangeably during the monarchic period, evidence indicates that in patriarchal times, using these terms to refer to the same person was somewhat normal. Consider the following: • Bilhah, Rachel’s maid (Genesis 29: 29), was one of Jacob’s “concubines” (35: 22). But she was also called his “wife,” both before and after she gave birth to two of Jacob’s sons (30: 4; 37: 2). • Genesis 16: 3 calls Hagar Abraham’s “wife” (‘ iššâ), while Genesis 25: 6 implies that Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, also was his “concubine” (pilegeš). • Although Genesis 25: 1 says, “Abraham again took a wife” (Keturah), verse 6 seems to indicate that Keturah was also his concubine. • And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had; and while he was still living he sent them eastward, away from Isaac his son, to the country of the east (25: 5–6). • Isaac, son of Sarah, was set apart from all of Abraham’s other sons, which were born to him by his concubines. By implication, it seems that Keturah, who was not the mother of Isaac, was described as a concubine (cf. 1 Chronicles 1: 32). Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton believes this concubine-wife relationship to be dissimilar to what was seen during the days of David and Solomon. It is reasonable to conclude that this “coidentification” in Genesis indicates “that the concubines of Abraham and Jacob were not pilagšîm [concubines] in the later since, but that no term was available for that type of concubinage; thus pilegeš and ‘iššâ were used as synonyms to describe these women in the patriarchal narratives.” 1 In an article that the late Semitist Dr. Chaim Rabin wrote regarding the origin of pilegeš, he stated: “By alternating the terms within the easily apprehended framework of a story, a similar impression of ‘in-betweenness’ was created.” 2 Keturah was a concubine-wife. Its seems that she was more than a concubine (often considered a second-rate wife of servant status), but not on a par with Sarah, Abraham’s first “wife,” and mother of the promised son (Genesis 17: 15–22). Just as Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine-wife, did not rival Rachel or Leah, Keturah was not equivalent with Sarah. Thus, Bible writers were not mistaken when referring to Keturah and Bilhah as both wives and concubines; they simply used two words seemingly to indicate the “in-between” position the women held.” (Apologetics Press, Defending the Faith Study Bible, 1851-1852 (Kindle Edition): Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press Inc.)
Please notice how the Bible uses the words “concubine” and “wife” interchangeably, reminding us of the inherent connection between these words. Indeed, this is something which has been noted by historians and scholars alike.
For example:
“One of these handmaids, Bilhah, is called both “concubine” and one of Jacob’s “wives” (Gen. 35: 22; 37: 2), a second-string wife. So there was apparently something official in this arrangement, even though the handmaids were second-tier wives. Concubines at times were simply second-class wives, though still officially married. Or the term can refer to a second wife who comes after the first one has died. For example, after Sarah died, the widower Abraham took another wife, Keturah. First Chronicles 1: 32 refers to her as a “concubine [pilegesh],” but this term can be used of a legitimate wife, just not the original wife of a man. 3 Even the concubine mentioned in Judges 19 wasn’t a mistress; she was considered married to a “husband” (v. 3). The text uses “father-in-law” and “son-in-law” to indicate genuine marital status (vv. 4–5, 7, etc.).” (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, 111 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)
Again:
“concubine, a marital associate who bore children for a man and sometimes served as a secondary wife. The Bible frequently mentions men, in the time period up to and including the monarchy, who had children by concubines in addition to the children they fathered with their wife or wives (e.g., Gen. 36: 12; 1 Chron. 1: 32; 2: 46, 48; 3: 9; 7: 14). In a few prominent stories, a wife (Sarah, Leah, Rachel) gives her slave to her husband as a surrogate to bear children (Gen. 16: 1–3; 30: 3–13). These surrogate wives (Hagar, Zilpah, Bilhah) are probably to be thought of as concubines, though the word is only applied to one of them on one occasion (to Bilhah in Gen. 35: 22). The status of a concubine seems to have varied. Some references clearly indicate that concubines are to be considered wives (1 Kings 11: 13). Thus, Hagar is also called Abraham’s wife (Gen. 16: 3), and Bilhah and Zilpah are called Jacob’s wives (30: 4, 9).” (Mark Allan Powell, HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 143-144 (Kindle Edition): New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc)
What would the difference be between a “primary” wife and a “secondary” wife? There has been much speculation about this. Some believe the primary difference between the two deals with the “dowry” the wife’s family was to make to the husband.
“Concubine. A female whose status in relation to her sole legitimate sexual partner, a nonslave male, is something other than primary wife…. Scholars who assert that concubines were not slaves generally center their argument on marriage terminology, noting that the language used to describe a concubine’s marital status parallels the language used of “free” wives. Both are taken (lāqaḥ) by their prospective marriage partners (e.g., Judg. 19: 1; Gen. 26: 34), and a concubine’s partner enters into a son-in-law/ father-in-law relationship with her father (Judg. 19: 4–5). Keturah is explicitly both wife (Gen. 25: 1) and concubine (1 Chr. 1: 32). Also, 2 Sam. 20: 3 applies the term “widowhood” (ʾalmānûṯ) to 10 of David’s concubines. Some scholars speculate that concubines were of a lower status than primary wives because no brideprice (mōhar) was paid for them, or they brought no dowry (šillûḥɩ̂m), or both, but no biblical text either confirms or denies these speculations. Sons of concubines inherited paternal land at the father’s discretion (compare Gen. 25: 6, where the sons of Abraham’s concubines are given gifts but no property, with the tradition that the four sons of Bilhah and Zilpah—Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher—were allotted land by their father Jacob/ Israel). Concubines were part of the inheritance that was passed down to sons (Gen. 35: 22; 2 Sam. 3: 8; 16: 22; 1 Kgs. 2: 17–22; cf. 2 Sam. 12: 8, where issues of inheritance and intercourse with concubines are juxtaposed).” (David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 273 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
It is important there to realize that the “dowry” or “bride price” in the Old Testament was not a man selling his daughter as property! Instead, the “bride price” was actually a guarantee for the woman in case her husband met an untimely death.
“The idea of bride-price is presented by the New Atheists as though it’s a matter of buying a wife like you would a horse or a mule. In actual fact, the bride-price was the way a man showed his serious intentions toward his bride-to-be, and it was a way of bringing two families together to discuss a serious, holy, and lifelong matter. Having sex with a young woman without the necessary preparations and formal ceremony cheapened the woman and sexuality. The process surrounding the bride-price reflected the honorable state of marriage. Think of the dowry system used in places like India. In this case, the family of the bride-to-be gives money to the future husband’s family. Such a transaction hardly means that the groom-to-be is mere property! Why automatically conclude that a woman is property because this marriage gift is given in the Old Testament but that a man isn’t property under the dowry system? The bride-price was more like a deposit from the groom’s father to the bride’s father. The Hebrew word for this deposit (mohar) is better translated “marriage gift.” It not only helped create closer family ties between the two families but also provided economic stability for a marriage. This gift given to the bride’s father (often several years’ worth of wages) compensated him for the work his daughter would otherwise have contributed to the family. The marriage gift—preserved by the husband throughout the marriage—also served as security for the wife in case of divorce or her husband’s death. 9 In fact, the bride’s father would often give an even larger gift of property when the couple married. Hitchens’s complaint about the Old Testament’s bride-price is misguided.” (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, 117 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Books)
Second, there were times in the Old Testament dispensation when God allowed certain things to occur without approving of them. He did this for the purpose of preparing the people for the Christian Age, when Jesus would usher in the great New Covenant. While discussing why God allowed divorce and remarriage in the Old Testament, Jesus declared:
Matthew 19:8-He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
We must not forget that God worked with the nations of humankind where they were spiritually. He was preparing the world for the Messiah. As such, there were times when He allowed certain things in the world, and when He began preparing mankind for His rule through the Messiah by teaching the nation of Israel with His Word. By doing this, He not only began softening the hearts of mankind to the realities of sin, but He also worked to protect the most vulnerable (i.e., women and children) in a world where they were often treated with harshness and brutality. We are thus reminded that polygamy (the taking of multiple wives) was never God’s ideal: it was merely something which He permitted (cf. Matthew 19:1-13).
Third, all of this is a reminder that God’s way in the New Testament is the best way forward. The Old Testament was preparatory for the coming of the Messiah: and now that we live under the dominion of the kingdom of Christ, we are able to realize the potential that God has for each of us.
“One scholar of ancient Rome has aptly said that “the conversion of the Roman world to Christianity [brought] a great change in woman’s status.” 2 Another has expressed it even more succinctly: “The birth of Jesus was the turning point in the history of woman.”” (Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, 98 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan)
The more arguments I hear against the Bible, the more I am reminded of something that I was taught at West Virginia School Of Preaching many years ago: those who criticize the Bible the most are those who study it the least.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.