Last night, for some unknown reason, I got the urge to study concubines in the Bible. My findings created more questions than answers, so I thought I would air them out here.
In the Old Testament, concubines were women who slept with and had a long-term, committed relationship with a man they were not married to. I thought this was an interesting concept that deserved further study so I pulled out my concordance. A concordance is a book that contains a list of every word in the Bible. I can look up a word and see every occurrence of it in scriptures. I looked up the word "concubine" and found that nowhere in the Bible does God speak against concubines. Nowhere. Apparently, it was an accepted form of behavior to Him. At least at that time.
In the Old Testament, concubines were women who slept with and had a long-term, committed relationship with a man they were not married to. I thought this was an interesting concept that deserved further study so I pulled out my concordance. A concordance is a book that contains a list of every word in the Bible. I can look up a word and see every occurrence of it in scriptures. I looked up the word "concubine" and found that nowhere in the Bible does God speak against concubines. Nowhere. Apparently, it was an accepted form of behavior to Him. At least at that time.
It's important to note that the Old Testament view of adultery is very different from our modern (or even New Testament) view. Adultery in the Old Testament was defined by a man sleeping with a married woman or a married woman sleeping with a man who is not her husband. Back in the day, women were considered property. Taking someone else's property is considered unlawful and immoral. It appears that there was nothing unlawful or immoral about a man sleeping with a single woman, as in the case of concubines. Men were allowed to have many sexual partners (multiple wives and concubines) but a woman could only sleep with one person -- her husband or her Sugar Daddy.
A very misogynistic practice. God has some splainin' to do.
A very misogynistic practice. God has some splainin' to do.
It's also interesting to note that in the New Testament, it states that a husband is to have one wife and a wife is to have one husband.* This begs an observation and then a question. The God that was God in the Old Testament is , presumably, the same God that is God in the New Testament. If that's the case, then why was polygamy and multiple sex partners allowed in the Old Testament but not in the New? Did God change (I find this hard to believe) or did the culture (and what was considered right and just) change? Did God create laws based on the cultural mores of that particular time? Or is this Bible business all a bunch of hooey made up by man?
I don't have an answer. I just felt this whole issue of concubines made great food for thought.
(* Although the male-female marriage model is up for debate)
(* Although the male-female marriage model is up for debate)
14 comments:
Grizz, take my hand and let's just sit for a while.
Girl, you know I totally feel you on this. When I thumped my Bible, I would gloss over these contradictions as though they didn't even exist. Of course now their existence makes it hard for me to go back to church.
I love God so much. The only time my ex-girlfriend saw me cry was when I told her how much I missed my God, and how I wanted to get back to the point where He was my best friend.
I was also taught the the Bible was His literal interpretation, but you brought out right here in this post how that can't be true. You know them Bible-writing men wasn't going to give up all that free nookie, so voila. King David and his buddies got to line 'em up outside the palace walls because "God said so".
I want to have the same faith I had when I was 16, but I'm not 16 anymore. I want my life shaped by the Bible so badly, but if I live one more year without sex, I will officially be classified as a freak. I want to know without the shadow of a doubt that I'm going to Heaven when I die, but knowing people the way I do, I can't imagine why God would put anyone in Hell anymore.
Walk in faith, Grizz, and then show me where that path is so I can go there too.
I understand completely how you feel, Alan. I haven't been on the best terms with God myself, but I think that has more to do with my warped understanding of God than it has to do with Him.
Alan, we'll walk in faith together. We may stumble around a bit and veer off the path from time to time (or a lot) but, I promise, we'll get there.
After doing this little study, I've come to the conclusion that you cannot interpret the Bible without, at the very least, taking into account the culture of that time. The question becomes which scriptures do you interpret through context and which ones do you take literally? And which ones do you discount all together because of human error? That's the stuff that church divisions are made of.
At the end of the day, what really matters (to those of us that believe such things) is accepting the free gift of salvation. (Alan, the idea of salvation is the only thing that keeps me communicating with God. Not because I'm trying to get to Heaven, but because I think it is a beautiful example of God's love. And a God that would love us that much can't be all bad.) Everything else, while it may be important, is, in the end, simply icing on the cake.
I even I think we'll see modern-day polygamists in Heaven.
I remember my pastor recounting a story of a village he'd visited in Africa whose inhabitants had been converted to Christianity. The villagers were also polygamists. The missionaries considered denouncing the practice of multiple wives but decided against it because there would have been scores of homeless women with no one to support them finacially if polygamy had been done away with. The humane thing to do was to allow their long-held practice to continue.
You know what? I think God's okay with that, especially after doing the concubine study. I mean, he allowed Solomon to have 700 wives and 300 concubines, surely He can allow a few villagers and renegade Mormons to keep their wives.
I'm not trying to act like I have all the answers because I don't. I just think that if I choose to believe in the idea of salvation (and I do) and if I believe that salavation is gained through faith and not through obedience to a set of rules and regulations (and I do) then who I sleep with or marry, or how many husbands I have, or whether I'm pro-life or pro-choice, or whether I'm a proponant of gay marriage or not, has little bearing on where I will spend eternity. All that matters is that I accept the fact that God loved me enough to endure heinous suffering so that I might spend eternity with him.
Because of that knowledge, I am suprisingly comfortable with this contradiction. I know that whatever conclusions I decide to draw from this exercise ultimately has no bearing on how God feels about me.
I may harbor some other warped ideas about God, but at least I've got somewhat of a grip on this one. (Or at least, I think I do.)
Boy, did I ramble.
I think it is more that man decided that having more than one woman was just too damn much trouble. Ten or twenty women PMSing at the same time, the cattie disputes, calling Delilah Bathsheba at the wrong time and feeding the harem is just too much of a hassle.
There are not many farmers or herders that needed the extra kids around to help with the chores, so why do it?
Nope! One is enough!
Well said, coffeypot! I'll be the first to admit that we women can be a handful.
Blogs and theology...gotta love it. I love how writing out our feelings makes things so much clearer.
GBabe -
You're rad, first of all.
I can't tell you what is what, but here's what I think -
I think that all religious texts were written by humans, and the Bible is no exception, although that does not preclude the possibility of some of the text (or all) being 'divinely inspired.'
I think all art worth a can of beans has the spark of higher consciousness and can be said to be attributable (oh jeez, sp?) to God. I might just be one of those "God is in everyone and thing" people, so I'm not necessarily talking about a monolith of a deity here.
Religious doctrine clearly 'evolves' to accommodate changes in human habit, awareness, environment, etc. Why did the Jews outlaw consumption of shellfish? Likely because there were outbreaks of red tide and people were being poisoned by the mollusks they were eating. Why the Catholic habit of eating fish on Friday? Perhaps because a certain king and/or Pope had speculative interests in the fishing fleets. Controlling women's sexuality? I won't launch into a feminist rant here, but you might be able to imagine what I would say here...
Religions reflect political ideologies, economic interests, environmental conditions and the lot.
This does not, however, invalidate their spiritual significance, truth, and even necessity, even if they are penned by the hands of sons of Adam (daughters? I don't know).
Religious myths are metaphors of the human psyche, a mysterious dream world that may well reflect other dimensions, and at minimum express human need. To me, God is not diminished if you don't literally believe in transubstantiation or that Moses actually parted the Red Sea. In a way, it is more satisfying to understand that these mythologies speak to deep truths in the human soul that are brought to the light of day via the use of poetry and metaphor. Stories resonate with us so much more than the "thou shall and shalt not." When things make emotional, psychic and poetic sense to us, I think we are more likely to follow a teaching, rather than accepting a plain order.
My boyfriend recently became aware of the idea that Jesus is one of many many "Sun King" deities, replete in world religions throughout the ages, and that much of the Bible appears to have been copied, with alteration, from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. He was not happy about it, as he does believe in a Christian God. I asked him why he felt so shaken - couldn't he still accept all the teachings as truth even if Jesus didn't literally turn water into wine? What if Jesus wasn't an actual historical personage, did that make his message any less valid in the hearts and minds of humans?
For this he had no answer, but it is clear to me that regardless of any God's material existence, the ethical systems (which to me mostly have to do with emotional truths - it HURTS when you cheat on your spouse, and that is 'going to hell.'), are every bit as valid. And, when we outgrow certain social mores, we shake off the old rules and adjust them for modern needs. Some ideas will likely never alter, however, like faith, hope, charity, and turning the other cheek. I guess we won't really know though, until people really live those ideals.
God bless you, GB.
Grizz, I like to think I know my bible pretty well, but I'm stumped by this one.
It used to puzzle me as a kid to read that King David, for example, was a man "after God's own heart," and then to read in a later passage that King David set one of his generals up to die in battle, so he could take that general's wife.
Or to read that King Solomon was the wisest man on earth, but he had hundreds and hundreds of concubines.
I'm wise. Why can't I have a dozen or so concubines? T'ain't right.
I don't know the bible very well at all but I'd guess that much is open to interpretation considering when it was written and by whom. There are many inconsistencies in it kinda like the broken telephone game where things just get different with the telling . The main thing I get from it is that God created this marvelous man, Jesus, and his life events were parables to teach us how to be spiritually kind people. In other words, he was a good act to try and follow. I believe in God and Jesus, the man, and trying to follow his example, and that there just has to be an amazing place that God has created for us to spend the afterlife. That's the Faith part for me.that God is such love that he forgives us and allows us to dwell in heaven after life. (Pretty simple view and it's not black and white, but if I get bogged down by details, I lose the larger picture and the more important message.)
Hey, those tornadoes didn't get close to where you stay, did they?
Yes, they did! About 15 minutes from where I work. My co-workers and I had to cram ourselves into the bathroom.
Holy Moley! Glad you're living to tell the tale!
I have such a fear of losing people ... especially now that I know so many who are so widely spread out around the world, and so many horrible things happen every day. When my internet buddy lost his friend in the Virginia Tech shooting, I realized a distant news story could suddenly intersect right through my life.
I say all that to say be well. :-)
I'd have to agree, concubines are always good food for thought. Bless them.
8-)
Almost forgot...you've been tagged!
I love Gods disclaimer where these questions are supposed to just die away in the face of Almighty Him....
Maybe this is beyond the pale for some of you, but what about universalism? What if God is so big He can and will save us all? Take a look at the links on my site if you care to. They offer an serious alternative.
I'm beyond the need to evangelize anybody or prove anything, it's just that you kind folks sound like kindred spirits.
Peace,
Mike
Post a Comment