Book Review - Sex and the Believer
Concubines
“Keep in mind that everything that YHWH allows, the devil will try to eliminate, destroy or pervert.” Oh how true that is! The enemy has been attacking God’s ideal for marriage almost since day one. According to Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 edition, concubine is defined as:
1. A woman who cohabits with a man, without the authority of a legal marriage; a woman kept for lewd purposes; a kept mistress.
2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws.
In the title of the third chapter Moshe K. asks the question, “The legal concubine experience - where have you gone?” Well, it apparently has not left us; it has only changed names. Ever heard of the word mistress? It is found in the definition sited above. She is alive and well and destroying marriage worldwide. Some would say that a wife should simply accept her husband’s mistress as a blessing, allowing her to do those “nasty” things that she may not want to do. I say, “Why does your husband want to engage in nasty behavior?” Does this sound like a godly man? I don’t think so.
No one will argue the fact that many Biblical characters had concubines. Personally it is not the status that I would like to find myself in, but I’m sure that there are women who would be willing to be nothing more than a sex slave for some man rather than have no man at all. Please take note that not one of these women (a concubine) is held in high regard by the man they serve, as none have gained the status of matriarch. The only time the word rape appears in the Bible is in reference to something terrible that happened to a Levite’s concubine, but we will address that story later.
This next part is where it gets a little weird. I have heard through the grape vine that this teaching will not be included in the second edition, and I think the reason will soon become evident. We have already discussed what a man who is married to a “refrigerator wife,” but what about the woman whose husband is cold as ice? What can she do?
MK writes, “Now we get into a taboo and very sensitive subject. In biblical times when Torah was written, did married women have any other options? What about male concubines and sex slaves for women?” He continues, “If a concubine was not considered a full legal wife, then a male concubine would not be considered a full legal husband. I believe that male concubines, mostly unmarried, or gay, were used as sex objects by ancient women in biblical days even within Israel.”
It is clear to Moshe that this is exactly what they did, but it is not so clear to me. Yes, it is true; the word concubine can refer to a male or a female, but that does not mean that Israelite women would engage in such behavior. One can’t help but wonder where this idea came from, so I quickly scanned ahead to see what the Scripture reference was given. This is what he states: “Ecclesiastes 2:8 give us a hidden look into the world of women having sex with male concubines. You’ll have to look between the lines.” That is not understatement!
Also, I collected for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I provided for myself male and female singers and the pleasures of men–many concubines. (Ecclesiastes 2:8)
Mr. Koniuchowsky explains it this way:
It seems Solomon had male and female concubines; since we have no record of his having been “gay,” we can assume the male concubines he collected were for his 700 wives, when he could not pay attention to them. Smart guy!
Now one may make the argument that Scripture forbids a woman sleeping with a male concubine as seen in Numbers 5:1-31 in the “law of a jealous husband.” The question is, do these verses referring to the “laws of a jealous husband” forbid the wife from lying carnally with a male concubine for intercourse?… NO. Concubinage was a separate classification and allowance by YHWH and was NOT considered adultery! So it seems that as best we can ascertain, that this was one way women chose to relive themselves of sexual neglect and lack of intimacy…”
First, the verse referenced above does not state that he had male concubines. Male singers, yes, and concubines, but he qualifies the concubine statement with, “the pleasures of men,” obviously referring to his concubines. Second, I would like to ask Mr. Koniuchowsky what would happen if the slave impregnated the woman? Would that not count as adultery? And third, I would like to know what he has to say about Joseph and Potiphar’s wife? Earlier it was clearly stated that Joseph could not sleep with her because that would have been adultery, but now he is stating that it would not be considered adultery because he was a slave. Which is it, Mr. Koniuchowsky?
They engaged in all types of sex including intercourse with the male concubines. Remember any sex act outside marriage by a married woman is adultery. However, in the society because concubines were provided for and allowed by YHWH, sex acts with a concubine was not considered adultery, as long as money did not change hands. Somehow it escaped that classification.
Again we find Mr. Moshe K. speaking on speculation as if it were proven fact. How does he know that Israelite women engaged in this behavior? Assuming that Solomon did engage male concubines to pleasure his lonely wives, why should we assume that these wives were Israelites, when we know that multiple foreign wives caused Solomon’s downfall? Having failed to prove that women were permitted concubines, it is a bold statement to say that Adonai provided for an allowed male concubines for his female children. Heck, Moshe hasn’t even proven that Adonai provided for concubines in the first place, only that he allows for them. There is a definite difference between the two.
It is indeed sad that women don’t seem to be treated the same way as men in Torah, but that is no reason to twist Scripture to provide for them when they have a husband whose main job is to provide for their every need. MK even takes a beautiful scene between a husband and a wife, found in Song of Solomon chapter 7, and twists it to sound like the act of a male concubine. After quoting verses one through three, Moshe concludes, “Most neglected women would gladly settle for this, if hubby isn’t up to par; don’t you think?” To which I reply, “If hubby isn’t up to par, does he really deserve a second wife?”
A husband is supposed to care for his wife, providing for her needs both physically and emotionally. The word cherish is defined as: to be fond of; be attached to (with the synonyms to care for, hold dear, and treasure). Paul tells us:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Messiah also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Messiah also does the church, because we are members of His body. (Ephesians 5:25-30)
When a husband is more interested in the needs of his own flesh than the needs of his wife, is he truly treating her as his own body? The concept of the husband and wife relationship is very important to understanding our relationship with our Eternal Husband, so we need to be sure that we truly understand Adonai’s will in this matter. Do we believe that He cares so little about His female children?
Mr. Koniuchowsky wraps up his teaching with “a more excellent way” for women to cope with being unsatisfied. It is a shame that he can’t see that this more excellent way is open to men as well.
Of course there is even a more excellent way for women (See First Corinthians chapter 13). If they fall deeply in love with Yahshua and see Him alone as the only Husband they will ever need, they can survive any bad situation, or trying circumstance that life should bring their way. Women who choose this calling and path, must be called to it by YHWH, where the natural use of a man is no longer needed, or sought after; there the woman has so refocused her desires and affections on Yahshua, that physical pleasure is not something that she needs to survive. Of course, that is nice when that happens, but as Yahshua said, ‘it is not given all, but this gift is given to a few.”
Does anyone know where Yeshua supposedly stated this? Again, Moshe K. makes a bold statement without any Scriptural backing. Could it be that he has simply confused Yeshua with Paul?
Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:7-9)
Paul teaches that any one of us, if called, can live this more excellent way, not just women. There is a little something called self-control, which we are all call to practice. Moshe K. seems to have missed that part of the teaching, as well as this part:
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Corinthians 7:4)
As any mistress will tell you, a concubine has no control over the body of her lover, but he does have control over hers. Only a full-fledged wife can claim her husband’s body as her own. And his body is not his to give away to another woman, regardless of what Torah allows due to the hardness of our hearts. Remember, divorce is permitted in cases of adultery.