Concubinage

The expression “the union of a man and a woman according to the Bible” refers mainly to the biblical conception of marriage, as it gradually appears in the Scriptures, from the creation in Genesis to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

1- The original model in Genesis

The Bible presents the union between man and woman as an institution willed by God from the creation:

This verse is fundamental. It contains several important ideas:

• a separation from the parental home;
• a lasting attachment;
• a deep union described as “one flesh.”

In this context, the marital union is not only sexual or social; it also has a spiritual dimension and the dimension of a covenant.

2- Jesus confirms this model

Jesus directly takes up this text when he teaches about marriage:

He emphasizes:

• the divine origin of marriage;
• the unity of the couple;
• the lasting nature of this union.

For Jesus, the reference model remains that of the creation.

3- Marriage in the biblical context

In the Bible, marriage is not always described by a precise religious ceremony as in modern traditions. However, several elements recur regularly:

• public commitment;
• a covenant between two families;
• faithfulness;
• life together;
• sexual relations reserved for the marital setting.

Sexuality is presented as linked to this union:

The Old Testament also describes complex family situations:

• polygamy (Abraham: Genesis 16.1-4; Jacob: Genesis 29.23-30; David: 2 Samuel 5.13; Solomon: 1 Kings 11.1-3);
• concubines (Judges 19.1-2; 2 Samuel 5.13);
• repudiation (Deuteronomy 24.1-4);
• arranged marriages (Genesis 24.1-4; Genesis 24.50-51);
• levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25.5-10).

However, the Bible sometimes describes these practices without necessarily approving them morally. Many accounts even show the tensions, conflicts and painful consequences that flow from these situations:

• rivalry between Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 16.4-6);
• conflicts between Leah and Rachel (Genesis 30.1-8);
• family tragedies in the house of David (2 Samuel 13.1-29);
• the turning away of Solomon’s heart by his many foreign wives (1 Kings 11.3-4).

Thus, several practices tolerated in the history of Israel seem to reflect an adaptation to the hardness of the human heart — show definition INF155 rather than the initial ideal presented at the creation (Matthew 19.8).

The encounter between the Messiah Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar is a particularly interesting passage in the context of this reflection on concubinage, irregular unions and the biblical conception of the couple (John 4.1-30).
This dialogue shows that Jesus clearly distinguishes a legitimate marital relationship from a mere life together or an unrecognized romantic relationship.

1- The context of the account

As he passes through Samaria, Jesus stops near Jacob’s well, close to the town of Sychar (John 4.5-6). A Samaritan woman comes to draw water, and Jesus starts a conversation with her despite the cultural tensions between Jews and Samaritans — show definition INF107 (John 4.7-9).

The dialogue quickly takes on a spiritual dimension, then Jesus reveals a precise knowledge of this woman’s romantic situation:

2- An important distinction between marriage and free union

This passage is remarkable because Jesus explicitly acknowledges two different realities:

• the five previous men are called “husbands”;
• the man with whom she is currently living “is not” her husband.

In other words, Jesus does not automatically regard mere cohabitation or sexual relations as equivalent to marriage.

This clarification is important in a study on concubinage, because it shows that in Jesus’ eyes:

• living with someone is not enough to constitute a true marital union;
• there is a difference between a relationship recognized as marriage and an irregular relationship.

The Greek text uses here the term anêr (“husband” or “spouse”), showing that Jesus is indeed speaking of marital status and not simply of a companion.

3- Jesus does not harshly condemn the woman

The account also shows Jesus’ remarkable attitude:

• he reveals the truth;
• he does not trivialize the situation;
• but neither does he reject this woman.

On the contrary, he offers her a profound spiritual teaching about “living water” and true worship (John 4.10-24).
This approach illustrates the biblical balance between:

• moral truth;
• a call to repentance;
• grace and mercy.

4- A probably complex situation

The text does not specify why this woman had five husbands:

• successive deaths;
• divorces;
• repudiations;
• or difficult social circumstances.

In the ancient world, a woman often depended economically on a man. Some situations could therefore be endured rather than chosen.

However, Jesus nevertheless stresses that her present relationship does not correspond to a true recognized marital union.

5- The relevance of this passage for a study on concubinage

This account can therefore be used to show several important biblical principles:

1. Marriage has a special recognition

The Bible clearly distinguishes:

• marriage;
• and relationships outside this framework.

(Genesis 2.24 ; Matthew 19.4-6)

2. Mere life together is not automatically equivalent to marriage

Jesus explicitly states:

This sentence is probably one of the most explicit passages of the New Testament on this question.

3. Grace does not cancel the moral requirement

Jesus welcomes this woman with compassion, but without redefining her situation as legitimate.

4. Salvation remains accessible

The Samaritan woman even becomes a witness afterward to the inhabitants of the town:

Many Samaritans — show definition INF107 then believed in Jesus because of her testimony (John 4.39-42).

Today, several approaches exist among believers:

• some consider that only a civil or religious union constitutes a marriage;
• others judge that a real and lasting commitment before God may suffice;
• some insist above all on the faithfulness and stability of the couple;
• others emphasize conformity to a precise ecclesial framework.

This is why a serious study of the subject requires:

• examining the texts in their context;
• a distinction between description and prescription;
• reflection on the evolution of social structures between the biblical world and our own time.

These three principles form an important basis for approaching honestly the question of marriage and concubinage in the Scriptures. Indeed, certain biblical passages simply describe situations lived by characters without approving all their behavior. Thus, the presence of polygamy, concubines or certain particular unions in the Old Testament does not necessarily mean that these practices represent the ideal willed by God (Genesis 16.1-4; 1 Kings 11.1-4).

It is therefore essential to distinguish:

• what the Bible reports historically;
• and what it presents as a model or a moral teaching.

This distinction appears clearly when Jesus refers his hearers back to God’s original plan at the creation:

Christ thus shows that certain practices tolerated in the history of Israel sometimes resulted from the hardness of the human heart — show definition INF155 (Matthew 19.8) and did not fully correspond to the original ideal.

Moreover, we must take into account the evolution of social structures between the biblical era and our modern world. In ancient societies, marriage often rested on family agreements, community commitments or publicly recognized covenants. Religious ceremonies as we know them today were not always described precisely in the biblical texts.

Furthermore, the contemporary notions of:

• civil marriage;
• free union;
• PACS ;
• legal concubinage;
• life together without official commitment;
  did not exist in their present form in the ancient world. A simple, direct transposition of modern categories onto the biblical texts can therefore lead to imprecise conclusions.

The study must then seek to identify the great biblical principles that frame the union between man and woman:

• faithfulness;
• lasting commitment;
• mutual responsibility;
• moral purity;
• respect for the covenant;
• protection of the family.

The apostle Paul notably reminds us that the marital relationship has a profound and sacred dimension:

Thus, beyond legal or cultural debates, the Bible seems to present the marital union as a serious, public and faithful covenant, called to reflect the relationship between God and his people.

This is precisely one of the most delicate questions of the subject, for the Bible never gives a detailed legal definition of marriage comparable to our modern systems. The Scriptures present mainly general principles, while the social forms of marriage have varied according to the periods and cultures.

Two main approaches generally exist among readers of the Bible.

1- The approach that considers that a faithful union can constitute a biblical marriage

Some hold that the heart of biblical marriage lies mainly in:

• lasting commitment;
• faithfulness;
• life together;
• physical union (“one flesh”);
• the couple’s social recognition.

From this perspective, a couple living together in a stable and faithful way could be considered married before God, even without a modern religious ceremony or a contemporary administrative document.

This idea rests notably on the fact that:

• the Bible rarely describes detailed wedding ceremonies;
• Adam and Eve had no official rite described (Genesis 2.24);
• Isaac takes Rebekah into his tent and she becomes his wife (Genesis 24.67);
• sexual union is presented as creating a form of deep unity (1 Corinthians 6.16).

According to this reading, the main problem would not be the absence of an administrative act, but rather:

• the absence of real commitment;
• instability;
• multiple relationships;
• or the deliberate refusal to publicly acknowledge one’s union.

2- The approach that clearly distinguishes free union from marriage

Others, however, consider that biblical marriage necessarily involves:

• a publicly recognized covenant;
• an explicit commitment;
• family and social recognition;
• sometimes a form of civil or religious authority.

They stress that, in the Bible, unions are generally known and recognized by the community. Marriage is not presented as a mere private cohabitation.

This approach also insists on the texts calling us to avoid “immorality” (1 Corinthians 7.2; Hebrews 13.4) and considers that sexual union finds its normal place within an officially acknowledged framework.

In this reading, modern concubinage is sometimes problematic because it can reflect:

• an absence of definitive commitment;
• a desire to keep a way out;
• or a conscious refusal of the marriage covenant.

3- An important difficulty: our modern categories

The problem also comes from the fact that our modern notion of “free union” covers very different realities:

• a couple stable for 40 years with children;
• a temporary relationship without commitment;
• a life together equivalent to a marriage;
• mere emotional cohabitation.

Yet the Bible does not directly address these contemporary categories.

4- What seems central in the Scriptures

When we gather the various biblical texts, several elements appear essential:

• faithfulness;
• exclusivity;
• lasting commitment;
• mutual responsibility;
• recognition of the union;
• sincerity before God.

Thus, many debates concern the ceremony itself less than the reality of the commitment.

5- A prudent conclusion

It therefore seems difficult to state in an absolute manner:

• either that every free union is automatically a sin;
• or that it is always fully equivalent to biblical marriage.

Everything probably depends on what this union really involves:

• mere cohabitation without commitment;
• or a true covenant of faithful and acknowledged life together.

The Bible emphasizes above all the truth of the heart, faithfulness and moral responsibility rather than mere conformity to a modern administrative procedure. However, it also strongly values public and stable covenants, which explains why many believers regard officially recognized marriage as the form most in keeping with the spirit of the Scriptures.

This is a possibility defended by some believers and theologians, but we must acknowledge that the Bible never explicitly formulates this conclusion directly. We are therefore obliged to reason from biblical principles rather than from a precise legal definition of marriage.

1- The obligation to submit to the laws

However, we are commanded to submit to the laws — meaning those of one’s own country:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God.”
— Romans 13.1

“Submit yourselves, for the Lord’s sake, to every authority instituted among men.”
— 1 Peter 2.13

In this area, marriage is part of the law and, moreover, goes back many decades. It celebrates, without any possible confusion, a covenant between a man and a woman, in accordance with the original design:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
— Genesis 2.24

“Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female, and said: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?”
— Matthew 19.4-5

Marriage thus clearly displays the principles we have noted: public commitment, exclusive faithfulness, a lasting union between a man and a woman.

2- Marriage: the only fully binding covenant

Consequently, even if other legislative and administrative arrangements might seem suitable, it clearly appears that marriage is the only covenant that fully binds the couple — before God, before men and before the law.

The apostle Paul, moreover, recalls the importance of formal commitment and good reputation:

“Aim at what is good, not only before the Lord but also before men.”
— 2 Corinthians 8.21

3- The other forms of union

The other forms recognized by French law — free union, concubinage, PACS — remain arrangements intended to frame other modes of covenant that depart from the biblical prescriptions. They include neither the solemn commitment nor the dimension of an exclusive and definitive covenant that the Bible associates with marriage.