Bible Studies

---

While translating Song of Songs (sometimes called Song of Solomon) I quickly realized I was walking into something beyond Hebrew language. How so? Hebrew has fewer words than other languages. So, Hebrew words are required to do double-duty. Many Hebrew words have three or four meanings—depending on context. The poetry of Song of Songs really pushed those boundaries—far beyond any other book.

What is the difference between a wife and a concubine? The short answer is: a concubine is a wife, but not exactly. For Hebrews, a concubine is referred to by the Hebrew word “pil-e-gesh” (Strongs #6370). Although lexicons seldom venture into the origins of this word (pil-e-gesh), it is closely related to the Aramaic word “palga-isha,” meaning “half-wife.” A cognate term later appeared in Greek as a loan word, “pallax-pallakis,” also meaning “half-wife.”

Sorry to take you through such detail, but unless the etymologies were explored, the ongoing references to “half” or “section” could be overlooked. This unusual word has many clever and poetic connections throughout Song of Songs (So 2:2; 2:13; 2:17; 3:7; 4:3; 4:4; 6:2; 6:6; 6:7 6:8; 6:11; 7:13; 8:11; 8:13). Hebrew poetry loves progressive word pictures. Solomon skillfully describes the pomegranate being divided into sections. So, your Bible is giving you a clue that “half” is going to recur and make a distinction between the concubine (Shunemite) and the full-wife (Shulamite).

When we know the difference between wife and concubine, we will know a little more about the work of the Shulamite bride when she goes to heaven. In our time, the word “concubine” is largely misunderstood. Westerners mistakenly equate concubine with harem, but harem is an entirely different Hebrew word, with an entirely different definition.

Unlike westerners, the Israelite community was quick to acknowledge and respect a concubine’s legal rights—but Israelites could not have done so without having a precise understanding of their legal boundaries. Song of Songs forces us to distinguish between wife and concubine.

A full-wife exercised greater authority in their household. A concubines, however, enjoyed the same legal rights as a “full” wife. (Jg 20:3-5) Taking a full-wife required the would-be husband to compensate her family, while concubines were acquired without any cost. The message seemed to be: losing such a valuable daughter would cause the family she came from a great loss. The proverbial “bride price” carried with it many cultural and psychological messages that gave her more prominence in her new household.

The Hebrew word for bride price is “mo-har” (Strongs #4119). This word appears four times in your Bible (Ge 34:12; Ex 22:16-17; 1Sa 18:25). Further bridal definitions reverberate through other related words. For instance: one Hebrew word for husband is “bah-al” (Strongs #1167) which means, owner, and by default, husband (in some instances). Its definition is derived from the idea that this person has made a deal—a financial deal.

One Hebrew word for wife is “bah-al-aw” (Strongs #1172) which means, female owner, partner of the bah-al (male owner). It’s definition is critical to understand the authority of the Shulamite. As So 8:12 teaches us she acts as a bah-al-aw (female owner). She owns vineyards and exercises authority over the keepers. Why else would So 8:11 refer to her partner, Solomon, as bah-al ha-mon (husband/owner of a multitude)? They, in partnership, command the sons and daughters of Zion—quite a multitude.

The bride price is not to be confused with, dowry. A dowry contains the idea of a dismissal. A benevolent father would send his daughter with something of value. Her “dismissal” gift was given with the intention to gain some measure of independence in her new household. Possibly a “dowry” kept her safe, from the heavy hand of a female owner (or bah-al-aw). For Hebrews, however, giving a “dowry” was not practiced in Israel. The word “dowry” doesn’t even appear in your Bible until the marriage of king Solomon. In that event, a foreign woman brought a “dowry,” because she was foreign, from Egypt. (1Ki 9:16) Here, the dowry was the city of Gezer, which means “section, or half.” Are you starting to see the pattern?

Although no money was given for a concubine, the concubine was due the same respect and inviolability as the “full” wife. It was still illegal, for another man to lay hands on a concubine. David, for example, was fully dishonored when Absalom forced sex on his concubines. (2Sa 16:20-22) The point is: David was not “half” dishonored.

So, why have concubines? It was regarded as a direct blessing from God to have many children. The greatest curse in Israel was to be without heirs. “Full” wives enthusiastically gave their servant women as concubines, to overcome their own lack of prodigy. Leah did this with Zilpah, and Rachel did this with Bilhah. These concubines, and the children from these concubines, had equal rights with those of the “full” wife.

For example: Bilhah (Jacob’s concubine) gave birth to Dan and Naphtali. Zilpah (Jacob’s other concubine) gave birth to Gad and Asher. Which one of these tribes were illegitimate? None! All received God’s tribal blessing. Regardless of the mother’s ranking in the household, every son was equal in God’s sight. It didn’t matter if two of the four mothers were concubines. Bilhah and Zilpah may not have enjoyed the authority that Rachel and Leah had, but they too were legitimate wives, half-wives.

Again, if you don’t understand the above, you will miss the progressive clarity centered at So 6:7, where Solomon is really describing the world to come. Song of Songs provides a peek into the millennial rule, a peek not to be found in such detail anywhere else in holy text.

The millennial rule describes an earth divided into sections. “This husband of the multitude gave THE VINEYARD to those given to him. Each would bring forth its fruit, a thousand pieces of silver. My vineyard is mine. Before me is the thousand, to you Solomon. Two hundred, to those tending his FRUIT.” –So 8:11-12

The earth’s leadership, during this millennial reign will be honorable and legitimate members of God’s family, but not equivalent to the bride class who were raptured to heaven. So, Solomon’s “bride class” were bought with an awful price—the blood of their husband. The Shulamite is a full-wife. Her husband paid for her with his blood. (1Cor 7:23) So, why are the un-raptured not described as “paid for with his blood?” That answer requires a different word study.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE