MGTOW A Culture Killer?

[Quartus]

Strangely enough, I recently searched on Keturah back over last few years. Maybe I didn't go back far enough, but I couldn't see any reference to Galatians 4.

How does Paul's argument in Galatians 4 work if Abraham had two wives (free women)? He would have had more than one son of a free woman. So it seems to me that Paul's argument holds if Keturah was a concubine, and fails if she wasn't.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Or perhaps that extended the argument beyond the bounds of bond and free to include the gentiles which wasn’t his focus of that particular argument

 

[Verifyveritas76]

A thought just came to me. Perhaps Keturah was a concubine while Sarah was alive and a wife after her passing

 

[eye4them]

I think that makes a lot of sense. When different things are mentioned at two different places, it seems possible that the situation just changed between the mentionings.

 

[rockfox]

A thought just came to me. Perhaps Keturah was a concubine while Sarah was alive and a wife after her passing

It could be he made Keturah wife after her passing. Or it could be that a concubine becomes wife (or chief woman) with the passing of the wife. There is potential indication of the later in Hammurabi's code; but I'm still working on the language.

 

[andrew]

So it seems to me that Paul's argument holds if Keturah was a concubine, and fails if she wasn't.

I dunno. Paul only needed one of each to make his point, and either way Keturah is a redundancy in the argument. No need to bring her into the illustration. I kinda like VV76's, makes sense. But I think we also have to remember that it's just 'woman' in Hebrew, and we read our presumptions into it. She was his 'concubine' in one passage and his 'woman' in another, so a status change to 'wife' isn't necessarily implied, and she was his 'woman' any way you slice it. The question would be more like what point was being made by mentioning her legal status in one context but not in the other.

I think. So much to think about....

 

[The Revolting Man]

At the risk of being confrontational I have to ask what possible bearing the pagan Code of Hammurabi could have on God's Laws about marriage? Did He leave something out by mistake? Maybe He just adopted the pagan practices because they seemed pretty good and why reinvent the wheel? Or are you implying that what we call God's Laws are actually just Moses' refinement of preexisting laws and traditions and so to fund out what Moses (or the successive priests who wrote under his name) really meant we have to consult his sources?

Okay, so maybe I wasn't worried about being confrontational. But I am perplexed at why God's Words aren't enough. Why do they need to be clarified by all of these extra-Biblical sources? Are they incomplete? Is something missing?

And by the by, couldn't Keturah have been referred to as a both a wife and a concubine because they're the same basic thing?

 

[Quartus]

Paul only needed one of each to make his point,

I see it as one only. Paul is developing his argument from
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

This is the verse I had in mind:
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

I can appreciate an argument that it's before Keturah up to a point, but Paul is saying that the inheritance of Isaac/Christ is not shared with anyone else.

and we all

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one

have to be

in Christ Jesus.

to be heirs of the Abrahamic promise

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

If that inheritance is shared with the sons of Keturah, there are other ways, but there is only one way, so the inheritance could not be shared. Jacob's inheritance was shared, but not Abraham's or Isaac's.

 

[Quartus]

Perhaps Keturah was a concubine while Sarah was alive and a wife after her passing

wouldn't Chronicles have picked up her changed status?

1Ch 1:32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

 

[rockfox]

At the risk of being confrontational I have to ask what possible bearing the pagan Code of Hammurabi could have on God's Laws about marriage?

The OT scriptures don't define what a concubine is. Many many necessary details are missing. It is possible wife and concubine are the same thing (in some manner), but the OT never says that and it is historically very very unlikely. For most cultures, saying a wife and concubine are the same would be like saying a wife and f*ckbudy are the same; the claim would be both absurd and offensive.

And then the question of Katurah was raised. Since the OT doesn't define concubine, the word meaning itself uncertain, and its usage varied across time and cultures, I asked myself, what would it have meant to Abraham? After all, he would have understood what it meant when it was said.

Well Abraham was from Ur of Caldea; part of the long running Mesopotamian civilization. And it just so happens we have many laws extent from around that time (one even from his very city of origin). And they go a long way to explaining what marriage and concubinage would have meant to Abraham. Keep in mind, even though he left the region, he was very much of that culture, even sending a servant back to Mesopotamia get his son a wife from his people. Those laws are a codification of the culture of his people, of his culture, of his understandings of marriage.

And this approach seemingly fits, as some of his odd (to modern ears) actions in marriage are very predictable in the context of that culture's law.

Now Abraham is BEFORE the Law of Moses came. So the books of the law could not govern his actions since they didn't even exist yet.

But we have a similar issue even after Moses. The issue of dowry illustrative. OT law assumes it is a thing, even commands it in a certain exception (sex with a virgin not betrothed). But the purpose, meaning and rules surrounding dowry are never specified; esp. with regards to the general case of marriage (i.e. pre-arranged with the father). Even the general case of how marriage is created is itself never specified, at best only implied.

However, the laws of Mesopotamia, such as the Code of Hammurabi, do specify the general case and many details regarding dowry and its disposition. Many details which would be necessary for understanding the purpose and use of dowry.

The theological 'why' of all that could be interpreted in a number of different ways; I won't hazard a guess at this point. How to contextualize what we learn from said ancient laws with the OT is also an open question for me. I'm not to that point yet; much less how to contextualize it with the NT or today. These are not small nor simple questions nor are they usually dealt with in common theology.

I understand the impulse to think the OT law is self encompassing and sufficient. But again, dowry provides an illustrative conundrum. It is implied in the law that dowry accompanies marriage, and yet it is never commanded nor the basics of its disposition explained (such as in divorce). That is a conundrum not only not explained in the scripture, we don't even think to explain it ourselves because virtually all of us do not practice ancient/OT marriage. For us the practice of bride price, dowry, and marriage contract are unthinkable. Literally so, for though we claim to be biblical we never think to do such things as those in the Bible did. What few who consider them are as likely as not to find them absurd, archaic, or barbaric.

 

[Quartus]

There seems to be a lot of common ground here. Abraham was a child of his times, and I suppose the law of the land was pretty much what Noah told his children. After all marriage is an incredibly robust concept in theory - even in our day, what nations does not pay lip service to some form of marriage? It even seems to have been respected in those days. But it was complicated by slavery laws as well as other issues (like people for instance).

But all the same, it's best to make sure the tail isn't wagging the dog. It seems most people on Youtube think that the Bible came second, and all the originals came from external human sources. They didn't. People didn't like God's laws, so they made new ones, without improving on the original.

Deu 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

 

[The Revolting Man]

The OT scriptures don't define what a concubine is. Many many necessary details are missing. It is possible wife and concubine are the same thing (in some manner), but the OT never says that and it is historically very very unlikely. For most cultures, saying a wife and concubine are the same would be like saying a wife and f*ckbudy are the same; the claim would be both absurd and offensive.

And then the question of Katurah was raised. Since the OT doesn't define concubine, the word meaning itself uncertain, and its usage varied across time and cultures, I asked myself, what would it have meant to Abraham? After all, he would have understood what it meant when it was said.

Well Abraham was from Ur of Caldea; part of the long running Mesopotamian civilization. And it just so happens we have many laws extent from around that time (one even from his very city of origin). And they go a long way to explaining what marriage and concubinage would have meant to Abraham. Keep in mind, even though he left the region, he was very much of that culture, even sending a servant back to Mesopotamia get his son a wife from his people. Those laws are a codification of the culture of his people, of his culture, of his understandings of marriage.

And this approach seemingly fits, as some of his odd (to modern ears) actions in marriage are very predictable in the context of that culture's law.

Now Abraham is BEFORE the Law of Moses came. So the books of the law could not govern his actions since they didn't even exist yet.

But we have a similar issue even after Moses. The issue of dowry illustrative. OT law assumes it is a thing, even commands it in a certain exception (sex with a virgin not betrothed). But the purpose, meaning and rules surrounding dowry are never specified; esp. with regards to the general case of marriage (i.e. pre-arranged with the father). Even the general case of how marriage is created is itself never specified, at best only implied.

However, the laws of Mesopotamia, such as the Code of Hammurabi, do specify the general case and many details regarding dowry and its disposition. Many details which would be necessary for understanding the purpose and use of dowry.

The theological 'why' of all that could be interpreted in a number of different ways; I won't hazard a guess at this point. How to contextualize what we learn from said ancient laws with the OT is also an open question for me. I'm not to that point yet; much less how to contextualize it with the NT or today. These are not small nor simple questions nor are they usually dealt with in common theology.

I understand the impulse to think the OT law is self encompassing and sufficient. But again, dowry provides an illustrative conundrum. It is implied in the law that dowry accompanies marriage, and yet it is never commanded nor the basics of its disposition explained (such as in divorce). That is a conundrum not only not explained in the scripture, we don't even think to explain it ourselves because virtually all of us do not practice ancient/OT marriage. For us the practice of bride price, dowry, and marriage contract are unthinkable. Literally so, for though we claim to be biblical we never think to do such things as those in the Bible did. What few who consider them are as likely as not to find them absurd, archaic, or barbaric.

Except that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible long after Abraham was gone and with no exposure to or context of Mesopotamia.

So it sounds like you're saying that Scripture is incomplete, God left some stuff out and we have to fill in His gaps? But if God didn't defines it doesn't that imply that the details are left up to us? Much like He doesn't define modesty while still requiring it?

And my main question still remains, God handed down His Laws because our laws aren't good enough. Why would we ever loom to pagans to flesh out or illuminate God's Law? It didn't originate in Mesopotamia. They didn't have any influence on it. God delivered it to us as He wanted us to have it. There may be value in studying the pagans, but not from a theological perspective. They're certain nit going to shed light and a point of law that God failed to inform us on.

Look this concubine thing troubles me. Why is it so important? It comes up repeatedly and everyone makes the same assumption, since it's mentioned in the Bible it must be a command of some kind. The problem is that nowhere does God or His Law treat women that men are having sex with as anything other than being one flesh with that man. The NT goes to the extraordinary length of saying that you cause a one flesh relationship to occur when you lay with a harlot. There is no practical difference for the husband between a wife and a concubine.

But even if there were, would a Godly man avail himself of it? If you're going to have sex with a woman in a committed relationship with the possibility of having children, why would you want the ability to treat her like anything other than what she is behaving as, a wife? Do you want the option to not have to let your children through her inherit?

I ask the same question I've asked before, does Christ have concubines? Is there a lesser category of Christian who isn't a full bride of Christ? If marriage is a reflection of how Christ loves the church then I don't see room in that equation for a concubine. And I don't think Hammurabi can give us permission to add them in.

 

[Mojo]

At the risk of being confrontational I have to ask what possible bearing the pagan Code of Hammurabi could have on God's Laws about marriage?

No authoritative bearing...just historical context. Is God's influence upon man only written in scripture? That area was the cradle of civilization after the flood. I'm sure there was some Noaic influence still present.

There is the idea that there are Laws of Noah for Gentiles and Laws of Moses for Jews. I won't argue those, but they do exist.


The code didn't influence Moses, but maybe the code was influenced by Noah?

 

[Mojo]

And by the by, couldn't Keturah have been referred to as a both a wife and a concubine because they're the same basic thing?

That's pretty much where I lean.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So it sounds like you're saying that Scripture is incomplete, God left some stuff out and we have to fill in His gaps?

I get where you’re coming from @ZecAustin but when Scripture itself states that there is so much more that wasn’t written (John 21:25) that could have been written about the Word of God, as well as references to several other books written by recognized prophets of God, (obviously recognized by the writer of Scripture as Scripture) to argue that our “canon” is complete and entire argues against the witness of Scripture itself.

Wars of the Lord - Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher - Joshua 10:13
Annals of Jehu- 2 Chronicles 20:34
Treatise of the Book of Kings - 2 Chronicles 24:27
Chronicles of the Kings Esther 2:23, 6:1
Acts of Solomon - 1 Kings 11:41
Sayings of the Seer - 2 Chronicles 33:19
Chronicles of King David - 1 Chronicles 27:24
Book of Gad the Seer - 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of the Prophet Iddo - 2 Chronicles 13:22
Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite - 2 Chronicles 9:29
Shemiah the Prophet - 2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Nathan the Prophet - 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Samuel the Seer - 1 Chronicles 29:29

Not to mention quotes in Scripture from other books recognized as Scripture in the first century AD like Enoch, Testaments of the Patriarchs etc. and lots of very familiar phrases and ideas taken from these and other source books, used as theological precepts and examples for first century Christianity and our cherished New Testament.

Does that mean that the Scriptures are corrupted? I don’t believe so. It just means that God preserved exactly what He wanted to preserve in the format that would be presented to us, and that if there is something not included it was by design, not deficiency. If it was by divine design that something was withheld or concealed for a period, then the revealing of the concealed in our era must also be by divine design.

There are also at least two other mentions of books written and sealed up for a later time by both John in Revelations and Daniel. These are obviously not included in our canon, but when the time is right, no doubt God will make them known.

As I’ve said before, I’ve no doubt that the Bible is all true, but this does not simultaneously mean that the Bible is (contains) all truth.

 

[Nikud]

Wars of the Lord - Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher - Joshua 10:13
Annals of Jehu- 2 Chronicles 20:34
Treatise of the Book of Kings - 2 Chronicles 24:27
Chronicles of the Kings Esther 2:23, 6:1
Acts of Solomon - 1 Kings 11:41
Sayings of the Seer - 2 Chronicles 33:19
Chronicles of King David - 1 Chronicles 27:24
Book of Gad the Seer - 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of the Prophet Iddo - 2 Chronicles 13:22
Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite - 2 Chronicles 9:29
Shemiah the Prophet - 2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Nathan the Prophet - 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Samuel the Seer - 1 Chronicles 29:29

Not to mention quotes in Scripture from other books recognized as Scripture in the first century AD like Enoch, Testaments of the Patriarchs etc. and lots of very familiar phrases and ideas taken from these and other source books, used as theological precepts and examples for first century Christianity and our cherished New Testament.

So it sounds like you're saying that Scripture is incomplete, God left some stuff out and we have to fill in His gaps? But if God didn't defines it doesn't that imply that the details are left up to us? Much like He doesn't define modesty while still requiring it?

And my main question still remains, God handed down His Laws because our laws aren't good enough. Why would we ever loom to pagans to flesh out or illuminate God's Law? It didn't originate in Mesopotamia. They didn't have any influence on it. God delivered it to us as He wanted us to have it. There may be value in studying the pagans, but not from a theological perspective. They're certain nit going to shed light and a point of law that God failed to inform us on.

I agree with both @Verifyveritas76 and @ZecAustin in a way. I believe when it comes to understanding the Law and Grace, for the purpose of identifying sin, showing us how to live and seeking salvation, everything was provided, even by referencing verses from books that would not end up as canon. Thats not to say G-d did not place other truths in those very books deemed unessary for the purpose of salvation or other extrabiblical writings. I do not however beleive that anything derived from a pagan writings or laws can be called a truth. They may be historically significant for understanding very different cultures and a warped reflection of G-ds truth, but not a truth in there own right.

I don't know what modesty is but I know it when I see it.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I do not however beleive that anything derived from a pagan writings or laws can be called a truth.

Ive just found that often times, ideas (especially laws) that have been traced back to paganism have their roots in biblical origins if you follow it back far enough. Just as the Big Ten were codified on Sinai, there were at least 7 of the 10 already in existence since Noah.

Same thing with the zodiac. Just because the occult utilizes it, don’t mistake their use as evidence of origin. The occult simply perverted something that originated and was utilized by the 12 tribes for uses not originally associated with the occult.

Hammurabi was most likely not the originator of the law, merely the codifier.

 

[Quartus]

Nimrod didn't like the truth. He went to Shinar (Gen 10:10) and built Babel which was in Babylon,
Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

they didn't want the city that Abraham looked for, and to align themselves with the line of Shem (name) from which would come the only true way of salvation that would lead men back to God.

Scripturally, Babylon in the land of Shinar epitomises paganism (first, literally):
Dan 1:2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.

and then spiritually
Zec 5:11 And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base.

And spiritually it continues to thrive until it is destroyed at the return of Christ
Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

the pagans stole God's words and his theology and modified it to their own political requirements. We can see this happened in the past by the prevalence of the flood traditions around the world. The only way people would believe that all over the world was if paganism spread out from somewhere and didn't want to let go of a good story that they all took with them. that is history confirming the truth of the Bible. But the only things those traditions can possibly add are things that are in accordance with the Bible anyway, and the only way to find that out is to see what the Bible says anyway. It's a lot of extra work and a lot of extra argument to sift through this stuff just to have something that may or not be right.

Jer 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?
Jer 23:30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.
Jer 23:31 Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.
Jer 23:32 Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

Zec 13:2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.
Zec 13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

In our day of course, all sorts of people are on a mission to steal the Genesis concept of "marriage". It's so ingrained in our culture that people who you wouldn't think for a moment would want it, want it. But i don't think we have anything to learn from them.

 

[Mojo]

I do not however beleive that anything derived from a pagan writings or laws can be called a truth... but not a truth in there own right.

I think of it like creation. It reflects who God is, and his nature as creator, but nature itself isn't God. If a truth is a truth, does it matter who claims it if we know where it truly came from?

The disciples of John had truths, but needed to be shown a more perfect way of understanding. The mighty orator from Alexandria had truths from scripture he expounded on in the synagogues, but he needed a complete understanding of Messiah. The Ethiopian had to be shown the explanations and fulfillment of the unfulfilled truths in Isaiah.

When I witness to folks of other faiths, I like to find common ground we can agree on. I believe that even in the most bizarre faiths, some truths of God remain so that we can testify of him. Showing them who was the Way, TRUTH, and Life is the key to turning them from their incomplete truths.

If you like language theory, there are some theorists out there that believe just about all languages from South Asia, to Russia, through Europe (except Basque) and all of the Middle East show common origins from one original language developed in the the Caucus region. Oh they look and sound different on the surface, but dig deep enough and the theorists say you will see the origins. In fact, they think there might be just a handful of origin languages out there (Asians and Africans have their own). There's even a pretty convincing theory that original Chinese script (pictographs) evidences the Genesis story.

 

[rockfox]

Look this concubine thing troubles me. Why is it so important? It comes up repeatedly and everyone makes the same assumption, since it's mentioned in the Bible it must be a command of some kind. The problem is that nowhere does God or His Law treat women that men are having sex with as anything other than being one flesh with that man. The NT goes to the extraordinary length of saying that you cause a one flesh relationship to occur when you lay with a harlot. There is no practical difference for the husband between a wife and a concubine.

How can it not be important to understand the teachings of scripture on marriage and sex? Like it or not, concubinage is part of that and it wasn't clearly defined in OT law and so I'm trying to learn what that is. I'm not saying God commands us to take concubines. But neither has He prohibited it. Why should that trouble you?

God's law uses different terms for wife, concubine and maidservant. If they are not different then why the different names? Both God's law and the laws of the surrounding nations treated these different women differently. So clearly there was some practical difference. If they were merely synonyms there would be no need for different laws. And in the case of Hammurabi, those laws probably even enforced the difference.

You seem to be emotionally wrapped up in the idea there must be no difference. Please don't let this trouble you. I am simply trying to understand the scriptures as they are written. You keep trying to jump to the end to waive off all of this as meaningless; I'm still back at the start trying to figure out what the word means.

But if God didn't defines it doesn't that imply that the details are left up to us?

I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe He didn't need to because there was a universal understanding at the time of what the word meant. Maybe He wasn't giving an all encompassing law but rather providing protections to mitigate injustice in the common cultural practice. Common practice which to us is now lost and only decipherable by looking to 3rd party sources for historical information.