• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

MGTOW A Culture Killer?

@andrew
I don’t really see enough detail in the story to answer your questions, other than to say that I feel that old Abe totally wimped out and didn’t take reasonable care of Hagar whom Sarah had given him to wife.
Maybe it was considered ok to just rape one of the servants so that Sarah could have a child, but I would like to believe that it didn’t happen that way. I would like to believe that Hagar was considered a concubine wife, elevated from servant. Sarah asking his permission to deal with her seems to support that position. But he seems to have kicked her back down to servant status when he answered Sarah.
It does seem that Hagar had an attitude, but a lot of the time attitudes come from the top down, and he wasn’t exactly practicing Godly patriarchy, imo.
 
From what I have pieced together about the concept, the only part of it that I might find useful is the limited-length-of-time factor.
There is much talk of male fear of commitment. With the horror stories that I have heard about things happening in relationships, I can understand why women would have a fear of making a lifelong commitment. As I said in another post, I would rather accept a two year, for instance, trial marriage with hopes that she would re-up and make it a forever covenant, than shrug my shoulders as she walks away with her fears of making a covenant before YHWH that could possibly be a lifelong mistake.
I just heard another story today of a woman getting beaten up on her wedding night. “You are now my property and I can do as I please”.

Btw: Part of the enemy’s plan is to attract abusers to practice their version of “patriarchy” in order to discredit the movement for all of us. We have all seen it happen.
We are in a war my friends, and we are the ambassadors for our side. Wise as serpents and harmless as doves we must be.
Stevie on a roll! This new marriage has not zapped your mental acuity. You are worthy of encores.
 
@andrew
I don’t really see enough detail in the story to answer your questions, other than to say that I feel that old Abe totally wimped out and didn’t take reasonable care of Hagar whom Sarah had given him to wife.
Maybe it was considered ok to just rape one of the servants so that Sarah could have a child, but I would like to believe that it didn’t happen that way. I would like to believe that Hagar was considered a concubine wife, elevated from servant. Sarah asking his permission to deal with her seems to support that position. But he seems to have kicked her back down to servant status when he answered Sarah.
It does seem that Hagar had an attitude, but a lot of the time attitudes come from the top down, and he wasn’t exactly practicing Godly patriarchy, imo.
Have we now morphed into a new topic?

I agree. This portion of scripture has always troubled me. Man up Abe! Why throw her into the desert? Grow a pair:mad:

This very portion of scripture is used so often to discredit polygyny too. Some extrapolate that all new wives after the first are essentially chattel and expendable like Hagar. They aren't considered lifelong and real.
 
What do we believe are the similarities and differences between Abraham's responsibilities in his relationships with Sarah (undisputed wife), Hegar (slave of Sarah given to Abe to make babies), and Keturah (described in one verse in English as a 'wife' (but we know the Hebrew says he "took a woman"), and described in another verse using the particular Hebrew word translated 'concubine' in English)?

So, I’m not sure if I’m understanding the question correctly, and I’m not entirely certain that this is aimed entirely at Abrahams responsibility to his women, but I ran across this the other day and thought that it might be apropos here.

One of the things I love so much about understanding the framework of a plural family is that passages that I have read and heard for years from a spiritual application now come alive with a practical, real time application as well. John 17 is one of those chapters that Ive heard repeatedly expounded on from the perspective of spiritual gifts that Christ gave to the apostles. However going back through it this week, I was amazed at the example that it gave for the gifts that a Christ-like husband is to give his bride and the sequence in which He does it.

Vrs 2) 1. He gives eternal life. . . . . That he should give eternal life to as many as thou (God) hast given him.
Vrs 3) 2. He gives knowledge of the Father . . . And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God.
Vrs 6) 3. He gives or manifests the Father’s name. . . . I have manifested thy name (much like a son who gives his bride the family name.
Vrs 8) 4. He gives them “thy words”
Vrs 9) 5. He provides intercession for them. . . . I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Vrs 11) 6. He provides security for them . . . . Keep through thine own name, those whom thou hast given me
Vrs 13) 7. He provides joy fulfilled/complete. . . . . That they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves
Vrs 14) 8. He provides “Thy Word” (my emphasis). As God’s Word is a covenant document for a sanctified people, a husband provides a Ketubah for a sanctified/set apart people. Both create a distinction in the lives of those covenanted. Not of the world, MINE.
Vrs 17) 9. He provides sanctification or setting apart through truth. A good husband will bind his bride to him with truth. Notice what deception does to the same couple?
Vrs 18) 10. He provides a mission and a vision and empowers them . . . Even so have I also sent them
Vrs 22). 11. He showers glory and honor . . . . . The glory which thou hast given me I have given them. The Proverbs 31 woman has children which rise up and call her blessed. Are they the ‘blessers’? Or merely the ones acknowledging the blessing of the Father upon a virtuous wife?
Vrs 23) 12. He gives her the gift of perfection. As a steward/husband, part of our job is to refine those entrusted to the best that they can be. . . . . That they may be made perfect in one.
Vrs 24) 13. He shows her love, as the Father loves
Vrs 24) 14. He desires/grants cohabitation . . . . I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am.
And he sums it up in verse 26 with a promise of the future that he has declared or shown, and will continue to declare and show Leadership, Love and Life

As a recap, the Good Shepherd gives Life, Knowledge of the Father, the Father’s Name, the Father’s words, Intercession with the Father, Security from the Wolves, Joy Fulfilled, a Covenant Document, Sanctification/Exclusivity/a Hedge through Truth, a Mission and Vision and Empowerment, Recognition/Reward/Honor/Glory, Gives the Gift of Perfection, Love that’s patterned after the Father’s Love, Close Fellowship/ Cohabitation, and a promise of Eternal Leadership, Love and Life.

Anybody else feel lacking? Challenged?
 
He did tell him to send her out, but the narrative seems to show a pissed off Sarah looking at Abraham and saying...."Whatchagonna do?" The next verse just says he was troubled or grieved. He doesn't seem to offer up much resistance to Sarah.

Is this a sovereign plan of God? It probably was. I won't second guess him. However, it doesn't paint Abraham in a good light in my opinion. It's like the half truth..."take her oh King, she is my sister..." You shake your head, wondering.

I've heard folks who agree that polygyny might have been okay back in the day, but that it's fraught with jealousy and strife and they point out this narrative. It seems like Abe didn't take the reins here.

Am I reading too much into it?
 
Anybody else feel lacking? Challenged?
Yeah I'd say I'm lacking in comparison to a perfect father/husband with a perfect love. I consider it a blessing to know we are lacking. It keeps me accountable. It challenges me to strive to be a better husband.
 
Last edited:
You guys do remember that Abraham didn't decide to send Hagar away until God told him too right?
That was after the damage had been done.
Genesis 16:6 (KJV) 6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid [is] in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
 
So about Abram and Sarai...

We have an issue here in the OT where marriage and esp. concubine are not well defined and this is compounded by the many centuries of different cultures and laws that affected it and the changing practice of it within cultures. Which got me thinking, in relation to Keturah and Hagar, Genesis didn't define concubine. If someone said concubine to Abram what would he have thought that to mean?

Well Abram was from Ur in Caldea; he was a resident of the Ancient Mesopotamian kingdom and we actually have quite a few of the laws from that time (such as the famous Code of Hammurabi). The dating of Abraham is uncertain but it is within the realm of possibility he literally grew up during the time that particular code was in effect.

Well, it turns out that Abraham's marriages involving Sarah, Hagar and Katurah followed exactly that law. Except the sending away of Hagar. Sarah was allowed to sell Hagar off under the law (being a slave), but not if Hagar has a kid by Abram. This explains why Abraham didn't want to (because of the son) and it took God to tell him it was ok.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that when Sarah implored him to send her away, she used the word also translated divorce; which really is what he did as Hagar went free, not sold. It should also be said they no longer lived in that kingdom or under its rules, but it was still their culture.

This very portion of scripture is used so often to discredit polygyny too. Some extrapolate that all new wives after the first are essentially chattel and expendable like Hagar. They aren't considered lifelong and real.

Funnily enough, in Mesopotamia first wives were purchased at auction. If a wife was infertile, she could provide a maidservant (slave), and if she didn't the husband was allowed to acquire a second wife. Said slave could be later sold, but not once she provided a child. But if a wife denied her husband sex or tried to bring ruin to his house, she could be sent away or just made a house slave. If she succeeded in bringing ruin, she got the concrete shoe treatment. Marriage was considered lifelong, but divorce was still allowed under law and contract with the wife walking away with dowry/payment. But divorce wasn't allowed in cases like the wife gets sick.

As to the aforementioned question on Keturah and the meanings of wife/concubine, I'm still working on that.
 
Funnily enough, in Mesopotamia first wives were purchased at auction. If a wife was infertile, she could provide a maidservant (slave), and if she didn't the husband was allowed to acquire a second wife. Said slave could be later sold, but not once she provided a child. But if a wife denied her husband sex or tried to bring ruin to his house, she could be sent away or just made a house slave. If she succeeded in bringing ruin, she got the concrete shoe treatment. Marriage was considered lifelong, but divorce was still allowed under law and contract with the wife walking away with dowry/payment. But divorce wasn't allowed in cases like the wife gets sick.

@rockfox that’s an interesting piece of info. Any chance you have a link or source info?
 
https://www.ancient.eu/article/688/love-sex-and-marriage-in-ancient-mesopotamia/

The practice of sacred prostitution, as Herodotus describes it, has been challenged by many modern-day scholars but his description of the bride auction has not. Herodotus writes:

Once a year in each village the young women eligible to marry were collected all together in one place; while the men stood around them in a circle. Then a herald called up the young women one by one and offered them for sale. He began with the most beautiful. When she was sold for a high price, he offered for sale the one who ranked next in beauty. All of them were then sold to be wives. The richest of the Babylonians who wished to wed bid against each other for the loveliest young women, while the commoners, who were not concerned about beauty, received the uglier women along with monetary compensation…All who liked might come, even from distant villages, and bid for the women. This was the best of all their customs but it has now fallen into disuse (Histories I: 196).​

This may well be important in understanding the OT concept of wives; which I'll go into in another post.

The bit's I stated about the law, are from the Code of Hammurabi, law numbers 141-149. One translation is here. But it's translation of concubine and wife shows indication of inconsistency so don't read to much into that.
 
@andrew asked a very good question about Keturah. I'll dissect the OT language in another post. Based on my research so far it is a question not hitherto answered in theological discussion. But I strongly suspect the answer may lie in Mesopotamian practice.

I earlier contradicted him saying in all cultures I'd seen concubines were never considered wives. However there is some indication I may be wrong with respect to Mesopotamia. But I also may be VERY right, as in a concubine making the claim to be a wife had negative legal ramifications.

But I can't yet say either way until I get my hands on an interlinear translation of the Hammarabi code (or other contemporary codes, it was one of many and no longer even the earliest). It talks about wives and concubines but the translations are inconsistent enough I can't draw conclusions without seeing the underlying cuneiform.

I've had similar problems with encyclopedic descriptions of Mesopotamian practice; playing fast and loose with the language and often making contradictory statements about the basic's facts of marriage (like saying is was for life, then going on to describe divorce practices; or saying it was monogamous before discussion about their second (or more) wives).

This has been a consistent frustration for me. We know what concubines are generally. But to say what they are specifically in an instance varies greatly from culture to culture. Yet in theological discussion of the text this is all papered over and ignored, or construed one way or another without justification from the text or cultural context.
 
I like the line of research you're developing here, and am looking forward to hearing more about what you find out.

To revisit my original line of thinking for a bit, say there are two reasons you'd want to take a woman into your home: reproduction, legitimate offspring, and inheritance (and elder care and support) on the one hand, and the labor she would provide to the household whether she's bearing children or not. Two motivations, two classes: the wife and the servant. Different ways of acquiring wives and different ways of acquiring servants can make things complicated, but where it really gets complicated is when you start siring children on the servants.

My speculation about the etymology of concubine ("lie with") just had to do with seeing that as a way to denote a woman you're lying with (and all that entails), so it wouldn't be used in conversation for 'wife' because that's already implied, but it becomes useful to distinguish servants you're making babies with from those you aren't. But then it gets messy again when certain concubines become real favorites, achieving wife or near-wife status, or when you're spending more money at the slave market on the ones that look sexually attractive than on the ones that look like hard workers.

Lots to think about. Again, looking forward to following the research.

I also find myself coming back to steve's points about the trial marriage. Historically, those of us who are living in stable long-term plural families haven't had much respect for 'revolving door polygamy', as it works out in some families, and 'trial marriage' is kind of a placeholder for 'sex until it gets boring' or '...until the first wife gets mad at her' or whatever. I get a lot of resonance, though, from steve's points about fostering commitment in a commitment-averse culture. I'm still not keen on the phrase 'trial marriage', and I'm not even sure whether we need a concept of 'marriage for a finite term' or whether we could just get by with 'room in our hearts not to judge those who throw in the towel after a year or two'. It seems to me that this issue is where we find what little we find in terms of how relationships are formed and specifically how they are ended.

This is not coming out right because I'm in a hurry to get out of here and go teach some lessons, but I'll come back to this later. Lots and lots to think about....
 
Just piping in to say that I remember listening to that section from Herodotus (via librivox) about the Great Babylonian Wife Auctions. I meant to post about it, but got busy at the time, and forgot. Pretty funny to read it all laid out like that. The RedPill crowd often uses the terminology of the "Sexual Marketplace" -- in this case, it is explicitly that. The man gets the most beautiful woman he's willing to pay for, and the woman gets the richest (and by proxy: the highest status) man who wants her.

Free market wins again? :eek:
 
Oooh... There's a painting based off this passage too.
1920px-Babylonian_marriage_market.jpg
 
I also find myself coming back to steve's points about the trial marriage. Historically, those of us who are living in stable long-term plural families haven't had much respect for 'revolving door polygamy', as it works out in some families, and 'trial marriage' is kind of a placeholder for 'sex until it gets boring' or '...until the first wife gets mad at her' or whatever. I get a lot of resonance, though, from steve's points about fostering commitment in a commitment-averse culture. I'm still not keen on the phrase 'trial marriage', and I'm not even sure whether we need a concept of 'marriage for a finite term' or whether we could just get by with 'room in our hearts not to judge those who throw in the towel after a year or two'. It seems to me that this issue is where we find what little we find in terms of how relationships are formed and specifically how they are ended.

I am a big believer in getting married with divorce not being an option on the table. Marriage is hard and if it is an option, people in our society will take it.

But I can also see the value in not having that in this way: many a woman has misbehaved once marriage occurred because once they had their legal hooks in him they no longer needed to please him. So many men avoid marriage now because they've seen over and over again the woman get fat and quit having sex once they've gotten that piece of paper.

Now concubines were often without contract and she could leave/be sent away for any reason.The horrible irony is that concubinage, carrying the threat of the man dismissing her, may be more stable than marriage 'for life' since she is in the position of wanting to please him; theoretically anyway.

In fact, legally speaking, a Mesopotamian marriage without a written contract wasn't a legal marriage. So our modern practice is, in historical terms, concubinage not marriage. Actually, its more reverse concubinage, since it is legally the woman in charge and the man who, practically speaking, has to purchase his freedom.
 
The horrible irony is that concubinage, carrying the threat of the man dismissing her, may be more stable than marriage 'for life' since she is in the position of wanting to please him; theoretically anyway.
Hear, hear!
 
As best I’ve even able to tell, even a Ketubah’ed marriage had certain understood expectations that if not met could have triggered a divorce.
 
As I was meditating upon the Code of Hammurabi and its relation to OT law I was struck by a realization. Foreign though the concepts are, the laws are not just practical, but just towards both men and women; far more so than modern law is.

That is a sad testament to our times, 4000 years later and we can't even manage a system of marriage laws better than the first ones devised.
 
its relation to OT law I was struck by a realization. Foreign though the concepts are, the laws are not just practical, but just towards both men and women; far more so than modern law is.

That is a sad testament to our times, 4000 years later and we can't even manage a system of marriage laws better than the first ones devised.

i dropped the bit about human law. (Early laws would have come from what Noah taught his sons anyway). Just consider the Old Testament.

Who was the lawgiver in the OT ? The righteous God.
Who were the lawgivers for monogamy and the mess we are in now? Licentious Roman emperors et al.
 
Back
Top