MGTOW A Culture Killer?

[rockfox]

I wasn't even looking for this, and perhaps it's not the most perfect example, but I started to continue my way thru Judges and just happened to be at chapter 19.

It gives the story of a woman who is categorized as a concubine (which most of us would agree was a specific kind of a wife) who left her husband to return to her fathers house and after 4 months the husband comes to "speak friendly" to her to convince her to come back home....It's interesting that the husbands approach doesn't seem to imply that he had any rights over her and that she had the final say if she returned.

Indeed, that is very un-wifely behavior when compared to the rest of scripture.

I've been studying concubinage in my attempt to better understand what marriage is Biblically as the difference between the two is illustrative. This is one of those areas where the scriptures leave out more than they say.

Historically, Hebrew marriage came with a lot of terms. You needed the agreement of the father, there was an often detailed contract, a betrothal, dowry and then dissolution was only under certain conditions and she left only such goods as specified in the contract; all negotiated in advance between father and son-in-law and seemingly without judicial oversight. Just about everything modern marriage isn't.

Concubinage on the other hand was different. Its status and details varied between cultures and through time. Sometimes it was little more than a girlfriend or mistress (sometimes live in, often not), in some cultures it was a slave girl and in others a lower status wife. Often it is exclusive but virtually always not considered a wife. In general for most cultures concubines were what we'd call a mistress and the Hebrews weren't far from this.

Hebrew concubines were exclusive and usually, but not always, lived in the home. They bore legitimate children. Biblical examples are often slaves but not necessarily so. Extra-Biblical sources document that they were without contract, dowry, betrothal, or marriage ceremony and could leave or be sent away at will; going empty handed (though a slave generally couldn't just leave).

You could define concubinage as a low status marriage (being exclusive, live-in, with legitimate children) but it really wasn't marriage, lacking almost all its trappings and having its own separate term. Being an exclusive relationship a concubine held a middle ground between marriage and harlotry. Marriage vs. concubinage was very much analogous to the modern difference between a licensed and ceremonied marriage and an exclusive long term relationship (what most Christians would call 'living in sin').

The word concubine in Hebrew is a loan word usually stated to be of uncertain source and meaning. But it likely traces to words in several very ancient languages, which give the sense (though in very unflattering terms) of concubines being attractive, non-virginal woman who seduced a man. In other words, it was a relationship freely founded on romance and not arranged with the father of a virgin as was typical.

So in many ways the practice of modern marriage is closer to the Hebrew concept of concubinage than of marriage. Modern marriage does have the ceremony and social/legal status of ancient marriage but in formation/dissolution it looks much more like concubinage.

 

[steve]

So in many ways the practice of modern marriage is closer to the Hebrew concept of concubinage than of marriage. Modern marriage does have the ceremony and social/legal status of ancient marriage but in formation/dissolution it looks much more like concubinage.

One other thing that makes it close is that in concubinage the children belong to the wife.
At least, that is the view of many Hebrew scholars.

 

[Grey]

Ideally women want to marry for all those things. But rarely does one man check all the boxes and when he does, its harder still to get commitment. As they enter their 30's and above things start going out the window. Many marry someone their not attracted to all that much but who is a friend and able to provide. These same women later often 'get bored' or 'grow apart' or 'love you but not in love with you' and fly the coop.

If this were the case, women in their 30's would want to be quitting their jobs when they married. The reality is the opposite. MGTOW has this analysis not only wrong but quite backwards.

The problem they marry for a nebulous and ill defined idea of romance, which is in and of itself focused on more or less temporary feelings. They marry for tingles.

It's tingles, not provision, women seek. They specifically don't care about the provision, though if they can get free money when they fly the coop they will, of course. Most people would.

 

[Mojo]

If this were the case, women in their 30's would want to be quitting their jobs when they married. The reality is the opposite. MGTOW has this analysis not only wrong but quite backwards.

The problem they marry for a nebulous and ill defined idea of romance, which is in and of itself focused on more or less temporary feelings. They marry for tingles.

It's tingles, not provision, women seek. They specifically don't care about the provision, though if they can get free money when they fly the coop they will, of course. Most people would.

Back to arranged marriages.....

Oh, the good old days.

I won't start a new thread, because it's been hashed out already. Arranged marriages eliminate the tingles.

If you get two tingly people together.....watch out. Recipe for certain disaster without a serious commitment to stick with it in Christ.

 

[cnystrom]

The problem they marry for a nebulous and ill defined idea of romance, which is in and of itself focused on more or less temporary feelings. They marry for tingles.

True. But before we fault the women, almost everyone that marries today marries for selfish reasons. Almost no one marries today for Ephesians 5 reasons. By that I mean to marry not for self at all, but as a way to further ones Christian ministry. To marry as another way to serve Christ and the church, by modeling Christ and the Church, which is another way to share the gospel. How different marriage would be if this is what people truly thought they were doing!

 

[rockfox]

If this were the case, women in their 30's would want to be quitting their jobs when they married. The reality is the opposite. MGTOW has this analysis not only wrong but quite backwards.

The problem they marry for a nebulous and ill defined idea of romance, which is in and of itself focused on more or less temporary feelings. They marry for tingles.

It's tingles, not provision, women seek. They specifically don't care about the provision, though if they can get free money when they fly the coop they will, of course. Most people would.

Good point. Though there certainly are women who marry for money. And if it wasn't about money at all they wouldn't demand child support and alimony as bad as they do. I don't think it is necessarily the tingles either, or they wouldn't be settling for the unattractive option. More likely here we're dealing with a desire for children and for the status of marriage.

 

[rockfox]

One other thing that makes it close is that in concubinage the children belong to the wife.
At least, that is the view of many Hebrew scholars.

Thanks for that, I didn't run across that in my research.

You mean belonged to the first wife (as opposed to the concubine who birthed the child)?

Biblically speaking you could go either way. In the case of Hagar, Ishmael went with her and he also received no inheritance. However in the case of Jacob's children, the children were seen as belonging to the wife whose owned the slave-concubine. You could argue Hagar's was the same way, Ishmael left because it was Sarah's will for him to go.

And then there is a third option, when the law talks about slaves, Hebrew slaves are set free at the Jubilee but only take wife/kids if they brought them into slavery (otherwise they belong to the master). Foreign slave though, were not subject to freeing at all and belonged to the master absolutely.

However both Jacob's and Abraham's concubines were slaves. In the case of a free woman who was made a concubine, I am not aware of any Biblical examples as to the status of her children upon her leaving.

 

[Mojo]

Good point. Though there certainly are women who marry for money. And if it wasn't about money at all they wouldn't demand child support and alimony as bad as they do. I don't think it is necessarily the tingles either, or they wouldn't be settling for the unattractive option. More likely here we're dealing with a desire for children and for the status of marriage.

Status, maybe. Children don't need marriages to be conceived.

In all seriousness, I think many of them just like the opportunity to dress up, be the center of attention, get their celebration, and have a princess day. I'm not joking.

I don't want to say all women, but it's a big motivation for a whole lot of them.

 

[eye4them]

In all seriousness, I think many of them just like the opportunity to dress up, be the center of attention, get their celebration, and have a princess day. I'm not joking.

I don't want to say all women, but it's a big motivation for a whole lot of them.

The trick is to sift out this kind of woman. I expect that these sorts of motivations are found more commonly in non-virgins than in virgins... by a significant margin. It seems better to not get married than to marry that type. I'm not talking MGTOW, I'm talking about seeking til found, and not giving up searching or giving up by settling. If never found, then don't marry, but don't give up either way. I don't see any biblical teaching suggesting marrying a trouble-maker. One is supposed to do things with wisdom and understanding. If a man has not found a woman that would be wise to take to wife, he ought to remain single, but to stop searching... that's a bad thing, unless he goes the way of Paul.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So concubinage is not biblical form of marriage and we know this because it isn't defined in the Bible. If it was something God ordained than He would have given the definitions and rules. The references to concubines in the Old Testament are simply a relation of the facts on the ground. Some guy thought he had a concubine. He didn't. He had a wife.

There were two kinds of wives, the ones who agreed to marry you and the ones who didn't. The ones who didn't agree got some small protections (the captures bride and the bought servant girl) the wives with a choice didn't get.

The idea that difference had to do with children seems like very thin sauce. Remember that many of Jacob's sons were through servants who had no choice and those sons partook fully in the inheritance and there is no recording of it being at all remarkable.

The Bible does deliver to us God's Laws for us to follow but it also shows the ways our forefathers broke and misunderstood those Laws. Just because the Bible talks about something doesn't mean it's God ordained or holy. I think concubinage falls into this category.

 

[rockfox]

So concubinage is not biblical form of marriage and we know this because it isn't defined in the Bible. If it was something God ordained than He would have given the definitions and rules. The references to concubines in the Old Testament are simply a relation of the facts on the ground. Some guy thought he had a concubine. He didn't. He had a wife.

There were two kinds of wives, the ones who agreed to marry you and the ones who didn't. The ones who didn't agree got some small protections (the captures bride and the bought servant girl) the wives with a choice didn't get.

The idea that difference had to do with children seems like very thin sauce. Remember that many of Jacob's sons were through servants who had no choice and those sons partook fully in the inheritance and there is no recording of it being at all remarkable.

The Bible does deliver to us God's Laws for us to follow but it also shows the ways our forefathers broke and misunderstood those Laws. Just because the Bible talks about something doesn't mean it's God ordained or holy. I think concubinage falls into this category.

Those are the same arguments used against polygamy. But there are OT rules governing some concubines, just as there is marriage. Nor is marriage well defined either; most of what we attach to that is inferances or cultural assumptions.

I am not saying the difference only had to do with children, that is but one of many potential differences. There is zero indication in the scriptures that men mistakenly called their wives concubines. The scriptures never say that; they use the word concubine without comment. Even worse, there is no separate Hebrew word for 'wife'. 'Woman', 'wife', 'female' were all the same word in ancient Hebrew.

Where do the scriptures call out concubines as something misunderstood, unholy or transgressive?

 

[Mojo]

The Bible does deliver to us God's Laws for us to follow but it also shows the ways our forefathers broke and misunderstood those Laws. Just because the Bible talks about something doesn't mean it's God ordained or holy. I think concubinage falls into this category.

Oh no Zec! Please reconsider. That sounds a lot like the antipoly stuff we hear so often.

I can see lying, or killings that happened with a positive outcome....but concubinage in the same realm?

I agree that it was a marriage, but all types of provisions were made in scripture to differentiate Jew and Gentile, Bond or free.

 

[steve]

1 Kings 11:3 (KJV) 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Solomon was most wise.
That tells me that concubines were not something nefarious.

It is easy for me to believe that his concubines were simply wives provided by minor officials that were not given full blown marriages.
There are differing lengths of time that are given for a complete marriage celebration, one of them being that it would last an entire week. Go ahead and do the math on 1000 weeks of marriages. It would seem reasonable to not give every wife that full celebration.

 

[steve]

I do believe that, under Naomi’s tutelage, Ruth was offering herself to Boaz as a concubine. That the marriage would have taken place that night.
But Boaz chose to give her the full-meal-deal and told her to do a fade until he could set it up properly and cover all legal technicalities.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I think you've hit the nail on the head @steve

 

[steve]

Song of Songs 6:8 (KJV)
There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.

Slightly different numbers here, but I am sure that it is easy to lose track after the first few hundred.
My point is the virgins without number.
Many believe that concubines were always servant girls that were pressed into service by the guys. I reject that totally because it would have made Solomon someone that I wouldn’t be able to stand. All of those wives and he couldn’t stay away from the servants?
No, every mayor of every podunk town and province would be trying to curry favor with him and sending him beautiful virgins was their best way. He had to choose which ones he would honor and what level of honor he would give them. It was surely an honor to the community of origin to have a girl accepted as princes/virgin in his “family” and I imagine that many remained virgins, but with a high social class.

 

[rockfox]

Many believe that concubines were always servant girls that were pressed into service by the guys. I reject that totally because it would have made Solomon someone that I wouldn’t be able to stand.

I appreciate your honesty over why you reject such an opinion. But both scripture and history testify that concubines were in many instances slaves / servant girls. How you feel about that really has no bearing on what actually happened, or what the scriptures teach. Case in point (Ecc 2:1-11)...

I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure. So enjoy yourself.” And behold, it too was futility. I said of laughter, “It is madness,” and of pleasure, “What does it accomplish?” I explored with my mind how to stimulate my body with wine while my mind was guiding me wisely, and how to take hold of folly, until I could see what good there is for the sons of men to do under heaven the few years of their lives. I enlarged my works: I built houses for myself, I planted vineyards for myself; I made gardens and parks for myself and I planted in them all kinds of fruit trees; I made ponds of water for myself from which to irrigate a forest of growing trees. I bought male and female slaves and I had homeborn slaves. Also I possessed flocks and herds larger than all who preceded me in Jerusalem. 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.

Then I became great and increased more than all who preceded me in Jerusalem. My wisdom also stood by me. All that my eyes desired I did not refuse them. I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure, for my heart was pleased because of all my labor and this was my reward for all my labor. Thus I considered all my activities which my hands had done and the labor which I had exerted, and behold all was vanity and striving after wind and there was no profit under the sun.

I highly doubt there were many virgins left in the palace. I could have said that from his history and standing alone, but Ecc makes it quite clear. Nor would the daughters or their fathers be pleased to be denied the blessing of a child by the King. If you're familiar with the scriptures you know how important bearing a child was to them. They were women, not marble statues, everyone knew what came next.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So I am very interested in the verses that ordain, define and codify concubinage. I'm not familiar with them. I'm not saying they're not there just that I don't know them.

My arguments don't apply against polygyny because it clearly is ordained and regulated. I'm willing to be convinced from Scripture, just no one has yet.

 

[steve]

So I am very interested in the verses that ordain, define and codify intimate relationship. I'm not familiar with them. I'm not saying they're not there just that I don't know them.

My arguments don't apply against polygyny because it clearly is ordained and regulated. I'm willing to be convinced from Scripture, just no one has yet.

 

[steve]

I highly doubt there were many virgins left in the palace.

You seem confused, exactly what does “virgins without number” mean to you?

Btw: I NEVER said that there were no instances of slaves taken as concubines. I just don’t believe that concubinage is defined by taking slaves/servants to wife.