Abraham and his Concubines

[Thorwald]

According to The New World Dictionary (Second College Edition), a concubine is defined as follows;

a) “to lie with”

1. A woman who cohabits with a man although not legally married to him.
2. In certain polygamous societies, a secondary wife, of inferior social and legal status.

Given the above, what do you make of Abraham having concubines? Also, the scripture refers to Isaac as ‘the only begotten son of Abraham’, and yet, we know that Ishmael is also begotten of Abraham through his impregnation of Sarah’s Egyptian handmaid. What do you make of this?

We know that the laws given unto the Israelites came after Abraham, but these laws seem to be in conflict with the actions of Abraham (per above).

 

[geometer]

We know that the laws given unto the Israelites came after Abraham, but these laws seem to be in conflict with the actions of Abraham (per above).

Bring back the good old days…

 

[Fidelis]

Your post is a little hard to parse and I’m not completely sure what you are asking, but I’m thinking you are objecting to God’s (apparent) santioning of Abraham’s polygamy in contradiction to later laws forbidding it? If so, here’s my answer to that:

Try to get beyond the notion that the Bible relates events and history in the same way we would relate it. Just because we see people sinning in the Bible and God immediately striking them with lightning (as we might expect) doesn’t mean that God is condoning (or even tolerating) those sins. The Bible also isn’t the unsubtle morality play people make it out to be – you often have to read between the lines and see what ultimately results from the actions of the characters. Sometimes it takes a long time.

A good example of this is polygamy. People always ask, “If polygamy is bad, why doesn’t God condemn his servants or punish them when they engage in it?” Well, actually God punishes them by allowing the chips to fall where they may. In every case we read about bigamy and polygamy in the OT, something bad always happens as a direct result of it. It might take a long time sometimes, but you can easily trace it back if you take the time to do it.

Another example that constantly comes up is Abram’s actions in Egypt, where, to save his own skin, he tried to pass off Sarai as his literal sister, not mentioning that she was his wife… Well, after Pharoah found out he gave Abraham a bunch of gifts and sent him on his way? What’s wrong with that?

W-e-e-e-l-l-l, you might say that he consented to taking a little bit of Egypt with him when he left (much like the Israelites would do 500 years later, keeping Egypt in their hearts --it’s luxuries and idols – when they left). One of these gifts was a maidservant for Sarai, Hagar. What’s wrong with that?

We-e-l-l, it seems Sarah and Abraham got tired of waiting for God to make good on his promise of a son so they used Hagar to speed things up, Sarah nagged Abraham to produce a child with Hagar, the result of which was Ishmael. So what’s wrong with that?

We-e-l-l-l – As you know when the son of the promise (Isaac) did finally come along, Hagar and Ismael were cast out. Stinks for those two, but, ultimately, what is wrong with that?

W-e-e-el-l-l - as you also must know, the descendents of Ishmael went on to become traditional bitter enemies of Israel and caused them no end of death and trouble, especially when it came time for Israel to try to make their way to the Promised Land during the Exodus. It took a while, but what went around, came around.

Hope this helps.

 

[Thorwald]

Your post is a little hard to parse and I’m not completely sure what you are asking, but I’m thinking you are objecting to God’s (apparent) santioning of Abraham’s polygamy in contradiction to later laws forbidding it? If so, here’s my answer to that:

Try to get beyond the notion that the Bible relates events and history in the same way we would relate it. Just because we see people sinning in the Bible and God immediately striking them with lightning (as we might expect) doesn’t mean that God is condoning (or even tolerating) those sins. The Bible also isn’t the unsubtle morality play people make it out to be – you often have to read between the lines and see what ultimately results from the actions of the characters. Sometimes it takes a long time.

A good example of this is polygamy. People always ask, “If polygamy is bad, why doesn’t God condemn his servants or punish them when they engage in it?” Well, actually God punishes them by allowing the chips to fall where they may. In every case we read about bigamy and polygamy in the OT, something bad always happens as a direct result of it. It might take a long time sometimes, but you can easily trace it back if you take the time to do it.

Another example that constantly comes up is Abram’s actions in Egypt, where, to save his own skin, he tried to pass off Sarai as his literal sister, not mentioning that she was his wife… Well, after Pharoah found out he gave Abraham a bunch of gifts and sent him on his way? What’s wrong with that?

W-e-e-e-l-l-l, you might say that he consented to taking a little bit of Egypt with him when he left (much like the Israelites would do 500 years later, keeping Egypt in their hearts --it’s luxuries and idols – when they left). One of these gifts was a maidservant for Sarai, Hagar. What’s wrong with that?

We-e-l-l, it seems Sarah and Abraham got tired of waiting for God to make good on his promise of a son so they used Hagar to speed things up, Sarah nagged Abraham to produce a child with Hagar, the result of which was Ishmael. So what’s wrong with that?

We-e-l-l-l – As you know when the son of the promise (Isaac) did finally come along, Hagar and Ismael were cast out. Stinks for those two, but, ultimately, what is wrong with that?

W-e-e-el-l-l - as you also must know, the descendents of Ishmael went on to become traditional bitter enemies of Israel and caused them no end of death and trouble, especially when it came time for Israel to try to make their way to the Promised Land during the Exodus. It took a while, but what went around, came around.

Hope this helps.

I was already aware of everything that you wrote (above). Now let us go to the N/T. It is written, that as you ‘climb’ the church hierarchy, you must be a husband of one wife. Does this mean, that it is alright for a commoner to have more than one wife, but simply cannot be a member of the church hierarchy? I realize that a ‘marriage’ is between one man and one woman. If a man is polygamous (as per the O/T), was there a ‘marriage’ between the man and each woman? In other words, could a man have many wives, but a woman only one husband?

 

[Fidelis]

I was already aware of everything that you wrote (above). Now let us go to the N/T. It is written, that as you ‘climb’ the church hierarchy, you must be a husband of one wife. Does this mean, that it is alright for a commoner to have more than one wife, but simply cannot be a member of the church hierarchy? I realize that a ‘marriage’ is between one man and one woman. If a man is polygamous (as per the O/T), was there a ‘marriage’ between the man and each woman? In other words, could a man have many wives, but a woman only one husband?

Then perhaps you should have asked this at first without trying to build a case.

You have lost my trust (and I’m sure that of others reading this thread) and it is up to you to restore it. Why don’t you get to what you really want to ask without trying to set people up — an old but disengenous trick?

I’m pretty sure I know what you’re getting at, but I’m a little too old and experienced at this to let you lead me around the nose and set me up.

 

[Thorwald]

Then perhaps you should have asked this at first without trying to build a case.

You have lost my trust (and I’m sure that of others reading this thread) and it is up to you to restore it. Why don’t you get to what you really want to ask without trying to set people up — an old but disengenous trick?

I’m pretty sure I know what you’re getting at, but I’m a little too old and experienced at this to let you lead me around the nose and set me up.

I apologize, if I have offended you in any way. I was not trying to lead anyone. I am trying to understand the various scripture that pertains to ‘marriage’, etc. On the one hand, we have been given laws associated with fornication, marriage, etc., and yet there are direct conflicts occuring within these laws, by those that are also anointed or favoured by God. Your thoughts and interpretations in regards to these, are very important to me, as I cannot ‘balance’ them.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi Thorwald,
The question you asked is an important one. God at times allowed certain things that were not ideal because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts, while never commanding or approving of those things. Polygamy was one of those things, divorce was another.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

• Acts 17:30-31

When Jesus came, He corrected many of these things. Jesus stated that in marriage “the two become one flesh” (not the three or the 57). He also preached against divorce:

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

• Mark 10:2-12

It is important to note that there is no indication anywhere in scripture that God ever commanded or endorsed polygamy or divorce in the OT; He just looked the other way (winked at it), having bigger fish to fry at the time, like getting the Israelites to understand that there is only one God.

And the passage about a bishop being “the husband of one wife” has never been understood to refer to polygamy, but rather to divorce.

God love you,
Paul

 

[Thorwald]

Hi Thorwald,
The question you asked is an important one. God at times allowed certain things that were not ideal because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts, while never commanding or approving of those things. Polygamy was one of those things, divorce was another.

When Jesus came, He corrected many of these things. Jesus stated that in marriage “the two become one flesh” (not the three or the 57). He also preached against divorce:

It is important to note that there is no indication anywhere in scripture that God ever commanded or endorsed polygamy or divorce in the OT; He just looked the other way (winked at it), having bigger fish to fry at the time, like getting the Israelites to understand that there is only one God.

And the passage about a bishop being “the husband of one wife” has never been understood to refer to polygamy, but rather to divorce.

God love you,
Paul

I thank you for your response. Your connection to ‘divorce’ rather than ‘polygamy’, is something that I never thought of. It definitely bears merit. If a minister became divorced and re-married, but God did not accept divorce anymore, then polygamy and adultery would result. Neat!

 

[notself]

Your post is a little hard to parse and I’m not completely sure what you are asking, but I’m thinking you are objecting to God’s (apparent) santioning of Abraham’s polygamy in contradiction to later laws forbidding it? If so, here’s my answer to that:

Try to get beyond the notion that the Bible relates events and history in the same way we would relate it. Just because we see people sinning in the Bible and God immediately striking them with lightning (as we might expect) doesn’t mean that God is condoning (or even tolerating) those sins. The Bible also isn’t the unsubtle morality play people make it out to be – you often have to read between the lines and see what ultimately results from the actions of the characters. Sometimes it takes a long time.

A good example of this is polygamy. People always ask, “If polygamy is bad, why doesn’t God condemn his servants or punish them when they engage in it?” Well, actually God punishes them by allowing the chips to fall where they may. In every case we read about bigamy and polygamy in the OT, something bad always happens as a direct result of it. It might take a long time sometimes, but you can easily trace it back if you take the time to do it.

Another example that constantly comes up is Abram’s actions in Egypt, where, to save his own skin, he tried to pass off Sarai as his literal sister, not mentioning that she was his wife… Well, after Pharoah found out he gave Abraham a bunch of gifts and sent him on his way? What’s wrong with that?

W-e-e-e-l-l-l, you might say that he consented to taking a little bit of Egypt with him when he left (much like the Israelites would do 500 years later, keeping Egypt in their hearts --it’s luxuries and idols – when they left). One of these gifts was a maidservant for Sarai, Hagar. What’s wrong with that?

We-e-l-l, it seems Sarah and Abraham got tired of waiting for God to make good on his promise of a son so they used Hagar to speed things up, Sarah nagged Abraham to produce a child with Hagar, the result of which was Ishmael. So what’s wrong with that?

We-e-l-l-l – As you know when the son of the promise (Isaac) did finally come along, Hagar and Ismael were cast out. Stinks for those two, but, ultimately, what is wrong with that?

W-e-e-el-l-l - as you also must know, the descendents of Ishmael went on to become traditional bitter enemies of Israel and caused them no end of death and trouble, especially when it came time for Israel to try to make their way to the Promised Land during the Exodus. It took a while, but what went around, came around.

Hope this helps.

What went around came around! Did you realize that you gave an excellent example of Karma?

 

[swariffin]

According to The New World Dictionary (Second College Edition), a concubine is defined as follows;

a) “to lie with”

1. A woman who cohabits with a man although not legally married to him.
2. In certain polygamous societies, a secondary wife, of inferior social and legal status.

Given the above, what do you make of Abraham having concubines? Also, the scripture refers to Isaac as ‘the only begotten son of Abraham’, and yet, we know that Ishmael is also begotten of Abraham through his impregnation of Sarah’s Egyptian handmaid. What do you make of this?

We know that the laws given unto the Israelites came after Abraham, but these laws seem to be in conflict with the actions of Abraham (per above).

Because in Genesis 21:12 God himself called that Hagar is a bondwoman, not as wife.

 

[PaulDupre]

I thank you for your response. Your connection to ‘divorce’ rather than ‘polygamy’, is something that I never thought of. It definitely bears merit. If a minister became divorced and re-married, but God did not accept divorce anymore, then polygamy and adultery would result. Neat!

Exactamundo!

God love you,
Paul