The Placard: Part Three

  
As we continue the examination of Jonathan's placard, we'll keep moving down the left side and must point out several problems with how Jonathan misrepresents The Bible on multiple levels.
We've seen the mis-representation of Genesis 2: 24:  Now Let's now see how Jonathan makes an ill-informed indictment on the bible by errantly supposing that the "biblical example of marriage" somehow advocates the practice of having concubines simply because there are stories in the bible about people who had concubines. 

I think the first problem we have with concubines in the bible is the fact that we don't really don't know what concubines are.  If you ask someone on the street "what a concubine is", you are likely to get an answer that somehow implies "prostitute" or "sex toy".  Although there most-probably were men of the age who treated all women in this way, the mention of concubines in the bible is very a very specific reference to the cultural norms practiced by the people who are the characters of the Bible.

In the Bible, the term referred to a lawful wife, but of secondary rank. She was not married by solemn stipulation, but only betrothed; she brought no dowry with her (according to the customs of the time), and therefore had no share in the government of the family.  She could enter into concubinage a number of ways, including offering herself as a concubine to a ruler or influential/wealthy man.  Among the myriad reasons she might have done this are poverty, being widowed, or other ways.  She may have been taken as a slave and later elevated from slave to concubine (wife). 

Just like she could enter into a home she could also be sent away--but not empty handed.  While the patriarch of the house had no reason to "divorce" her (since they were not formally married) he still couldn't send her away empty handed.  He had to obey the customs of the time, which required that she be sent away with "a gift".  This is generally understood to mean money or possessions to help her make an honorable living away from the home. 

Jonathan mentioned Abraham, and cites Genesis 16 as his proof of his claim, which he says in this way:
                               "Man can acquire his wife's property including her slaves". 

This statement is not true--at least, not the way Jonathan infers by the way he says it.  It only takes a casual read of the very text Jonathan cites to make this point clear. 

In casual arguments with no consequences, I can see how someone might accept information from a trusted source and send it on before verifying it.  I don't believe Jonathan was malicious in this error, but there is too much at steak to let it pass without correcting the fallacy that occurs with how language (what is said and what is not), makes the casual reader come to a false conclusion.

Abraham was from the land of Ur of the Chaldeans – a place we know today as Southern Iraq.  He lived and practiced a lifestyle that would have been common to the people of his community and time.  In this community and time, women did not own property and had no possessions that were not given to them by their husbands.  Even when they came into marriage with a dowry, that wasn’t their property; it was their father’s property.
So we see that the idea of acquiring a wife’s property is moot and invalid, since in reality, she had none to begin with.  The wife had (as we'll see in a moment) had a place of honor and influence in the home, and certainly weighed in on the decisions, but it was the husband who owned all.

Before we go any further, let’s read Genesis Chapter 16, and start from verses 1 through 4:

"Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; ² so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. ³ So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. ⁴ He slept with Hagar, and she conceived" [break]

There are a few things worth pointing out here.  First, it was Sarai who had this idea to offer her servant elevating her from slave to a second wife for her husband.  This was a common practice among the people and time Abram was from.  If the wife had not conceived she would begin to fear a life after her husband died if she were childless in old age. 

In reading Jonathan's citation, you can see for yourself that Sarai was not some little whipping post in the home:  She had power in this relationship:  She told Abram “I want children—and maybe if you sleep with her, I can raise a family through her”. 

So Abram didn't “take” anything from Sarai.

What about Hagar, the slave?  Did she want to be a wife?  Well, we don't know how she "felt", but going from "slave" to "wife" had it's advantages during this period of time.  Abram was a wealthy man (see Genesis 13), so there were many (hundreds) of slaves and servants in his house:  The idea that Sarai chose Hagar probably (my opinion) indicates that Hagar was a woman who had come to know favor in Abram's home--Sarai probably liked her.  Think about it:  If you were pressed into choosing someone for your husband to sleep with, wouldn't you chose someone you liked?

If you keep reading throughout Chapter 16, you see what a big deal it was to bear children.  As soon as Hagar knew she was pregnant, she--over time--began to see herself as the leading woman in the home.  This infuriated Sarai who had been with Abram for many years.  As a result, Sarai exercised authority again and with Abraham's blessing drove her from the home.  Hagar cried out to God for help and GOd instructed her to return to the home and submit to her mistress (Sarai), which she did and was restored to the home.  God also promised Hagar he would bless her and make her descendants a mighty nation, just as he promised Abram.

We can see through actually reading the text of the bible that Jonathan’s assertion is invalid.  Abram didn’t run over his wife or treat her like a second-class citizen while hopping from bed to bed, having sex with whomever he pleased.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that just because the Bible talks about something, doesn't mean that it is a sanctioned practice.  There are many more examples of extremely crude acts that are performed in ancient times.  They are mentioned in the Bible as warnings to us.   This story is no exception.  If you gain an a full understanding of Abram’s life in context, you will see that God had already promised a son to Abram and his wife Sarai through their union as husband and wife (see Genesis Chapter 15). 
Because Abram and Sarai took matters into their own hands by bringing Hagar into their marriage bed, Abram brought strife down upon his house and the conflict between his two sons Ishmael and Isaac (and their descendants) lasts to this day.

Well continue to break the placard down next week.  Once again, know that I am not at war with Jonathan.  I just want him (and others) to know the truth:  That God is love and his word is true.  It is not contradictory and it is everlasting.  Because of that, Jonathan can know that God loves him unconditionally, just like he loves me and you! 

Until next time, Shine on!