Biblical Lifestyles vs. Contemporary Lifestyles

Bible Lifestyle Values vs. Contemporary Lifestyle values













Abraham, Sarai and Hagar

A Normal Lifestyle or An Alternative Lifestyle

By

Ronald Barnes

















March 26, 2015







I read a book by Sara Miles called "Take this Bread." She referenced a
comment made to her that stated "Good exegesis is to stay literal". I will
keep this in the forefront of my mind as I write this paper. The focus of
this Exegesis paper will be on the sociological setting, social customs and
cultural practices that are mentioned or assumed in the text Genesis 16: 1-
16. I will attempt to describe how the history, location, sociological
setting, customs and practices of the time influence the text's (Gen 16: 1-
16) meaning, influenced the behavior, decisions and actions of Abraham,
Sarai and Hagar. I will also attempt to find clues in the text that
indicate how the community constructs its practices and beliefs. It is no
surprise that the actions of Sarai, Abraham and Hagar are considered
alternative behavior unacceptable to the mainstream value system of our
contemporary society, today. This Exegesis paper is to show how completely
normal the lifestyle, behavior, decisions and actions were for Sarai,
Abraham and Hagar during the time in which they lived. Though it is not a
primary concern of this exegesis, one cannot help but wonder what has
caused society to change over the years such that a behavior once
considered normal and compatible with Godly devotion has come to be
considered unethical and immoral in our contemporary society. Science
advancements such as vitro-fertilization, artificial insemination, freezing
and preservation of female eggs are two scientific advancements that have
caused a paradigm change in the methods of conception. The methods of
conception, sex, sex outside of marriage, multiple wives, surrogate birth,
or the plight of women lacking control of their own bodies is not the real
subject or purpose of this document. The issues mentioned above are all
valid issues deserving of in depth intelligent discourse and that have
experienced changing viewpoints over the centuries. However, the primary
focus of this paper is to argue the literal value of biblical thought and
practice; to evaluate the Bible doctrine in terms of God's law compared to
what is written, rewritten and redacted in accordance with the will and
interest of man rather than God. As time develops and change occurs the
Bible is subject to change depending on what is in man's best interest.
What is the real value of Religious Doctrine that can change at the whim of
man to re-evaluate the Bible doctrine in terms of man's best interest and
advantage rather than what God's wants? Does man know what God wants or
does man confuse his own wants with God's? If the practice engaged between
Abraham, Sarai and Hagar was acceptable according to Biblical law in
ancient times and a practiced sanctioned by God, what has God changed that
makes the same practice conventionally unacceptable in today's modern
society? This raises the issue of the Bibles validity as a book written
according to the will of God or a Book written according to the will of
Man. What makes the situation engaged between Abraham, Sarai and Hagar
acceptable then and conventionally unacceptably now? Although Hagar became
resentful of the conditions that developed in the aftermath of her
conception and childbirth; she did not display resentment before or during
the act of conception with Abraham. This would lead one to believe Hagar,
herself, was, initially, in agreement with the relationship share between
herself, Abraham and Sarai. It is important to establish that Abraham,
Sarai and Hagar were mutually accepting of the lifestyle conditions of
surrogacy during the biblical times they lived.

This is in no way a condemnation for the Holy Christian Bible. I do argue,
however, in terms of reading the Bible with a scrutiny that discerns what
parts of the scripture is conjured in the best interest of man from
scripture that is truly inspired by God.

I want to set the Historical context and time frame for Sarai, Abraham and
Hagar. The reason it is important to date Abraham is to give jurisdiction
to the social laws, customs and practices that governed the behavior,
actions and decisions of Abraham, Sarai and Hagar during the times they
lived. Dating Abraham seems to be ambiguous according to most scholars.
While there is no agreement to the exact dates of Abraham's birth and
death, the Jesus Walk Bible Study Series deductively arrives at his time of
existence as determined below:

"One approach to dating Abraham is to backtrack from the first fixed
event we find in the Bible -- a statement that Solomon laid the temple
foundation in the 480th year after the exodus (1 Kings 6:1), which
would date the exodus at about 1447-1446 BC. Working backward from the
genealogies and other data in the Pentateuch puts the birth of Abraham
in 2166 BC, and frames Abraham's life from 2166 to 1991 BC.[11]
However, there are several problems with this approach. First,
textual: the Greek Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree with
Paul (Galatians 3:17) that the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 apply to the
whole time span between Abraham and the Exodus, not just the Israelite
stay in Egypt as the Hebrew Masoretic text would suggest, bringing
Abraham's birth year to 1952.[12] Second, genealogies in Bible
occasionally skip generations.
Another approach to dating Abraham uses a combination of history and
archaeology. One prong is the dating of the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah (Genesis 19) by some kind of cataclysmic event, which
archaeological evidence seems to point to around 1900 BC.[13]"
An Outline of Israelite History (IBS Ancient World Culture) gives
different time lines of 2091 – 1876 B.C. and 1800 – 1630 B.C. as a Bible
accounting of the Genesis era in which Abraham lived. Memories of Ancient
Israel, an Introduction to Biblical History, Ancient and Modern by Philip
R. Davies list Abraham's birth date at 1946 / 1948 B.C. (p. 30).
While according to another source, Quartz Hill School of Theology, the
following text gives logic and dating to the life of Abraham:



"A. The Biblical Date of Abraham's Migration from Ur.
According to scattered chronological notices given mainly in the books of
Genesis and Exodus, Abraham left Mesopotamia (Haran) on his way to
Palestine about 645 years before the Israelites left Egypt. This figure is
made up of the actual patriarchal period (Abraham-Jacob) consisting of 215
years, plus the Egyptian sojourn which lasted 430 years. 
The period of 215 years as the duration of the patriarchal period in
Palestine is arrived at from the following biblical data: 
According to Genesis 12:4, Abraham was seventy-five years old when
he left Haran. According to Genesis 21:5, he was "one hundred years old,
when his son Isaac was born unto him." Since Isaac was "sixty years old"
when Jacob was born (Genesis 25:26) and Jacob was "a hundred and thirty
years old" when he stood before the Pharaho of Egypt (Genesis 47:9), the
total is found by adding 25 years for Abraham, 60 years for Isaac, and 130
years for Jacob, giving 215 years as the length of the period from
Abraham's arrival in the country until Jacob's exit from it. According to
Exodus 12:40-41,the entire period of Israel's sojourn in Egypt was 430
years. 
The LXX at this point reads 215 years for the Egyptian sojourn, so
that is a possible variance in our dating. But compare Genesis 15:13 and
Acts 7:6. Of course, the 400 years might be constructed by adding together
the patriarchal period and the 215 years of captivity as given by the LXX. 
If we go with the Hebrew text, however, the patriarchs spent about
215 years in Canaan, and the Israelites 430 years in Egypt. Abraham,
accordingly, entered Canaan 645 years before the Exodus (or 415 if we
follow the LXX). 
 If we accept the synchronism of 1 Kings 6:1, which places the Exodus 480
years before the fourth year of Solomon's reign (which we know to be about
961 BC), we have a date of the Exodus in 1441 BC. That would place
Abraham's entrance into Canaan at 2086 BC, and his birth at 2161 BC, since
he was seventy-five years old when he left Haran for Canaan (Genesis 12:4).
The Patriarchal period, then, would extend from 2086 BC to 1871 BC, and the
Egyptian sojourn from 1871 to 1441 BC. 
If we reject the synchronism of 1 Kings 6:1 and read the 480 as being short
hand for twelve generations (12x40 = 480), then we can perhaps argue that a
generation more realistically is only twenty years, so that puts the Exodus
at about 1290 BC. Thus, Abraham then entered Palestine about 1935 BC, he
was born about 2010 BC. If we use the LXX dates for the Egyptian sojourn,
then Abraham entered Palestine about 1720 and was born about 1795."
Hammurabi was the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty. The
geographic closeness of Babylon to Ur, Abraham's home and birthplace before
migrating to Canaan gives credibility to the argument that Hammurabi, being
the "great ruler" that he was, had influence over the region. I cannot
conclude for certain that Hammurabi's influence spread to Canaan on the
Mediterranean Sea but it is a logical assumption that Abraham was aware of
the Laws of Hammurabi and based on his actions and decisions he had
knowledge and followed the Hammurabi statutes.

It is my belief that the Laws governing the lives of Abraham, Sarai and
Hagar during the time of their existence are the Laws of Hammurabi.
According to The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses by W.W. Davies, PH. D.,
professor of Hebrew studies at Ohio Wesleyan University, the era of
Hammurabi "flourished about 2250 B.C." Also according to Davies, Hammurabi
was a contemporary of Abraham (p.8). If true, in support this exegesis I
assume Sarai, Abraham and Hagar were operating under the Laws of Hammurabi
in making life choices and decisions, in their actions and in their
behavior. The Codes of Hammurabi has laws pertinent to the actions of
Sarai, Abraham and Hagar that very closely correspond to their situation,
actions, behavior and decisions. According to Davies Hammurabi's laws were
in existence during the era of Abraham, Sarai and Hagar. Furthermore,
Davies states "it is more than probable that Abraham was well acquainted
with the code and all its enactments." (The codes of Hammurabi and Moses,
p.11)

The Hebrew Bible dates Abraham around 2105 B.C. Based on all the different
accountings of Abraham's life, I believe it is safe to assume that the
dates of Abraham's existence while ambiguous but considering all sources
are between 2010 – 1700 B.C. Based on this information, historically we can
conclude that Abraham lived during a time that makes it possible for him to
have knowledge of the Laws of Hammurabi and dwelling within the territory
ruled by the laws of Hammurabi. The Codes of Hammurabi contains laws, with
specific statutes, that are consistent with the decisions, actions and
behavior of Abraham, Sarai and Hagar.

Abraham was 86 years old, married to Sarai, childless and losing faith that
he will have an heir. Sarai's faith also lacking, suggested to Abraham that
he have a child and heir with her Egyptian Slave girl, Hagar. Sarai gave
her slave-girl to Abraham who bore him a son named Ishmael. In that time it
was disgraceful and brought shame not to have children.

According to Hammurabi Code 144, if a man's wife can't have children and
gives "a maid to her husband" who bears children, "He may not take a
concubine." It should be noted that it was Sarai, not Abraham, who took the
initiative to give Hagar, her slave, to Abraham for breeding. Giving Hagar
to Abraham could have been a way for Sarai to control her situation and
give security to her marriage. According to Davies, inability on the part
of the wife to bear children was cause for divorce (The codes of Hammurabi
and Moses, p.67). According to the Word Bible Commentary, "it was a serious
matter for a man to be childless in the ancient world, for it left him
without an heir. But it was even more calamitous for a woman" (Word
Biblical Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 7). Having no children was considered a
failure. If the husband had children by the slave or maid-servant of this
wife, the custom of the time was for the wife to take control over the
children and consider them her own, according to the commentary on page 7
of the Word Bible Commentary, Vol. 2. (and according to The Codes of
Hammurabi and Moses, p. 67). This being the prevailing sociological custom
and practice that influenced behavior in ancient times, it is
understandable that Sarai and Abraham did not have issue with Hagar bearing
children with Abraham. Likewise, it was obviously a duty Hagar accepted as
her responsibility being a maid-servant or slave to her mistress, Sarai.

However, when Hagar conceived the relationship between Sarai and Hagar
changed drastically. Sarai felt Hagar no longer gave her the respect a
slave-girl should give her owner. The relationship between Sarai and Hagar
became so strained Hagar ran away to the wilderness.

The implication is that Hagar perceived her status to be more than that of
a slave since she is with child by Abraham. Sarai is distraught over the
circumstances and blames Abraham for the disrespect shown to her by Hagar.
However Abraham reinforces Sarai's domination over Hagar by responding:
"Your slave-girl is in your power; do to her as you please" (Gen 16: 6).
This is evidence that Abraham did not care for or have feeling for Hagar or
at least not feelings to overrule Sarai's dominance over Hagar.

According to the Law of Hammurabi (146),

if the maid servant tries to "make herself equal with her mistress because
she has borne children, her mistress may not sell her for money but make
her a servant and count her as one of the servants."

In frustration, Hagar escaped to the wilderness, no longer able to accept
her status as a slave to Sarai. Alone and desolate, an angel of God
appeared to Hagar.

Abiding by the Laws of the era it was fitting for the angel that appeared
to Hagar when she ran away to the wilderness to instruct her to return to
Sarai and submit to her.

It is also clear that Abraham was not satisfied with having an heir with
Hagar, a slave, as stated in Genesis 15: 2-4

'O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir
of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?'*3And Abram said, 'You have given me no
offspring, and so a slave born in my house is to be my heir.' 4But the word
of the Lord came to him, 'This man shall not be your heir; no one but your
very own issue shall be your heir.

Hammurabi law 171 states that if the father, while alive, does not
acknowledge the children born to him by the slave as heirs, they will not
share in his estate with the children of his wife. Hagar bore Abraham a
son, Ishmael. Since Abraham did not declare acknowledgment of Ishmael there
was no sharing of Abraham's estate by Ishmael. It appears the Lord had
knowledge unknown to Abraham, that he and Sarai will eventually have
children. It can also be assumed that because Abraham had knowledge of the
Codes of Hammurabi he did not give public declaration of Ishmael as his
child.

Furthermore, Hammurabi law 171 states that if the father (Abraham) does not
acknowledge Ishmael and dies "the maid-servant and her children shall be
given their freedom, the children of the wife may have no claim for
servitude upon the children of the maid-servant." Hammurabi law 171 is
totally consistent with the promise God made to Abraham that Ishmael will
not be his heir. It is also consistent with the promise God made to Hagar
"I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for
multitude" (Gen 16:10). I believe this assumes that God did not have
Abraham in mind as the father for Hagar's future children, which
furthermore implicates her eventual freedom. In addition, Hammurabi law 171
reflects that freedom will be bestowed upon Ishmael as God promises, "he
will be the father of twelve princes and have a great nation" (Gen 17: 20).
Slaves were not allowed such freedom.





Other laws and codes existed or that came into existence during the time of
Abraham,

The Codes of Ur-Nammu (2050 B.C.)

The Codes of Eshnunna (1930 B.C.)

The codes of Lipit-Ishtar (1870 B. C.)

These laws are limited in scope regarding Abraham's situation unlike the
close parallels as written in the Laws of Hammurabi and the decisions,
actions and behavior of Abraham, Sarai and Hagar that correspond with their
apparent adherence to the Laws of Hammurabi. For example, The Codes of Ur-
Nammu has only one statute that I found, which only marginally addresses
Abraham's situation and it refers to a man's slave woman not to a woman's
slave: "25. If a man's slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress,
speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.
(22) Codes of Ur- Nammu"

Based on understanding the laws, the circumstances and the customs in
ancient times; the lifestyle, behavior, decisions and actions of Sarai,
Abraham and Hagar during the time in which they lived; seem completely
normal. Even today surrogates are used for couples who want but cannot have
children together.

The surrogate process from my understanding involves the process of In
Vitro Fertilization which is an assisted reproductive technology (ART)
commonly referred to as IVF. IVF is the process of fertilization by
manually combining an egg and sperm in a laboratory dish, and then
transferring the embryo to the uterus without physical sexual contact
between the man and woman. Obviously this process did not exist in the
times of Abraham, Sarai and Hagar so physical contact was necessary. Sexual
relationships outside of marriage commitment to another were condoned in
some regions during Biblical times and under certain conditions during
biblical times. Also it was considered legal for a man to have more than
one wife, as well as concubines if his nature, desire, and his financial
status allowed him to support multiple wives and relationships. This is
Biblical supported customary behavior defined by and based on a patriarchal
society structure. Modern day Judeo-Christian culture considers monogamy to
be the normal status in committed relationships and bigamy (more than one
wife) is considered unlawful and legally punishable. My intention is not at
all to condone bigamy or non-monogamous relationships. I am a supporter of
monogamous relationships. The argument I am making is that society
interprets, reinterprets and redacts the bible for their own purpose based
on the values and norms of the times. The question I am raising is; what
real stable value does the bible have to give direction to society if
society can change the bible as it wishes, according to special interest
and changing social values? The example of Abraham, Sarai and Hagar is used
because it demonstrates Biblical acceptable behavior and a Biblical value
system and accepted ethical morality that is in polar opposition to
contemporary values and moral ethics, a paradigm shift occurrence. Society
defines and interprets behavior for areas of the Bible that supports
society interest. Society follows and subscribes to the bible as long as
the bible supports the interest of society. In other words, if society does
not agree with the Bible, society simply makes rules and laws that ignore
the precepts in the Bible; then change what is previously written. This is
the reality. I am not making a value judgement on either side of the
argument. I am simply stating a reality of fact to gain a hardcore insight
in to the bible as a static or as an evolving guideline for human behavior
and the nature of the human moral ethical value system. Does the Bible give
definition for human behavior to subscribe or does human behavior self-
define? There are many other areas of the Bible that are static and have a
timeless compatibility with human evolution throughout the centuries.
However, who knows what the future will hold.
Sources Cited



The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995
by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the
Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All
rights reserved.

Davies, W.W., The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses, Jennings and Graham,
Cincinnati, Eaton and Mains, New York, 1905

Hallo William W, Editor, The Context of Scripture, Vol. 2, Brill, Leiden,
Boston, 2003, pp. 332 - 352

Jesus Walk Bible Study Series, http://www.jesuswalk.com/abraham/0_intro.htm

Quartz School of Theology, http://www.theology.edu/abraham.htm

The class handout "An Outline of Israelite History (IBS Ancient World
Culture)

Class handout "IBS: Ancient Cultural World: Audiences / Texts

Speisep, E.A., The Anchor Bible, Doubleday & Co., New York, p. 116 – 121

Freedman, David Noel, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1 A-C, Abraham pp.
35 – 44, Doubleday, New York, 1992

Wenhem, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 2, Genesis 16 – 50, Word
Books, Dallas Tx., p. 1 - 13

NIB, The New Interpreters Bible, Genesis 16: 1-16, Hagar and Sarai, pp. 45-
- 455, Abingdon Press, Nashville.

Collins John J., Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Fortress Press,
Minneapolis, MN., 2004