Dealing with embarrassing passages in the Bible

[IndigoChild5559]

Hagar may have been Sarah’s maid, which may mean a servant or a slave, but that does not mean she was automatically treated horribly by Sarah or Abraham.

Since you acknowledge that she was aslave, then you must see that she did not have the option of saying yes or no. Lack of consent is implicit in her job description.

 

[Firelight]

Since you acknowledge that she was aslave, then you must see that she did not have the option of saying yes or no. Lack of consent is implicit in her job description.

I didn’t acknowledge her as a slave. Nonetheless, if Abraham and Sarah gave her the option, then she had the option.

Where is it you have this multi-thousand years old job description that Abraham and Sarah provided Hagar with? I’d like to see it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I didn’t acknowledge her as a slave. Nonetheless, if Abraham and Sarah gave her the option, then she had the option.

Where is it you have this multi-thousand years old job description that Abraham and Sarah provided Hagar with? I’d like to see it.

The text STATES that she is a slave, and it therefore follows that she had no choice in the matter. There was no consent.

 

[Firelight]

The text STATES that she is a slave, and it therefore follows that she had no choice in the matter. There was no consent.

My text states she was a maid.

You assume Hagar had no choice in the matter and assume there was no consent based on your own deductions of her being a slave. But, you have no actual information that tells us how Abraham and Sarah chose to treat Hagar. Therefore, Abraham, the prophet of God, and his wife Sarah, being the god-fearing people that they were, could have chosen to treat Hagar with dignity and respect and not proceed without her consent.

Joseph was a slave and chose not to lie down with the queen when she requested. Are you going to come up with a different “slave” definition for him?

 

[Firelight]

.

As I said before, there is little detail to the story, so it is up to one’s own interpretation. Interpretations aren’t going to be the same as you as can see by the various comments posted.

Why do you insist your interpretation is THE correct one? Is it some sort of threat to your intelligence or spirituality if others have a different understanding or perspective than yours? Does it mean you may need to exercise more faith and stretch your understanding and you don’t want to do that? Does it mean you may need to stop thinking negatively and assuming the worst? I’d really like to know why you insist that others agree with you?

 

[firedragon]

I'd need to look at the text carefully so see what she is labeled as.

Both.

 

[firedragon]

The text STATES that she is a slave, and it therefore follows that she had no choice in the matter. There was no consent.

Thats just speculation in my opinion. But you make that statement "there was no consent" as if you read their minds or read it in the scripture directly. Its not a valid syllogism.

 

[epronovost]

No-no, not that. You made a claim about Jewish law.



What is your souce for "the laws and customs of the **Hebrew** at the time"??

Historiography and, ironically, the Bible itself. Have you not opened the link?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The word used is hand maiden. Its a subcategory of slave. She is also called a slave directly.

Genesis 16:1-2
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 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.

Just for the record, and without wishing to endorse any position, I think it's right to point out that the translators of the King James Bible, who always worked collectively and debated thoroughly, chose their words very carefully, especially so when the words were likely to be contentious. So if they chose to describe Hagar as a handmaiden rather than a slave, this was no accident. Perhaps someone familiar with the Hebrew text can cast more light on the accuracy of the translation.

Furthermore, and again for the record, a handmaiden to a high born lady in 17th Century England - the time of the KJV - was a position of some considerable status. The handmaidens of Anne of Denmark, wife of James I, would most certainly not have been regarded as slaves. Though if the king wished to sleep with one of them, with the queen's blessing, the issue of what constituted consent would have been questionable at best. This was a world in which women generally, even those of the highest social class, had very few rights.

 

[JerusalemBull]

 

[dybmh]

שִׁפְחָ֥ה;
shif-khaw'

Strong: H8198

Orig: feminine from an unused root meaning to spread out (as a family; see 4940); a female slave (as a member of the household):--(bond-, hand-)maid(-en, -servant), wench, bondwoman, womanservant. H4940

What's the difference between שִׁפְחָ֥ה and אָמָֽה?

 

[dybmh]

It appears to me to say that Hagar felt superior to Sarah, since she had a child and sarah did not, and barren women were looked down on.

For me, this doesn't sound like someone who was raped. She looked down on Sarah after Ishmael was born, but not before.

 

[dybmh]

Historiography and, ironically, the Bible itself. Have you not opened the link?

Yes, I read the link, did you check the source for it?

 

[dybmh]

It was wrong for Sarah to offer her servant to her husband.

This doesn't make sense to me. If it was wrong what Sarah did, why did God later tell Abraham to do whatever Sarah said?

Genesis 21:12 But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to everything that Sarah tells you, for through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.​

It seems to me that God would have punished Sarah if she did something wrong.

Also, please don't forget what Sarah said at the beginning of the story.

Genesis 16:2 So Sarai said to Abram, "Look now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Please go to my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.​

Here, Sarah makes a claim about God, The Lord. If she was wrong why didn't God correct her. Why was she blessed with a child later? If Sarah was wrong then the text itself is wrong.

 

[Etritonakin]

I just got off the phone with a good Jewish friend. We were talking about how there were simply stories in teh Bible that we wish would suddenly vanish from the text. For example, those verses which simply assume that slavery is an inevitable and this is how to deal with it, or verses that demonstrate the oppresion of women, and even genocide.

I said to my friend, well, you and I wish that those parts of the text weren't there, but there are those who don't feel that way. What they do instead is try to justify i.e. the slavery, the oppression of women, and the genocide.

So I hope that this thread will engender a dialogue between the two groups, those who are embarassed and those who justify.

You can choose any passage of scripture to discuss that you want, but for those who need a starting point, how about we discuss the fact that Sarah gave her slave to Abraham to wife. This means that Abraham was basically having sex with Hagar without Hagar's consent, since the very definition of a chattel slave is one whose life belongs to another and who has no choice but to do as he/she is commanded. And if there is no consent, that, by modern understanding, is rape.

I find this story to be horrifying. I know, I know, I've been told by so many people that you can't expect people from history to be held to the same morals that we have today. BUT the Torah is supposed to be the word of God. It is supposed to be the book that we go to in order to learn to be better, more decent human beings.

Okay, folks, commence....

You don't really know the exact circumstances with Hagar, etc.. Scripture does not include every detail. She may have even had a thing for him -been willing -not have seen it as objectionable due to customs/conditions of the day -never know.

Genocide? How about Israel asking God if they should go up to war... God saying yes... many Israelites die, the others ask again... this happens a few times.... for the purpose of removing those who would be problematic to the future righteousness of those that remain? (If I remember the story correctly)

Also, scripture must be read with the overall plan in mind -which is basically turning herders, etc., into gods -and a government of tomorrow -in a step by step process -beginning from where they were at the time -with only about 120 years max for each individual. Creating wonderful things often requires extreme forces and pressures.

We also assume God would not do or allow certain things -but look at the curses for disobedience of the covenant -they are about as bad as can be -yet will accomplish the desired end result -whcih will be wonderful for all previously adversely affected.

The one who touched the ark and died -that was pretty harsh, but had the necessary psychological effect -and that person will be more than fine later.

Then there is the food issue. Adam and Eve were at least vegetarian -if not vegan -in Eden.
Afterward, God then allowed all animal flesh to be eaten -but not because it was ideal.
As we were not going to continue in what was right, he gave us over to what was wrong to gain experience of it.
Then he brings us back.
Then only some things were allowed -and later even animals will not eat each other.

Meanwhile, consider the present outcry for the rights of animals. That was created in humans by experience and history -and God is able to resurrect any animal previously harmed -and make them new. Now that we thirst and hunger for peace, righteous law, cessation of war, love and consideration for all life and their environment....... it will be satisfied.

The old testament covenant was meant to prepare a people for the next stages of the plan -and the plan became less harsh as harsh became less necessary. It focused on a certain level of righteousness, understanding and obedience -preparing them for a more spiritual level.

Finally,God knows that we will later not even remember any of this -even though it is necessary now to get where we need to be.

The overall point of human history thus far is to be able to look back -think "I'm never doing any of that again" -then never look back again.

"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind."

All ill effects will be reversed/nullified and things made better than before -then the past will fade from memory and be gone.
Much better than a bunch of liquid paper!

 

[metis]

Okay, folks, commence....

I believe it is very clear that the scriptures also reflect the cultural mileu that they originated from, thus objectiviy clearly ain't in the cards. Does this negate the morals taught within? Not necessarily, as an overall basic message is "do no harm", per Hillel and Jesus for starters, and which shows up in other religions as well. And I do believe that there's "on-going revelation" as well, whether that be spiritual or through study and observation-- hopefully both.

That's my opinion, but I'm not going so far as to say it's correct.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You don't really know the exact circumstances with Hagar, etc.. Scripture does not include every detail. She may have even had a thing for him -been willing -not have seen it as objectionable due to customs/conditions of the day -never know.

We DO know that she was a slave. That piece of information all by itself means she did not consent. Her opinion was irreleveant. It was Sarah's decision.

Genocide? How about Israel asking God if they should go up to war... God saying yes...

We aren't talking about just war. We are talking about God's command for them to kill every man, woman, and child. Do you think it is ethical to deliberately kill babies during a war? Are you really going to try to justify what is a grave evil?

Then there is the food issue. Adam and Eve were at least vegetarian -if not vegan -in Eden.
Afterward, God then allowed all animal flesh to be eaten -but not because it was ideal.

First, I dont' know wht food issue you are talking about. We are biologically omnivores, which means we eat both meat and vegetation. There is nothing immoral about being an omnivore -- it's simply a fact of nature.

Do we care how animals are treated? For sure. Kosher slaughter is designed to be as painless and quick as possible. We have verses such as chsing away the mother bird before taking her eggs in order to save her from emotional distress, and not yoking a donkey and cow together, where one will go faster and thereby cause suffering. I think we can conclude that the animals we raise for food be treated well, and slaughtered as pain free as possible.

But none of that means that we have to be vegetarian.

Finally, Genesis 9:3 makes it very clear that meat is allowed to us, which holds as a principle, since the Flood story is a teaching legend.

So I'm not sure what your problem is here.

Thank you for your response, btw.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For me, this doesn't sound like someone who was raped. She looked down on Sarah after Ishmael was born, but not before.

Sure. She scorned Sarah because Sarah was not able to have a child, and she was. THAT is NOT the same thing as consenting to sex. We know that she was a slave, therefore by defintion she does not consent.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just for the record, and without wishing to endorse any position, I think it's right to point out that the translators of the King James Bible, who always worked collectively and debated thoroughly, chose their words very carefully, especially so when the words were likely to be contentious. So if they chose to describe Hagar as a handmaiden rather than a slave, this was no accident. Perhaps someone familiar with the Hebrew text can cast more light on the accuracy of the translation.

Furthermore, and again for the record, a handmaiden to a high born lady in 17th Century England - the time of the KJV - was a position of some considerable status. The handmaidens of Anne of Denmark, wife of James I, would most certainly not have been regarded as slaves. Though if the king wished to sleep with one of them, with the queen's blessing, the issue of what constituted consent would have been questionable at best. This was a world in which women generally, even those of the highest social class, had very few rights.

I dont' really care if the translation is the KJV or not (personally I think the KJV is the worst one you can pick). The word in Hebrew refers to a female slave. It is the Hebrew that matters.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thats just speculation in my opinion. But you make that statement "there was no consent" as if you read their minds or read it in the scripture directly. Its not a valid syllogism.

It's not speculation at all. The Hebrew word means a female slave. Slaves by definition do not make choices -- they must do whatever their masters say to do. Thus, BY DEFINITION Hagar could not consent. The text makes it very clear taht the choice was Sarah's.