Isaiah chapter 54 doesn't have a lot of notes, but it's still quite interesting. A large portion of this chapter is addressed to barren women. The SAB has a page about What the Bible says about barren women which is not quite complete, as it doesn't include the passages about specific barren women (oh, it's on a separate page where it notes it's always women and never men, but Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah's husbands all had children with other women), all of whom I happen to have covered already. It's not a big deal, though, because all of those women were temporarily barren, as God eventually gives each of them a son (never a daughter). I might as well talk about the cultural significance of barrenness, because it's important to understand. In ancient Israel, women were primarily valued as a vessel for giving men sons so they can have an inheritance to pass on. That's unfortunately rather misogynistic, but it's also worth noting that none of the husbands of barren women divorce them; I don't know if it simply wasn't grounds for divorce (although my understanding is that divorce was pretty easy for men in that culture) or if those men just loved their wives for who they were and not just the children they could bring. Anyway, many of these verses tell barren women that they are better off than women who bare children, which is certainly a cultural reversal. Some, like the one here in Isaiah, say that even though they are barren, they will somehow be mothers. It's not clear to me what the significance of this claim is; perhaps somehow they will raise the offspring of other women. In the Luke passage, Jesus is simply prophesying that a time is coming when women with children will have a difficult time.
I already answered What is God's name? in Isaiah 42.
Showing posts with label barrenness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barrenness. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 15, 2024
Monday, February 09, 2009
The LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD (2Sam 6)
In chapter 6, David decides that it's time to send for the ark and bring it to Jerusalem. This prompts a question of timing of this event, about which I have already given an opinion.
Now, the manner in which this happens is important. As the Philistines did when they had the ark and wanted to get rid of it, the Israelites get a new cart, load it up, and bring it along. This is a problem. When the ark is to be moved, the proper method of transport is supposed to be having it carried on foot by Levites. The Philistines, between the fact of their being (relatively) ignorant pagans and perhaps the more important fact of them not having Levites were able to get away with loading the thing on a cart. For the Israelites, handling the ark of God in such a cavalier manner led to God's wrath striking down Uzzah.
Where exactly was it that Uzzah was struck down? I don't see this as a problem the way the SAB does. While we are given two names for the location of this event, the fact that this account and the one in 1Chronicles 13 were written far apart in time may mean that the place was known differently at the later date. Childon was probably a descendant of Nachon, and both of them at various times owned a threshing floor at the place called Perezuzzah. (Edited to add that the name "Perezuzzah" was clearly a name given to the place because Uzzah was struck down there, so the name came after the incident.)
So eventually, they seem to get it figured out, and they transport the ark on foot, making sacrifices to God along the way. David comes along with the procession, dancing as it goes. Now, I'll admit that what's going on here is not completely clear, but I don't agree with the SAB's reading, neither that there might have been something wrong with David dancing, nor that David was somehow nude. Note that it does not say that David was naked, but rather that he was clothed in an ephod, which was a priestly garment. I think Michal was simply, for some reason, feeling that David was making a fool of himself by the way he was acting, which she felt was improper for a king. David's reply is that he doesn't care what people think, he just loves God.
Now the final note of this chapter says that Michal "had no child unto the day of her death." The SAB makes a surprising evaluation of this fact, calling it a contradiction (which I don't think it is, more in a moment) but not marking it with "Injustice" or "Women", which I probably would have. The Bible seems to be suggesting that Michal was made infertile as a punishment for arguing with her husband, which seems a bit extreme to me, but maybe there's something to this story I'm missing. (It might be that David simply never had sex with her again.) As for the contradiction, I assume that the children that Michal is reported to have had were all born before this incident.
Now, the manner in which this happens is important. As the Philistines did when they had the ark and wanted to get rid of it, the Israelites get a new cart, load it up, and bring it along. This is a problem. When the ark is to be moved, the proper method of transport is supposed to be having it carried on foot by Levites. The Philistines, between the fact of their being (relatively) ignorant pagans and perhaps the more important fact of them not having Levites were able to get away with loading the thing on a cart. For the Israelites, handling the ark of God in such a cavalier manner led to God's wrath striking down Uzzah.
Where exactly was it that Uzzah was struck down? I don't see this as a problem the way the SAB does. While we are given two names for the location of this event, the fact that this account and the one in 1Chronicles 13 were written far apart in time may mean that the place was known differently at the later date. Childon was probably a descendant of Nachon, and both of them at various times owned a threshing floor at the place called Perezuzzah. (Edited to add that the name "Perezuzzah" was clearly a name given to the place because Uzzah was struck down there, so the name came after the incident.)
So eventually, they seem to get it figured out, and they transport the ark on foot, making sacrifices to God along the way. David comes along with the procession, dancing as it goes. Now, I'll admit that what's going on here is not completely clear, but I don't agree with the SAB's reading, neither that there might have been something wrong with David dancing, nor that David was somehow nude. Note that it does not say that David was naked, but rather that he was clothed in an ephod, which was a priestly garment. I think Michal was simply, for some reason, feeling that David was making a fool of himself by the way he was acting, which she felt was improper for a king. David's reply is that he doesn't care what people think, he just loves God.
Now the final note of this chapter says that Michal "had no child unto the day of her death." The SAB makes a surprising evaluation of this fact, calling it a contradiction (which I don't think it is, more in a moment) but not marking it with "Injustice" or "Women", which I probably would have. The Bible seems to be suggesting that Michal was made infertile as a punishment for arguing with her husband, which seems a bit extreme to me, but maybe there's something to this story I'm missing. (It might be that David simply never had sex with her again.) As for the contradiction, I assume that the children that Michal is reported to have had were all born before this incident.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD (1Sam 1)
The first issue of the book of Samuel is with Samuel himself. What tribe was he from? Samuel was a Levite, something I never realized before reading this comment in the SAB. I'd always wondered how Samuel ended up where he did in life without being a Levite, but since he is one, no problem. Oh, how do I know? The verse here in 1Samuel never names the tribe of Ephraim, only the mountain of Ephraim. Levites lived all over the place, and Samuel's parents happened to live in Ephraim.
Now Samuel's father had two wives. The fact that the Bible mentions this without condemning it does not, in my mind, imply endorsement. In general, I stand on my previous statements on the matter, but recent political developments present me with an excellent example of the flaw in logic. I have recently written much on Proposition 8, the proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage. In all my writing, I never endorsed either side of the issue. In failing to take a side, the logic here implies both (A) that I endorse same-sex marriage, and (B) that I endorse the banning of same-sex marriage. Clearly, I cannot endorse both and the fact is, I endorse neither. The Bible likewise by silence does not endorse any position on this matter.
As for the note on verse 5, I tend to think of a phrase like "the LORD had shut up her womb" as simply a colloquial way of saying "she had no children", which after all is what it boils down to. However, it may in fact be the case that God has made Hannah barren for the purpose of setting up the story we are about to see unfold. Samuel was one of the most important prophets in Israel's history, and without his mother's problems in procreating, his life might have been very different.
The story of Samuel's birth has some parallels to the stories of Samson and John the Baptist, and I call your attention to the former for my comments on long hair, which I think are implied to be applying in Samuel's case. The claim that Samuel's hair would never be cut implies that Hannah is dedicating him to the service of God.
The interchange between Hannah and Eli is an interesting one, because as a priest, Eli is supposed to be a representative of God*, and yet he keeps making largely baseless assumptions about Hannah without consulting God. First he assumes that she must be drunk because he sees her praying (huh?), and then in what I assume to be embarrassment, he more or less assures Hannah that God's going to grant her wish, without finding out what it was. This is why I tend to take it with a grain of salt when a person in the Bible says that such-and-such thing is the "will of God". Anyone, including Christians, can fall into the trap of setting too much store in such a statement. In this case, however, things turn out alright.
I honestly don't know what the SAB is on about with its last marginal note on this chapter. A married couple having sex is far from scandalous, so I guess the "sex" markup is just matter-of fact? The really interesting thing here in my mind (but I suppose it's not marked because it's not a contradiction or some such thing) is that after Samuel is born, Hannah tells Elkanah that she has dedicated Samuel with a vow. As mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, it's part of the Mosaic Law that a married woman's vow made without her husband's knowledge is not binding unless her husband allows it. Elkanah is really being quite kind to Hannah by ancient Israelite standards, allowing her vow to stand and essentially giving up his child. He would have been well within his rights in that culture to tell her she couldn't fulfill her vow, keep the kid and give him a haircut.
* There is an interesting and humorous facet to this story that's easy to miss. I know, because I missed it even this time reading it, despite already knowing about it. In the footnotes of Robert Alter's translation of Samuel, he points out that this is a typical "annunciation scene", also pointing out parallels between this story and those of the birth of Samson, Isaac, and John the Baptist. The weird bit is that when Hannah is sitting there praying for a son, it would be a typical time for an angel to appear and say, "Fear not, Hannah, for God hath heard thy prayer, etc..." Instead, a fat, half-blind, ineffective priest walks up to her and accuses her of being drunk. Eli has missed the fact that he's witnessing a moment of historical significance for the nation of Israel, and in doing so, he essentially flubs his lines.
Now Samuel's father had two wives. The fact that the Bible mentions this without condemning it does not, in my mind, imply endorsement. In general, I stand on my previous statements on the matter, but recent political developments present me with an excellent example of the flaw in logic. I have recently written much on Proposition 8, the proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage. In all my writing, I never endorsed either side of the issue. In failing to take a side, the logic here implies both (A) that I endorse same-sex marriage, and (B) that I endorse the banning of same-sex marriage. Clearly, I cannot endorse both and the fact is, I endorse neither. The Bible likewise by silence does not endorse any position on this matter.
As for the note on verse 5, I tend to think of a phrase like "the LORD had shut up her womb" as simply a colloquial way of saying "she had no children", which after all is what it boils down to. However, it may in fact be the case that God has made Hannah barren for the purpose of setting up the story we are about to see unfold. Samuel was one of the most important prophets in Israel's history, and without his mother's problems in procreating, his life might have been very different.
The story of Samuel's birth has some parallels to the stories of Samson and John the Baptist, and I call your attention to the former for my comments on long hair, which I think are implied to be applying in Samuel's case. The claim that Samuel's hair would never be cut implies that Hannah is dedicating him to the service of God.
The interchange between Hannah and Eli is an interesting one, because as a priest, Eli is supposed to be a representative of God*, and yet he keeps making largely baseless assumptions about Hannah without consulting God. First he assumes that she must be drunk because he sees her praying (huh?), and then in what I assume to be embarrassment, he more or less assures Hannah that God's going to grant her wish, without finding out what it was. This is why I tend to take it with a grain of salt when a person in the Bible says that such-and-such thing is the "will of God". Anyone, including Christians, can fall into the trap of setting too much store in such a statement. In this case, however, things turn out alright.
I honestly don't know what the SAB is on about with its last marginal note on this chapter. A married couple having sex is far from scandalous, so I guess the "sex" markup is just matter-of fact? The really interesting thing here in my mind (but I suppose it's not marked because it's not a contradiction or some such thing) is that after Samuel is born, Hannah tells Elkanah that she has dedicated Samuel with a vow. As mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, it's part of the Mosaic Law that a married woman's vow made without her husband's knowledge is not binding unless her husband allows it. Elkanah is really being quite kind to Hannah by ancient Israelite standards, allowing her vow to stand and essentially giving up his child. He would have been well within his rights in that culture to tell her she couldn't fulfill her vow, keep the kid and give him a haircut.
* There is an interesting and humorous facet to this story that's easy to miss. I know, because I missed it even this time reading it, despite already knowing about it. In the footnotes of Robert Alter's translation of Samuel, he points out that this is a typical "annunciation scene", also pointing out parallels between this story and those of the birth of Samson, Isaac, and John the Baptist. The weird bit is that when Hannah is sitting there praying for a son, it would be a typical time for an angel to appear and say, "Fear not, Hannah, for God hath heard thy prayer, etc..." Instead, a fat, half-blind, ineffective priest walks up to her and accuses her of being drunk. Eli has missed the fact that he's witnessing a moment of historical significance for the nation of Israel, and in doing so, he essentially flubs his lines.
Friday, May 30, 2008
There shall no razor come upon his head (Judges 13)
So, with Judges 13, we begin the wade into the deep end of the book of Judges. The story of Samson is an ugly one that takes up a very large portion of the book, and unfortunately, there's not much to commend in the stories afterwards.
Well, comparatively, this portion of the story, our introduction to Samson's parents, is pretty good. There's not much indication (yet) that there's anything really bad about these folks, other than the fact that they seem to be rather helpless and confused most of the time.
The story opens with yet another time of trouble for Israel, and this time, they're in the hands of the Philistines, who seem to be Israel's major enemies through all of this time on into the time of David. I don't think you can deny that whatever else is going on in the life of Samson, this story has a lot of political undertones that end up almost overshadowing the spiritual issues; of course, they're all intertwined.
In the midst of this difficult time, we are introduced to yet another couple with a barren wife. The SAB comments once again on the issue of barren women in the Bible, not so directly as before, but I'm assuming that's the point being made. Another thought I had as I was reading this chapter yesterday in addition to what I said about barrenness earlier is that in those ancient times, they knew a little bit about how babies were made, and it might be fair to assume, with the limited knowledge they had, that so long as a man appeared to have "seed", lack of children must be a problem with the woman. Scientifically questionable by modern standards, yes, but the ancients didn't have microscopes. Actually, it might additionally be said that the term "barren" may simply mean that a married woman had not yet borne any children; that's a speculation just now off the top of my head, someone who knew Hebrew far better than I might know if there's any truth to that. (I note that in looking up the Hebrew, that the word for "barren" does not appear in 1Sam. 1, although clearly that's what's being talked about there.)
Anyway, an angel appears to this woman and tells her she is going to have a son. (Despite the innuendo on the part of the SAB that there was something of a sexual relationship that happened between the "angel" and the woman, the language doesn't really suggest that at all.) Some interesting commands are given to her concerning her pregnancy and raising of the child. There are to interesting points about this, one of which is that the commands the angel gives her for her pregnancy are actually good advice for any pregnant woman. Don't drink wine or eat "unclean" food during your pregnancy? Hey, that's just sound prenatal care!
The other point is one that I touched on briefly in talking about John the Baptist. Although I skipped ahead from the middle of Genesis and therefore never hit Numbers 6, this would probably be a very good place to delve into the issues of that chapter. As the angel says, Samson is supposed to be a "Nazarite...from the womb" (as is suggested, but not expressly stated in the cases of John the Baptist and the prophet Samuel). Two questions come up in the Numbers 6 and here as well that are worth exploring. Is it okay to drink? Generally, the Bible does not seem to be against it, in moderation. Wine is an important part of many Jewish and Christian ceremonies. Is it okay for men to have long hair? Clearly Paul did not think highly of it, and it was not the cultural norm of the times. (I myself, up until about half a year ago had a nice long ponytail I'd been letting grow for about 15 years. I cut it off because my wife wanted my hair short, not because of a moral or social issue.) So why are these demands made of Nazarites? Well, the Nazarite was setting himself apart from society to be dedicated to the Lord. (Nazarite literally means "separated", and when context calls for it, it's translated that way.) When everyone else had a party and sat down to drink, he would stay sober. When all other men were walking around looking neat and clean-cut, he would look like a hippie, with a shaggy long head of hair and beard. A Nazarite was supposed to look and act in a way that was acceptable to God, but generally socially unacceptable, so that people would notice him standing out. If you know the story of Samson, you have to realize that Samson was actually a pretty bad Nazarite, since long hair was the only requirement he kept, and even that ends up being a problem in the end.
So Samson's parents end up having a bit of drama with this angel, and yeah, a lot of it is rather strange, although the part about the angel ascending to heaven in the fire of the altar is something serves to clarify the supernatural aspect of the event. In fact, it seems that Samson's father wasn't quite 100% convinced until this happened, at which point he says that they "have seen God." While the question of whether not God can be seen is a tricky question that I have examined elsewhere, I don't think it's an issue here, as I think he's just being dramatic. It wasn't God, it was just a heavenly messenger, and his wife essentially says, "Get over yourself; if we were going to die, we'd already be dead instead of standing here by this altar."
The final note of this chapter is really the big question of this whole story. I'm tempted to say that verse 24 is really talking about how Samson was blessed by God as a child, and later he turned bad; indeed, it might be the case. On the other hand, there seems to be little room for denial that Samson led a charmed life up until the very end; why is God blessing a guy who seems to hold none of the moral values that the Bible stands for? It's a very good question, but I intend to answer it at the end of the story rather than here.
Well, comparatively, this portion of the story, our introduction to Samson's parents, is pretty good. There's not much indication (yet) that there's anything really bad about these folks, other than the fact that they seem to be rather helpless and confused most of the time.
The story opens with yet another time of trouble for Israel, and this time, they're in the hands of the Philistines, who seem to be Israel's major enemies through all of this time on into the time of David. I don't think you can deny that whatever else is going on in the life of Samson, this story has a lot of political undertones that end up almost overshadowing the spiritual issues; of course, they're all intertwined.
In the midst of this difficult time, we are introduced to yet another couple with a barren wife. The SAB comments once again on the issue of barren women in the Bible, not so directly as before, but I'm assuming that's the point being made. Another thought I had as I was reading this chapter yesterday in addition to what I said about barrenness earlier is that in those ancient times, they knew a little bit about how babies were made, and it might be fair to assume, with the limited knowledge they had, that so long as a man appeared to have "seed", lack of children must be a problem with the woman. Scientifically questionable by modern standards, yes, but the ancients didn't have microscopes. Actually, it might additionally be said that the term "barren" may simply mean that a married woman had not yet borne any children; that's a speculation just now off the top of my head, someone who knew Hebrew far better than I might know if there's any truth to that. (I note that in looking up the Hebrew, that the word for "barren" does not appear in 1Sam. 1, although clearly that's what's being talked about there.)
Anyway, an angel appears to this woman and tells her she is going to have a son. (Despite the innuendo on the part of the SAB that there was something of a sexual relationship that happened between the "angel" and the woman, the language doesn't really suggest that at all.) Some interesting commands are given to her concerning her pregnancy and raising of the child. There are to interesting points about this, one of which is that the commands the angel gives her for her pregnancy are actually good advice for any pregnant woman. Don't drink wine or eat "unclean" food during your pregnancy? Hey, that's just sound prenatal care!
The other point is one that I touched on briefly in talking about John the Baptist. Although I skipped ahead from the middle of Genesis and therefore never hit Numbers 6, this would probably be a very good place to delve into the issues of that chapter. As the angel says, Samson is supposed to be a "Nazarite...from the womb" (as is suggested, but not expressly stated in the cases of John the Baptist and the prophet Samuel). Two questions come up in the Numbers 6 and here as well that are worth exploring. Is it okay to drink? Generally, the Bible does not seem to be against it, in moderation. Wine is an important part of many Jewish and Christian ceremonies. Is it okay for men to have long hair? Clearly Paul did not think highly of it, and it was not the cultural norm of the times. (I myself, up until about half a year ago had a nice long ponytail I'd been letting grow for about 15 years. I cut it off because my wife wanted my hair short, not because of a moral or social issue.) So why are these demands made of Nazarites? Well, the Nazarite was setting himself apart from society to be dedicated to the Lord. (Nazarite literally means "separated", and when context calls for it, it's translated that way.) When everyone else had a party and sat down to drink, he would stay sober. When all other men were walking around looking neat and clean-cut, he would look like a hippie, with a shaggy long head of hair and beard. A Nazarite was supposed to look and act in a way that was acceptable to God, but generally socially unacceptable, so that people would notice him standing out. If you know the story of Samson, you have to realize that Samson was actually a pretty bad Nazarite, since long hair was the only requirement he kept, and even that ends up being a problem in the end.
So Samson's parents end up having a bit of drama with this angel, and yeah, a lot of it is rather strange, although the part about the angel ascending to heaven in the fire of the altar is something serves to clarify the supernatural aspect of the event. In fact, it seems that Samson's father wasn't quite 100% convinced until this happened, at which point he says that they "have seen God." While the question of whether not God can be seen is a tricky question that I have examined elsewhere, I don't think it's an issue here, as I think he's just being dramatic. It wasn't God, it was just a heavenly messenger, and his wife essentially says, "Get over yourself; if we were going to die, we'd already be dead instead of standing here by this altar."
The final note of this chapter is really the big question of this whole story. I'm tempted to say that verse 24 is really talking about how Samson was blessed by God as a child, and later he turned bad; indeed, it might be the case. On the other hand, there seems to be little room for denial that Samson led a charmed life up until the very end; why is God blessing a guy who seems to hold none of the moral values that the Bible stands for? It's a very good question, but I intend to answer it at the end of the story rather than here.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters (Gen 29)
This is probably one of the strangest love stories in the Bible, if not ever, anywhere.
Jacob comes to the land of his uncle Laban. Note that he is repeatedly referred to as his "mother's brother", but the description of the familial relation is referred to fluidly in general. At least one time Laban calls Jacob his "brother". I think I resolved the specific relationship between Laban and Jacob in yesterday's post, and discussed previously that "brother" often figuratively means "relative" or "close friend" and "father" and "son" are respectively used to mean "ancestor" and "descendant".
Shortly after Jacob gets there, he sees his cousin Rachel, who is apparently really hot, and it's love at first sight. So he helps her water her father's sheep, gives her a kiss, and then meets his uncle. His uncle is excited to meet him (apparently, it seems, because he sees an opportunity to milk this kid for cheap labor) and offers him an ongoing job helping with the livestock. Jacob asks to be paid by marrying Laban's daughter.
Now, Laban has two daughters, Leah and Rachel. While Rachel is supposedly pretty hot, the best the Bible can say about Leah is that she is "tender eyed". (Actually, it's not really clear whether this is a compliment or not.) Jacob wants Rachel, and agrees to work seven years to earn her hand. Laban tricks Jacob and after he works for seven years, he gives him Leah instead. I guess Jacob is too drunk on his wedding night to notice or something, since he doesn't even notice until morning. Jacob ends up having to serve another seven years to pay for Rachel, whom he loves enough to do so.
The SAB has a lot of notes on this story as to its general goofiness and bizarre quality, but once again, it's not clear what the actual objection is. Yes, Laban is being dishonest. Yes, this is something that from our modern standards (and even to some extent the standards of the day) is pretty twisted and shocking on both a business and sexual level. Yes, while polygamy is wrong, Jacob ends up with two (or four if you count Zilpah and Bilhah) wives. All of this leads to a number of problems that begin at the tail end of this chapter. This in no way means that the Bible is setting up this situation as an example that anyone is meant to follow, so I'm not sure the point of the objections, if indeed they are objections. Perhaps, as someone told me (maybe it was Steve Wells himself) the point here is that there are stories far less salacious that Christians would be horrified to find that their children were reading. I don't think this story is appropriate for children.
Yet, in the midst of this, children do come! The baby wars between Rachel and Leah start here, when God causes Leah to have children, and Rachel to be barren. Leah has four sons and names them: Reuben = "behold a son"; Simeon = "heard"; Levi = "joined to"; Judah = "praised". Apparently, Leah is hoping that having children will make her more loved by her husband, but it's never made clear whether this actually works.
Jacob comes to the land of his uncle Laban. Note that he is repeatedly referred to as his "mother's brother", but the description of the familial relation is referred to fluidly in general. At least one time Laban calls Jacob his "brother". I think I resolved the specific relationship between Laban and Jacob in yesterday's post, and discussed previously that "brother" often figuratively means "relative" or "close friend" and "father" and "son" are respectively used to mean "ancestor" and "descendant".
Shortly after Jacob gets there, he sees his cousin Rachel, who is apparently really hot, and it's love at first sight. So he helps her water her father's sheep, gives her a kiss, and then meets his uncle. His uncle is excited to meet him (apparently, it seems, because he sees an opportunity to milk this kid for cheap labor) and offers him an ongoing job helping with the livestock. Jacob asks to be paid by marrying Laban's daughter.
Now, Laban has two daughters, Leah and Rachel. While Rachel is supposedly pretty hot, the best the Bible can say about Leah is that she is "tender eyed". (Actually, it's not really clear whether this is a compliment or not.) Jacob wants Rachel, and agrees to work seven years to earn her hand. Laban tricks Jacob and after he works for seven years, he gives him Leah instead. I guess Jacob is too drunk on his wedding night to notice or something, since he doesn't even notice until morning. Jacob ends up having to serve another seven years to pay for Rachel, whom he loves enough to do so.
The SAB has a lot of notes on this story as to its general goofiness and bizarre quality, but once again, it's not clear what the actual objection is. Yes, Laban is being dishonest. Yes, this is something that from our modern standards (and even to some extent the standards of the day) is pretty twisted and shocking on both a business and sexual level. Yes, while polygamy is wrong, Jacob ends up with two (or four if you count Zilpah and Bilhah) wives. All of this leads to a number of problems that begin at the tail end of this chapter. This in no way means that the Bible is setting up this situation as an example that anyone is meant to follow, so I'm not sure the point of the objections, if indeed they are objections. Perhaps, as someone told me (maybe it was Steve Wells himself) the point here is that there are stories far less salacious that Christians would be horrified to find that their children were reading. I don't think this story is appropriate for children.
Yet, in the midst of this, children do come! The baby wars between Rachel and Leah start here, when God causes Leah to have children, and Rachel to be barren. Leah has four sons and names them: Reuben = "behold a son"; Simeon = "heard"; Levi = "joined to"; Judah = "praised". Apparently, Leah is hoping that having children will make her more loved by her husband, but it's never made clear whether this actually works.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath (Gen 21)
Most of the objections that the SAB gives for this chapter are pretty trivial, in my opinion. There's a lot going on here that's confusing and sometimes seems harsh, and indeed, it is to an extent, but taking the long view, I think it all makes sense.
Like the previously-discussed passages in which God "appears" to people, I think saying that God "visited" Sarah is really a figure of speech. Really, God is with Sarah all the time, as He's with everyone, but in this case, what there was was a visitation of God's power upon Sarah's post-menopausal reproductive system. As the SAB points out, Abraham doesn't seem to need any help in that area, as he has several children after Sarah dies years later. The SAB points out that "God-assisted conceptions never result in daughters." which is technically not true, as theologically Christians and Jews believe that all conceptions are God-assisted in a sense, but the point is clear enough. I'm not sure why this needs to be pointed out, unless the implication is that there's some sexism involved. From one point of view, it's often the mothers that seem to care the most about infertility, and a point could be made that these special conceptions are a special blessing to the women in particular, but I can certainly understand that that might not convince everyone. (Remember that Abraham was perfectly happy to have Ishmael be his heir!) If Steve Wells is trying to make a different point, perhaps he can leave a comment.
So Sarah has a child, and he is named Isaac, a word often translated as "laughter". There's a lot of interesting usages of this word surrounding the life of Isaac and his parents: Abraham laughs the first time he's told Isaac is going to be born, and so does Sarah. The word can also mean "mocking", "playing" or "messing around". It's the word used of Ishmael's actions towards Isaac in verse nine, and even Issac's actions with his wife in chapter 26 (probably some sort of "heavy petting" as they say). Because of the ambiguity/flexibility of the word, verse six may possibly mean Sarah's saying something like "God's making fun of me!" but certainly in a positive way. But in the midst of this mirth, Sarah gets angry when she sees Ishmael doing whatever he's doing to Isaac. (Although "mocking" is most likely the best translation, some have suggested due to the word's usage elsewhere that he may have simply been laughing in a friendly manner, and Sarah somehow couldn't stand to see this illegitimate child happy, or the possible other extreme that Sarah caught Ishmael molesting his younger brother. The latter would probably give very good justification for Sarah's anger in this story, but there's not a real strong basis for this speculation as far as I know.) Sarah insists Abraham send Ishmael and Hagar away, and whether or not she's at all justified in her anger, God seems to feel that it's a good idea, and tells Abraham to do it.
The SAB claims that Abraham sent them "out into the wilderness to die" but I think there's an important point missing from such a reading of the story. Even if it wasn't reiterated by God here (which it is), Abraham no doubt remembers that God already promised that Ishmael would come to eventual prosperity. No, the point wasn't to have Ishmael dead, but to have him come into his own someplace a bit farther away from his half-brother Isaac. Note that this is a repeated theme throughout Genesis, that two close family members are too prosperous to be able to coexist in the same general area, and they have to part ways. This is just preemptive in Ishmael's case. Abraham gives them food and water and sends them off.
The SAB questions Ishmael's age at the time he is sent off with his mother, as the general context of the story suggests he's in his mid-teens, but some of the particular wording in this passage suggests a much younger child. First of all, the wording of the translation in verse 14, while technically following the wording of the Hebrew, unfortunately doesn't quite capture the spirit of the grammar, unfortunately. Note that the phrase "and the child" comes after the phrase "on her shoulder", and the implication is that she's carrying the bread and water, but not her son. Grammatically, "the child" follows the verb "gave", but not the subclause. Admittedly, it's not real clear, but apparently, this is just a difficult to translate passage. I don't think verse 15 really poses a problem, as one could certainly even take a full-grown adult and shove them under the shade of a bush. Verse 18, on the other hand is much more awkward phrase, as the KJV translation makes Ishmael sound like a tiny infant; many other translations use "by the hand" or "with your hand" which make more sense for a teenager. (I have a whole spiel about translation of prepositions that I usually share in the context of chapter one, and I can't believe I skipped over it! I even promised I'd include it in one of my early posts. I'm going to add it to the comments here later today.)
Back to Abraham, we see that he is approached by King Abimelech and Captain Phichol, who tell him that they respect Abraham's standing before God, and they'd like to make a pact with him that they will all do their best to get along, and hopefully they will all prosper. Note that we have seen the name Abimelech before, and we'll see it again, once with the name Phicol. While some instances of this may be the same person, it's very likely that "Abimelech" is more like a royal title than a proper name in the usual sense (it means "the king is my father") and Phicol (meaning "strong") may also be a title for the head of the army of Gerar. When Isaac runs into these guys, it's about 40 years later, and he has a similar sort of experience to his dad's first run-in with them.
Abraham makes a pact with them, which takes a bit of working out of some details concerning a well and some sheep. Swearing, making covenants, and taking oaths are good things to do, but Jesus gives an important caveat, which is echoed by James: if you understand the cultural and scriptural context for the two quoted verses, the point of the verses is not that someone should abstain from swearing (although it is true that some Christians, to be on the safe side, have "sworn off" swearing, if you will) but that swearing should not be an excuse for hypocrisy. When you were a kid, did you ever hear a kid say (or say yourself) "I swear on a stack of Bibles!" Why should swearing on a stack of Bibles be better than swearing on one Bible? Why should swearing on one Bible be better than just swearing? Why should swearing be better than just saying something, and people know you to be of such good character that they know you mean what you say at all times? Paraphrasing Jesus in Matt. 5:37, "Just say what you mean all the time, and swearing should serve no purpose."
The chapter ends with a couple of questions by the SAB concerning some geography. I'm going to answer the questions together, as they are related in a way. This story is supposedly the time Beersheba is given its name, and although another story is given later, the SAB apparently missed the fact that earlier, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away to Beersheba, which seems like it would be a clear anachronism. The thing is, while the area and the well in that story were named later, the author is writing after the fact, and calls the place by the name it was known by in the time of the writer. Beersheba was still called that 1,000 years later, and as far as I know, is still called that today. My point in answering this question that was not asked (but maybe should have been?) is that when the Bible here refers to "the land of the Philistines" hundreds of years before Philistines, it may simply mean that it was the land that eventually would belong to the Philistines. Also, as with so many other names, the meaning has a vagueness that means it may mean nothing so particular at all, as the Hebrew word for "Philistines" means "immigrants". As for the naming of Beersheba being covered twice, and seemingly thus contradicting, there are many interesting things going on in the Hebrew. There's a bit of wordplay involved here, as they make an oath (shev'uah) over seven (sheb'a) ewe lambs. In Isaac's story, there's no sense of "seven", but only an oath involved. It may be that while Abraham called the place Beersheba, the name didn't quite stick until Isaac's time. It may also be that Isaac's well was not just his father's well redug, but a new well in the same general area. Since Abraham and his son keep having to dig new wells here and make new covenants, the name just eventually comes into common usage, I guess, and the name sticks for over 3,000 years.
Like the previously-discussed passages in which God "appears" to people, I think saying that God "visited" Sarah is really a figure of speech. Really, God is with Sarah all the time, as He's with everyone, but in this case, what there was was a visitation of God's power upon Sarah's post-menopausal reproductive system. As the SAB points out, Abraham doesn't seem to need any help in that area, as he has several children after Sarah dies years later. The SAB points out that "God-assisted conceptions never result in daughters." which is technically not true, as theologically Christians and Jews believe that all conceptions are God-assisted in a sense, but the point is clear enough. I'm not sure why this needs to be pointed out, unless the implication is that there's some sexism involved. From one point of view, it's often the mothers that seem to care the most about infertility, and a point could be made that these special conceptions are a special blessing to the women in particular, but I can certainly understand that that might not convince everyone. (Remember that Abraham was perfectly happy to have Ishmael be his heir!) If Steve Wells is trying to make a different point, perhaps he can leave a comment.
So Sarah has a child, and he is named Isaac, a word often translated as "laughter". There's a lot of interesting usages of this word surrounding the life of Isaac and his parents: Abraham laughs the first time he's told Isaac is going to be born, and so does Sarah. The word can also mean "mocking", "playing" or "messing around". It's the word used of Ishmael's actions towards Isaac in verse nine, and even Issac's actions with his wife in chapter 26 (probably some sort of "heavy petting" as they say). Because of the ambiguity/flexibility of the word, verse six may possibly mean Sarah's saying something like "God's making fun of me!" but certainly in a positive way. But in the midst of this mirth, Sarah gets angry when she sees Ishmael doing whatever he's doing to Isaac. (Although "mocking" is most likely the best translation, some have suggested due to the word's usage elsewhere that he may have simply been laughing in a friendly manner, and Sarah somehow couldn't stand to see this illegitimate child happy, or the possible other extreme that Sarah caught Ishmael molesting his younger brother. The latter would probably give very good justification for Sarah's anger in this story, but there's not a real strong basis for this speculation as far as I know.) Sarah insists Abraham send Ishmael and Hagar away, and whether or not she's at all justified in her anger, God seems to feel that it's a good idea, and tells Abraham to do it.
The SAB claims that Abraham sent them "out into the wilderness to die" but I think there's an important point missing from such a reading of the story. Even if it wasn't reiterated by God here (which it is), Abraham no doubt remembers that God already promised that Ishmael would come to eventual prosperity. No, the point wasn't to have Ishmael dead, but to have him come into his own someplace a bit farther away from his half-brother Isaac. Note that this is a repeated theme throughout Genesis, that two close family members are too prosperous to be able to coexist in the same general area, and they have to part ways. This is just preemptive in Ishmael's case. Abraham gives them food and water and sends them off.
The SAB questions Ishmael's age at the time he is sent off with his mother, as the general context of the story suggests he's in his mid-teens, but some of the particular wording in this passage suggests a much younger child. First of all, the wording of the translation in verse 14, while technically following the wording of the Hebrew, unfortunately doesn't quite capture the spirit of the grammar, unfortunately. Note that the phrase "and the child" comes after the phrase "on her shoulder", and the implication is that she's carrying the bread and water, but not her son. Grammatically, "the child" follows the verb "gave", but not the subclause. Admittedly, it's not real clear, but apparently, this is just a difficult to translate passage. I don't think verse 15 really poses a problem, as one could certainly even take a full-grown adult and shove them under the shade of a bush. Verse 18, on the other hand is much more awkward phrase, as the KJV translation makes Ishmael sound like a tiny infant; many other translations use "by the hand" or "with your hand" which make more sense for a teenager. (I have a whole spiel about translation of prepositions that I usually share in the context of chapter one, and I can't believe I skipped over it! I even promised I'd include it in one of my early posts. I'm going to add it to the comments here later today.)
Back to Abraham, we see that he is approached by King Abimelech and Captain Phichol, who tell him that they respect Abraham's standing before God, and they'd like to make a pact with him that they will all do their best to get along, and hopefully they will all prosper. Note that we have seen the name Abimelech before, and we'll see it again, once with the name Phicol. While some instances of this may be the same person, it's very likely that "Abimelech" is more like a royal title than a proper name in the usual sense (it means "the king is my father") and Phicol (meaning "strong") may also be a title for the head of the army of Gerar. When Isaac runs into these guys, it's about 40 years later, and he has a similar sort of experience to his dad's first run-in with them.
Abraham makes a pact with them, which takes a bit of working out of some details concerning a well and some sheep. Swearing, making covenants, and taking oaths are good things to do, but Jesus gives an important caveat, which is echoed by James: if you understand the cultural and scriptural context for the two quoted verses, the point of the verses is not that someone should abstain from swearing (although it is true that some Christians, to be on the safe side, have "sworn off" swearing, if you will) but that swearing should not be an excuse for hypocrisy. When you were a kid, did you ever hear a kid say (or say yourself) "I swear on a stack of Bibles!" Why should swearing on a stack of Bibles be better than swearing on one Bible? Why should swearing on one Bible be better than just swearing? Why should swearing be better than just saying something, and people know you to be of such good character that they know you mean what you say at all times? Paraphrasing Jesus in Matt. 5:37, "Just say what you mean all the time, and swearing should serve no purpose."
The chapter ends with a couple of questions by the SAB concerning some geography. I'm going to answer the questions together, as they are related in a way. This story is supposedly the time Beersheba is given its name, and although another story is given later, the SAB apparently missed the fact that earlier, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away to Beersheba, which seems like it would be a clear anachronism. The thing is, while the area and the well in that story were named later, the author is writing after the fact, and calls the place by the name it was known by in the time of the writer. Beersheba was still called that 1,000 years later, and as far as I know, is still called that today. My point in answering this question that was not asked (but maybe should have been?) is that when the Bible here refers to "the land of the Philistines" hundreds of years before Philistines, it may simply mean that it was the land that eventually would belong to the Philistines. Also, as with so many other names, the meaning has a vagueness that means it may mean nothing so particular at all, as the Hebrew word for "Philistines" means "immigrants". As for the naming of Beersheba being covered twice, and seemingly thus contradicting, there are many interesting things going on in the Hebrew. There's a bit of wordplay involved here, as they make an oath (shev'uah) over seven (sheb'a) ewe lambs. In Isaac's story, there's no sense of "seven", but only an oath involved. It may be that while Abraham called the place Beersheba, the name didn't quite stick until Isaac's time. It may also be that Isaac's well was not just his father's well redug, but a new well in the same general area. Since Abraham and his son keep having to dig new wells here and make new covenants, the name just eventually comes into common usage, I guess, and the name sticks for over 3,000 years.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Behold, of a surety she is thy wife; and how saidst thou, She is my sister? (Gen 20)
So chapter 20 opens with Harry coming downstairs to find Hermione and Ginny already at breakfast... Oh wait, wrong book.
Here in Genesis, we see essentially a replay of the story in chapter 12. Abraham enters a strange new area, he figures the men of that area have no scruples and will kill him to take his wife, so he tells her to (half) lie and say that she's his sister, and troubles follow.
This time, there are a few differences, though. God actually talks directly to Abimelech in a dream instead of sending some plagues as He did in Egypt. Now, while God does say to Abimelech "Behold, thou art but a dead man..." and it sounds like a death threat, some have suggested (and I think it makes sense both logically and in regards to some of what follows) that the actual implication is that God has rendered Abimelech impotent. Either he's a "dead man" in bed, or he's a "dead man" because he is unable to have children, perhaps a bit of both.
Abimelech pleads with God, and points out that he's acted in good faith, and that in any case, he hasn't actually touched Sarah yet. Note that the only thing in the chapter that indicates that God caused any harm to anyone outside of the king's household is the word "nation" in verse four. While it may indeed imply that the curse/threat/plague/whatever was on the whole country, it seems also quite likely that being the king, Abimelech is referring to himself as a "nation", not an uncommon thing to do in a monarchy. Also of note is the similarity between this verse and verse 18:23. Although it's not crystal clear, it seems that Abimelech, despite Abraham's suspicions, is to some degree familiar with Abraham's God.
An interesting thing that comes out of this is that while God surely would have had the ability to just make everything right again if Sarah just went back to her husband, He decides to make Abimelech have to pay Abraham and Sarah, and ask Abraham to pray for him. I've got to say I think it's a little odd to be forced give gifts to a guy that nearly got you killed, but I think the real point is to respect Abraham as God's representative, albeit a very flawed one.
Yes, Sarah and Abraham were half-siblings. Is incest okay? No, but... As I think I mentioned before, there's some sort of dividing line in history that happens, and the reason for it is never given, but one could guess. Cain probably married his sister, or at the very least married a niece that was the daughter of two of his siblings. He essentially had no choice, did he? I think also, in the early days after the flood (which would be Abraham's time), there was a limited number of available women to men wanting to marry, and they probably would have to marry a close relative, perhaps even especially after Babel, when a non-relative wouldn't speak the same language. However, once your nation becomes as big as six hundred thousand men (and probably about the same number of women), you should be able to find a wife that's at least as distant as a second cousin. The dividing line for the Jews was the Exodus, and the handing down of the Law. In Leviticus 18, God says this practice should be no more.
So Abimelech gives all sorts of stuff to Abraham, along with some money to Sarah, and tells them they can live wherever they want in the land. Abraham prays and the people in Abimelech's household get to have children again, "For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs..." Yeah, like the SAB said before, it's always the women with the problem in the Bible, isn't it?
Here in Genesis, we see essentially a replay of the story in chapter 12. Abraham enters a strange new area, he figures the men of that area have no scruples and will kill him to take his wife, so he tells her to (half) lie and say that she's his sister, and troubles follow.
This time, there are a few differences, though. God actually talks directly to Abimelech in a dream instead of sending some plagues as He did in Egypt. Now, while God does say to Abimelech "Behold, thou art but a dead man..." and it sounds like a death threat, some have suggested (and I think it makes sense both logically and in regards to some of what follows) that the actual implication is that God has rendered Abimelech impotent. Either he's a "dead man" in bed, or he's a "dead man" because he is unable to have children, perhaps a bit of both.
Abimelech pleads with God, and points out that he's acted in good faith, and that in any case, he hasn't actually touched Sarah yet. Note that the only thing in the chapter that indicates that God caused any harm to anyone outside of the king's household is the word "nation" in verse four. While it may indeed imply that the curse/threat/plague/whatever was on the whole country, it seems also quite likely that being the king, Abimelech is referring to himself as a "nation", not an uncommon thing to do in a monarchy. Also of note is the similarity between this verse and verse 18:23. Although it's not crystal clear, it seems that Abimelech, despite Abraham's suspicions, is to some degree familiar with Abraham's God.
An interesting thing that comes out of this is that while God surely would have had the ability to just make everything right again if Sarah just went back to her husband, He decides to make Abimelech have to pay Abraham and Sarah, and ask Abraham to pray for him. I've got to say I think it's a little odd to be forced give gifts to a guy that nearly got you killed, but I think the real point is to respect Abraham as God's representative, albeit a very flawed one.
Yes, Sarah and Abraham were half-siblings. Is incest okay? No, but... As I think I mentioned before, there's some sort of dividing line in history that happens, and the reason for it is never given, but one could guess. Cain probably married his sister, or at the very least married a niece that was the daughter of two of his siblings. He essentially had no choice, did he? I think also, in the early days after the flood (which would be Abraham's time), there was a limited number of available women to men wanting to marry, and they probably would have to marry a close relative, perhaps even especially after Babel, when a non-relative wouldn't speak the same language. However, once your nation becomes as big as six hundred thousand men (and probably about the same number of women), you should be able to find a wife that's at least as distant as a second cousin. The dividing line for the Jews was the Exodus, and the handing down of the Law. In Leviticus 18, God says this practice should be no more.
So Abimelech gives all sorts of stuff to Abraham, along with some money to Sarah, and tells them they can live wherever they want in the land. Abraham prays and the people in Abimelech's household get to have children again, "For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs..." Yeah, like the SAB said before, it's always the women with the problem in the Bible, isn't it?
Thursday, September 22, 2005
As for Ishmael, I have heard thee (Gen 16)
Sorry for the lateness of this post, but the SAB was down all day, and I just recently figured out how to get the info I needed for the post. Hopefully it's sufficient.
I don't know whether to chalk it up to chauvinism or simple lack of biological understanding, but yes, as the SAB says, "In the Bible, it is the women who are barren, never the men." Most likely, if a couple wasn't having children, it probably would have been assumed to be the wife's problem in those days, unless the man had something obviously wrong with him. In this particular case, while it seems possible that there was more going on here than Sarai's infertility, it is notable that Abram had no difficulties conceiving with at least two other women besides Sarai, namely Hagar and Keturah. Also, the specific language ("went in unto" rather than "knew" Hagar) used is suggestive that Hagar conceived the very first time.
It was apparently a practice in those days that if a couple wanted children but the wife was unable to conceive, they would find a surrogate mother, usually one of the wife's female servants. (It's not made clear whether the servant has to be willing or not. One would hope so, but I suspect it was not the case.) A pretty barbaric practice, surely, and in the few cases where the Bible mentions someone using it, it's usually a story given a negative tone. We see here that the end result of using Hagar in this fashion is that Hagar is unhappy, Sarai is unhappy and Abram is unhappy. Eventually the child becomes the ancestor of the Ishmaelites, known today as the Arabs, who from their beginnings until today have very seldom gotten along well with the Israelites. So, as I said before, polygamy is allowed, but never fully approved of by God.
(Another note about possible strong language in the original Hebrew: In verse 5, the word translated "bosom" is actually more like "lap", and may have some strong connotations.)
So Sarai gets angry that Hagar conceived so easily, no doubt due to jealousy on multiple levels. Abram decides to placate her by letting her be mean to Hagar, which she is in some unspecified way, perhaps physical abuse. So Hagar runs away, and eventually has the first run-in with an "angel" in the book of Genesis. Note that it's a common belief among Christians that the phrase "angel of the Lord" is an indication of a Christophany. Whoever this angel is, he suggests to Hagar that she return and submit to whatever she has to, and that in time, her own son will become very prosperous, although warlike. Somehow, this encounter leads to the well being named after the event as "the well of the living One who sees."
So, Ishmael was born, and was he Abram's first son or not? It seems that he is, but the Bible often says otherwise, that Isaac was Abram's first son, and even his only son. What does this mean? The fact is that while Ishmael's father was indeed Abram, Isaac was Abram's first legitimate son. Although Abram cared about and loved Ishmael, Isaac was the only son of his wife Sarai. In that sense, Isaac was the first. But what about the children he had through Keturah in chapter 25? Wasn't Abram married to her? Yes, but I would venture to guess that in every case Isaac is called Abram's "only son," it's referring to a time before Abram remarried. It certainly is the case in the verses cited by the SAB, but someone may know of others that I don't.
I don't know whether to chalk it up to chauvinism or simple lack of biological understanding, but yes, as the SAB says, "In the Bible, it is the women who are barren, never the men." Most likely, if a couple wasn't having children, it probably would have been assumed to be the wife's problem in those days, unless the man had something obviously wrong with him. In this particular case, while it seems possible that there was more going on here than Sarai's infertility, it is notable that Abram had no difficulties conceiving with at least two other women besides Sarai, namely Hagar and Keturah. Also, the specific language ("went in unto" rather than "knew" Hagar) used is suggestive that Hagar conceived the very first time.
It was apparently a practice in those days that if a couple wanted children but the wife was unable to conceive, they would find a surrogate mother, usually one of the wife's female servants. (It's not made clear whether the servant has to be willing or not. One would hope so, but I suspect it was not the case.) A pretty barbaric practice, surely, and in the few cases where the Bible mentions someone using it, it's usually a story given a negative tone. We see here that the end result of using Hagar in this fashion is that Hagar is unhappy, Sarai is unhappy and Abram is unhappy. Eventually the child becomes the ancestor of the Ishmaelites, known today as the Arabs, who from their beginnings until today have very seldom gotten along well with the Israelites. So, as I said before, polygamy is allowed, but never fully approved of by God.
(Another note about possible strong language in the original Hebrew: In verse 5, the word translated "bosom" is actually more like "lap", and may have some strong connotations.)
So Sarai gets angry that Hagar conceived so easily, no doubt due to jealousy on multiple levels. Abram decides to placate her by letting her be mean to Hagar, which she is in some unspecified way, perhaps physical abuse. So Hagar runs away, and eventually has the first run-in with an "angel" in the book of Genesis. Note that it's a common belief among Christians that the phrase "angel of the Lord" is an indication of a Christophany. Whoever this angel is, he suggests to Hagar that she return and submit to whatever she has to, and that in time, her own son will become very prosperous, although warlike. Somehow, this encounter leads to the well being named after the event as "the well of the living One who sees."
So, Ishmael was born, and was he Abram's first son or not? It seems that he is, but the Bible often says otherwise, that Isaac was Abram's first son, and even his only son. What does this mean? The fact is that while Ishmael's father was indeed Abram, Isaac was Abram's first legitimate son. Although Abram cared about and loved Ishmael, Isaac was the only son of his wife Sarai. In that sense, Isaac was the first. But what about the children he had through Keturah in chapter 25? Wasn't Abram married to her? Yes, but I would venture to guess that in every case Isaac is called Abram's "only son," it's referring to a time before Abram remarried. It certainly is the case in the verses cited by the SAB, but someone may know of others that I don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
