Give me a break, P-M! (You're starting to sound like a Mormon who says the word "trinity" isn't in the text of the Bible). No, the 7-letter word "Trinity" isn't there; but three divine Persons unified as one Being, yes, it's there. No, the word "surrogate" or "surrogacy" isn't there, but the concept is crystal clear: "Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children...she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her." (Gen. 16:1-2, New International Version)
Hebrew word for build=banah (meaning the same thing, build or establish)...so tell me, P, what is family-building thru the womb of your slavegirl to be called if not "surrogacy?"
By yes, you are apparently denying that Sarai gave Hagar as a "wife" to Abram. Is that your position? I couldn't really tell, since you qualified your "yes" so much that it kinda sounded like a "no".
Let me try to get some clarity here on what we agree on: We agree on the action Sarai took: She "mastered" a slave & said to her slave, essentially "you're his to sleep with" (because as I've already told my husband, I want a child to build my family). That's all clearly laid out in Gen. 16:1-3.
What I am still questioning is whether a slaveholder has a right to turn her slave over to another for sex. (And in fact, as we look thru history, is this not more aptly called "rape?")
I looked at another FReeper thread today on the same story, and found this comment from a poster named "Cherry": I guess in reality, there have been several religions that gave the "godly" okay for men to rape young girls and to keep them as their sex slaves.....I don't know any other way to put it..... (Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999244/posts?q=1&;page=51)
So my question back to you, P, is doesn't Cherry raise a legit question here with her comment? If a slaveowner orders a slave to have sex with her husband, isn't it possible that this is "rape" and that a slaveowner has overstepped her stewardship of that slave? Isn't this situation comparable to an educator who has sex with a 17 year-old in his/her classroom? (Person in authority comandeering sex) Even if the 17 yo supposedly "agreed," there is no such thing as "consentual" sex in this kind of authoritative relationship. I mean this is even true for a supervisor & employee in his/her charge. (We know that is simply "sexual harassment" or "abuse of authority," etc.)
And is this same "abuse" by a person of authority the exact issue that jumpstarted this thread? Have there been church leaders & parents who have overstepped their authority in ordering an underaged girl to be the wife or plural wife of an older man? (like Abram was an older man).
Is it the same word, or isn't it?
So my question back to you, P, is doesn't Cherry raise a legit question here with her comment? If a slaveowner orders a slave to have sex with her husband, isn't it possible that this is "rape" and that a slaveowner has overstepped her stewardship of that slave?
The morality of it was dealt with in the Bible. It was wrong. Nevertheless, what Sarai did was to give her slave to Abram as a WIFE. Abram could have refused and should have refused. It is fairly clear that Hagar could have refused as well, since she apparently had the power to leave, which she later did after being mistreated by a jealous Sarai.
Regardless of the morality of the situation, the fact remains that the scripture quite plainly states that Sarai gave Hagar to Abram as a wife.
And is this same "abuse" by a person of authority the exact issue that jumpstarted this thread?
I would assume that it was not a nice thing to do. But I also have to note that during Abraham's time, it certainly wasn't illegal. I tend to doubt that Hagar was a 13 year old girl since she had been with Sarai for at least 10 years. For all we know she was the same age as Sarai.
I'm not trying in any way to justify the LDS practice of polygamy. I'm merely pointing out that the prohibition on the practice is modern and it was not prohibited in the Old Testament and (to get back to the original argument) there are polygamists in Jesus' Family Tree. What that means may be up to debate, but the fact of that family history is not deniable.