Abraham & Sarah, Half-Sibling-Spouses? (Genesis 20)

The Bible is not a 21^st century American novel. It is an ancient text dating back some 2,000 years. For it’s time, it was sometimes progressive. But often it merely reflected the human culture from which it was created.

That said, the literariness of the text is rather remarkable. Genesis 20 is a great example.

Up to now, we’ve been assuming the newly named Sarah and Abraham are a childless married couple that God chose to birth a nation. In Genesis 11, we’re given Abraham’s genealogy. Sarah is mentioned (as Sarai), but simply as the wife of Abraham who happens to be childless. She’s also mentioned as the daughter-in-law of Terah, Abraham’s father (11:31).

In the next chapter, Genesis 12, we read the story of Abraham and Sarah entering Egypt where Abraham states Sarah is his sister, not his wife, to save his hide. He fears that because Sarah is so beautiful, desirous Egyptian men will get rid of him to take Sarah for themselves. Sarah declared as merely sister, a desirous Egyptian man indeed takes her as his wife. That desirous Egyptian man is none other than the Pharoah himself. You know the rest of the story. In the end, God returns Sarah to Abraham as his lawfully wedded wife.

In Genesis 20, however, things take an unexpected and unbelievable turn. We have a similar situation as Genesis 12. Abraham and Sarah have entered a foreign land, the land of Gerar. Unlike Genesis 12 where we had some forewarning and some inkling of Abraham’s thoughts, that he was afraid to be killed in the process of desirous Egyptian men taking beautiful Sarah, Genesis 20 describes Abraham out of the blue declaring Sarah as his sister. It's impliaed that Abraham has a similar kind of worry as he did while entering Egypt. But it is not stated explicitly.

The King of Gerar, Abimelech, noticing Sarah and believing her to be the sister of Abraham, marries her. This seems innocent enough for oblivious King Abimelech, that is if you ignore the ancient misogyny seen in the fact that Sarah is given say in the matter whatsoever.

But God does not approve of this marriage. He haunts Abimelech’s dreams. In what is for Abimelech a nightmare, God gives the news that Sarah is Abraham’s wife and that he better return her or else, and, well, that else will be plainly lethal. In the dream, King Abimelech pleads his innocence on the basis of his ignorance of Sarah’s status. 

When awake, he corrects the horror and returns Sarah to Abraham. Abimelech summons Abraham. Before returning Sarah to him, Abimelech gives Abraham a talking to. How could you not tell me the truth? Why did you treat me so disrespectfully and bring shame to my house and throne? Now, when a king talks like this to you, you can expect some retribution soon follows.

So, Abraham, abruptly put into his place, and fearing Abimelech kingly power, blurts out the truth… finally... to us! Yes, Sarah is his wife, but she’s also his sister, a half-sister anyway! Different mother. But Terah is her father, too!  

Uhh, WHAT!?!? Abraham and Sarah are half-siblings!? 

Talk about a plot twist!

The rest of the story is a bit forgettable in light of the sudden and shocking news of Abraham and Sarah’s true relationship. Abimelech makes things right with Abraham and Sarah, giving them land and property and his best wishes.

But we have to discuss the shocking news of Abraham and Sarah’s incestuous relationship.

First of all, we have to be honest. If Abraham is guilty of lying by omission, witholding the truth by not saying his sister is also his wife, the biblical text if taken as history is guilty of the same, lying by omission and witholding the truth. 

For nearly 10 chapters, the text has made it abundantly clear that Abraham and Sarah are spouses. The text seems to hide, however, that Abraham and Sarah are siblings as well. The text had chances all along the way to indicate this fact. The genealogy in chapter 11 states Sarah is Terah’s daughter-in-law, but omits that she is also his daughter-by-birth! The story of Abraham and Sarah in Egypt in Genesis 12 never shows that Abraham was only half-lying when he said Sarah was his sister not his wife.

What are we to make of this?

Now, if you read the Bible literally, if you read it as as a work on non-fiction telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from start to finish, than you are especially disadvantaged at the text’s omissions in the Abraham and Sarah story. The predicament is difficult to get around. The text doesn’t seem to rise to your unassailable image!

If you read it as a work of literature, albeit sacred and inspired, you feel less transgressed against. In fact, if you read Genesis as the book of mythological literature that it is, you might see this sudden plot twist as a masterful literary stroke! No one saw it coming! It is an ancient version of a jump scare in the wake of a bad dream!

The second thing that I’d like to mention relates to the point I began with. The Bible is a product of the culture from which it sprung. In ancient Mesopotamia, circa 1400 BC, marriage to half-siblings was a thing! It is beyond cringe-worthy to us. In fact, it’s downright taboo for us. But then, in 1400 BCE, it was not so bad.

This shouldn’t be a huge surprise. Human sacrifice way, way back in the day was a thing. To us, it is the epitome of evil.

What is made clear here is that morality evolves. Human sacrifice and incest, while morally acceptable in ancient times, has evolved to now be morally beyond the pale.

Even in the Bible we see this evolution happening. In Genesis 20:12, Abraham and Sarah, the protagonists in the story, are said to be siblings and go unpunished. In fact, they go onto be blessed with a nation. In Leviticus 18:9, such relationships are prohibited by Mosaic law. But the Mosaic law came some 500 years after Abraham.  In those 500 years, morality had shifted, evolving for the better.

Abraham and Sarah will give birth to Isaac. Abraham will later accept God’s severe test of sacrificing his son. Then and there, in the world of ancient Mesopotamia surrounding Israel, human sacrifice was a morally acceptable practice. According to Genesis’ author(s), the God of Israel did not have a moral problem with at least using human sacrifice's possibility as a test.

To us and our culture, which deems human sacrifice or even animal sacrifice as evil, the Abraham-Isaac test feels rather suspect. Even if God stops Abraham from the dastardly deed, in effect ending the common practice of human sacrifice for his people, it still feels wrong. Why? Because our moral compass is different than it was in those days.

In the author(s)' time, human sacrifices were happening. Even children! To people not part of the people of Israel, such sacrifice was deemed part of religious life. God ends that practice for Israel, which is a huge step forward in the evolution of human morality 

The evolution of human morality in effect is the story of humans increasingly understanding and unveiling the truth of who God is. In I Corinthians 13, Paul talks about humans seeing through a glass dimly. Well, the glass in 1400 BCE was far, far opaquer. As humans evolved, humans developed increasingly better, metaphorical glasses, less opaque and clearer. Through the increasingly newer and more improved looking glasses, the human view of God and our view of God’s true nature has improved and become truer. That looking glass is still not perfect. We still see through a glass dimly, but it is a whole lot clearer than it was in Abraham’s day! The more we see and understand God who is Love, the purer and godlier our morality and our application of that morality gets.

One last thing. There is a wonderful book I’ve been reading that tells a similar tale. The book is titled The Widening of God’s Mercy: SexualityWithin the Biblical Story and is written by the father-son team of Richard and Christopher Hays. The Hayses are both Evangelical scholars who have a high view of the Bible. But they see the biblical story as one where God’s mercy increasingly widens to include more and more people who were once excluded. With this view, they argue that LGBT+ people should be included within the scope of God’s ever-expanding grace. This is quite revolutionary in the Evangelical world (if not a yawn-producer in the mainline world)!

The Hays’ would see the biblical story’s evolution as part of God’s plan. I’d agree with the caveat that the biblical story’ evolution has as much to do with human evolution as it does with God’s plan. Humans, after all, wrote these stories based on their understanding of God.