For several chapters, Abraham is seen obviously fretting over the fact that he does not have a son of his own to inherit his worldly possessions (not to mention everything Yahweh was promising through the covenant). In fact, he blatantly complains to Yahweh about the heir apparent: “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (Genesis 15:2). It seems to me that Lot should have been the first in line to inherit Abraham’s household before any sons entered the picture. Since this obviously was not the case, I decided to find out why, and it did not take long to find an answer. Every single piece of information I came across noted that, no matter the circumstance, only sons could be the heir of a household. This probed a much more cloudy question: how was Eliezer of Damascus in the position to be Abraham’s heir since he is never mentioned as Abraham’s son?
There are many theories floating around this exact question, so I decided to probe into the ones that I found most plausible. One theory I found very interesting made the case that Eliezer could have been Abraham’s adopted son. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, it was a common practice in the culture of this time period for childless couples to adopt a son to bury and mourn them when they died, and in return for his services, he would be named the family’s heir (providing no natural-born son enters the picture, of course). These adopted sons were often former slaves, and since Abraham later says in Genesis 15:3 that Eliezer is a member of his household (meaning one of his possessions), the adopted slave theory would make sense in this situation. Also, interestingly enough, Abraham and Sarah were at advanced ages before Yahweh promised them a child of their own, so it makes sense that they could have been worried enough to adopt a member of the household as a sort of backup plan. In his essay, Dr. Robert Paulissian explains that these adopted sons sometimes came from complete strangers looking for a better life for their children; so, it is also plausible that Abraham adopted Eliezer while passing through Damascus on the road to Canaan. In fact, Abraham would have passed through Damascus at a fairly advanced age, and he could have already been worrying about the future of his household (perhaps enough to even adopt a son).
Indeed, the thought of Abraham and Sarah adopting a son to take care of their affairs when they die makes sense, but there is another theory that sticks out as the most sensible, in my opinion. In her blog, Alice Linsley attributes Eliezer’s position as heir to him being conceived by one of Abraham’s concubines. This makes sense on many different levels. First of all, readers know that Abraham kept the company of concubines thanks to Genesis 25:5-6 when he gives gifts to the sons of his concubines. It was not uncommon in ancient Mesopotamia for the children of concubines to be treated as legal offspring, and in other cases, the children of concubines assumed the role of slave in the house to which they were born. As a result, the argument could be made that Eliezer was the oldest son of Abraham’s concubines; if this was the case, he would have been both heir and property to Abraham. To even further bolster the argument of Eliezer being the son of a concubine, it would explain why Abraham was not very happy that Eliezer would inherit his household if he died without a legitimate son. Concubines were treated as property; they did not have the social status to actually marry the ruler they served. Therefore, any sons born to them would subsequently bear a considerably lower social standing than any sons born to a legal wife. It would not have been ideal for a man of Abraham’s stature to leave his household in the name of someone of a lower social class.
These concubines were kept in a part of the household known as a harem (pictured above). As a general rule, more wealth = more concubines. It is obvious to readers that Abraham was a very wealthy man, and it is hard to imagine a room like the one pictured above not resulting in a few children, am I right?
Reading Abraham’s story today, it may seem logical that Abraham would leave his possessions to Lot, his beloved nephew. However, thanks to the social and legal practices of the time period, the reader gains insight to the tangled web of lineage weaved by Abraham. In my opinion, the writer used this tangled lineage as a tool to highlight the exactness of the protagonist’s plan. In order for events to unfold like they did, the protagonist had to untangle a gigantic ball of problematic circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment