I recently saw someone comment, “Well, I’m off to explain to a bunch of twelve-year olds why Abraham proposed sleeping with another woman as a cure for infertility.” Presumably a bit tongue in cheek, but it illustrated the problems of an approach to scripture which doesn’t emphasize seeking understanding through context.

This post contains Amazon Affiliate links.

I argued at the 2025 Virtual FAIR Conference that the Church advocates contextual reading pretty strongly.

Let’s see how this helps with Abraham and Sarai.

First, per Genesis 16:2, this is Sarai’s suggestion, not Abraham’s. This is an example of not paying close enough attention to what the text actually says.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Sarai’s suggestion constitutes  a form of surrogacy, and was not unusual in the ancient Near East.  (Neither was infertility, on which see  Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness  There’s a review and summary here.)

But knowing those two things and teaching them in a useful framework requires a) getting outside our own cultural assumptions and b) reading outside of scripture itself.

For getting outside our own cultural assumptions and framing, I’d strongly recommend using the Answering Gospel Questions 10 points, which are fantastic and cover some of this.  (See especially “Seeking Answers to Questions” then “Work to Understand the Past” and “Seek Reliable Sources.” These would be a great fifth Sunday lesson.)

For the understanding the cultural contexts of the Bible, I’d suggest a study Bible, whether the SBL Study Bible, Jewish Study Bible, or Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible.  Anyone using even one of these would be aware of the differing cultural background between today’s western reader and Abraham/Sarai, with differing amounts of detail.

The The Jewish Study Bible  says

“Nothing in the promises given to Abram to date having specified the matriarch of the great nation to come, Sarai takes matters into her own hands and, in accordance with documented ancient Near Eastern practice, offers her slave woman as a surrogate mother. Abram (who might have solved his problem by divorcing Sarai but stayed with her nonetheless) accepts.”

 

The Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible directly address the modern instinctive cultural response with some depth.

“The solution proposed by Sarai is not as shocking or outlandish as it would seem to us today. In the ancient world, barrenness was a catastrophe (see note on 11:30) because one of the primary roles of the family was to produce the next generation. The survival of the family line was of the highest value, and it depended on producing progeny. Whatever threat a second wife might pose to harmony in the family paled in comparison to the necessity of an heir being produced.
Marriage contracts of the ancient world, therefore, anticipated the possibility of barrenness and at times specifically dictated a course of action. Solutions ranged from serial monogamy (divorcing the barren wife to take another, presumably fertile, bride), to polygyny (taking a second wife of equal status), to polycoity (the addition of handmaids or concubines for the purpose of producing an heir), to adoption. The third option is the one pursued here; this attempted remedy is consistent with contemporary practice as a strategy for heirship. This option was often more attractive because if the wife were divorced, there would be an economic impact on the family (she took her marriage fund/dowry with her). Concubines bring no dowry, only their fertility, to the family.
A marriage contract from the town of Nuzi a few centuries after the patriarchal period illustrates the practice: “If Gilimninu bears children, Shennima shall not take another wife. But if Gilimninu fails to bear children, Gilimninu shall get for Shennima a woman from the Lullu country (a slave girl) as concubine. In that case, Gilimninu herself shall have authority over the offspring.” An Old Assyrian marriage contract closer to the time of the patriarchs reflects a similar solution to infertility. It is therefore plausible that Sarai is simply invoking the terms of their marriage contract.”

 

The New Oxford Annotated Bible states briefly that

According to ancient surrogate motherhood customs, a wife could give her maid to her husband and claim the child as her own

 

The online-only Faithlife Study Bible from Logos cites part of the passage before commenting on Hagar’s legal status and one of the ancient Near Eastern texts that provides useful background.

Yahweh has prevented me from bearing children In the ancient Near East, barrenness was always considered a female problem due to the belief that the man deposited a seedling child into the woman, where it would grow like a plant. Failure to grow the child was thus viewed as divine judgment against the woman.

I will have children by her The procedure of a barren woman providing her husband with a concubine occurred in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, according to both the ancient work Hammurabi’s Code and ancient marriage contracts.

Abram listened Since it was a standard practice for a barren wife to offer her concubine, Abram is not surprised.

16:3 his wife Sarai gives Hagar to Abram as an ishah. This may indicate that Hagar has a higher status in the household than that of a concubine (pilegesh). A higher status may have been necessary for the child to have full rights as Abram’s heir.

 

The SBL Study Bible briefly notes that

The use of a female slave as a surrogate mother  is attested in ancient Near Eastern custom (see also Gen 30:3, 9)

 

Remember that the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. That applies to  Doctrine&Covenants and the Book of Mormon just as much as the New Testament and Old.  Following the Church’s guidelines to study in context helps us become culturally bilingual.  That doesn’t mean that things like Sarai and Hagar won’t strike us as foreign or distasteful anymore; but at least it prevents us from presentism, judging the past by the present.