Did Abram have to make Hagar a concubine in order to utilize her to produce an heir (on Sarah's behalf)?

Question

I have seen the Code of Hammurabi regulations on the maidservant/concubine/wife relationship which seems to suggest that they are all three very different concepts. The wife has precedence and the maidservant belongs to the wife (and may still be sold by the wife if she doesn't bear children - suggesting she does not automatically have the status of a concubine when she starts having sex with the husband). The husband cannot take a concubine while he has both a wife and a maidservant who has given him children (because that is to say his wife has given him children so he should need no concubine?).

In any case, my question is whether Abram was "forced", (whether by law or social custom) to take Hagar as his "wife" (Gen 16:3) in a legal sense (obviously as a second-tier wife/concubine). This makes a difference because as I understand it, a second-tier wife still had to be formally divorced - a process denied to Hagar when Sarai sent her away. So I'm trying to reconcile whether the wording in Gen 16:3 (l'isha - pretty basic) is the "polite jargon" way of saying, "and then they had sex", or whether it actually means she became his wife (because that's what it says). If she was a wife - even a concubine - it seems both law and custom are grossly violated in her treatment. (Which wouldn't surprise me, but my concern is with Abram's treatment of her initially, not Sarai's treatment of her later.)

So again, the question, did Abram:
a. CHOOSE to take her as a legal wife without being prescribed to do so?
b. HAVE to take her as a legal wife because of an existing law (I use the term loosely) or custom?
c. NOT take her as a legal wife and the text is a euphemism? (Do we have other biblical evidence of this that I'm just not seeing?)

Answer 1

¹Now Sarai Abram's wife bore him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
²And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
³And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. ⁴And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
-- Genesis 16:1-4 (KJV)

The narrative is pretty clear that Abraham didn't "make" Hagar to be anything. Sarai gave her handmaid to Abraham to be his wife, after which Abraham "went in unto" her and she conceived. The compelling reason then, according to the narrative, for Abraham to take Hagar as his wife was a plea from Sarai that he might produce children FOR HER through Hagar.

The biblical narrative doesn't speak about the customs of the time, so whatever the Code of Hammurabi has to say concerning Abraham's behaviour is moot. The biblical narrative, however, does say about Abraham:

⁴And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; ⁵Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
-- Genesis 26:4-5 (KJV)

So, unless it can be established that the Code of Hammurabi came from God, then it surely must be disqualified as a force by which Abraham's heart was moved. To reiterate the text of the narrative: Abraham obeyed GOD'S VOICE, and kept GOD'S CHARGE and GOD'S COMMANDMENTS and GOD'S STATUTES and GOD'S LAWS.

Additional Note

³And Sarai Abram's wife ^{אֵֽשֶׁת אַבְרָ֗ם} took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife ^{לְאִשָּׁ֔ה}.
-- Genesis 16:3 (KJV)

The Hebrew here is crystal clear. Sarai, who was the אֵֽשֶׁת אַבְרָ֗ם "wife of Abram", took her maid and gave her to her husband לְאִשָּׁ֔ה "for a wife". So whatever relationship Sarai had with Abram, Hagar's was identical, since the same word, אִשָּׁה, is used in regard to both women. If someone were to infer (by whatever coercion of the text they might employ) that Hagar was Abram's concubine, then Sarai was his concubine also.

Conclusion
Abraham, out of compassion for his wife's barren state, accepted Hagar as his wife from whom he produced his son, Ishmael. As the narrative depicts no "prescription" from God, one would have to conclude option (a) is correct.

Answer 2

One must understand the purpose of the story of Abraham and his two wives before casting judgements on the story itself. This story is perhaps the second most important in the whole bible, second only to Christ and him crucified. A thorough study of galatians 3 and 4 will show these two women and their 2 sons are a clear picture of God and his two marriages/covenants. People don't like to think of God as having two wives but we know God Was Married To Israel AND God put her away and gave her a writing of divorcement and put it in her hand. I think possibly it is the book of malachi, where God says ye are cursed with a curse even this whole nation. God told Israel to plead with their mother and that their mother is not his wife and they are the children of adultry, obviously if they are the children of adultry they are not God's children. Secondly we know that the church is the bride of Christ The nation of Israel was God's wife or how could he divorce her, and we know there will be a marriage supper of the lamb to the church. To find fault with Abraham for taking hagar to wife is to find fault with God for taking Israel to wife. Israel is not the seed of Abraham and not the heir of Abrahams covenant. Very pointed the apostle Paul wrote gal 3:16 he went to a lot of trouble to be clear. The seed to whom the promises were made was Christ alone. NOT ISACH, JACOB, AND THE 12 TRIBES

Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. Paul doesn't suggest Abrahams two wives might be an allegory, he says these things are an allegory. Notice Agar is Mt sinai, not Sara notice notice agar answers to Jerusalem. It's like God says" hey Jerusalem " and hagar says "what?" Mt saint is where the law was given to Israel it is that covenant that was the marriage of God to that people, that covenant was made 430 years after the Abraham covenant. And just like with Abraham and Sarah and hagar God's first covenant was barren until the second covenant produced a child to maturity then that barren covenant produced it first seed Christ Alone and the first child of that second marriage was cast out and they have never come back. Galatians 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Please note this verse is found in the old testament, but it's not found in Genesis with the Abraham story. It is a reference to Sara but it is really a very telling sign that Christ is the only seed of the covenant of Abraham. Isaiah 53 is the clearest prophecies of Christ and his crucifixion, immediately following that comes this verse which Paul references in Galatians 4:27 Isaiah 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. that barren woman is the Abrahamic covenant. The desolate is the mosaic covenant. The desolate doesn't have a husband, Israel doesn't have a husband, the married wife has a husband, the church has a husband. Any understanding of Abraham and his two wives must be viewed through a thorough understanding of Galatians 3 and 4 dig deep there are amazing lessons to be learned. don't despise your birthright Please note only Jews are adopted Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

everyone else is just born of the spirit not adopted from a different family.

Answer 3

https://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen16-3.html

Hagar's legal status in Abraham's household

..."The phrase "to be his wife" in verse 3 is merely a euphemism for sexual intercourse. That is clear from the phrase that immediately follows it as well as from the original request (v.2). The context makes it clear that Hagar remained the slave not of Abraham, but of Sarai."

shphchth (H8198) – maid

phlgsh (H6370) – concubine - 1st used in Gen. 22:24 for the concubine of Nahor, Abranam's brother.

All of the references to Hagar refer to her as a maid, never a concubine.

From the Jewish Virtual Library (concubine) is: (emphasis mine)

...Ancient marriage arrangements often stipulated that if the wife was barren, she must provide a handmaiden for her husband (cf. Code of Hammurapi, paragraphs 144–5 and the adoption contract from Nuzi in Pritchard, Texts, 220). Naming the handmaiden given to the bride by her father in such cases was evidently related to this practice (Pritchard, loc. cit.; Gen. 29:24, 29).

Also interesting is the verse from Jer. 34:9 (kjv):

Jer. 34:8 - This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, after that the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them;

Jer. 34:9 - That every man should let his manservant (obd), and every man his maidservant (shphchth), being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.

The Hebrew says: “to-let-go-of man (aish) servant-of~him (obd~u) maid-of~him (shphchth~u) the~Hebrew (e~obri) and~the~Hebrewess (u~e~obrie) free-ones (chphshim) to~so-as-not to-(make)-serve-of(-) in~them in~jew (b~ieudi) brother-of~him (achi~eu) man (aish):

___________-

Wiki:

Zilpah is given to Leah as a handmaid by Leah's father, Laban, upon Leah's marriage to Jacob (see Genesis 29:24, 46:18). According to the early rabbinical commentary Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer, Zilpah and Bilhah, the handmaids of Leah and Rachel, respectively, were actually younger daughters of Laban.

Gen. 29:29 - "And~he-is-giving Laban to~Rachel daughter-of~him ath(-) Bilhah maid-of~him to~her to~maid."

Could 'maids' always be the offspring of the father and a concubine rather than a full-blood sister? Or if full-blooded sisters, is there always a wife-maid family relationship when it comes to maids?

---

OP stated, "I have seen the Code of Hammurabi regulations on the maidservant/concubine/wife relationship which seems to suggest that they are all three very different concepts."

I tend to agree that the distinctions show up in the OT; however, sometimes there are 'pseudo-contradictions'... like Reuben sleeping with Jacob's concubine (Gen. 35:22), Bilhah. But Bilhah and Zilpah were maids of Rebekah and Leah. (Gen. 29:24 and Gen. 29:29)

-----Edits after OP's comments----

1. Added missed verse refs re 'Jacob's concubine'

2. Meant to address 'ashe' and 'ashth' but got side-tracked. Have generally noticed that 'ashe' = woman, but 'ashth' is used when referring to a woman as a wife ("woman-of~him). Haven't done a thorough study to see if it holds throughout, but will put findings in another answer later today.