Some verses in the Bible seem to stand in such glaring contradiction to other Bible passages that reconciliation appears virtually impossible. But, after looking into the problem with only a small amount of diligence, the solution generally becomes apparent, and the supposed contradiction vanishes like a plate full of chocolate chip cookies in the midst of a group of hungry teenage boys. Such is the case with Hebrews 11:17: “By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son.” When this verse is compared to Abraham’s history as recorded in the book of Genesis, we immediately notice that Isaac was not the “only begotten son” of Abraham. In fact, we read that Abraham fathered Ishmael by Hagar (Genesis 16:16) more than a decade before the birth of Isaac. And following the death of Sarah, Abraham took Keturah as a wife, by which he begat at least six more sons (Genesis 25:1-2).

How is this seeming contradiction to be resolved? First, let us remember the general context of Hebrews 11:17. This verse comes near the end of a book whose writer has shown an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament. Even in the very chapter under discussion, we read a rather complete list of Old Testament heroes such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, et al. Furthermore, much more obscure characters like Barak and Jephthah make their way into the discussion. Add to this the numerous allusions to Melchizedek and the priesthood in earlier chapters, and one soon realizes that the writer of Hebrews was a true Old Testament scholar. To assume that he thought, or accidentally wrote, that Abraham had only one son would be to attribute to the writer a grievous, careless mistake of colossal proportions.

In truth, the problem has nothing to do with the writer of the book of Hebrews, but everything to do with the translators of the Greek into English. In the Greek text of Hebrews 11:17, the word translated as “only begotten son” is monogenes. While this word could possibly be used to refer to an only child, that certainly was not its sole use. Josephus used the word monogenes to refer to Izates, who had an older brother and several younger brothers (Antiquities, 20.2.1). The well-respected Greek-English Lexicon by Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker explains that the word can be used to denote something that is “unique (in kind), of something that is the only example of its category” (1979, p.527). This meaning fits perfectly the passage in Hebrews 11, where the writer was explaining that Abraham offered up his “only promised son.” Abraham had no other children that fit in the category of being promised by God. Isaac was the only “example of a category”—that category being a son who was promised to Abraham and Sarah. Although Abraham had many other children by other women, he had no other child “of promise.” Isaac was his unique son, the only one of promise: the “monogenes.”

Sometimes, clearing up a supposed contradiction in the Bible is as easy as looking up the possible meanings of a single word from the original language. Before we allow our faith to be shaken by superficial claims of contradiction, let’s resolve to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt that even an ancient secular document would deserve. It borders on comical to imagine that the Hebrews writer, with his commanding knowledge of the Old Testament, accidentally “slipped” when referring to Isaac as Abraham’s only son. Once again, we find that no contradiction exists; the honest Bible student has his or her question answered, the Bible skeptic has his or her allegation refuted, and the Bible remains the inspired Word of God.

Although Keturah is mentioned only four times in the Bible (in two different sections of Scripture—Genesis 25:1,4; 1 Chronicles 1:32-33), her relationship to Abraham has come under severe scrutiny. Skeptics have charged the Bible writers with erring in regard to their portrayal of Keturah. Allegedly, Genesis 25:1 and 1 Chronicles 1:32 are contradictory, because the first passage indicates Keturah was Abraham’s “wife,” while the other says she was “Abraham’s concubine.” Based upon the understanding of some that there is a distinction of the words “wife” (Hebrew ‘ iššâ) and “concubine” (pilegeš) during the monarchic period, even some Bible believers may be somewhat perplexed at the different titles given to Keturah. Was she Abraham’s wife, or was she his concubine? Many are aware that during David’s reign as Israel’s king, he had “wives” and “concubines” (2 Samuel 19:5). Also, during Solomon’s kingship, “he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3). In these contexts, the terms “ wives” (‘iššâ) and “concubines” (pilegeš) are distinct terms that rarely, if ever, are used interchangeably. Such begs the question, “Why was Keturah called Abraham’s wife in one passage, and his concubine in another?” Are these two sections of Scripture really contradictory, as Bible critics would have us believe?

First, for Genesis 25:1 and 1 Chronicles 1:32-33 to be a contradiction, one must know whether or not these passages are referring to the same time. It is possible that Keturah was Abraham’s “concubine” in the beginning, and then became his “wife” at a later time. If such were the case, Bible writers could legitimately use both terms when describing her.

Second, although it was unusual for the terms “wives” and “concubines” to be used interchangeably during the monarchic period, evidence indicates that in patriarchal times, using these terms to refer to the same person was somewhat normal. Consider the following:

> And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had; and while he was still living he sent them eastward, away from Isaac his son, to the country of the east (25:5-6, emp. added).

Isaac, son of Sarah, was set apart from all of Abraham’s other sons, which were born to him by his concubines. By implication, Keturah, who was not the mother of Isaac, was described as a concubine (cf. 1 Chronicles 1:32).

• Bilhah, Rachel’s maid (Genesis 29:29), was one of Jacob’s “concubines” (35:22). But, she also was called his “wife,” both before and after she gave birth to two of Jacob’s sons (30:4; 37:2).
• Genesis 16:3 calls Hagar Abraham’s “wife” (‘iššâ), while Genesis 25:6 implies that Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, also was his “concubine” (pilegeš).
• Although Genesis 25:1 says, “Abraham again took a wife” (Keturah), verse 6 of that same chapter indicates Keturah also was his concubine.

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton believes this concubine-wife relationship to be dissimilar to what was seen during the days of David and Solomon. It is reasonable to conclude that this “coidentification” in Genesis indicates “that the concubines of Abraham and Jacob were not pilagšîm [concubines—EL] in the later sense, but that no term was available for that type of concubinage; thus pilegeš and ‘iššâ were used as synonyms to describe these women in the patriarchal narratives” (1990, p. 446). In an article that the late Semitist Dr. Chaim Rabin wrote regarding the origin pilegeš, he stated: “By alternating the terms within the easily apprehended framework of a story, a similar impression of ‘in-betweenness’ was created” (1974, p. 362).

Keturah was a concubine-wife. Its seems that she was more than a concubine (often considered a second-rate wife of servant status), but not on a par with Sarah, Abraham’s first “wife,” and mother of the promised son (Genesis 17:15-22). Just as Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine-wife, did not rival Rachel or Leah, Keturah was not equivalent with Sarah. Thus, Bible writers were not mistaken when referring to Keturah and Bilhah as both wives and concubines; they simply used two words to indicate the “in-between” position the women held.

Problem: Genesis 25:1 says, “Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” However, 1 Chronicles 1:32 states, “Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine.” Was Keturah Abraham’s wife, or was she merely one of his concubines?

Solution: The contradiction is only apparent, and the problem can be easily solved by closer consideration. First, although in Genesis 25:1 the normal Hebrew word for wife (ishshah) is used, it is also the normal word for woman. It is not necessary to take the word in this case to mean wife, especially in light of verse 6 and the statement in 1 Chronicles 1:32 that Keturah was his concubine. Genesis 25:1 can be read simply as, “And Abraham took another woman” as his concubine.

Second, although 1 Chronicles employs the Hebrew word for concubine (pilegesh) in reference to Keturah, Genesis 25:6 uses the same word when referring to the mothers of all his other sons apart from Isaac. This would obviously include Keturah as one of his concubines. Additionally, Genesis 25:1 begins with a Hebrew word (vayoseph) which can be translated, “And adding” or “And in addition to.” Since Genesis 24:67 clearly states that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, had died, verse 1 of chapter 25 could not mean that Abraham was adding to his number of wives. It is more reasonable to take this word as indicating that Abraham was adding to his number of concubines by taking another woman (ishshah).

Problem: As early as Genesis 17, Abraham “laughed” when God told him he would have a son (Isaac) by Sarah, since he was “a hundred years old” (v.17). But here in Genesis 25, many years later, he has children by Keturah, the wife he took after Sarah died (vv. 1–2).

Solution: There are two possibilities here, either one of which would explain this difficulty. First, the Genesis 17 text does not say Abraham laughed because he knew he was too old to have children, but because Sarah was past childbearing age (cf. 17:17; 18:12). There was no sure way for a man in ancient times to know he was no longer fertile, as there was for a woman when her periods ceased. Since Abraham was only 100 here, and he lived to be 175, it is reasonable to assume that he was still fertile. By comparison, men who live till 80 today are still fertile in their 60s.

Second, even if it took a miracle on Abraham (as well as on Sarah) to restore fertility, there is no reason that his fertile state could not have lasted for many years into the future. Once animated, his virile powers could have lasted for decades. After all, he lived 75 more years. In any event, the imagined contradiction here is simply not established.