The first time she ran away out of desperation. We have no idea how much stealth was involved, and since Sarah hated her guts, seems unlikely she would have sent out a search party anyway. Second time, Hagar was cast out, basically sent to die out in the desert, the ultimate mistreatment of one's slave. (Which she remained even after her forced sexual relationship with Abe. She was a slave/concubine of the lowest order, certainly not a second wife. Sarah says as much.)
Nothing in the text suggests that this was a forced arrangement, especially with Hagar's holding her pregnancy with Ishmael over Sarah's head.
Doesn't matter. You're making excuses. If it was okay for Sarah to mistreat Hagar over jealousy... seeing as how she was still her slave, it stands to reason that others applied extreme punishment to their own slaves. If jealousy was a good enough reason to throw a defenseless person into the desert, what happened when someone did something really bad, like lose a goat or something? Guess you could beat the crap out of them, put them into a coma maybe.
The OT doesn't allow that. Seems you could take Sarah's example to surmise that it happened though. That's my point.
My point is that, notwithstanding that Hagar's being sent away had more to do Hagar and Ishmael's well-being, the laws don't become unfair or unjust, simply because somebody has broken or abused them. Our legal system is, perhaps, the best in the world today. But, there are STILL those who break the law or use legal loopholes to get away with abuse.
After 15 years of bickering between the two (especially with Sarah finally having Isaac), the dysfunction had finally reach the breaking point. Of course, had Abe and Sarah followed the Lord's instructions, none of this would have occured.
Hagar was lucky Yahweh intervened. How many others didn't garner his attention?
God promised Abe that Ishmael would be the father of a great nation, which is why (even though it probably broke his heart to do it) Abe sent Hagar and Ishmael away.
Really, where does it say that? I'm actually curious, as I have never seen it. You're right though, I misspoke. It wasn't the rapist's choice. But normally, a girl would be taken care of in the material sense, once she was married or sold off into slavery. No one would marry used goods. It was a good deal actually. Any sadistic, boil-infested, goat-feces encrusted, snaggle-toothed cretin could simply lie in wait, rape the prettiest girl in the village and voila, if dad said okay, she was his to rape for the rest of her miserable life, and hopefully they brought forth lots of snaggle-toothed babies. 
You could say something similar for our legal system. Any "sadistic, boil-infested, goat-feces encrusted, snaggle-toothed cretin could simply lie in wait", rape a pretty girl, and (with the help of a good lawyer), get a simple slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence which, once served, gets him off the hook as he's "paid his debt to society". Meanwhile the victim lives her life with a broken body, scarred psyche, a stack of medical bills, lost wages, etc.
Your statement makes the rather odd assumption that fathers simply didn't care for their daughters and would not make the right call for them, which is quite off-the-wall.
Exodus 22:16-17 covered the family, making the call, regarding marriage:
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. Deut. 22 covers the death penalty for rapists who assault married/betrothed women.
Deu. 22:25-26.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:Verses 28-29:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days
It IS the issue at this point! At least one person on this thread has pointed to the laws of the OT to INSIST and PROVE that no crimes could have POSSIBLY occurred, (those such as slavemasters pressuring their slaves for sex). Those constitute half the posts.
My point is just because there are semi-just laws in place, doesn't mean people aren't abused, or that they represent a just institution.
All anyone has to do is read the stories in the OT to see that half of it is a veritable lust-fest, some of it savagely violent, that many heros and heroines flouted the laws and were unpunished for it. There are stories where deceit, cunning, behind the scenes machinations and crime are basically rewarded.
Again, my point is that people breaking and/or abusing the laws DOESN'T automatically equate to an unjust institution. Otherwise, you'd have to scrap our legal system, as it's had more than its share of violations and loopholes. As far as this laundry list of yours goes, you've left out a few details, which I'll be mroe than happy to include
- Joseph's brothers kidnap and sell him. They go unpunished. Later when he's famous, Joseph plays with their heads.
You forgot one thing. His brothers told their father that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. No one else knew about what really happened....UNTIL THE BROTHERS CONFESSED TO JOSEPH, not knowing who he was. And, Joseph FORGIVES them, stating that what they meant for evil, God meant for good. If Joseph (the victim in this scenario) can pardon his brothers, I think you can too, Deedee.
- Lot's daughters get him liquored up and have sex with him. (Disgusting! 
) Their incest goes unpunished.
And who's going to do the punishing? Sodom and Gommorah was in flames.
- Dinah is raped and when the rapist tries to do the right thing, her brothers insist everyone in the village be circumcised as a sign of good faith, then while the men are still writhing in pain days later, go in like cowards and kill everyone, even the innocents. No one is punished. Where were the elders?
On the contrary, Levi and Simeon were indeed punished for their actions.
Gen. 49:5-7
Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty[are in their habitations.
my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.
- Tamar is raped by her half-brother, who then despises her. Her brother finally avenges her a couple of years later. The elders aren't brought into it at all.
Last time I checked, Tamar and half-brothers Absalom and Ammnon were children of KING DAVID. As a matter of fact, part of the reason why Absalom takes matters into his own hands, regarding his sister (Absalom and Tamar shared both parents), is because David has Ammon exiled, instead of executed. And which elders are going to overrule the KING, anyway?
- Jacob is so greedy he blackmails his starving brother Esau, then deceives his dying blind father into giving him his brother's birthright. His mother is complicit.
Once again, when you don't follow the Lord's instructions, you get dysfunction. Isaac and Rebekah were told that the younger brother (Jacob) was to received the birthright. The blackmail, while deceptive indeed, held little actual consequence. When it comes to the birthright, the FATHER was the one who issued that to the son. Isaac, however, disregards the Lord's instruction and proceeds to bestow the birthright on Esau.
Rebekah overhears this and, fearing that God will not keep his promise (much like her mother-in-law), she hatches the plot with Jacob.
- After Jacob toils for seven years, what's his name renegs on their deal and switches Leah for Rachel on the wedding night, then blackmails another seven years of work out of Jacob to earn the wife he really wanted.
Rough translation.......You reap what you sow. The deceiver got deceived.
- Sarah gives her slave Hagar to her old man, then mistreats and casts her out when she becomes preggers herself.
Not quite. One, Hagar is a willing participant. Two, Hagar starts gloating about her pregnancy and Sarah's inability to have children; Three, Sarah doesn't throw Hagar out, once Sarah becomes pregnant. Hagar apparently passed her condescending ways to Ishmael, who was picking on/bullying Isaac.
Four, it was ABRAHAM, not Sarah, who made the final decision, regarding Hagar. And, he did that, only because God reiterated His promise that both Hagar and Ishmael would be prosperous and have their care provided for them. Otherwise, they would have stayed, REGARDLESS of Sarah's bickering.
- King David has an affair with Bathsheba, then has her husband disappeared. No problem.
Try that again. It's the prophet Nathan, who confronts David, pointing out his evil deed. David confesses and surrendered himself to the death penalty. But, Nathan informs him that, per the Lord's instructions, he and Bathsheba will be spared. But, their son will die. And, as a result of his treachery, the sword will not leave his household. And, based on what happened with his family, particularly his children, that curse kicked into gear more severely than David could have ever imagined.
Those are off the top of my head. So, one revolting thing after another...do you find it IMPOSSIBLE that some lust-filled slave owner wouldn't take advantage of a young slave girl? Come on! Those primitive people were obsessed with sex one way or another. And of course they would get away with it. And of course it was expected. And it continued throughout history.
Those "primitive" people are no more obsessed with sex than our society is today. And, once again, the issue here isn't whether abuse occured within a legal system or society. It's whether or not the laws crafted, spoke our AGAINST SUCH ABUSE and PUNISHED THOSE ABUSERS, accordingly.
And even if they married these girls, these were basically sham marriages, the women were second class concubines with no inheritance rights for themselves. They had to be clothed and fed. Which happened anyway since they were slaves.
Free folks were beaten by the elders for single crimes or trangressions. Slaves could be beaten or abused just for being in the path of an owner in a bad mood.
Circumcision occurred in infancy, except in the cases where foreign born were enslaved. And I beg to differ about the "woman issue." If someone lusted after a slave girl, they were taken as second class concubines, and their off-spring were given some inheritance rights, but not those of real marriage progeny.
Nope!!! Per the laws of Israel, the firstborn of the "hated" wife got the bulk of the father's estate. As for the "bad mood" thing, that doesn't mesh with the laws given the Israelites. They were instructed REPEATEDLY to be kind to the stranger or the foreigner and NOT to be cruel to those who served them. Why? Because of how they were treated in Egypt, about which the Lord was quick to remind them.
That's why these laws were in place, to punish those who were cruel.
Ishmael got nuttin! Leah and Rachel "gave" their slaves to be bred, but took those children away and raised them as their own. The concubines were unimportant details. I'm aware that slaves who married people belonging to the owner, weren't allowed to take them once they left unless the owner approved. And there's a difference in hoping to pursue someone you've not kissed, to losing a beloved wife and children that are a part of your heart That must have been a wonderful way to live.
Once again, you forgot that God promised Abraham that Ishmael would prosper and be the father of a great nation. This He did, IN ADDITION to fulfilling the original deal of Abe's seed being made great via a child THROUGH Sarah.
As for the marriage issue, you again leave out the fact that the servants can and often DID leave with their families. The underlying issue was marital status, prior to servitude. If a man came into servitude single; that's how he left. If he entered married, he left married, with his kids.
And, if he entered single but married while serving his master. He had two options: One, stay under his master's employ to be with his wife and kids; Two, PAY THE DOWRY to get his wife and kids, as he would have had to do with a man's daughter (since the master provided the bride).
Slavery in biblical times may have been a way of getting what we would call the homeless off the street, a way for families to pay off debt, or pay for a crime, it was still slavery, no matter how much you like to sugar coat and excuse it. Actually, if Yahweh had spoken out against it back then, perhaps chattel slavery as we knew it in the South would've never occurred.
There's no sugar-coating involved. And, what you say makes no sense, given the facts.
God instructed that Hebrew servants were freed after 7 years; non-Hebrews were freed via other means; blacks weren't to be freed AT ALL.
God spoke out against kidnapping people from their homeland (doing so warranted DEATH); yet white people kidnapped blacks from America, with none dying for their actions.
God instructed that masters must marry any servant women, before having sex with them. Yet, white men raped black women for centuries, without mercy or conscience.
God instructed that if a servant got maimed, he was released from servitude; Yet, whites maimed and cripped blacks, with no freedom given to them for their injury.
God instructed that a master who killed his slave got the DEATH penalty; How many white masters got strung up for killing their slaves, again?
God instructed that the firstborn of the "hated" wife got the bulk of his father's estate. How many black children, fathered by white masters, got a piece of the plantation?
In fact, that's one of the points, here. Violation of how to treat those in serviture is what LED TO CHATTEL SLAVERY, in the first place.
I don't follow. It specifically says that the reason she is not put to death is her slave status. Says nothing about money changing hands.
That was being bethroted means: Someone has paid the dowry for a wife. If she consents, but no money has changed hands for her to be a wife to someone else, there is no betrothement, hence no adultery and no death penalty.
And what of the law decreeing that any woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night was to be stoned? How does that mesh with slaveowners having sex with their betrothed slaves and this not being a particularly bad thing?
Simple, as explained above. Once, the $$$$$$ for the dowry has changed hands, the betrothement is official. Effectively, the woman is married. Therefore, if she has sex with someone else, she has committed adultery. By law, BOTH she and the other guy get stoned to death.
Slaveowners CANNOT have sex with their servant girls, if they're betrothed to another man. In fact, they can't have sex with their servant girls AT ALL, unless they marry them first.
In biblical times, how did slave owners use extortion and blackmail to avoid releasing Hebrew slaves when their time was up?
Simple, after his 6 year indentured servitude, you simply refused to sell him his wife and children. He was free to leave without, but if he truly loved his family... then his only choice was to swear an oath to stay a slave forever. Yahweh has good business sense!
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
That was explained earlier, in part by the very verses you just listed.
Verse 3 indicates that, if the guy came into servitude MARRIED, then his wife must also go with him.
Then, there's verse 4. Again, the key is that the master gave him the wife (i.e. the servant DID NOT PAY the dowry). Once the servant pays the dowry, he gets his wife an kids and goes on his merry way.
