• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Abraham not a polygamist?

Paul not the apostle

Paul not the apostle

Member
Real Person
I had a talk with a pastor this morning about Abraham. His sunday school topic is the similarities between Adam and Eve and Abraham and Sarah. His claim is that Abraham is not a polygamist because he was never married to Hagar. The children were considered Sarah's and not Hagar's according to him and so that means that Hagar was not Abraham's wife. Has anyone else dealt with this before? It seems like as polygamy in the Bible comes more "into the light" the opposers are getting more of a "list to the side" similar to a ship that is taking on more water before it sinks.

Any quick input on proving Hagar's legitimacy as a wife?
 
First, I laugh long and loud. "Oh, so God laid all this blessing on adultery, huh? Sent His angel to Hagar HERSELF (which did NOT happen to Sarah), promising to make her child into a great nation, but that was a misdirection as the angel didn't have GPS."

Second, for all of the "It was Sarah's kid" argument, based on one small phrase, Sarah sure felt no compunction about giving him back once Isaac was born!

Thirdly, the story itself says that Hagar was given to Abraham as his wife. Occam's razor says something like "accept the simple solution." I'll accept that the writer of Torah, far closer to the situation than I, knew. The fact that her JOB remained that of servant to Sarah I take to be a failing of Abraham's. It left Hagar in a lessor position, but still that of wife. She was not free to run around with boyfriends and find herself a husband.
 
Cecil, my brother, thank you for that. Some of the arguments are so much out in left field that it is hard to answer them initially because they catch me offguard.

The premise was that just as Adam sinned by listening to Eve, so Abraham sinned by listening to Sarah and not waiting on the Lord to give her a child. Is the same word for wife used for describing Sarah and is Hagar?

It would be nice if I had more time for study. I should make the time.
 
Paul not the apostle said:
The premise was that just as Adam sinned by listening to Eve, so Abraham sinned by listening to Sarah and not waiting on the Lord to give her a child. Is the same word for wife used for describing Sarah and is Hagar?
Click to expand...

I don't have my inter-linear Bible here at work so can't answer the second question. But make no mistake, a concubine is still a wife. Case in point: one of Jacob's concubines, the servant of either Rachel or Leah, with whom he had had a child, slept with one of his sons. Sorry, the names involved escape me. Said son was disinherited, and said concubine/wife was treated as an adulterer or at least rejected from then on.

Further, I believe that there is a passage in Galatians that talks about Hagar, as the unloved wife.

But the first point, that's the fun one. Oh, Abraham sinned by listening to Sarah, huh? Same as Adam and Eve? Well, there IS a startling similarity that we ought to consider carefully: God came down from heaven and materialized in some manner to walk and talk with Adam in the cool of the day, (Face it folks, it was paradise, so it had to be in Florida, which means it was too HOT during the middle of the day! :lol: ) and He did the same with Abraham.

When, after 13 years of trying to have a decent relationship between Hagar and Sarah, it got clear that it wasn't going to work, AND Sarah released Hagar from her servitude, God partnered up with Abraham to finish raising the boys. Read the story in Genesis with compassionate eyes, and you'll hear God saying, "Ok, Abraham, enough is enough. But we can do this together. Go ahead and separate the ladies and kids. I'll take primary responsibility to finish fathering Ishmael who is already a young man, while you be the physically present father to baby Isaac, who needs to be tossed in the air and tickled. (Frankly, I don't know the limits of My own stength. When I toss babies in the air, they tend to land on distant planets!)"

So we're supposed to believe that when Sarah suggested this second wife thing to Abraham, he said, "Great idea! Let us borrow your bed, and we'll do it right now!" instead of taking some time to think it over? Maybe talk it over with God? Hagar must have been some kinda FOX! Uh-HUH! And of course, God had no opportunity, then or later, to say, "Bad idea, Abraham!" Or perhaps God was too shy! Maybe He thought Hagar was such a fox that it was beyond what Abraham could bear, and that is why He has taken action ever since to make sure we wouldn't be tempted beyond ...

Ooo - oooh! And let's not forget, that while a bastard couldn't enter into the temple for 10 generations (admittedly a rule that hadn't yet been written down), God didn't wait until Isaac was born to give Abraham the rite of circumcision, but did so during the time between then and Ishmael's birth. In fact, if we want to read the story carefully, we might well be struck by the thought that Ishmael was the second person circumcised. (As well as the leadership presence of Abraham, who could blythely anounce to hundred's of men, "Gentlemen, line up and prepare for a short-arm inspection. I'm about to chop the ends off yer tally-wackers", and they DID! :o )

Are we to believe that God just blushes when it comes to telling us we have or are about to screw up? This would be the same God who cares about such inconsequential minutae (to me) as trimming the corners of your beard as a sign of mourning?

Yet God remained silent as concerning any wrong-doing on Abraham's part. Sarah comes out looking poorly for her mistreatment of Hagar. And I Monday-morning-quarterback that Abraham should have had Hagar released from her bondage and elevated long before. But those are entirely separate issues.

Furthermore, this separation of the wives does not mean that Abraham divorced Hagar. To the contrary, the book of Jashur, which didn't make it into the canon of scripture, says that He regularly went and spent time with her and Ishmael a couple of times a year.

And finally, after Sarah's death but while Hagar presumably was still alive, Abraham took a THIRD wife and had a number of sons by her. Six, I think, among them Midian. So when, many years later, Moses took off in the desert and ran to Midian, he was just following family tradition (Jacob) and seeking asylum with another branch of the family.

In conclusion, folks who want to make the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar into a "proof" for monogamy have to work REALLY HARD at it, while all we have to do is laugh, poke holes, and enjoy the show as they hop around trying to fill them! It is that way for any "proof" for monogamy!

What finally convinced me, over a lifetime of training that PM was wrong, was that in the acceptance of PM all of scripture dovetails neatly with no loose ends. You might say it's "slick". This infuriates opposers, who are known to bitterly comment, "You have an answer for EVERYTHING, don't you!" Well, isn't that the way good theology should work?

Au contraire, the monogamy theory must be "warm and fuzzy". It has loose ends flapping in the breeze everywhichaway. And they just don't tuck in worth beans!
 
Oooh, oooh, oooh! When Moses lost it, ran ahead of God, and sinned, he lost out on his lifelong goal, and never got to make it into Canaan.

When Abraham lost it and laid the maid, he just got extra blessings -- more nations of his blood.

When Adam listened to Eve, he got kicked outa his home. When Abraham did, he received a the covenant of circumcision and the proimise of a whole land.

Is God really that inconsistent?
 
Cecil's points are excellent, Paul.

And his comment about laughter is apropos.

But it DOES go to show how far the Idolatry of Monogamania has gone!!! (And, if you are so led, it might be appropriate to expose the pastor to that idolatry.)

Here is a man who is willing to DENY the clear text of the Bible, and would prefer to call the man who's "faith was counted to him for righteousness" an adulterer (fornicator, whatever...) rather than simply READ the Word for what it says! It no longer surprises me that such blindness extends now to accepting homosexual "marriage" - so long as it's "ONE man and ONE man", of course. (I'd put a smiley, but that's not funny. :evil: )



Blessings in Him,

Mark




PS> Abraham DID jump the gun. So did David, by the way. And Abraham shouldn't have told Sarai to mislead Pharoah, either. But that only shows that men make mistakes. Don't let those with those with "itching ears" encourage the teaching of fables. We've already seen that replacing God's Word with man's paganized tradition leads to "forbidding to marry", and other doctrines of demons (not my words, of course - any concerns, ask the Author! ;) ).
 
Just my 2 cents,
I went back through every English version of the Bible that I have in my Bible study program and they all say the same, that Sarah gave her as his WIFE.
 
... back from lunch ...

Sorry for going on and on, but this business of jumping on the forefathers of our faith, (The PATRIARCHS! ;) ) really sets me off. And it seems like such a common passtime for so many.

So here are more comebacks:

Oh, you believe in EVOLUTION, huh? That we're getting better and better as time passes? Ending up on a higher plane than those ignorant herders back then? I thought that as Christians, we were DEvolutionists, who were created perfect, screwed up in the garden, and have been increasingly suffering the effects of sin ever since. In fact, just maybe the reason God has allowed the explosion in technology over the last 200 years is that we're reaching a point where we couldn't support and transport ourselves otherwise. Personally, I'm willing to take lessons from those less devolved than myself. Particularly when they talk to God face to face.

Or, ...

It is sooooo sad, isn't it? That God is so inarticulate! He couldn't speak in complete thoughts. Had to leave us to figure out what He was trying to say. It couldn't be the simple surface meaning, that families are complicated -- sometimes REALLY COMPLICATED -- and sometimes it doesn't work out well, but we keep trying 'cause we live by hope and, most impoirtantly, God is willing to get involved and help out in the bad family times. Instead we have to make it say something else that the story simply doesn't say.

or ... How about this one?

Malachi 1 says "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Both were the product of a MONOGAMOUS marriage! God said nothing comparable about Ishmael!

Or ...

What would you have concluded had the story been that Isaac and Ishmael grew up to be best buds? Scrapped a bit, like brothers do, but basically lived in peace? As did most of the 12 sons of Jacob by 4 different wives, 2 of which were in the same boat as Hagar? Is it just a matter of sin if it doesn't work out well? Oh, and by the way, I don't see any record of war between the grown up Ishmael and Isaac ... I guess they DID grow up to live peacefully together, even if their Moms WERE a couple of hissing scratching cats!

Okay, this is too much fun. I gotta stop and work a while to balance it out! :lol:
 
I can't help it ... one more. :D

Eve got punished, too, in the whole "Because you listened to your wife" thing. Childbirth turned from fun to hard.

Just how did Sarah get punished when Abraham listened to her? Oh, yeah, with the son she'd always wanted, in her old age!

Uh-huh! Bring on the hand-maids! Cindy and I are up for that punishment! ;)
 
Well, it amuses me to see that a bit of Monogamy Idolatry sets someone else off a bit, too, Cecil! :D

This reaction is in fact why I find myself in such great agreement with both Tom Shipley and J. Wesley Stivers in their books. Monogamy Worship is in fact idolatry, and it irritating to see how some people (EXACTLY as our Savior observed!) repeatedly put their own TRADITION in place of the clear commandments of God!



At least, I'm beginning to get a better understanding of the "zeal" of Phineas!
 
I do get quite emotional at the patriarch bashing. I almost wept one night after going through a Sunday school class that hauled them through the mud. It is good to see others that don't think we should allow the bashing to continue.

Thanks,
Paul
 
With apologies, Mark, it isn't the monogamy idolatry that sets me off. Those are too big of words for me. *grin*

It is the Forefather bashing, like Paul here, that drives me flippin' nuts.

I can work with the other, a bit at a time, plant seeds, and leave the Holy Spirit to do His thing with them -- sometimes years later.

But holding up these forefathers as examples of the faith with one side of the mouth, than bashing them with the other side, feels to me too much like the spring James speaks of that spews forth both sweet and salt water! That's immediate, and requires an immediate response.

Would any of these folks like to sit down at Starbucks with any of these guys and talk for hours? Abraham, what did you SAY that got your whole family to pull up stakes and follow you off with no idea where? Not to mention the morning of the short-arm clipping? What did your tribal martial arts look like? You know, the 600+ men born and trained in his camp? What did you talk about with God? Say, Jacob ...

If so, would they still want to do it if said Patriarch had a transcript of their denigrating remarks in front of him?

To illustrate the prevailing attitude, I asked a pastor, "What if David, author of Psalms, man after God's own heart, sweet singer of Israel, and his family were brought back from the grave early as a witness in these last days? With the gift of speaking any tongue, of course. What if he showed up one Sabbath morning carrying his harp, accompanied by 3 of his wives with tambourine, cymbal, and psaltery respectively, and offered to lead the worship service that day. Would you let him and them?"

"No, I would NOT !!!"

To be fair, on the other side of the coin, another pastor's basic response was, "Huh! Interesting. Sounds like you've got hard choices to make. Can YOU do special music this Sabbath?" :lol: So there is hope.

Remember, we're on the pointy end of the spear. That accepts the initial impact, and sometimes gets bent a bit. Oh, well! His grace suffices.
 
Ok, I haven't had any caffeine today, and was sick as a dog last night, so why am I in motormouth mode.

I got to thinking about WHY I'm not too incensed about "monogamy idolatry" but am by "patriarch bashing"?

("Incensed". Interesting word. Does it mean that one does a slow burn, then goes up in fragrant smoke?)

It occurs that it is because the latter is a direct violation of Jesus' command not to sit in judgmenton fellow humans.

In the first case, one has set in judgment on IDEAs, reached, or at least accepted, a conclusion, and is living accordingly. That constitutes integrity, as far as it goes, since they are satisfied they are at the right conclusion, and we simply believe that there is more that they are missing.

To sit in harsh judgment, however, on those of whom God has spoken with nothing but approbrium (If I spelled that right, that was a big word that I think means "approval", but that woulda been too simple,), Yikes! Jesus said that the judgment I meet out is going to be the way I am judged.

Don't know about all y'alls, but in my sorry case that means I just gotta go real, real easy. When He comes to MY record, I want Him to say, "Awwww, why bother? Cecil didn't really judge ANYONE!" :ugeek:
 
I got to thinking about WHY I'm not too incensed about "monogamy idolatry" but am by "patriarch bashing"?
...
It occurs that it is because the latter is a direct violation of Jesus' command not to sit in judgment on fellow humans.
Click to expand...

Of course, we're having an agreement here, Cecil. ;) And both of 'em seem to set me off...

but idolatry, AND the practice of "forbidding to marry" by "adding to" His Word, are BOTH also direct violations of multiple commandments. (Most of Deuteronomy 12 and 13, among others, and Deut. 4:2, of course. And if our Savior Himself said He came not to change "one yod or tiddle" of His own Word - where do THEY get off doing it FOR Him!) But, see, I'm making my own point about getting " set off" by a little bit of leaven...

It's about what He Wrote. Teachers, remember, are held to a higher standard (and Hosea had a pretty stern warning for those who "rejected knowledge"!)



Blessings,

Mark
 
Oh, yes. There ya go Mark, reminding me of the other verse I just LOVE to point out. Last verse of Deu 12, 31 I think without looking it up. "Be careful to do everything written in this book. Do not ADD to it nor TAKE AWAY from it."

Some folks, like us Seventh-day Adventists, get all puffed up that we're not taking away from it by keeping the 4th commandment literally. But what about adding to it? Ask that question in an argument and listen to the answer. It usually boils down to, "But we've GOT to have STANDARDS!"

I'm still looking for the verse that supports that argument!

Nonetheless, righteous hemlines are between the knee and the ankle. It is alright to go hiking on a Sabbath afternoon and get all sweaty, but not ok to hop in the lake at the end of the trail and swim a while. (Actually, wading is ok, as long as no floating occurs!) It is ok to turn the oven timer on to bake the casserole while you are at church, but the casserole itself must be assembled Friday before sundown. Minor and seventh chords are too emotional and should ideally be left out of church music, especially if accompanied by any sort of detectable rhythm -- plan to somehow praise God with solemn joy.

Do we laugh or do we sob? Either way, it is likely to be -- uncontrollably!
 
cec:

yer havin waaaay too much fun.
did you get any work done?

and of course, dittos on the pat. bashing monogamania
 
steve said:
yer havin waaaay too much fun. did you get any work done?
Click to expand...

Well, ... noooooo. :oops:

Perhaps today. :lol:

I was too sick to concentrate on work. Oddly enough, writing about this took my mind off the misery. Hope that makes sense -- I know it's odd. :o
 
Yes the rabbis teach that Hagar was ELEVATED to full wife status after Sarah's death and was renamed KETURAH. While this is somewhat speculative, it makes sense. Shalom
 
Monogamists are getting sillier in their last ditch efforts as each day goes by. :lol:

I once heard a monogamist make a particular claim regarding David's wives, the ones that Jehovah gave to him (2 Sam 12:8). The monogamist claimed that while God gave them to David, there is no proof that David slept with these wives!

Monogamists will say anything.
 
Monogamists will say anything.
Click to expand...


All of which makes an excellent point, MD.

There is a difference, indeed a GREAT difference, between a Monogamist (I like the Capital M to emphasize the Worship aspect) and a person who may or may not have some specific number of wives at any given time (or may not even be male).

Do not confuse such a Monogomaniac, or a Monogamy Worshipper, or someone who puts the Idol of Monogamy (aka Ashteroth, Easter, Astarte, Diana, or the Queen of Heaven, by any name) before the Word of YHVH, with just any married individual. One does not need to have precisely one wife in order to be ensnared, or more than one to see and understand what God has Written.

This all seems particularly poignant to me now because I had a long discussion with a woman the other day, who has a great heart for God, but is struggling to understand some of these aspects of what He Wrote about marriage. Somehow she came to the conclusion that I believed that ALL marriages with only a single wife were "adultery", and it took me a while to answer at least one of the questions she asked me as a result (via email, so 'non-verbal' clues are non-existent!) because it never even OCCURRED to me that she could have gotten such an idea from our discussion.*

It took a surprising amount of time to figure out what she thought I was saying, much less where she could have read that into it. (Again, those details are in the footnote*.)

This, along with a previous thread on a very-much-related issue, lead me to make the following observation, restated for (hopefully!) clarity:


There is a BIG difference between "having only one wife" and the worship of Monogamy as an Idol.

It is a heart condition, not a marital one, and has nothing to do with any arbitrary number of wives. (I can even acknowledge that Satan, as the 'prince of this world' can still attack a marriage or wife in a plural setting, via the obvious prejudice and hypocrisy of a world, and its 'church', which rejects Him in favor of pagan 'tradition'.)

Perhaps we need a consistent name for the heresy. Baal Worship, "passing children through the fire to Molech", Satanism, and doubtless many other names for things widely recognized as idolatry are well-known. But the kind of idolatry that is most dangerous is also most insidious. It reminds me of the old saw that "the Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing people he does not exist." Monogomania has a similar thing going for it.


Blessings in the WHOLE Word of God,

Mark










---------------------------
* In hindsight, I can at least see the connection:
Monogamy WORSHIP, to the exclusion of the WHOLE teaching of the Word of God, is idolatrous. If you don't 'get' the concept of Monogamy as an idol, and then confuse HAVING one wife with being WEDDED to the IDEAL of having ONLY one wife, as a sacrament, over and above whatever the actual Word of God may say - the next step follows:

Since idolatry is adultery, ergo Monogamy is Adultery. See how important the Capital M is to distinguishing the issue, once the bit of "twisting" of the Truth is in place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top