Abraham, Sarah & Hagar

[JeanneH]

Hi All,

Are we to take the chronology of the events in Gen: 15,16 and 17 as historical? The Deacon that does the bible study says we are not.

In a nut shell I believe it like this. First God promises descendants to Abram. 10 years have gone by but Sari is childless so she gives Hagar to Abram( to push God’s hand?) and she conceives and bears a son.

Now after Ishmael is born God tells Abram to “Bear yourself blameless in my presence”( Gen:17:2). Does that mean that God forgave Abram for having Ishmael with Hagar? Is this something that needed forgiveness?

Now God changes Abram to Abraham and Sari to Sarah and the 3 messengers come and tell him that Sarah will bear him a son.
Then Isaac is born.

Now in Rom;4:3-4. It says that Abraham put his faith in God. To me this is a contradiction. If Abraham put his faith in God would he have taken Hagar?

Can some one out there enlighten me? Thanks in advance.

JeanneH

 

[NotWorthy]

There were events that indicate that Abraham put his faith in God. In the meantime, Abram also failed. Not trusting God enough to have faith in His Promises is one of Abrams failures. But he always returned to God when he failed.

I would list the two times that Abram presented Sarai as his sister (and not his wife) as well as having a child with Hagar as three of Abram’s failures. But this proves that God uses fallible people to do wondrous things in His name!

 

[JeanneH]

Hi NotWorthy

There were events that indicate that
Abraham put his faith in God. In the meantime, Abram also failed. Not trusting God enough to have faith in His Promises is one of Abrams failures. But he always returned to God when he failed.

I would list the two times that Abram presented Sarai as his sister (and not his wife) as well as having a child with Hagar as three of Abram’s failures. But this proves that God uses fallible people to do wondrous things in His name!

Thanks for you reply.

So I understand from what you have written that even thou Abram said that Sari was not his wife he returned to God than was considered blameless in God’s eyes. I guess like when we go to confession. We are counted as blameless until or unless we sin again.

HMMM thanks for helping me understand something that to me should have been obvious. Sometimes all it takes is a different pair of eyes, so to speak.

God Bless

JeanneH

 

[Jude_Smith]

Think of all of King David’s failings!
He always repented and returned to God.

 

[NotWorthy]

Think of all of King David’s failings!
He always repented and returned to God.

I heard a quote regarding King David, and I hope I don’t mangle it too poorly.

“I’d sin like David, if only I could repent like David”!!!

 

[jcrichton]

Hi All,

Are we to take the chronology of the events in Gen: 15,16 and 17 as historical? The Deacon that does the bible study says we are not.

In a nut shell I believe it like this. First God promises descendants to Abram. 10 years have gone by but Sari is childless so she gives Hagar to Abram( to push God’s hand?) and she conceives and bears a son.

Now after Ishmael is born God tells Abram to “Bear yourself blameless in my presence”( Gen:17:2). Does that mean that God forgave Abram for having Ishmael with Hagar? Is this something that needed forgiveness?

Now God changes Abram to Abraham and Sari to Sarah and the 3 messengers come and tell him that Sarah will bear him a son.
Then Isaac is born.

Now in Rom;4:3-4. It says that Abraham put his faith in God. To me this is a contradiction. If Abraham put his faith in God would he have taken Hagar?

Can some one out there enlighten me? Thanks in advance.

JeanneH

*Hi, Jeanne H!

I think that you are working it too hard, the nut shell forms a problem since it is oval…

…you are grouping several layers together while omitting important factors…

• Sarai was baren. hence the couple remained childless throughout most of their marriage; the culture demanded that all marriages produce offsprings, preferably at least the first-born male (to carry both the name and the status of the family);
• both Abram and Sarai were believers who no doubt continued to pray for an offspring through their natural period of conception;
• Sarai was not necessarily aware of Yahweh God’s Promise to Abram, and she very well might not have understood God’s Plan;
• Sarai may have thought that she would regain social acceptance through Hagar’s surrogacy since the slave’s children were property of the owners;
• Abram receive God’s Blessings back in Genesis 14:18-20;
• Abram trusted Yahweh’s Promise that he would be inherited by his own offspring and not Eliezer, his slave (most likely his master-slave);
• Yahweh did not reveal to Abram that Sarai would be the mother of his descendant–He only Promised Abram that he would have an heir;
• Yahweh does not repremand Abram for fathering Ishmael; it is only at this particular junction that it is revealed to Abram that he will father another child, and through that child Yahweh will maintain the Promise; it is at this instance that his name is changed to Abraham (father of many nations); God reveals His Covenant with Abraham which assures that God’s Promise will be carried through Sarai, whom He heals as she too inherits a new name (Sarah)–it is her offspring, Issac, whom Yahweh has chosen with whom to keep His Covenant;
• Yahweh gives Abraham the sign of the Covenant, the circumcision, as a visible sign of this common contract;
• Abraham obeys God and the practice of circumcision is established;
• the demonstration of Abraham’s trust in God includes: the travel to Hebron, his Blessing and Tithing–Melchizedek, trusting God’s promise of an offspring, acepting that Ismael though technically his first-born would not inherit the Promise, believing that Sarah, though baren, could provide him with an offspring, and, once born, willing to sacrifice Isaac (the child of the Promise) to Yahweh–I think that this accumulation of proof did not escape St. Paul when he spoke of Abraham’s trust/obedience.

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[JeanneH]

Hi Angel,

I think that you are working it too hard,

… *

*Gee I Have never been accused of working anything too hard. *

*.

…you are grouping several layers together while omitting important factors…

** Sarai was baren. hence the couple remained childless throughout most of their marriage; the culture demanded that all marriages produce offsprings, preferably at least the first-born male (to carry both the name and the status of the family);*
** both Abram and Sarai were believers who no doubt continued to pray for an offspring through their natural period of conception;*
** Sarai was not necessarily aware of Yahweh God’s Promise to Abram, and she very well might not have understood God’s Plan;*
** Sarai may have thought that she would regain social acceptance through Hagar’s surrogacy since the slave’s children were property of the owners;*
** Abram receive God’s Blessings back in Genesis 14:18-20;*
** Abram trusted Yahweh’s Promise that he would be inherited by his own offspring and not Eliezer, his slave (most likely his master-slave);*
** Yahweh did not reveal to Abram that Sarai would be the mother of his descendant–He only Promised Abram that he would have an heir;*
** Yahweh does not repremand Abram for fathering Ishmael; it is only at this particular junction that it is revealed to Abram that he will father another child, and through that child Yahweh will maintain the Promise; it is at this instance that his name is changed to Abraham (father of many nations); God reveals His Covenant with Abraham which assures that God’s Promise will be carried through Sarai, whom He heals as she too inherits a new name (Sarah)–it is her offspring, Issac, whom Yahweh has chosen with whom to keep His Covenant;*
** Yahweh gives Abraham the sign of the Covenant, the circumcision, as a visible sign of this common contract;*
** Abraham obeys God and the practice of circumcision is established;*
** the demonstration of Abraham’s trust in God includes: the travel to Hebron, his Blessing and Tithing–Melchizedek, trusting God’s promise of an offspring, acepting that Ismael though technically his first-born would not inherit the Promise, believing that Sarah, though baren, could provide him with an offspring, and, once born, willing to sacrifice Isaac (the child of the Promise) to Yahweh–I think that this accumulation of proof did not escape St. Paul when he spoke of Abraham’s trust/obedience.*

Maran atha!

Thank you well done I have been enlightened.
God Bless
Jeanne

 

[Ruthie]

I can’t think of a good reason not to take those events as chronological. That doesn’t mean I’m right. (As if!) If your deacon can, I’d really like to hear it.

First God promises descendants to Abram. 10 years have gone by but Sari is childless so she gives Hagar to Abram( to push God’s hand?) and she conceives and bears a son.

Yes. I think God was testing their faith - something He often did with Abraham. They were tired of waiting for Him to keep His promise. Sarai thinks, “Maybe God means to give me children through my slave, since I’m barren. She can have Abram’s baby, and I’ll adopt him.” They acted on that, and Sarai found out how wrong she was.

I wish I was better at obeying God than Abraham was. I’m not.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

 

[jcrichton]

Hi Angel,

*Gee I Have never been accused of working anything too hard. *

Thank you well done I have been enlightened.
God Bless
Jeanne

*Hi, Jeanne!

…I did not mean anything by it; I was merely commenting on the nut shell…

I am glad that I could help.

God Bless!

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[jcrichton]

I can’t think of a good reason not to take those events as chronological. That doesn’t mean I’m right. (As if!) If your deacon can, I’d really like to hear it.

Yes. I think God was testing their faith - something He often did with Abraham. They were tired of waiting for Him to keep His promise. Sarai thinks, “Maybe God means to give me children through my slave, since I’m barren. She can have Abram’s baby, and I’ll adopt him.” They acted on that, and Sarai found out how wrong she was.

I wish I was better at obeying God than Abraham was. I’m not.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

*Hi, Ruthie!

…there’s one more thing that we sometimes overlook… Yahweh God’s Plan is always in effect and He is the One Who determines how His Plan will take effect… as with future ocurrences, Yahweh overlooks the first-born (Ishmael) and chooses the second-born (Isaac) as the child He elects to bestow the rights of the first-born and to be the recipient of the Promise.

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[NotWorthy]

*Yahweh overlooks the first-born (Ishmael) and chooses the second-born (Isaac) as the child He elects to bestow the rights of the first-born and to be the recipient of the Promise.

Maran atha!

Angel*

I don’t think God even considers Ishmael a son of Abraham’s. Yahweh often calls Isaac the “first-born son” of Abraham.

Although He does overlook the rights of the first-born numerous other times (i.e. Jacob over Esau), I don’t think that applies in this instance.

Doesn’t St. Paul in Galations call Ishmael a “child of slavery”, while Isaac is a “child of the promise”.

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t think God even considers Ishmael a son of Abraham’s. Yahweh often calls Isaac the “first-born son” of Abraham.

Although He does overlook the rights of the first-born numerous other times (i.e. Jacob over Esau), I don’t think that applies in this instance.

Doesn’t St. Paul in Galations call Ishmael a “child of slavery”, while Isaac is a “child of the promise”.

That is exactly my point! Essau is never ever called the first-born… just as Manasseh is never revered as the first-born…

St. Paul is only stating a fact; and as Yahweh, he does not acknowledge Ishmael as Abraham’s first-born while he understands that technically he is Abraham’s first-born.

I cannot see a difference between this particular choice (second born over the first-born) and that of the latter ones (Jacob over Esau; Joseph over Reuben; Ephraim over Manasseh; Salomon over David and his first-born with Uriah’s wife)… in each case it is Yahweh’s choice not the natural first-born that receives the Promise.

The fact that Yahweh calls Isaac Abraham’s first-born only supports my statement since God’s Plan had been in effect since He promised Abram that he would be the father of a great nation. God always sees the complete picture while man is always limited by his natural scope: the here and now!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[NotWorthy]

That is exactly my point! Essau is never ever called the first-born… just as Manasseh is never revered as the first-born…

St. Paul is only stating a fact; and as Yahweh, he does not acknowledge Ishmael as Abraham’s first-born while he understands that technically he is Abraham’s first-born.

I cannot see a difference between this particular choice (second born over the first-born) and that of the latter ones (Jacob over Esau; Joseph over Reuben; Ephraim over Manasseh; Salomon over David and his first-born with Uriah’s wife)… in each case it is Yahweh’s choice not the natural first-born that receives the Promise.

But these are all referenced as children, even if not “first-born”.

God specifically tells Abraham to take his only beloved son to be sacrificed… at least I think that’s the term He uses.

The fact that Yahweh calls Isaac Abraham’s first-born only supports my statement since God’s Plan had been in effect since He promised Abram that he would be the father of a great nation. God always sees the complete picture while man is always limited by his natural scope: the here and now!

Maran atha!

Angel

I agree with it all being God’s plan and we humans can only mess up what is perfect when we try to tinker with the details of His plan!!!

 

[jcrichton]

But these are all referenced as children, even if not “first-born”.

God specifically tells Abraham to take his only beloved son to be sacrificed… at least I think that’s the term He uses.

I agree with it all being God’s plan and we humans can only mess up what is perfect when we try to tinker with the details of His plan!!!

*I understand what you are saying… but consider that when Sarah rejects her slave and Hagar is waiting to die Yahweh comes to her and promises that Ishmael too will be the father of a great nation; conversely, Paul speaks of two descendants of Abraham one of the slave woman and one of the free–we, Believers, are called the descentands of the free woman; had Ishmael been eradicated from God’s eyes it would make no sense for St. Paul to make a distinction between Abraham’s descendants.

Consider too that there usually is a type hidden in the Holy Scriptures: Abraham’s sacrifice of his only son is quite the type for Yahweh God’s Sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son!

Also note that Jacob, not Abraham, is called Israel… and, if I remember correctly, I think that he is also called “my first-born.” (I will research this fact and get back to you on it…)

Maran atha!

Angel*