Divorce and remarriage

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Genesis 16:3 KJV
And 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.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Pre-Moses: Abraham put away Hagar. Sarah had demanded it, and God allowed it. And of Abraham it was said by God:

Genesis 26:5 KJV
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

And again:

Genesis 18:19 KJV
For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

There was confusion in the roles, for sure. That is the source of the conflict and drama in Genesis 16.

As the commentaries have stressed, Hagar almost certainly had a lesser role than Sarai. The purpose of having a child for Abraham in Sarai's stead implies that the status as wife/concubine was temporary.

However, Hagar took advantage and thought she could take the priority in Abraham's heart because of the son. We don't know how tender the relationship between Abraham and Hagar had become. We do know Hagar began to "despise" Sarah (Genesis 16:5). She wanted her new status with Abraham to break her bondage to Sarai.

Abraham was wise in his response. He clarified lines of authority. Hagar was totally under the authority of Sarai, and Abraham claimed no right to interfere: "Your servant is in your hands. Do with her whatever you think best" (Genesis 16:6).

Later God confirmed this status for Hagar, telling her to return and submit to Sarai (Genesis 16:7-9).

So, to the question, let us use the context (which is all we have) to bring clarity to the meaning of the word "wife" in Genesis 16:3. It seems that Sarai was magnanimous in giving Hagar to Abraham, and may have even considered it more than just a concubine, not having the wisdom to see the potential problem.

Hagar wanted to take advantage and have her position become that of a true wife, on equal status as a competitor to Sarai. This suggests that this was a situation in flux and there probably was not a clear legal unbending status that would fit our categories of wife or concubine. It was the relationship that would determine the status, not the legal status that would determine the relationship.

Thus, Abraham's response was most decisive. He determined clearly and unequivocally that Hagar was no more than Sarai's servant, having stolen none of Abraham's heart, and who could not call on any relationship with Abraham to save her from Sarai's wrath. By Abraham's decision, Hagar became nothing more than the bearer of Sarai's child.

So, it seems best to say that, regardless of Sarai's intent in Genesis 16:3, Hagar did not have the status of a wife of Abraham

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

There was confusion in the roles, for sure. That is the source of the conflict and drama in Genesis 16.

As the commentaries have stressed, Hagar almost certainly had a lesser role than Sarai. The purpose of having a child for Abraham in Sarai's stead implies that the status as wife/concubine was temporary.

However, Hagar took advantage and thought she could take the priority in Abraham's heart because of the son. We don't know how tender the relationship between Abraham and Hagar had become. We do know Hagar began to "despise" Sarah (Genesis 16:5). She wanted her new status with Abraham to break her bondage to Sarai.

Abraham was wise in his response. He clarified lines of authority. Hagar was totally under the authority of Sarai, and Abraham claimed no right to interfere: "Your servant is in your hands. Do with her whatever you think best" (Genesis 16:6).

Later God confirmed this status for Hagar, telling her to return and submit to Sarai (Genesis 16:7-9).

So, to the question, let us use the context (which is all we have) to bring clarity to the meaning of the word "wife" in Genesis 16:3. It seems that Sarai was magnanimous in giving Hagar to Abraham, and may have even considered it more than just a concubine, not having the wisdom to see the potential problem.

Hagar wanted to take advantage and have her position become that of a true wife, on equal status as a competitor to Sarai. This suggests that this was a situation in flux and there probably was not a clear legal unbending status that would fit our categories of wife or concubine. It was the relationship that would determine the status, not the legal status that would determine the relationship.

Thus, Abraham's response was most decisive. He determined clearly and unequivocally that Hagar was no more than Sarai's servant, having stolen none of Abraham's heart, and who could not call on any relationship with Abraham to save her from Sarai's wrath. By Abraham's decision, Hagar became nothing more than the bearer of Sarai's child.

So, it seems best to say that, regardless of Sarai's intent in Genesis 16:3, Hagar did not have the status of a wife of Abraham

The Bible says she was Abraham's wife. She was also Sarah's bond servant. So of course she had a lower status than Sarah. Yet she was still his wife. She was a second wife, essentially like a concubine.

She was put away, and God authorised it.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Bible says she was Abraham's wife. She was also Sarah's bond servant. So of course she had a lower status than Sarah. Yet she was still his wife. She was a second wife, essentially like a concubine.

She was put away, and God authorised it.

So sexual immorality isn’t the only reason for putting away a spouse.
Your first wife can put them away also, since it was Sara’s decision.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

So sexual immorality isn’t the only reason for putting away a spouse.
Your first wife can put them away also, since it was Sara’s decision.

Well, she wanted it, but the decision was Abraham's.

Abraham's situation is somewhat unique, in that he was not living in a covenanted nation but was simply head of an individual household (albeit a large one, counting all his servants) in the midst of a heathen culture and society.

Interestingly, he sent her away into the wilderness rather than giving her to a servant. There is also no mention of a writ of divorce involved.

Not drawing any conclusions from that, just pointing it out.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, she wanted it, but the decision was Abraham's.

Abraham's situation is somewhat unique, in that he was not living in a covenanted nation but was simply head of an individual household (albeit a large one, counting all his servants) in the midst of a heathen culture and society.

Interestingly, he sent her away into the wilderness rather than giving her to a servant. There is also no mention of a writ of divorce involved.

Not drawing any conclusions from that, just pointing it out.

Also Abraham married at least one wife after Sara died and fathered sons by concubines.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

I wasn’t aware of Stoneking preaching that. But nothing surprises me anymore.

Actually the basis for this preachers marriage doctrine is, if you come to God with a 2nd, 3rd etc... marriage the person your with is NOT your spouse! Acts 2:38 experience or not, the person you married the first time is your real spouse. Of course if that first husband or wife is still alive, nothing breaks the covenant.

And it really is a false teaching.

[n david]

From the UPCI local license application:

"Do you believe and teach that persons who have been divorced and remarried before they were filled with the Holy Ghost should be made to separate or else be put out of fellowship with the assembly?"

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a sinner who divorced and remarried before ever coming to a church and receiving the New Birth experience ... once they receive the New Birth experience, they're expected to separate or be shunned???

Am I reading this right?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

From the UPCI local license application:

"Do you believe and teach that persons who have been divorced and remarried before they were filled with the Holy Ghost should be made to separate or else be put out of fellowship with the assembly?"

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a sinner who divorced and remarried before ever coming to a church and receiving the New Birth experience ... once they receive the New Birth experience, they're expected to separate or be shunned???

Am I reading this right?

It is asking this to weed out those who hold such extreme views. The UPCI is possibly the most understanding and empathetic organization I have ever seen regarding this issue.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

From the UPCI local license application:

"Do you believe and teach that persons who have been divorced and remarried before they were filled with the Holy Ghost should be made to separate or else be put out of fellowship with the assembly?"

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a sinner who divorced and remarried before ever coming to a church and receiving the New Birth experience ... once they receive the New Birth experience, they're expected to separate or be shunned???

Am I reading this right?

Originally Posted by Originalist

It is asking this to weed out those who hold such extreme views. The UPCI is possibly the most understanding and empathetic organization I have ever seen regarding this issue.

The UPCI ordains pastors and evangelists that have been married more than once. I know one that is (I believe) on his fourth marriage. His father was a well known UPCI evangelist and also pastored. I know independent apostolics that have been married multiple times and still preach. It certainly helps if your father was an influential pastor or evangelist though.