• 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.

Abigail and Polygamy

Doc

Member
Real Person
The story of Abigail in the Bible (1 Samuel 25) is a story of one of the most faithful and honorable women mentioned in God’s Word – definitely a woman of integrity!

Abigail’s Foolish Husband Nabal

After the death of the prophet Samuel (vs. 1), David and his men moved into the wilderness of Paran just a few miles from the city of Carmel (1 Samuel 25:1-2). While in this region, David became acquainted with a man named Nabal whose name means “Fool” (marginal reading – 1 Samuel 25:25). The word signifies one who is “foolish, base, or villainous.” It is also interesting to note that “he was of the house of Caleb.” The name, “Caleb” signifies “a dog” or a man of a “churlish” (stingy or mean) disposition (1 Samuel 25:3). It is unfortunate that Abigail was married to such a man. David (through his servants) asked Nabal to provide some necessary sustenance (vs. 8) for him and his men but Nabal refused (1 Samuel 25:10-11). We can plainly see the bloated ego of this man in 1 Samuel 25:11 where the personal pronoun “I” or “my” is used seven times!

Abigail’s Character Illustrated

Fortunately, one of David’s servants told Nabal’s wife concerning the insults that had been hurled at his fellow servants by Nabal (1 Samuel 25:14) even though David’s men had protected Nabal’s men and sheep from outside forces (1 Samuel 25:15-16). As soon as Abigail heard of her husband’s insulting behavior toward David, she began to make preparations to make up for his foolish actions. Without telling her husband of her plan (1 Samuel 25:19), she and her servants prepared a large amount of food and drink and traveled to where David and his men were camped (1 Samuel 25:18-20). Abigail prevented certain disaster regarding herself and her family by humbling herself before David (1 Samuel 25:23-31). Abigail did an extraordinary thing when she took the blame for the sin of her husband (1 Samuel 25:28). She humbled herself and interceded for her people before David. Desiring to intercede on behalf of one’s family requires a character of humility, sacrifice and personal cost. The result of Abigail’s actions was that David’s heart was softened and he was kept from bloodshed that day. He accepted her offering and granted her request (1 Samuel 25:35). Abigail was godly in that:

1) She was a wise woman – She recognized the need to humble herself and intercede for her people before David and was willing to do so (1 Samuel 25:28).

2) She was a courageous woman – Abigail risked her life, firstly by not telling her husband of her plans. In those times women were their husband’s property. Nabal was a wealthy man (vs. 2) – she could have lost everything – even her life, for taking matters into her own hands. Secondly, going to meet David was very risky – can you imagine riding into that mountain ravine on a donkey (1 Samuel 25:20) and coming towards you are 400 men with swords and an angry leader at their head? (1 Samuel 25:13). But Abigail was a courageous woman and her motive was to plead for the lives of others – she didn’t think of herself – she was prepared to die.

Note: We may not be called to risk our lives, but we too can be bold and courageous. We can speak out against injustice and intercede for the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17 – ESV).

3) She was a prophetic woman – Abigail spoke prophetic words to David. David realized this and as a result much bloodshed was averted that day (1 Samuel 25:33).

4) She Was a faithful woman – She believed in God and spoke forth His message to David (1 Samuel 25:26). Abigail was rewarded for her faithfulness – she became the SECOND wife to David, the future King (1 Samuel 25:42).

Conclusion

Abigail was certainly a woman of integrity and destiny along with many other women we read about in the Bible who God used in extraordinary ways – Esther, Deborah, Hannah, Mary, to name just a few. These women did remarkable things in their day and generation. God wants us to do remarkable things for Him in our day and generation! (Matthew 28:19-20).

The question we need to ask ourselves is, “are we willing to display the integrity and courage in our lives that Abigail displayed in hers in carrying out the Lord’s will?” (Matthew 7:21).
 
It is true that the biblical account commends Abigail and condemns Nabal. So that must be the correct interpretation.

Please ignore this confession...

THIS STORY HAS BOTHERED ME FOR A LONG TIME

1. David is running an guerilla warfare campaign with a bunch of men from "diverse" backgrounds, and living off property owners.
2. David's request comes off as a politely worded protection racket.
3. Although I cannot know Abigail's true motives, one possible interpretation is that she betrayed her husband. She did not check with him (perhaps there was no time) and then she insulted his name to David. I know that is not the biblical interpretation.
4. Nabal is not a great guy, however he does have a right to his own property. He could have worded his response better, but he is simply resisting an extortion attempt. It is his farm, he needs to protect his household and not instantly cave in to every armed band that passes by.
5. David appears ready to quickly shed blood against those who do not agree to his demands.
6. It appears Abigail does not mourn her husband for long, going quickly to David's side and remarrying in 2 weeks from Nabal's death.

As I said, the story bothers me.

I know this is not a traditional or even biblical view, please ignore my opinion and focus on God's word.

ylop
 
i wish that i knew exactly how nabal's response was worded.

since YHWH stated that david was a man after His own heart EXCEPT for his actions with bathsheba, i have to assume that the Almighty did not disagree with his actions and intentions toward nabal.
it seems to me that the "cliff's notes" version that we read in our (english) bible does not give us enough facts to question the lad's rights befor YHWH. (and by extention, abigail's)
 
It doesn't say that David claimed payment as guarantee against FUTURE depredations, but as recompense for PAST protection which had contributed to Nabal's present prosperity.

Biblical precedent? Thou shalt not muzzle the ox which treads the grain.

WHY had David and his band of merry men settled or focused upon that specific area or region? Had Nabal invited them and their protection with promises? Abigail seems to have had enough previous contact with him to have a good idea of his character and temperament.

If we are to speculate, it can go both ways.

And how long SHOULD Abigail have mourned a churlish husband?
 
Some further thoughts on the passage:

1. The victor writes the history, not the loser.
2. The loser loses his public credibility, his land, his wife and his life.
3. The armed men with David were "All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented" (1 Sam 22:2). Those men were happy to follow David's orders to massacre an entire family group. I despise it when men simply follow orders to kill others.
4. The request for supplies is worded as "When your shepherds were with us, we did not mistreat them, and the whole time they were at Carmel nothing of theirs was missing." In other words, give us a part of your wealth, because we did not attack your employees or steal from you. That reads like protection money and standover tactics. There is no note that Nabal requested the men to camp on his land, or that he requested protection, or that protection was actually needed. The request does not say that they protected Nabal, it says that they did not steal or attack Nabal.
5. Abigail denounces her husband publicly, saying "Please pay no attention, my lord, to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name—his name means Fool , and folly goes with him." Perhaps the extreme circumstances required such a humbling, but I would be ashamed if my wife did that to me.
6. "Abigail quickly got on a donkey..." gives the impression that Abigail cannot wait to leave behind her dead husband and rush to David. That bothers me. The whole episode is a tragedy to me, not a time of rejoicing at new love.

Of course there are other aspects to the story, and Nabal does not appear to be a good or wise character, however as a whole the tale does not endear me.

ylop
 
Ylop, it is a difficult passage to get your head around. I have been thinking about it for a few days before responding. Two main points come to mind:

1) David's plans to attack Nabal WERE evil.

The Bible clearly shows that in hindsight, after Abigail's warning, even David recognised his plans were evil. He would certainly not have been justified to kill every male in Nabal's household. This plan is never said to be ok.
And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the LORD, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil: for the LORD hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. (1 Samuel 25:39)
However, David was restrained from doing evil through Abigail's warning. When elsewhere we are told David was "a man after God's own heart", we are NOT told he was perfect (no human is), nor are we told exactly what God means by this phrase. It may mean that although his own thoughts were not always correct, David was willing to heed Godly advice and be corrected.

2) Abigail did disobey her husband, but she obeyed a higher authority, God.

Obedience to authority is very important, but along with that comes the general principle that the higher authority takes precedence over the lower. There are plenty of other examples of Godly disobedience in scripture - Rahab disobeyed her king when she hid the spies, Peter and John disobeyed the Jewish council when they continued to preach after being commanded not to (Acts 4:15-21). A child is to obey their parents, but clearly if the parents tell them to do something against God it is right for them to disobey. And in the same way there will be occasions, however rare, when it is right for a wife to disobey her husband and follow God's instructions directly instead.

So the fact that Abigail is praised for disobeying her husband in this matter does not break down the authority of husbands, quite the opposite - her situation is the exception that proves the rule, that authority is to be obeyed.

Finally:
1. The victor writes the history, not the loser.
No, in this case God wrote the history. Therefore it is correct. The victor / loser issue, which I agree is a major problem in secular histories, is irrelevant here. We must believe what the Bible says and try to understand it, not try to explain it away using criticisms like this.

Does that help to shed a bit more light on the issue?
 
What is amusing to me about this thread is that I wanted to show the unusual way God provided David a second wife, by eliminating the first husband.

8-)

DOc
 
FollowingHim said:
No, in this case God wrote the history. Therefore it is correct. The victor / loser issue, which I agree is a major problem in secular histories, is irrelevant here. We must believe what the Bible says and try to understand it, not try to explain it away using criticisms like this.

Yes this is God's word; however it is physically written by humans.

Their writing style, personal emphasis and theological flavour come through.

For example, the four gospels have such different themes - contrast Luke's historical framework with John's logos introduction.

A major theme of the book of Samuel is the rise of David and his legitimate authority. The book may well have been used to justify his royal line against competitors.

I don't think you can simply eliminate the human factor when looking at the text.

ylop
 
I agree that the flavor of the man so to speak is there, but not that error or inaccurate accounting could be part of the Word of God. Could Matthew have fudged things a bit to make his account more palatable for the Jews, or did Paul's bias come out in the case of celibacy? I see that Paul notes specifically when he speaks of his own account, thus showing the human wisdom in contrast with what God has commanded. That is very telling of Paul's heart, but is not left to the imagination of what God has indeed said or inspired to be written.

I don't believe we could trust any of God's Word as truth if we found errors or bias found in its pages. Which parts do we attribute to man and which to God if that be the case? While I logically agree in part with the discussion of David tainting his own account, I cannot accept error in God's Word due to man's intervention, and so must agree with the text that David accurately portrays the account even if I do not understand the situation entirely.

Does this make sense? Thanks for listening to my babbling, I really enjoy this type of discussion and have thoroughly appreciated all the insights and opinions shared. Doc, you really know how to stir up a hornet's nest! Just like someone else I know..... ME :lol: :D ;) :o
 
I once considered whether Miriam and Aaron actually were upset with Moses because of the Cushite woman in Exodus 12. I see not cause to think that Moses was obscuring or rearranging facts or even adding personal bias to those who challenged his authority and his use by God. We see often that the personality of a man is used by God to bring human emotion and understanding to an account, but to say that these could possibly be in error or tainted by human perspective could lead us down a dangerous road.

I have heard arguments that Paul hated women and therefore wrote his own qualifications for elders (leaving himself unqualified, I might add) but I cannot accept these arguments as they interfere with the Word of God. I once spoke to a brother about this concerning the Biblical account of the "Star of Bethlehem" which could be explained by modern science as retrograde motion rather than the star stopping. The Biblical account says the star stood over where the child was and so that is what happened. We could look carefully at the word for "stood" or "stopped" and see what the word is and whether it conveys well in English. We should not, however, assume that the fact of error in the account just because the man who wrote it knew nothing about retrograde motion.
 
DocInKorea said:
What is amusing to me about this thread is that I wanted to show the unusual way God provided David a second wife, by eliminating the first husband.

8-)

DOc
ok, i am getting a little nervous. please tell me that you are not discussing the truth of yet another marital scheme ;)
 
WAIT A MINUTE! Missed that post!

So you are saying that if I check and make sure, um, Xxxxx isn't missing any sheep, I could take my posse of outlaws (that would be, um, Paul, BrotherD, maybe soon Chris, perhaps Steve if he's in the region ...) and threaten mayhem? (Hey, if it is just threatening that is required, I could add a bunch of y'all to my "posse". I'm pretty sure Nathan hasn't stolen any sheep lately, nor DocInKorea. Not too sure 'bout FollowingHim -- NZ and all ... :lol: )

Cool!

:roll: :roll: :roll: :ugeek:

But where am I gonna put her donkey? :o

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
:roll: :roll: :roll: :ugeek:

Actually, not a problem. The motel has a good sized lawn which they don't cut as often as they should. We can make him our mascot. The residents' kids will love him / her / it.

All systems are go!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
ylop said:
I don't think you can simply eliminate the human factor when looking at the text.
Completely agree with Mark. The human factor is important, as it gives us different perspectives of the same truth. But everything they say is still correct (2 Timothy 3:16). You really can start denying anything if you start getting biased against individual authors. That's what the feminists do when they reject patriachy because the Bible was written by men.
 
CecilW said:
So you are saying that if I check and make sure, um, Xxxxx isn't missing any sheep, I could take my posse of outlaws (that would be, um, Paul, BrotherD, maybe soon Chris, perhaps Steve if he's in the region ...) and threaten mayhem? (Hey, if it is just threatening that is required, I could add a bunch of y'all to my "posse". I'm pretty sure Nathan hasn't stolen any sheep lately, nor DocInKorea. Not too sure 'bout FollowingHim -- NZ and all ... :lol: )
IF you had been "a wall unto them both night and day" (1 Samuel 25:15) protecting the from OTHER outlaws, so you were the reason no sheep were missing, then sure, go ahead!

I don't pay for my sheep, but that's because I have a generous father who lets me have them for free, I don't have to snaffle them in the middle of the night, but that certainly goes on a bit. I know of one larger property which restricted access and got all security conscious, and their lambing percent suddenly increased by about 20% I believe... Even cows somehow manage to jump fences but mysteriously leave their guts behind.

I can however teach your posse to butcher your catch if you like!
 
FollowingHim said:
IF you had been "a wall unto them both night and day" (1 Samuel 25:15) protecting the from OTHER outlaws,...

I can however teach your posse to butcher your catch if you like!
Used to be a wall at 6'0" and 315#. Now, at 240 or so, more of hedgerow. :lol:

Btw, the object of the exercise is to catch the wife, right? Why would I wanna butcher her?

Ok, I MUST shut up. This is deteriorating into the ridiculous! But then, what's new? Blows off steam!
 
ylop said:
1. The victor writes the history, not the loser.
ylop

A common point of view purveyed to people that don't read much history. The 'losers' write history just as much as the 'winners' do. Historians write history, and they come from many different backgrounds. If that wasn't so we wouldn't have "Wars of the Jews" by Josephus.

Marxists want people to believe that all history is revised already so they can revise it with less resistance.




Scripture is certainly not subject to 'victor bias', as the men of God and the Prophets are chastized along with everyone else. David included.
 
Tlaloc said:
ylop said:
1. The victor writes the history, not the loser.
ylop

A common point of view purveyed to people that don't read much history. The 'losers' write history just as much as the 'winners' do. Historians write history, and they come from many different backgrounds. If that wasn't so we wouldn't have "Wars of the Jews" by Josephus.

Marxists want people to believe that all history is revised already so they can revise it with less resistance.

ROFL............... :lol:

There there Tlaloc.

Bels - Just sitting down enjoying her copy of Histor d'losers
 
Tlaloc said:
A common point of view purveyed to people that don't read much history.

Moderator's edit: Plenty of people read plenty of history yet disagree.

The example of Josephus doesn't really support your claim. Given that he was captured by the Romans, became a Roman citizen and wrote his historical works in Rome under Roman patronage.

I stand by my original theme, which is that although the Scriptures are God-inspired, the shadow of their individual human authors can be seen across the pages of each of the books making up the Bible.

ylop
 
What's this about a posse? hmmm could be fun... I may have to go back and read a couple of these more thoroughly... your comment below cracks me up! :D
CecilW said:
WAIT A MINUTE! Missed that post!

So you are saying that if I check and make sure, um, Xxxxx isn't missing any sheep, I could take my posse of outlaws (that would be, um, Paul, BrotherD, maybe soon Chris, perhaps Steve if he's in the region ...) and threaten mayhem? (Hey, if it is just threatening that is required, I could add a bunch of y'all to my "posse". I'm pretty sure Nathan hasn't stolen any sheep lately, nor DocInKorea. Not too sure 'bout FollowingHim -- NZ and all ... :lol: )

Cool!

:roll: :roll: :roll: :ugeek:

But where am I gonna put her donkey? :o

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Back
Top