Act vs. Intent

[Scarecrow]

Can an evil intent corrupt the very act itself?

While having a lengthy discussion with a devout Christian today one of the topics we discussed was adultery. I brought up this passage:

Genesis 16:3 So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.

I then stated “If it is adultery for a man to take another woman to be his wife while he is still married, did Sarai tempt Abram to commit adultery, and did Abram willingly commit adultery? If so, why didn’t God address it like he did when David committed adultery?

I listened while he attempted to assemble an argument to explain away the situation I had just presented to him. He hummed and hawed and a few words stumbled out then he went into explaining that they were trying to fulfill God’s promise to Abraham, and all the Arabs from Ishmael were the result and that is why we have so many problems today, and that is why polygamy is bad. He failed to address the questions I posed, but I was actually pleasantly surprised with his response. He had posed an argument against polygamy that I had not come across yet and my thoughts were keen to address both the lack of an answer and refute the logic in his argument.

Since I was familiar with arguments concerning Lamech, I applied the same type of answer. I said “I’m glad you mentioned that. What we need to look at is the intention of Abram and Sarai. Their intention was to fulfill God’s promise without God. Now, does an errant intention corrupt an act? Is the act bad because it was used for the wrong reasons? If I was single and married a girl because her daddy was rich to get at his money would that then cause marriage in itself to be a bad institution? If Abram’s actions make polygamy bad or sinful does that then render other men like David, Gideon, and many others as bad or sinful men?

To his credit he acknowledged the predicament he was in logically, and was willing to look at the scriptural evidence and consider my statements. I referred him to this site to see that the majority of people believing in Biblical Marriage are just like him.

 

[CecilW]

Howz about this in answer to your friend?

Does God ever promote the CONTINUATION of sin? Or BLESS it?

A perfect opportunity presented itself for this situation to end -- Hagar ran away. God could have helped her on her way, or let her and the "unlawful" baby die in the wilderness, thus saving us all this trouble.

Instead God helped her out, sent her home to her husband and mistress and (catch this!) gave her HER OWN promise about the future of her child! Sarai only got hers through Abraham. Hagar got hers DIRECT!

Further, her son Ishmael received the rite of circumcision. God didn't wait and give it after Isaac's birth, as we (and the argument against) would expect -- He gave it long before! Ishmael was the second man circumcised after Abraham himself!

Finally, God clearly said about the offspring of Isaac, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." And Esau was clearly a perfectly legitimate son. No such curse-pronouncement was made regarding Ishmael.

To the contrary, upon the occasion of needing to separate his wives after the birth of Isaac, we see God offering to partner with Abraham, saying something like, "The little tyke's gonna need you close by, while Ishmael's nearly grown. You stay mainly with Isaac, and I'll take over and finish raising Ishmael. I'll be a father to him, and we'll get through this together, you and I. That's what friends do. 'Specially blood-oath friends! Remember, I've promised to create a nation out of Ishmael as well. Just a different one."

Re-read the passage in Genesis 21, remembering that God's heart ALWAYS flows with and from compassion, and see if the above paraphrase doesn't ring true. Add in, "Hagar has done her time, Abraham. 14 years under Sarah's thumb is long enough! They haven't worked out a loving relationship in that time. Leaving her under future torment, invective and control would be just plain MEAN. We don't DO mean, Abraham. Let Hagar and Ishmael move away and have a separate place, where Hagar can be her own woman. Sarah will be more peaceful as well."

In other words, instead of taking this prime opportunity to say, "See, Abraham? PM isn't good. Tell your future generations not to DO it!", as one might reasonably expect unless we want to accuse God of being bashful and shy when it comes to sin, God partnered with Abraham and showed him a strategy so everyone involved could have the best possible life!

Taken all together, I have to conclude that God blessed the union of Abraham and Hagar for purposes of His own when He could as easily have let the line die out as He did that of Esau and, eventually, Midian. As God told Peter years later, we'd best be careful about calling unclean what God called clean.

Btw, I have heard the above passage, Gen 21, quoted as "proof" that God was against PM, having told Abraham to divorce Hagar. But that is as speculative as is my own paraphrase. Perhaps more so. The passage speaks of separating warring women but says nothing of divorce. It contains no condemnation of what has gone before -- only a solution to the present dilemma which honors everyone's individuality and provides freedom from undue stress.

Further, after the "sacrifice of Isaac" thing, which I'm sure went over well with Sarah :roll: , Abraham lived in Beersheba (Gen 22:19) while Sarah apparently moved to Hebron, where she died (Gen 23:2). Apparently they were living apart, for Abraham "came to mourn and to weep over her." Yet I've heard no-one suggest that this separation constituted Abraham divorcing Sarah ...