It’s a strange story (Gen 20:1-18). It centers on Abraham. That’s the same Abraham that Hebrews lists as a man of faith (Heb 11:8-10). Abraham, with God’s promise of an heir pending, went to Gerar to settle for a while. Worried that they might kill him to get his wife who was beautiful, he told the king, Abimelech, that Sarah was his sister, so Abimelech took Sarah as his own.
Here’s where the passage turns. God came to Abimelech and told him he was a dead man for taking a married woman (Gen 20:3). Abimelech never touched her and honestly didn’t know, so wasn’t he guiltless in one sense—blameless with respect to intent? That's what he told God (Gen 20:4-5). God answers him directly: “Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her” (Gen 20:6). God ascribes “integrity” to him—not covenant righteousness, but a real sincerity that he didn’t mean to sin—while also giving the true reason the king never touched Sarah: “I also kept you from sinning against Me.”
Did you know God did that? Were you aware that He can prevent sin from happening? We are not autonomous creatures. We make real choices, but we don’t decide everything for ourselves, and our decisions never place God in a corner. Proverbs says, “The heart of man plans his way, but YHWH establishes his steps” (Pro 16:9). Not even the world’s authority figures are exempt. “The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of YHWH; He turns it wherever He will” (Pro 21:1). (A lot of Christians are concerned—about the Trumps and Bidens of this world. That should give some comfort.) Elsewhere, we get a different glimpse into the sense of it. “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of YHWH that will stand” (Pro 19:21).
That’s really the idea. It is the purpose of God that will stand—always. You can’t ultimately derail His plan. You can’t sin Him into “Plan B.” But that doesn’t make sin small, harmless, or “not my fault.” Scripture is comfortable holding both truths at once: God’s purposes are never threatened, and human beings remain responsible—and sins still bring real consequences.
Genesis 20 shows that clearly. God restrained Abimelech from touching Sarah (Gen 20:6), yet Abimelech is still under judgment (Gen 20:3) and commanded to act (“return the man’s wife…,” Gen 20:7), and Abraham is still confronted with his fear-driven deception. God’s providence doesn’t absolve us of sin; it exposes it, restrains it at times, and judges it when necessary.
You see the same pattern elsewhere. Judas’s betrayal fulfills what God had purposed, yet Jesus still says, “Woe to that man” (Luke 22:21-22). Pilate and the rulers acted wickedly even as God sovereignly overruled their actions to accomplish the cross (Acts 4:26-28).
That is different from the way God brings obedience in the new covenant—by giving a new heart and causing His people to walk in His statutes (Eze 36:26-27). God can move even pagan rulers like Cyrus to carry out His purposes (Ezra 1:1), and He can call and set apart someone like Paul from before birth (Gal 1:15-16). In all of it, we are never outside of His purposes, and He is always faithful. But our sins aren’t excused because He permits them; we still must repent, and we still face consequences—even while God, in the end, ensures that His purposes are fulfilled.
21 comments:
One of my immediate responses to the “strange story” you related is gratitude that we now have better means of knowing right and wrong in God’s eyes than looking to the contents of our dreams! For example, unlike Abimelech, apparently, we can know definitively that both fornication and adultery are wrong--as would be “spousal removal” (i.e. murder) clearing the way to either of them! (Frankly, I’m surprised that God saw “integrity” in the king’s heart at all in this incident.)
In any event, it is certainly helpful to have the written accounts of the Old and New Testaments, with their reports and commentary regarding what God was doing and why--informing us of His plans and purposes in hindsight (that “unfolded plan” I mentioned at your 4/23/26 post). Discerning God’s will and His actions that have taken place post-scripture--without that helpful written narrative to consult--is not as easy; therefore, telling man’s intentions and choices apart from God’s is a murkier matter, to my mind. To use your example of our modern-day governmental leaders, I would never try to guess if the decisions and actions of our president(s) stem from the (deceitful) “heart of man” or a heart “turned by the hand of YHWH.” That seems like something only God would know, so I will trust Him in that area, while praying that His will be done.
“Did you know God did that [kept Abimelech from sinning against Him]? Were you aware that He can prevent sin from happening?” David and I commented about this incident the other day, where I mentioned that another OT king (David) was not prevented from sinning that same way. There are, of course, numerous similar examples in the Bible of sinful acts being thwarted, while others were allowed to transpire (albeit with repercussions). This mixture of both prevention and allowance of certain events and actions taking place within God’s Permissive will keeps me mindful that the whole “problem of evil” is well within God’s purpose--as difficult as that is for us to recognize.
“God’s purposes are never threatened, and human beings remain responsible—and sins still bring real consequences.” I like your pairing of God’s sovereignty with our accountability for our actions. That keeps us from a fatalistic mindset: Since everything is playing out according to God’s script and our part in it doesn’t matter (i.e. we are just actors on a stage or perhaps in the audience), we might as well do exactly as we wish--and hope that our sinful choices will pass under God’s radar of judgment. The reality that each of us is in fact accountable--regardless of God’s intervention or the absence of it--rather makes my head spin! Only a very powerful, all-knowing, and all-wise God can expertly coordinate all the events and actions of every human being on earth since the beginning of time and work them together within one perfect will.
How was Abimelech not innocent in this story? As far as he knew, Sarah was Abraham's sister. So taking her for a wife to commit adultery with her was not his intention. And there's no reason to believe that God doesn't speak to us in dreams and still small voices.
It is tough because it borders on a contradiction, God's Sovereign Will and our culpability. I see it as a mystery, but it is a difficult one.
I understand “Abimelech…sent and took Sarah” as his plan to commit fornication with her. I know that kings used women freely that way (including maintaining harems of concubines), and I was judging him negatively for that. And since Abimelech already had a wife (as mentioned in Gen. 20:17), taking Sarah as an additional wife (if that was his true intention), is also wrong in my eyes.
I am not in the “God still speaks to us in dreams and visions” camp. (I thought you knew that about me. [See Stan’s 8/16/24 and 9/2/24 posts.])
Loren, the Hebrew idiom "sent and took" in that text describes a royal procedure. He likely "sent" his officials and "took" her to become part of his household ... a wife or concubine. Not kidnapping or malicious. He believed she was available and may even have been exercising a common practice of seeking a marriage alliance with Abraham. Multiple wives and concubines were common practice in that time and, while God didn't approve it, He didn't condemn it like, say, idolatry or adultery or rape. I am convinced polygamy was not God's plan and not His preference, but, like divorce, it may have been something He tolerated for a purpose and I won't apply my own moral preference to Abimelech on that. Clearly taking another man's wife was wrong, and that was what God took him to task for ... even though he didn't know.
Thanks for the background information (which I don’t think is obvious from a plain reading of the passage). As I said, although common practice, I disapprove of both polygamy and keeping harems of concubines, as well as “taking” a woman for either purpose. (I do realize I am analyzing the story as a woman with 21st-century sensibilities.)
I don't think anyone was saying him having a harem was a good thing. As for "taking", did your husband not take you as his bride? Did you not take your husband as your husband? That term is in the common usage of marriage vows. Sounds like you might be hearing some of the feminists in your ears.
I’m sure you can guess it’s not the term “taking” I object to but the concept in this case. “Taking each other in marriage” is a voluntary choice--part of a mutual pledge of commitment and love, freely given by both partners. That wasn’t the case in this story. I don’t think it requires feminist views to object to this narrative. I was very sensitive (as a woman esteeming personal holiness) to this fact: the king’s prerogative to “take” a woman this way commits her to practice grave sexual sin (whether as part of a polygamous relationship or as a sex partner on call). If a yet-to-be-married woman was committed to honoring God and her future husband by remaining chaste, that choice was “taken” from her. In Sarah’s particular case, her integrity and sexual fidelity, as a long-time married woman, would have been compromised.
I pressed "REPLY," but this is more of a question than a reply. YOu talk of marriage as a "voluntary choice." Historically, arranged marriages have been around a lot longer than marriage by choice. For most of human history, arranged marriages were the default. Our modern "marry for love" kind is really recent ... maybe the 18th century. Do you consider arranged marriages a bad thing?
Well, if you are speaking of an arrangement for Sarah to marry the king--yes, that’s a bad thing, as she was already married (as was he)! Are you envisioning that Abraham was fine with marrying Sarah off to the king in an arranged marriage? Even with him and Sarah expecting to be expecting very soon? (Their promised baby was due that coming year.) If so, I would have to fault Abraham as much as Abimelech.
If you mean more generally, I believe that arranged marriages have worked fairly well historically. (I do realize they were the norm until fairly recently.) In previous times, it was necessary for society’s good that unions be established, offspring produced, etc.; waiting for couples to fall in love and then marry wasn’t practical. Even in an arranged marriage, however, the partners are “taking” each other with mutual consent. (I’m assuming you’re not thinking of forced marriages but actual two-party arrangements.) I mentioned marriage as a “voluntary choice” because David referenced current practices, and that’s all I know.
To be clear: My objection in this narrative would not be to an arranged marriage--if it were mutually consensual--but to any force by the king to “take” a woman, to its occurrence under deception by Abraham and/or Sarah (i.e. that she was free to marry), to its inclusion of sexual infidelity within the king’s household, and obviously, to the dissolution of Abraham and Sarah’s marriage.
No, Lorna, my question was purely hypothetical regarding the concept of arranged marriages and not specifically about Abimelech and Sarah. Thanks for your explanation. As for Abimelech and Sarah, there is no indication of "by force" in the text, but that means nothing as to the content. Sarah was Abraham's wife and Abraham and Abimelech were both in the wrong.
As a woman, it is natural for me to consider this story from Sarah’s perspective. One of the reasons I comment here is to offer another point of view, and that viewpoint just happens to be a woman’s perspective. You’re welcome. ;)
Thank you, Lorna. :) From a woman's perspective, do you suppose the women of the Bible whose marriages were arranged were grateful for it or opposed to it? I just wonder how much of today's CHRISTIAN perspectives on questions like these are unknowingly shaped by modern thinking rather than biblical thinking. (The question is curiosity, not a challenge.)
I would say that all our perspectives--on both Christian and secular matters--are shaped by modern thinking, since that is the setting in which we have developed our understanding of things. In my case, I was a modern-thinking young woman for a full generation before I began my Christian journey. (Men too are a product of their pre-conversion culture.) I would hope that my default modern thinking would be informed--i.e. tempered with knowledge and understanding of not only previous cultures and practices (as a history student) but also biblical principles and contexts (as a Bible student).
I assume that the women of the Bible, like most women in general, wished to be married--to have a husband to care and provide for them--and therefore welcomed the current means for becoming a wife (i.e. arranged marriages). I am sure many felt blessed in their unions and found fulfillment in domestic life, while others were unhappy; just like for “love marriages,” much would depend upon compatibility, treatment of each other, living circumstances, etc.--the usual issues. Not knowing anything besides arranged marriages, I doubt people held much opposition to them in principle but perhaps so on a case-by-case basis--again, just like for “love marriages.” Modern thinking might make the claim that the women in arranged marriages always received the worst part of the “deal” (having little power in that culture), but this woman’s perspective is that it was probably 50/50 on that point--just like for “love marriages”!
Now I will ask you something out of curiosity: I recall you mentioning once that when you were younger you considered an arranged marriage (and I remember being shocked at that at the time--due to my modern thinking, no doubt :). I am wondering if you believe, because of the design of the very first marriage in the Garden of Eden, that arranged marriages are actually God’s will for men and women over “love marriages.” Is it your contention perhaps that due to modern thinking--say, since the 18th century or so--arranged marriages fell out of favor (at least in our country), and divorce grew exponentially in our culture as a result? I think that arranged marriages wouldn’t fly in today’s culture--mostly because of that modern thinking. I used to feel the old system was vastly inferior to the new (and was glad it was a cultural practice that had been abandoned), but I’m not so sure anymore! Have we abandoned God’s way for man’s way and are suffering the consequences? I wonder.
I think the "love marriage" concept is a failure to grasp "love" in its biblical sense and favor an emotional version. If love is something we DO rather than feel, then an arranged marriage could be just as love-oriented as any other. But we think of marriage as chemistry rather than choice. It turns marriage to "I feel" rather than "I will." Then it's a small step to "I DON'T feel anymore" and the marriage ends. But if marriage is based on the choice of love, then spouses would EXPECT to continue to choose to do that. I wrote about it here. I think that arranged marriages would be superior in a world that understood what God meant by "love."
Lorna, I think it depends on the type of arranged marriage you're thinking of. The type more commonly seen in aristocracy where children are betrothed from childhood versus the probably more common arrangement between two families at marrying age. I think that the modern way has proven frail. I think some sort of hybrid between "love marriage" and arranged marriage would be better, where the parents are directly involved with the choosing process. We all know that we don't make the best choices when our hormones are firing, so having parental input (assuming the parents are only wanting the best for their children and not for their own position) would be crucial. If a young man and woman present themselves to their loving parents and ask for permission from both sets and abide by that, would be the most ideal. Of course the twisting of sin makes the ideal difficult, but I have heard stories of couples where the man asked the woman's father, and the woman said that if her father did not approve she would not proceed. But those are sadly rare today because too many parents fail to even love their children properly.
Stan, I think you summed it up perfectly. Yes, these days, it’s definitely “… as long as we both shall love” rather than “… live.” Modern marriage seems to be little more than a system in which to freely indulge one’s positive feelings towards another--for only as long as those emotions continue; afterall, it’s common knowledge that you can’t force feeling love towards another (modern thinking for sure).
As it happens, I believe that I have an arranged marriage of sorts--arranged by the Lord, that is. I might think that I established a “love marriage,” but I know now that while God used that initial attraction to bring us together as a couple, He didn’t leave it at that. The commitment to stay together and continue the choice to love even as those strong emotions wax and wane is what sets Christian marriages apart from the world’s version.
Thanks for providing the link to your older post on the topic. (That was before my time reading here, so I’m glad for the redirect.)
David, I like the idea of a hybrid between a “love marriage” and an arranged marriage (in fact, as I mentioned to Stan above, I consider my marriage one of those hybrids--only with God orchestrating the setup). I will say that, with our current lifestyles and modern culture being what it is, I see so many issues with the pursuit of an arranged marriage (of the traditional kind). It seems it would work well only for young couples, who are both close to their parents, who have godly (or at least thoughtful) parents, who ascribe to that long-term commitment to love by choice rather than emotions--and probably a few more important factors. It would not work if individuals are older and independent, out of their parents’ households, estranged from their parents, products of a broken or abusive home--and probably a few more important factors. As a personal example, for me and my husband: we were believers but our parents were not (they thought we had joined a cult, in fact); both sets of parents were divorced and on shaky ground relationship-wise with us (much less their former spouses); I had been living independently for years by my early 20s (while my husband-to-be finished up college). In theory, it is nice to have the important matter of choosing a mate handled for you, but in practice it seems problematic. Perhaps the best one can expect is parents’ input and advice.
This mode of choosing would mostly only be capable in a Christian household. But we're mostly taking to Christians here.
Post a Comment