Men, often men who are the teachers of other men, conclude that Abram and Sarai, but especially Abram, failed a test of faith in Genesis 16. The events immediately follow the Lord’s telling Abram that he, the Lord, took upon himself sole responsibility to give Abram an heir, who would inherit all the blessings, God promised him. Yet, if one actually considered the text itself, nothing there indicates the Lord was upset with how Abram or his wife, Sarai, had acted. What can be said about this?
First of all, if we truly believe that it is the Lord who brings us through the events of life, then those events represent what we call the Lord’s Table. Sometimes his Table is judgment, as it was during the days of the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 39:17-24), when the Lord pictured his judgement upon Israel’s rebellion, as the heathen coming against them in war and defeating them in battle and taking them captive to Babylon (cp. Jeremiah 25:15, 17). Just before Jesus was taken and bound by his enemies in Gethsemane, after Judas arrived with a band of armed men, who came to take Jesus into custody, Peter took his sword and cut off the ear of one of the Temple guards. Nevertheless, Jesus told Peter that he, Jesus, would drink from the cup his Father offered him. In other words, the cup, from the Table of the Lord, represented the will of God for Jesus to be taken and slain.
What might this have to do with this point in Abram’s life? Well, if we take into consideration what the Lord told Adam in the Garden of Eden that nothing was withheld from him but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, then anything that Abram did concerning his willingness to obey the Lord was permitted, and not only were they permitted, but Adam was also encouraged to partake of the fruit of the trees he desired to taste. None of those trees were literal fruit trees. Each one of them represented decisions to partake of the course of life, making decisions and accepting the consequences of those decisions, good or bad.
The point was, that Adam/Abram didn’t partake without God’s participation in his life, helping him (Adam/Abram) to understand what was good for him and what was not. That is, this was true, except in the case of the forbidden tree (rebellion) which represented man pushing the Lord out of his knowledge, vis-à-vis his choices in life (cp. Romans 1:28). For Abram, the forbidden tree was returning to Mesopotamia and rejecting the Lord’s calling, going down to Egypt didn’t do that.
The reason why the Lord never rebuked Abram for taking Hagar[1] is that the act was not forbidden. In fact, according to what was permitted in Genesis 2:16, the couple were encouraged to partake of the fruits of any or all the trees of the Garden, and in doing so they would grow both in wisdom (cp. Genesis 3:6) and in their relationship with the Lord, vis-à-vis their faith or trust in him would be increased in their efforts. Only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden, and this tree represented reaching out for wisdom (understanding, knowledge) without the help or input from the Lord. It represented rebellion—pushing the Lord away—and wanting to be independent (Romans 1:28).
Only obsessing with one’s decision was not a good thing. One simply cannot partake of the table of obsession/demons and the Table of the Lord (1Corinthians 10:21), and clearly Abram, although he loved Ishmael, didn’t obsess over him, when the Lord offered Abram Isaac, as the child who would inherit all (Genesis 17:15-21). Faith, trust is a process, and it always involves yielding to the will of God. It is not, nor can it be, a single act of the will. Faith is something that is built up over time. Therefore, nothing Abram did in the process of trusting God was forbidden him to do!
______________________________________
[1] Nor did the Lord rebuke Sarai for offering Hagar to Abram for his concubine.
Smoodock's Blog 