BibleMarriages
Polygyny

God said He will CURSE he who disparages Abraham! @CoryAsburyOfficial and @BlessGodStudios

Video28:30

A chronological walk through Genesis answering the popular claim that Abraham and Sarah “lacked faith” by taking Hagar. When Hagar was taken, God had never promised a son through Sarah, and disparaging Abraham risks the curse of Genesis 12:3.

A response to the widely repeated idea, voiced here by worship artist Cory Asbury, that Abraham and Sarah betrayed a lack of faith when they brought in Hagar to bear a child. Reading Genesis in chronological order shows the opposite: at the time Hagar was taken, God had promised Abraham descendants but had never said the child must come through Sarah. The video argues the story is routinely flattened in retelling, and that publicly defaming Abraham is no small thing in light of God’s warning that He will curse those who curse him.

What this video covers

  • Why the “lack of faith” reading collapses once the events are laid out by Abraham’s age across Genesis 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21.
  • That Abraham was first promised descendants at 75, took Hagar at 85, and was 99 before God ever specified the son would come through Sarah.
  • The Hebrew distinction in Genesis 12:3 between the lighter word for treating Abraham lightly or publicly defaming him and the stronger word for the binding curse God Himself promises.
  • That Ishmael was a legitimate son and seed of Abraham, not a “bastard child,” and was a teenager (around 15 or 16), not an infant, when he and Hagar were sent away.
  • Why God closing Sarah’s womb while immediately opening Hagar’s points to His timing and purpose, not to sin in taking Hagar.
  • That nothing in Scripture forbids a man taking additional wives or concubines to build his house, so the decision was not faithless or immoral.

Scriptures examined

  • Genesis 12:1–3 — the first promise of descendants and the blessing/curse warning
  • Genesis 15 — God promises a son from Abraham’s own body; Abraham believes and it is reckoned as righteousness
  • Genesis 16 — ten years later, Sarai gives Hagar to Abraham; Hagar conceives
  • Genesis 17 — God establishes the covenant, renames Sarah, and names Isaac; Ishmael circumcised at 13
  • Genesis 18 — Sarah laughs and calls Abraham her lord
  • Genesis 21 — Isaac born and weaned; Ishmael and Hagar sent away
  • Exodus 21:17; Proverbs 30 — cursing a father; 2 Samuel 16:7 — the lighter sense of “curse”

Why it matters

Getting Abraham’s story right guards both sound doctrine and the reputation of the patriarch through whom all families of the earth are blessed. Be a Berean: trace the chapters yourself rather than repeat a compressed Sunday-school version.

Newsletter

New teachings in your inbox.

Freely received, freely given — support the work →

More from the well
Article
Article4 min read

Polygamy always ended in disaster in the Bible

While it's true that the Bible records conflicts in polygynous families, this argument falls into the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, it is also objectively false if you read through all the examples of polygyny in the scriptures. If you really go and look at all of the issues that people…

Video40:00

Why Did God Allow Polygamy?

Scriptural Focus argues God merely “allowed” polygamy as a flaw outside His design. This response tests that claim against the text — sin is transgression of the law, Yah gave David wives, regulated plural marriage, and never once condemned a man for it.

Video57:16

Debunking the Christian Myths About Polygamy

A Berean reply to Once Lost Ministries' case against polygamy. Their myths about Abraham, David, and Genesis 2:24 are tested against Scripture, exposing eisegesis and the failure to show one verse forbidding plural marriage.

Video32:33

A “Wretched” Argument Against Biblical Polygyny

Wretched tells a young man polygamy is always a disaster and clearly forbidden. This response tests each claim — Deuteronomy 17, Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5, the Judges 19 “unmentioned sin” argument — and shows enforced monogamy rests on tradition, not the text.