According to LDS teaching, plural marriage was a divine principle restored in modern times and practiced anciently by prophets such as Abraham. Doctrine and Covenants 132:34 states:
“God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people.”
Under LDS theology, then, Hagar was not merely a concubine used to bring about God’s promise through human means, but one of Abraham’s eternal wives—a relationship instituted and sealed by divine authority.
But if that’s the case, a serious question arises:
If Hagar’s marriage was eternal and from God, why was Ishmael not an heir with Isaac?
The answer the Bible offers in both Genesis and Galatians is clear: Abraham’s marriage to Hagar was not commanded by God. Ishmael was “born according to the flesh,” not according to the promise. The story exposes the sharp divide between the biblical covenant and the LDS understanding of celestial marriage.
The Biblical Record: Promise, Not Polygamy
In Genesis 15, God blesses Abraham with the promise of an heir from his own “flesh and blood.” Abraham trusts God, and “He credited it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). God then confirms this promise with a solemn covenant ceremony, symbolically taking the penalty upon Himself to guarantee that His promise is irrevocable.
Yet by Genesis 16, Abraham and Sarah grow impatient for the promised son. Sarah offers her Egyptian servant Hagar to Abraham, saying, “Perhaps I shall obtain children by her.” Abraham agrees, and Hagar conceives Ishmael. The text gives no indication that God sanctioned or commanded this arrangement.
To the contrary, the narrative subtly signals misplaced faith:
“Sarai said to Abram, ‘Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.’ And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.”
That phrase—“Abram listened to the voice of Sarai”—echoes Genesis 3:17, where Adam “listened to the voice of [his] wife” instead of obeying God. The parallel is deliberate, suggesting that Abraham’s decision, like Adam’s, represented human initiative rather than divine trust.
In the ancient Near East, it was perfectly acceptable for a barren wife to offer her maidservant to her husband as a surrogate. Archaeological findings such as the Nuzi tablets confirm this custom. By cultural standards, Abraham and Sarah were acting reasonably. But biblical faith has always been countercultural. Abraham’s action was not condemned by society—but it was a detour from resting in God’s power and promise.
In Genesis 17, God makes it unmistakably clear that Ishmael is not the covenant son:
“Your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant.” (Genesis 17:19)
God does bless Ishmael and promises to make him a great nation. He hears Hagar’s cries and shows compassion. Abraham clearly loves Ishmael and pleads, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” (Genesis 17:18). Yet God draws a decisive line:
“My covenant I will establish with Isaac.” (v. 21)
Ishmael would be blessed, but not as an heir. The covenant would run through the miraculous child of promise, not the natural child of impatience.
Paul’s Interpretation: The Two Covenants
In Galatians 4, Paul interprets the story allegorically to contrast two covenants:
“The son of the slave was born according to the flesh, but the son of the free woman was born through promise.” (Galatians 4:23)
Hagar and Ishmael represent the covenant of law and human effort. Sarah and Isaac represent the covenant of grace and divine promise. Paul quotes Genesis itself to drive home the distinction:
“Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” (Galatians 4:30)
Ishmael’s exclusion was not a matter of moral worth but of theological reality. His birth was “according to the flesh.” God’s covenant advances by promise and grace, not by lineage or human arrangements. Isaac’s birth was supernatural, the fruit of God’s power and faithfulness; Ishmael’s was natural, the product of human striving.
In that sense, Abraham and Sarah’s attempt to “help” God illustrates the contrast between flesh and Spirit, works and grace—a contrast at the very heart of the gospel. Salvation cannot come through the works of the flesh.
The LDS Tension
In LDS theology, polygamy is viewed as an eternal principle—a celestial pattern necessary for exaltation. Abraham’s plural marriages, including his union with Hagar, are thus understood as righteous and divinely commanded.
But that reading directly conflicts with the logic of Scripture.
If plural marriage were a divine, eternal covenant, Hagar’s offspring should share equally in Abraham’s covenant blessings. There would be no reason for Ishmael to be “cast out.” Yet both Genesis and Galatians insist that only Sarah’s son inherits the promise.
The conclusion most consistent with the biblical record is that Hagar’s union with Abraham was never a divinely sanctioned covenant marriage but a lapse of faith—a human shortcut that God graciously redeemed through His promise to Sarah. The covenant line runs through divine promise, not human polygamy.
Christ: The True Fulfillment of the Promise
This matters becuase the LDS reading also obscures the beautiful parallel with Christ. Isaac, born through God’s promise, points forward to Christ, the ultimate heir of Abraham. As Galatians 3:16 emphasizes, the covenant blessings were spoken to Abraham’s “seed”—singular—who is Christ. Just as Isaac’s birth depended entirely on God’s provision, so salvation comes entirely by God’s grace, not human effort. Ishmael, born according to the flesh, prefigures reliance on human means, while Isaac foreshadows God’s gracious fulfillment in Jesus, the true child of promise. By suggesting that the marriage to Hagar was part of a divinely orchestrated polygamy, LDS teaching takes away the focus on Christ and replaces it with human effort.