And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned.
8. was weaned ] Weaning was often, in the East, deferred until as late as the child’s third or fourth year; see 1Sa 1:24. It is still regarded as the occasion for a family rejoicing.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
8 21 (E). The Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael
A narrative from E which forms a parallel to that in chap. 16. (J).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 21:8-13
Cast out this bondwoman and her son
The allegory of Isaac and Ishmael
I.
CONTRASTED AS TO THEIR ORIGIN. IN CONTRASTED AS TO THEIR POSITION IN THE HOUSEHOLD.
1. As to the liberty enjoyed.
2. As to the security of their positions. (T. H. Leale.)
Isaac and Ishmael separated
It only needs a glance beneath the surface to see that the future course of these two great branches of the Abrahamic blood was destined to be so divergent, that their currents could no longer mingle with advantage to either.
1. So far as Ishmael was concerned, the archer and huntsman whose home was to be the desert, with his bow for his best inheritance, it was well that he should be early trained to the hardships of a nomadic chieftain. For his own comfort, he could not be too soon compelled to forego all idle dreams of one day succeeding to his fathers estate. Too soon he could not be withdrawn from the presence of a brother whose priority would only inflame his envy. It was the kindest thing for the youth to send him away from his fathers tents. Let it be remembered that he was not sent away from his fathers God. The mercies of God are not limited to the area of His covenant.
2. For Isaacs sake, on the other hand, it was scarcely less advisable to cast out the bondmaids son. His yielding disposition was ill fitted to withstand the influence or endure the hostility of his older and more impetuous brother. Besides, the people of the covenant needed to be from the outset a separated people, kept clear of Gentile alliances. Ishmaels mother was a pagan slave; out of her Egyptian home he married a pagan wife. From all such close contact with heathendom it was requisite to guard the selected family through which a purer faith was to be transmitted.
3. Perhaps we may add a further consideration. No single home can long hold with safety the child of nature and the child of grace. This early family history was meant to be full of significance for the Church of God. And it had to be made clear that in Gods spiritual family circle, or within their eternal home, no place can be found for such as are His only after the flesh, bearing on their body, indeed, the seal of His covenant, yet not born again of His Holy Spirit. (J. O. Dykes, D. D.)
Isaac and Ishmael
I. THE BIRTH OF ISAAC.
Observe on this event–
1. That God has a fixed time for fulfilling his word (see 5:2.)
2. When the time comes he is always found faithful.
3. The birth of Isaac connects itself with a blessing imparted to his parents. Each renewed his or her youth.
II. THE CONTEST BETWEEN THE BROTHERS.
1. That which is carnal always hates and despises that which is spiritual.
2. The world seems to be much stronger than the children of promise.
3. But, in the end, Isaac prevails over Ishmael.
III. THE EPISODE. Hagar means fugitive. First, she fled from Egypt, of which country she was a native; then, from her mistress (see ch. 16); and now from her master and husband. Ishmael means God heareth. God heard Abrahams prayer for him (Gen 17:18); and now he hears Hagues cry. (The Congregational Pulpit.)
Abraham and the promised seed
1. In particular we see first that the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, in their full and ultimate significance, are precisely identical with those of the Gospel. The Church began in Abrahams household–as Paul has emphatically put it, the Gospel was preached before unto him, and so if the initiatory rite of that covenant, which was not a mere national thing, but included in it spiritual blessings for all the nations of the earth, could be administered to infants we need have no scruple about the baptism of infants. In Abrahams case, an adult circumcision, as the Apostle affirms, was a seal of the righteousness of his faith. That is to say, faith was necessary to his circumcision, and yet he was commanded to circumcise Isaac upon the eighth day when it was impossible that Isaac could have faith. Why, then, though faith be required of an adult for his baptism, may we not baptize the infant of a believer, just as Abraham circumcised Isaac, being eight days old?
2. Again, the view which I have brought out concerning the promised seed, sets vividly before us the ultimate number of the saved. Abraham was to be the father of many nations, and to have a seed as the dust of the earth, or as the stars of heaven innumerable–and that, as we have seen, refers not to the Jewish nations, but to the seed of believers.
3. Finally, we have brought out into distinct relief by this view of the promised seed, the character of the saved. Abraham is the father of all them that believe, but this faith is inseparably connected with a spiritual birth-a birth resulting not from the operation of natural causes, but from the agency of the Holy Ghost. Now see how plainly that is foreshadowed tin the birth of Isaac as contrasted with that of Ishmael. Ishmaels birth was of the flesh, but that of Isaac was in fulfilment of promise. It was really supernatural, it was a divine gift; and one great reason for the long delay was just that this might be made apparent. Isaac thus stands for those who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Let me conclude by giving in plainest language what I judge to be for us now the spiritual truths suggested by this old history.
1. In the first place, the Deliverer for whom Abraham looked, whose actual coming in the future was made sure to him by the birth of Isaac, and whose day he saw afar off and was glad, has appeared among men. By a yet more striking miracle than that which issued in the birth of Isaac, The Word who was God was made flesh and dwelt among us.
2. Secondly, we learn from this old history, that in connection with the exercise of this faith, we must be supernaturally born, in order to enjoy the full blessings of salvation.
3. Finally, there is no inheritance without spiritual sonship. Ishmael who was born of the flesh, was cast out. Isaac who was born of the promise was the heir–the promised land belongs to the promised seed. If children, then heirs. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Separation of the seed born after the flesh from the seed that is by promise
Beyond all question, the thing here done is felt, at first sight, on all hands to be harsh; and the manner of doing it perhaps even harsher still. Now, it is not necessary to acquit Sarah of all personal vindictiveness, or to consider her as acting from the best and hightest motives, merely because God commanded Abraham to hearken unto her voice. This may be only another instance of evil overruled for good.
I. Thus, in the first place, LET THE ACTUAL OFFENCE OF ISHMAEL, Now no longer a child, but a lad of at least some fourteen years of age, be fairly understood and estimated. The apostle Paul represents it in a strong light–He that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after theSpirit –and he points to it as the type and model of the cruel envy with which the children of promise are in every age pursued (Gal 4:28-29.) It may have been little more than an act of self-defence on the part of Sarah, when she seized the first opportunity of overt injury or insult, to put an end to a competition of rights that threatened consequences so disastrous.
II. Again, secondly, it is to be remembered THAT THE COMPETITION IN QUESTION ADMITTED OF NO COMPROMISE; and that, whatever might be her motives, Sarah did, in point of fact, stand with God in the controversy.
III. Nor, in the third place, is it to be overlooked that the severity of the measure resorted to is apt to be greatly EXAGGERATED IF IT IS LOOKED AT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SOCIAL USAGES AND SOCIAL ARRANGEMENTS OF MODERN DOMESTIC LIFE. It was no unusual step for the head of a household in these primitive times, to make an early separation between the heir, who was to be retained at home in the chief settlement of the tribe, and other members of the family, who must be sent to push their way elsewhere. Nor are the wanderers sent away to a far country. They are to tarry for farther orders on the very borders of the place where Abraham himself is dwelling. The wilderness of Beer-sheba is almost at his very door; and long ere the bread and water they take with them are consumed, it may be expected that Abraham will be in circumstances to communicate with them more fully as to what they are to do. By some mistake or mischance, however, it unfortunately happened otherwise. Unforseen delay occured; and the wanderers were reduced to straits. Were a conjecture here warranted, it might be surmised as not improbable that the impatience of disappointed ambition may have tended to precipitate, as well as to aggravate, the crisis.
IV. Once more, in the fourth place, a presumptive proof, at least, of THE PATRIARCHS CONTINUED INTEREST IN ISHMAEL, and continued care for his accommodation, is to be found in the account given of his interview with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen 21:25-26). If it was a well that had belonged to Ishmael especially if it was the well which God caused Hagar in her distress to see, and around which, probably, her son formed his earliest settlement, Abimelechs ignorance and Abrahams anxiety are simply and naturally explained. (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)
The destinies of Ishmael
Cast out this bondwoman and her son (Gen 21:10). These were harsh words; it was hard for one so young to have all blighted; it was grievous in Abrahams sight to witness the bitter fate of his eldest born. And yet was it not the most blessed destiny that could happen to the boy? The hot blood of the Egyptian mother which coursed through his veins could not have been kept in check in the domestic circle among vassals and dependants; he was sent to measure himself with men, to cat out his own way in the world, to learn independence, resolution, energy; and it is for this reason that to this very day his dependants are so sharply stamped with all the individuality of their founder. In them are exhibited the characteristics of Abraham and Hagar, the marvellous devoutness of the one with the fierce passions of the other, and together with these the iron will, the dignified calmness of self dependence wrought out by circumstances in the character of Ishmael. And how often is it that in this way the darkest day is the beginning of the brightest life. Reverses, difficulties, trials, are often amongst Gods best blessings. From the loss of property is brought out very often the latent energies of character, a power to suffer and to act which in the querulous being without a wish ungratified you would have scarcely said had existed at all. The man compelled to labour gains energy, strength of character, the development of all that is within him. Can you call that loss? The richest resources are not from without, but from within. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 8. The child grew and was weaned] [—–Anglo-Saxon—–]. Anglo-Saxon VERSION. Now the child waxed and became weaned. We have the verb to wean from the Anglo-Saxon [A.S.] awendan, to convert, transfer, turn from one thing to another, which is the exact import of the Hebrew word gamal in the text. Hence [A.S.] wenan, to wean, to turn the child from the breast to receive another kind of ailment. And hence, probably, the word WEAN, a young child, which is still in use in the northern parts of Great Britain and Ireland, and which from its etymology seems to signify a child taken from the breast; surely not from the Scotch wee-ane, a little one, much less from the German wenig, little, as Dr. Johnson and others would derive it. At what time children were weaned among the ancients, is a disputed point. St. Jerome says there were two opinions on this subject. Some hold that children were always weaned at five years of age; others, that they were not weaned till they were twelve. From the speech of the mother to her son, 2Mac 7:27, it seems likely that among the Jews they were weaned when three years old: O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee SUCK THREE YEARS, and nourished thee and brought thee up. And this is farther strengthened by 2Ch 31:16, where Hezekiah, in making provision for the Levites and priests, includes the children from three years old and upwards; which is a presumptive proof that previously to this age they were wholly dependent on the mother for their nourishment. Samuel appears to have been brought to the sanctuary when he was just weaned, and then he was capable of ministering before the Lord, 1Sa 1:22-28; and this certainly could not be before he was three years of age. The term among the Mohammedans is fixed by the Koran, chap. xxxi. 14, at two years of age.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It doth not appear how old Isaac was, because the time for the weaning of children is very various, according to the differing tempers and necessities of children, or inclination of parents; and in those times, when mens lives were longer than now they are, proportionably the time was longer ere children were weaned.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. the child grew, and wasweanedchildren are suckled longer in the East than in theOccidentboys usually for two or three years.
Abraham made a great feast,&c.In Eastern countries this is always a season of domesticfestivity, and the newly weaned child is formally brought, inpresence of the assembled relatives and friends, to partake of somesimple viands. Isaac, attired in the symbolic robe, the badge ofbirthright, was then admitted heir of the tribe [ROSENMULLER].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the child grew, and was weaned,…. He throve under the nursing of its mother, and through the blessing of God upon him; and being healthy and robust, and capable of digesting stronger food, and living upon it, he was weaned from the breast: at what age Isaac was when weaned is not certain, there being no fixed time for such an affair, but it was at the discretion of parents, and as they liked it, and the case of their children required; and in those times, when men lived to a greater age than now, they might not be weaned so early, as we find their marrying and begetting children were when they were more advanced in years. The Jewish writers are not agreed about this matter. Jarchi and Ben Melech say that Isaac was weaned twenty four months after his birth; a chronologer of theirs says q it was in the hundred and third year of Abraham, that is, when Isaac was three years old, which agrees with the Apocrypha:
“But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education.” (2 Maccabees 7:27)
According to Jerom r, it was the opinion of some of the Hebrews that he was five years old; and at this age Bishop Usher s places the weaning of him; for to make him ten or twelve years of age, as some of the Rabbins do t, when this was done, is very unlikely. Philo the Jew u makes him to be seven years of age at this time:
and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned; because he had now escaped the dangers of infancy, and had gone through or got over those disorders infants are exposed unto, and had his health confirmed, and there was great likelihood of his living and becoming a man, since now he could eat and digest more solid and substantial food; and this was great joy to Abraham, which he expressed by making a grand and sumptuous entertainment for his family, and for his neighbours, whom he might invite upon this occasion. Jarchi says, the great men of that age were at it, even Heber and Abimelech. The Jews very impertinently produce this passage, to show the obligation they lie under to make a feast at the circumcision of their infants w; for this was not at Isaac’s circumcision, but at his weaning.
q R. Gedaliah, Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 2. 2. r Quaestion. in Genesin, fol. 68. K. tom. 3. s Annal. Vet Test. p. 9. t Pirke Eliezer, c. 30. Vid. Hieron. Quaest. ut supra. (in Genesin, fol. 68. K. tom. 3.) u De his Verb. Resipuit. Noe, p. 275. w Pirke Eliezer, c. 29. fol. 30. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Expulsion of Ishmael. – The weaning of the child, which was celebrated with a feast, furnished the outward occasion for this. Sarah saw Ishmael mocking, making ridicule on the occasion. “Isaac, the object of holy laughter, was made the butt of unholy wit or profane sport. He did not laugh ( ), but he made fun ( ). The little helpless Isaac a father of nations! Unbelief, envy, pride of carnal superiority, were the causes of his conduct. Because he did not understand the sentiment, ‘Is anything too wonderful for the Lord?’ it seemed to him absurd to link so great a thing to one so small” (Hengstenberg). Paul calls this the persecution of him that was after the Spirit by him that was begotten after the flesh (Gal 4:29), and discerns in this a prediction of the persecution, which the Church of those who are born after the spirit of faith endures from those who are in bondage to the righteousness of the law.
Gen 21:9-13 Sarah therefore asked that the maid and her son might be sent away, saying, the latter “shall not be heir with Isaac.” The demand, which apparently proceeded from maternal jealousy, displeased Abraham greatly “ because of his son, ” – partly because in Ishmael he loved his own flesh and blood, and partly on account of the promise received for him (Gen 17:18 and Gen 17:20). But God ( Elohim, since there is no appearance mentioned, but the divine will was made known to him inwardly) commanded him to comply with Sarah’s demand: “ for in Isaac shall seed (posterity) be called to thee.” This expression cannot mean “thy descendants will call themselves after Isaac,” for in that case, at all events, would be used; for “in (through) Isaac shall seed be called into existence to thee,” for does not mean to call into existence; but, “in the person of Isaac shall there be posterity to thee, which shall pass as such,” for includes existence and the recognition of existence. Though the noun is not defined by any article, the seed intended must be that to which all the promises of God referred, and with which God would establish His covenant (Gen 17:21, cf. Rom 9:7-8; Heb 11:18). To make the dismissal of Ishmael easier to the paternal heart, God repeated to Abraham (Gen 21:13) the promise already given him with regard to this son (Gen 17:20).
Gen 21:14-16 The next morning Abraham sent Hagar away with Ishmael. The words, “ he took bread and a bottle of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it ( participle, not perfect) upon her shoulder, and the boy, and sent her away, ” do not state the Abraham gave her Ishmael also to carry. For does not depend upon and because of the copula , but upon , the leading verb of the sentence, although it is separated from it by the parenthesis “putting it upon her shoulder.” It does not follow from these words, therefore, that Ishmael is represented as a little child. Nor is this implied in the statement which follows, that Hagar, when wandering about in the desert, “cast the boy under one of the shrubs,” because the water in the bottle was gone. For like does not mean an infant, but a boy, and also a young man (Gen 4:23); – Ishmael must have been 15 or 16 years old, as he was 14 before Isaac was born (cf. Gen 21:5, and Gen 16:16); – and , “to throw,” signifies that she suddenly left hold of the boy, when he fell exhausted from thirst, just as in Mat 15:30 is used for laying hastily down. Though despairing of his life, the mother took care that at least he should breathe out his life in the shade, and she sat over against him weeping, “in the distance as archers,” i.e., according to a concise simile very common in Hebrew, as far off as archers are accustomed to place the target. Her maternal love could not bear to see him die, and yet she would not lose sight of him.
Gen 21:17-19 Then God heard the voice (the weeping and crying) of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, “ What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not, for God hath heard the voice of the boy, where he is ” ( for , 2Sa 15:21), i.e., in his helpless condition: “ arise, lift up the lad, ” etc. It was Elohim, not Jehovah, who heard the voice of the boy, and appeared as the angel of Elohim, not of Jehovah (as in Gen 16:7), because, when Ishmael and Hagar had been dismissed from Abraham’s house, they were removed from the superintendence and care of the covenant God to the guidance and providence of God the ruler of all nations. God then opened her eyes, and she saw what she had not seen before, a well of water, from which she filled the bottle and gave her son to drink.
Gen 21:20-21 Having been miraculously saved from perishing by the angel of God, Ishmael grew up under the protection of God, settled in the wilderness of Paran, and “ became as he grew up an archer.” Although preceded by , the is not tautological; and there is no reason for attributing to it the meaning of “archer,” in which sense alone occurs in the one passage Gen 49:23. The desert of Paran is the present large desert of et-Tih, which stretches along the southern border of Canaan, from the western fringe of the Arabah, towards the east to the desert of Shur ( Jifar), on the frontier of Egypt, and extends southwards to the promontories of the mountains of Horeb (vid., Num 10:12). On the northern edge of this desert was Beersheba (proleptically so called in Gen 21:14), to which Abraham had removed from Gerar; so that in all probability Hagar and Ishmael were sent away from his abode there, and wandered about in the surrounding desert, till Hagar was afraid that they should perish with thirst. Lastly, in preparation for Gen 25:12-18, it is mentioned in Gen 21:21 that Ishmael married a wife out of Egypt.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
8. And the child grew, and was weaned. Moses now begins to relate the manner in which Ishmael was rejected from the family of Abraham, in order that Isaac alone might hold the place of the lawful son and heir. It seems, indeed, at first sight, something frivolous, that Sarah, being angry about a mere nothing, should have stirred up strife in the family. But Paul teaches, that a sublime mystery is here proposed to us, concerning the perpetual state of the Church. (Gal 4:21.) And, truly, if we attentively consider the persons mentioned, we shall regard it as no trivial affair, that the father of all the faithful is divinely commanded to eject his firstborn son; that Ishmael, although a partaker of the same circumcision, becomes so transformed into a strange nations as to be no more reckoned among the blessed seed; that, in appearance, the body of the Church is so rent asunder, that only one-half of it remains; that Sarah, in expelling the son of her handmaid from the house, claims the entire inheritance for Isaac alone. Wherefore, if due attention be applied in the reading of this history, the very mystery of which Paul treats, spontaneously presents itself.
And Abraham made a great feast. It is asked, why he did not rather make it on the day of Isaac’s birth, or circumcision? The subtile reasoning of Augustine, that the day of Isaac’s weaning was celebrated, in order that we may learn, from his example, no more to be children in understandings is too constrained. What others say, has no greater consistency; namely, that Abraham took a day which was not then in common use, in order that he might not imitate the manners of the Gentiles. Indeed, it is very possible, that he may also have celebrated the birthday of his son, with honor and joy. But special mention is made of this feast, for another reason; namely, that then, the mocking of Ishmael was discovered. For I do not assent to the conjecture of those who think that a new history is here begun; and that Sarah daily contended with this annoyance, until, at length, she purged the house by the ejection of the impious mocker. It is indeed probable, that, on other days also, Ishmael had been elated by similar petulance; yet I do not doubt but Moses expressly declares that his contempt was manifested towards Sarah, at that solemn assembly, and that from that time, it was publicly proclaimed. Now Moses does not speak disparagingly of the pleasures of that feast, but rather takes their lawfulness for granted. For it is not his design to prohibit holy men from inviting their friends, to a common participation of enjoyment, so that they, jointly giving thanks to God, may feast with greater hilarity than usual. Temperance and sobriety are indeed always to be observed; and care must be taken, both that the provision itself be frugal, and the guests moderate. I would only say, that God does not deal so austerely with us, as not to allow us, sometimes, to entertain our friends liberally; as when nuptials are to be celebrated, or when children are born to us. Abraham, therefore, made a great feast, that is, an extraordinary one; because he was not accustomed thus sumptuously to furnish his table every day; yet this was an abundance which by no means degenerated into luxury. Besides, while he was thus liberal in entertaining his friends according to his power, he also had sufficient for unknown guests, as we have seen before.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 21:8. And the child grew, and was weaned.] The weaning was often delayed till three years, or more, after birth (2Ma. 7:27). Samuel was not weaned till he was old enough to be left with Eli, when he would, probably, be more than three years old. Made a great feast. The occasion is still celebrated in the East as a family feast, to which friends are invited. The child partakes of it with the rest, as it is regarded as his introduction to the customary fare of the country.
Gen. 21:9. Mocking.] From the same root as the name Isaac, i.e., laughter. The word cannot here be understood in an innocent sense. It was a bitter, sarcastic laugh. St. Paul fastens upon it the character of persecution (Gal. 4:29).
Gen. 21:12. In Isaac shall thy seed be called.] Heb. In Isaac shall seed (posterity) be called to thee. Explained by the Apostle (Rom. 9:7-8). The whole history is allegorised (Gal. 4:20-22).
Gen. 21:13. Make a nation.] A renewal of the promise made in Gen. 16:10; Gen. 17:20. Because he is thy seed. It seemed to be a specialty of Abrahams descendants to multiply into nations; the very fact of descent from him is alleged as a reason why Ishmael should become one. (Alford.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 21:8-13
THE EXPULSION OF ISHMAEL
This portion of the history, though it staggers our natural judgment, is that very incident of which the most emphatic use is made in other parts of Scripture for the purposes of the spiritual life.
Beyond all question the thing here done is felt, at first sight, on all hands to be harsh, and the manner of doing it even harsher still. Surely never was slight offence more spitefully avenged! An unmannerly boy vents some ill-timed and ill-judged jest, and his mother, as well as himself, must be cast helpless on the wide world on account of it! This looks like the very wantonness of female jealousy and passion. No wonder that the patriarch needed a Divine communication to make him recognise in his irritated partners unrelenting demand the very mind and will of God Himself. (Gen. 21:12-13.) It is not necessary to acquit Sarah of all personal vindictiveness, or to consider her as acting from the best and highest motives, merely because God commanded Abraham to hearken unto her voice. This may be only another instance of evil overruled for good. It is true the Apostle Paul still more directly and immediately ascribes Divine authority to the suggestion of Sarah, when he formally quotes her words as a portion of the inspired record and revelation of the Divine decree. (Gal. 4:30.) Even this, however, may imply nothing more than what is said in the Gospel of a most remarkable utterance concerning the death of Jesus. (St. Joh. 11:49-52.) The high priest consulted but the dictates of a worldly policy, yet he gave forth what turned out to be an oracular Divine prediction. And it may have been with equal unconsciousness of its being a heaven-directed and heaven-inspired voice, that Sarah, yielding to her own impetuous temper, called for the removal of a rival out of the way of her own sons succession and title to the inheritance. There are certain circumstances which we should take into account, not for the vindication of Sarahs character and conduct, but for the better understanding of the Divine procedure.
I. Let the actual offence of Ishmael be fairly understood and estimated. He was now no longer a child, but a lad of some fourteen years of age. St. Paul represents his conduct in a strong light: He that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, and he points to it as the type and model of the cruel envy with which the children of promise are in every age pursued. (Gal. 4:28-29.) And our Lord Himself, when, with an evident reference to the expulsion of Ishmael, He speaks of the servant not abiding in the house for ever, but the son abiding ever, goes on to addidentifying the unbelieving Jews with the servant, or the bondmaids son, and taking to Himself the position of the real son, the true IsaacYe seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. (Joh. 8:37.) Ye seek to kill me. Is there no allusion here to violence threatened against Isaac on the part of Ishmael and Hagar? Is not this the actual parallel intended between their treatment of the child of promise and the treatment Jesus met with at the hands of the Jewsthe treatment which His followers also meet with at the hands of the unbelieving world? From the history itself, it is plain that Ishmaels mocking had a deeper meaning than a mere wild and wanton jest. That it had respect to the birthright is evident, both from Sarahs reasoning and from the Lords. She assigns, as the cause of her anxiety to have Ishmael cast out, her apprehension lest he should claim a joint-interest with Isaac in the inheritance. And the Lord sanctions her proposal on this very ground, when He says to Abraham, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
II. The competition in question admitted of no compromise. Whatever might have been her motives, Sarah did, in point of fact, stand with God in the controversy. She believed God, when, in accordance not more with her own natural feelings than with the known will of God, she determined to resist every attempt to interfere with the prerogative of the child of promise. For it was with Isaac, and with his seed after himthat seed being no other than the Messiah Himselfthat God had expressly said He would establish His covenant for an everlasting covenant. And the determination of Sarah might be the more decided if she saw any indication of hesitancy in the mind of even the patriarch himself. For Abraham may have been swayed by his affection for his first-born child, as well as Sarah by her fondness for the son of her old age. In point of fact, Abraham felt great reluctance to give up his hope of Ishmael being his heir and successor in the covenant. Before the birth of Isaac, he clung to that hope with great tenacity, and pleaded hard on behalf of Ishmael that he might have the birthright blessing (ch. Gen. 17:18). And even after Isaac was born, he seems stilt to have a leaning towards his old partiality for Ishmael. Even after he has got the child of promise bodily in his arms, his faith sometimes wavers. He can scarcely persuade himself to hazard all on so precarious a risk as the puny life of an infant who has so strangely come, and may as strangely pass away. He would fain keep Ishmael still in reserve, and not altogether lose his hold of that other line of descent. This is rendered extremely probable by the pains which the Lord takes to remove the last scruples of lingering unbelief, to reconcile him to the destiny of Ishmael.
III. The severity of the measure resorted to is apt to be greatly exaggerated if it is looked at in the light of the social usages of modern domestic life. It was usual, in those primitive times, for the head of a household to make an early separation between the heir, who was to be retained at home, and the other members of the family, who must be sent to push their way elsewhere. Abraham himself adopted this course on other occasions as well as the present with reference to his other sons whom he had besides Ishmael (ch. Gen. 25:5-6). The presumption, therefore, is warranted that Abraham meant to deal on the same terms with Ishmael when he and his mother were cast out, and that this is intended to be indicated in the brief description subsequently given of his manner of disposing of his children generally.(Candlish.)
THE DESTINIES OF ISHMAEL
At the weaning of Isaac there was a feast. Hagar and her son heard the merriment, and it was gall to their wounded spirits; it looked like intentional insult, for Ishmael had been the heir presumptive, but now, by the birth of Isaac, had become a mere slave and dependant; and the son of Hagar mocked at the joy in which he could not partake. Wherefore Sarah said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son. These were harsh words: it was hard for one so young to have all blighted; it was grievous in Abrahams sight to witness the bitter fate of his eldest born. And yet was it not the most blessed destiny that could happen to the boy? The hot blood of the Egyptian mother, which coursed through his veins, could not have been kept in check in the domestic circle among vassals and dependants; he was sent to measure himself with men, to cut out his own way in the world, to learn independence, resolution, energy; and it is for this reason that to this very day his descendants are so sharply stamped with all the individuality of their founder. In them are exhibited the characteristics of Abraham and Hagar, the marvellous devoutness of the one with the fierce passions of the other, and together with these the iron will, the dignified calmness of self dependence wrought out by circumstances in the character of Ishmael.(Robertson.)
THE ALLEGORY OF ISAAC AND ISHMAEL
We have the authority of St. Paul for giving this history an allegorical interpretation. (Gal. 4:22-24.) It is, without doubt, a real history, recording the thoughts and actions of living men; but it is capable of being treated as an allegory. Moreover, it requires such a treatment. The facts themselves have a spiritual meaning. Ishmael and Isaac, Mount Sinai and Mount Zion, Jerusalem which now is, and Jerusalem which is above, are all of them contrasted in antagonistic pairs, as representing principles essentially distinct. Hagar answereth to that Jerusalem which now is, and Sarah to that Jerusalem which is above, and which is the mother of us all. These things correspond, each to each. In the fact that Abraham had a twofold seedone after the flesh, and the other by promise, we have the germ of the Gospelthe essential characteristics of the legal and evangelical dispensations. The history of Gods chosen people was under His distinct and special control, and was so ordered and governed as to be a fitting vehicle for the conveyance of spiritual lessons. We shall understand how this history teaches the difference between the genius of the Law and the Gospel, if we make a contrast between these two sons of Abraham.
I. Contrasted as to their origin. Ishmael was born after the ordinary manner. There was nothing more remarkable about his birth than about that of any other child. But Isaac came by a miraculous birth. His superior position and spiritual significance is, however, not derived from the fact that he was born of Sarah (though in a miraculous manner), but rather from the fact that he was the child of promise. His parents could have no doubt that he was a special gift from Godan accomplishment of the word of Him who spoke from heaven. These two sons represent two different societiesthe world, and the Church. One is from beneatharises here in the ordinary course of things; the other is from above, not derived from any earthly society, but being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1Pe. 1:23.) This gifted societythe Churchholds fellowship with the unseen world, and owns a heavenly citizenship. The birth from above distinguishes the children of this world from the children of light.
II. Contrasted as to their position in the household. The relative positions of Ishmael and Isaac in the household were essentially different, and that in two respects.
1. As to the liberty enjoyed. Ishmael, being born of a bond-servant, had no natural right to freedom. Such is the position of man under the legal covenant. He is in a state of bondage, and though he may strive to please God and to keep the Law, he is like a slave working towards freedom, and not as one who works with the inspiring thoughts of a man already free. He feels the yoke. However willing to rise to the highest ideal of duty, he is oppressed with a sense of failure. (Rom. 7:7-25.) This covenant gendereth to bondage, exacts high service under severe penalties, which conditions the natural man is not able to fulfil. The case is still more hopeless when a man gains some spiritual insight, and sees how exceedingly broad are Gods commandments. Isaac, on the other hand, was in the house as a free-born son. Liberty was his birthright. More than this, he was born not after the flesh, but by promise. He was placed by the Divine will under the new covenant. So, under the Gospel, believers are in the house of God not as bond, but as free. They have not to work for liberty. They are free already, and work cheerfully from a sense of their freedom.
2. As to the security of their positions. Ishmael had no permanent standing in the house. The dark spot of slavery was upon him, and he only held the blessings of his home on sufferance. Isaac, as a free-born son, abides in the house for ever. The promise of God gave him more than a double security. It gave him absolute security. No earthly power could rob him of his high privilege. Under the Law the position of men is, at best, precarious. They can only abide in the house on sufferance. Their title is forfeited by disobedience and shortcomings in duty. If they fail to fulfil the conditions imposed, their position is gone. We know in what all this must issue for sinful man striving to maintain a place in the household of God by means of the Law, and without that assistance and sense of security which the Divine grace can alone impart. It must issue in his expulsion. But Isaacs position is ours, under the Gospel. We are in the house as fully approved. Our place is secured in perpetuity by the Divine promise. We have the glorious liberty of the sons of God. Such is our heritage under the law of grace. Ishmaels condition, though it fitly serves the purpose of the allegory, may be also regarded as affording a ground of hope to us sinful men. We are all born in slavery, and can only obtain freedom by a special grace. Ishmael might have retained the privilege of remaining in Abrahams family. He might have partaken of Isaacs birthright, if, instead of persecuting, he had stooped to kiss the son. If, instead of standing upon his own right, he had been willing to take the benefits of Isaacs title, he, too, would have continued to enjoy the glorious inheritance. Even if the stain on our birth be ever so black, and our natural prospects ever so gloomy, if we are willing to abandon our ground of confidence, and to receive the free gifts of grace, we are accepted. The grand lesson is, to renounce all confidence in the fleshto trust no privileges or works (Php. 3:7; Php. 3:9), but by faith freely to receive our share in the heritage of Gods first-born Son.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 21:8. St. Augustine observeth here, that this solemnity at the weaning of Isaac was a type of our spiritual regeneration; at, and after which, the faithful keep a continual feast. Let us keep the festivity (1Co. 5:7), or holy day, saith Paul, that feast of fat things, full of marrow; of wines on the lees well refined (Isa. 25:6), proceeding from milk to stronger meat (Heb. 5:12), and being to the world as a weaned child. His mouth doth not water after homely provisions, that hath lately tasted of delicate sustenance.(Trapp.)
It is probable that Abraham gathered his friends and servants around him at this feast. The prophet would not be likely to miss such an opportunity of discoursing upon Gods special favour to himself, and exhorting his company to trust in God, and to the praise of His name. They were all interested in those gifts of the Divine goodness imparted to this distinguished man, in whose seed all the families of the earth were to be blessed.
There can be no true religion amongst mankind without fellowship, and the joyful recognition of Gods blessings. There must be an element of joy and gladness which swallows up the sense of sorrow and sin. The Christian religion has its feasts, for it is glad tidings of great joy.
Gen. 21:9. Now is recorded the casting out of Ishmaelthe son of a human expedient. This was
1. To make the whole hope depend upon the son specially given by God.
2. To separate this hostile element from the Covenant family. Though this was in the plan of God, yet there was to be an occasion for it, and that was the wilful mocking of Isaac by Ishmael.(Jacobus.)
Ishmael despised this child, and ridiculed the idea that he should be the origin of a great history charged with so much importance to mankind. This persecution was prompted by unbelief, envy, and pride. Thus Gods way of deliveranceHis salvationcannot be appreciated by those who are inwardly separated from the household of faith.
Persecution arises from that inward hostility which must ever be between natural and spiritual men.
St. Paul says that Ishmael persecuted Isaac (Gal. 4:29), and he is here designated the son of Hagar the Egyptian, to intimate that, the predicted four hundred years affliction of Abrahams seed by the Egyptians commenced at this time in the insults and taunts of Ishmael, the son of an Egyptian woman.(Bush.)
Gen. 21:10. The facts have an underlying sense, namely, that there are two dispensations represented by Hagar and Sarahthe Law and the Gospel, and two classes of sons in the visible Church, as there are these two in the family of Abrahamthe one of the legal spirit, the other of the Gospel; the one after the flesh, the other after the spirit; the former persecuting and opposing the latter. But the separation must be made, as is here done, in Abrahams house. The son of the bondwomanthe Ishmaelthe children of bondage, of the Judaizing, legal spiritmust be cast out as not allowed to inherit along with the son of the freewoman. They who are in bondage to the righteousness of the law, do thus scorn and persecute those who are of the free spirit of the Gospel. They cannot live in the same house.
(1) The same great idea runs through all the history of the Church, and pervades all the Scripture and all Gods dealings.
(2) We see the unity of the Bible and of the Church.(Jacobus.)
Gen. 21:11. He who is singled out as an example of faith to all ages, is also, throughout the whole course of his history, an example of tender human feeling.
The conflict of human duties is often a sore trial to the saints of God.
Gen. 21:12. God enjoins this as reasonable, on the ground that in Isaac was his seed to be called. This means not only that Isaac was to be called his seed, but in Isaac, as the progenitor, was included the seed of Abraham in the highest and utmost sense of the phrase. From him the holy seed was to spring that was to be the agent in eventually bringing the whole race again under the covenant of Noah in that higher form which it assumes in the New Testament.(Murphy.)
God overrules the stormy passions of human nature to bring about His own large purposes of good.
We must not refuse to join in doing what God commands, however contrary it may be to our natural feelings, nor on account of the suspicious motives of some with whom we are called to act.(Fuller.)
The history of Gods chosen people leads the way up to that One Name which alone brings salvation.
The wife, then, is to be hearkened to when she speaks reason. Samsons mother had more faith than her husband (Jdg. 13:23); and Priscilla is sometimes set before Aquila. Pauls hearers at Philippi were only women at first (Act. 16:13.) And St. Peter tells Christian wives that they may win their husbands to Christ by their chaste conversation, coupled with fear (1Pe. 3:1). The Scripture is said to say what Sarah here saith (Gal. 4:30).(Trapp.)
Gen. 21:13. Abraham is comforted in his stern duty by the renewal of the old promises concerning Ishmael (Gen. 17:20).
Those who are shut out from Gods external dispensations are not, therefore, cut off from His mercy. God has His own designs to fulfil in assigning to men a particular place in human history, but no appointment of this kind is intended as a bar to their individual salvation.
The peculiar blessing was all on the side of Isaac, as being the child by whom the promise should be fulfilled. But the question is, whether there is anything to be deduced from Scripture against the salvability of the offspring of Hagar. The blessings promised to her are principally of a temporal nature (Gen. 16:10; Gen. 17:20; Gen. 21:20); but such blessings would have been the greatest curses on the horrible supposition, that all his descendants had been excluded from the possibility of obtaining eternal happiness. As to the character which is given of Ishmael and his posterity (Gen. 16:12), whilst it forms a prophetic description of the character and manners of the Turks and Arabians, it determines nothing whatever against their salvability. Such as they are, they will be judged according to their means of knowledge. The inhabitant of the desert will not be judged for his want of civilisation, nor will the child, who has been educated in the errors of Mahometanism, be punished for his want of Christian baptism. It should be remembered that the death of Ishmael is mentioned in Scripture with all the circumstances of that of a pious patriarch (Gen. 25:17-18.(Grinfield.)
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
4. The Expulsion of the Bondwoman and Her Son (Gen. 21:8-21)
8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. 9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this handmaid and her son: for the son of this handmaid shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. 11 And the thing was very grievous in Abrahams sight on account of his son. 12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy handmaid; in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 13 And also of the son of the handmaid will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. 14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and gave her the child, and sent her away; and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. 15 And the water in the bottle was spent, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. 16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not look upon the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. 18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thy hand; for I will make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. 20 And God was with the lad, and he grew; and he dwelt in the wilderness, and became, as he grew up, an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
(1) Sarahs Anger (Gen. 21:8-10). Gen. 21:8Isaac weanedat about the age of three. The feast was the customary celebration of the occasion of the weaning of a child. The age of weaning in modern Palestine is from two to three years; in ancient Israel it must have been later, at least in some instances (Cf. 1Sa. 1:22, 2Ma. 7:27 ff.). The weaning was always regarded as a joyous occasion, as we find with Samuel, who on being weaned was taken by his mother to the Tabernacle at Shiloh (SC, 103): (cf. 1Sa. 1:22 ff.). Gen. 21:9Sarah saw Hagars son mocking. Other versions (LXX, Vulgate, JB) gave it playing with her son Isaac. Leupold translates: Sarah observed that the son of the Egyptian woman Hagar, whom she had borne to Abraham, was (always) mocking: the frequentative participle is used here, says this writer. Another allusion to Isaacs name, cf. Gen. 17:17 f.; the one verb means to laugh and to play (JB, 37, n.). The recently published Hebrew commentary (SC, 103104) reads: making sport: the verb denotes idolatry (cf. Exo. 32:6), immorality (cf. Gen. 39:17), or murder (cf. 2Sa. 2:14 f.); in all these passages the same or a similar verb occurs, and in the last-mentioned the meaning is to fight to the death. Also, he quarreled with Isaac about the inheritance, claiming he would be the heir as the eldest son; this follows from Sarahs insistence in the next verse that he should not be co-heir with Isaac. . . . Ishmael derided Isaac and jeered at the great feast, and Sarah resented that the son of a bondmaid should presume to do this, which explains her allusion to his lowly parentage. Skinner (ICCG, 322) certainly disagrees: playing with Isaac her son . . . It is the spectacle of two young children playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarahs maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demand. Leupold takes the opposite view (EG, 599): The writer did not want to say that he mocked Isaac, because, apparently, Ishmael mocked the prospects of Isaac and his spiritual destiny; in fact, just adopted a mocking attitude over against everything involved in Isaacs future. . . . To translate, as many would do, he was playing, certainly imputes to Sarah the cheapest kind of jealousy, quite unworthy of this woman of faith. But, why should we not here, as elsewhere, resolve this problem in the light of New Testament teaching, on the principle that any Scripture must be in harmony with the teaching of the whole Bible? Therefore, we shall allow Gal. 4:29 to settle the question: he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, etc. This is a capsule description of the never-ending warfare of the carnally minded against the spiritually minded (Rom. 8:5-9). The Bible will never speak clearly to those who will not accept it and treat it as a whole. Just how old was Ishmael by this time? Correlating Gen. 16:16 with Gen. 21:5, we conclude that he was about fifteen years old. It is rather difficult to think that on this occasion a fifteen-year-old would have been doing much playing with a two- or three-year-old.
Gen. 21:10Sarah demands that both the bondwoman and her son should be cast out; this would seem to indicate that Sarah held Hagar responsible for Ishmaels mocking attitude toward Isaac. Gen. 21:11Abraham was grieved, not so much apparently about the prospect of losing the bondwoman as about the lack of proper care and protection for the son if they were to be cast out, for, after all, Ishmael was his son. Abrahams language in Gen. 17:18 seems to indicate that he had hoped that Ishmael might be recognized as the promised heir; however, this plea and Gods answer in Gen. 21:19 indicate clearly that this was not the Divine will. This should teach us that mans responses and ways of doing things (righteousness) cannot be substituted for Gods way of doing things. In the present instance (Gen. 21:11) Abrahams displeasure may well have been a reflection of the fact that customary law of his day forbade the expulsion of a slave wife and her children (HSB, 3 5). Gen. 21:12-13 : God intervenes to reassure the patriarch, telling him to hearken to his wifes demand because she is justified in making it. Gods reason for sanctioning the demand is that according to His Eternal Purpose (Eph. 1:3-14; Eph. 2:11-21; Eph. 3:1-12) the true descendants (seed) of Abraham should be found in the line of Isaac. Since, then, Ishmael potentially is a foreign element among the offspring of Abraham, he must be removed. That being Gods reason for Ishmaels and Hagars dismissal, why should it not also have been Sarahs? (EG, 603). Gen. 21:12. Isaac, as thine heir, shall bear and propagate thy name; and the promised seed and land, and the spiritual prerogatives, shall be entailed upon him, Rom. 9:7-8, Heb. 11:8 (SIBG, 246). Reassurance is now given to Abraham with respect also to the future of Ishmael and his progeny: for Abrahams sake, God tells him, He will make him expand into a great people; hence Abraham should have no misgivings as to Ishmaels survival of any or all vicissitudes that might lie ahead.
(2) Hagar and Ishmael in the Wilderness (Gen. 21:14-17). Gen. 21:14Bread and water. This is a phrase which includes all necessary provision, of which it is probable that Hagar and her son had sufficient to have served them till they had gotten to Hagars friends in Egypt, had they not lost their way (SITB, 246). The patriarch put the bottle (a skin of water, or water-bag) on Hagars shoulder, and gave her the child, and sent her away. The critics have had a field day here, so to speak, in the indulgence of speculative sophistry, in assuming that the text indicates that Hagar put the bread, the water-skin, and the boy, on her shoulder. This is ridiculous, of course, because by no possible means can the notion that Ishmael was just a small boy be harmonized with previous passages, such as Gen. 17:24-25; Gen. 21:5, etc. Distorted tradition could hardly have grown blurred on so important a fact as the priority of the birth of Ishmael (EG, 605). Why not accept the simplest and most obvious meaning, namely, that he gave the bread and the water and the child (SC, 106), that is, put the lads hand in his mothers so that she could lead him by her side. The statement certainly does not mean that Abraham gave her Ishmael also to carry, Gen. 21:14-16 : Hagar departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. (It seems evident that Abraham was now dwelling somewhere in the area not too far from Beersheba.) Hagar kept on wandering until her water supply was exhausted, as inevitably would occur under such circumstances; such exhaustion as that which resulted from lack of water supply naturally affected the boy much more quickly than the mother. Haley (ADB, 418): The English version of Gen. 21:14-18 is peculiarly infelicitous, and makes a wrong impression. The child was not placed upon Hagars shoulder, nor cast under the shrub, nor held in the hand, as an infant might have been. The Hebrew word here rendered child, denotes not only an infant, but also a boy or young man. Ishmael was at the time some sixteen years of age. The growing boy would be much more easily overcome by the heat, thirst, and fatigue of wandering than his mother, the hardy Egyptian handmaid. When he yielded to exhaustion she hastily laid him, fainting and half-dead, under the shelter of a shrub. Even after he was refreshed with water, he needed to be held, that is, supported and led, for a time, (It should be noted that the same word yeled, child, in Gen. 21:14-15, is applied to Joseph when seventeen years old (Gen. 37:2; Gen. 37:30). For a time the mother supports the son, but her fast-failing strength cannot bear to be doubly taxed. She finds one of the bushes of the desert. Scant shade such as may be offered is often sought out by those wandering in the desert when they need protection against the suns rays (cf. 1Ki. 19:4). The mother desires to ease what appear to be the dying hours of the lads life. She drops him hastily in exhaustion . . . with fine skill the author delineates how painfully the mothers love is torn by her sons distress. She must stay within sight. Yet she cannot witness his slow death. At the distance of a bow-shot . . . she hovers near. Her agonized cry rings out, I cannot look upon the death of the lad. (EG, 606). She sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept. Divine succor came, Gen. 21:17-19, in two forms, namely, the voice of the Angel of God from heaven, and the opening of Hagars eyes. While God Himself heard the voice of the lad (perhaps his crying out for water), the medium of His revelation was the Angel of God. What aileth thee?thus the Angel recalled to Hagar that she had no cause for alarm, that in fact she was forgetting what God had promised in Gen. 16:10 ff.; and then He repeated the promise here that He would make of the boy a great people. (Note the tremendously dramatic portrayal of physical and emotional suffering that is given us here, and given in just a few poignant statements). God evidently opened her eyes; that is, He gave her the insight to perceive that water was to be found close at hand. She filled the bottle with water and gave the lad drink. Gen. 21:20-21 : Ishmaels Future. The boy grew up, evidently amidst the hardships of the desertthe proof that God was with him. He became a skilful bowman (archer); indeed his descendants were all noted for their archery. (Cf. Isa. 21:17). Ishmael grew up in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him from among her own people. Mohammedan Arabs all claim descent from Ishmael; they hold that the well which God revealed to Hagar was the sacred well of Zemzem at Mecca, their holy city. It should be noted that Ishmaels line soon lost all spiritual kinship with Abraham and his posterity.
Geography. Gen. 21:14the wilderness of Beersheba. The name was introduced here proleptically, unless the incident related in Gen. 21:22-33 had already taken place. The town itself was midway between the Mediterranean Sea and the southern end of the Dead Sea some distance east of Gerar. It became known as the southern limit of Israelite occupancy, so that the entire land (Palestine) could be designated as the territory from Dan to Beersheba (Jdg. 20:1). The wilderness of Beersheba was the name given to the generally uncultivated waste between Palstine and Egypt. It seems evident that Abraham spent much of his later life in this area (Gen. 21:34; Gen. 22:19). Isaac was dwelling there when Jacob set out for Haran (Gen. 28:10). On this way into Egypt Jacob stopped there to offer sacrifices (Gen. 46:1). In the division of the land this area went to the tribe of Simeon (Jos. 19:2). Beersheba was some fifty miles southwest of Jerusalem; hence, down through the centuries the southern gate of Jerusalem, leading toward Hebron and Beersheba, has been known as the gate of friendship in memoriam of the close relationship that existed between God and Abraham throughout the latters sojourn in the Negeb. It was from Beersheba that Abraham set out on his journey to offer up Isaac, the child of promise, somewhere in the land of Moriah (Gen. 22:2). The wilderness of Paran (cf. Gen. 14:6)the region in the central part of the Sinai peninsula, east of the wilderness of Shur (cf. Num. 10:12; Num. 12:16; Num. 13:3; Num. 13:26; 1Ki. 11:18, 1Sa. 25:1). Kadesh (or Kadesh-barnea) was on the eastern border of the wilderness of Paran, and hence at the western limit of the wilderness of Zin (Num. 14:32-35, cf. Deu. 2:14; Num. 33:36-37; Num. 20:1; Num. 20:10-13; Num. 27:14, Deu. 32:51; Deu. 20:14-20; Jdg. 11:16-17; Num. 34:4, Joh. 15:3; Eze. 47:19, Ezek. 58:28; Jos. 10:41). (The oasis of Beer-lahai-roi was in the northern part of the wilderness of Paran: cf. Gen. 16:7-14, also Gen. 24:62).
REVIEW QUESTIONS
See Gen. 21:22-24.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(8) The child grew, and was weaned.According to tradition, Isaac was two years old when weaned. Three years is the age mentioned in 2Ch. 31:16, 2Ma. 7:27; and Samuel was old enough at his weaning to be left at the tabernacle with Eli (1Sa. 1:24). In Persia and India it is still the custom to celebrate the weaning of a child by an entertainment.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. The child was weaned At what age we are not told; perhaps not until he was three years old . Comp . 2Ma 7:27 ; Josephus, Ant . , 2; 9, 6; 1Sa 1:22, note .
A great feast Such an event would naturally be made an occasion of festive joy .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 21:8. Grew, and was weaned It is uncertain how long they suckled children in those days. Parker observes, “That it was the usage of various nations from time immemorial, solemnly to initiate their children, and especially if it was the first-born, and a son, by certain festival rites, soon after they could walk about and had the use of their tongues, till which time it was not usual to take them from their mother’s breast. This was done generally when they were about two years old, and had got over the chief difficulties and infirmities of infancy.” See his 24th Occas. Annot.
REFLECTIONS.Observe, Sarah laughed once in distrust; but now, with thankfulness and wonder filled, she acknowledges God’s goodness, to make her give suck, and be a joyful mother. Who could have thought of it? But God doth more for us than all we can ask or think. Learn, 1. When mercies come, to receive them with wonder and love. 2. To rejoice with those who rejoice. 3. Not to forget our sinful distrusts, if we felt any, while the mercy was delayed. 4. To take care of the children God gives us. 5. Every redeemed soul in glory will wonder at himself: Who could have said or thought that such a vile sinner should have such a blessed portion?
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.
In all seasons of enjoyment, see that they are sanctified seasons. I would desire to do as the disciples did; invite Jesus to be present. Joh 2:1Joh 2:1 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 21:8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned.
Ver. 8. And Abraham made a great feast. ] A laudable custom, saith Cajetan, that the beginning of the eating of the firstborn should be celebrated with a feast. St Augustine observeth here, that this solemnity at the weaning of Isaac, was a type of our spiritual regeneration: at, and after which, the faithful keep a continual feast, a “Let us keep the festivity, 1Co 5:7 or holy day,” saith Paul, that “feast of fat things full of marrow; of wines on the lees well refined,” Isa 25:6 proceeding from milk to stronger meat, Heb 5:12 and being to the world, as a weaned child. His mouth doth not water after homely provisions, that hath lately tasted of delicate sustenance.
a A – Diog. ap. Plutarch.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 21:8-14
8The child grew and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. 9Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking. 10Therefore she said to Abraham, “Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac.” 11The matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son. 12But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named. 13And of the son of the maid I will make a nation also, because he is your descendant.” 14So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar, putting them on her shoulder, and gave her the boy, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba.
Gen 21:8 “The child grew and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast” We understand from the literature of the day that there was a feast commonly held at the weaning of a child (i.e., old enough to assure it would survive). This weaning could have been at the age of two or three (cf. 2Ma 7:27).
Gen 21:9 “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking” The NKJV has “scoffing,” while NRSV and TEV have “playing.” The LXX adds “playing with her son.” This Hebrew term means “laughter” (BDB 850), but in the Piel stem (KB 1019) can mean “to jest or make sport of” (cf. Gen 19:14; Exo 32:6; Jdg 16:23), but because of Gal 4:29, and because of Hagar’s mocking in Gen 16:4-5, it probably means “mocking” or “bringing reproach.” The rabbis quote 2Sa 2:14 and Pro 26:19 as examples of the negative use of this term.
Gen 21:10 “drive out this maid and her son” This VERB is another Piel (BDB 176, KB 204) and an IMPERATIVE (cf. Gal 4:30). According to the Nuzi Tablets, this was an illegal act. However, from earlier legal documents called “Lipit-ishtar” either sharing the inheritance or giving them their freedom was a legal way to deal with the children of concubines.
Gen 21:11 Abraham loved Ishmael (cf. Gen 17:18), as does YHWH (cf. Gen 17:20; Gen 21:3; Gen 21:18; Gen 21:20). Abraham felt this demand by Sarah was inappropriate and perhaps even wrong (cf. Num 11:10; 1Sa 1:8).
Gen 21:12 God gives Abraham two commands.
1. “Do not be distressed,” BDB 949, KB 1269, Qal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense. This VERB is used in Gen 21:11 to describe Abraham’s reaction to Sarah’s request (command).
2. “Listen to her,” BDB 1033, KB 1570, Qal IMPERATIVE, “hear”).
“whatever Sarah tells you” Implied in this is that God accepted Sarah’s assessment of the situation. This does not mean that Sarah’s attitude was appropriate. However, on the other hand, we do not fully know the situation. Maybe she, like Rebekah (later in Genesis 27), was trying to protect the covenant promise.
Gen 21:13 “because he is your descendant” God will bless Ishmael because of his father, Abraham. His life is described in prophecy in Gen 16:11-12. Ishmael’s relationship to Abraham was the source of his blessing as Lot’s was in Gen 19:29.
Gen 21:14 “skin of water” This term (CONSTRUCT BDB 332 CONSTRUCT BDB 565) occurs only in this chapter in the OT (cf. Gen 21:14-15; Gen 21:19). It refers to a sheepskin or sheep stomach, sewed in such a way as to become a water container.
“putting them on her shoulder” Both the Septuagint and the Syriac translate this in such a way that it implies that they also put Ishmael on her back. It seems from the context that Ishmael must have been between 15 and 17 years old, much too heavy to be carried by his mother, therefore, this is probably an idiom for preparing for a journey.
“wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba” See Gen 21:31.
grew. Compare Luk 2:40.
Hagar and Ishmael Cast Out
Gen 21:8-21
Poor Hagar! She thought that she had given Abraham his heir, but now she found herself and her boy outcasts on the desert waste. The water was soon spent, she little dreamed that a fountain was so near. Cry to God, He will open fountains in the middle of your deserts. Beneath their sad lot a divine purpose was running. God said, Let it not be grievous in thy sight. This is the teaching of Scripture: that our lives are being ordered and our steps prepared. All we need to be anxious about is the finding of the path. Let us ask God to open our eyes to see the fountains beside us, and the way before us. And after all, was not the wilderness a better training-ground for the lad than the comparative luxury of Abrahams tent? He became an archer. Isaac would have been the better for a touch of the desert-life. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, gives the inner significance of this incident in Gal 5:1. See also Joh 8:36.
am 2111, bc 1893
and was: 1Sa 1:22, Psa 131:2, Hos 1:8
feast: Gen 19:3, Gen 26:30, Gen 29:22, Gen 40:20, Jdg 14:10, Jdg 14:12, 1Sa 25:36, 2Sa 3:20, 1Ki 3:15, Est 1:3
Reciprocal: Gen 31:54 – did eat Gen 43:16 – slay 1Sa 1:23 – son suck Dan 1:4 – Children
Ishmael Was Cast Out
Sarah and Abraham had a great feast when Isaac was weaned. When Ishmael made fun of Isaac, Sarah demanded he and his mother be cast out. Though it was against the laws of that region, Abraham cast out Ishmael. He did so at the insistence of Sarah and with God’s reassurance (21:8-21).
Hagar thought they would die from lack of water. She placed Ishmael under a bush to die. As she sat down to watch, God heard her weeping. He sent an angel to tell her Ishmael would be a great nation. Then, he caused her eyes to be opened to a well nearby. The boy grew up in the wilderness. Eventually, his mother helped him take a wife of the Egyptians.
Gen 21:8-21. Sarah Forces Abraham to Send Hagar and Ishmael away.The narrative is from E. Note the use of Elohim, the revelation to Abraham by night, the voice of the angel from heaven, Abrahams residence in the Negeb. The story is told with wonderful literary power and pathos. The writer deeply feels and conveys to his readers the brutality of the treatment accorded to Hagar and her son, the mothers helpless agony, and the childs pitiful torture by thirst.
As was customary, a feast was made when Isaac was weaned, about the age of three. Sarah saw Ishmael and Isaac playing together on equal terms (RV mocking is quite misleading). She resents this, and sees that if they grow up together her sons prospects may be injured. Presumably the children of a concubine had a claim to some share in the property. Sarah is determined that Ishmael shall have nothing. She leaves nothing to chance; Hagar and Ishmael must be driven away at once; what will become of them she neither knows nor cares. Abraham comes out better than his tigerish wife; not so much indeedhe betrays little concern for Hagar, whom yet he had made the mother of his son; for the son himself he has some compunction. Perhaps he would not have consented but for Gods bidding. That He should bid him acquiesce does not represent Him in an unfavourable light, for mother and child are in His care, and from the son a nation will spring. So with scanty provision, though more than our bottle suggests, Hagar is turned out early next morning, with her child on her shoulder (so LXX). Her hoarded water spent, with no prospect of replenishing her waterskin, she puts down the child she has wearily carried, under a shrub to shield him from the sun. She leaves him that she may not watch his death agony, but still keeps him in sight as she sits in dumb despair. The child is not dumb but lifts up its voice and weeps (so LXX). Mans extremity is Gods opportunity; He hears the lads voice, bids her be of good cheer, for He will make him a great nation. She sees a well of water, to which her eyes had been sealed, and gives her child water. He thrives and becomes an archer, like his descendants. He dwells in Paran (Gen 14:6) W. of Edom, and marries a wife of his mothers country (Gen 21:9; Gen 16:1).
Gen 21:9. playing (mg.): add with LXX, Vulg., with Isaac her son.
Gen 21:10. Quoted Gal 4:30. Pauls reference to Ishmael as persecuting Isaac rests on Rabbinical exegesis of the word rendered mocking.
Gen 21:12. in Isaac. . . called: quoted Rom 9:7, Heb 11:18. Isaac alone is to be reckoned as Abrahams seed.
Gen 21:14. Beersheba: (p. 32) 28 miles SW. of Hebron.
Gen 21:19. Presumably E added at this point Therefore she called the name of her son Ishmael (God hears), as Gen 21:17 leads us to expect. It would be omitted by the redactor of JE as it would clash with the explanation in Js story (Gen 16:11).
The expulsion of Ishmael and God’s care of him and Hagar 21:8-21
All was not well in Abraham’s household even though God had provided the heir. Ishmael was a potential rival to Isaac’s inheritance. This section records another crisis in the story of Abraham’s heir. Waltke pointed out six parallels between Hagar and Ishmael’s trek and Abraham and Isaac’s (ch. 22). [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 292.]
Normally in ancient Near Eastern culture the son of a concubine became the heir of his mother but not of his father (cf. Jdg 9:1-3). Now that Abraham had a son by his wife, Sarah did not want Ishmael to share Isaac’s inheritance. Weaning would have normally occurred at age two or three (cf. 1Sa 1:22-24; Hos 1:8). The Hebrew word translated "mocking" (Gen 21:9) comes from the same root as Isaac’s name and means "laughing." However this participle is in the intensive form in Hebrew indicating that Ishmael was not simply laughing but ridiculing Isaac (cf. Gal 4:29). Ishmael disdained Isaac as Hagar had despised Sarai (Gen 16:4). Abraham understandably felt distressed by this situation since he loved Ishmael as well as Isaac (cf. Gen 17:18). God appeared to him again (the seventh revelation) to assure Abraham that Sarah’s desire was in harmony with His will (cf. Gen 17:19-21). He encouraged Abraham to divorce Hagar.
"But how could God ask Abraham to do evil if divorce is always a sin? The answer must be that divorce in this case is either not a sin or else is the lesser of two evils." [Note: Joe M. Sprinkle, "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):535.]
For other instances where God apparently commanded divorce, see Deu 21:10-14 and Ezra 9-10. Since God makes the rules, He can also alter them according to His sovereign will.
"The key to Sarah’s demand lies in a clause in the laws of Lipit-Ishtar where it is stipulated that the father may grant freedom to the slave woman and the children she has borne him, in which case they forfeit their share of the paternal property." [Note: Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 147.]
The laws of Lipit-Ishtar were laws that governed life in Mesopotamia that antedated the Mosaic Law.
The focus of this revelation is a clarification of God’s purposes for each of the two sons. God would bless Abraham through Ishmael as well as through Isaac.
"As Cain suffered both banishment from the divine and protection by the divine, so Ishmael is both loser and winner, cut off from what should be his but promised a significant lineage." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 81.]
The concluding description of Ishmael’s experiences (Gen 21:14-21) provides information essential to understanding and appreciating later references to him and his descendants in the text. Ishmael became the father of 12 sons (Gen 25:13-16) as Jacob did. From his sons came the Arab nations that have ever since been the chief antagonists of the Israelites. The term "Arab" (someone from Arabia) came into use for the first time in the ninth century B.C. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 156.] Hagar chose a wife for her son from her homeland, Egypt.
"In this respect she does not display the wisdom used by Abraham in choosing, as he did, a god-fearing wife for his son." [Note: Leupold, 2:609.]
"The picture of Ishmael as the rejected son is complete: he is the son of a slave woman, married to an Egyptian, lives outside normal social bounds, and is remembered for his hostilities." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 274.]
God not only makes promises but also provision. His provision of what He has promised results in great joy and should lead to separation from whatever might hinder His program of blessing. See Paul’s use of this account in Gal 4:21-31.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)