And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
9. mocking ] Better, as R.V. marg., playing. The original is the same verb, in the intensive mood, which is rendered “laugh,” e.g. in Gen 21:6. There is no need to introduce the meaning of “mockery,” which would require an object. The verb used absolutely, and rendered, as in the marg., gives a suitable sense. The LXX and Latin so render it, adding words of explanation: , ludentem cum Isaac filio suo, as if Sarah, watching Ishmael playing with her own child, had been seized with a sudden fit of passionate jealousy. Ishmael was the elder, but he was the son of her handmaid; and in Sarah’s eyes it was unfitting that Ishmael should even play with or near her own child.
The Rabbinic interpretations of this word were productive of strange speculations. St Paul refers to one of them, which understood the word to denote “teasing” and “persecution”; hence Gal 4:29. Other more fantastic attempts at exegesis connected this verse with Ishmael’s sins of idolatry, of impurity, and even of attempts to take his brother’s life.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 9. Mocking.] What was implied in this mocking is not known. St. Paul, Ga 4:29, calls it persecuting; but it is likely he meant no more than some species of ridicule used by Ishmael on the occasion, and probably with respect to the age of Sarah at Isaac’s birth, and her previous barrenness. Jonathan ben Uzziel and the Jerusalem Targum represent Ishmael as performing some idolatrous rite on the occasion, and that this had given the offence to Sarah. Conjectures are as useless as they are endless. Whatever it was, it became the occasion of the expulsion of himself and mother. Several authors are of opinion that the Egyptian bondage of four hundred years, mentioned Ge 15:13, commenced with this persecution of the righteous seed by the son of an Egyptian woman.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Signifying either by words or gestures his contempt of Isaac, and his derision of all that magnificence then showed towards his younger brother. And this carriage proceeding from a most envious and malicious disposition, and being a sufficient indication of further mischief intended to him, if ever he should have opportunity, it is no wonder it is called persecution, Gal 4:29, although the Hebrew word may be rendered beating him, as it is used 2Sa 2:14.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. Sarah saw the son of Hagar . . .mockingIshmael was aware of the great change in his prospects,and under the impulse of irritated or resentful feelings, in which hewas probably joined by his mother, treated the young heir withderision and probably some violence (Ga4:29).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian,…. That is, Ishmael, who is not expressed by name, but described by being a son of Hagar, a servant of Sarah’s, and an Egyptian woman; all which seems to be observed by way of slight, both to Hagar and her son;
which she had born unto Abraham; not unto Sarah, as she proposed to herself, when she gave her maid to Abraham, Ge 16:2. This son of Abraham she saw
mocking; either at the entertainment made at the weaning of Isaac; or rather at Isaac himself, laughing at his name, and treating him with contempt as his younger brother, and boasting that he was the firstborn, and that the inheritance belonged to him; and threatening what he would do to him, should he hereafter offer to dispute it with him, under pretence of the promise of God that he should be Abraham’s heir, and at which promise also he may be supposed to mock: and that this contention was about the inheritance seems plain from the words of Sarah in Ge 21:10; and in it Ishmael might not only rise to high words, but come to blows, and beat his brother; for it is observed the word used sometimes so signifies, 2Sa 2:14; wherefore the apostle might truly call it a persecution, Ga 4:29; and as even cruel mockings are, Heb 11:35. As for the various senses the Jewish commentators put upon this, there does not seem to be any foundation for them, as that Ishmael was committing idolatry, and endeavouring to draw his brother into it; or was talking in an indecent and lascivious manner, in order to corrupt his mind; or that he was intending and attempting to take away his life, by shooting an arrow at him, and pretending it was but in jest and in play; [See comments on Ga 4:29].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Hagar and Ishmael Expelled. | B. C. 1892. |
9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. 11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because 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 bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
The casting out of Ishmael is here considered of, and resolved on.
I. Ishmael himself gave the occasion by some affronts he gave to Isaac his little brother, some think on the day that Abraham made the feast for joy that Isaac was safely weaned, which the Jews say was not till he was three years old, others say five. Sarah herself was an eye-witness of the abuse: she saw the son of the Egyptian mocking (v. 9), mocking Isaac, no doubt, for it is said, with reference to this (Gal. iv. 29), that he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit. Ishmael is here called the son of the Egyptian, because, as some think, the 400 years’ affliction of the seed of Abraham by the Egyptians began now, and was to be dated hence, ch. xv. 13. She saw him playing with Isaac, so the LXX., and, in play, mocking him. Ishmael was fourteen years older than Isaac; and, when children are together, the elder should be careful and tender of the younger: but it argued a very base and sordid disposition in Ishmael to be abusive to a child that was no way a match for him. Note, 1. God takes notice of what children say and do in their play, and will reckon with them if they say or do amiss, though their parents do not. 2. Mocking is a great sin, and very provoking to God. 3. There is a rooted remaining enmity in the seed of the serpent against the seed of the woman. The children of promise must expect to be mocked. This is persecution, which those that will live godly must count upon. 4. None are rejected and cast out from God but those who have first deserved it. Ishmael is continued in Abraham’s family till he becomes a disturbance, grief, and scandal to it.
II. Sarah made the motion: Cast out this bond-woman, v. 10. This seems to be spoken in some heat, yet it is quoted (Gal. iv. 30) as if it had been spoken by a spirit of prophecy; and it is the sentence passed on all hypocrites and carnal people, though they have a place and a name in the visible church. All that are born after the flesh and not born again, that rest in the law and reject the gospel promise, shall certainly be cast out. It is made to point particularly at the rejection of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they were the seed of Abraham, yet, because they submitted not to the gospel covenant, were unchurched and disfranchised: and that which, above any thing, provoked God to cast them off was their mocking and persecuting the gospel church, God’s Isaac, in its infancy, 1 Thess. ii. 16. Note, There are many who are familiarly conversant with the children of God in this world, and yet shall not partake with them in the inheritance of sons. Ishmael might be Isaac’s play-fellow and school-fellow, yet not his fellow-heir.
III. Abraham was averse to it: The thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight, v. 11. 1. It grieved him that Ishmael had given such a provocation. Note, Children ought to consider that the more their parents love them the more they are grieved at their misconduct, and particularly at their quarrels among themselves. 2. It grieved him that Sarah insisted upon such a punishment. “Might it not suffice to correct him? would nothing less serve than to expel him?” Note, Even the needful extremities which must be used with wicked and incorrigible children are very grievous to tender parents, who cannot thus afflict willingly.
IV. God determined it, Gen 21:12; Gen 21:13. We may well suppose Abraham to be greatly agitated about this matter, loth to displease Sarah, and yet loth to expel Ishmael; in this difficulty God tells him what his will is, and then he is satisfied. Note, A good man desires no more in doubtful cases than to know his duty, and what God would have him do; and, when he is clear in this, he is, or should be, easy. To make Abraham so, God sets this matter before him in a true light, and shows him, 1. That the casting out of Ishmael was necessary to the establishment of Isaac in the rights and privileges of the covenant: In Isaac shall thy seed be called. Both Christ and the church must descend from Abraham through the loins of Isaac; this is the entail of the promise upon Isaac, and is quoted by the apostle (Rom. ix. 7) to show that not all who come from Abraham’s loins were the heirs of Abraham’s covenant. Isaac, the promised son, must be the father of the promised seed; therefore, “Away with Ishmael, send him far enough, lest he corrupt the manners or attempt to invade the rights of Isaac.” It will be his security to have his rival banished. The covenant seed of Abraham must be a peculiar people, a people by themselves, from the very first, distinguished, not mingled with those that were out of covenant; for this reason Ishmael must be separated. Abraham was called alone, and so must Isaac be. See Isa. li. 2. It is probable that Sarah little thought of this (John xi. 51), but God took what she said, and turned it into an oracle, as afterwards, ch. xxvii. 10. 2. That the casting out of Ishmael should not be his ruin, v. 13. He shall be a nation, because he is thy seed. We are not sure that it was his eternal ruin. It is presumption to say that all those who are left out of the external dispensation from all his mercies: those may be saved who are not thus honoured. However, we are sure it was not his temporal ruin. Though he was chased out of the church, he was not chased out of the world. I will make him a nation. Note, (1.) Nations are of God’s making: he founds them, he forms them, he fixes them. (2.) Many are full of the blessings of God’s providence that are strangers to the blessings of his covenant. (3.) The children of this world often fare the better, as to outward things, for their relation to the children of God.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 9-11:
Ishamel, Hagar’s son, was likely at least fifteen years of age, and possibly seventeen. Sarah observed him “mocking” Isaac, literally, “that he was a mocker.” The implication is that Ishmael’s taunting of Isaac was not an isolated event on the occasion of his weaning. Rather it was an on-going practice, and the mockery at the weaning-day was the “last straw.”
Sarah demanded that Abraham do something about this situation. He must “cast out” Hagar; He must take the necessary legal steps amounting to a divorce, which would send Hagar away, and at the same time deprive Ishmael of any legal right of inheritance. Sarah’s primary motive was not jealousy; she was the one who had encouraged Abraham to take Hagar as a secondary wife. Her primary concern was for Isaac, the heir of the promise. He must not be allowed to be influenced by the proud, bitter, angry spirit of Ishmael; but neither must he face the danger of losing his inheritance to any claim Ishmael might make.
Ishmael’s spirit was one of unbelief, envy, and pride and in his fleshly position as Abraham’s firstborn. He made Isaac the object of his profane taunts and unholy wit. Doubtless he found it laughable to think that this little boy born to an old woman could ever become the “father of many nations.” It was for this reason that Sarah demanded Ishamel be expelled. Paul evidently saw the situation in this light, as he described Ishamel’s conduct, “He who was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit” (Ga 4:29).
Sarah’s proposal was to Abraham “very grievous,” yera, “exceedingly evil.” He evidently loved Ishmael dearly. Likely he saw that part of the problem was of his own making, as he had gone ahead of the Lord in seeking the promised heir after the energies of the flesh.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
9. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar. As the verb to laugh has a twofold signification among the Latins, so also the Hebrews use, both in a good and evil sense, the verb from which the participle מצחק ( metsachaik) is derived. That it was not a childish and innoxious laughter, appears from the indignation of Sarah. It was, therefore a malignant expression of scorn, by which the forward youth manifested his contempt for his infant brother. And it is to be observed, that the epithet which is here applied to Ishmael, and the name Isaac, are both derived from the same root. Isaac was, to his father and others, the occasion of holy and lawful laughter; whence also, the name was divinely imposed upon him. Ishmael turns the blessing of God, from which such joy flowed, into ridicule. Therefore, as an impious mocker, he stands opposed to his brother Isaac. Both (so to speak) are the sons of laughter: but in a very different sense. Isaac brought laughter with him from his mother’s womb, since he bore, — engraven upon him, — the certain token of God’s grace. He therefore so exhilarates his father’s house, that joy breaks forth in thanksgiving; but Ishmael, with canine and profane laughter, attempts to destroy that holy joy of faith. And there is no doubt that his manifest impiety against God, betrayed itself under this ridicule. He had reached an age at which he could not, by any means be ignorant of the promised favor, on account of which his father Abraham was transported with so great joy: and yet — proudly confident in himself — he insults, in the person of his brother, both God and his word, as well as the faith of Abraham. Wherefore it was not without cause that Sarah was so vehemently angry with him, that she commanded him to be driven into exile. For nothing is more grievous to a holy mind, than to see the grace of God exposed to ridicule. And this is the reason why Paul calls his laughter persecution; saying,
‘
He who was after the flesh persecuted the spiritual seed.’ (Gal 4:29.)
Was it with sword or violence? Nay, but with the scorn of the virulent tongue, which does not injure the body, but pierces into the very soul. Moses might indeed have aggravated his crime by a multiplicity of words; but I think that he designedly spoke thus concisely, in order to render the petulance with which Ishmael ridicules the word of God the more detestable.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(9) Mocking.The verb used here is the same as that rendered to laugh in Gen. 21:6, but in an intensive conjugation. What exactly Ishmael was doing is not said, but we may dismiss all those interpretations which charge him with abominable wickedness; for had he been guilty of any such criminal conduct, the sending him away would not have been so very grievous in Abrahams sight (Gen. 21:11). On the other hand, we may feel sure that Sarah was not without good reason for her conduct; for St. Paul bears witness that Ishmael persecuted Isaac (Gal. 4:29). The LXX. and Vulg. translate playing, sporting, and Gesenius thinks that he was dancing gracefully; but if this were all, Sarahs jealousy would have been most unjust. When, however, we consider that Ishmael had been for fourteen years the heir, and that he now fell back into an inferior position, we cannot be surprised if at this banquet in his rivals honour he gave way to spiteful feelings, and by word and gesture derided and ridiculed him. Hagar too had probably never regarded Sarah with much affection since her forced return, and now that her son was disinherited, her bitterness would grow more intense. These jealousies are the inevitable results of polygamy; and wherever it exists, the fathers life is made wretched by the intrigues of the women for their children.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
EXPULSION OF HAGAR AND ISHMAEL, Gen 21:9-21.
9. Sarah saw With a mother’s careful eye .
Mocking Some suppose he mocked at the feast held at Isaac’s weaning, and made derision of the contrast between the weak child and the great hopes entertained concerning him . But the Piel form of this word appears everywhere to carry with it the associations of some carnal and lascivious indulgence . Sarah saw Ishmael ( ) committing some lewd act, perhaps of self-pollution, and the sight filled her with an indignation and contempt towards him, which led her to insist on banishing from her household both him and his mother. She would not have her Isaac contaminated by such an associate. So, too, the word, as used in Gen 19:14, denotes that Lot’s son-in-law, to whom all things were impure, could not comprehend Lot’s words of warning, but regarded him as one of the lewd fellows who were out at night indulging in the common practices of Sodom . In Gen 26:8, it evidently means some carnal intercourse between Isaac and Rebekah, such as was proper only between husband and wife, and the same thought is equally noticeable in the language of Potiphar’s wife in Gen 39:14-17, and the lewd play of the Israelites at the feast of the golden calf . Exo 32:6. And we may well believe that the sport which Samson was brought out to make before the merry and perhaps half-drunken Philistines (Jdg 16:25) was some naked exposure and obscene abuse . These are all the places in which the Piel form of occurs, and there is, therefore, no need of giving it a different sense in any one of these passages .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Hagar and Ishmael Cast Forth
v. 9. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. v. 10. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. v. 11. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son. v. 12. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. v. 13. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation because he is thy seed. v. 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 the child, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Gen 21:9
And Sarah sawat the feast already mentioned (Knobel, Keil); probably also on different occasions since the birth of Isaacthe son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. (LXX.), ludentem cum Isaaco filio sue (Vulgate), playing like a child (Aben Ezra, Knobel, Tuch, Ilgen), playing and dancing gracefully (Gesenius); but the stronger sense of the word, implying mockery, scoffing, irritating and deriding laughter (Kimchi, Vatablus, Grotius, Calvin, Rosenmller, Keil, Kalisch, ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ Murphy), besides being admissible (cf. Gen 19:14; Gen 26:8; Gen 39:14, Gen 39:17; Exo 32:6), seems involved in the Piel form of the participle (Kurtz), and is demanded by Gal 4:29. That Ishmael ridiculed the banquet on the occasion of Isaac’s weaning (Malvenda), quarreled with him about the heirship (Fagins, Piseator), and perhaps made sport of him as a father of nations (Hengstenberg), though plausible conjectures, are not stated in the text. Ainsworth dates from this event the 400 years of Israel’s oppression (vide Gen 15:13).
Gen 21:10
Wherefore she saidthough with an admixture of sinful feelings, non dubito arcane Spiritus instinctu gubernatam fuisse ejus linguam et mentem (Calvin); vide Gal 4:30unto Abraham, Cast outby some kind of legal act (as divorce: cf. Le 21:7, 14; 22:13; Isa 57:20), which should insure the disinheriting of Ishmael (Bush); though probably- this is to import later Mosaic legislation rote the records of primitive tunesthis bondwomana term ill befitting Sarah, who had given Hagar to her husband as a wife (Gen 16:3)and her son (who was Abraham’s offspring, though not the promised seed; a consideration which should have mitigated Sarah’s anger): for the son of this bondwoman (a repetition evincing the bitter ness of her contempt and the intensity of her choler) shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. Notwithstanding the assurance (Gen 17:21) that the covenant was made with Isaac, Sarah was apprehensive lest Ishmael should contrive to disinherit him; an act of unbelief into which she was manifestly betrayed by her maternal fears and womanly jealousy.
Gen 21:11
And the thing (literally, the word, i.e. Sarah’s proposal) was very grievous (literally, evil exceedingly; for the contrary phrase vide Gen 20:15) in Abraham’s sight (literally, in the eyes of Abraham) because of his sonwho, besides being bound to him by the ties of natural affection, had for years been regarded as the Heaven-appointed heir of the promise (vide Gen 17:18).
Gen 21:12
And God said unto Abraham,probably in a dream, or night vision (vide Gen 21:14)Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman;who was never recognized by God as Abraham’s wife (cf. Gen 16:8)in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice. Though Sarah’s counsel was approved by God, it does not follow that her conduct was. On a former occasion Abraham’s hearkening unto Sarah’s voice had led to sin (Gen 16:2); this time it would lie exactly in the line of duty. For in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Literally, in Isaac shall seed (i.e. posterity) be called to thee; meaning neither, “by Isaac shall thy seed be called, or named” (Hofmann, Kalisch, Ainsworth), nor, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called into existence” (Dreschler); but, “in Isaac shall there be posterity to thee which shall pass as such,” i.e. be called or recognized as such (Keil); or, more simply, “in Isaac,” i.e. in the line of Isaac, “shall be called to thee a seed,” i.e. a seed par excellence, the seed already promised (Bleek, Delitzsch, Rosenmller, Alford, Murphy).
Gen 21:13
And also of the son of the bond-woman will I make a nation. Literally, to nation I will set or put him; a promise already given (Gen 17:20), but here repeated to render Ishmael’s dismissal easier. Because he is thy seed. “Thy son according to the flesh, though not after the promise, as Isaac was” (Ainsworth); a proof that men may sometimes receive mercies for their fathers’ sakes.
Gen 21:14
And Abraham rose up early in the morning,hastening to put in force the Divine instructions (cf. Gen 19:27; Gen 22:8, Abraham; Gen 20:8, Abimelech; Gen 28:18, Jacob)and took bread, and a bottle of water,the bottle, from a root signifying to enclose (Furst); (LXX.), was composed of skin, the material of which the earliest carrying vessels were constructed (cf. Jos 9:4, Jos 9:13; Jdg 4:19; 1Sa 16:20; Mat 9:17). “The monuments of Egypt, the sculptures of Mesopotamia, and the relics of Herculaneum and Pompeii afford ample opportunities to learn the shape and use of every variety of bottles, often surprising us both by their elegance and costliness” (Kalisch)and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder,the usual place for carrying such vessels among Oriental women. According to Herodotus (2. 35), Egyptian women carried burdens on their shoulders, Egyptian men upon their headsand the child,not placing the child, now a youth of over seventeen years, upon her shoulder (LXX; Schumann, Bohlen); but giving him, along with the bottle (Havernick, Kalisch, A Lapide, Ainsworth), or, as well as the bread (Keil, Murphy), to Hagar, not to be carried as a burden, but led as a companionand sent her awaydivorced her by the command of God (A Lapide); but as Hagar was never recognized by God as Abraham’s wife, her sending away was not a case of divorce (Wordsworth)and she departed (from Beersheba, whither Abraham had by this time removed, and where, in all probability, Isaac had been born), and wanderedi.e. lost her way (cf. Gen 37:15)in the wilderness (the uncultivated waste between Palestine and Egypt) of Beershebaintroduced here by anticipation, unless the incident in Gen 21:22-33 had previously taken place (vide on Gen 21:31).
HOMILETICS
Gen 21:9-14
The expulsion of Ishmael.
I. THE CAUSE.
1. The persecution of Isaac. “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian mocking.” That this was no mere sportive pleasantry may be inferred from the deep feeling it aroused in Sarah, the summary chastisement it brought on Ishmael, and the’ severe language in which it is characterized by Paul. The emphasis laid by Sarah on the heirship suggests the probability that Ishmael’s offence partook of the nature of wicked, irritating laughter at the position and prospects of Sarah’s son, springing partly from envy and partly from unbelief.
2. The apprehension of Sarah. That Sarah was actuated by personal dislike of Hagar’s boy, or inspired solely by maternal jealousy, is a gratuitous assumption. It is more satisfactory to ascribe her seemingly harsh counsel to the clearness with which she recognized that Isaac alone was the Heaven-appointed heir, and that nothing must be allowed to either damage his position or endanger his prospects.
3. The commandment of God. Considering the patriarch’s former experience of “hearkening to Sarah,” his acquiescence in her counsel on this occasion would in all probability have been problematical, had not God interposed to recommend its adoption. It would both secure the happiness of Isaac and remove temptation from the path of Ishmael; while it would serve to educate the patriarch himself for the coming sacrifice on Mount Moriah. To facilitate the patriarch’s compliance with the Divine injunction, the promise of future greatness to Ishmael is renewed, and in the end Hagar and her boy are dismissed.
II. THE MANNER.
1. With pain to himself. “The thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son.” Parental affection must have urged him to retain his first-born son. Conjugal love must have interceded for her who had been to him as a wife. Self-interest may have represented the advisability of still clinging to Ishmael for the fulfillment of the promise, in case the line of Isaac should fail. Yet grace and faith triumphed. “All things are possible to him that believeth.”
2. With tenderness towards the outcasts. Making provision for their immediate necessities, and either then or afterwards adding gifts (Gen 25:6), he sends them away, doubtless with many prayers and tears. Nature and grace both enjoin tenderness in dealing with those whom God in his providence calls to suffer.
3. With submission to the will of God. The moment the mind of God was ascertained, internal controversy ceased and determined. The patriarch was never irresolute in following when God led. Obedience is the first duty of faith.
III. THE TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
1. Ishmael and Isaac representatives of Abraham’s natural descendants and Abraham’s spiritual posterity; Israel after the flesh and Israel after the spirit; souls in legal bondage and souls enjoying spiritual freedom.
2. Ishmael‘s mockery of Isaac foreshadowed the persecuting spirit of the unbelieving Jews, who adhered to the system of Moses, towards the disciples of the New Testament faith, who sought salvation through Christ; hence also the antagonism of the sinful principle in man to the renewed life of grace.
3. Ishmael‘s separation from Isaac prefigured the ultimate removal of unbelievers from believers, of the world from the Church, of those in a state of nature or of legal bondage from those who are children of the promise and of the heavenly Jerusalem. Learn
1. The wickedness and danger of mocking at sacred persons and things.
2. The superior spiritual insight not infrequently exhibited by woman.
3. The necessity of trying all human opinions by God’s revealed will.
4. The care God takes to guide sincere souls as to the path of duty.
5. The proper function of faith, which is to hear and obey.
6. The impossibility of any compromise existing between the world and the Church.
7. The final casting out of the wicked from the congregation of the righteous.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Gen 21:9. Son of Hagarmocking St. Paul calls this persecuting, Gal 4:29 and the original word metsachek, would lead one to think that Ishmael’s ill-usage consisted, in part, of ridicule and abuse of Isaac for his name. The feast was, in fact, the initiation of Isaac, and his father’s declaration concerning him, which Ishmael, who thought he had a prior right, was not able to bear; and there is no ground to imagine more, than that this exasperated his rough nature to commit such rudenesses as could not but interrupt the pleasures of the festival, and gave occasion to his own and his mother’s expulsion out of the family; she, most probably, inciting and encouraging, or at least justifying her son, in his maltreatments of the heir, the promised and beloved Isaac. The verse does not seem to confine the mocking which Sarah saw, to one particular period; she might possibly see this frequently repeated.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 33
ABRAHAM CASTING OUT HAGAR AND ISHMAEL
Gen 21:9-10. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bond-woman and her son: for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.
SIN, even in this world, almost always brings its own punishment along with it: and not unfrequently the sin itself is marked in the punishment that follows it. We can have no doubt but that Sarah erred when she gave Hagar into Abrahams bosom, in hopes of having the promised seed by her. And scarcely had her device been carried into execution before she began to suffer for it. As soon as Hagar had a prospect of becoming a mother, she began to despise her mistress. Her contempt excited vehement indignation in the breast of Sarah; insomuch that she made Abraham himself also a party in the quarrel, and accused him of encouraging Hagar in her insolence. When Abraham, to vindicate himself, empowered her to use her own discretion with respect to Hagar, she began to retaliate on her contemptuous bond-maid, and to treat her with excessive severity. Thus was domestic harmony interrupted by those very means which Sarah had adopted to increase her happiness. Hagar, unable to bear the unkind treatment of her mistress, fled from her face; and returned to her only in consequence of being commanded to do so by an angel of the Lord [Note: Gen 16:3-9.]. We cannot suppose that her forced submission was attended with much comfort either to herself or her mistress: where there was no love, there would be found many occasions of vexation and dispute. At last, after about eighteen years, a quarrel arose, which determined Sarah to expel from her family both Hagar and her son. This domestic occurrence is replete with instruction: we propose therefore to make some observations upon,
I.
The history itself
The expulsion of Hagar and her son, who was now about seventeen years of age, was a strong measure. Let us inquire into,
1.
The grounds and reasons of it
[Sarah had seen Ishmael mocking Isaac. From the resolution adopted by Sarah in consequence of it, we apprehend, that Ishmael had derided the pretensions of Isaac to inherit his fathers substance. No doubt, Isaac was instructed as early as possible to regard God as his God, and to expect both from his earthly and his heavenly Father the accomplishment of all that God had promised him. Ishmael, on the other hand, would but ill brook the idea of being excluded from the birth-right; and therefore would be ready to dispute Isaacs title to it. Possibly too the very name Isaac, which signifies laughter, would afford Ishmael many occasions of profane banter. Had this mocking been nothing more than idle jest, attended with a foolish pleasure in teasing her child, we take for granted that Sarah would have deemed it sufficient to reprove the fault, and to point out to Ishmael the impropriety of his conduct. But she saw that it proceeded from profaneness; that it argued a rebellious spirit against God; that it would become his daily practice; and that his mother encouraged him in it, glad to avenge in that way the wrongs that she supposed herself to suffer. On these accounts Sarah despaired of accomplishing her ends by correction, and determined to prevent a recurrence of such offences by an immediate and final expulsion of the offenders.]
2.
The manner in which it was carried into execution
[Sarah, though right in her judgment respecting the means of obtaining domestic peace, seems to have been too precipitate, and too peremptory in her demands for their expulsion: and Abraham demurred about the carrying it into execution. He indeed had different feelings from Sarah. Sarahs regards were fixed exclusively on Isaac: she did not consider Ishmael as a son, but rather as an intruder, and a rival. But Abraham, being the father of both, felt a paternal affection towards each of them: nor was he indifferent towards Hagar, whom he had considered, and lived with, as a legitimate wife. Perhaps too he suspected that Sarahs proposal originated in an irritation of temper, and that less severe measures would in a little time satisfy her mind. He was grieved exceedingly at the thought of proceeding to such extremities: but finding how resolutely she was bent upon it, he committed the matter to God, and sought direction from above. God directed him to acquiesce in Sarahs wishes; and reminded him, that her proposal, however grievous it might be to him, accorded exactly with his repeated declarations, that in Isaac should his seed be called, and that all the blessings of the covenant exclusively belonged to him [Note: Gen 17:19; Gen 17:21.]. The divine will being thus made known to him, he deferred not to comply with it, but dismissed them early the very next morning. The provision which he gave them for their journey, was not such as might have been expected from a person of his opulence; but we can have no doubt but that he acted in this by the divine direction, and that the mode of their dismission, as well as their dismission itself, was intended for their humiliation and punishment, and probably too for the shewing unto us, that the natural man has no claim upon him for even the most common blessings of his providence. That Hagar and Ishmael were reduced to straits, was owing to their having wandered out of their way in the wilderness of Beersheba: had they prosecuted their journey in the direct path to Egypt, where Hagars friends were, we take for granted that they would have found their provision adequate to their support.]
Hitherto we have seen nothing but a domestic occurrence: we must next contemplate,
II.
The mystery contained in it
Here, as in multitudes of other passages, we are entirely indebted to the New-Testament writers for the insight which we have into the meaning of the Old Testament. Here also we see the advantage that is to be derived from the study of the Old-Testament history: since in very many instances the incidents that are recorded, are not mere memoirs of what has passed, but types and shadows of better and more important things. This family quarrel was designed to instruct the whole world; and to shew us,
1.
That the children of promise would always be objects of hatred and contempt to the natural man
[We should not have ventured to deduce such a position as this from an altercation that took place between two children so many hundred years ago, if an inspired Apostle had not put this very construction upon it. But the disagreements of Cain and Abel, and of Ishmael and Isaac, are recorded on purpose to shew us what is in the heart of man. The principles upon which they acted are common to the whole human race; and will operate in a similar manner whenever circumstances arise to call them forth into action. On this ground we might have formed a reasonable conjecture, that every one who resembled Ishmael, would be hostile to those who resembled Isaac. But the Scriptures supersede all conjecture about the matter: for they affirm, in reference to this very history, that as then he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now [Note: Gal 4:29.]. Indeed the very same things are grounds of offence to the carnal man in this day, as were in the days of Ishmael. He cannot endure that any persons should be marked by God as his favoured and peculiar people. Our blessed Lord says, Because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you [Note: Joh 15:19.]. The very name of saints and elect is as offensive to the world, as that of Isaac was to Ishmael, because it imports a preference in the Fathers estimation of them. Some indeed will say, that there is no persecution in this day: but St. Paul expressly calls Ishmaels conduct towards Isaac persecution: and let it be remembered, that to be mocked and despised by our relations and friends is as bitter persecution, and as difficult to bear, as almost any other injury that men can inflict. The Apostle thought so when he numbered mockings and scourgings with bonds and imprisonment [Note: Heb 11:36.]. And if those who profess religion are not imprisoned and put to death for their adherence to Christ, sure I am that they are mocked and derided as much as in any age; and that, in this sense at least, all who will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution [Note: 2Ti 3:12.].]
2.
That they alone are members of the true church
[St. Paul explains this whole history as an allegory [Note: Gal 3:24-28.]. He tells us that Hagar, the bond-woman, typified the Mosaic covenant entered into at Mount Sinai, which brought forth children in a state of bondage: but Sarah, the free woman, typified the Christian covenant, which brings forth children in a state of liberty. The natural seed of the former represents all who are born after the flesh: the spiritual seed of the latter, that is, the child of promise, represents those who are born after the Spirit. Hence it appears that we must be children of promise, in order to belong to the church of Christ. We must have embraced the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus; we must, by means of the promises, have been made partakers of a divine nature [Note: 2Pe 1:4.] ; and been led by them to purify ourselves from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit [Note: 2Co 7:1.]. These things are the inseparable attendants of a spiritual birth; and are therefore necessary to make us real members of the church of Christ. The mere circumstance of being descended from Christian parents, or having received the seal of the Christian covenant, or making a profession of the Christian faith, will not constitute us Christians. St. Paul, in reference to this very history, makes this distinction, and leaves no doubt respecting the truth or importance of it: All, says he, are not Israel, who are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but In Isaac shall thy seed be called: that is, They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of promise are counted for the seed [Note: Rom 9:6-8.].]
3.
That they alone shall finally possess their Fathers inheritance
[Whether there was an undue mixture of warmth in Sarahs spirit, or not, we are sure that, as far as respected the words that she uttered, she spake by a divine impulse: for St. Paul, quoting her words, says, What saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman [Note: Gal 4:30.]. And this he declares to be a general sentence; a sentence of expulsion passed on all who remain under the covenant of works, and an exclusive grant of heaven and happiness to the children of promise. It is not the persecuting son only, but the bond-woman herself, the mother, the whole Jewish Church, the collective body of natural and unconverted men, wherever they be, all must be cast out: no regard will be shewn either to their privileges or professions: if they live and die in their natural state, they can have no part or lot with the children of God. They only who in this world rested on the promises as the one ground of their hope and joy, shall experience their accomplishment in the world to come. Doubtless, if we may so speak, it will be grievous to our heavenly Father to disinherit so many of his professed children; for he swears that he has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather that he turn from his wickedness and live: but still his decree is gone forth, and cannot be reversed: we must be living members of Christs church below, before we can inherit his kingdom above.]
From this subject we may gather some hints:
1.
For the regulating of the conduct of earthly parents
[It can scarcely be expected in this state of imperfection, but that disagreements will arise between some individuals of a large family. The imperiousness of a master or mistress, the petulance or idleness of a servant; the severity of a parent, or the forwardness of a child; the want of brotherly kindness in children towards each other; and especially the jealousies which subsist, where either the husband or wife is called to exercise authority over the children of the other by a former marriage; any of these things, I say, may soon produce dissatisfaction, and turn our laughter into an occasion of sorrow: nor is this ever more likely to arise, than when a husband and his wife differ in their judgment respecting the mode of conducting themselves towards their children. But in all cases it is desirable to avoid precipitancy and passion. Authority must be maintained by those whose right it is to govern: and when occasion calls for it, correction must be administered. But it should always be grievous to us to proceed to extremities: nor should we ever exercise very severe discipline without having first spread the case before God, and implored his direction and blessing. There is an excessive lenity which is as injurious in its effects as the contrary extreme. We should inquire at all times, What saith the Scripture? And, when we have once ascertained the will of God, we should neither come short of it through a foolish fondness, nor exceed it through vehement irritation. There is one thing which above all should be checked with a strong hand; I mean, profaneness. Parents in general are too strongly impressed with things which relate to themselves, and too little affected with what relates to God. But a scoffing at religion, or impiety of any kind, ought to be an object of our heaviest displeasure. And though nothing but the most incorrigible impiety can warrant us to proceed to such extremities as those which were enjoined in the instance before us, yet we do not hesitate to say, that an incurable member should rather suffer amputation, than that all the other members should be incessantly tormented, and the life itself endangered, by its union with the body. Nevertheless we say again, No chastisement should ever be given for our pleasure, that is, for the gratification of our spleen or anger, but solely for the profit of the individual chastised, and the benefit of all connected with him.]
2.
For the perpetuating of the regards of our heavenly Parent
[Thanks be to God, we materially differ from Ishmael and Isaac in this, that whereas Ishmael could not become a child of promise, we may: for the Scripture says, If ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise [Note: Gal 3:29.]. Moreover, if we be indeed Christs, then shall we never be disinherited: for he hateth putting away [Note: Mal 2:16.] ; nor will he suffer any to pluck us out of his hands [Note: Joh 10:28-29.], or to separate us from his love [Note: Rom 8:35-39.]. If we offend, he will chastise with suitable severity: but he will not cast off his people [Note: Psa 89:30-35.]: whom he loveth, he loveth to the end [Note: Joh 13:1.]. Behold then the way of securing to yourselves the heavenly inheritance; lay hold on the promises, especially the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus [Note: 2Ti 1:1.]. Rely on the promises; plead them at a throne of grace; take them as your portion and your heritage; seek to experience their renovating, cleansing efficacy [Note: See notes h and i.]. Be not satisfied with any outward privileges or professions; but live the life which you now live in the flesh, entirely by faith on the Son of God, as having loved you, and given himself for you [Note: Gal 2:20.]. Thus, though once ye were aliens, and strangers from the covenants of promise, ye shall become fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God [Note: Eph 2:19.], and shall inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world [Note: Mat 24:34.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.
The spiritual meaning of this never could have been known, had not the Holy Ghost graciously condescended to have taught the Church, by his servant the apostle. See Gal 4:2-31 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
Ver. 9. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar mocking. ] At that mystical name Isaac, as a gaud, or laughingstock. At the feast also, made upon such a frivolous occasion. As who should say, What care I, though this ado be made now about Isaac’s weaning? I am the firstborn, and beloved of my father, who will not deny me the inheritance. This Sarah had soon spied, or overheard. Liberorum curiosi sunt parentes . The mother especially observeth the wrong done to the child. And besides, dislike soon spies a fault. A fault it was no doubt, and a great one too. Otherwise, the apostle would not have called it “persecution”: Gal 4:29 nor God have punished it with ejection. Machiavel, that scoffing atheist, rotted in the prison at Florence. Jeering Julian had his payment from Heaven. Sir Thomas Moor ( qui sceptice et scabiose de Luthero et Religione Reformata loquebatur ) lost his head. Another lost his wits for mocking at James Abbs, martyr, as a madman; for that, having no money, he gave his apparel to the poor; some to one, some to another, as he went to the stake a “What is truth?” Joh 18:38 said Pilate to our Saviour, in a scornful profane manner. Not long after which, he became his own deathsman. Apion scoffed at circumcision, and had an ulcer at the same time, and in the same place. b Surely, God is the avenger of all such: he calls it blasphemy in the second table, and shows his wrath from heaven against it, as that which proceeds from the very superfluity of malice (as herein Ishmael) and tends to murder. The Hebrew word here used signifies that he not only mocked Isaac, but also made others to mock him.
a Act. and Mon., fol. 1904.
b Josephus.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
mocking. Hebrew “laughing” or “chaffing”, or “mocking again” (as we say).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 24
SARAH AND HAGAR
“And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. (10) Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.
Gen 21:9-10 and Gal 4:21-31
The Bible is not a Book about history. It is a Book about Christ and the redemption of sinners by Christ. However, whenever the Bible deals with historical facts, it is always accurate in every detail. The historical facts revealed in Holy Scripture are given, not just to fill in the gaps, but to convey and illustrate the message of redemption by Christ. In that sense, all of the events recorded in the Old Testament are to be interpreted allegorically. An allegory, or an allegorical interpretation of Scripture, is the use of historical facts and events to portray and teach spiritual, gospel truths.[15]
[15] We do not have the liberty to take any historical event revealed in Scripture and make it teach what we want it to teach, or think it might teach. But we do have a responsibility to honestly interpret every historical event revealed in Scripture in the light of revealed gospel truth, making every event typical, or an allegory, of redemption by Christ.
Creation is a historical fact. Yet, it is also a picture of grace. The flood and Noahs ark are historical facts. Yet, they are also a picture of grace, a picture of our redemption and salvation in Christ. Bible stories are much more than examples of Gods miraculous power. They are examples of Gods merciful acts toward the sons of men. We now have before us one story in the Scriptures that is plainly declared to be an allegory. The story of Sarah and Hagar is a beautiful and instructive picture of the grace of God. The historical facts of this story are recorded in Gen 21:1-14. The allegorical interpretation of those facts is found in Gal 4:21-31.
The purpose of this allegory, as Paul uses it, is to show us the believers complete and total freedom from the law. The allegory is about two women, Sarah and Hagar, and two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Sarah represents the covenant of grace. Her son, Isaac, represents the children of promise, all who are born again by the promise and power of Gods grace. Hagar represents the covenant of works. Her son, Ishmael, represents all who go about to establish their own righteousness by the works of the law and will not submit to the righteousness of God which is in Christ Jesus. These are children of bondage who know not God.
No two things in all the world are more diametrically opposed to one another than law and grace. Yet, all men by nature attempt to mix the two together. The mixing of law and grace is the heretical assertion that salvation is both by our works and by Gods free grace through the obedience and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. We must understand the difference between these two things. Any mixture of law and grace, any intermingling of the covenant of works with the covenant of grace is deadly. Those who mix law and grace teach a doctrine that is damning to the souls of men. We must distinguish between our doing for salvation and another doing in our place for salvation. Salvation is not by our doing at all, but by the doing and dying of the Lord Jesus Christ for us! This doctrine lies at the very heart of the gospel, and is so important that he who grasps and understands it, is a master in divinity, while he who does not properly distinguish here remains in doubt and perplexity and walks in darkness, knowing not at what he stumbles. (G. S. Bishop).
It is the universal assertion of Holy Scripture that all true believers are totally free from the law (Rom 6:14-15; Rom 7:1-4; Rom 8:1-4; Rom 10:4; 1Ti 1:9-11). It is the purpose of God the Holy Spirit to show us that fact most emphatically in the book of Galatians (Gal 1:6-9; Gal 2:16; Gal 2:21; Gal 3:13; Gal 3:19-25; Gal 5:1; Gal 5:4; Gal 5:12; Gal 6:14).
Two Covenants
The Holy Spirit tells us plainly that Sarah and Hagar represent two covenants which are diametrically opposed to one another, the covenant of grace and the covenant of works (Gal 4:24). God almighty deals with men upon the basis of a covenant. A covenant is a contract made between two or more parties in which certain promises are made in the anticipation of specified conditions being fulfilled. We see this illustrated in Davids covenant with Jonathan (1Sa 20:11-17).
Understanding the nature of a covenant, we recognize that there could only be two possible covenants between God and man. (1.) A covenant of works, founded upon what man shall do for his salvation, or (2.) A covenant of grace, founded upon what God shall do for man to save him — a covenant of law , or a covenant of grace.
Hagar, Sarahs handmaid and servant, represents the covenant of law, works, and ceremonies, revealed and given to Israel by God through his servant Moses at Mt. Sinai. In the law God says to man, Do this and live! John Gill asserted that the Jews in the Mosaic age were in bondage to the moral law, which required perfect obedience of them, but gave them no strength to perform; showed them their sin and misery, but not their remedy; demanded a complete righteousness, but did not point out where it was to be had; it spoke not one word of peace and comfort, but all the reverse; it admitted of no repentance; it accused of sin, pronounced guilty on account of it, cursed, condemned, and threatened death for it, all which kept them in continual bondage. Hagar represents the bondage of legalism.
Sarah, Abrahams true wife, represents Gods eternal covenant of grace with Christ for the salvation of his elect. The covenant of works stood between God and Adam. Adam fell, and it now lies hopelessly broken. The covenant of grace stood between God and Christ. Christ has fulfilled it, and it stands established forever! (G. S. Bishop).
The covenant of works was written out in the law in stone at Sinai. However, it was the same covenant which Adam broke in the garden. And it is the covenant (the law) which is written upon the hearts of all men by nature, a covenant which all men constantly break (Rom 2:14-15). But, blessed be God, the covenant of grace cannot be broken!
The covenant of grace was made long before the covenant of works (Eph 1:3-6; 2Ti 1:9-10). It was made from eternity and cannot be nullified by anything done in time (Gal 3:16-17). The covenant of grace was made between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and cannot be broken by man (Heb 7:22; Heb 13:20; Joh 17:2-3). The covenant of grace says, Do this, O Christ, and thy people shall live forever! (Psa 2:8; Psa 110:3; Isa 53:10-12). The covenant of grace took into consideration the failures of Gods elect and made promises of grace concerning us, even in the teeth of our sins (Psa 89:19-37; Jer 31:31-34; Jer 32:37-41). This is a covenant of pure, free, immutable grace, ordered in all things and sure (2Sa 23:5; Rom 8:28-34; 2Ti 1:9-10). Sarah represents the covenant of grace. Hagar represents the works of the law!
Though Hagar bore the first son, Sarah had a prior claim to all the inheritance, because she was Abrahams original wife. Sarah told Abraham to cast Hagar and Ishmael out upon the basis of her prior claim upon him. And, though the covenant of works was revealed first, the covenant of grace has a prior claim upon Gods elect and upon the inheritance of life. Long before we sinned, the covenant of grace was made. Before we became sinners, Christ stood as our Surety. Before ever we needed atonement, Christ was the Lamb of sacrifice slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8; Rev 17:8; 1Pe 1:18-21). Long before we were cursed by the law, we were blessed with Gods salvation in the covenant of grace (Eph 1:3-6; 2Th 2:13-14; 2Ti 1:9).
It was never intended that Hagar should be Abrahams wife, or that Ishmael should be the promised seed of grace. Hagar was Sarahs handmaid. Nothing more! The law, which Hagar represents, was never given, or intended to be, a means of righteousness and salvation for anyone. No one was ever saved by keeping the law. The law was only a handmaid to grace. The only purpose of the law is to point men to Christ (Gal 3:21-29). Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom 10:4). When the Word of God asserts that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, the Spirit of God means for us to understand that
1.Christ is the end of the law as the object of it.
2.Christ is the end of the law as the fulfilment of its purpose, pictures, and requirements.
3.Christ is the end of the law as the conclusion of it.
4.Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, both for justification and for sanctification. We do not go to Calvary for justification and then run back to Sinai for sanctification. Both justification and sanctification are found in Christ (1Co 1:30).
5.Christ is the end of the law in the sense that death is the end of all covenants (Rom 7:1-4).
The law identifies sin and condemns men for sin; but it can never remove sin, justify the sinner, or sanctify a believer. The law is good, if a man uses it lawfully (1Ti 1:9-11); but when it is put in the place of grace, it must be cast out, like Hagar and Ishmael. The law is holy, just, and good; but when it is made to be a means of winning, keeping, or improving Gods favor, it is used unlawfully.
Two Systems Of Religion
Sarah and Hagar also represent two systems of religion: grace and works (Gal 4:25-27). There are but two religions upon the earth: grace and works. These two systems of religion mutually annihilate one another. If a person is saved in anyway, either in whole or in part, by his own works, then he is not saved by Gods grace. If we are saved by Gods grace, then we are not saved, in whole or in part, by any works of our own (Rom 11:6). There is no in between ground, where grace and works live together. Read Gal 5:1-4. Then read it again. If we do anything by which we hope to get Gods favor, keep Gods favor, or improve our standing in Gods favor, we have missed Christ altogether.
All churches, religions, and systems of doctrine which teach salvation by the works of the law are represented by Hagar. Any teaching which says we are justified, sanctified, preserved, given favor with God, or inherit heavenly glory upon the basis of our own works of obedience to God is legalism, antichrist, and damning to the souls of men. That is what Gal 5:1-4 declares.
Now, look at what Paul tells us about Hagar, the religion of the world, the religion of works (Gal 4:25). She is in Arabia, — outside the land of promise. She is in bondage. — The law can give nothing but bondage. There is no liberty to be found at Sinai. Her children are all yet in bondage. Those who live under the tyranny of the law, are yet wearing the iron shackles of slavery and imprisonment. They are in bondage to sin. They are yet the captives of Satan. They are under the curse of the law. They are yet under the sentence of death. There is nothing else to be found in the house of bondage.
Sarah represents that church, that religion, that system of doctrine which declares salvation by grace without the deeds of the law (Gal 4:26-27). The kingdom of God is a kingdom of grace. The gospel of God is the gospel of grace. And the church of God is the true Jerusalem, the city of grace and peace. The gospel of grace is from above. The people of God are free (Rom 6:14-15). The church of God is the mother of all who believe. The church of God, the kingdom of grace, shall be triumphant and glorious in the end (Gal 4:27; Isa 54:1).
Hagar never was free; and Sarah never was a slave. Ishmael, being the son of a slave, never could be a free man. Isaac, being the son of a free woman, never could be a slave. All who seek salvation by their own works are forever in bondage, and must be cast out into outer darkness. All who trust Christ alone, being saved by pure, free grace, abide in the house of grace forever, forever free, forever heirs of grace. When Isaac was born, Ishmael had to go. Hagar and her son were driven out of Abrahams house, but not Sarah. So too, as soon as the gospel of grace is revealed, the covenant of works is driven away (Heb 10:1-10).
Two Sons
The Holy Spirit uses the two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, to represent lost religious legalists and sinners saved by the grace of God (Gal 4:28-31). Ishmael was born after the flesh. Isaac was born after the Spirit. Legalism, all legal religion, is of the flesh, fleshly. Grace is of the Spirit, spiritual. Ishmael was the child of works, the child of unbelief. Isaac was the child of promise, born supernaturally, by a work of God. Ishmael mocked and persecuted Isaac. Ishmael was cursed. Isaac was blessed.
There is no room for legalism in the house of grace. We are not under the law, but under grace. We are not justified by the law, but by grace (Rom 3:19-24). We are not sanctified by the law, but by grace (Gal 3:1-3). We are not ruled by the law, but by grace (Tit 2:11-14). We are not motivated by the law, but by grace (2Co 5:14). The difference between the believer and the legalist is not their conduct, but their motive. We shall not be glorified by the law, but by grace (Jud 1:24-25).
Why are the Scriptures so dogmatic about this matter of the believers freedom from the law? Legalism would rob Christ of the glory of his grace. Legalism would rob the believer of the joy of faith, the joy of assurance, and the joy of all service to Christ. Legalism would rob the world of the hope of salvation. If salvation depends upon something done by man, then all men must forever perish without hope. Blessed be God, that is not the case. Salvation is of the Lord! By grace are ye saved! So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy!
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Rom 3:31). The only way any sinful man can honor the law is by faith in Christ. Christ fulfilled the law in the room and stead of his people. We, believing on him, fulfil the law by faith.
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Sarah: Gen 16:3-6, Gen 16:15, Gen 17:20
Egyptian: Gen 16:1, Gen 16:15
mocking: 2Ki 2:23, 2Ki 2:24, 2Ch 30:10, 2Ch 36:16, Neh 4:1-5, Job 30:1, Psa 22:6, Psa 42:10, Psa 44:13, Psa 44:14, Pro 20:11, Lam 1:7, Gal 4:22, Gal 4:29, Heb 11:36
Reciprocal: Gen 25:9 – Isaac 1Ch 1:28 – Ishmael 1Ch 5:10 – the Hagarites Pro 22:10 – General Gal 4:24 – Agar
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
ISAACS BIRTH, SARAHS DEATH
THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON (CHAP. 21)
There is little requiring explanation in this chapter, but Gen 21:9-13 should not be passed without a look at Gal 4:21-31. Christians are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and those who would supplement faith in Christ by the works of the law are the children of the bond-woman, who have no place with the children of the promise.
God, however, is not unmindful of Hagar and Ishmael, nor of His promise to Abraham concerning the latter. Although the blessing on the nation is not to flow down through them, yet they are not precluded from partaking of it when it comes. Abraham, there can be little doubt, followed the steps of Ishmael with deep interest, although at the moment appearances are not that way. He was probably included in the gifts spoken of at Gen 25:6, while his presence at his fathers obsequies (Gen 25:9) shows that the bond of affection between them was not broken.
We know little of Ishmaels subsequent life except that gathered from Gen 25:12-18, but the presumption is that he afterward abandoned the religion of his father, since his descendants preserved no trace of it except the rite of circumcision.
ABRAHAMS HARDEST TEST (Gen 22:1-24)
The shock communicated to Abraham by this command may have been qualified by the fact that the sacrifice of human beings, and even ones own children, was not unknown to heathenism; but this could not have explained his patient obedience had it not been for that faith mentioned in Heb 11:17-19. He knew that Gods honor and faithfulness were involved in the preservation or renewal of the life of Isaac, and reposed confidently in that fact. Indeed, there is reason to believe from Gen 22:8 that he foresaw the very means by which God would interpose for his son.
That verse is a beautiful foreshadowing of the substitutionary work of Christ. Transpose the emphasis, and we learn that God is the source or originator of our salvation through Christ God will Himself provide a lamb; that God had as much necessity for Christ as we, since He purposed to redeem us God will provide Himself a lamb; and that God is the provision as well as the provider God will provide Himself, i.e., He is the lamb!
Note several other interesting things:
1.that Solomon built the temple to Jehovah on Matthew Moriah (2Ch 3:1), and that the eternal Father afterward sacrificed His only begotten Son in the same place; this circumstance of the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of men silences the charge of infidelity that it was barbarous for God to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. If it was not barbarous for God to sacrifice Christ, neither was it barbarous that it should have been prefigured in the history of Abraham; and
2.Isaac himself becomes a notable type of Christ, especially in the meek and submissive spirit shown throughout, and when we remember that although called a lad he was presumably twenty-five years old at this time (compare Joh 10:18).
3.What new name of God is suggested by this event (Gen 22:14)? This means Jehovah will see or Jehovah will provide. How does God now further confirm His promise and covenant (Gen 22:16)? Note the marginal references to Psa 105:9, Luk 1:73, Heb 6:13-14. What additional promise or prediction is now added to the original one (Gen 22:17)? The gate of ancient cities being the strongest part of the wall and the most stoutly defended, to possess it was to possess the city itself.
Do not pass this lesson without observing how Abraham showed his faith by his works (Jam 2:21-24). All our righteousness are as filthy rags (Isa 64:6) as a ground of merit before God, but as the fruit of our faith obedience is of great price. Abrahams faith without the works of obedience would have been a lie, while his work without faith would, in this case, have been a sin. The virtue of this act consisted in the fact that he obeyed God.
THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH (Gen 23:1-20)
That Sarah should have died not in Beersheba but in Hebron, and that Abraham should have come to mourn for her, are facts which the record nowhere explains; but the chapter affords an insight into the customs of the Orientals of this period. For the children of Heth compare Gen 10:15, etc. It will be seen by Gen 23:10 that these people were the Hittites whom Joshua (Jos 1:4) mentions as occupying a great territory in that day, of whom the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments speak as a cultured and powerful nation of antiquity, although until recently critics were disposed to say that they never existed because secular history had lost sight of them.
Let it not be supposed, however, that the courteous formality of this occasion meant that Ephron intended to give Abraham the field for nothing. It was the oriental way of raising the price, so that in the end Abraham paid many times its value. Four hundred shekels of silver were equal to about $240 of our money, the value of which at that time would be five or ten times as much.
QUESTIONS
1.Name books and chapters of the New Testament which refer allegorically to Sarah and Hagar.
2.Name books and chapters which show Abrahams faith in the resurrection.
3.In what three ways does Gen 22:8 foreshadow the work of Christ?
4.What three events are associated with Mr. Moriah?
5.Give chapter and verse which speak of Abrahams fruit of faith.
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Gen 21:9. Sarah saw the son of the Egyptian, mocking Mocking Isaac, no doubt, for it is said, with reference to this, Gal 4:29, that he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, {c} mocking.
(c) He derided God’s promise made to Isaac which the apostle calls persecution Gal 4:29.