Now Sarai Abram’s wife bore him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name [was] Hagar.
1 6. Hagar and her Flight into the Desert. (J, P.)
1. handmaid ] or “maidservant,” as in Gen 12:16. The wife generally had a female slave, who was her own property, and not under the husband’s control: see Gen 29:24; Gen 29:29; Gen 30:3-7; Gen 30:9; Gen 30:12.
an Egyptian ] It is natural to connect Hagar’s Egyptian origin with the sojourn in Egypt mentioned in chap. 12, or with the journeys in the Negeb (Gen 12:9, Gen 13:1).
The theory that the “Egypt” ( Miraim) of which Hagar was a native was the land of a N. Arabian tribe ( Muri) has been suggested by Winckler on account of the mention of Muri in N. Arabia in the cuneiform inscriptions. His theory supposes that the Muri of N. Arabia was at an early time confounded by the Israelites with the more famous, but similarly sounding, Miri, “an inhabitant of Egypt.” But, in view of the continual intercourse between Palestine and Egypt, as shewn by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, the theory is improbable, and uncalled for. Egypt, at an early period, embraced the Sinaitic peninsula.
Hagar ] The name “Hagar” is associated with that of wandering Arab tribes, called the Hagrites, 1Ch 5:10; 1Ch 5:19-20 ; 1Ch 27:31, with which should be compared the Hagarenes of Psa 83:6, “the tents of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; Moab, and the Hagarenes.”
Whether the story of Hagar, in this chapter, in any way bears upon the meaning of her name, is more than we can say for certain. But, in Arabic, hagara = “to flee,” and the well-known word hegira, the epoch of Mohammed, is his “flight” from Mecca.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
– The Birth of Ishmael
1. hagar, Hagar, flight. Hejrah, the flight of Muhammed.
7. mal’ak messenger, angel. A deputy commissioned to discharge a certain duty for the principal whom he represents. As the most usual task is that of bearing messages, commands, or tidings, he is commonly called a messenger angelos). The word is therefore a term of office, and does not further distinguish the office-bearer than as an intelligent being. Hence, a mal’ak may be a man deputed by a man Gen 32:3; Job 1:14, or by God Hag 1:13; Mal 3:1, or a superhuman being delegated in this case only by God. The English term angel is now especially appropriated to the latter class of messengers.
1st. The nature of angels is spiritual Heb 1:14. This characteristic ranges over the whole chain of spiritual being from man up to God himself. The extreme links, however, are excluded: man, because he is a special class of intelligent creatures; and God, because he is supreme. Other classes of spiritual beings may be excluded – as the cherubim, the seraphim – because they have not the same office, though the word angelic is sometimes used by us as synonymous with heavenly or spiritual. They were all of course originally good; but some of them have fallen from holiness, and become evil spirits or devils Mat 25:31, Mat 25:41; Jud 1:6; Rev 12:7. The latter are circumscribed in their sphere of action, as if confined within the walls of their prison, in consequence of their fallen state and malignant disposition Gen. 3; Job 1:2; 1Pe 2:4; Rev 20:2. Being spiritual, they are not only moral, but intelligent. They also excel in strength Psa 103:20. The holy angels have the full range of action for which their qualities are adapted. They can assume a real form, expressive of their present functions, and affecting the senses of sight, hearing, and touch, or the roots of those senses in the soul. They may even perform innocent functions of a human body, such as eating Gen 18:8; Gen 19:3. Being spirits, they can resolve the material food into its original elements in a way which we need not attempt to conceive or describe. But this case of eating stands altogether alone. Angels have no distinction of sex Mat 22:30. They do not grow old or die. They are not a race, and have not a body in the ordinary sense of the term.
2d. Their office is expressed by their name. In common with other intelligent creatures, they take part in the worship of God Rev 7:11; but their special office is to execute the commands of God in the natural world Psa 103:20, and especially to minister to the heirs of salvation Heb 1:14; Mat 18:10; Luk 15:10; Luk 16:22. It is not needful here to enter into the uniquenesses of their ministry.
3d. The angel of Jehovah. This phrase is especially employed to denote the Lord himself in that form in which he condescends to make himself manifest to man; for the Lord God says of this angel, Beware of him, and obey his voice; provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in his inmost Exo 23:21; that is, my nature is in his essence. Accordingly, he who is called the angel of the Lord in one place is otherwise denominated the Lord or God in the immediate context (Gen 16:7, Gen 16:13; Gen 22:11-12; Gen 31:11, Gen 31:13; Gen 48:15-16; Exo 3:2-15; Exo 23:20-23; with Exo 33:14-15). It is remarkable, at the same time, that the Lord is spoken of in these cases as a distinct person from the angel of the Lord, who is also called the Lord. The phraseology intimates to us a certain inherent plurality within the essence of the one only God, of which we have had previous indications Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22. The phrase angel of the Lord, however, indicates a more distant manifestation to man than the term Lord itself. It brings the medium of communication into greater prominence. It seems to denote some person of the Godhead in angelic form. shur, Shur, wall. A city or place probably near the head of the gulf of Suez. The desert of Shur is now Jofar.
11. yshmae’l, Jishmael, the Mighty will hear.
13. ‘el ro’y, God of vision or seeing.
14. be‘er–lachay–ro’y, Beer-lachai-roi, well of vision to the living. bered, Bered, hail. The site is not known.
Sarah has been barren probably much more than twenty years. She appears to have at length reluctantly arrived at the conclusion that she would never be a mother. Nature and history prompted the union of one man to one wife in marriage, and it might have been presumed that God would honor his own institution. But the history of the creation of man was forgotten or unheeded, and the custom of the East prompted Sarai to resort to the expedient of giving her maid to her husband for a second wife, that she might have children by her.
Gen 16:1-6
A Mizrite handmaid. – Hagar was probably obtained, ten years before, during their sojourn in Egypt. The Lord hath restrained me. It was natural to the ancient mind to recognize the power and will of God in all things. I shall be builded by her, ‘baneh, built as the foundation of a house, by the addition of sons or daughters ( banym or banot). She thought she had or wished to have a share in the promise, if not by herself personally, yet through her maid. The faith of Sarah had not yet come fully to the birth. Abram yields to the suggestion of his wife, and complies with the custom of the country. Ten years had elapsed since they had entered the land they were to inherit. Impatience at the long delay leads to an invention of their own for obtaining an heir. The contempt of her maid was unjustifiable. But it was the natural consequence of Sarais own improper and imprudent step, in giving her to her husband as a concubine. Unwilling, however, to see in herself the occasion of her maids insolence, she transfers the blame to her husband, who empowers or reminds her of her power still to deal with her as it pleased her. Hagar, unable to bear the yoke of humiliation, flees from her mistress.
Gen 16:7-12
The angel of the Lord either represents the Lord, or presents the Lord in angelic form. The Lord manifests himself to Hagar seemingly on account of her relationship to Abram, but in the more distant form of angelic visitation. She herself appears to be a believer in God. The spring of water is a place of refreshment on her journey. She is on the way to Shur, which was before Mizraim as thou goest rewards Asshur Gen 25:18, and therefore fleeing to Egypt, her native land. The angel of the Lord interrogates her, and requires her to return to her mistress, and humble herself under her hands.
Gen 16:10
I will multiply. – This language is proper only to the Lord Himself, because it claims a divine prerogative. The Lord is, therefore, in this angel. He promises to Hagar a numerous offspring. Ishmael. El, the Mighty, will hear; but Jehovah, the Lord (Yahweh), heard her humiliation. Yahweh, therefore, is the same God as El. He describes Ishmael and his progeny in him as resembling the wild ass. This animal is a fit symbol of the wild, free, untamable Bedouin of the desert. He is to live in contention, and yet to dwell independently, among all his brethren. His brethren are the descendants of Heber, the Joctanites, composing the thirteen original tribes of the Arabs, and the Palgites to whom the descendants of Abram belonged. The Ishmaelites constituted the second element of the great Arab nation, and shared in their nomadic character and independence. The character here given of them is true even to the present day.
Gen 16:13-16
God of my vision – (El-roi). Here we have the same divine name as in Ishmael. Have I even still seen – continued to live and see the sun after having seen God? Beer-lahai-roi, the well of vision (of God) to the living. To see God and live was an issue contrary to expectation Exo 33:20. The well is between Kadesh and Bered. The site of the latter has not been ascertained. R. Jonathan gives chelutsa’ the elousa of Ptolemy, now el–Khulasa, about twelve miles south of Beersheba. Rowland finds the well at Moyle or Muweilah, still further south in the same direction. The birth of Ishmael is in the sixteenth year after Abrams call, and the eleventh after his arrival in Kenaan.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gen 16:1-3
And Sarai Abrams wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife
Forestalling Gods appointed time
I.
THIS MAY BE THE TEMPTATION OF THOSE WHO YET HAVE FAITH IN GOD.
II. SUCH A COURSE APPEARS TO HAVE A RATIONAL WARRANT.
1. There was no human hope that the promise would be accomplished in that form in which they first understood it.
2. They were conforming to the common custom of the country.
3. The end they sought was worthy in itself.
III. ALL ATTEMPTS TO BE BEFOREHAND WITH PROVIDENCE IMPLY AN INFIRMITY OF FAITH.
1. They are signs of impatience.
2. It is not our duty to aid God in the accomplishment of His promises.
3. Religion hereby degenerates into fanaticism.
4. Such an interference with the means by which God accomplishes His purpose shows a want of confidence in His power. (T. H. Leale.)
Hagar, the slave girl
We might have expected that Abraham would have strenuously resisted every endeavour to induce him to realize for himself Gods promise about his seed. Surely he will wait meekly and quietly for God to fulfil His own word, by means best known to Himself. Instead of this he listened to the reasoning of expediency.
I. THE QUARTER WHENCE THESE REASONINGS CAME. Sarai.
1. It is always hard to resist temptation when it appeals to natural instinct or to distrusting fear.
2. We should be exceedingly careful before acting on the suggestions of anyone not as advanced as we are in the Divine life. What may seem right to them may be terribly wrong for us.
II. THE SORROWS TO WHICH THEY LED.
1. To Sarah.
2. To Hagar.
3. To Abraham.
III. THE VICTIM WHOSE LIFE COURSE WAS SO LARGELY INVOLVED. We mourn to see in her only one of myriads who have been sacrificed to the whim or passion, expediency or selfishness, of men. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
Carnal expedients
I. THE FOLLY OF CARNAL EXPEDIENTS. Their danger lies in many directions.
1. Look at the method of our justification and sanctification before God. Gods method is by faith, mans by works. The one is of promise, the other by natural means. The latter is illicit, and fails; only the former succeeds.
2. In providence. You may be looking for temporal prosperity; God may design it for you: but you have no right to seek it by covetousness or injustice, and making haste to be rich.
3. In gospel labours. You expect success, but it is delayed.
4. In regard to our sufferings and our hope of heaven. Some have been tempted to slay themselves, or those whom they have loved, in the midst of terrible affliction, to hasten their admission to glory, You may not have this temptation; but you may be restless, impatient, and unresigned. Say rather, All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
5. In regard to the millennium, and the establishment of the gospel on earth. What hindrances and delays there are. Many seek to christianize the world by the sword, by pandering to human ignorance and superstition, or by indulging the lusts and passions of men. We must be faithful to principle, and leave results to God.
II. GODS MERCIFULNESS TO THE SORROWFUL SAINT. Thou God seest me. It suggests two things;
1. Gods omniscience; and–
2. His kind regard of His people. Let us think of it:
(1) In times of desolation and sorrow. You may be lonely and forsaken, but God sees you.
(2) In times of wandering and waywardness. Then let it rebuke us, and bring us to repentance and contrition.
(3) In times of temptation. Then let it deter us. How can we do this thing, and sin against God?
(4) In times of perplexity. Then let us seek His guidance–the guidance of His eye and hand.
(5) It suggests a contrast between this life and the next. (The Congregational Pulpit.)
Lessons
1. Gods promise and covenant can hardly keep up faith in His own, against the discouragements of sense.
2. Sensible helps at hand may be an occasion to doubt of Gods promise as being afar off. So was Hagar to Sarai (Gen 16:2).
3. Good souls in temptations may complain of this barrenness though God order it.
4. Sense of such wants may put souls upon unlawful means to have their desires of a seed.
5. Flesh persuades to take an uncertain peradventure in sense, rather than wait for Gods promise in certainty (Gen 16:2).
6. Temptation may carry saints not only to the motion but action of evil.
7. Such temptations may make saints do evil, for ends seeming good. So Sarai gives her to wife. (G. Hughes, B. D.)
The trial of faith–its infirmity
I. IT ORIGINATED AT A TIME AND IN A MANNER, the consideration of which may well enforce the solemn warning, Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall;–while it painfully illustrates that other affecting saying, that a mans worst foes may be those of his own household. This transaction took place (Gen 16:3) after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. During all that time he had walked with God, and God had done for him great things; he had trusted in the Lord, and had been delivered. He had found God faithful to him, and had been himself enabled to be faithful to God. In particular, he had very recently received a signal pledge of the Divine favour, and a strong confirmation of the hope set before him; and never, perhaps, had he stood higher, in respect of privilege, than now. And yet, at the very time when he stands so high, he is tempted, and he falls.
II. THE TEMPTATION ITSELF IS A VERY PLAUSIBLE ONE. It bears all the marks of that subtlety which, from of old, had been the characteristic of that old serpent, the devil. Observe the spirit and manner in which the proposal is made by Sarai, and received by Abram. It is plainly such as altogether to preclude the idea of this step being at all analogous to an ordinary instance of sin committed in the indulgence of sensual passion. Most unjustifiable as was the patriarchs conduct, it is not for a moment to be confounded with that of David, for example, whose melancholy fall was caused by the mere unbridled violence of an unlawful appetite. There is no room for the introduction of such an element as this on the occasion of Abrams connection with Hagar. It originated in the suggestion of his faithful wife, and had, for its single object, the fulfilment of the Divine promise, whose accomplishment otherwise seemed to be growing every day more manifestly and hopelessly impossible (Gen 16:1-2). (R. S.Candlish, D. D.)
Sarahs sin; or carnal policy no aid to Divine plans
Unbelief is very prolific of schemes; and surely this of Sarai is as carnal, as foolish, and as fruitful of domestic misery as could almost have been devised. Yet such was the influence of evil counsel, especially from such a quarter, that Abram hearkened to her voice. The father of mankind sinned by hearkening to his wife, and now the father of the faithful follows his example. How necessary for those who stand in the nearest relations, to take heed of being snares instead of helps one to another! It was a double sin: first, of distrust; and secondly, of deviation from the original law of marriage, and which seems to have opened a door of polygamy. (A. Fuller.)
Sarais expedient
Sarais impulse, even if mistaken, was admirable for its unselfish abnegation of what is most precious to her sex. It was such a sacrifice as only a woman had it in her power to make. Had Abram been a polygamist, or had the adhesion of his house to the primitive marriage law been less loyal than it was, there was one obvious escape from the difficulty. It is instructive that neither Abram nor his wife thought of a second marriage. The usages of the time suggested a different mode. For a childless wife to treat the children born of a favourite slave girl as legally as her own was a resource very foreign to the notions of our western Christendom. Nevertheless, it sprang not unnaturally out of two peculiarities of society in Abrams day. One of these was the disadvantage, amounting positively to social discredit, which attached to childlessness, at a time when the primeval injunction to replenish the earth still retained its full force. The other was the complete surrender of a serfs legal and social rights into the hand of his master, which in the East characterized domestic servitude. Every home slave stood at the disposal of his lord for whatever service the lord might require. His very children were not his own, but his masters. For a mistress, therefore, to seek by means of a female slave and favourite attendant what Providence had denied to herself, was regarded under such a state of feeling as neither immoral nor revolting. It was not even held to be any real departure from the law of monogamy, or any infraction of conjugal fidelity. There is no doubt, however, that it did involve a certain lowering of the original conception of marriage. It paved the way for concubinage of a less excusable description. And in the majority of cases, as in the present instance, it could scarcely fail to turn out ill. (J. O. Dykes, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XVI
Sarai, having no child, gives Hagar her maid to Abram
for wife, 1-3.
She conceives and despises her mistress, 4.
Sarai is offended and upbraids Abram, 5.
Abram vindicates himself; and Hagar, being hardly used
by her mistress, runs away, 6.
She is met by an angel, and counselled to return to
her mistress, 7-9.
God promises greatly to multiply her seed, 10.
Gives the name of Ishmael to the child that should be
born of her, 11.
Shows his disposition and character, 12.
Hagar calls the name of the Lord who spoke to her,
Thou God seest me, 13.
She calls the name of the well at which the angel met
her, Beer-laharoi, 14.
Ishmael is born in the 86th year of Abram’s age, 15, 16.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVI
Verse 1. She had a handmaid, an Egyptian] As Hagar was an Egyptian, St. Chrysostom’s conjecture is very probable. that she was one of those female slaves which Pharaoh gave to Abram when he sojourned in Egypt; see Ge 12:16. Her name hagar signifies a stranger or sojourner, and it is likely she got this name in the family of Abram, as the word is pure Hebrew.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
1. Now, Sarai . . . had a handmaidafemale slaveone of those obtained in Egypt.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, bare him no children,…. She is before said to be barren, and he to be childless, Ge 11:30; God had promised him a seed, but as yet he had none, which was a trial of his faith; he had been married many years to Sarai his wife, she was his wife when they came out of Ur of the Chaldees, and how long before cannot be said; they stayed and dwelt some time at Haran, the Jews x say five years, and they had been now ten years in the land of Canaan,
Ge 16:3; and were advanced in years, the one being seventy five, and the other eighty five, so that there was no great probability of having any children, wherefore the following step was taken:
and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name [was] Hagar; no doubt but she had many, but this was a principal one, that might be over others, and was chiefly entrusted with the care and management of family affairs under her mistress; she might be the daughter of an Egyptian, born in Abram’s house, as Eliezer was the son of a Syrian of Damascus, born there also; or she might be one of the maidservants Pharaoh, king of Egypt, gave to Abram, Ge 12:16; the Jews y have a tradition, that she was a daughter of Pharaoh, who, when he saw the wonders done for Sarai, said, it is better that my daughter should be a handmaid in this house, than a mistress in another, and therefore gave her to Sarai; others say z she was a daughter of his by a concubine, but neither is probable: from her came the people called Hagarites, 1Ch 5:10, and Hagarenes, Ps 83:6; and there were a people in Arabia called Agraei, both by Strabo a and Pliny b; and the latter speaks of a royal city in that country called Agra, which seem to have their names from this person. Melo c, an Heathen writer, speaking of Abram, says, that he had two wives, one of his own country, and akin to him, and the other an Egyptian, a servant; of the Egyptian he beget twelve sons, who, going into Arabia, divided the country among them, and were the first that reigned over the inhabitants of it; as to her twelve sons, he mistakes, for these were not Hagar’s sons by Abram, but her grandsons, the sons of Ishmael, see Ge 17:20.
x Seder Olam Rabba, p. 2. y Targum Jon. & Jarchi in loc. Bereshit Rabba, sect. 45. fol. 40. 2. z Pirke Eliezer, c. 26. a Geograph. l. 16. p. 528. b Hist. Nat. l. 6. c. 28. c Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 19. p. 420, 421.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
As the promise of a lineal heir (Gen 15:4) did not seem likely to be fulfilled, even after the covenant had been made, Sarai resolved, ten years after their entrance into Canaan, to give her Egyptian maid Hagar to her husband, that if possible she might “ be built up by her, ” i.e., obtain children, who might found a house or family (Gen 30:3). The resolution seemed a judicious one, and according to the customs of the East, there would be nothing wrong in carrying it out. Hence Abraham consented without opposition, because, as Malachi (Mal 2:15) says, he sought the seed promised by God. But they were both of them soon to learn, that their thoughts were the thoughts of man and not of God, and that their wishes and actions were not in accordance with the divine promise. Sarai, the originator of the plan, was the first to experience its evil consequences. When the maid was with child by Abram, “ her mistress became little in her eyes.” When Sarai complained to Abram of the contempt she received from her maid (saying, “ My wrong, ” the wrong done to me, “ come upon thee, ” cf. Jer 51:35; Gen 27:13), and called upon Jehovah to judge between her and her husband,
(Note: , with a point over the second Jod, to show that it is irregular and suspicious; since with the singular suffix is always treated as a singular, and only with a plural suffix as plural.)
Abram gave her full power to act as mistress towards her maid, without raising the slave who was made a concubine above her position. But as soon as Sarai made her feel her power, Hagar fled. Thus, instead of securing the fulfilment of their wishes, Sarai and Abram had reaped nothing but grief and vexation, and apparently had lost the maid through their self-concerted scheme. But the faithful covenant God turned the whole into a blessing.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Abram, Sarai, and Hagar. | B. C. 1911. |
1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
We have here the marriage of Abram to Hagar, who was his secondary wife. Herein, though some excuse may be made for him, he cannot be justified, for from the beginning it was not so; and, when it was so, it seems to have proceeded from an irregular desire to build up families for the speedier peopling of the world and the church. Certainly it must not be so now. Christ has reduced this matter to the first institution, and makes the marriage union to be between one man and one woman only. Now,
I. The maker of this match (would one think it?) was Sarai herself: she said to Abram, I pray thee, go in unto my maid, v. 2. Note, 1. It is the policy of Satan to tempt us by our nearest and dearest relations, or those friends that we have an opinion of and an affection for. The temptation is most dangerous when it is sent by a hand that is least suspected: it is our wisdom therefore to consider, not so much who speaks as what is spoken. 2. God’s commands consult our comfort and honour much better than our own contrivances do. It would have been much more for Sarai’s interest if Abram had kept to the rule of God’s law instead of being guided by her foolish projects; but we often do ill for ourselves.
II. The inducement to it was Sarai’s barrenness.
1. Sarai bare Abram no children. She was very fair (ch. xii. 14), was a very agreeable, dutiful wife, and a sharer with him in his large possessions; and yet written childless. Note, (1.) God dispenses his gifts variously, loading us with benefits, but not overloading us: some cross or other is appointed to be an alloy to great enjoyments. (2.) The mercy of children is often given to the poor and denied to the rich, given to the wicked and denied to good people, though the rich have most to leave them and good people would take most care of their education. God does herein as it has pleased him.
2. She owned God’s providence in this affliction: The Lord hath restrained me from bearing. Note, (1.) As, where children are, it is God that gives them (ch. xxxiii. 5), so where they are wanted it is he that withholds them, ch. xxx. 2. This evil is of the Lord. (2.) It becomes us to acknowledge this, that we may bear it, and improve it, as an affliction of his ordering for wise and holy ends.
3. She used this as an argument with Abram to marry his maid; and he was prevailed upon by this argument to do it. Note, (1.) When our hearts are too much set upon any creature-comfort, we are easily put upon the use of indirect methods for the obtaining of it. Inordinate desires commonly produce irregular endeavours. If our wishes be not kept in a submission to God’s providence, our pursuits will scarcely be kept under the restraints of his precepts. (2.) It is for want of a firm dependence upon God’s promise, and a patient waiting for God’s time, that we go out of the way of our duty to catch at expected mercy. He that believes does not make haste.
4. Abram’s compliance with Sarai’s proposal, we have reason to think, was from an earnest desire of the promised seed, on whom the covenant should be entailed. God had told him that his heir should be a son of his body, but had not yet told him that it should be a son by Sarai; therefore he thought, “Why not by Hagar, since Sarai herself proposed it?” Note, (1.) Foul temptations may have very fair pretences, and be coloured with that which is very plausible. (2.) Fleshly wisdom, as it anticipates God’s time of mercy, so it puts us out of God’s way. (3.) This would be happily prevented if we would ask counsel of God by the word and by prayer, before we attempt that which is important and suspicious. Herein Abram was wanting; he married without God’s consent. This persuasion came not of him that called him.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
GENESIS – CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Verses 1-3:
The passing years deepened Sarai’s concern over her barrenness. Doubtless she was fully aware of God’s promise to Abram regarding the seed. It was not fully clear that Sarai should be the mother of the promised son. So Sarai offered a plan by which the promise could be fulfilled. What she proposed was proper and legal according to custom. Her personal handmaid (slave-girl) was Hagar; possibly acquired during their brief stay in Egypt. Sarai proposed that she should become a secondary wife to Abram, and bear a child by him. According to the law of the time, this child would legally belong to Sarai and Abram.
Sarai’s proposal was not an evidence of her lack of faith. It was prompted by her zeal of faith which led her to desire the fulfillment of the promised blessing. It was a proof of her humility, and her devotion to Abram.
This episode occurred during the tenth year of Abram’s stay in the Land of Canaan. At this time he was past eighty-five years of age, and Sarai was past sixty-five.
Although Sarai’s proposal was legal so far as man’s law and custom was concerned, it was not according to the will and purpose of God. And it resulted in conflict in her home, a conflict still raging today among the world’s nations.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. Now Sarai, Abram’s wife. Moses here recites a new history, namely, that Sarai, through the impatience of long delay, resorted to a method of obtaining seed by her husband, at variance with the word of God. She saw that she was barren, and had passed the age of bearing. And she inferred the necessity of a new remedy, in order that Abram might obtain the promised blessing. Moses expressly relates, that the design of marrying a second wife did not originate with Abram himself, but with Sarai, to teach us that the holy man was not impelled by lust to these nuptials; but that when he was thinking of no such thing, he was induced to engage in them, by the exhortation of his wife. It is, however, asked, whether Sarai substituted her handmaid in her place, through the mere desire of having offspring? So it seems to some; yet to me it is incredible, that the pious matron should not have been cognizant of those promises, which had been so often repeated to her husband. Yea, it ought to be fully taken for granted, among all pious persons, that the mother of the people of God, was a participator of the same grace with her husband. Sarai, therefore, does not desire offspring (as is usual) from a merely natural impulse; but she yields her conjugal rights to another, through a wish to obtain that benediction, which she knew was divinely promised: not that she makes a divorce from her husband, but assigns him another wife, from whom he might receive children. And certainly if she had desired offspring in the ordinary manner, it would rather have come into her mind to do it by the adoption of a son, than by giving place to a second wife. For we know the vehemence of female jealousy. Therefore, while contemplating the promise, she becomes forgetful of her own right, and thinks of nothing but the bringing forth of children to Abram. A memorable example, from which no small profit accrues to us. For however laudable was Sarai’s wish, as regards the end, or the scope to which it tended; nevertheless, in the pursuit of it, she was guilty of no light sin, by impatiently departing from the word of God, for the purpose of enjoying the effect of that word. While she rejects upon her own barrenness and old age, she begins to despair of offspring, unless Abram should have children from some other quarter; in this there is already some fault. Yet, however desperate the affair might be, still she ought not to have attempted anything at variance with the will of God and the legitimate order of nature. God designed that the human race should be propagated by sacred marriage. Sarai perverts the law of marriage, by defiling the conjugal bed, which was appointed only for two persons. Nor is it an available excuse, that she wished Abram to have a concubine and not a wife; since it ought to have been regarded as a settled point, that the woman is joined to the man, ‘that they two should be one flesh.’ And though polygamy had already prevailed among many; yet it was never left to the will of man, to abrogate that divine law by which two persons were mutually bound together. Nor was even Abram free from fault, in following the foolish and preposterous counsel of his wife. Therefore, as the precipitancy of Sarai was culpable, so the facility with which Abram yielded to her wish was worthy of reprehension. The faith of both of them was defective; not indeed with regard to the substance of the promise, but with regard to the method in which they proceeded; (383) since they hastened to acquire the offspring which was to be expected from God, without observing the legitimate ordinance of God. Whence also we are taught that God does not in vain command his people to be quiet, and to wait with patience, whenever he defers or suspends the accomplishment of their wishes. For they who hasten before the time, not only anticipate the providence of God, but being discontented with his word, precipitate themselves beyond their proper bounds. But it seems that Sarai had something further in view; for she not only wished that Abram should become a father, but would fain acquire to herself maternal rights and honors. I answer, since she knew that all nations were to be blessed in the seed of Abram, it is no wonder that she should be unwilling to be deprived of participation in his honor; lest she should be cut off, as a putrid member, from the body which had received the blessing, and should also become an alien from the promised salvation.
Bare him no children. This seems added as an excuse. And truly Moses intimates that she did not seek help from the womb of her maid, before necessity compelled her to do so. Her own words also show, that she had patiently and modestly waited to see what God would do, until hope was entirely cut off, when she says, that she was restrained from bearing by the Lord. (Gen 16:2.) What fault then shall we find in her? Surely, that she did not, as she ought, cast this care into the bosom of God, without binding his power to the order of nature, or restraining it to her own sense. And then, by neglecting to infer from the past what would take place in future, she did not regard herself as in the hand of God, who could again open the womb which he had closed.
(383) “ Sed in medio ipso (ut loquunter) vel agendi ratione.” — “ Mais au moyen, et en la facon de proceder.” — French Tr
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
ABRAHAMTHE FRIEND OF GOD
Gen 11:10 to Gen 25:10.
ONE week ago we gave this hour to a study in Genesis, our subject being, The Beginnings. The birds-eye view of ten chapters and ten verses brought us to Babel, and impressed upon us the many profitable lessons that come between the record of creation and the report of confusion.
Beginning with the 10th verse of the 11th chapter of Genesis (Gen 11:10), and concluding with the 10th verse of the 25th chapter (Gen 25:10), we have the whole history of Abraham, the friend of God; and while other important persons, such as Sarai, Hagar, Lot, Pharaoh, Abimelech, Isaac, Rebecca and even Melchisedec appear in these chapters, Abraham plays altogether the prominent part, and aside from Melchisedec, the High Priest, is easily the most important person, and the most interesting subject presented in this inspired panorama. It may be of interest to say that Abraham lived midway between Adam and Jesus, and such was his greatness that the Chaldeans, East Indians, Sabeans and Mohammedans all join with the Jew in claiming to be the offspring of Abraham; while it is the Christians proud boast that he is Abrahams spiritual descendant.
It is little wonder that all these contend for a kinship with him whom God deigns to call His friend. The man who is a friend of God is entitled to a large place in history. Fourteen chapters are none too many for his record; and hours spent in analyzing his character and searching for the secrets of his success are hours so employed as to meet the Divine approval.
The problem is how to so set Abrahams history before you as to make it at once easy of comprehension, and yet thoroughly impress its lessons. In trying to solve that question it has seemed best to call attention to
THE CALL AND THE COVENANT.
Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy fathers house, unto a land that I will show thee, and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed (Gen 12:1-3).
Did you ever stop to think of the separations involved in this call?
It meant a separation from home. From thy fathers house. How painful that call is, those of us who have passed through it perfectly understand; and yet many of us have gone so short a distance from home, or else have made the greater journey with such extended stops, that we know but little how to sympathize with Abrahams more effective separation from that dear spot. To go from Chaldea to Canaan in that day, from a country with which he was familiar to one he had never seen; and from a people who were his own, to sojourn among strangers, was every whit equal to William Careys departure from England for India. But as plants and flowers have to be taken from the hot-bed into the broad garden that they may best bring forth, so God lifts the subject of His affection from the warm atmosphere of home-life and sets him down in the far field that he may bring forth fruit unto Him; hence, as is written in Hebrews, Abraham had to go out, not knowing whither he went.
This call also involves separation from kindred. And from thy kindred. In Chaldea, Abram had a multitude of relatives, as the 11th chapter fully shows. Upon all of these, save the members of his own house, and Lot, his brothers son, Abram must turn his back. In the process of time the irreligion of Lot will necessitate also a separation from him. In this respect, Abrahams call is in no whit different from that which God is giving the men and women today. You cannot respond to the call of God without separating yourself from all kin who worship at false shrines; and you cannot make the progress you ought and live in intimate relation with so worldly a professor of religion as was Lot.
We may have marvelled at times that Abraham so soon separated himself from Lot, but the real wonder is that the man of God so long retained his hold upon him. No more difficult task was ever undertaken than that of keeping in the line of service a man who, in the lust of his eyes and the purpose of his heart, has pitched his tent toward Sodom. It is worthy of note that so soon as Abraham was separated from Lot, the Lord said unto him,
Lift up now thine eyes and look from the place that thou art, northward and southward, and eastward and westward, for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever (Gen 13:14-15).
The men of the broadest view in spiritual things, the men upon whom God has put His choicest blessing, have been from time immemorial men who have separated themselves from idolaters and pretenders that they might be the more free to respond to the call of God, and upon such, God has rested His richest favors.
This call also involves separation from the Gentiles. The Gentiles of Chaldea and the Gentiles of Canaan; from the first he was separated by distance and from the second by circumcision. Gods appeal has been and is for a peculiar people, not that they might be queer, but that He might keep them separatedunspotted from the world. God knows, O so well, how few souls there are that can mingle with the unregenerate crowd without losing their testimony and learning to speak the shibboleth of sinners. Peter was a good man; in some respects greater than Abraham; but Peter in that porch-company was a poor witness for Jesus Christ, while his profanity proved the baneful effect of fellowship with Gods enemies. The call to separation, therefore, is none other than the call to salvation, for if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him, for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.
But Gods calls are always attended by
GODS COVENANTS.
As this call required three separations with their sacrifices, so its attendant covenant contained three promised blessings. God never empties the heart without filling it again, and with better things. God never detaches the affections from lower objects without at once attaching them to subjects that are higher; consequently call and covenant must go together.
I will make of thee a great nation. That was the first article in His covenant. To the Jew, that was one of the most precious promises. This ancient people delighted in progeny. The Psalmist wrote, As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. They shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. If our Puritan fathers, few in number and feeble as they were, could have imagined the might and multitude of their offspring, they would have found in the prospect an unspeakable pride, and a source of mighty pleasure. It was because those fathers did, in some measure, imagine the America to come, that they were willing to endure the privations and dangers of their day; but the honor of being fathers of a nation, shared in by a half hundred of them, was an honor on which Abraham had a close corporation, for to him God said,
I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall also thy seed be numbered.
If the heart, parting from parents and home, is empty, the arms into which children have been placed are full; and homesickness, the pain of separation, is overcome when, through the grace of God, one sits down in the midst of his own.
This covenant contained a further promise. I will . . . make thy name great. We may believe that the word great here refers not so much to empty honors as to merited praise. The Jewish conception of such a promise was expressed by Solomon when he said, A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches. And, notwithstanding the fact that our age is guilty of over-estimating the value of riches, men find it difficult to underrate the value of a good name.
Years ago, Jonas Chickering decided to make a better piano than had ever appeared on the market. He spared neither time nor labor in this attempt. His endeavor was rewarded in purity and truthfulness of tone as well as in simplicity of plan, and there came to him the ever-attendant result of success. His name on a piano was that instruments best salesman.
A Massachusetts man, seeing this, went to the Massachusetts legislature and succeeded in getting them to change his name to Chickering, that he might put it upon his own instruments.
As Marden said when referring to this incident, Character has a commercial value.
And, when God promised Abraham to make his name great, He bestowed the very honor which men most covet to this hour.
But the climax of His covenant is contained in this last sentence, In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest. That is the honor of honors! That is the success of all successes! That is the privilege of all privileges!
When Mr. Moody died some man said, Every one of us has lost a friend, and that speaker was right, for there is not a man in America who has not enjoyed at least an opportunity to be better because Moody lived. No matter whether the individual had ever seen him or no; had ever read one of his sermons or no; yet the tidal waves of Moodys work have rolled over the entire land, over many lands for that matter, and even the most ignorant and debased have breathed the better atmosphere on account of him. George Davis claims that Moody traveled a million miles, and addressed a hundred million people, and dealt personally with 750,000 individuals! I think Davis claim is an overstatement, and yet these whom he touched personally are only a tithe of the multitudes blessed indirectly by that evangelism for which Moody stood for forty years. If today I could be privileged to make my choice of the articles of this covenant, rather than be the father of a great nation, rather than enjoy the power of a great name, I would say, Give me the covenant that through me all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Such would indeed be the crowning glory of a life, and such ought to be the crowning joy of a true mans heart.
In the next place, I call your attention to
ABRAHAMS OBEDIENCE AND BLUNDERS.
His obedience was prompt No sooner are the call and covenant spoken than we read,
So Abraham departed as the Lord had spoken unto him (Gen 12:4).
In that his conduct favorably contrasted with the behavior of some other of the Old Testaments most prominent men. Moses was in many respects a model, but he gave himself to an eloquent endeavor to show God that He was making a mistake in appointing him Israels deliverer. Elijah at times indulged in the same unprofitable controversy, and the story of Jonahs criticism of the Divine appointment will be among our later studies. I am confident that Abraham brings before every generation a much needed example in this matter. In these days, men are tempted to live too much in mathematics and to regard too lightly Gods revelations of duty. That is one of the reasons why many pulpits are empty. That is one of the reasons why many a Sunday School class is without a teacher. That is the only reason why any man in this country can say with any show of truthfulness, No man careth for my soul. If the congregations assembled in Gods sanctuary should go out of them, as Abram departed from his home in Haran, to fulfil all that the Lord had spoken unto them, the world would be turned upside down in a fortnight, and Christ would quickly come.
In his obedience Abraham was steadfast also. There are many men who respond to the calls of God; there are only a few who remain faithful to those calls through a long and busy life. There were battles ahead for Abram. There were blunders in store for Abram. There were bereavements and disappointments to come. But, in spite of them all, he marched on until God gathered him to his people. I thank God that such stedfastness is not wholly strange at the present time. When we see professors of religion proving themselves shallow and playing truant before the smaller trials, and we are thereby tempted to join in Solomons dyspeptic lament, All is vanity and vexation of spirit, it heartens one to remember the history that some have made and others are making. Think of Carey and Judson, Jewett and Livingstone, Goddard and Morrison, Clough and Ashmoremen who, through long years, deprivations and persecutions, proved as faithful as was ever Abraham; and so, long as the world shall stand, stedfastness in obedience to the commands of God will be regarded highly in Heaven. Why is it that we so much admire the company of the apostles, and why is it that we sing the praises of martyrs? They withstood in the evil day, and having done all, stood.
Again, Abrams obedience was inspired by faith.
When he went out from Chaldea to come into Canaan, he was not yielding to reason but walking according to revelation. His action was explained in the sentence, He believed in the Lord. Joseph Parker commenting on the world believed as here employed says, This is the first time the word believed occurs in the Bible. * * * * What history opens in this one word. Abram nourished and nurtured himself in God. * * * * He took the promise as a fulfilment. The word was to him a fact. The stars had new meanings to him, as, long before, the rainbow had to Noah. Abram drew himself upward by the stars. Every night they spoke to him of his posterity and of his greatness. They were henceforward not stars only but promises and oaths and blessings.
One great need of the present-day church is a truer trust in God. Oh, for men who like Columbus can let the craft of life float out on the seas of thought and action, and look to the starry heavens for the guidance that shall land them upon newer and richer shores! Oh, for men that will turn their ears heavenward to hear what God will say, and even though His commissions contain sacrifice will go about exercising it! Such men are never forgotten by the Father. We are not surprised to hear Him break forth in praise of Abraham, saying,
Because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, m blessing 1 will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gates of the enemy, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.
No sacrifice made in faith is ever forgotten, and when Gods rewards for service are spoken, good men always regard them more than sufficient. If you could call up today the souls of Carey, Judson, Livingstone and Morrison, and assemble Clough, Ashmore, Taylor, Powell, Clark, Richards and a hundred others worthy to stand with them, and ask them the question Has God failed in any particular to keep with you any article of His covenant? they would answer in a chorus, No. And has God more than met the expectations of your faith? they would reply without dissent, Yes. As He was faithful to our father Abraham, so He is faithful to the present-day servant.
And yet Abraham, the obedient, was
GUILTY OF BLUNDERING.
Twice he lied, and the third time he approached the utmost limits of truth. He told Sarai to say she was his sister. She was his half-sister, and so he thought to excuse himself by dissembling and keeping back a part. But a lie is not a question of words and phrases! It may be acted as easily as spoken! When God comes to make a report upon your conduct and mine, dissembling will be labeled falsehood, for God does not cover up the sins of men. Somebody has asked, Do you suppose, if the Bible had been written by some learned Doctor, revised by a committee of some eminent scholars, and published by some great ecclesiastical society, we would ever have heard of Noahs drunkenness, of Abrams deception, of Lots disgrace, of Jacobs rascality, of the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas, or of Peters conduct on the porch? Not at all. But when the Almighty writes a mans life, He tells the truth about him.
I heard a colored preacher at Cincinnati say, The most of us would not care for a biography of ourselves, if God was to be the Author of it. Yet the work of the Recording Angel goes on, and as surely as we read today the report of Abrams blunders, we will be compelled to confront our own. Let us cease, therefore, from sin.
But Abrams few blunders cannot blacken his beautiful record. The luster of his life is too positive to be easily dimmed; and like the sun, will continue to shine despite the spots. Run through these chapters, and in every one of the fourteen you will find some touch of his true life. It was Abraham whose heart beat in sweetest sympathy with the sufferings of Hagar. It was Abraham who showed the most unselfish spirit in separating from Lot and dividing the estate. It was Abraham who opened his door to strangers in a hospitality of which this age knows all too little. It was Abram who overcame the forces of the combined kings and snatched Lot out of their hands. It was Abraham whose prayers prevailed with God in saving this same weakkneed professor out of Sodom. It was Abraham who trusted God for a child when Nature said the faith was foolish. It was Abraham who offered that same child in sacrifice at the word, not halting because of his own heart-sufferings. It was Abraham who mourned Sarahs death as deeply as ever any bereft bride felt her loss.
The more I search these chapters, the more I feel that she was right who wrote, A holy life has a voice. It speaks when the tongue is silent and is either a constant attraction or a continued reproof. Put your ear close to these pages of Genesis, and if Abraham does not whisper good to your heart, then be sure that your soul is dead and you are yet in your sins.
There remains time for but a brief review of these fourteen chapters in search of
THEIR TYPES AND SYMBOLS
Abrams call is a type of the Church of Christ. The Greek word for Church means the called-out. Separation from the Chaldeans was essential to Abrams access to the Father, and separation from the world is essential to the Churchs access to God and also essential to its exertion of an influence for righteousness. I believe Dr. Gordon was right when, in The Two-Fold Life he said, The truest remedy for the present-day naturalized Christianity and worldly consecration is to be found in a strenuous and stubborn non-conformity to the world on the part of Christians. With the most unshaken conviction, we believe that the Church can only make headway, in this world, by being loyal to her heavenly calling. Towards Ritualism her cry must be not a rag of popery; towards Rationalism, not a vestige of whatsoever is not of faith; and towards
Secularism, not a shred of the garment spotted by the flesh. The Bride of Christ can only give a true and powerful testimony in this world as she is found clothed with her own proper vesture even the fine linen clean and white, which is the righteousness of the saints.
Isaacs offering is a type of Gods gift of Jesus. He was an only son and Abraham laid him upon the altar of sacrifice. And, if one say that he fails as a type because he passed not through the experience of death, let us remember what is written into Heb 11:17 following,
By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, *** accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, from whence also he received him, in a figure.
It might be written in Scripture, Abraham so believed God that he gave his only begotten son, for Gods sake. It is written in Scripture, God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Melchisedec is a type of our High Priest, Jesus Christ. His record in Gen 14:18-20 is brief, but the interpretation of his character in Hebrews 7 presents him as either identical with the Lord Himself, or else as one whose priesthood is the most perfect type of that which Jesus Christ has performed, and performs today for the sons of men.
In Sodom, we find the type of the days of the Son of Man. Of it the Lord said,
Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me.
Jesus Christ referred to that city and likened its condition to that which should obtain upon the earth at the coming of the Son of Man, saying, As it was in the days of Lot, they did eat; they drank; they bought; they sold; they planted; they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all, even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
The newspapers some time ago reported great religious excitement in a Southern city through the work of two evangelists. Doctors said, We will prescribe no more liquor for patients, druggists said, We will sell no more liquor as a beverage; gamblers gave up their gambling; those called the toughs of the town turned to the Lord; the people of means put off their jewels, changed their frivolous clothes to plainer style; and wherever one went he heard either the singing of hymns or the utterance of prayers, and a great newspaper said this had all come about because the people in that little college town expected the speedy return of Christ. You may call it fanaticism, if you will, and doubtless there would be some occasion, and yet call it what you may, this sentence will remain in the Scriptures, Therefore, be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 16:1. Handmaid.] This term is used in the L
XX. and N.T. in the sense of a female slave. Hagar was a bondwoman, and according to ancient usage was entirely at the disposal of her mistress. (Gal. 4:22.) An Egyptian. She probably entered the family of the patriarch during his sojourn in Egypt, and may have been one of the maid-servants presented to him by Pharaoh. (Gen. 12:20.) Hagar. Flight, or a fugitive. The Arabs term the flight of Mohammed Hegiraa word derived from the same root. It is not likely that the name was given by her parents, but was bestowed afterwards in commemoration of the leading events of her history.
Gen. 16:2. I may obtain children by her.] Heb. I may be builded by her. In Heb. the ideas of building and the raising of a family are closely allied. Ben, a son, is derived from the verb bana, to build. (Deu. 25:9; Rth. 4:11.)
5. My wrong be upon thee.] Heb. My wrong lieth upon thee; i.e., the wrong which I suffer. The Lord judge between me and thee. I made the offer to thee, but the deed was thine; let God apportion the blame between us. (Alford.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 16:1-3
FORESTALLING GODS APPOINTED TIME
Both Abram and Sarah had long been waiting for the fulfilment of Gods promise. They were sorely tried by the delays of Providence, for they were both far gone in the vale of years and the promised blessing had not come. Their hearts grew sore with hope deferred. In their impatience they seek by methods of their own to fulfil Gods wordto anticipate His time and purpose. They attempt to cross the ways of Providence with the lines of their own wisdom, and frantically to hasten their destination. This was their weakness; for God has His appointed time and way. Mans duty is calmly to wait.
I. This may be the temptation of those who yet have faith in God. Abram and Sarah had the assured possession of Gods promise. They knew what was its meaningthat it pointed to a definite blessing. They believed in their hearts that the will of God concerning them, as so expressed, would be accomplished. Yet they are weary with waiting, and use an expedient of their own, as if they would assist Providence. Faith may be genuine, and yet betimes prove unsteady through the severe trials to which it is exposed. Faith has to seek its object through clouds and darkness, through delays, disappointments, and dangers; and it is therefore not surprising that it occasionally betrays weakness, or takes some unadvised step. The grace of God is pure and strong, but the results of it are modified injuriously by human infirmity, so that they fall beneath absolute perfection. Sarah, who is most to blame in this history, is yet declared by inspired authority to be an example of faith, and is classed among those renowned believers who all obtained a good report through faith (Heb. 11:11; Heb. 11:31).
II. Such a course appears to have a rational warrant. The conflict between faith and reason is not the growth of modern times, but one as old as human nature itself. The attempt to hasten the work of God by plans devised by our own wisdom can be defended on many plausible grounds. A sincere man must, in some way, justify such a course to himself, and reason can always aid him. Thus, a believer may unconsciously challenge Divine wisdom, while he thinks all the time that he is doing Gods service. The conduct of Abram and Sarah was capable of some defence on rational grounds. They were sincere, and no doubt their plan appeared to them right and reasonable.
1. There was no human hope that the promise would be accomplished in that form in which they first understood it. Abram thought that God would shortly give him a son, and Sarah expected to be the mother of the promised child. But Abram had now dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. He was already an old man, and his wife had been hopelessly barren for upwards of twenty years. They both still clung to the promise of God, and believed that in some way it would be accomplished. But now there was no human hope that the promise would be fulfilled in that precise form in which they first expected it. Therefore they might reasonably imagine that God had some other way for making His Word good, and that, by using the means which their own wisdom suggested, they were but working out His plan. Abram was assured that He should have an heir, of his own body begotten: but there was no distinct promise that Sarah should be the mother (Gen. 15:4-5). In supposing that the blessing might be conveyed through another channel, they did not appear to be departing from the literal construction of the original promise.
2. They were conforming to the common custom of the country. In the East, such expedients were resorted to for perpetuating the household when all other hope seemed to be gone. It was a method of raising a family by proxy, and it was a virtual adoption of the vicarious posteritythe concubine was said to bear the child upon the knees of the wife (Gen. 30:3).[Jacobus.] They were only adopting methods which they never heard spoken of with censure, and which seemed to be justified by the necessities of the case.
3. The end they sought was worthy in itself. They were assured that, in some way, mighty nations should spring from themabove all the Promised Seed by whom all the families of the earth should be blessed. It was not base passion that prompted them, but a noble desire to fulfil their exalted destiny. They may have employed a questionable policy, but on Sarahs part, at least, it involved some high moral qualitiesgenerosity, self-denial, and zeal.
III. All attempts to be beforehand with Providence imply an infirmity of faith. Faith may be real and yet show weakness in the time of great trial and perplexity. A really strong faith looks to the promise, and to that alone; leaving the ways and means for its accomplishment entirely to God. Such was the nature of Abrams faith at first until he was betrayed into weakness by his wife. All human anticipations of Gods time and purpose, which He Himself in His wisdom has exactly determined, are wrong.
1. They are signs of impatience. Faith has not only to believe the promise of God and to repose a loving confidence in Himself, but also patiently to wait for Him. Waiting is as much a part of our religion as believing. It is the proper attitude of the soul in this state of probation. The trial of our faith worketh patience, and, when patience fails, faith is in that degree impaired.
2. It is not our duty to aid God in the accomplishment of His promises. God knows the whole case, and He has power and wisdom to fulfil His gracious purpose. We are but partial and imperfect judges of the ends He has in view and of the fittest means for attaining them. There is but one path plain and clear to usthe path of present duty. We have but to follow that path, for it is the only certainty upon which we can rely. God will take care of the end, and cause us to realise what we have believed. Faith in duty is faith in God. He that believeth shall not make haste (Isa. 28:16). He shall not make haste to fulfil Gods promises, but rest in them meanwhile, and patiently wait the appointed time. True faith imparts a certain modesty to the habits of the soul. The attempt to assist Providence by the contrivances of our own short-sighted wisdom is presumption.
3. Religion hereby degenerates into fanaticism. In the history of religion fanaticism has chiefly assumed this form, viz., that men strive to realise Gods purposes before their time, and by means which show the hasty, intemperate zeal of short-sighted mortals, and partake not of the solemn and measured progress of the Divine plan. As Gods power is most seen in space, through which His works are scattered, so His wisdom is developed throughout the course of time. The attempt to force His purposes into unnatural ripeness is the very essence of fanaticism. Of such a nature is the communist theory of a perfect and contented human society, and those human anticipations of Gods kingdom on earth which were indulged in by such as the Fifth Monarchy men.
4. Such an interference with the means by which God accomplishes His purpose shows a want of confidence in His power. Faith has one great resource when perplexed by present appearances, and that is the power of God. With Him nothing is impossible. It might, after all, have been Gods design to show forth His power in a most marvellous manner by giving strength to Sarah to conceive at a time when it was naturally impossible. The delay might have been only for the purpose of showing forth His great power by the distinct evidence of His working. When the strength of nature decays, the power of God is most manifest. The faith of Sarah had in it an element of distrust, for it showed a want of confidence in the power of Him who quickens the dead, and calls the things that are not, as though they were. (Rom. 4:17-18.)
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 16:1. God held Abram long in suspense. The difficulties of faith are acknowledged in Scripture.
The faith of true believers may be exposed to a long trial, which may oppress the heart with a settled sorrow.
Gods providence may place natural difficulties in the very face of His most solemn promises.
Gods promises and covenant can scarcely maintain faith in His children against the discouragements of sense.
St. Paul, in the Galatians, dwells upon the name of Hagar, as being the name of Mount Sinai in Arabia, denoting the legal position. And it would seem that Sinai was so called because Hagar, in Arabic, signifies a rock. (Galatians 4.) And this incidental fact St. Paul uses to show the relation between the legal and the Gospel dispensations, and between the two classes of children in Abrams housethe spiritual seed being those of Sarah (the free woman), represented by Isaac; the carnal being those of Hagar (the bondwoman), represented by Ishmael. Hagar represented the Mosaic Sinaitic dispensation, and her children were born in bondage to the law (Judaising), and yet, according to nature, having the husband; while Sarai typified the Gospel system, and represented the Church, long barren, till the gift of a progenythe miraculous seedaccording to promise. (Jacobus.)
Hagar, an Egyptian. Egypt stood then in the same relation to the covenant people as the world does now to the Christian Church. In their anxiety, believers are tempted to avail themselves of the provisions of the world instead of quietly waiting for God.
The things of faith are distant and mysterious. That which the world offers is near and clear. Egypt furnishes a ready solution; but Gods thoughts are above mans thoughts.
In all their wanderings, the influence of the world follows the children of God, and becomes a constant source of trial and danger.
Gen. 16:2. Sarai attributes her barrenness to the will of God. (Psa. 127:3.) It is a noble form of faith which traces back all the events of the world to the highest cause; finds the origin and disposition of all things in the energy of a Living Will.
It is possible to acknowledge Gods power, and yet by our conduct virtually to deny it.
The virtue of a good confession may be well-nigh destroyed by those actions which really contradict our creed.
All the promises made to Abram depended upon one who is to come forth out of his own bowels. Such is the Lords express assurance, and yet he goes childless. His wife, as she herself represents the matter to him, is barren; and it would seem that she is contented to acknowledge her barrenness as hopeless, and to acquiesce in it as a dispensation of God. She does not speak angrily or impatiently, as Rachel did to Jacob, but meekly and submissively she says, The Lord hath restrained me from bearing. It is His will, and His will be done. But surely God can never intend that my barrenness should frustrate His purpose, and make void His promise. There must be some way of getting over this difficulty, and reconciling this apparent inconsistency between the promise that to thee a child is to be bornin whom, as the Great Reconciler, thou and thy posterity, and all the kindreds of men are to be blessedand the Providence which allots to thee a barren, and now aged, spouse. There must be some new expedient to be adopted; some other plan to be tried. It may be that Sarai is to be a mother, as it were by substitute and by proxy, and is to obtain children by her maid; according to the custom already common. And if there be any hesitation about the lawfulness of the course recommended, may it not be justified by the manners of the country sanctioning the usage; by the entire absence of every grosser motivethe end sought being not self-gratification, but the higher good of himself, his children, and the whole human race; and by the necessity of the case, which shuts him up to some such plan? In circumstances so urgent and unprecedented, why should one so favoured and blessed of God have any remaining scruple? It is, in all views of it, an extraordinary position that he occupies; and what he does is not to be judged by common rules. Such was Abrams temptation. (Candlish.)
Unbelief is very prolific of schemes; and surely this of Sarai is as carnal, as foolish, and as fruitful of domestic misery as could almost have been devised. Yet such was the influence of evil counsel, especially from such a quarter, that Abram hearkened to her voice. The father of mankind sinned by hearkening to his wife, and now the Father of the Faithful follows his example. How necessary for those who stand in the nearest relations, to take heed of being snares instead of helps one to another! The plea used by Sarai in this affair shows how easy it is to err by a misconstruction of Providence, and following that as a rule of conduct, instead of Gods revealed will. The Lord, says she, hath restrained me from bearing, and, therefore, I must contrive other means for the fulfilment of the promise. But why not inquire of the Lord? As in the crowning of Adonijah, the proper authority was not consulted.(Fuller.)
There is a stage when grace itself, and the promise of fruitfulness which is connected with it, by acting on our impatience, may so excite as to lead the spirit of faith to try carnal means, even though for ends which God has promised. Indeed impatience, a zeal for God, without a corresponding faith in the zeal of the Lord of Hosts, is ever leading to this. Even to faith it is hard to wait on God, and let Him do His own work in His own way. Thus did Abram hearken to Sarai; and thus excited even by the truth, and with right ends, does the elect yet try his own resources. Christ the true seed is by many longed for ardently. Both in the Church and world we fain would see Him. But He tarries. Then Sarai speaks to those who, though men of faith, are so far from being as dead, that they are still full of self-will. The result is one scheme after another, all aiming to obtain the promised seed, by doing rather than by dying. Vain hope! Ishmaels enough may be thus gotten. Isaacs are not so born.(Jukes: Types of Genesis.)
Abrams temptation was similar to that of Jesus in the wilderness.
1. The temptation of Jesus had reference to a previous declaration of God. The voice from heaven, at His baptism, had declared that He was the Son of God. Therefore Satan rests his temptations upon that word. If thou be the Son of God.
2. Jesus was tempted to employ plausible means to secure His own preservation and advancement. Thus, to turn the stones into bread to preserve His lifeby casting Himself from a pinnacle of the temple, to seek an extraordinary interference of Providence, and so attract public attentionby aiming at the worlds throne lest the world should give Him nothing but a cross. To Christ, therefore, we must look for a perfect example of uniform and complete resistance to temptation. Abram, as all other human examples, do but most serve for a beacon to warn us.
Nature may throw difficulties in the way of faith, but faith should be able to see through nature and behold God who is above it. The soul can only endure as seeing Him who is invisible.
Gen. 16:3. Human experiments for reconciling sense and faith are possible. But Gods purpose cannot in this way be discovered.
There may be a self-sacrifice, in itself praiseworthy, but of no value in the sight of God because He does not demand it. To offer up a service to God, suggested by our own short-sighted activity, and when He does not require it, is of the nature of will-worship.
It is easy to persuade ourselves that we are carrying out the will of God, and acting up to the requirements of true religion, when we are only showing a fanatical devotion to an idea.
Faith in God may require long and patient waiting for Him, but there is no need that we should be anxious as to how He intends to accomplish His will.
Sarai, the wife of Abram, was undoubtedly a godly woman. She is commended as an example to all Christian matrons, who are her daughters as long as they do well. She obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord. With him she came out from among her idolatrous kindred, and with him she was willing to lead the life of a stranger and pilgrim. During all the ten years which they had spent in the land of Canaan she was constantly and faithfully with her husband, sharing all his trials, and witnessing all the great things which the Lord did for him. She was heir, together with him, of the grace of life, and one by whom his prayers were not wont to be hindered. (1Pe. 3:7.) Strange and sad, that at such a season, and from such a quarter, temptation should arise; that after a ten years walk with God, in the very height of privilege, in the full assurance of faith, the faithful companion of his pilgrimage and the helper of his joy should beguile and betray him! After such an instance, who can be secure?at what season, or on what side, secure?(Candlish.)
After Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. This clause is here thrown in as if to show the pressure of discouragement under which Sarai acted in this matter. Abram, after so long a sojourn in the land, yet remained childless. He was now eighty-five years old, and Sarai seventy-five. She was to be to Abram for a wifeto serve the purpose of a wife in this extremity. By the custom, the children of the concubine became the offspring of the wife herself, being regarded as obtained by proxy, and in a vicarious, substitutionary way, so that they were reckoned as hers by adoption. (Exo. 21:7; Deu. 21:10.) Abram might have felt himself at liberty to accede to this proposed arrangement, inasmuch as nothing had been said of Sarai in the case. So the Hebrews have viewed Abrams conduct. The slave girl was at the disposal of the mistressher personal propertyaccording to the oriental custom; and it was only by the consent of Sarai that she could become the secondary wife of Abram. And this step was taken for a declared purpose, and to fulfil the promise of God. But the wrong was in the unbelief which could not trust God to work out His own plans and to fulfil His own promise without such human device. Sarai herself would soon see the wrong, and reap the bitter fruits.(Jacobus.)
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
PART TWENTY-NINE
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM: THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN
(Gen. 16:1-16)
1. The Biblical Account.
1 Now Sarai, Abrams wife, bare him no children; and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, Jehovah hath restrained me from bearing; go in, I pray thee, unto my handmaid; it may be that I shall obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai, Abrams wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife. 4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes; Jehovah judge between me and thee. 6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her that which is good in thine eyes. And Sarai dealt hardly with her, and she fled from her face.
7 And the angel of Jehovah found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. 8 And he said, Hagar, Sarais handmaid, whence camest thou? and whither goest thou? And she said, I am fleeing from the face of my mistress Sarai. 9 And the angel of Jehovah said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. 10 And the angel of Jehovah said unto her, I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of Jehovah said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because Jehovah hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he shall be as a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every mans hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brethren. 13 And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth: for she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me? 14 Wherefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.
15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bare, Ishmael. 16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.
2. The Domestic Drama in Abrams Household (Gen. 16:1-6).
The story of Hagar and Ishmael has real value for the believer. It conveys a lesson both profound and practical. Abram, it will be recalled, was seventy-five years old when he left Haran on receiving Gods covenantal Promise (Gen. 12:4) in which the promise of seed was inherent. Now Abram had reached the age of eighty-five (Gen. 16:3) and the promise of seed had not been fulfilled and indeed seemed impossible of fulfillment in view of the fact that Sarai had passed the normal age of childbearing. Of course, as far as we can know, it had not been explicitly stated that Sarai was the destined mother of the long-promised and anxiously-awaited son; it seems unreasonable, however, to assume anything to the contrary. Therefore, as the prospect of her contributing to the fulfillment of the Promise became more and more remote, she seems to have reached the conclusion that this honor was not reserved for her, and proceeded to take matters into her own hands. She persuaded her husband to take her handmaid, Hagar, an Egyptian, as a kind of secondary wife (concubine), that by her he might obtain what had been denied her (Sarai). Abram evidently was not averse to the arrangement: he consorted with Hagar, and the Egyptian conceived.
The consequences of this unfortunate eventunfortunate because both ill-conceived and ill-timed (because the persons involved were not willing to await Gods own time to fulfill the Promise) seem to be never-ending. After all, it was Gods own Promise that was involved: they needed only to await His will in the matter. Instead of so doing, however, they proceeded to take the situation in hand themselves. In spite of the many instances cited us of Abrahams faith, and in spite of the high evaluation of his faith in the New Testament writings, the fact remains that in this instance his faith was wanting in integrity, else he should have rebuked Sarai for her impatience. (But how many professing Christians in our day (or in any other day, for that matter) would have the faith to hold out for Gods time in a similar situation? We are inclined to think, Very, very few! After all, Abram and Sarai were human, and we have here one of the most far-reaching of human interest stories in literature, and also another proof of the realism of the Biblical record. It is a record in which life is portrayed exactly as men and women lived it, with their frailties as well as their virtues, and their sorrows and disillusionment as well as their joys. The sum and substance of the matter is that the consequences of Sarais rash act failed to bring happiness to any of the persons directly involved (not to mention the innocent victim, Ishmael). In a moment of elation which begat a false pride, Hagar mocked her mistress, who in turn was outraged (she had lost face in the eyes of the Egyptian) and vented her spleen on both Abram and Hagar despite the fact they had done only what she herself had persuaded them to do. The net result was a domestic mess in which Hagar and her son, both indirectly involved, suffered the greater injustices; a situation which is having repercussions in world history even in our own time, the twentieth century.
Archeological discoveries have fully substantiated the details of this incident which occurred some eighteen or twenty centuries prior to the beginning of the Christian era. The practice of a slave woman bearing a child for a childless wife is strange indeed from the point of view of the Western world. But that this was a common practice in the patriarchal world is evident from two sources especially, namely, the Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets. Excavations at Nuzi (or Nuzu), an ancient city of northern Mesopotamia east of the Tigristhe site is now near Kirkuk in Iraqhave uncovered thousands of clay tablets in cuneiform script most of which date back to the 15th and 16th centuries before Christ, at the time when the town was under Hurrian (Horite) domination. From Par. 146 of the Code of Hammurabi we learn that a priestess of certain rank who was free to marry but not to bear children, gave her husband a slave girl in order to provide him with a son. We learn that if the concubine should then have tried to arrogate unto herself a social status of equality with her mistress, the wife should have downgraded her to her former standing as a slave. The wife, however, did not have the right to sell her to others. Speiser (ABG, 120): This law is applicable to the case before us in that (a) the childless wife must herself provide a concubine, (b) the successful substitute must not forget her place. But these provisions are restricted to certain priestesses for whom motherhood was ruled out. No such limitations applied to Sarah. Her case is covered fully, however, in one of the published texts from Nuzi. Here we have an account of a socially prominent family (of no special religious commitments) in which the wife who is childless is required to provide a slave girl as concubine in order that the husband may have an heir. The wife, however, will have legal rights to the offspring. Moreover, if the formerly childless couple should later have a child of their own, they could not thrust out the child of the secondary wife. The other provisions of the Nuzi case are likewise paralleled in our narrative: Sarah is childless, and it is she herself who has pressed a concubine on Abraham (Gen. 16:5). What Sarai did, then, was not so much in obedience to an impulse as in conformance with the family law of the Hurrians, a society whose customs the patriarchs knew intimately and followed often (ABG, 121). (HSB, 27): Archeological evidence of Nuzi customs indicate that in some marriage contracts a childless wife was required to furnish a substitute for her husband. In oriental eyes, childlessness was the greatest of tragedies. Nuzu custom stipulated further that the slave wife and her children could not be sent away. Thus the action of Sarah and Abraham was undoubtedly consonant with the customs of that day. (JB, 31): According to Mesopotamian law a barren wife could present one of her female slaves to the husband and acknowledge the issue as her son. The same is to happen in Rachels case, Gen. 30:1-6, and in Leahs, Gen. 30:9-13.
The personal element in this story is interwoven with the societal and legal: the basic conflict is between certain specific legal rights and natural human feelings. Gen. 16:2Note that Sarai ascribes her failure to bear children to Yahwehs not having given them to her. Said she, Yahweh has shut up my womb, i.e., restrained me from bearing. Does Sarahs action in this case stem from her lack of specific knowledge that she was to be the mother of Abrams child? Or, did she take matters into her own hands and proceed to resolve the problem on her own authority, motivated to some extent by her impatience with God? Certainly her manner of speech indicates a certain measure of petulance. Said she to Abram, Suppose you go in unto my handmaid (i.e., cohabit with her) that perhaps I may be built up by her, i.e., that I may have children by her. And Abram hearkened to his wifes voice, that is, he showed no hesitancy in approving her suggestion. Gen. 16:3Sarah then took Hagar and gave her (i.e., gave her in marriage) to her husband. This happened after ten years of dwelling in the Promised Land, when Abram was eighty-five years old and his wife seventy-five. Truly they had been awaiting Gods fulfillment of the Promise a long, long time, but, as we see it today in the light of the Christian revelation, God could hardly have made known to them His design to produce a birth out of the natural order of such events which would prefigure the Supreme Begetting and Birth of Messiah (Luk. 1:34-35). Still and all, should not their faith have remained steadfast that God would keep His commitment to them? Gen. 16:4When Hagar knew she had conceived, her mistress was lessened in her eyes, that is, Sarah lost caste in the eyes of the Egyptian. Gen. 16:5that Hagars superciliousness irritated Sarai was perfectly natural: what other reaction might have been expected? The Code of Hammurabi states expressly that a slave girl who was elevated to the status of concubine could not claim equality with her mistress (par. 146). After all, a genuine privilege had been granted Hagar, one which she might well have appreciated. Of course the whole transaction was not in accord with the will of God: The Child of Promise could hardly have been the offspring of an Egyptian. Moreover, as we have noted above, Sarah had acted in accord with prevailing Mesopotamian law. Hence we are not surprised to read that she complained to Abram about the contempt which she had received from her maid, saying, Let this injustice come upon thee: now Yahweh must judge between us (that is, between Sarai and Abram. (Cf. Gen. 27:13, Jer. 51:35, Jdg. 11:27, 1Sa. 24:15). I myself put my maid in your lap, said Sarai; not just a fanciful expression, but recognized legal phraseology (ABG, 118). Certainly this was a very imprudent act, even had it not been actually sinful. In calling on Yahweh to referee the case, commentators generally agree that this was an irreverent use of the Divine Name and that Sarahs speech was a tirade which exhibited great passion. Abram replied, The maid is in your hands: deal with her as you see fit. In holding her husband responsible Sarai was well within her legal rights, we are told, as indicated by patriarchal law; Abram, in turn gave her full power to act as mistress toward the maid without elevating the slave, who had been made a concubine, above her original status. In the attitude of the patriarch do we detect an evidence of his peaceful disposition, or his recognition of the fact that he had already discovered his mistake in expecting the promised seed through Hagar, or an attitude of weakness in yielding to Sarais invective, or an unjustifiable wrong inflicted on the future mother of his child? (Cf. PCG, 226). Sarah, despite the undertaking that Hagars sons would be counted as hers (Gen. 16:2) and thus have a claim to the inheritance, sought to drive Hagar away (Gen. 21:10). Abraham acted against the contemporary custom only when given a special assurance from God that he should do so (Gen. 16:12) (NBD, 69). At any rate Sarah dealt harshly with Hagar, we are told; literally applied force to her, threatened her with violence (ABG, 118). Obviously the treatment was severe enough to cause the Egyptian maid to flee from the face of her mistress (Gen. 16:8).
In evaluating the actions and reactions of the dramatis personae of this humanexceedingly humaninterest story, commentators find themselves hard pressed to try to justify the conduct of the three involved. Some, of course, are inclined to be more lenient than others, as will be noted from the following excerpts. (HSB, 27): When Abraham was eighty-six years of age Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (Gen. 16:16). This incident reveals how two genuine believers may seek to fulfill Gods will by normally acceptable methods but spiritually carnal ones. The promise of God was not to Hagar but to Sarah. Sarah suggested the use of Hagar, and Abraham consented to the arrangement. Both were guilty. The birth of Ishmael introduced a people (the nucleus of the later Mohammedans) which has been a challenge both to the Jews and the Christian Church. It was not until Abraham was a hundred years old that Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5). From the length of time between the promise and the fulfillment we can draw the lessons that Gods ways are not our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8-9). Patient waiting would have produced the desired results without the additional problems created by impatience and lack of faith. God always rewards those who have faith to believe His promises. Speiser (ABG, 119): At the personal level, from which the author starts out, the basic conflict is between certain specific legal rights and natural human feelings. We know now the pertinent legal measures as illustrated by the Laws of Hammurabi and the Nuzi documents. The juridical background of the issue before us is as complex as it is authentic, a circumstance that makes the unfolding drama at once more poignant and intelligible. All three principals in the case have some things in their favor and other things against them. Sarah is thus not altogether out of order when she bitterly complains to Abraham that her rights have not been honored (5). Beyond all the legal niceties, however are the tangled emotions of the characters in the drama: Sarah, frustrated and enraged; Hagar, spirited but tactless; and Abraham, who must know that, whatever his personal sentiments, he may not dissuade Sarah from following the letter of the law. The custom of a barren wife giving her handmaid to her husband in order that she might obtain children by her is further attested by Gen. 30:3, according to which the childless Rachel gave her maid Bilhah to Jacob, and by Gen. 30:9, where Leah, who had ceased bearing, gave him Zilpah. The children born of such a union were thus reckoned as the children not of the handmaid, but of the wife, by adoption, the slave girl being delivered on the knees of her mistress (cf. Gen. 30:3). Sarah, however, is unable to go through with the arrangement. Hagars contempt for her childlessness (Gen. 16:4), being more than she can stand. Unreasonably she blames Abraham. The verse throws a significant light upon the tensions inevitable in a polygamous household. (IBG, 605). Lange (CDHCG, 418): The moral motive or impulse of seeking the heir of blessing, made availing to an erroneous and selfish degree, is here torn away from its connection with the love impulse or motive, and exalted above its importance. The substitution of the maid for the mistress, however, must be distinguished from polygamy in its peculiar sense. Hagar, on the contrary, regards herselfin the sense of polygamy, as standing with Sarai, and as the favored, fruitful wife, exalts herself above her. The shadow of polygamy resting on the patriarchal monogamy. Isaacs marriage is free from this. It has the purest New Testament form. Rebecca appears, indeed, to have exercised a certain predominant influence, as the wife often does in the Christian marriage of modern times. Jamieson (CECG, 149): Abram being a man of peace, as well as affectionately disposed towards his wife, left her to settle these broils in her own way. In all households where concubinage exists, the principal wife retains her supreme authority over the inferior ones; and in cases where a slave is brought into the relation with her master that Hagar held to Abram, the maid-servant remains in her former position unchanged, or although some more attentions may be paid to her, she is as much subject to the absolute control of her mistress as before. Sarai, left by Abram to act at discretion, exerted her full authority. Keil and Delitzsch (BCOTP, 219): But as soon as Sarai made her feel her power, Hagar fled. Thus, instead of securing the fulfillment of their wishes, Sarai and Abram had reaped nothing but grief and vexation, and apparently had lost the maid through their self-concerted scheme. But the faithful covenant-God turned the whole into a blessing.
Leupold would be more lenient in dealing with the principals in this narrative. (EG, 494): As is evident from Gen. 16:16, Abram had been in the land about ten years. If we consider the advanced age of both Abram and Sarai, they had surely waited a long time. . . . To Sarai the thought comes that perhaps customary devices may be resorted to. Women of standing like Sarai had their personal maids, who were their own in a special sense. They were the personal property of the wife and were appointed specially to wait upon her. The maid under consideration here happened to be an Egyptian, having been acquired, no doubt, during the brief stay in Egypt (Gen. 12:10 ff.). The custom of those days allowed in a case of this sort that the wife give her maid to her husband as a secondary wife in the hope that the new union would be blessed with offspring, which offspring would then promptly be claimed and adopted by the mistress. No stigma was attached to the position of the maid: she was a wife, though not, indeed, of the same social standing as the first wife. For Sarai to take such a step certainly involved self-sacrifice, even a kind of self-effacement. It was this rather noble mode of procedure on Sarais part that may in part have blinded the patriarchs eyes so that he failed to discern the actual issues involved. Then, also, if we consider the chief servant, Eliezer, and the excellent faith he later displays we may well suppose that the chief maid may have been a woman who was indeed imbued with the faith that reigned in the household and may modestly have been desirous of having a part in the achievement of the high purpose to which this household was destined. Yet, in spite of all that may be said by way of extenuating the fault of the parties involved, it was still a double fault and sin. First, it clashed with the true conception of monogamous marriage, which alone is acceptable with God. Secondly, it involved the employment of human devices seemingly to bolster up a divine purpose which was in any case destined to be achieved as God had originally ordained. In so far the fault involved was unbelief. Concerning Gen. 16:3, the same writer says, It must be quite apparent that to give as a wife must mean to give in marriage. Here was no concubinage but a formal marital union, though Hagar was but the second wife (ibid., p. 496). Again in Gen. 16:4 (ibid., 497): Now at this point the evils of polygamy begin to rear their ugly head. It is always bound to be the fruitful mother of envy, jealousy, and strife. The baser elements in man are unleashed by it. Each of the three characters now appears to disadvantage. Yet we are not compelled now to suppose that such extremes resulted as Jamieson suggestsbursts of temper, or blows. The fine praise that Peter bestows upon Sarai (1Pe. 3:6) hardly allows us to think of her as degenerating into a shrew. When it is remarked of Hagar that her mistress was lightly esteemed in her eyes, that need involve nothing more than that she thought that God had bestowed upon her what He had denied Sarai, and so she thought herself superior to her mistress and showed her disdain in certain ways. This attitude was bound to pain Sarai, who was, no doubt, a woman of high position, while Hagar was only an Egyptian slave. Again, on Gen. 16:5 (ibid., 497): Now Sarais judgment becomes impaired by the bitter feelings roused in her. Hagars wrong leads Sarai to do further wrong. Sin grows more involved. Sarai blames Abram for doing what in reality she had suggested. At least, so it seems. Luther attempts to avoid so crude a charge on her part by supposing that she rather charges Abram with showing certain preferences and honors to Hagar and so becoming the cause of her arrogance. Then her charge would be correct: The wrong done to me is your fault. But the explanation that follows does not interpret the wrong thus. So we shall do better to call hers an unreasonable charge growing out of her wounded pride. . . . The injustice of the charge made by Sarai might well have roused Abram to a heated reply. Indeed with excellent self-control he replies moderately. Finally, on Gen. 16:6 (ibid., 489499): Some charge Abram at this point with being strangely unchivalrous. He is not suggesting cruelty to Sarai nor condoning it. He is merely suggesting the natural solution of the problem. In reality, Sarai is still Hagars mistress. That relation has not really been cancelled. Abram suggests that she use her right as mistress. He does not, however, suggest the use of cruelty or injustice. It is not really said that Sarai did what is unjustifiable. Nor should it be forgotten that Hagar had begun to do wrong and required correction. Apparently also, according to the custom of the times, Abram had no jurisdiction over Hagar directly, for she was esteemed Sarais maid. The Hebrew idiom, do what is good in thine eyes, is our, do what pleases thee. Here, we believe, Sarai is usually wronged. . . . Luther may well be followed, wanted to humble her. When the problem is approached, Sarai is merely regarded as having taken steps to bring Hagar to realize that she had begun to be somewhat presumptuous, such as making her to live with the servants and perform more menial tasks. But, of course, we must allow for sinful excesses on her part. Sarai may not have proceeded with due tact and consideration. In suggesting such a course Abram may too have failed to counsel due caution. Every actor in this domestic drama may have given evidence of shortcomings in one way or another. Hagar, on her part, being somewhat self-willed and independent, refused to accept correction and fled from her. (The present writer cannot help feeling that the foregoing evaluation of the emotions of the three characters in this drama is a somewhat watered down version. The student will have to decide these matters for himself. It is well to have, or course, the various presentations of this domestic drama so that it may be studied from all points of view.)
Does the legal background reflected here conform to actual chronology? The Nuzi archives, we are told, give us some of the most intimate pictures of life in an ancient Mesopotamian community. Note well the following (NBD, 69): The remarkable parallels between the customs and social conditions of these peoples and the patriarchal narratives in Genesis have led some scholars to argue from this for a similar 15th-century date for Abraham and his sons; but there is evidence that many of these customs had been observed for some centuries, and that the Hurrians were already a virile part of the population of N. Mesopotamia and Syria by the 18th century B.C. These parallels provide useful background information to the patriarchal age, and are one of the external factors supporting the historicity of this part of Genesis.
The stories of Ishmael and Isaac also have to do, of course, with the law of inheritance. Indeed this is at the very root of the entire narrative, one might well say, of all the patriarchal narratives. The problems also involves, as we have already learned, the status of Abrahams steward, Eliezer of Damascus. Fortunately, the Nuzi archives make clear the legal aspects of this matter which is stated as follows (NBD, 69): Normally the estate passed to the eldest son, who received a double portion compared with the younger. Should a man (or woman) have no sons, he could adopt as a son a person from outside the family, even if he was a slave. Such an adopted son was expected to care for the man in his old age, to provide proper burial and the maintenance of religious rites (including the pouring of libations), and to continue the family name in return for the property. This may explain Abrams adoption of Eliezer as heir prior to the birth of Isaac (Gen. 15:2-4). Such agreements were legally void if the adopter subsequently had a son of his own; the adoptee then took second place. At Nuzi this process of adoption was extended to become a fiction by which property, legally inalienable, might be sold. A further way of ensuring an heir was the custom, known also from earlier Babylonian texts, whereby a childless wife would give her husband a substitute slave-wife to bear sons. . . . Sarah, despite the undertaking that Hagars sons would be counted as hers (Gen. 16:2) and thus have a claim to the inheritance, sought to drive Hagar away (Gen. 21:10). Abraham acted against the contemporary custom only when given a special assurance from God that he should do so (Gen. 16:12). A survey of Mesopotamian legal procedures will necessarily arise again in our study of the careers of Isaac, Jacob, Esau, etc.
3. The Flight of Hagar (Gen. 16:6). It is difficult to avoid the realistic conclusion, from the language that is used here, that Sarai did actually deal hardly (i.e., harshly) with the pregnant Egyptian maiden, so much so that the latter fled from the presence of her mistress and did not stop until she had gone a long way on the road to Shur. (1) The name Hagar means flight or something similar; cf. the Arab hegira. The name is Semitic, not Egyptian, and perhaps was given to the woman by Abram himself, either when he left Egypt or after her actual flight into the desert. (2) The way to Shur was probably the ancient transport route to Egypt from Beersheba. Shur itself was a locality near the Egyptian border. The land was dry and parched, and Hagar evidently did not waste any time getting to the fountain (oasis) on this route. It seems obvious that the Egyptian was on her way back to her home country; having reached this spot, she had come far enough from Abrams tents to allow herself time to settle her thoughts and feelings, and to look back upon her experience with more soberness and justness than she could have had at the beginning of her flight. The time was fitting for the Angel of the Lord to put in appearance.
4. The Angel of the Lord: the Theophany at the Well (Gen. 16:7-14). The scene is the fountain of water (as yet nameless) in the desert . . . on the way to Shur. The Angel of Yahwe (of Jehovah, of the Lord) found the young woman (by design, of course) at this spot. The Angel of Yahwe is here introduced for the first time as the medium of the theophany. . . . Yahwe Himself in self-manifestation, or, in other words, a personification of the theophany. This somewhat subtle definition is founded on the fact that in very many instances the Angel is at once identified with God and differentiated from Him (cf. Gen. 16:10; Gen. 16:13 with Gen. 16:11) (Skinner, ICCG, 286). Cf. also And the word was with God, and the Word was God, Joh. 1:1). Certainly the Angels identity with Yahweh is fully confirmed in Gen. 16:13. We present here Whitelaws five arguments (PCG, 228) for the view that The Angel of the Lord here is not a created being (hence not one member of the innumerable hosts of ministering spirits, who figure repeatedly in the story of the unfolding of the Plan of Redemption, Heb. 1:14; Heb. 12:22; Col. 1:16, Psa. 148:2; Psa. 148:5, etc.), but the Divine Being Himself, as follows: (1) He explicitly identifies Himself with Yahweh on various occasions, (cf. Gen. 16:13) and with Elohim (Gen. 22:12). (2) Those to whom He makes His presence known recognize Him as divine (Gen. 16:13; Gen. 18:23-33; Gen. 28:16-22; Exo. 3:6; Jdg. 6:11-24; Jdg. 13:21-22). (3) Biblical writers constantly speak of him as divine, calling him Jehovah without the least reserve (Gen. 16:13; Gen. 18:1; Gen. 22:16; Exo. 3:2, Jdg. 6:12). (4) The doctrine here implied of a plurality of persons in the Godhead is in complete accordance with earlier foreshadowings (Gen. 1:26; Gen. 11:7). (5) The organic unity of Scripture would be broken if it could be proved that the central point in the Old Testament revelation was a creature angel, while that of the New is the incarnation of the Godhead (cf. Col. 1:16-19, Joh. 1:1-3; Joh. 1:14). Certainly by the Old Testament writers the Angel of the Lord is recognized as a superior being in a class by Himself: a fact which raises the question, Is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, the Covenant God, identical with the Incarnate Logos (cf. Mic. 5:2, Joh. 10:17-18, 1Co. 10:1-4)? Gosman (CDHCG, 416): The expression [Angel of Jehovah] appears here for the first time. While the Angel of Jehovah is Jehovah himself, it is remarkable, that in the very meaning of the name, as messenger, or one who is sent, there is implied a distinction of persons in the Godhead. There must be one who sends, whose message he bears. Lange (ibid., 416): That this Angel is identical with Jehovah, is placed beyond question in Gen. 16:13-14. The disposition of Hagar, helpless, forsaken, with all her pride, still believing in God, warned by her own conscience, makes it altogether fitting that the Angel of Jehovah should appear to her, i.e., Jehovah himself, in his condescensionmanifesting himself as the Angel. Note the following comment also (JB, 33): In the most ancient texts the angel of Yahweh, Gen. 22:11, Exo. 3:2, Jdg. 2:1, or the angel of God, Gen. 21:17, Gen. 31:11, Exo. 14:19, etc., is not a created being distinct from God, Exo. 23:20, but God himself in a form visible to man. Gen. 16:13 identifies the angel with Yahweh. In other texts the angel of Yahweh is the one who executes Gods avenging sentence: see Exo. 12:23 ff. Note the following summarization (ST, 319): (1) The Angel of Yahweh identifies Himself with Yahweh (Jehovah) or Elohim (Gen. 22:11; Gen. 22:16; Gen. 31:11; Gen. 31:13). (2) The Angel of Yahweh is identified with Yahweh or with Elohim by others (Gen. 16:9; Gen. 16:13; Gen. 48:15-16). (3) The Angel of Yahweh accepts worship due only to God (Exo. 3:2; Exo. 3:4-5; Jdg. 13:20-22. The angel of the Lord appears to be a human messenger in Hag. 1:13, a created angel in Mat. 1:20, Act. 8:26; Act. 12:7. Again, Strong (ST, 319): But commonly, in the O.T., the angel of Jehovah is a theophany, a self-manifestation of God. The only distinction is that between Jehovah in Himself and Jehovah in manifestation. The appearances of the angel of Jehovah seem to be preliminary manifestations of the divine Logos, as in Gen. 18:2; Gen. 18:13, in Dan. 3:25; Dan. 3:28. The N.T. angel of the Lord does not permit, the O.T. angel of the Lord requires, worship (Rev. 22:8-9; cf. Exo. 3:8). Again, ibid., Though the phrase angel of Jehovah is sometimes used in the later Scriptures to denote a merely human messenger or created angel, it seems in the Old Testament, with hardly more than a single exception, to designate the pre-incarnate Logos, whose manifestations in angelic or human form foreshadowed His final coming in the flesh. (Cf. also Joh. 5:13-15, Gen. 15:18-20, Mic. 5:2; Exo. 14:19; Exo. 23:23; Exo. 32:34; Exo. 33:2, cf. 1Co. 10:1-3; 2Sa. 24:15-17, Joh. 17:5, Rev. 19:11-16, etc.). We must recall here our fundamental thesis that the name Elohim is used in the Old Testament to designate God the Creator, and the name Yahweh (Yahwe, Jehovah) is used to designate the Covenant God. There is but one God, of course: hence the former name pictures Him in His omnipotence especially (Isa. 57:15), and the latter portrays Him in His benevolence, goodness, etc., with respect to His creatures, especially man. (Eph. 4:6, 1Ti. 2:5).
The most thoroughgoing exposition of this title, the Angel of Yahweh, or the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of God, etc., is presented by Jamieson (CECG, 149) as follows: Angel means messenger, and the term is frequently used in Scripture to denote some natural phenomenon, or visible symbol, betokening the presence and agency of the Divine Majesty (Exo. 14:19, 2Ki. 19:35, Psa. 104:4). That the whole tenor of this narrative [Gen. 16:7-14], however, indicates living personal being, is allowed on all hands; but a variety of opinions are entertained respecting the essential standing of the messenger of Jehovah. Some think that he was a created angel, one of those celestial spirits who were frequently delegated under the ancient economies to execute the purposes of Gods grace to his chosen; while others convinced that things are predicated of this angel involving the possession of attributes and powers superior to those of the most exalted creatures, maintain that this must be considered a real theophany, a visible manifestation of God, without reference to any distinction of persons. To each of these hypotheses insuperable objections have been urged: against the latter, on the ground that no man hath seen God at any time (Joh. 1:18, Col. 1:15); and against the former, founded on the historical circumstances of this narrative in which the angel of the Lord promises to do what was manifestly beyond the capabilities of any created being (Gen. 16:10), and also did himself what he afterward ascribed to the Lord (cf. Gen. 16:7-8 with Gen. 16:11, last clause). The conclusion, therefore, to which, on a full consideration of the facts, the most eminent Biblical critics and divines have come is, that this was an appearance of the Logos, or Divine person of the Messiah, prelusive, as in many subsequent instances, to his actually incarnate manifestation in the fullness of time (cf. Mic. 5:2). Such was the angel of the Lord, the Revealer of the invisible God to the Church, usually designated by this and the analogous titles of the messenger of the covenant and the angel of his presence. This is the first occasion on which the name occurs; and it has been pronounced a myth, or at least a traditional legend, intended to throw a halo of dignity and mysterious interest on the origin of the Arabs, by recording the special interposition of heaven in behalf of a poor, destitute Egyptian bondwoman, their humble ancestress. But the objection is groundless: the divine manifestation will appear in keeping with the occasion, when it is borne in mind that the angel of the Lord, in guiding and encouraging Hagar, was taking care about the seed of Abraham.
The Angels question, Gen. 16:8, reveals a mysterious knowledge of Hagars experiences, designed, it would seem, to impress the fugitive with a full conviction of the supernatural, the divine character of the speaker, and a lively sense of her sin in abandoning the station in which His providence had placed her.
The Angels Command: Hagar must return to her mistress, that is, she must correct the existing wrong she has done, her self-willed departure from her regular status in life; for Sarai is still mistress, by the Egyptians own admission (Gen. 16:8). The accomplishment of her sons great destiny must depend on her maintaining proper connections with Abrams family. She must put duty first, and retrace her steps to Hebron. Plain, dutiful submission . . . is sufficient for Hagar; nor would Sarai, after this experience with the Angel became known, have asked any more.
The Angels Revelations were three: (1) she must return and submit herself to her mistress, Gen. 16:9; (2) she will be the ancestress of countless offspring, Gen. 16:10; (3) She shall bear a son and this son shall bear a name that shall always be a reminder to all concerned that God in a very signal way heard the cry of this woman in her hour of great distress, Gen. 16:11. Ishmael means literally God hears. Yahweh hath heard thy affliction: the inference is unavoidable that Hagar in her distress had cried out to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It should be noted that the three consecutive verses here, 9, 10, 11, begin with the same statement, And the Angel of Yahweh said unto her.
5. The Prophecy Concerning Ishmael and His Seed (Gen. 16:11-12).
(1) By disposition Ishmael shall be a wild ass of a man: a fine image of the free intractable Bedouin character which is to be manifested in Ishmaels descendants (Skinner, ICCG, 287). Ishmael will be among human families what the wild ass is among animals (cf. Job. 39:5-8, Jer. 2:24). Ishmael descendants are the desert Arabs who are as intractable and vagrant as the wild ass (JB, 33). (2) His hand shall be against every man, and every mans hand against him, thus descriptive of the rude, turbulent, and plundering character of the Arabs (Jamieson, CECG, 150). This describes most truly the incessant state of feud, in which the Ishmaelites live with one another or with their neighbors (Keil and Delitzsch, (BCOTP, 220). (3) And he shall dwell over against all his brethren (over against means to the east, cf. Gen. 25:18). The geographical meaning is included here, but much greater significance is to be attached to this statement. Ishmael and his progeny shall live in defiance or disregard of their own kinsmen (cf. Deu. 21:16, to the disregard of the older son of the unloved wife). This passage indicates also that Ishmael would maintain an independent standing before (in the presence of) all the descendants of Abraham. History has confirmed this promise. The Ishmaelites have continued to this day in free and undiminished possession of the extensive peninsula between the Euphrates, the Straits of Suez, and the Red Sea, from which they have overspread both Northern Africa and Southern Asia (Keil-Delitzsch, ibid., p. 221).
Gen. 16:13-14. Hitherto Hagars position had been growing increasingly difficult, but now she knew that Yahweh cares, that He was looking after her, that He is a God who sees. She aptly invents the name for Yahweh, El Roi. El Roi means God of vision. Lahai Roi may mean, the well of the Living One who sees me; to this place Isaac was to come, Gen. 24:62, Gen. 25:11 (JB, 33). (To Hagar, Yahweh was the God who sees in the sense of being the God who cares. Leupold (EG, 506): No mortal to whom God appeared ventured to look directly into or upon the glorious countenance of the Lord. Even Moses in answer to his special request could not venture to take such a step (Exo. 33:23). So here very tersely Hagar described what happened in her case. When Yahweh appeared, she indeed conversed with Him; but only as He departed did she look after Him. So at least she appears to have understood that no sinful mortal can see Gods countenance directly and live (see Exo. 33:20). So she did not even attempt so rash a thing. But to her God now is a God who sees me, i.e., cares for me. Hagars experiences became known, and as a result of what she said, the well came to bear the name descriptive of her experience. God is called the Living One. Quite properly so, because the fact that He has regard for the needs of those who call upon Him, stamps Him as truly a Living God and not a dead conception. The Location of the well: between Kadesh and Bered (Gen. 16:14). Bered has never been located. Kadesh is the site commonly designated Kadesh Barnea (cf. Jos. 15:3, Num. 13:3-26, Deu. 9:23, etc.), forty miles due south and a little to the west of Beersheba. Skinner (ICCG, 228): In Arab tradition the well of Hagar is plausibly enough identified with Ain-Muweilih, a caravan station about 12 miles to the W. of Kadesh. The well must have been a chief sanctuary of the Ishmaelites; hence the later Jews, to whom Ishmael was a name for all Arabs, identified it with the sacred well Zemzem at Mecca. Leupold (EG, 503): So it comes to pass that two vast nations, the Jews and the Ishmaelites, are descended from Abraham. No further spiritual advantage is attached to the advantage of numbers (cf. Gen. 16:10).
The Birth of Ishmael (Gen. 16:15-16). Certainly there can be no doubt that Hagar did as the Angel of Yahweh told her to do, and having returned to Abrams household at Hebron, she bore him a son in his 86th year. He gave the child the name Ishmael. It appears that he may have regarded Ishmael as the promised seed, until, thirteen years later, the counsel of God was more clearly unfolded to him (cf. KD, COTP, 222).
6. The Historical Fulfillment of the Prophecy.
The fulfillment in history of the oracle (Gen. 16:12) concerning the future of Ishmaels seed is precise in every detail, and unqualifiedly stamps the prediction a prophetic revelation from God. The details of this fulfillment are presented so authentically by Dr. Henry Cooke (Self-Interpreting Bible, Vol. I, The Pentateuch, pp. 238239) that we feel justified in reproducing it here verbatim, as follows:
Ver. 1012. Here it is foretold that Ishmael and his seed should be wild free men, like wild asses: mischievous to all around them, and extremely numerous. For almost four thousand years the fulfillment has been amazingly remarkable. Ishmael had twelve sons, who gave rise to as many tribes or nations, called by their names, and who dwelt southward in Arabia, before the face or in the presence of their near relations, the Ammonites, Moabites, descendants of Keturah, Edomites, and Jews (Gen. 17:20; Gen. 21:13; Gen. 21:18; Gen. 25:11-18). All along they have been a nuisance and plague to the nations around them; infamous for theft, robbery, revenge, pillage, and murder. It has therefore been the continued and common interest of mankind to extirpate them from the earth. But though almost every noted conqueror who has appeared in the world, whether Hebrew, Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, Grecian, Roman, Tartar, or Turkish, has pushed his conquest to their borders, or even beyond them into Egypt or Arabia Felix, not one has ever been able to subdue these Ishmaelites, or deprive them of their freedom. The mighty Shishak, King of Egypt, was obliged to draw a line along their frontiers for the protection of his kingdom from their ravaging inroads. The Assyrians under Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, and the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar, greatly harassed them, and almost extirpated some of their tribes (Isa. 2:11-17, Num. 24:22; Jer. 25:23-24; Jer. 49:28-33).
Provoked with their contempt, Alexander the Great made vast preparations for their utter destruction; but death cut short his purpose. Antigonus, one of his valiant captains and successors, provoked with their depredations, more than once, but to his repeated dishonor, attempted to subdue them. Flushed with his eastern victories, Pompey, the famed Roman general, attempted to reduce them; but his army being recalled when they had hopes of gaining their purpose, these wild Arabs pursued them, almost at their heels, and dreadfully harassed the Roman subjects in Syria. Augustus, the renowned emperor, made one or more fruitless attempts to subdue them. About A.D. 110, Trajan, one of the most powerful emperors and valiant generals that ever filled the Roman throne, with a mighty army, determined if possible to subdue them, and laid siege to their capital. But storms of hail, which are scarcely ever seen in this country, thunder, lightning, whirlwind, swarms of flies, and dreadful apparitions in the air, terrified or repulsed his troops as often as they repeated their attacks. About eighty years after, Severus, another warlike emperor, determined to punish their siding with Niger, his rival, by an utter reduction of them. But, after he had made a breach on the wall of their principal city, an unaccountable difference between him and his faithful European troops obliged him to raise the siege, and leave the country.
In the seventh century of the Christian era, these Ishmaelites, under Mahomet, their famed impostor, and his successors, furiously extended their empire, and their new and false religion, through a great part of Asia and Africa, and even some countries of Europe (Rev. 9:1-11). Since the fall of their empire, the Turks have made repeated attempts to subdue them; but instead of succeeding, they have been obliged, for near three hundred years past, to pay them a yearly tribute of forty thousand crowns, for procuring a safe passage for their pilgrims to Mecca, the holy city, where Mahomet was born. If, to fulfill his promise, God has done so much for protecting the temporal liberty of miscreants, what will he not do for the salvation of his people!
Ver. 12The wild ass (pere, the Hebrew word here translated wild) was the emblem of wild, rude, uncontrollable freedomtotal disregard of the law and social restraint (Job. 24:5; Job. 11:12). Such has ever been, and still is, the character of the Arab. He roams free through his native desert. No power has been able to control his movements, or to induce or compel him to accept the settled habits of civilized life. His hand has been, and is, against every man who, without his protection, enters his country; and the hand of every surrounding ruler has been and is against him. Yet he dwells to this day, as he has done for nearly forty centuries, in the presence of all his brethren. He meets them on the east, west, north, and south; and none can extirpate or subdue him. . . . Against every man and every mans hand against him. The descendants of Ishmael were divided into tribes, after the manner of the Jews, differing to a certain extent in dispositions, habits, character, and government. Many of them made great advances in civilization and learning; and exhibited the ordinary aspect of powerful, settled, and regular communities. Still there has been a vast number, of whom the Bedouins are most generally known, who have, in all ages, practically and literally realized this prediction, and lived, as they still do, in a state of uninterrupted hostility with all men, seeking no home but the desert, submitting to no law but their will, and acknowledging no right but their sword; their hand against every man, and every mans hand against them.And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. To ascertain the meaning of this sentence, we must recollect that one peculiarity in the prophecies concerning the Jewsanother branch of the Abrahamic treewas, Deu. 28:64, And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other. Now this was foretold of the child of the promise, the descendants of Isaac; but of Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman, it is said, He shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren, that is, while Israel shall be scattered, dispersed, and outcast, Isa. 11:12, from the land promised to Abram, Ishmael shall abide in the land promised to Hagar. The event has verified the prediction, and proved that it proceeded from him who determined the bounds of their habitation. Israel is scattered in judgment as chaff of the thrashing-flour; Ishmael abides immovable as Sinai. (Cf. Luk. 21:24, Act. 17:26). (Explanatory: the name Arabia Felix, as used above, has reference to Yemen and surrounding area; Arabia Petraea was the name by which the northern part of the Arabian world was known, that which bordered on the Negeb and the adjacent Sinaitic peninsula. The latter derived its name from the capital city, Petra, of the Aramaic-speaking Nabataean Arabs. Petra was some fifty miles south of the Dead Sea. The Nabataeans derived from Nebaioth, son of Ishmael and brother-in-law of Edom (Esau): cf. Gen. 25:13; Gen. 28:9, etc. It should be noted here that the Apostle Paul (Gal. 4:25) identifies Agar as the Arabian name of Sinai. It is not clear where Paul thought Sinai lay; but Strabo speaks of drawing a line from Petra to Babylon which would bisect the regions of the Nabateans, Chauloteans (Havilah), and Agreans. The last-named people, who appear as Hagrites in 1Ch. 5:19, may well have furnished the name for Hagar. Indeed, El Hejar, an important Arabian road junction, may preserve the name of the Hagrites. Their earlier habitat may have been more westerly. That Hagar is Egyptian suggests residence in the north Sinaitic area (Kraeling, BA, 69). It would be well for the student to familiarize himself with the archaeological discoveries at Petra: it is one of the most important historical centers of the ancient Near East.
We cannot close this phase of our study without remarking that the age-long conflict between the sons of Isaac and the sons of Ishmael has reached fever heat in our own time, following the establishment of the Jewish state of Israeli, and threatens to plunge the world into another global war. One of the anomalies of the present situation is the collusion of the Arab world under Nasser the Egyptian dictator, a Mohammedan, with the atheistic totalitarian state of the Russian Leninists, particularly in view of the fact that Islamism is the most rigidly monotheistic religion in the world. Even in our day, moreover, the Arab political regimes are despotisms in the true sense of the term: they have none of the characteristics of a democracy. It is interesting too that the Turks, although Mohammedans also, are of Mongolian extraction and hence do not aline themselves with the Arab world. These various facts call for an examination of the term anti-Semitic, which is bandied about so loosely, as meaning only anti-Jew. But the Arabs are also Semitic, as are the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, and other peoples of the same part of the world. The languages usually classified as Semitic are the Phoenician, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, and Arabic. Thus it will be seen that anti-Semitism is a term which cannot be used rightly to designate only those who are opposed to Jews. It is time for these weighted terms, phrases, and cliches, to be stripped of their overtones and used in their true signification.
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
The Friend of God
Isa. 41:8; 2Ch. 20:7; cf. Jas. 2:23.
Many eminent philosophers, essayists, poets, etc., have written eloquently on the subject of friendship. Aristotle, for example, in Books Eight and Nine of his Nicomachean Ethics, tells us that there are three kinds of friendship, corresponding in number to the objects worthy of affection. These objects (objectives) are usefulness, pleasure, and virtue. Virtue, in Aristotles thought, means an excellence. He writes: The perfect form of friendship is that between good men who are alike in excellence or virtue. For these friends wish alike for one anothers good because they are good men, and they are good per se, that is, their friendship is something intrinsic, not incidental. Those who wish for their friends good for their friends sake are friends in the truest sense, since their attitude is determined by what their friends are and not by incidental considerations. To sum up: True friendship is that kind of affection from which all selfish ends are eliminated. This Aristotelian concept is indicated in Greek by the word philia (brotherly love), as distinct from eros (passion, desire, lust) and from agape (reverential love). Cicero, in his famous essay On Friendship (De Amicitia) writes in similar fashion: It is love (amor), from which the word friendship (amicitia) is derived, that leads to the establishing of goodwill. . . . in friendship there is nothing false, nothing pretended; whatever there is is genuine and comes of its own accord. Wherefore it seems to me that friendship springs rather from nature than from need, and from an inclination of the soul joined with a feeling of love rather than from calculation of how much profit the friendship is likely to afford. One is reminded here of Augustines doctrine of pure love for God: Whosoever seeketh of God any thing besides God, doth not love God purely. If a wife loveth her husband because he is rich, she is not pure, for she loveth not her husband, but the gold of her husband. Who seeks from God any other reward but God, and for it would serve God, esteems what he wishes to receive, more than Him from whom he would receive it (See Everymans Library, The Confessions, p. 52, n.). That is to say, the noblest motivation to the Spiritual Life is neither the fear of punishment nor the hope of reward, but love for God simply because He is God (cf. Joh. 3:16, 1Jn. 4:7-21).
The title Friend of God undoubtedly comes from the passages cited above from Isaiah and Second Chronicles. It is given to Abraham also by Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. chs. 10, 17). It was Abrahams special privilege to be known by this title among the Jews, and to our own day he is known also among the Arabs as El Khalil, equivalent to the Friend. We recall here what God had to say in praise of His servant Job (Job 1-8), and when His praise was challenged by the Adversary (1Pe. 5:8), God accepted the challenge and proved Jobs uprightness by his stedfastness under the pressure of the most terrible calamities. We may rest assured that when God speaks approvingly of one of His great servants, He speaks the truth as always. So it was in Abrahams case: when God called Abraham His Friend, we may sure that the patriarch was His Friend with all that this term means to God Himself.
A man may have all the silver and gold in the world, but if he has not friends, he is poor. He may operate factories and mills, live in mansions of brick or stone; he may possess acres of real estate, vast rolling plains and valleys; he may have oil wells scattered about, everywhere; indeed he may be a billionaire, but if he has not friends, he is nothing. The most priceless possession in this world is a true friend. It is a wonderful thing to have in ones heart true friendship for others. It is a sanctifying sentiment that ennobles the soul and enhances ones conviction of the dignity and worth of the person. But if to be a friend of man is wonderful, how much more wonderful it is to be a friend of God! Remember the definition of a friend by a woman in mourning: A friend is one who comes in when the world goes out. I believe that the business of Heaven must have stopped for just a moment when God pronounced above the bier of Abraham the words, My Friend. What an epitaph!
What was it in Abrahams career that made the patriarch worthy of being called the Friend of God?
1. Abraham believed God. The faith of Abraham was of such quality that the patriarch has gone down in history as the father of the faithful (Rom. 4:11; Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:9; Gal. 3:23-29). Abram was seventy-five years old when the Call came to him. The Call was specific and the Divine promises were definite. He was to establish a family and father a great nation; his name was to be great; and through him all the peoples of earth were to be blessed. That was what God said. Faith is taking God at His word, and, nothing doubting, Abram gathered his substance together and all the family, including Lot, his brothers son, and left Ur of the Chaldees. At Haran they left the rest of their immediate kin behind and they themselves pushed on to an unknown destination. They went by faith, not knowing whither they went or where the end of their journey would be. Theirs was in every sense of the word the pilgrimage of faith. (Rom. 10:8-17, Heb. 11:8-12). Faith is the substance of things hoped for (that which stands under hope) and a conviction with respect to things not seen. So it was in Abrams case: he went out, not knowing whither he went (Heb. 11:1; Heb. 11:8; cf. 2Co. 4:16-18). Note Gen. 12:1-4. God said to Abram, etc., etc., and Abram went, as Jehovah had spoken unto him. Where else can we find so great a communication so simply expressed? And where an answer expressing so much in so few words that mean so much to the human race? That Call to Abram and Abrams response changed the entire course of human history.
2. Abram heard the Call, and Abram obeyed. (1) His faith led to works of faith. We hear a great deal about faith only as equivalent to conversion. There is no such thing as faith only: the Bible does not teach salvation by faith only any more than it teaches salvation by baptism only (1Pe. 3:21). What would faith only be? What could it be but a pseudo-intellectual acquiescence that lacks any kind of real commitment? But Christian faith includes not only belief and confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mat. 16:16; Mat. 10:32-33; Rom. 10:9-10), but also the commitment of the whole manin spirit and soul and body (1Th. 5:23; cf. Rom. 12:1-2)to the authority and example of Christ (Col. 3:17). (2) Hence, the testimony of James that as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead (Jas. 2:14-26). James argument is twofold: (a) Faith that does not manifest itself in works (acts) of faith is dead, because it is only profession without practice; (b) even the devils believe and tremble: how worthless, then, must be faith alone! But does not this contradict what the Apostle Paul says in Rom. 3:20, By works of law shall no flesh be justified (accounted righteous) in Gods sight. At first glance this statement from James appears to be diametrically opposed to Pauls teaching: for (1) Paul says, Rom. 3:28, We reckon that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law, whereas James asserts that faith without works is dead, and that man is justified by works and not only by faith (Jas. 2:26; Jas. 2:24). (2) Paul speaks of Abraham as justified by faith (Romans 4, Gal. 3:6 ff.), James says that he was justified by works (Jas. 2:21). (3) Paul, or the writer of Hebrews, appeals to the case of Rahab as an example of faith (Heb. 11:31), but James cites her as an example of justification by works (Jas. 2:25). Gibson (PC, James, in loco): The opposition, however, is only apparent: for (1) The two apostles use the word erga in different senses. In St. Paul it always has a deprecatory sense, unless qualified by the adjective kala or agatha. The works which he denies to have any share in justification are legal works, not those which he elsewhere denominates the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), which are the works of which St. James speaks. (2) The word pistis is also used in different senses. In St. Paul it is pistis di agapes energoumene (Gal. 5:6) [i.e., faith working through reverential love]; in St. James it is simply an orthodox creed, even the devils pisteuousi (Jas. 2:19); it may, therefore, be barren of works of charity. (3) The Apostles are writing against different errors and tendencies: St. Paul against those who would impose the Jewish law and the rite of circumcision upon Gentile believers; St. James against the self-complacent orthodoxy of the Pharisaic Christian, who, satisfied with the possession of a pure monotheism and vaunting his descent from Abraham, needed to be reminded not to neglect the still weightier matters of self-denying love. . . . (4) The Apostles regarded the new dispensation from different standpoints. With St. Paul it is the negation of the law: Ye are not under Law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14). With St. James it is the perfection of Law. The term works has come to indicate different categories of human acts. (1) By works of the Law the Apostle Paul surely has reference to human acts included in the keeping of the Mosaic Law, both the Decalogue and the ritualistic aspect of it. Obviously, no human being does or even can keep the Ten Commandments perfectly: the sad fact is that all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). One must obey the requirements of the Decalogue to be considered a moral man: unfortunately in the view of the commonality morality is usually identified with respectability. Christianity demands infinitely more than obedience to the Law of Moses: it requires total commitment to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2), the royal law, the perfect law of liberty (Jas. 2:8, Mat. 22:34-40, Jas. 1:25, 2Co. 3:17), of which Love is essentially the fulfillment (Rom. 13:10). Law is designed to distinguish right from wrong, and to protect the weak from the strong, but Law is powerless to save a single human soul. Salvation is by grace, through faith (Eph. 2:8): Grace overtures and states the conditions, and man by faith accepts and obeys, and so receives the fulfillment of the Divine promises. (2) Again, in the gobbledygook of medieval pseudo-Christianity, such practices as indulgences, penance, counting beads, bowing before images, keeping feasts and fasts and solemn processions, sprinkling holy water as a feature of ritualistic priestly blessings, extreme unction, praying souls out of purgatory, etc., etc., were often categorized as works by the Protestant reformers, beginning, of course, with Luther. But in our time Protestantism has ceased to protest: it too has drifted into a crass legalism and spiritless ritual (when not superseded entirely by the much-vaunted social gospel), a form of religion lacking the spirit thereof (hence, lacking the Holy Spirit), a state of the inner man which Jesus thoroughly despised. The two sins which He anathematized above all others were formalism and hypocrisy. (Cf. Matt., chs. 5, 6, 7, 23). (3) The works which James writes about are of a different kind altogether. They are works which proceed inevitably from the truly regenerated heart, from a living and active faith, the faith that leads to just such works of faith, without which religion is nothing but an empty shell, a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal (Cff. Mat. 3:7-9; Mat. 25:31-46; Luk. 13:3; Luk. 3:7-14; Gal. 5:22-24; Jas. 1:27; Jas. 2:14-26, etc.). James is simply reiterating here the universal principle laid down by Jesus, and confirmed by human experience, that a tree is known by its fruit (Mat. 7:16-20). (4) Baptism, the Communion, the tithes and offerings, almsgiving, worship, praise, meditation, prayer: by no stretch of the imagination can these acts be designated works; first, last, and always, they are acts of faith. They proceed only and inevitably from faith, and only from faith that is far more than mere intellectual assent, that is, from faith that is as living and active as the Word itself (Heb. 4:12). When God commands, faith raises no questions, but proceeds to take God at His word and to do what God commands to be done. Genuine faith will never start an argument at the baptismal pool. (5) Of course, the motivating principle of the Spiritual Life from beginning to end is faith, Repentance is faith deciding, choosing, willing; confession is faith declaring itself; baptism is faith witnessing to the facts of the Gospel (Rom. 6:17-18); the Communion is faith memorializing; worship is faith praising, thanking, adoring; the assembly of the saints is faith fellowshipping, etc. Any act that is Christian must be an act of faith. From the cradle to the grave the true Christian lives and acts, to the best of his knowledge and ability, by faith (Rom. 5:1), and by a faith that is full commitment.
3. This principle of obedient faith runs throughout the Spiritual Life, indeed it motivates it and controls it. God recognized Abraham as His Friend on the ground that Abraham did what He commanded him to do. This does not mean that he was perfect, but that his disposition, as in the case of Noah (Gen. 7:1; Gen. 6:22), was to obey God in all things. Of course, as we all know, Abraham did slip a little from the plumb line at times (cf. Amo. 7:7-8), but admittedly the temptation was great. Abraham, like all of us, even the most devoted Christian, was a creature with all the weaknesses of his kind. It is difficult for any of us to attain a state of complete trust either in God or in our fellows, and many times we are compelled to cry out, as did the Apostles of old, Lord, increase our faith (Luk. 17:5). But we have the assurance that like as a father pitieth his children, so Jehovah pitieth them that fear him; for he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust (Psa. 103:13), and we have His promise that His grace is sufficient for our support if we will but call on Him for spiritual strength that we may need (2Co. 12:9, Rom. 8:26-28, 1Co. 10:13, 2Pe. 2:9, etc.).
Conclusion: God requiresand expectsthe same obedient faith on the part of His saints in all Dispensations, in ours as well as in those preceding it. Jesus makes this so clear that no one can misunderstand or claim ignorance as an alibi. If ye love me, said He, ye will keep my commandments (Joh. 14:15). Again, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (Joh. 15:13). But our Lord hath greater love than this, in that He laid down His life even for His enemies, for the sin of the whole world (Joh. 1:29). Again: Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you (Joh. 15:14). The obedience of faith is the ultimate proof of friendship. Thisour Lord Himself declaresis the essence of His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat. 7:24-27). Practice, He tells us, rather than profession, is the ultimate evidence of ones faith (Mat. 7:21-23). He is the Author of salvation to one class onlyunto all them that obey him (Heb. 5:9).
Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you. It would be blind faith, to be sure, to do what a man commands just because he commands it. But it is intelligent faith to do what our Lord commands just because He commands it. It is always intelligent faith to do what is commanded by Perfect Wisdom, Perfect Justice and Perfect Love, as incarnate in the Logos, Gods Only Begotten. This is true, simply because Perfect Wisdom and Justice and Love would command only that which contributes to the good of His saints. Surely, then, Abraham deserved the title, Friend of God. Gen. 15:6And he [Abraham] believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness. Abrahams belief manifested itself in obedience: when God called, Abraham heard, believed, and obeyed: this is what faith always does, if it is truly faith. Hence, when the ultimate proof came on Moriah (Gen. 22:2), the patriarch did not question, quail, or fail. He met the test in a sublime manifestation of the obedience of faith (Gen. 22:9-14). Trust and obey, for theres no other way, To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.
Would you be a friend of God? Then believe as Abraham believed, obey as Abraham obeyed, trust as Abraham trusted, walk as Abraham walked, give as Abraham gave (Gen. 14:18-20), sacrifice as Abraham sacrificed (Mat. 12:46-50; Mat. 10:37), die in faith as Abraham died in faith, anticipating that City which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Heb. 11:10). Will you not come now and start on that same glorious pilgrimage of faith that leads the faithful to that same City, New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2)?
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TWENTY-NINE
1.
What important lessons are to be obtained from the story of Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael?
2.
What, probably, was Sarais motive in proposing that Abram take Hagar as his secondary wife?
3.
What are some of the apparently never-ending consequences of this event?
4.
What was the status of a concubine under Mesopotamian law?
5.
Why do we say that this event was ill-conceived and ill-timed?
6.
Do you thinks that the Apostles statement in Act. 17:30 has relevance in respect to this event? Explain your answer.
7.
On what grounds are we justified in criticizing Sarai and Abram for their hasty action?
8.
How does this story point up the realism of the Bible?
9.
What was Hagars sin following the awareness of her pregnancy? How did Sarai and Abram react to Hagars attitude?
10.
Explain how archeological discoveries have substantiated the details of this story. What do we learn from the Code of Hammurabi that is relevant to it? What do we learn from the Nuzi tablets?
11.
What was Sarais attitude toward Abram at this time? What was Abrams reply?
12.
Why do we say that Sarai used the Divine Name irreverently (Gen. 16:5)?
13.
How is Sarais treatment of Hagar variously interpreted (Gen. 16:6) ?
14.
Is it conceivable that Abram might have been prepared to accept Ishmael as the Child of Promise? Explain your answer.
15.
What does this incident teach us about the quality of genuine faith?
16.
Was not the sin of Abram and Sarai their failure to await Gods own pleasure as to the fulfillment of His promise? Explain.
17.
What always happens when men presume to take matters of Divine ordination into their own hands?
18.
Explain how Leupold deals more leniently with the principals in this story.
19.
How was childlessness regarded in patriarchal times?
20.
Explain the special far-reaching significance of the childlessness of Abram and Sarai.
21.
How does the legal background reflected in this story conform to the actual time element?
22.
Explain how the stories of Ishmael and Isaac have to do with the law of inheritance in the Patriarchal Age.
23.
What caused Hagar to flee from Sarais presence?
24.
What is indicated by the direction of Hagars flight? Explain what was meant by the way to Shur. What and where is the Negeb?
25.
Describe the theophany which occurred at the fountain of water.
26.
Discuss fully the problem of the true identity of the Angel of Jehovah (Yahwe).
27.
What interpretation of this title is in greatest accord with Biblical teaching as a whole?
28.
Cite other Scriptures in which this Personage is pictured as taking a prominent role.
29.
What reasons have we for not thinking of Him as a created being?
30.
What reasons have we for thinking of Him as a preincarnate manifestation of the Eternal Logos?
31.
What was the threefold revelation of the Angel to Hagar? Explain the Angels question, command, and promise, respectively.
32.
State the details of the prophetic statement concerning Ishmael and his seed.
33.
What did Hagar learn from this visit of the Angel of the Lord?
34. What did Hagar name this famous well? Explain what the name means? What is its probable location?
35.
Where did Hagar go, following the Angels visit?
36.
Show how the Angels statement regarding the destiny of Ishmaels seed is fulfilled throughout history and even in our own time.
37.
What is occurring today between the seed of Ishmael and Isaacs seed?
38.
Explain the full meaning of the term anti-Semitic How is it being used erroneously today.
39.
On what grounds are we justified in accepting Abraham as the Friend of God?
40.
What is the norm by which our Lord Jesus distinguishes His friends from followers afar off? (Mat. 26:58).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XVI.
THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN.
(1) Now Sarai.The history of Abram is given in a succession of brief narratives, written possibly by the patriarch himself; and though papyrus was known at Ur (Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch., i. 343, ii. 430), yet the absence of any convenient writing material for ordinary use would oblige men in those ancient days to content themselves with short inscriptions, like those tablets of clay brought from Ur, many of which now in the British. Museum are said to be considerably older than the time of Abram. The narrator would naturally make but few alterations in such precious-documents, and hence a certain amount of recapitulation, like that which we find in the Books of Samuel, where again we have not a narrative from one pen, but the arrangement of materials already ancient. As, however, the Divine object was the revealing to mankind of the way by which God would raise up man from the fall, the narrator would be guided by inspiration in his choice of materials, and in the omission of such things as did not fall in with this purpose; and the evident reverence with which he deals with these records is a warrant to us of their genuineness. Such additions as the remark that the Valley of Shaveh was many centuries later called the Kings Dale (Gen. 14:17; 2Sa. 18:18) are generally acknowledged to have been the work of Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue, after the return from the exile.
Hagar.As this word apparently comes from the Arabic verb to flee, it cannot have been her original name, unless we suppose that she really was an Arab fugitive who had taken refuge in Egypt. More probably she was an Egyptian woman who had escaped to Abram when he was in the Negeb, and had then received this appellation, which virtually means run-away.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Handmaid A family servant, whose special duty it was to wait upon the mistress of the household . The Sept . has , a young girl, or a young female slave . From her being here called an Egyptian, we infer that Abram obtained her during his sojourn in Egypt, when he received from Pharaoh “menservants and maidservants . ” Gen 12:16. The name Hagar means flight . So, also, the well-known Arabic word hezrah or hegira, used so commonly in the flight of Mohammed from Mecca . It may have been given to Sarai’s handmaid after her flight from her mistress, and used here proleptically; or it may have been given her on account of her departure out of Egypt.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now Sarai, Abram’s wife bore him no children, and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said to Abram, “Look, now, Yahweh has restrained me from bearing. Go in, I beg you, to my handmaid. It may be that I will obtain a child by her”.’
Sarai knows of God’s promises to Abram, the covenant promises. But she has reached the age when it is unlikely she will have a child. As time passes she grieves for the dilemma of her husband. She has an Egyptian handmaid, probably one of those given to Abram by Pharaoh, and she proposes that Abram has a child by her handmaid and that they adopt the child as Abram’s heir.
She is aware what it has meant to Abram not to have an heir, and as they grow older together she is concerned to give him satisfaction. What she proposes was in accordance with custom, and it will remove her shame. It was an accepted practise that a wife’s servant, being her slave and not her husband’s, could bear a child for her through her husband, and because the slave was hers the child was hers also. If a natural son was born later many examples elsewhere allow for him to replace the adopted son.
Thus the tablets from ancient Nuzi give an interesting near-parallel to this practise – ‘If Gilimninu (the bride) will not bear children, Gilimninu shall take a woman of N/Lulluland (where the best slaves came from) as a wife for Shennima.’ The slave woman would improve in status but would remain of inferior status to the real wife. (Compare Gen 30:3; Gen 30:9 – there the slave woman bears ‘on the knees’ of her mistress. That is, her child will be her mistress’s).
Nuzi dates later than Genesis (15th Century BC), but similar records have been recovered from other earlier sites such as Ur, Kish, Ebla, Alalakh, Mari and Boghazkoi. However although there there was the similar practise of a barren wife arranging for a slave to bear a child for her elsewhere, it was not necessarily always the case, for regularly the husband could take his own action, or simply adopt a slave. But the way used by Sarai preserved the wife’s pride and possibly gave her greater rights.
A subsidiary wife and her child could in many cases not be sent away (compare Gen 16:6; Gen 21:10-11), although there is an example where it is said that the freedom obtained by expulsion compensates for the action.
But while these practises do confirm the authenticity of the background to the narratives, they cannot be used for dating, as such customs continued unchanged for hundreds of years, and varied between groups.
Gen 16:2-3 (2c-3)
‘And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai, Abram’s wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt in the land of Canaan for ten years, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.’
Abram has shown great consideration for his wife by not acting on his own. Probably his confidence in Yahweh has caused him to delay action up to this point. He had probably hoped for a son by Sarai. Here it is stressed that the initiative now comes from Sarai, and at his wife’s insistence he yields. He knows it is important for his wife to have a protector in the future, and wants her to be satisfied in her heart.
“Ten years”. A round number not to be taken literally. It means ‘a good number of years’ (compare ‘ten times’ – 31:41). Probably the idea is that they have been in the land of promise without a birth resulting and the ‘ten years’ indicates a sufficient and justifiable length of time to justify secondary action in order to produce an heir, descended from Abram, as God had promised.
The twofold stress on the fact that Hagar is an Egyptian is possibly intended to make us look back and remember the first time that Abram pre-empted God, in Egypt. There too his faith faltered.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Abraham and Hagar (Abraham’s Temptation) – It is interesting to note that God did not speak to Abraham when he went into Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid. Although God had spoken to Him on a number of occasions, He did not speak to him during this particular time in his life. I believe the reason why God often remains silent is to allow us to exercise our free will in order to see if we love Him or not and to see whether we will obey Him willingly, rather than doing it out of compulsion.
Sometimes the devil will use something or someone close to our heart to tempt us to sin. Sarah was the closest thing to Abraham’s heart. No one else could have persuaded him to compromise God’s Word to him like Sarah when she offered her handmaid Hagar to him. She used the cultural tradition of giving her handmaid to Abraham in an effort to reason with him.
Ancient Customs – The story of Abraham taking Hagar, his handmaid, as his wife was a reflection of the customs of his day. The Code of Hammurabi, believed by some scholars to have been written by a Babylonian king around 2100 B.C., impacted its culture for centuries. Howard Vos believes it is very likely that Abraham yielded to his wife’s request based upon laws 145 and 146 of this Code. [200]
[200] Howard, F. Vos, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Manners & Customs: How the People of the Bible Really Lived (Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 40. This section of The Code of Hammurabi reads, “If a man takes a [wife] and she does not present him with children and he sets his face to take a concubine, that man may take a concubine and bring her into his house.If a man takes a [wife] and she gives to her husband a maidservant and she bears children, and afterward that maidservant would take rank with her mistress; because she has borne children her mistress may not sell her for money, but she may reduce her to bondage and count her among the female slaves.” ( The Code of Hammurabi 145-146)
Gen 16:1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
Gen 16:1 Word Study on “Hagar” Gesenius says the Hebrew name “hagar” ( ) (1904) means, “flight.” Strong says it is of uncertain origin. It is first used in Gen 16:1 and will be used 12 times in the Old Testament, being translated “Hagar 12.”
Gen 16:1 Comments – We can assume that Abram and Sarai obtained Hagar while in Egypt.
Gen 16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Gen 16:2 Comments – The promise to Abraham that he would be the father of a nation through Sarah his wife was not yet fully revealed to him. This aspect of God’s promise would not be revealed until Gen 17:15-21. Abraham was eighty-six (86) when Ishmael was born, and ninety-nine (99) when God told him that Sarah would give birth to a son, which is thirteen years later.
Gen 16:3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
Gen 16:3 Comments – Gen 16:3 tells us that Hagar became Abraham’s wife, and not his concubine. This is probably because according to laws 145 and 146 of The Code of Hammurabi the handmaid would now rank equally with her mistress.
Gen 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
Gen 16:4 Comments – Hagar despised Sarai when she found out that she was pregnant. It has been my experience working in the mission field in Africa that an uneducated servant can have a childlike mentality, which causes them to think and behave in childish ways.
Gen 16:4 Comments – In the Hebrew culture, as well as among the ancients, barrenness was a dishonor, while fertility was considered a blessing from God. [201]
[201] J. W. Meiklejohn, “Barrenness,” in New Bible Dictionary, second edition (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishing, c1962, 1982), 125.
Gen 16:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
Gen 16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
Gen 16:6 Comments – The inability of Abram to sell Hagar the handmaid was probably a reflection of the customs of his day. The Code of Hammurabi, believed by some scholars to have been written by a Babylonian king around 2100 B.C., impacted its culture for centuries. It is very likely that this decision was based upon law 119 of this Code, which says, “If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and he sell the maid servant who has borne him children for money, the money which the merchant has paid shall be repaid to him by the owner of the slave and she shall be freed.” It seems that Abraham allowed Sarah to lower Hagar’s status back to slavery; for she began to treat her like a slave.
Gen 16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
Gen 16:7 Comments – In other words, Hagar was making her way back to Egypt, and had stopped by a spring in order to find rest. The ISBE tells us that Shur was “the name of a desert east of the Gulf of Suez.” [202] We find in Scripture that this name is associated with Egypt because of its close proximity (Gen 25:18, Exo 15:22, 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8).
[202] C. R. Conder, “Shur,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).
Gen 25:18, “And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren.”
Exo 15:22, “So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.”
1Sa 15:7, “And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.”
1Sa 27:8, “And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites: for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.”
Gen 16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
Gen 16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
Gen 16:10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
Gen 16:10 Comments – We have the record of the genealogy of Ishmael in Gen 25:12-18, which tells us that he had twelve sons, just as Jacob had twelve. These twelve gave birth to twelve nations. So, God multiplied Ishmael in the same way that he multiplied Israel.
Gen 16:9-10 Comments – The angel of the Lord told Hagar to return to her position of slavery under the hand of Abraham and Sarah, and he would greatly bless her. Sometimes, we make hasty decisions that hinder God’s blessings from operating in our lives, because we want an easier lifestyle.
Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Gen 16:11 Word Study on “Ishmael” Gesenius says the Hebrew word “Ishmael” ( ) (H3458) name means, “God hears.” The Enhanced Strong says this word is found 48 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “Ishmael 48.”
Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Gen 16:12 “And he will be a wild man” Word Study on “a wild man” Strong says the Hebrew word “pere” ( ) (H6501) means, “the onager, wild ass.” The Enhanced Strong says it is used 10 times in the Old Testament, being translated “wild ass 9, wild 1.” Ishmael and his descendants will eventually dwell in a wilderness called by a similar Hebrew word called “Paran” ( ) (H6290) (see Gen 21:21).
Gen 21:21, “And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.”
Comments – The NIV brings out the meaning of a wild ass and reads, “He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” As a result, just as the wild ass that roams this region of the Middle East, so do the Arabs roam about nomadically these centuries.
Gen 16:12 “his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him”- Comments – Grant Jeffrey explains how this perpetual hatred is handed down from generation to generation to the present day, “In the Middle East, tradition requires that revenge for some ancient crime by an enemy tribe must be pursued by the descendants of the aggrieved tribe even if decades or centuries have passed.” The alleged crime that Israel committed against Ishmael is in receiving Abraham’s blessing, while Ishmael was sent into exile. [203]
[203] Grant R. Jeffrey, The Next World War (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Waterbrook Press, 2006), 10.
Gen 16:12 “and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren” – Comments – Grant Jeffrey makes the point that the Arabs never set up a nation of their own nor established a central city as their capital. As a result, they continue to roam about nomadically these centuries, but never migrate as do other tribes which have no fixed region to call home. Jeffrey refers to Gal 4:29 as a testimony to the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy describing the behaviour of the descendants against all those in the Middle East region, “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.”
Gen 16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
Gen 16:14 Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.
Gen 16:14 Word Study on “Beerlahairoi” Gesenius says the Hebrew name “Beerlahairoi” “beer la-Chay Ro’iy be-ayr” ( ) (H883) means, ““well of the life of vision.” Strong says the name means, “well of a Living One my seer.” Strong tells us that the name of this well is derived from three Hebrew words, ( ) (H875) which means, “well, pit,” ( ) (H2416), which means, “life, living, alive,” and ( ) (H7203), which means, “vision.”
Gen 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
Gen 16:16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Ten Genealogies (Calling) – The Genealogies of Righteous Men and their Divine Callings (To Be Fruitful and Multiply) – The ten genealogies found within the book of Genesis are structured in a way that traces the seed of righteousness from Adam to Noah to Shem to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob and the seventy souls that followed him down into Egypt. The book of Genesis closes with the story of the preservation of these seventy souls, leading us into the book of Exodus where we see the creation of the nation of Israel while in Egyptian bondage, which nation of righteousness God will use to be a witness to all nations on earth in His plan of redemption. Thus, we see how the book of Genesis concludes with the origin of the nation of Israel while its first eleven chapters reveal that the God of Israel is in fact that God of all nations and all creation.
The genealogies of the six righteous men in Genesis (Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) are the emphasis in this first book of the Old Testament, with each of their narrative stories opening with a divine commission from God to these men, and closing with the fulfillment of prophetic words concerning the divine commissions. This structure suggests that the author of the book of Genesis wrote under the office of the prophet in that a prophecy is given and fulfilled within each of the genealogies of these six primary patriarchs. Furthermore, all the books of the Old Testament were written by men of God who moved in the office of the prophet, which includes the book of Genesis. We find a reference to the fulfillment of these divine commissions by the patriarchs in Heb 11:1-40. The underlying theme of the Holy Scriptures is God’s plan of redemption for mankind. Thus, the book of Genesis places emphasis upon these men of righteousness because of the role that they play in this divine plan as they fulfilled their divine commissions. This explains why the genealogies of Ishmael (Gen 25:12-18) and of Esau (Gen 36:1-43) are relatively brief, because God does not discuss the destinies of these two men in the book of Genesis. These two men were not men of righteousness, for they missed their destinies because of sin. Ishmael persecuted Isaac and Esau sold his birthright. However, it helps us to understand that God has blessed Ishmael and Esau because of Abraham although the seed of the Messiah and our redemption does not pass through their lineage. Prophecies were given to Ishmael and Esau by their fathers, and their genealogies testify to the fulfillment of these prophecies. There were six righteous men did fulfill their destinies in order to preserve a righteous seed so that God could create a righteous nation from the fruit of their loins. Illustration As a young schoolchild learning to read, I would check out biographies of famous men from the library, take them home and read them as a part of class assignments. The lives of these men stirred me up and placed a desire within me to accomplish something great for mankind as did these men. In like manner, the patriarchs of the genealogies in Genesis are designed to stir up our faith in God and encourage us to walk in their footsteps in obedience to God.
The first five genealogies in the book of Genesis bring redemptive history to the place of identifying seventy nations listed in the Table of Nations. The next five genealogies focus upon the origin of the nation of Israel and its patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
There is much more history and events that took place surrounding these individuals emphasized in the book of Genesis, which can be found in other ancient Jewish writings, such as The Book of Jubilees. However, the Holy Scriptures and the book of Genesis focus upon the particular events that shaped God’s plan of redemption through the procreation of men of righteousness. Thus, it was unnecessary to include many of these historical events that were irrelevant to God’s plan of redemption.
In addition, if we see that the ten genealogies contained within the book of Genesis show to us the seed of righteousness that God has preserved in order to fulfill His promise that the “seed of woman” would bruise the serpent’s head in Gen 3:15, then we must understand that each of these men of righteousness had a particular calling, destiny, and purpose for their lives. We can find within each of these genealogies the destiny of each of these men of God, for each one of them fulfilled their destiny. These individual destinies are mentioned at the beginning of each of their genealogies.
It is important for us to search these passages of Scripture and learn how each of these men fulfilled their destiny in order that we can better understand that God has a destiny and a purpose for each of His children as He continues to work out His divine plan of redemption among the children of men. This means that He has a destiny for you and me. Thus, these stories will show us how other men fulfilled their destinies and help us learn how to fulfill our destiny. The fact that there are ten callings in the book of Genesis, and since the number “10” represents the concept of countless, many, or numerous, we should understand that God calls out men in each subsequent generation until God’s plan of redemption is complete.
We can even examine the meanings of each of their names in order to determine their destiny, which was determined for them from a child. Adam’s name means “ruddy, i.e. a human being” ( Strong), for it was his destiny to begin the human race. Noah’s name means, “rest” ( Strong). His destiny was to build the ark and save a remnant of mankind so that God could restore peace and rest to the fallen human race. God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, meaning, “father of a multitude” ( Strong), because his destiny was to live in the land of Canaan and believe God for a son of promise so that his seed would become fruitful and multiply and take dominion over the earth. Isaac’s name means, “laughter” ( Strong) because he was the child of promise. His destiny was to father two nations, believing that the elder would serve the younger. Isaac overcame the obstacles that hindered the possession of the land, such as barrenness and the threat of his enemies in order to father two nations, Israel and Esau. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, which means “he will rule as God” ( Strong), because of his ability to prevail over his brother Esau and receive his father’s blessings, and because he prevailed over the angel in order to preserve his posterity, which was the procreation of twelve sons who later multiplied into the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus, his ability to prevail against all odds and father twelve righteous seeds earned him his name as one who prevailed with God’s plan of being fruitful and multiplying seeds of righteousness.
In order for God’s plan to be fulfilled in each of the lives of these patriarchs, they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. It was God’s plan that the fruit of each man was to be a godly seed, a seed of righteousness. It was because of the Fall that unrighteous seed was produced. This ungodly offspring was not then nor is it today God’s plan for mankind.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Generation of the Heavens and the Earth Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26
a) The Creation of Man Gen 2:4-25
b) The Fall Gen 3:1-24
c) Cain and Abel Gen 4:1-26
2. The Generation of Adam Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:8
3. The Generation of Noah Gen 6:9 to Gen 9:29
4. The Generation of the Sons of Noah Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:9
5. The Generation of Shem Gen 11:10-26
6. The Generation of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11
7. The Generation Ishmael Gen 25:12-18
8. The Generation of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29
9. The Generation of Esau Gen 36:1-43
10. The Generation of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Genealogy of Terah (and of Abraham) The genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have a common structure in that they open with God speaking to a patriarch and giving him a commission and a promise in which to believe. In each of these genealogies, the patriarch’s calling is to believe God’s promise, while this passage of Scripture serves as a witness to God’s faithfulness in fulfilling each promise. Only then does the genealogy come to a close.
Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11 gives the account of the genealogy of Terah and his son Abraham. (Perhaps the reason this genealogy is not exclusively of Abraham, but rather of his father Terah, is because of the importance of Lot and the two tribes descended from him, the Moabites and the Ammonites, who will play a significant role in Israel’s redemptive history.) Heb 11:8-19 reveals the central message in this genealogy that stirs our faith in God when it describes Abraham’s acts of faith and obedience to God, culminating in the offering of his son Isaac on Mount Moriah. The genealogy of Abraham opens with God’s promise to him that if he would separate himself from his father and dwell in the land of Canaan, then God would make from him a great nation through his son (Gen 12:1-3), and it closes with God fulfilling His promise to Abraham by giving Him a son Isaac. However, this genealogy records Abraham’s spiritual journey to maturity in his faith in God, as is typical of each child of God. We find a summary of this genealogy in Heb 11:8-19. During the course of Abraham’s calling, God appeared to Abraham a number of times. God reappeared to him and told him that He would make his seed as numerous as the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5). God later appeared to Abraham and made the covenant of circumcision with him and said, “I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.”(Gen 17:2) After Abraham offered Isaac his son upon the altar, God reconfirmed His promise that “That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” (Gen 22:17). The event on Mount Moriah serves as a testimony that Abraham fulfilled his part in believing that God would raise up a nation from Isaac, his son of promise. Thus, Abraham fulfilled his calling and destiny for his generation by dwelling in the land of Canaan and believing in God’s promise of the birth of his son Isaac. All of God’s promises to Abraham emphasized the birth of his one seed called Isaac. This genealogy testifies to God’s faithfulness to fulfill His promise of giving Abraham a son and of Abraham’s faith to believe in God’s promises. Rom 9:6-9 reflects the theme of Abraham’s genealogy in that it discusses the son of promise called Isaac.
Abraham’s Faith Perfected ( Jas 2:21-22 ) – Abraham had a promise from God that he would have a son by Sarai his wife. However, when we read the Scriptures in the book of Genesis where God gave Abraham this promise, we see that he did not immediately believe the promise from God (Gen 17:17-18).
Gen 17:17-18, “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!”
Instead of agreeing with God’s promise, Abraham laughed and suggested that God use Ishmael to fulfill His promise. However, many years later, by the time God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, he was fully persuaded that God was able to use Isaac to make him a father of nations. We see Abraham’s faith when he told his son Isaac that God Himself was able to provide a sacrifice, because he knew that God would raise Isaac from the dead, if need be, in order to fulfill His promise (Gen 22:8).
Gen 22:8, “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”
Heb 11:17-19, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”
The best illustration of being fully persuaded is when Abraham believed that God would raise up Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill His promise. This is truly being fully persuaded and this is what Rom 4:21 is referring to.
What distinguished Abraham as a man of faith was not his somewhat initial weak reaction to the promises of God in Gen 17:17-18, but it was his daily obedience to God. Note a reference to Abraham’s daily obedience in Heb 11:8.
Heb 11:8, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.”
Abraham was righteous before God because he believed and obeyed God’s Words on a daily basis. A good illustration how God considers obedience as an act of righteousness is found in Genesis 19. Abraham had prayed for ten righteous people to deliver Sodom from destruction. The angels found only four people who hearkened to their words. These people were considered righteous in God’s eyes because they were obedient and left the city as they had been told to do by the angels.
Abraham’s ability to stagger not (Rom 4:20) and to be fully persuaded (Rom 4:21) came through time. As he was obedient to God, his faith in God’s promise began to take hold of his heart and grow, until he came to a place of conviction that circumstances no longer moved him. Abraham had to learn to be obedient to God when he did not understand the big picture. Rom 5:3-5 teaches us that tribulation produces patience, and patience produces experience, and experience hope. Abraham had to pass through these four phases of faith in order to develop strong faith that is no longer moved by circumstances.
Let us look at Abraham’s history of obedience to God. He had first been obedient to follow his father from Ur to Haran.
Gen 11:31, “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.”
He was further obedient when he left Haran and went to a land that he did not know.
Gen 12:1, “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:”
He was further obedient for the next twenty-five years in this Promised Land, learning that God was his Shield and his Reward. Note:
Gen 15:1, “After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”
God called Himself Abraham’s shield and reward because Abraham had come to know Him as a God who protects him and as a God who prospers him. Note that Abraham was living in a land where people believed in many gods, where people believed that there was a god for every area of their lives. God was teaching Abraham that He was an All-sufficient God. This was why God said to Abraham in Gen 17:1, “I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” In other words, God was telling Abraham to be obedient. Abraham’s role in fulfilling this third promise was to be obedient, and to live a holy life. As Abraham did this, he began to know God as an Almighty God, a God who would be with him in every situation in life. As Abraham fulfilled his role, God fulfilled His divine role in Abraham’s life.
God would later test Abraham’s faith in Gen 22:1 to see if Abraham believed that God was Almighty.
Gen 22:1, “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.”
God knew Abraham’s heart. However, Abraham was about to learn what was in his heart. For on Mount Moriah, Abraham’s heart was fully persuaded that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill His promise:
Heb 11:19, “Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”
Abraham had to die to his own ways of reasoning out God’s plan. He had taken Eliezer of Damascus as his heir as a result of God’s first promise. Then, he had conceived Ishmael in an attempt to fulfill God’s second promise. Now, Abraham was going to have to learn to totally depend upon God’s plan and learn to follow it.
The first promise to Abraham was made to him at the age of 75, when he first entered the Promised Land.
Gen 12:7, “And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.”
This first promise was simple, that God would give this land to Abraham’s seed. So, Abraham took Eliezer of Damascus as his heir. But the second promise was greater in magnitude and more specific.
Gen 15:4-5, “And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
This next promise said that God would give Abraham this land to Abraham’s biological child and that his seed would proliferate and multiply as the stars of heaven. So, Abraham has a son, Ishmael, by Hagar, his handmaid in order to fulfill this promise.
The third promise, which came twenty-five years after the first promise, was greater than the first and second promises. God said that Abraham would become a father of many nations through Sarah, his wife. Abraham had seen God be his Shield and protect him from the Canaanites. He had seen God as his Reward, by increasing his wealth (Gen 15:1). But now, Abraham was to learn that God was Almighty (Gen 17:1), that with God, all things are possible.
It was on Mount Moriah that Abraham truly died to himself, and learned to live unto God. In the same way, it was at Peniel that Jacob died to his own self and learned to totally depend upon God. After Mount Moriah, Abraham stopped making foolish decisions. There is not a fault to find in Abraham after his experience of sacrificing his son. When Abraham was making wrong decisions, he had the wisdom to build an altar at every place he pitched his tent. It was at these altars that he dealt with his sins and wrong decisions.
At Peniel God called Jacob by the name Israel. Why would God give Jacob this name? Because Jacob must now learn to totally trust in God. His thigh was limp and his physical strength was gone. The only might that he will ever know the rest of his life will be the strength that he finds in trusting God. Jacob was about to meet his brother and for the first time in his life, he was facing a situation that he could not handle in his own strength and cunning. He has been able to get himself out of every other situation in his life, but this time, it was different. He was going to have to trust God or die, and Jacob knew this. His name was now Israel, a mighty one in God. Jacob would have to now find his strength in God, because he had no strength to fight in the flesh. Thus, his name showed him that he could look to God and prevail as a mighty one both with God and with man. After this night, the Scriptures never record a foolish decision that Jacob made. He began to learn how to totally rely upon the Lord as his father Abraham had learned.
After Mount Moriah and Peniel, we read no more of foolish decisions by Abraham and Jacob. We just see men broken to God’s will and humble before God’s mercy.
Obedience is the key, and total obedience is not learned quickly. I believe that it takes decades, as we see in the life of Abraham, to learn to be obedient to a God whom we know as Almighty. This is not learned over night.
Abraham had a word from God before he left Ur. When he reached Canaan, he received a promise from God. Don’t mess with a man and his promise. Pharaoh tried to mess with this man’s promise and God judged him. King Abimelech tried to take Abraham’s promise, but God judged him.
Like Abraham, we may start the journey making some poor judgments, but God is greater than our errors.
We will first know God as our shield and our reward. He will protect us throughout our ministry. He will reward us. He will prosper our ministry. As we learn to be obedient, we will come to know our God as the Almighty in a way that we have never known Him before.
Do not mess with a man who has laid Isaac on the altar. I have heard Gen 17:17 taught as the laugh of faith.
Gen 17:17-18, “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!”
I see very little faith in Abraham’s words in these verses. On the other hand, I have heard other preachers criticize Abraham for his lack of faith at these times in his life; yet, I do not see God criticizing his faith. Abraham was not fully persuaded at this point, but he did not fail God. Abraham simply continued being obedient and living holy until the faith grew in his heart. Every wrong decision that Abraham made brought him that much closer to the right decision. We call this the school of hard knocks. As a result, faith continued to grow in his heart. By Genesis 22, Abraham was fully persuaded and strong in faith that God was Almighty.
Watch out, lest you criticize a man learning to walk in his promise. He may look foolish at times, but do not look on the outward appearance. You either run with him, or get out of the way, but don’t get in the way.
When I left Seminary and a Master’s degree, I was given a job driving a garbage truck while learning to pastor a Charismatic church. I was learning to walk in a promise from God. I will never forget riding on the back of these garbage trucks in my hometown, while the church members who had given money to send me to Seminary watched me in disbelief.
God does not measure a man by the size of his ministry, but by the size of his heart. When Jimmy Swaggart fell into sin, Alethia Fellowship Church was one of his partners, so this church was receiving his monthly ministry tapes during this period in his ministry. In a cassette tape immediately after his fall, he gave a testimony of how he told the Lord that he had failed. The Lord replied to him that he had not failed; rather the Lord had to get some things out of his life. [170] That word from God gave him the courage to go on in the midst of failure. You see, God was more pleased with Jimmy Swaggart living a godly life in fellowship with Him than preaching in great crusades while living in sin.
[170] Jimmy Swaggart, “Monthly Partner Cassette Tape,” (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, February 1988), audiocassette.
Joyce Meyer said that if God measured our success by the way the world measured us, He would have called us “achievers” and not “believers.” [171] Abraham was justified by faith and not by his works. Our work is to believe, not to achieve.
[171] Joyce Meyer, Life in the Word (Fenton, Missouri: Joyce Meyer Ministries), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.
Many of my church friends and relatives criticized me as a failure. However, I knew somehow that the walk of faith was obedience to the Word of God, and not a walk of pleasing man. I obviously did not spend much time with people who thought that I was nuts. Instead, I spent so much time in my bedroom studying my Bible that I looked dysfunctional. Yet, the Lord strengthened me. I will never forget, after riding the garbage truck during the day, and hiding in God’s Word in the night. One night, I laid down about 1:00 a.m. and the glory of God filled my room until 5:00 a.m. in the morning. It was during these most difficult times that the Lord strengthened me the most.
The Lord strengthened Abraham in the midst of his questions and errors. If you will just stay obedient, God will see His Word come to pass through you, as did Abraham learn to see God as Almighty.
Gen 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
Gen 11:28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
Gen 11:28 “Ur of the Chaldees” Comments – We can find some history of an individual named Ur in The Book of Jubilees, who built for himself a city named Ara of the Chaldees and named it after himself. Thus, we have a record of the origin of Ur of the Chaldees.
“And in the thirty-fifth jubilee, in the third week, in the first year [1681 A.M.] thereof, Reu took to himself a wife, and her name was ‘Ora, the daughter of ‘Ur, the son of Kesed, and she bare him a son, and he called his name Seroh, in the seventh year of this week in this jubilee. And ‘Ur, the son of Kesed, built the city of ‘Ara of the Chaldees, and called its name after his own name and the name of his father. And they made for themselves molten images, and they worshipped each the idol, the molten image which they had made for themselves, and they began to make graven images and unclean simulacra, and malignant spirits assisted and seduced (them) into committing transgression and uncleanness.” ( The Book of Jubilees 11.1-5)
Gen 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
Gen 11:29 “And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai” Comments – Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister (Gen 20:12).
Gen 20:12, “And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”
Compare the comments in Gen 11:29 where Nahor, Abraham’s brother, took his niece, the daughter of Haran, as his wife.
Gen 11:29 “and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah” – Word Study on “Milcah” Gesenius tells us that by Chaldean usage the Hebrew name “Milcah” “Milkah” ( ) (H4435) means “counsel.” Strong tells us that the name means, “queen.” PTW tells us it means, “counsel.” She is daughter of Haran and sister to Lot and Iscah. She married her uncle named Nahor and bare him eight children. She is first mentioned in Gen 11:29 in the genealogy of Terah. She is mentioned a second time in Scripture Gen 22:20-24, where Nahor’s genealogy is given. Her name is mentioned on a third occasion in the chapter where Isaac takes Rebekah as his bride (Gen 24:15; Gen 24:24; Gen 24:47). She is mentioned no more in the Scriptures.
Word Study on “Iscah” Gesenius says the Hebrew name “Iscah” “Yickah” ( ) (H3252) means, “one who beholds, looks out” from ( ). Strong tells us that it comes from an unused word meaning “to watch.” PTW tells us it means, “Jehovah is looking” or “who looks.” Iscah was the sister to Milcah and Lot. Nothing more is mentioned of this person in the Scriptures, her significance being her relationship to her siblings, of whom Lot is the best known.
Gen 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
Gen 11:30 Comments – When we see such close marriages with relatives within a clan, we can suggest that this may have been the cause of such infertility for this clan. We see this problem in the lives of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel.
Gen 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Gen 11:31 Comments – Terah intended to go to Canaan, but he did not make it. This is also stated in The Book of Jubilees that after Abraham destroyed the house of his father’s idols, Terah fled with his family with the intend of dwelling in the land of Canaan.
“And Terah went forth from Ur of the Chaldees, he and his sons, to go into the land of Lebanon and into the land of Canaan, and he dwelt in the land of Haran, and Abram dwelt with Terah his father in Haran two weeks of years.” ( The Book of Jubilees 12.15-16)
However, Act 7:1-4 says that it was Abraham who moved out from Ur due to a Word from the Lord.
Act 7:1-4, “Then said the high priest, Are these things so? And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.”
Gen 11:31 Scripture References – Note:
Jos 24:2, “And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah , the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.”
Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
Gen 12:1-3 God’s Divine Calling to Abraham – Gen 2:4 to Gen 50:26 will place emphasis upon the second phase of God’s plan of redemption for mankind, which is His divine calling to fulfill His purpose of multiplying and filling the earth with righteousness. God will implement phase two of His divine plan of redemption by calling one man named Abraham to depart unto the Promised Land (Gen 12:1-3), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch. Isaac’s calling can also be found at the beginning of his genealogy, where God commands him to dwell in the Promised Land (Gen 26:1-6), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch Isaac. Jacob’s calling was fulfilled as he bore twelve sons and took them into Egypt where they multiplied into a nation. The opening passage of Jacob’s genealogy reveals that his destiny would be fulfilled through the dream of his son Joseph (Gen 37:1-11), which took place in the land of Egypt. Perhaps Jacob did not receive such a clear calling as Abraham and Isaac because his early life was one of deceit, rather than of righteousness obedience to God; so the Lord had to reveal His plan for Jacob through his righteous son Joseph. In a similar way, God spoke to righteous kings of Israel, and was silent to those who did not serve Him. Thus, the three patriarchs of Israel received a divine calling, which they fulfilled in order for the nation of Israel to become established in the land of Egypt. Perhaps the reason the Lord sent Jacob and the seventy souls into Egypt to multiply rather than leaving them in the Promised Land is that the Israelites would have intermarried with the cultic nations around them and failed to produce a nation of righteousness. God’s ways are always perfect.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Calling of the Patriarchs of Israel We can find two major divisions within the book of Genesis that reveal God’s foreknowledge in designing a plan of redemption to establish a righteous people upon earth. Paul reveals this four-fold plan in Rom 8:29-30: predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.
Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
The book of Genesis will reflect the first two phase of redemption, which are predestination and calling. We find in the first division in Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 emphasizing predestination. The Creation Story gives us God’s predestined plan for mankind, which is to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth with righteous offspring. The second major division is found in Gen 2:4 to Gen 50:25, which gives us ten genealogies, in which God calls men of righteousness to play a role in His divine plan of redemption.
The foundational theme of Gen 2:4 to Gen 11:26 is the divine calling for mankind to be fruitful and multiply, which commission was given to Adam prior to the Flood (Gen 1:28-29), and to Noah after the Flood (Gen 9:1). The establishment of the seventy nations prepares us for the calling out of Abraham and his sons, which story fills the rest of the book of Genesis. Thus, God’s calling through His divine foreknowledge (Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26) will focus the calling of Abraham and his descendants to establish the nation of Israel. God will call the patriarchs to fulfill the original purpose and intent of creation, which is to multiply into a righteous nation, for which mankind was originally predestined to fulfill.
The generations of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob take up a large portion of the book of Genesis. These genealogies have a common structure in that they all begin with God revealing Himself to a patriarch and giving him a divine commission, and they close with God fulfilling His promise to each of them because of their faith in His promise. God promised Abraham a son through Sarah his wife that would multiply into a nation, and Abraham demonstrated his faith in this promise on Mount Moriah. God promised Isaac two sons, with the younger receiving the first-born blessing, and this was fulfilled when Jacob deceived his father and received the blessing above his brother Esau. Jacob’s son Joseph received two dreams of ruling over his brothers, and Jacob testified to his faith in this promise by following Joseph into the land of Egypt. Thus, these three genealogies emphasize God’s call and commission to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their response of faith in seeing God fulfill His word to each of them.
1. The Generations of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11
2. The Generations Ishmael Gen 25:12-18
3. The Generations of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29
4. The Generations of Esau Gen 36:1-43
5. The Generations of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26
The Origin of the Nation of Israel After Gen 1:1 to Gen 9:29 takes us through the origin of the heavens and the earth as we know them today, and Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:26 explains the origin of the seventy nations (Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:26), we see that the rest of the book of Genesis focuses upon the origin of the nation of Israel (Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26). Thus, each of these major divisions serves as a foundation upon which the next division is built.
Paul the apostle reveals the four phases of God the Father’s plan of redemption for mankind through His divine foreknowledge of all things in Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Predestination – Gen 1:1 to Gen 11:26 emphasizes the theme of God the Father’s predestined purpose of the earth, which was to serve mankind, and of mankind, which was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with righteousness. Calling – Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26 will place emphasis upon the second phase of God’s plan of redemption for mankind, which is His divine calling to fulfill His purpose of multiplying and filling the earth with righteousness. (The additional two phases of Justification and Glorification will unfold within the rest of the books of the Pentateuch.) This second section of Genesis can be divided into five genealogies. The three genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob begin with a divine calling to a patriarch. The two shorter genealogies of Ishmael and Esau are given simply because they inherit a measure of divine blessings as descendants of Abraham, but they will not play a central role in God’s redemptive plan for mankind. God will implement phase two of His divine plan of redemption by calling one man named Abraham to depart unto the Promised Land (Gen 12:1-3), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch. Isaac’s calling can also be found at the beginning of his genealogy, where God commands him to dwell in the Promised Land (Gen 26:1-6), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch Isaac. Jacob’s calling was fulfilled as he bore twelve sons and took them into Egypt where they multiplied into a nation. The opening passage of Jacob’s genealogy reveals that his destiny would be fulfilled through the dream of his son Joseph (Gen 37:1-11), which took place in the land of Egypt. Perhaps Jacob did not receive such a clear calling as Abraham and Isaac because his early life was one of deceit, rather than of righteousness obedience to God; so the Lord had to reveal His plan for Jacob through his righteous son Joseph. In a similar way, God spoke to righteous kings of Israel, and was silent to those who did not serve Him. Thus, the three patriarchs of Israel received a divine calling, which they fulfilled in order for the nation of Israel to become established in the land of Egypt. Perhaps the reason the Lord sent the Jacob and the seventy souls into Egypt to multiply rather than leaving them in the Promised Land is that the Israelites would have intermarried the cultic nations around them and failed to produce a nation of righteousness. God’s ways are always perfect.
1. The Generations of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11
2. The Generations Ishmael Gen 25:12-18
3. The Generations of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29
4. The Generations of Esau Gen 36:1-43
5. The Generations of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26
Divine Miracles It is important to note that up until now the Scriptures record no miracles in the lives of men. Thus, we will observe that divine miracles begin with Abraham and the children of Israel. Testimonies reveal today that the Jews are still recipients of God’s miracles as He divinely intervenes in this nation to fulfill His purpose and plan for His people. Yes, God is working miracles through His New Testament Church, but miracles had their beginning with the nation of Israel.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Hagar Given to Abraham
v. 1. Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, bare him no children; and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
v. 2. a. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath constrained me from bearing; I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. The fact of Sarai’s barrenness had been mentioned at the time of their coming to Canaan, Gen 11:30. It is repeated here for the sake of the emphasis upon the miracle which the Lord wrought in her case. Ten years had now passed by, and yet, in spite of the promise, Gen 15:4, Sarai remained without a child. She therefore be came impatient and suggested to Abram that, since the Lord hindered her from bearing, denied her offspring, her Egyptian slave Hagar might be the one through whom she was to have children, that her family might be built up through the slave. According to the custom of the Orient the children of slaves belonged to the master and mistress, Exo 21:4; 1Ch 2:35.
v. 2. b. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
v. 3. And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar, her maid, the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. Although Abram also should have shown more faith and patience, he consented to the plan of his wife, not for fleshly reasons, but with the earnest desire for offspring, forth at seed which was to be as the stars of the heaven in number.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Gen 16:1
Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children (literally, bare not to him, notwithstanding the promise; the barrenness of Sarai being introduced as the point of departure for the ensuing narrative, and emphasized as the cause or occasion of the subsequent transaction): and she hadliterally, to her (there was)an handmaid, an Egyptian (obtained probably while in the house of Pharaoh (Gen 12:16)whose name was Hagar“flight,” from hagar, to flee. Cf. Hegirah, the flight of Mahomet. Not her original designation, but given to her afterwards, either because of her flight from Egypt (Ambrose, Wordsworth), or because of her escape from her mistress (Michaelis, Bush, ‘Speaker’s Commentary’). Though not the imaginary or mythical (Bohlen), it is doubtful if she was the real (Ainsworth, Bush), ancestor of the Hagarenes (1Ch 5:10, 1Ch 5:19, 1Ch 5:20; 1Ch 27:31; Psa 83:6, Psa 83:8).
Gen 16:2
And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained us from bearing. Literally, hath shut me up (i.e. my womb, Gen 20:18; , LXX.) from bearing. Her advancing age was rendering this every day more and more apparent. I pray thee go in unto my maid (cf. Gen 30:3, Gen 30:9). It is so far satisfactory that the proposal to make a secondary wife of Hagar did not originate with Abram; though, as Sarai’s guilt in making it cannot altogether. be excused, so neither can Abram be entirely freed from fault in yielding to her solicitations. It may be that I may obtain children by her. Literally, be built up by her; from banah, to build, whence ben, a son (Deu 25:9; Rth 4:11). Calvin notes that Sarai’s desire of offspring was not prompted by natural impulse, but by the zeal of faith which made her wish to secure the promised benediction. As yet it had not been clearly intimated that Sarai was to be the mother of Abram’s child; and hence her recourse to what was a prevalent practice of the times, while unjustifiable in itself, was a signal proof of her humility, of her devotion to her husband, and perhaps also of her faith in God. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. “The faith of both was defective; not indeed with regard to the substance of the premise, but with regard to the method in which they proceeded” (Calvin).
Gen 16:3
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ton years in the land of Canaan (i.e. in his eighty-fifth, and her seventy-fifth year; a note of time introduced, probably, to account for their impatience in waiting for the promised seed), and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. Afterwards styled a pilgash or concubine (Gen 25:6), she is here improperly called a wife quae praeterDei legem is alienum thorum inducitur (Calvin), from whom the pilgash or concubine differed
(1) in power over the family, which belonged solely to the true wife, not to the secondary;
(2) in the manner of espousal, which in the case of the former was accompanied with solemn rites of espousal and liberal gifts of dowry; and
(3) in privilege of issue, the offspring of the secondary wife having no title to inherit. The act of Sarai (cf. the similar behavior of Stratonice, the wife of King Deiotarus, who, according to Plutarch, gave her maid Electra to her husband, and so obtained an heir to the crown) is as little to be imitated as the conduct of Abram. The apparent repetitions in Gen 16:1-3 do not require the hypothesis of different authorship (Tuch, Colenso, Bleek, Davidson) for their explanation, but are characteristic of the genius of Hebrew composition (cf. Gen 7:1-10), and may even be considerably removed by connecting Gen 16:1, Gen 16:2 with Gen 15:1-21, and commencing the new sub-section with Gen 16:3.
Gen 16:4
And he went in unto Hagar. , a linguistic peculiarity of the Jehovist, occurring Gen 29:21, Gen 29:30; Gen 30:3, Gen 30:4; Gen 38:2, Gen 38:9, Gen 38:16 (Vaihinger, Davidson); but by some partitionists Gen 29:1-35 and Gen 30:1-43. are assigned to the Elohist (Tuch, Bleek, De Wette). And she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. As Hannah by Peninnah (1Sa 1:6); barrenness among the Hebrews having been regarded as a dishonor and reproach (Gen 19:31; Gen 30:1, Gen 30:23; Le 20:20), and fecundity as a special mark of the Divine favor (Gen 21:6; Gen 24:60; Exo 23:26; Deu 7:14). Whether Hagar imagined Sarai to be through her barrenness “tanquam a Divino promisso repudiatam“ (Lyra), or anticipated Sarai’s displacement from her position as Abram’s wife (Inglis), she, immediately on perceiving her condition, became insolent (cf. Pro 30:23).
Gen 16:5
And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee. (LXX. ); indue agis contra me (Vulgate); My injury is upon thee, i.e. thou art the cause of it (Jonathan, Rosenmller, Ainsworth, Clarke, ‘Speaker’s Commentary’); or, it belongs to thee as well as to me (Clericus, Bush, Alford); or, perhaps better, May the injury done to me return upon thee! cf. Gen 27:13 (Keil, Kalisch, Lange, Wordsworth)the language of passionate irritation, indicating repentance of her previous action and a desire to both impute its guilt to, and lay its bitter consequences on, her husband, who in the entire transaction was more innocent than she. I have given my maid into thy bosom (very imprudent, even had it not been sinful; the result was only what might have been expected);and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee (cf. 1Sa 24:15; Jdg 11:27). An irreverent use of the Divine name on the part of Sarai (Calvin), and a speech arguing great passion (Ainsworth).
Gen 16:6
But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand (regarding her still as one of Sarai’s servants, though elevated to the rank of secondary wife to himself); do to her as it pleaseth thee. Literally, the good in thine eyes; in which conduct of the patriarch may be seen perhaps
(1) an evidence of his peaceful disposition in doing violence to his feelings as a husband in order to restore harmony to his disquieted household (Calvin), and
(2) a proof that he had already found out his mistake in expecting the promised seed through Hagar (Calvin); but also
(3) an indication of weakness in yielding to Sarai’s passionate invective (Willet, Bush), and
(4) an unjustifiable wrong inflicted on the future mother of his child (Candlish). And when Sarai dealt hardly with her(literally, afflicted) her by thrusting her back into the condition of a slave (Lange, Candlish); though probably by stripes or maltreatment of some sort in addition (Ainsworth, Bush)she fled from her face.
HOMILETICS
Gen 16:3
Crooked ways, or marrying with Hagar.
I. THE SPECIOUS PROPOSAL.
1. The author of it; Sarai, the wife of Abram, a daughter of the faith, the mistress of a household. To the first, the suggestion referred to in the narrative should have been impossible; in the second, it was inconsistent; while, proceeding from the third, it was calculated to be harmful.
2. The wickedness of it. It was
(1) a clear violation of the law of God (cf. Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5; 1Co 6:16; Eph 5:28, Eph 5:31);
(2) a direct offence against the soul of Abram, being in reality the placing of a dangerous temptation in his way (Deu 13:6; Rom 14:13); and
(3) an unjustifiable invasion of the liberties of Hagar. Though permitted in the providence of God to be a bondmaid in the house of Sarai, she was not in the power of her mistress to be disposed of in the way proposed, without consent either asked or obtained.
3. The extenuations of it.
(1) The practice was common. Secondary wives being then in vogue, the scheme recommended by Sarai may not have been regarded by her as sinful.
(2) The motive was good. It had its origin undoubtedly in a firm belief in the promise, and a strong desire that her husband should no longer be debarred from its realization through her apparently permanent sterility.
(3) The self-denial was great. The entire conduct of Sarai, in giving Hagar to her husband, evinced certain truly engaging features in her personal and wifely character, which must not be overlooked in forming an estimate of her peculiar action; such as genuine humility in yielding to another the honor of being the mother of Abram’s seed, and intense devotion to her husband in submitting for his sake to a displacement which must have carried anguish to her breast.
II. THE SINFUL COMPLIANCE. “Abram hearkened unto the voice of Sarai.”
1. Deliberately. He was not surprised into this secondary marriage with the Egyptian maiden. The scheme of Sarai appears to have been talked over between them; and if at first he had scruples in complying with her proposition, they were eventually overcome.
2. Inconsiderately. That is, the ulterior consequences were not taken into account in assenting to this device for the anticipation of the promised seed; only its immediate feasibility and superficial recommendations. So men are morally shortsighted, and cannot see afar off when confronted by some sweet temptation. Had Abram only dimly discerned the outcome of Sarai’s counsel, he would have seen that the thing was not of God. A perception of the coming whirlwind would often hinder the sowing of the wind.
3. Inexcusably. Though not dictated by carnal desire, Abram’s acquiescence in Sarai’s scheme was far from being faultless. It evinced a want of faith, and, indeed, a want of true spiritual discernment in supposing that what God had promised as a gift of grace could be surreptitiously snatched from his Divine hand in the way proposed, or even by any purely human stratagem; and a want of patience in not calmly waiting for the accomplishment of God’s word in God’s own time and way.
III. THE SORROWFUL RESULT.
1. Humiliation to Sarai. Elated by the prospect of maternity, the young Egyptian slave-girl despised her mistress; by haughtiness of carriage, perhaps silently discovering contempt for Sarai’s sterility, and possibly assuming airs of superiority, as if, in consequence of approaching motherhood, anticipating her displacement from the throne of Abram’s love (Pro 30:23).
2. Misery to Abram. The womanly nature of Sarai, stung to jealousy by the success of her own plan, and incapable of longer enduring the scornful triumph of a maiden whom her own hands had transformed into a favored rival, with something like vindictive heat turned upon her meek, submissive, and in this matter wholly innocent lord, reproaching him as, if not the cause of her barrenness, at least the patient and half-satisfied witness of her humiliation; she almost called down upon him the judgment of Heaven. To a noble spirit like that of Abram the anguish of Sarai must have been distressing to behold; and the pain which it occasioned must have been intensified when he came to realize the painful dilemma in which he stood between her and Hagar.
3. Oppression to Hagar. Reminding Sarai that Hagar, though a wife to him, was still a maid to her, the patriarch unwisely extended sanction to whatever remedy the heated breast of Sarai might devise. The result was that the favored maiden was at once thrust back into her original condition of servitude, deprived of whatever tokens of honor and affection she had received as Abram’s wife, and subjected to injurious treatment at the hands of her incensed mistress and rival, from which she ultimately sought refuge in flight.
Learn
1. That eminent saints may lapse into grievous sins.
2. That a child of God is specially liable to temptation after seasons of high religious privilege.
3. That the strongest temptations sometimes proceed from the least expected quarters.
4. That trying to anticipate the Divine promise is not an uncommon form of temptation.
5. That when God’s people take to crooked ways, nothing but evil can come of it.
HOMILIES BY J.F. MONTGOMERY
Gen 16:1-16
Hagar.
The history of Hagar has its two sidesthat which is turned towards God and illustrates Divine grace, that which is turned towards man and illustrates human infirmity and sinfulness. Jehovah brought forth compassionate bestowments of revelation and promise out of his people’s errors. Abram and Sarah both sinned. Hagar sinned. The angel of the Lord, representative of the continuous gracious revelation of Jehovah as a covenant God, appeared in the cloud of family sorrow, drawing once more upon it the rainbow of promise. Until the heir came there was a call for patience. Unbelief appeared at workin the patriarch’s weakness, in Sarah’s harshness, in Hagar’s pride and rebellion, for she was, as a member of the household, partaker of the covenant. In the wilderness appeared the messenger of grace.
I. THE NAME OF THE LORD WAS THE TESTIMONY. Thou God seest me; or, Thou God of vision. The idea is that the sight of God was deliverance. Hagar’s seeing God was God seeing her. The vision was both objective and subjective. So the world has wearied itself in the wilderness of its own ignorance and moral helplessness (cf. Gal 4:22-31). The unspiritual, carnal mind is the bond slave, which must give way to the true heir. All true religious life is a response to revelation. In his light we see light.
II. THE REVELATION TO HAGAR MAY BE CONNECTED WITH HER PERSONAL HISTORY. She turned back with a new light in her heart. Submission and obedience are commanded, but abundant reward is promised. Our life is under the eye of Jehovah and in his hand. “Thou God seest me” is the cry of a grateful memory, the note of a bright future. The nearness of God, his knowledge, may be not terror, but blessing, angels round about us, gracious sunshine of love in which we are invited to walk as children of light.R.
HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS
Gen 16:1-6
The maid, the mistress, and the master.
I. HAGAR‘S SINS.
1. Pride.
2. Contempt.
3. Insubordination.
4. Flight.
II. SARAI‘S FAULTS.
1. Tempting her husband.
2. Excusing herself.
3. Appealing to God.
4. Afflicting her servant.
III. ABRAM‘S INFIRMITY.
1. Yielding to temptation.
2. Perpetrating injustice.
3. Acquiescing in oppression.W.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Gen 16:1. Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children, &c. Sarai, being now seventy-five years old, and having continued ten years in the land of promise, began to suspect, that she should have no offspring by her husband; and therefore, anxiously desirous of the promised seed, she requests her husband to take her handmaid Hagar (an AEgyptian proselyte, most probably born in their house from AEgyptian parents), that she might have children by her: for, as being born of her handmaid, they would have been her children according to the law of those times, Gen 30:3. Abram, being no doubt equally desirous of an offspring, complied with his wife’s request, and took this secondary wife: which, though contrary to the original institution of marriage and the purity of the Gospel, appears to have been allowed in those times. It is, however, proper to remark, that Abram having continued to the age of eighty-five constant to his wife Sarai, cannot be supposed actuated by any improper desires, but by the single wish to be the father of the promised seed: and as no particular revelation had yet been given him, that Sarai should be the mother of this seed, he might perhaps think that God would fulfil his purpose by means of Hagar, and therefore more readily consented to Sarai’s proposal.
Hagar signifies a stranger or sojourner in a strange land. The city of Agar or Petra, the capital of Arabia Petraea, derived its name from her: as did the people anciently called Hagarites or Hagarenes, 1Ch 5:10. Psa 83:6.
REFLECTIONS.After ten years more waiting, Sarai was solicitous to have children by any means, and never feared in a servant to find a rival. Observe; 1. The most dangerous temptations come from those who are most dear to us: we dare not deny them. 2. God’s gifts are wisely distributed. All have much to be thankful for; but there is always some allay, to keep us from seeking our rest in the creature. 3. How many a rich man would give half his estate for an heir; when the peasant, who lives in a cottage, has children like olive-branches round about his table. 4. Inordinate desires after creature-comforts put us on indirect means of obtaining them. 5. The comfort we seek in such ways, generally comes embittered with gall.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
FIFTH SECTION
Abrams Concession to Sarais Impatience. Abram and Hagar. Hagars Flight. The Angel of the Lord. Hagars Return, and Ishmaels Birth
Gen 16:1-16
1Now Sarai, Abrams wife [in the face of the previous promise], bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar [flight, fugitive]. 2And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing; I pay thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain [be builded], children by hen And 3Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai, Abrams wife, took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee. 6But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee [is good in thine eyes]. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
7And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur [rocky. Josephus: Pelusium. Gesenius: Suez. Keil: Dschfar]. 8And he said, Hagar, Sarais maid, whence earnest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress, Sarai. 9And the angel of the Lord said unto her. Return to thy mistress, and submit [bow] thyself under her hands. 10And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be [cannot be] numbered for multitude. 11And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael 12[God will hear]; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction [distress]. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every mans hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren[far and wide in a free country]. 13And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me [of true seeing]: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that [peculiarly] seeth me? 14Wherefore the well was called, Beer-lahai-roi [well of the life of seeing, or vision]; behold, it is between Kadesh [consecrated] and Bered [hail, gravel-like hail?].
15And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his sons name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. 16And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.
PRELIMINARY REMARK
For the difficulties growing out of the sexual relations in the history of the Patriarchs, see the Introduction, p. 80.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. According to Knobel, this section is a Jehovistic enlargement of a brief Elohistic original narrative. But the narrative bears upon its face a complete and living unity.
2. Sarais Fanatical Self-denial (Gen 16:1-4). Bare him no children. Not even yet, although he had already received (Genesis 15) the solemn assurance of the great promise. She was barren in Gen 11:30, and remained so after Gen 15:2. The childless state of Abrams house was its great sorrow, and the more so, since it was in perpetual opposition to the calling, destination, and faith of Abram, and was a constant trial of his faith. Sarai herself, moreover, the consort of Abram, came gradually more and more to appear as a hindrance to the fulfilment of the divine promise, and as Abram, according to Genesis 15, had fixed his eye upon his head servant, Eliezer of Damascus, so now, Sarai fixes her eye upon her head maiden,1 Hagar the Egyptian. Hagar was probably added to the household of Abram during his residence in Egypt (Gen 12:10). She manifestly possessed a prominent place in his household, and appears to have brought to that position, not only mental gifts, but also an inward participation in the faith of the household.The Lord hath restrained me from bearing.2 (The mothers womb closeda figurative description of the appointed barrenness). The barrenness, also, is traced back to the highest causality, the purpose of Jehovah (Gen 29:31; Gen 30:32; Psa 127:3; Isa 66:9). The sexual relations, and the declarations in regard to them, are sanctified by their ultimate end, their spiritual reference. The dejection, at least, the sorrow, breaks out in the words of Sarai, also, as they had in the utterance of Abram, Gen 15:3.Go in unto. Euphemistic explanation of the sexual connection.It may be that I may obtain (be builded) by her. As to the connection between , ,, see the lexicons. To be built, is to become a house; to become a house, is to obtain children, a family. Hagar should enlarge Sarai: Hagars child should be her child (see Gen 30:3). The concubine, viewed in the light of this reason, for which she is chosen, is not so much the concubine of the husband, as supplementary concubine of the wife. The moral idea of monogamy shines clearly through this obscurity in its manifestation, and so far this, possession of concubines (as Knobel expresses it) must be distinguished from the later polygamy, which appeared among the Jews. Sarai practises an act of heroic self-denial, but still, in her womanly and fanatical excitement, anticipates her destiny as Eve had done, and carries even the patriarch away with her alluring hope. The writer intimates how nobly generous she was in her error. This greatness clouded even the clear-sightedness of Abram.3 The narrator brings also into prominence the extenuating fact, that they had been already ten years in Canaan, waiting in vain for the heir of Canaan.When she saw that she had conceived. The unfruitful Hannah received the like treatment with Sarai, from the second wife of her husband (1Sa 1:6). It is still thus, to-day, in eastern lands (see Lane: Manners and Customs, i. p. 198). The Hebrew regards barrenness as a great evil and a divine punishment (Gen 19:31; Gen 30:1; Gen 30:23; Lev 20:20), and fruitfulness as a great good and a divine blessing (Gen 21:6; Gen 24:60; Exo 23:26; Deu 7:14). The orientals regard these things in the same light still (see Volney: Travels, ii. p. 359; Malcolms History of Persia; and Winer: Real-wrterbuch, art. Kinder). Knobel. Hagar, however, had not the position of a second wife, and erred, when in her disposition she assumed this position, instead of recognizing her subordination to her mistress. This subordination was assumed by Abram, and therefore he does not seem to have noticed her haughtiness and pride.4
3. Sarais Displeasure and Hagars Flight (Gen 16:5-6).My wrong be upon thee. Precisely, wrong in an objective sense, wrong which I suffer. Sarai, in her indignation against the pride and insolence of Hagar, believed that Abram looked with approbation upon it, and therefore expresses herself as if offended.5 The overbent bow flies back with violence. This is the back-stroke of her own eager, overstrained course. Still, her words are against Abram; the consequences of her wrong should fall upon him; she would leave his conduct to the judgment of Jehovah, more as an appeal to his con-science, than as a decided condemnation.6Behold thy maid is in thy hand. Abram adheres firmly to the original standpoint. He regards Hagar still as the servant, and the one who fulfils the part of Sarai, and so far justifies himself against Sarai. But this justification is turned now into the severe censure and affliction of Hagar, and this is the result of the wrong position into which he has allowed himself to be drawn.Sarai dealt hardly with her. How, precisely, we are not told. Doubtless, through the harsh thrusting her back into the mere position and service of a slave. Hagar believed that she had grown above such a position, and flees. The proud, unyielding passion of the Ishmaelite for freedom, shows its characteristic feature in their ancestress. Some have ventured so far, as to suppose that Abram must have hastened after her, and brought her back, full of honor.
4. The intervention on the part of the Angel of Jehovah, and Hagars return (Gen 16:7-14).The Angel of Jehovah. See the preliminary remarks to Genesis 12. [The expression appears here for the first time. While the Angel of Jehovah is Jehovah himself, it is remarkable, that in the very meaning of the name, as messenger, or one who is sent, there is implied a distinction of persons in the Godhead. There must be one who sends, whose message he bears.A. G.]7 That this Angel is identical with Jehovah, is placed beyond question in Gen 16:13-14. The disposition of Hagar, helpless, forsaken, with all her pride, still believing in God, warned by her own conscience, makes it altogether fitting that the Angel of Jehovah should appear to her, i.e., Jehovah himself, in his condescensionmanifesting himself as the Angel.She had found rest, by a fountain in the wilderness; and here, in her helplessness, self-reflection, and repentance, she gains the disposition or fitness for the vision. It was by the fountain in the way to Shur. Shur, now Dschfar, is the northwestern part of the desert of Arabia, bordering upon Egypt (comp. Exo 15:22; and Tuch: in der deutschen morgenlnd. Zeitschrift, i. p. 175). Keil. (Gen 25:18; 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8). A waste stretch of land, of five or six days journey, lying between Palestine and Egypt (see Knobel, p. 158). Her location was thus upon the old, worn path, leading from Hebron by Beersheba to Egypt. The respect which she enjoyed agrees with her personal, inward worth, as to her character and faith, but at the same time tends to the proper estimate of Ishmael, who, as the child of Abram, could not be left undistinguishable among the heathen. The Angel of the incarnation, even, could not permit that Hagar, in an erroneous zeal to become his future mother, should go on his own account into helpless sorrow. His first address sounds as the voice of her own awakened conscience: Hagar, Sarais maid, whence camest thou? Truly, out of a wilfully sundered relation of duty and piety, and out of the house of blessing. [The angel brings her to a sense of her true relation: Sarais maid, not Abrams wife.A. G.]And whither goest thou? indeed, wilfully into guilt, disgrace, and sorrow. Her answer testifies to the oppression which she had experienced, but also to the voice of her own conscience.From the face of my mistress, Sarai.Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself. [Submit, humble thyself; the same word as that by which Sarais harsh-dealing is described.A. G.] The command to return to duty comes first, then the promise. It carries the joyous sound of an innumerable progenythe tribes of Ishmael.Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard. Misery sighs; the sighs ascend to God; hence misery itself, if not sent as a curse, is a voiceless prayer to God. But this is true especially of the misery of Hagar, who had learned to pray in the house of Abram. According to the later writers, it was the custom that the mother should name the child (Gen 4:1; Gen 4:25; Gen 19:37 ff; Gen 29:32 ff; Gen 30:6 ff; Gen 38:3 ff.).; but the Elohist allows the child to be named only by the father (Gen 5:3; Gen 16:15; Gen 17:19; Gen 21:3; comp. Gen 15:18). Knobel. This distinction is obviously far-fetched. It is only on special occasions that the mother is referred to as giving the name to the child. In Gen 38:3-4, the father and mother are alternately concerned in giving the name. Abram himself afterwards appropriates the maternal naming of Ishmael.And he will be a wild man (wild-ass man). The limitation of the promise is connected with the promise itself. Hagar must be cured of the proud delusion, that she is destined to become the mother of the believing people of Abram, and that therefore the hope of Abram depends upon her personal self-destination; a supposition which doubtless had taken firm possession of her mind, through the presupposition of Sarai herself. The image of the wild ass is not chosen in a contemptuous sense. The figure of the , onager, in the desert, free, wild-roving and untamable animal, poetically described in Job 39:5-8, designates, in a striking manner, the Bedouin Arabs with their unrestrained love of freedom, as upon camel (Dell) or horse, with spear in hand, they ride over the desert, noisy, hardy, frugal, delighting in the varied beauties of nature, and despising life in towns and cities: and the words, his hand will be against every man, and every mans hand against him, describe the ceaseless feuds among themselves and with their neighbors, in which the Ishmaelites live. Keil. Compare the characteristics of Esau, Gen 27:40. For the description of the Arabs in the books of travels, see Knobel, p. 158.8 Knobel thinks that here also the prophetic image is drawn after the descendants (the free sons of the desert), and finds besides that the promises (Gen 17:20; Gen 21:20,) have a more favorable sound. If this were true, it would be only the other side of the same figure. Hagar must know, above all other things, that Ishmael could not appropriate to himself the inheritance of blessing. This is intimated in the words, In the presence of all his brethren. He will thus have brethren, but shall dwell in the presence of all, a free man. Keil remarks, that signifies primarily, eastward, according to Gen 25:9, but that there is more in the terms than a mere geographical notice, to wit, that Ishmael shall dwell independently, in the presence of all the descendants of Abram. But history has abundantly confirmed this promise. Until to-day the Ishmaelites are in unimpaired, free possession of the great peninsula lying between the Euphrates, the isthmus of Suez, and the Red Sea, from whence they have spread over wide districts in North Africa and Southern Asia (comp. Delitzsch, p. 377 ff.)9And she called the name of the Lord (Jehovah). The naming f God by Hagar () has been variously interpreted. Hengstenberg, with Tuch, finds the explanation in the farther named well, well of the life of seeing, or vision, i.e. where a person has seen the face of God, and remains alive. Delitzsch holds this to be a verbal impossibility. We add, that the supposition as to the reality in this explanation, which appears also in Keil, is incorrect. We must distinguish between the patriarchal and legal periods. Of the legal period it is said: thou canst not see my face, for no man shall see me and live (Exo 33:20); that was true of Moses, so far as he was the mediator of his sinful people (see Exo 33:13). The prejudice in Israel, that no one could see the revelation of God and live (Jdg 13:22), took its origin from these words. But the sense of the words was, that the manifestation of God in the midst of the sinful people of Israel, and even for Moses, so far as he was the representative of the people, would be fatal. Hence the regulation requiring darkness in the holy of holies. But of Moses, viewed in and for himself, it is said: The Lord spake with him face to face (Exo 33:11). Moses, in and for himself, stood upon the patriarchal ground, but as the mediator of the people, he stood upon the ground of the law, and must first, through the sight of the grace of the Lord, be prepared for the sight of his glory (Exo 33:19). It is an error to confuse the two economies, patriarchal and legal. Here the Angel of the Lord reveals himself, there the law is ordained through the Angel. Here, those wearied of life, go in peace to their fathers, there death is the wages of sin. Here one sees God in the reality of true vision, there God retires into the darkness of the Holy of Holies. It is still a question, however, whether should mean, the one seeing my person (the participle from with the suffix of the first person) as Hofmann, Baumgarten, and Delitzsch explain after the Chaldee: thou art a God of sight, whose all-seeing eye will not overlook the helpless and forsaken, even in the most remote corner of the desert. The meaning of the name Moriah (Gen 22:2; Gen 22:8; Gen 22:14) appears to be in favor of this reference of the seeing, to God. But here, also, the seeing of Jehovah, was perceived from the appearance of Jehovah, i.e. from his becoming seen (or visible). Keil quotes against the interpretation of Hofmann the expression (Isa 29:15) and (Isa 47:10), as a designation of the one seeingwho sees me. Thus: in pause is a substantive, and designates the sight, the vision. Gesenius, Keil, and others: God has manifested himself to her as a God of vision, who can be seen of the actual, most perfect sight, in his angel.For she said, Have I also looked after him. Do I see him still. This is not said in the sense of the popular judgment of the legal period: Am I actually still seeing, i.e. in the land of the living, after I have seen Jehovah? (Kiel, Knobel, etc.); but, what I now see in this wretched desert, is that still to be regarded as seeing, after I have seen the Angel of the Lord? (= the glory of the Lord?)10 This is a true, and in the highest degree, real characterizing of the glorious seeing in the condition of the vision (I have seen thy throne, O Lord, from afar). It is at the same time, in the highest degree natural, as Hagar expresses the contrast between the two conditions, that of the ordinary seeing and that of the highest seeing (vision).Wherefore the well was called. Thus not the well of the life of seeing or life of vision (Hengstenberg, Keil), but where the life = the life-giverquickener, manifests himself, who grants the vision.Between Kadesh and Bered. Although Bered is not mentioned elsewhere, Rowland has still, with great probability, pointed out the well of Hagar, mentioned again (Gen 24:62; Genesis 25, 11), in the fountain Ain Kadesh, lying in the camping-ground of the caravans moving from Syria to Sinai southward from Beersheba, Moyle, or Moilchi, Muweilch (Robinson: Palestine), which the Arabians call Moilahhi (or Mai-lahhi) Hadjar; who show there also a rocky dwelling, Beit-Hadjar (see Rowland, in RittersErdkunde, xiv. p. 1086). Bered must lie to the west of this. Keil.
5. Hagars Return (Gen 16:15-16). There are two points which must still be noticed here. First, that Abram receives the name Ishmael, with which, of course, the re-reception of Hagar is expressed; and secondly, the age of Abram, which is of importance in view of the next recurring revelation of Jehovah, as showing the lapse of time between them.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
See the Exegetical paragraphs.
1. Sarais character: noble generosity, self-denial, the female friend still more than the sister or wife of Abram, but woman-like, and in a fanatical way anticipating the patience of faith (see 1Pe 3:6).
2. The moral motive or impulse of seeking the heir of blessing, made availing to an erroneous and selfish degree, is here torn away from its connection with the love impulse or motive, and exalted above it in importance (see the Introduction, p. 81).
3. This substitution of the maid for the mistress must, however, be distinguished from polygamy in its peculiar sense. Hagar, on the contrary, regards herselfin the sense of polygamy, as standing with Sarai, and as the favored, fruitful wife, exalts herself above her. The shadow of polygamy resting upon patriarchal monogamy. Isaacs marriage free from this. It has the purest New Testament form. Rebecca appears, indeed, to have exercised a certain predominant influence, as the wife often does this in the Christian marriage of modern times.
4. Abrams wrong position between Sarai and Hagarthe result of his yielding to the fanaticism of Sarai.11
5. The Angel of the Lord (Genesis 12). The voice of the Angel and the voice of the awakened conscience one, and yet distinct.
6. The words of the Angel leading to conversion: 1. Clear description: Hagar, Sarais maid; 2. Whence earnest thou? 3. Whither wilt thou go? The beginning of conversion itself: simple, pure, clear knowledge.
7. Obligation and promises are not to be separated in the kingdom of God, for it is throughout a moral region. But the form changes according to the circumstancesnow the higher (evangelical) promises and obligations, now the lower (preparatory) obligations and promises.
Gen 16:10. Gerlach: A blessing in its external form greater even than that promised to Abram, Gen 15:5. Still, even in the feebler splendor, we should recognize the great promised blessing of the father of believers. Arabia, whose population consists to a large extent of Ishmaelites, is a living fountain of men whose streams for thousands of years have poured themselves far and wide to the east and west. Before Mohammed, its tribes were found in all border-Asia, in the East Indies as early as the middle ages; and in all Northern Africa it is the cradle of all the wandering hordes. Along the whole Indian Ocean, down to Molucca, they had their settlements in the middle ages; they spread along the coast to Mozambique; their caravans crossed India to China; and in Europe they peopled Southern Spain, and ruled it for seven hundred years. Ritter.
8. Hagars satisfaction with the future of her son, a sign of her humiliation.12 The picture of Ishmael here the image of a scion of Abram and the maid (Goethe: From my father comes the bodily stature, the bearing of the higher life; from my mother the joyful disposition and love of pleasure. See Lange: Vermischte Schriften, i. p. 156.) The relation between ancestors and their descendants. The law of life which lies at the ground of the contrast between the son of the maid and the son of the free (Joh 1:13). The discord in the offspring of misalliances. Ed. Ppping: Travels in Chili, Peru, etc. p. 139. On the color. These mixed progenies reward the dark mother with contempt, the white father, with aversion. A large part of the Bedouins still lead a robber-life. They justify themselves in it, upon the ground of the hard treatment of Ishmael, their father, who, driven out of his paternal inheritance, received the desert for his possession, with the permission to take wherever he could find. Gerlach. The Arabians land, according to their assumed right, reaches as far as they are free to go. Ritter.
9. The importance of the Arabs in history. Ishmael. God hears. The strong, world-historical wild-ass, springs out of the mercy of God towards the misery of Hagar. His hand against every man: this is true of the spiritual Ishmael, Mohammedanism, in its relation to other religions. It stands in a fanatical polemic relation.The Arabians have never been overcome by any of the great world-conquerors, while they have made great and world-wide conquests.
10. Hagars expression in regard to her vision. The divine vision a look into the eternal world. Actual sight in the world of sense is no more sight, when compared with this.
11. The living God is a God of human vision, because he is a God of divine revelation.
12. The well of the living God, in which he makes men to see (the true seeing) a symbol of the gospel of the kingdom of God, of the Church in the desert of the world.
13. Hagars return laid the foundation for the world-historical dignity and honor of her son Ishmael.Ishmael, also, must return to Abrams house.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Gen 16:1-4. The fanatical anticipation of men, grasping after their destination, and its results, a judgment in favor of the more patient waiting and expectation: 1. In the history of Sarai; 2. the history of Eve; 3. in the history of the Church (the medival anticipation of the kingdom of glory).The perils of the husband in his relations to the wife: 1. Her fanaticism (Sarai); 2. her sensuality (Hagar).Sarais indignation: the reaction from fanatical, over-strained zeal.
Gen 16:4. Hagars pride: the exaltation which we experience, is easily destroyed if we are so disposed, through self-glorying.The wrong position of Abram the result of his conduct not originating in himself.
Gen 16:7. The Angel of the Lord; or the most wretched in the kingdom of God, enjoy the highest revelations of his mercy.The Angel of the Lord as an angel of conversion: 1. His address; 2. his question, Whence; 3. his question, Whither; 4. his instruction; 5. his promises; 6. the extent and order in his promises.Hagars experience, that sight, is no more sight after the vision.Man beholds by faith, because God looks upon him in grace.At the wells in the desert.Hagars return.The perpetuation of the experience of Hagar, in the name Ishmael.Abram eighty-six years old.Age no security against folly.God turns the follies of believers to their good.Ishmaels importance in history (field for missions in the East).
Starke: Gen 16:2. That was an abuse of the ruling power over her maid, and of the power of marriage which Sarai had over the body of her husband (1Co 7:3). Sarai, as well as Abram, was concerned in the sin, hence the defenders of concubinage and polygamy have no ground upon which to stand here.(Foreign, and especially unbelieving servants of strange religions, may often work great injury to a master or a government).We must not do evil that good may come (Rom 3:8).Although a man may counsel with his wife, and follow her counsel, it must not be done to go into evil.Lange: See, fellow-christian, what ones own will and choice will do for a man! It enjoins often a greater denial than God requires of him.Cramer: Gen 16:4. It is a common fault, that the morals of many are changed by their elevation to honor, and that prosperity brings pride (Pro 30:21-23).Kindness is quite generally rewarded by ingratitude. Gen 16:7. A proof that the Angel of the Lord was the Son of God.
Gen 16:5. It is a common course with men to roll their guilt upon others.Lange: Nothing is more injurious to the quiet comfort of marriage, and of the whole household, and to the training of children, than polygamy: it is impossible, therefore, that it should be in accordance with the law of nature.The Same: Ishmael is the first of those, to whom God has assigned their name before their birth. After him there are five others: Isaac (Gen 17:19), Solomon (1Ch 22:9), Josiah (1Ki 13:2), Cyrus (Isa 45:1)? and John (Luk 1:13). Lastly, Jesus, the Saviour, is the seventh (Mat 1:21).Luther: The positions in life are very unlike. Therefore we should remember and hold to this consolation, which the Angel shows: lo, thou art a servant, a maid, poor, etc. Let this be for thy comfort, that thy God looks alike upon masters and servants, rich and poor, sinners and saints.Cramer: It is according to the ordinance of God, that one should be lord, another servant, etc. (1Co 7:10).Bibl. Tub.: Thou hast sinned, humble thyself, take cheerfully the chastisement; nothing is more wholesome than that which will bow our proud spirits into humility (2Sa 24:10; 2Sa 24:14).
Gen 16:14. He who not only holds Hagar in life, but is also the life itself (Joh 11:25; Deu 32:46), the living God (Deu 5:26; Psa 42:3, etc.).In this God we shall find the true living springs of all good and mercy (Psa 36:9; Jer 2:13; Jer 17:13; Isa 55:1).
Lisco: Sinful helping of ourselves.Man must not only leave the end to God, but also the means (Rom 11:36).
Gen 16:7. The (not one) Angel of the Lord, the uncreated Angel of the Covenant (Mal 3:1).
Gen 16:13. These words designate the reality of that revelation made to her and for her good.The breach of the divine ordinance soon avenges itself, for the unnatural relation in which the slave had been placed by her mistress herself, prepared for the mistress the most vexatious grief.Gerlach: The Angel of the Lord, is the divine revealer of God, the leader of the patriarchs (Gen 48:16); the one who calls and animates Moses (Exo 3:2); the leader of the people through the wilderness (Exo 14:19, etc.; Isa 63:9); the champion of the Israelites in Canaan (Jos 5:13); and still farther, the leader and ruler of the covenant-people (Jdg 2:1 ff; Jdg 6:11; Jdg 13:13); then he who in Isaiah is the Angel of his face or presence (Isa 63:9); in Daniel, Michael (and by whom Gabriel was sent to the prophet, Dan 10:13 ?) in Zechariah, measures the new building of Jerusalem (Gen 2:1); and in Malachi is the Angel of the Covenant (Gen 3:1).Calwer, Handbuch: Mohammed is a son of Ishmael, and Abram is thus, according to the flesh, the ancestor of Islam.The Arabian, even now, grounds upon this passage, in his pride and delusion, a claim that the rights of primogeniture belong to Ishmael instead of Isaac, and asserts his own right to lands and goods, so far as it pleases him.Vengeance for blood rules in him, and in many cases, also, the work of the robber is seen all along his path.
Gen 16:12. In the presence of all his brethren: the Israelites, Midianites, Edomites, and the Moabites and Ammonites, who were descended from Lot.Schrder: Gen 16:7. The Angel of the Lord finds Hagar; that presupposes he had sought her (Deu 32:10).God meets thee in thy desert; he comes to thee in thy conscience; he kindles in thee the sparks into a flame, and comes to thy help in his grace (Berleb. Bibel).Islamism occupies incontestably the place of a middle link between revelation and heathenism; as even the Koran calls the Ishmaelites, an intermediate nation (Ziegler: it names it thus in another sense, however).God tries us in such changes: comfort follows sorrow; hope succeeds to despondency; and life to death. (Portraiture of the Arabian, of the wild-ass. The Arabian = son of the morningJdg 6:3; Jdg 6:33; Jdg 8:10).
Gen 16:16. Moses records the age of Abram, that we might know how long he had to wait for Isaac the promised son, whom Sarai should bear (Calvin).Passavant: Impatience.
Gen 16:1-6. Ah, should God grant us our own way, permit us to order our present, to arrange our future, to adorn our houses, without consulting with him, it would be no good and joyful thing to us. Whoever has, as to his way, separated himself from him, and sought afar from him, without his wisdom, happiness, salvation, life, acts unwisely, wickedly. His light is obscure, his step uncertain, the ground trembles beneath him, and his lights (lamps) are soon extinguished in darkness.The woman has learned, in Abrams house, to recognize the God over all gods.Schwenke: Gen 16:7. She believes that her departure from the house of Abram would determine him to hasten after her and bring her back, etc. She sits down by the fountain, vainly waiting, until Abram should come to lead her home. Her pride is broken.The call of the Angel.That was the call of the good shepherd, who would bring back the wandering sheep. Thus even now the two peoples who received the promise, the descendants of Ishmael and Israel, stand as the monument of the divine veracity, as peculiar and even singular instances; guarding with the greatest care their nationality, practising their old customs and usages, and preserving, in their exclusiveness, their spiritual strength (destination?)
Footnotes:
[1][Here, of course, her slave, bond-woman.A. G.]
[2][Heb., shut me up.A. G.]
[3][Abram yields to the suggestion of Sarai without opposition, because, as the prophet Malachi says, ii.15, he sought the seed promised by God. Keil, p. 152.A. G.]
[4][And it was this apparent indifference which probably was the source of Sarais sense of injury. She was led from it to suspect that the affections of her husband were transferred.A. G.]
[5][She felt that Abram ought to have redressed her wrongought to have seen and rebuked the insolence of the bond-woman.A. G.]
[6][The appeal is hasty and passionatespringing from a mind smarting under the sense of injuryand not calm and reverential.A. G.]
[7][The phraseology indicates to us a certain inherent plurality within the essence of the one only God, of which we have had previous indications, Gen 1:1; Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22. Jacobus, p. 277.]
[8][All the modern travellers speak of these same qualities as still existing among the Arabs.A. G.]
[9][Kalisch remarks in substance: Every addition to our knowledge of Arabia and its inhabitants, confirms more strongly the biblical statements. While they have carried their arms beyond their native tracts, and ascended more than a hundred thrones, they were never subjected to the Persian Empire. The Assyrian and Babylonian kings had only transitory power over small portions of their tribes. Here the ambition of Alexander the Great and his successors received an insuperable check, and a Roman expedition, in the time of Augustus, totally failed. The Bedouins have remained essentially unaltered since the time of the Hebrews and the Greeks.A. G.]
[10][Amidst the variety of versions of these phrases, the general sense is obvious. There is a recognition of the gracious and quickening presence of God revealed to her, and a devout wonder that she should have been favored with such a vision. If we render the name which Hagar gives to Jehovah, as the Hebrew seems to demand, Thou art a God of vision, or visibility, i.e. who hast revealed thyself, then the reason for this name is given in the fact, that she had enjoyed this vision. This would be true, whether the surprise she expresses was because she survived the sight (vision), or because she here enjoyed such a vision at all. This fact also gives the name to the wellnot the well of the living one seeing me, but of the livingand of course, life-giving, who here revealed himself.It is true, that the Heb. takes a different pointing in the 14th verse, from that which it bears in the phrase rendered, Thou God seest me; but the sense given above seems, on the whole, most consistent, and is one which the words will bear.A.G.]
[11][A thousand volumes written against polygamy, would not lead to a clearer, fuller conviction, of the evils of that practice, than the story under review, Bush, Notes, p. 259.A. G.]
[12][This appears, too, in the answer which she makes to the question of the angel: Hagar, Sarais maid, whence camest thou? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress, Sarai.A. G.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The private history of an event in the family of Abram forms the contents of this Chapter. But as no scripture is of private interpretation, it is probable, that the Holy Ghost thought proper to introduce it to the knowledge of the Church, in order to manifest that the explanation of it is to be considered spiritually. And this is one, among the innumerable other proofs, in God’s word, how much the right interpretation of scripture depends upon scripture. Paul the Apostle, was commissioned to explain this history, in his Epistle to the Church of Galatia. Gal 4:22-25 . The relation itself is simply this: A bond-woman called Hagar, is by Sarai given in marriage to Abram; the effects of this illicit marriage are related; the flight of Hagar into the wilderness, upon being hardly dealt with by her mistress; the mercy shewn her by an Angel there; her return to her mistress, and her being delivered of a Son.
Gen 16:1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
That’s a sweet scripture to correct impatience, Isa 28:16 . He that believeth shall not make haste.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
A Particular Providence As Revealed in the Gospel
Gen 16:13
God beholds thee individually, whoever thou art. He ‘calls the by thy name’. He sees thee, and understands thee, as He made thee. He knows what is in thee, all thy own peculiar feelings and thoughts, thy dispositions and likings, thy strength and thy weakness. He views thee in thy day of rejoicing, and thy day of sorrow. He sympathizes in thy hopes and thy temptations. He interests Himself in all thy anxieties and remembrances, all the risings and fallings of thy spirit. He has numbered the very hairs of thy head and the cubits of thy stature. He compasses thee round and bears thee in his arms; He takes thee up and sets thee down. He notes thy very countenance, whether smiling or in tears, whether healthful or sickly. He looks tenderly upon thy hands and thy feet; He hears thy voice, the beating of thy heart, and thy very breathing. Thou dost not love thyself better than He loves thee. Thou canst not shrink from pain more than He dislikes thy bearing it; and if He puts it on thee, it is as thou wilt put it on thyself, if thou art wise, for a greater good afterwards…. What is man, what are we, what am I, that the Son of God should be so mindful of me? What am I, that He should have raised me from almost a devil’s nature to that of an Angel’s? that He should have changed my soul’s original constitution, new-made me, who from my youth up have been a transgressor, and should Himself dwell personally in this very heart of mine, making me His temple? What am I, that God the Holy Ghost should enter into me, and draw up my thoughts heavenward, ‘with plaints unutterable?’
J. H. Newman.
The Presence of God
Gen 16:13
A poor Egyptian slave-girl, Hagar, spoke these words. Her life had become unendurable, and so she ran away into the wilderness, and an angel from God came to her and told her to return. Hagar’s words teach us:
I. A lesson of God’s watchful Providence. These words of Hagar are a special help to us:
a. When we are exposed to great temptations.
b. In any time of trouble or sorrow or struggle.
c. In time of prayer.
d. When we have to make difficult decisions in our life.
II. God’s presence ought to be the great joy of our life here, as it will be in our life hereafter. Heaven is simply life in God’s Presence, and the best preparation we can make will be to cultivate the recollection of that Presence now.
A. G. Mortimer, Stories from Genesis, p. 127.
References. XVI. 13. H. Ranken, Christian World Pulpit, 1890, p. 276. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii. No. 85; ibid. vol. xxxi. No. 1869. XVI. J. Parker, Adam, Noah, and Abraham, p. 129. XVII. 1. A. G. Mortimer, The Church’s Lessons, vol. i. p. 85. A. Martin, Penny Pulpit, No. 878. XVII. 1, 2. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiv. No. 845; ibid. vol. xviii. No. 1082. XVII. 1-9. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Genesis, p. 117. XVII. 5. J. Morgan, Penny Pulpit, No. 382.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Abram’s Domestic Life
Gen 15 and Gen 16
I take these two chapters together, as completing one view of Abram’s domestic life. It may be well to take notice that, up to this point, everything has gone on in regular order, with the exception of one great and solemn event. We have found just what we might have looked for: the growth of the population, the spreading out of families and tribes into distant places, a little invention, and the beginnings of discovery and progress. There has been nothing unnatural in the history. As we might have expected, domestic life has been carefully and vividly brought under notice. We have had family lists and registers in abundance, for, in truth, there was little else to talk about in those early days. The talk was of the children. To have the quiver full of such arrows was to be blessed of God in the most acceptable way; not to have children was to have great disappointment and distress. Abram had many children in promise, but not one in reality; a joy which he himself could bear, but his wife did not accept the position with so glad a readiness. And out of this want of faith came grief, grief of her own making, but not wholly limited to herself. Want of faith always brings grief. It leads to meddlesomeness, and suspicion, and jealousy; and jealousy is a precipice over which men topple into the pit. Jealousy is as cruel as the grave. Its root is in suspicion. It suspects motives; it suspects actions; it suspects innocence itself: then it grows; it sees things that have no existence; it looks out under the eyebrows stealthily; it listens for unusual noises; it mistakes and misinterprets the ordinary signs and movements of life; and all the while it is killing the heart that nurses it. Have pity upon people that are afflicted with jealousy. They make you suffer, but they suffer more themselves. Oh, the dreams they have! The nightmare, terrible as hell, when the serpent rears itself at the bedside and shoots out its empoisoned fang, and coils its infinite length around their resting-place so that they cannot escape. It was so that Sarai dreamed by night, and in the daytime her heart was cruel towards Hagar. It all came from want of faith. She had no deep trust in God. And, observe, if it be not true for ever, that as the religious life goes down the evil powers set themselves up in awful mastery in the heart. O, my friend, keep fast hold of God, for when thy trust goes there is no more peace for thy poor life.
Sarai was so cruel that Hagar fled away from her. Sarai imagined that Hagar despised her. It was all fancy. How fancy tortures us! It turns the green branches of spring into serpents; it curdles and rots the milk of human kindness; it turns the child’s sweet laugh into a mocking noise; it finds hell everywhere! Beware of thine imaginings, my friend, my brother, my sister beware! One wrong turn, and there is nothing for thee but cloud and storm, and weary aching of heart.
The angel of the Lord sent Hagar back again, knowing that “what cannot be cured must be endured.” Besides, submission itself, though so hard, may be so accepted as to become useful in the mellowing and strengthening of character. The angel did not say, “Fight it out and let the strong one win.” He advised submission, and this is the first instance in which such advice is given in the Scriptures. It is a great Christian law, we know, but it is early to find it in Genesis! “Submit yourselves one to another for the Lord’s sake,” is a lesson which reads well in church; but Hagar heard it not under a Gothic roof, half-chanted by surpliced priest, but “by a fountain of water in the wilderness, in the way to Shur,” she the only hearer, the angel the priest of God! A good church, too, in which to learn the lesson of submission. I see Hagar taking a draught of the fountain, and trudging home again on weary feet; going back to work among the sharp thorns, and to have words keen as stings thrown at her all the day long. A sorry fate, you say, to be pointed out by an angel! But wait. You do not know all. Who could bear all the ills of any one human life without having some help, some light, some hope? A wonderful word was spoken to the woman “I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.” As if he had said “If thou didst know thy destiny, thou wouldst think little of Sarai’s mocking; it is but a momentary pain; bear it with the heroism of silent patience.” And, truly, this same angel speaks to us all. He says, “If you walk in the way of the Lord you shall have blessing after sorrow, as the flowers bloom after the rain; persecution you cannot escape, nor slander, nor cruel words; but your light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh out for you a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. One hour in heaven will banish every sad thought of earth; submit, be patient, and return not evil for evil.” Oh, listen to the angel; it is God’s angel; it is God himself!
And now Hagar’s days went with a new speed. Sarai mocked as before, but Hagar heard the angel’s voice. The words of the angel became a kind of refrain in the melancholy music of her outer life: “I will multiply thy seed exceedingly; the Lord hath heard thy affliction”; these words never cease, and, under their influence, all taunts and sneers and bitter maledictions lost their effect. We, too, might have refrains still tenderer, the recurrence of which would refine and ennoble all coarse and cruel words. Thus: “Fear thou not, for I am with thee”; “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee”; “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper”; “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” Ten thousand such promises are to be found in the Holy Word. Choose your own; take the one that fits your woe best, and if you be in Christ fear not to use it when the bitter wind blows fiercely. Hagar left her house in overwhelming distress; she went back to her sufferings with a new hope Our sufferings are so different when we take them at the Lord’s hand, and endure them because he tells us to do so. We cannot triumph and rejoice in suffering merely on its own account. It is impossible to like pain simply because it is pain. But take the suffering at God’s bidding; say, This is the cup of the Lord and I must drink it for his sake; it is a burden chosen for me by my Father in heaven; then you will sing with a new and tenderer emphasis,
In the seventeenth chapter we read the renewal of the covenant which the Almighty made with Abram, with a clear statement of the terms upon which the covenant was based. Thirteen years at least had come and gone since the promise was given the first time. Thirteen years of waiting! Thirteen years of mortification for Sarai! Thirteen years of discipline for Abram and Hagar and Ishmael! They would have killed some of us: thirteen days are to us eternity. The name Abram which signifies “Exalted father,” now becomes Abraham, father of a multitude, and the limited name Sarai ( my princess) becomes Sarah, princess ; the limited becoming the unlimited. Mark how this renewal of the covenant turns upon the consecration of children. Hitherto we have to do with grown-up people, but now we are brought face to face with little ones. We have hardly had a child at all as yet in this long history. One wonders what notice God will take of young life; will he say, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” or will he shut them out of his view until they become great men? Is a child beneath God’s notice?
“Is it much
Beautiful, too, is Christian baptism when regarded as the expansion of the idea of circumcision. It well befits a tenderer law; circumcision was severe; baptism is gentle: circumcision was limited to men-children; baptism is administered to all: circumcision was established in one tribe, or family, or line of descent; baptism is the universal rite, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So we go from law to grace; from Moses to the Lamb; from the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, to the quiet and holy Zion.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXIV
ABRAHAM’S CONVERSION (PART TWO) AND SOME SELECTED THOUGHTS
Genesis 15-19:28
SACRIFICES OF THE COVENANT AND BIRDS OF PREY We have discussed only three divisions of the outline given at the beginning of the last chapter. The next item is “The Sacrifices of the Covenant.” Account of that is given in Gen 15:9-11 : “Take me a heifer three years old, and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtledove and a young pigeon. And he took all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half over against the other; but the birds divided he not. And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.” One of the most impressive sermons I ever read was delivered by a Methodist preacher on the text: “Abram drove them away.” His line of thought was, that when we come before God with what he has required in our hands, and put it before him, we have to wait his acceptance, and as a test of our faith while he is waiting, the fowls come to destroy the sacrifice. The old commentators used to represent the fowls as nations endeavoring to destroy the people of Abram. Others refer it to the New Testament thought where, when the seed was deposited, the fowls came and picked them up. The spiritual thought is, whoever makes an offering to God, waiting, must see to it that the offering is not spoiled by the enemies of God and man.
THE WAITING AND THE DARKNESS Abram waited until the sun was nearly down. There he was. He had passed between the pieces. Night came, and a horror of great darkness came upon him. He still waited. God had not signified his presence. Suddenly in a trance he sees a smoking furnace and a shining lamp pass between the sacrifices. The shining lamp is the Shekinah, the indication of divine presence. With the passing through of the visible representation of God there comes a voice of prophecy: “And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him. And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be sojourners in the land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I Judge; and afterwards they shall come out with great substance. But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.” That is a remarkable prophecy, that the descendants of Abram should go into bondage among Egyptian people, but would come out in the fourth generation to the land promised to Abram. Two reasons are assigned why Abram or his descendants should not immediately have the land. It would be a long time before his descendants would be sufficiently numerous and disciplined. Then the land was occupied by the Amorites, whose iniquity was not yet full. God does not remove a people until their iniquity is full. The promise, then, was made to Abram afar off. He himself died in a good old age.
I want to notice a serious chronological difficulty. Gen 15:13 , says, “And they shall afflict them four hundred years.” Exo 12:4 , “The time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.” Notice that difference of thirty years. Act 7:6 , “And God spake in this wise, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage and treat them ill for four hundred years.” That agrees with Gen 15:13 .Gal 3:17 , “A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after.” Paul states that it was back 430 years from the giving of the law to the call of Abram. If that is so, how do you get 400 or 430 years in bondage in Egypt, as it was 220 years from the call of Abram before they went into Egypt? In my discussion on the covenants I took Paul’s New Testament statement as the correct one, adopted by Archbishop Usher and given in your Bibles, leaving only 210 years in Egypt.
THE TRANCE AND THE PROPHECY Jehovah said to Abram, “Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates.” I find Old Testament proof that at one time Abram’s descendants did actuary-possess all the country from the eastern mouth of the Nile to the Euphrates. The sixteenth chapter opens with a human attempt to fulfill the prophecy of God. In the fifteenth chapter Abram said, “O Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Jehovah said, “This man shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels.” Sarah, knowing that she was barren, and that she and her husband were old, falls upon an Oriental method by which Abram should have a son. She gives her handmaiden, Hagar the Egyptian, to Abram as a wife in order that Hagar’s child by Abram should be as Sarah’s child. She got herself, Abram and the handmaiden, the descendants of Abram through her own son and through Hagar’s son all into a world of trouble. Once I kept worrying a teacher who had promised that in an hour he would go to a certain orchard for some fruit. I waited and waited and asked him if it wasn’t most time. So he took an old-fashioned hourglass, filled with sand and narrow in the middle so that the sand could run through in just one hour, and said to me, “When that sand drops through we will go.” I sat there and looked at that hourglass. Finally I reached over and shook it. That was human effort. It did not make the sand come a bit faster. So Sarah’s shaking the hourglass did not help matters. When the handmaiden found she was to be the mother of Abram’s child, she despised Sarah; Sarah began to quarrel and oppress the handmaiden so that she ran away. We now come to a new expression (Gen 16:7 ), “And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness.” After this point that expression occurs often, and all the circumstances go to show that it was a pre-manifestation of the Son of God. You will see later that he is here spoken of as God. The angel prophesied to Hagar. “Return to thy mistress and I will greatly bless thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. Thou shall bear a child and thou shalt call his name Ishmael because God hath heard thy affliction, and he shall be as a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand shall be against him, and he shall dwell over against all his brethren.” When I was eleven years old a man in Sunday school asked where the passage was about the boy who was to become like a wild ass. Every boy went home to find the passage, and I determined to find it before I slept. Beginning at Genesis, I read through until I found it, and what a thrill of joy went through my heart. A gentleman in Arkansas who used to know me when a boy asked me this, “What achievement of your life has filled you with the greatest Joy?” I told him that it was catching my first ‘possum. I was about seven years old and had a bob-tailed brindle dog named Lupe. He got to smelling around an old log, and finally pulled out a ‘possum. I grabbed him by the tail and went home shouting. Now the object of these general questions is to put you on a line of thinking for yourselves. I asked my elder brother about Ishmael. In an atlas he showed me. Arabia, and described the marvelous exploits of the people, and particularly since they adopted the religion of Mohammed how their hands have been against every man. They live in tents and have camels and horses. Lew Wallace tells about the Arab sheik whose fine horse Ben Hur drove in the chariot race. Sir Walter Scott’s Talisman treats of these Bedouins of the desert. Strange that God’s prophecy should designate the characteristics of the descendants of this man for thousands of years.
Gen 16:13 says, “Thou art a God that seeth, Wherefore the well is called Beer-Lahai-roi,” meaning “living after, you have seen.” You remember the saying that no mortal can see God and live. She was persuaded that God had met bex. She obeyed his voice, and went back and became subject to Sarah.
I have selected certain thoughts for the reader’s attention. The first relates to the establishment of the covenant of circumcision. I would go extensively into a discussion of that but for the fact that at the twelfth chapter we discussed all the covenants with Abram.
The second thought is the enlargement in God’s announcement to Abram. He now not only specifies that Abram’s son shall be his heir and not his bondservant, but that he shall be a son of his wife, Sarah. It is characteristic of the Old Testament prophecies to become more particular in each subsequent announcement. Gen 2 says, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” As the light increases, this seed of the woman shall be a descendant of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, more particular all the time. In Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians this subject is particularly discussed. In Hebrews we learn that God made an announcement to Abram that involved a natural impossibility, but Abram staggered not through unbelief. In one of these books there is a reference to the steps of Abram’s faith. When the general convention was in session at Dallas some years ago, I was called upon to preach a sermon at the pastors’ conference, and took for my text, “The Steps of Abraham’s Faith.” Commencing with the statement that a faith that cannot walk is a very puny child, I traced the steps of Abraham’s faith. When he was seventy years old, God called him out of Ur of the Chaldees. He believed God, and stepped far enough to reach Haran. He halted there till his father died, and took another step to the Holy Land. As each new revelation of God would come his faith stepped higher and culminated in the offering of Isaac, confident that God would raise him from the dead and perpetuate his seed through him.
In this larger announcement God changes the name of Abram to Abraham, and of Sarai to Sarah. Indians do not name their children until some exploit is performed which gives them a name. We sometimes overburden our children with names. A child who may have great facility in telling lies about cherry trees, or anything else, we name George Washington. One without missionary spirit is often named Judson, or a child without pulpit eloquence or faith we name Spurgeon. My father did the same with his children. He named one for Richard Baxter, author of Saints’ Rest. He named me for Solomon’s commander-in-chief who succeeded Joab. We are very illustrious in our names. But Abram’s name was changed by an event in his life which evidenced great faith. In other words, it is better to earn a name than to have a great name thrust upon us. Jacob’s name originally meant supplanter, which he was. In that great struggle where he wrestled with God, his name was changed to Israel, a marvelous name, fairly earned. We ought to be more concerned about the name that we merit than about the name with which fond and over expectant parents burden us.
In the enlargement of this promise that his son would inherit, Abraham gives utterance to an expression from which have often preached, and I give it to you to preach from: “O, that Ishmael might live before you.” Ishmael, his son by Hagar, was about thirteen years old. Abraham was very much attached to him, and fondly hoped that in him the family fortunes rested. Now comes God’s announcement that a child yet unborn should set Ishmael aside. How many times in substance has a father prayed that prayer. Dr. Andrew Broadis, the elder, had an illustrious son that he did not think much of. He had another son, his Absalom, and prayed continually that this son might live before God. But that son died a drunkard, while the other became a preacher as great as his father. In the Prentiss family of Maine, the likely son died. There was a crippled boy in the family called the child of his mother’s hand, because he was kept alive for five years t)y his mother’s rubbing. The father said, “Oh, that it had been the crippled boy that died.” The crippled boy became S. S. Prentiss. What the other boy would have been we do not know.
The next thought refers to Abraham’s hospitality. Standing under an oak tree he sees three illustrious visitors coming in the garb of men, and entertains them with great hospitality. One of them proved to be the angel of the Lord, a pre-manifestation of the Son of God, and the others, the angels that destroyed Sodom. Upon that passage the writer of Hebrews says, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” I quoted that passage to a woman once who had a big house and never entertained anybody. I told her how much the lives of families were influenced by illustrious persons that stopped just one night. How Spurgeon’s career was shaped by an illustrious man who stayed at his father’s house one night, and next morning put his hand on the boy’s head and prayed that God might make him a great preacher and send him to preach the gospel to lost London. The boy never got from under the power of it, nor did the family. This lady said if she ever entertained any angels it was certainly unawares, for she had never found it out. I have known my father to entertain seventy-five messengers at an association. When we did not have enough beds, we scattered the cotton out and put quilts down in the cotton house. When Waco was a village the First Church entertained free of charge 3,500 visitors. They were there from every state in the Union attending the Southern Baptist Convention. We did not have enough homes, so after filling every hotel and boarding house, we went out two or three miles in the country. When I paid the hotel bill next morning it was just $1,500. It did not hurt us. Nothing ever did Texas more benefit. The railroads took it up and gave every one of them a free trip through Texas and Mexico. It advertised Texas all over the world. I entertained forty men in my house. Dr. Sears entertained forty women. His neighbors said he nearly broke his leg so he might stay at home and talk. Anyhow, it was a blessing on his home and mine.
While Abraham entertained these angels a renouncement is made that a son should be born and to his wife, Sarah. Sarah was inside the tent. But women can hear better than men. What I say downstairs my wife can always hear upstairs. Sarah heard them and laughed aloud at the idea that an old woman like herself should become the mother of a son so illustrious. When her child was born and she saw how foolish it had been to laugh at the word of God, she named the child Isaac, meaning, “laughter” and what a sweet name!
After the entertainment the destroying angels start off to Sodom on their mission. The angel of the Lord, walking with Abraham, asked the question, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do to Sodom, seeing that I know that he will command his children after him to keep my law?” Look at the thoughts: Abraham by his faith had become the companion of God so that God said, “I will have no secrets from Abraham as to my dealings with the affairs of earth.” By similar faith and life we get into confidential relations with God, and he promises that we shall know things that others do not know. Notice next the great act which made Abraham trustworthy: “For I know that he will command his children after him.” The great sin of Eli was that he did not restrain his children. The great merit of Abraham was that he did rightly raise his child Isaac. The great virtue of Jews to this day is the reverence they have for parents and the obedience that children render to their parents. The Gentile boy is like that wild ass of the desert we discussed. He learns to call his father “the old man,” and thinks it mighty smart “to row his own boat,” to “gang his own gait.” A Jewish boy would not dream of such a thing. They are a thousand miles ahead of us in this respect. The curse of the present day is the ill regulated youth. Instead of remaining children, which would be better, boys nine and ten years old become manikins. A preacher found one on the streets one day and asked, “My son, do you drink?” The boy, thinking it a disgrace if he did not, said, “No, sir, I hasn’t got to that yet but I chews and cusses.” That is the spirit of the boyhood of today. The Presbyterians are ahead of the Baptists in training their children. They teach the Catechism better. We let the devil take possession of our children and fortify himself before we begin to do anything for their salvation, as a rule.
As soon as God announced the destruction of Sodom, Abraham commenced praying. In all the Word of God and in all literature there is nowhere else to be found such a prayer. He starts out, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right, and if he does right will he slay the righteous with the wicked?” He asked if God would spare the city for the sake of fifty righteous men. God said, “Yes.” He took a forward step and asked God if he would save the city for the sake of forty righteous men. God said, “Yes.” “Hear me once again, Will you not save the city if there be thirty?” God said he would spare the city. “Will you spare the city for twenty’s sake?” God said, “Yes.” Abraham made his last step, “Will you save the city if there be ten righteous men?” With that precedent why did not Abraham go to five? That leads to a thought presented by our Saviour in the Sermon on the Mount, viz.: “Ye are the salt of the earth” as well as “the light of the world.” The world cannot be destroyed while the righteous are in it. The reason why the fire has not leaped out of the storm cloud and riven the earth with its fiery bolt is the good people of God that are in the world. That only keeps cities, states, and nations from instantaneous annihilation by the irrevocable judgments of God. The wicked do not know that all that keeps them from sudden death and out of hell is the righteous constituting the salt of the earth. When God raises the dead bodies of his saints that sleep in the earth, and snatches up to the clouds the living Christians that are changed, immediately, as by the following of an inexorable law, fire worldwide seizes the earth, and ocean and continent are wrapped in flames. The conserving power is gone.
I want you to barely look at what is too foul for public speech. Read it alone, covered with shame, this last sin of Sodom which gives a name to a sin, “Sodomy.” Our courts recognize that sin, which is incorporated in the common law of England and the United States. They sought to perpetuate this sin that night and Lot restrains them. These angels of God whom they mistook for men and upon whom they purposed to commit this sin, smote the lecherous crowd with blindness. And after every one of them was stricken blind, they groped for the door still to commit that sin. If you want a picture of the persistence of an evil passion, when the heart is hard and the neck stiffened, when the soul is incorrigible and obdurate, take the picture of these people, blinded by the Judgment of God and yet groping for the door.
The record states that the angels told Lot if he had anybody in that city to get them out mighty quick, and Lot went to his sons-in-law and urged them to go out. My question is, Were they actually his sons-in-law? He had two daughters at home. Did he have other daughters married to Sodomites? Or were the sons-in-law merely betrothed, fiancs? An old backwoodsman first called my attention to it, and I refer the matter to you. In the morning the angel gathers the family out of the city as fast as he can. He says to Lot, “Make haste. We can do nothing till you are out of the city.” You must get the good people out before a city can be destroyed. Notice the lamentable fate of Lot’s wife, an Old Testament woman immortalized by our Lord in the great prophecy in Luk 17:32 : “Remember Lot’s wife.” She looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. The angel said to Lot, “Stay not in the plains.” Lot said, “That is too far. Let me stop at Zoan, this little city near by.” Some of the funniest things I ever heard in my life were connected with that text, “Is it not a little one?” Like the Methodist preacher’s sermon on “How shall Jacob arise since he is small?”
The destruction that came was a good deal like the report given in Marryat’s novel, Poor Jack. When the father whipped his wife with a pigtail off his head until she fainted, the doctor inquired, “What is the matter with your mother? Is it external or internal?” The boy replied, “Doctor, I think it is both.” The destruction that came upon Sodom was both internal and external. Fire came down from heaven, and the earth opened and swallowed it. It had the characteristics of a volcanic eruption, an electric storm and an earthquake. The destruction was instant and total and down there under the water lie the relics of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sea is called the Dead Sea. No flesh or animal life is in it. Josephus says that when you bite the fruit from the apple tree on its borders a puff of dust fills your mouth. If you jump into it you do not sink. The Dead Sea, lower than the Mediterranean, has no outlet. The Dead Sea that receives into its bosom all the tides of the sacred Jordan from the snows of Lebanon which come through Galilee, waters upon which Christ walked, in which he was baptized; waters that Elijah smote with his mantle; waters in which Naaman was healed of his leprosy; waters the most famous in sacred history; that whole river is like a string on which a necklace of pearls is strung, yet all that water goes into the Dead Sea, which receives it and turns nothing out but dust and ashes. Harris, the author of the book entitled Mammon, compares that sea to the Antinomian heart, always receiving and never giving. It has become the image of eternal destruction. Can you question whether God knows how to preserve the righteous and his ability to punish the wicked and the sinner?
QUESTIONS 1. How was the covenant between God and Abraham ratified and how is the primary meaning of the word “covenant” here exemplified?
2. What two interpretations of “Abram drove them away” and what is the spiritual meaning of it?
3. What trial of Abraham follows this, how then did God signify his presence and what word of prophecy accompanied it?
4, What two reasons assigned for the descendants of Abraham not immediately possessing the land promised to him?
5. What chronological difficulty is pointed out and how do you solve it?
6. How did Sarah try to help the Lord fulfill his prophecy to Abraham and what was the result?
7. How do you explain the appearance of the angel of the Lord to Hagar, what prophecy did he make to her and what was remarkable about this prophecy?
8. What two elements of the enlargement of God’s announcement to Abraham?
9. How did Abraham receive the first and what were the steps of Abraham’s faith?
10. Why did God change the name of Abram and what is the application?
11. In this enlargement to what expression does Abraham give utterance, its meaning and application? Illustrate.
12. What can you say of Abraham’s hospitality, who were the guests and what is the blessing that often comes from such entertainment?
13. What is the origin and meaning of the word “Isaac”?
14. After the destroying angels departed for Sodom, what question did the angel of the Lord raise, into what secret did he let Abraham and what great act of Abraham made him trustworthy?
15. Contrast Jews and Gentiles on parental duty and what denomination of people stands next to the Jews in training children?
16. Describe Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and what was the teaching of our Lord in point?
17. What is the name which indicates the awful sin of the Sodomites?
18. Did Lot have actual sons-in-law? If not, explain the reference to his sons-in-law.
19. What was the fate of Lot’s wife and what was our Lord’s use of this incident?
20. By what means were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?
21. What New Testament use was made of the judgment on these cities? (2Pe 2:6-9 ; Jud 1:7 .)
22. Ancient writers locate Sodom and Gomorrah at the southern, extremity of the Dead Sea, modern writers at the northern extremity. What do you say?
23. What does the destruction of these cities symbolize and in view of the permanent effect, what question does this forever settle?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Gen 16:1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name [was] Hagar.
Ver. 1. Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, bare him no children.] God had foretold him of his children’s affliction, and yet gave him no child, but holds him still in suspense. He knows how to commend his favours to us by withholding them, Cito data cito vilescunt ; we account it scarce worth taking, that is not twice worth asking.
A handmaid, an Egyptian. ] One of those maids, belike, that were given her in Egypt. Gen 12:16
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 16:1-6
1Now Sarai, Abram’s wife had borne him no children, and she had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar. 2So Sarai said to Abram, “Now behold, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Please go in to my maid; perhaps I will obtain children through her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3After Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Abram’s wife Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife. 4He went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her sight. 5And Sarai said to Abram, “May the wrong done me be upon you. I gave my maid into your arms, but when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her sight. May the LORD judge between you and me.” 6But Abram said to Sarai, “Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her what is good in your sight.” So Sarai treated her harshly, and she fled from her presence.
Gen 16:1 “she had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar” The name Hagar means “to flee” (BDB 212). This is characteristic of her (cf. Gen 16:6; Gen 16:8). She was an Egyptian who was probably purchased for Sarai while they were in Egypt (cf. Gen 12:10-20).
Gen 16:2 “the LORD has prevented me from bearing children” It is obvious that the couple had discussed YHWH’s revelations and also the delay in their fulfillment. Apparently they began planning how to “help” Him fulfill His promise!
The form of the VERB “prevented” (BDB 783, KB 870, Qal PERFECT) denotes completed action. Sarai must have thought she was permanently barren.
In a sense Sarai is blaming YHWH for her continued barrenness (cf. Gen 20:18). The delay was part of the plan of God to mature their trust in Him and to clearly reveal Himself to later generations. All believers struggle with the timing of divinely promised events.
“Please go in to my maid” The VERB (BDB 97, KB 112) is a Qal IMPERATIVE used in the sense of a request (cf. Gen 30:3). The VERB is often used as a euphemism of sexual intimacy (cf. Gen 6:4; Gen 16:2; Gen 19:34; Gen 30:3; Gen 38:8-9; Gen 39:14; Deu 22:13; Deu 25:5; 2Sa 11:4; 2Sa 12:24; 2Sa 16:21-22; 2Sa 20:3; Pro 6:29).
“I shall obtain children through her” This is very much in line with the Nuzi Tablets which describe the Hurrian culture of the second millennium B.C. Hagar’s child would legally become Sarai’s child and Abram’s heir.
“Abram listened” This almost parallels the problem of Genesis 3 (esp. Gen 3:17). Abram was tempted to do something he was probably inclined to do anyway. The VERB is literally “to hear” (BDB 1033, KB 1570) in the IMPERFECT TENSE, which implies repeated action. The monogamy ideal of original creation is lost, surprisingly in an attempt to “help” God!
Gen 16:3 “After Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan” It is significant that at least ten years have elapsed since God spoke to Abraham in chapter 15. Abraham was continuing to trust, but was trying to think of ways that he could help God. This again is God showing Abraham specifically that it was His resources, not Abraham’s, that would ultimately bring forth the promise. This section is used as an allegory by Paul in Gal 4:21-31.
“as his wife” Hagar is more appropriately his concubine. Although the Hebrew term “wife” is used here, it is obvious that she is not a wife, but a concubine (i.e., female sexual partner with limited rights).
Gen 16:4 “her mistress was despised in her sight” The VERB (BDB 886, KB 1103, Qal IMPERFECT) can mean
1. be light
2. swift
3. to be insignificant (cf. 1Sa 2:30; Job 40:4)
The Hiphil stem denotes contempt (cf. 2Sa 19:43; Isa 23:9; Eze 22:7). In Hebrew thought to have honor or weight is contrasted with “to be light.”
Gen 16:5 The mystery of interpersonal relationships is obvious. Sarai initiated this plan and is now distressed by its outcome. As so often in the biblical accounts, the reader is not given all the background and dialog involved in the event. Abram may have been more initially involved. In interpreting historical narrative, readers must ask themselves “why record this?” Abram and Sarai must learn that human performance is not the key to a relationship with God; faith, obedience, and perseverance are!
It is quite possible that what we have recorded in this verse is legal idiom. Sarai is speaking in such a way as to claim her legal rights in the situation of a slave acting in a haughty manner (i.e., Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi Tablets). Everything she did was culturally/legally acceptable, but Hagar’s attitude was not. Abram, as the head of the home, was responsible.
“may the LORD judge between you and me” The VERB (BDB 1047, KB 1622) is a Qal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense. Exactly what she wants YHWH to do is ambiguous. Apparently she is seeking divine sanction for her feelings of rejection or approval for her planned actions against Hagar. However, the phrase does show the growing tensions between Abram and Sarai.
Gen 16:6 This seems to be somewhat cruel to us, but we must judge it in light of its own day and not ours. This fits exactly the Nuzi Tablets and the Code of Hammurabi in how to deal with concubines.
Again, in some ways this parallels the Gen 3:11-13 account. Abram passes the responsibility from himself as family leader to Sarai. Humans tend to deflect responsibility and make excuses!
“Sarai treated her harshly” The VERB (BDB 776 III, KB 853) in the Piel stem means to humble or mistreat (cf. Gen 31:50; Exo 22:21-22 [twice in the intensified form]; Job 30:11). Hagar’s attitude and actions do not make Sarai’s actions appropriate. Sinful humans are selfish, self-centered. Mature faith will solve this problem.
It is just possible that after Hagar conceived Sarai returned her to her service and removed her as a sexual partner from Abram.
“she fled from her presence” A slave running away was a serious legal matter which had serious consequences. This is very similar to the event recorded in Gen 21:8-21. The following verses show YHWH’s care and love, even for the concubine Hagar and her child. YHWH’s love is not limited to Abram’s family (i.e., Melchizedek, Job).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
handmaid. Not necessarily a slave. Compare 1Sa 25:4).
Hagar = Hebrew. Flight. See Gen 16:3.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 16
Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai ( Gen 16:1-2 ).
It’s a mistake. Not always is it a mistake to hearken unto the voice of your wife but this is the second time it speaks of a man hearkening to the voice of his wife and both of them at this point were mistakes. Now there will be other times when God will say, “Listen to Sarai and hearken unto the voice of Sarai thy wife”.
Now Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan ( Gen 16:3 ),
So Abraham was eighty-five years old.
and gave he her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, she began to despise Sarai ( Gen 16:3-4 ).
The barrenness, you know, you can always say, “Well, maybe the husband is unable to have children. Maybe there’s something defective with him”. But when Hagar conceived so readily, obviously now it is Sarai who is barren, the curse of barrenness in that culture and so Hagar despised Sarai.
And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid unto thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: and the LORD judge between me and thee. Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in your hand; do to her as whatever you please. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water [The angel of Jehovah found her by the fountain of water] in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur ( Gen 16:5-7 ).
Hagar was running back to Egypt. She was getting out of there and going to go back home. But man, to get back home she had to go through that horrible wilderness area. She surely would have perished in trying to return to Egypt. And so she was by this fountain of water.
And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where did you come from? Where you going? She said, I’m fleeing from the face of my mistress Sarai. The angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands ( Gen 16:8-9 ).
Now she actually at this, she was in wrong in despising Sarai and the Lord is telling her now to return and submit.
And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, thou shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; which means God shall hear and because the LORD hath heard thy affliction ( Gen 16:10-11 ).
So she was probably crying there by the fountain and God heard her cry and He said call your son Ishmael, which means, “the Lord will hear”. God will hear.
And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he will dwell in the presence of all his brothers. And she called the name of the LORD that spoke unto her, Thou God seest me: and so she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; which is between Kadesh and Bered ( Gen 16:12-14 ).
So she had made pretty good way down into the desert to Sinai there going near Kadesh. The name of the well is “the well of him that lives and sees me.” Beerlahairoi. Beer is well, the well of him that lives and sees me.
And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. And Abram was eighty-six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram ( Gen 16:15-16 ).
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
The previous story makes it evident that the principle of faith is the true philosophy of life. It builds on God and is satisfied with Him. It thus becomes the source of all righteousness. Faith, therefore, is the highest activity of reason.
All this stands out in even more startling vividness by contrast in the story contained in this chapter. Here we have the account of the second deflection from faith in the conduct of Abram. It is a sad one and the issue of the failure continued through the following history. The failure of faith consisted in Abram attempting, at the instigation of Sarai, to further the purposes of God by human cleverness and contrivance. The seed was promised and when there appeared no likelihood of the promise being fulfilled on the human level, there was deflection from the divine line for raising seed through Hagar.
The harvest of this folly Abram began to reap almost immediately in the division of his own household and the bitterness that sprang up therein between Sarai and Hagar, and the ultimate flight of Hagar through Sarai’s harsh dealing with her. The far-reaching result is found in the story of the posterity of Ishmael as a constant source of trouble to the posterity of Isaac. Where faith fails, evil is wrought, the issues of which are far-reaching.
There is a very beautiful part to this story, however, in the tenderness of God toward Hagar, the wronged one; and in her recognition of Him and consequent naming of the well in the wilderness by which she had in all probability sunk down exhausted. It was called “Beer-lahai-roi,” that is, “The Well of the Living One who seeth Me.”
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Abrams Son Ishmael
Gen 16:1-16
Poor Hagar! What contrasts met in her life! Bought in an Egyptian slave-mart, but destined to be the mother of a great people! She is not the last to suffer from the mistakes and sins of Gods children, but she was abundantly recompensed. Abram did her a great wrong. Human policy will often suggest a course which seems right in our own eyes, but the end is death. How remarkable is the advice given to Hagar by the angel: return and submit! Does not the child of God often seek to evade the cross! Let me but get away from this intolerable trouble, we cry. But God meets us. No stranger He to all our wanderings wild! We have to take up the cross, and sit down again on the hard stool. Some day we shall be permitted to go out, but not till we have learned our lesson perfectly. In the meanwhile, we are assured that our life shall be prolific in great results. In an outburst of awe and joy, the slave-girl learned that God sees and hears. Note 2Ch 16:9; 1Pe 3:12.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Gen 16:13
When Hagar fled into the wilderness from the face of her mistress she was visited by an angel, who sent her back; but together with this implied reproof of her impatience, he gave her a word to strengthen and console her. In this mixture of humbling and cheering thoughts she recognised the presence of her Lord, and hence “she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me.” Such was the condition of men before Christ came: favoured with some occasional notices of God’s regard for individuals, but for the most part instructed merely in His general providence. But under the New Covenant this distinct regard of Almighty God for every one of us is clearly revealed. When the Eternal Son came on earth in our flesh, God began to speak to us as individuals. There was a revelation face to face.
I. It is very difficult, in spite of the revelation made in the Gospel, to master the idea of this particular providence of God. We conceive that God works on a large plan, but we cannot realise that He sees and thinks of individuals. In trouble, especially when the world fails us, we often despair, because we do not realise the loving-kindness and presence of God.
II. In order that we may understand that in spite of His mysterious perfections He has a separate knowledge and regard for individuals, God has taken upon Him the thoughts and feelings of our own nature, which we all understand is capable of such personal attachments. The most winning property of our Saviour’s mercy is its dependence on time and place, person and circumstance-in other words, its tender discrimination. Even Judas was followed and encompassed by His serene though grave regard till the very hour he betrayed Him.
III. Consider our Lord’s behaviour to the strangers who came before Him. Judas was His friend, but we have never seen Him. Let His manner toward the multitude of men in the Gospels assure us how He will look on us. Almighty as He is, He could display a tender interest in all who approached Him.
IV. God beholds thee individually, whoever thou art, He calls thee by thy name. Thou wast one of those for whom Christ offered up His last prayer, and sealed it with His precious blood. What a thought is this!-a thought almost too great for our faith. What am I, that God the Holy Ghost should enter into me and draw up my thoughts heavenward “with plaints innumerable”?
J. H. Newman, Selection from Parochial and Plain Sermons, p. 204.
Advent brings with it the thought that we shall one day, every one of us, stand before our Judge, the All-seeing, the All-knowing. There are some things in religion which are among its plainest and most familiar teachings, which yet, when we come to think of what they really mean, seem almost too tremendous to bear. Among them is this truth-that the eye of God is always upon us. The Bible everywhere takes it for granted, and appeals to it.
I. We all know that if there is anything true in the world, it is that God, who made us, must see and know all that we are and all that we do. What is the good, then, of fighting against what is inevitable, what is so certain? We ought to live and learn to live all day long with the thought that God’s eye is upon us, if no other reason, for this one alone-that this is the truth, that this is the real condition under which we must live.
II. The thought of God’s eye upon us is usually looked upon as a thought to restrain and bridle us in the hour of temptation and carelessness; and so it is. But is this all? Is it fixed on us only to make us feel our infinite distance from Him who is our Father and our God, only to make us shrink and tremble before Him? In our cowardice and with our selfish love of forbidden things we miss what is meant not merely to restrain us, but to be the greatest and most unfailing of our comforts. The thought that God sees us always is His great encouragement and help to His children in doing right. His eye is not the eye of a Judge and Ruler only, but of a Shepherd and Father, the Lover of the souls of men, these poor souls of ours and of our brethren, not sparing even His own Son for them. So in those bitter times, which seem to shut out all remaining hope while we are here, we shall know and feel that we are being watched by an eye of tenderness and sympathy deeper and truer than even that of any man on earth for his suffering friend. And so may we prepare ourselves for that day when our eyes shall be unsealed and we shall meet and behold each other.
R. W. Church, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 345.
References: Gen 16:13.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii., No. 85, and vol. xxxi., No. 1869. Gen 17-R. S. Candlish, Book of Genesis, vol. i., p. 279.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 16 Abraham and Hagar
1. Sarais suggestion (Gen 16:1-3)
2. Abrams action (Gen 16:4)
3. Sarai and Hagar (Gen 16:5-6)
4. Hagar in the wilderness (Gen 16:7-9)
5. The birth of Ishmael announced (Gen 16:10-14)
6. Ishmael born (Gen 16:15-16)
The fifteenth chapter may be called Abrams faith chapter. The sixteenth is the chapter of unbelief. It was impatience which forced Sarai and Abram to act for themselves. Unbelief is impatience and impatience is unbelief. Faith waits patiently for the Lord, and on the Lord, to act. He that believeth shall not make haste. Abram and Sarai attempted to help the Lord to fulfill His promise. What a failure they made of it! On account of it there was great trouble in his house.
But the incident has a deeper meaning. Read Gal 4:21-31. This gives us the typical meaning and how the Lord overruled even this failure. Sarai represents the covenant of grace; Hagar the law covenant. Hagar was an Egyptian; Sarai a princess. The law brings into bondage, grace makes free.
Abram was eighty-six years old when Ishmael was born. The next chapter tells us that Abram was ninety and nine years old when the Lord spoke to him again. Thus for thirteen years Abrams life seems to have been barren of communications from the Lord. What a harvest of the flesh.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 2092, bc 1912
bare: Gen 15:2, Gen 15:3, Gen 21:10, Gen 21:12, Gen 25:21, Jdg 13:2, Luk 1:7, Luk 1:36
Egyptian: Gen 12:16, Gen 21:9, Gen 21:21
name: Gal 4:24, Agar
Reciprocal: Gen 11:30 – barren Gen 16:8 – Sarai’s maid Gen 20:1 – Kadesh Gen 29:24 – Zilpah Gen 29:31 – he opened 1Sa 1:2 – but Rom 4:10 – not in circumcision
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Chapter 16 introduces us to the episode in the life of Abram, which has an allegorical significance, as the Apostle Paul shows in Gal 4:1-31. Hagar was a bondwoman; she came from Egypt, type of the world; her son was born “after the flesh;” her name is said to mean “Wandering.” Law and the flesh and the world and bondage are closely connected all through Scripture, and here first we have them all brought together.
In Gen 12:1-20 we saw Abram’s lapse in going down into Egypt, and though both he and Sarai came out safely, owing to God’s intervention, it appears that they brought something of Egypt out with them in the shape of this handmaid of Sarai, who became a snare before long, and a source of trouble that has persisted over thousands of years. The hostility between Ishmael and Isaac is visible in their descendants today. In the same way many a trouble in our lives as Christians may be traced to some lapse into worldliness of which we have been guilty.
The standards that prevailed in patriarchal times as to matrimonial relationships were much below those established in the light of Christianity. In those days no law had been given, and when it was given through Moses it did not express the perfect thought of God as the Lord Himself said in Mat 19:8. This accounts for the action in this matter of both Sarai and Abram. What they did was done without any sense of wrong. The promise of a seed had been given to Abram: Sarai was barren, and this was just an attempt to secure its fulfilment after the flesh. We have to learn that everything achieved after the flesh ends in failure and trouble.
The trouble started before Ishmael was born, as soon as the bondwoman effectively took the place of the freewoman. The bondwoman then despised the freewoman, just as later the child of the former persecuted the child of the latter. The immediate result was that the freewoman asserted her place and dealt hardly with the other so that she fled.
At this point the Angel of the Lord intervened. According to the customs of that time Hagar had evidently had no option in the matter, and God is a God of pity, and of judgment. Even if she had been impertinent to her mistress, she was not to be left in the wilderness in her need; only, returning she was to be subject and submit to her mistress. Viewing her personally, apart from her typical significance, she was as much sinned against as sinning, and by God’s intervention the scales of justice were evenly held.
And not only this but the future of the coming son was foretold: his name was given, his character indicated. His name means, “God hears.” Hagar spoke of God as “Thou God seest me,” or “Thou art the God who reveals Himself” (New Trans.) The well by which the angel appeared to her became known as “The well of the Living who was seen.” Thus even poor Hagar derived blessing from this trying episode, though the son, when born, became a trial to Abram himself, as well as to Sarai and the future Isaac.
The name of the son, Ishmael, was to commemorate the fact that God heard the affliction of Hagar. It had reference to her rather than to him. He was to be a “wild man,” the word really means a “wild-ass.” In the light of Gal 4:1-31, this is significant, since “he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh.” Now Rom 8:7 tells us that the mind of the flesh “is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Man after the flesh has lawlessness stamped upon him, and he is aptly typified by a wild ass.
Here too we see in figure what accounts for the state of the world today. Man in the flesh is not only lawless in regard to God but antagonistic in regard to his fellows. The one characteristic springs out of the other. There could be no peace where Ishmael was. And to make matters worse there was to be no shutting him out or getting rid of him; for the decree was, “he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” Hagar typified the covenant of the law, given at Sinai. Now that did not abolish the man after the flesh. It only laid restraint upon him, “which gendereth to bondage.” The restraint was immediately broken and the “wild ass” character more fully revealed.
This Hagar episode took place when Abram was 86 years old, and we hear nothing further as to him for thirteen more years. When 99 years old another great revelation reached him and a further covenant was established, as we find in Gen 17:1-27. Here for the first time do we get “Almighty God” (El-Shaddai). Abram was to know Him according to this name – the God who can raise the dead, and to whom nothing is impossible – as is made clear in Exo 6:3. Abram knew the name, Jehovah, for we have the record of his using it, but what that great name signified did not come to light until the time of the Exodus and the subsequent giving of the law, for it was relevant to that. God Almighty was the name relevant to the unconditional covenant made with Abram. That covenant altogether depended upon God, and His almightiness ensured its ultimate fulfilment.
The closing words of verse Gen 16:1 show the responsibility that rested on Abram in the light of the revelation. His ways were to be regulated by his knowledge of God. His perfection lay in his complete conformity to the revelation that had been given. In Mat 5:48 we find the word, “perfect,” used in just the same sense, only there according to the revelation of God to the disciples as their Father who is in heaven. Today we should be perfect according to a revelation of God which is even higher than that.
This revelation, “I am the Almighty God,” was followed in verses Gen 16:2-8, by a covenant of promise, in which no less than seven times God states what He will do.
“I will,” is the characteristic phrase; beginning, “I will make My covenant,” and ending, “I will be their God.” The little word “if” is only conspicuous by its absence, for it was a covenant without condition on Abram’s part. He had sought to obtain a seed by natural means through Hagar, but God intended to multiply him abundantly, making him a father of many nations, and securing to his seed the land of promise, being in a special sense their God.
In confirmation of this covenant God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, meaning, “Father of a multitude,” and from this point onwards the new name is used though as yet the promise involved in the name had received no fulfilment. Thus God pledged Himself to bring it to pass in His own way.
Though the fulfilment of this covenant depended upon God and not upon Abraham, there was a sign given in connection with it, and Abraham was to keep the covenant in the sense of observing the sign. Of this verses Gen 16:9-14 speak. The sign was circumcision, and it was to be observed by Abraham and his descendants and all his household; the latter term including all born in his house and bondslaves, obtained by purchase. The casual type of servant, who was only hired, was evidently excluded. Here for the first time in Scripture we find a household recognized, as identified with him who is the head of it. They are those over whom the head has authority, so that he can command them, as we see in verse 19 of the next chapter.
As far as Abraham was concerned circumcision was just a rite to be observed, since there is nothing to show that he was instructed in its spiritual significance. Twice in Deuteronomy does Moses mention the circumcising of the heart in contrast with that accomplished in the flesh, but it looks as if its full significance did not come to light until “the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11) became an accomplished fact. Abraham and his descendants had the rite, for it was the sign of the covenant of promise – just as the Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant of law – but the meaning of it is reserved for us Christians, who, if Gentiles, do not observe the outward rite at all.
According to that verse in Colossians the true circumcision is that done without hands in Christians “in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ” (New Trans.) As the next verse shows, the allusion here is to His death. He, the Messiah, was cut off as predicted (Psa 102:24; Dan 9:26). He was actually severed from His life down here in flesh and blood, in order that He might take up life again in resurrection. As identified with Him, we put the sentence of death on the old fleshly life that once we lived, and thus put off the body of the flesh. Thus the significance of the rite was the putting of the death sentence on the flesh and all its works. God’s unconditional covenant of promise is not to be made good on a fleshly basis. If the flesh was spared, the covenant was broken, as verse Gen 16:14 indicates.
In connection with this, God also changed the name of Sarai to Sarah, which means, Princess. She too was to be blessed and become the mother of a son, though she was now nearly ninety years of age. Abraham’s response to this surprising announcement was remarkable. He fell upon his face and laughed, raising in his heart the question as to his own great age, and Sarah’s also. At first sight we might be inclined to regard both the laughter and the language as indicating a spirit of scepticism, but in the light of Rom 4:18-20, we must regard it rather as expressive of joyful wonder. Verse 18 of our chapter points to the same conclusion. He recognized that the supernatural birth of the one who was to be the heir of promise involved the supplanting of him born after the flesh. Hence his request that Ishmael might yet live before God.
In response to this the promise of a son is confirmed and his name is given by God. Now Isaac means Laughter. This further confirms what we have just stated, for Abraham’s laughter would hardly have been thus commemorated by God if it had signified doubt and not faith. The covenant of promise was to run in the line of Isaac, yet God answered the request as to Ishmael and promised to bless him in natural things, making him a great nation under twelve princes. The fulfilment of this is recorded in Gen 25:12-16.
The closing paragraph of the chapter shows how the faith of Abraham promptly expressed itself in works. He accepted the outward sign of circumcision for himself and for his house. No time was lost: the thing was accomplished “in the self-same day.” The operation itself was not a pleasant one, running contrary to natural feelings, and in each the flesh would have cried out to be spared. How suitably therefore does it typify that death to the flesh, of which the New Testament speaks, only there it is not the material body of man that is in question but the fallen nature characterizing that body, with its appetites and lusts.
This prompt response of faith on Abraham’s part invited another manifestation of the Lord to him, with which Gen 18:1-33 opens. It evidently took place very soon after the other. It was unusual in character, differing from any preceding appearance inasmuch as “three men” approached, and it was “in the heat of the day,” just when no one would pay a visit in the ordinary way. Abraham’s hospitality rose to the occasion, and angels were entertained unawares, as Heb 13:2 puts it – indeed more than this for one of the three was a manifestation of Jehovah Himself. The picture presented of patriarchal simplicity is striking and beautiful, and the heavenly Visitors partook of the refreshment provided.
Sarah was now to be tested, and the announcement of the birth of a son to her was made in her hearing. Her response also was a laugh, but one which she thought was hidden from others, and which evidently did have in it an element of unbelief, so that she tried to deny it. It was known to the Lord however. Sarah’s unbelieving question only drew from Him the great question, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” Nothing was too hard, for He had just recently revealed Himself to her husband as “the Almighty God,” though she had not grasped it so far. Jeremiah grasped it in his day (Jer 32:17) and presently Sarah did so, or we should not have the statement: “Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed (Heb 11:11).
But the heavenly Visitors had come, not only to confirm the wavering faith of Sarah, but with other purposes in view. They set their faces toward Sodom and Abraham went with them for some distance, and this gave occasion to that incident in which we see Abraham as the friend of God. A mere servant does not know what his Lord does, as the Lord indicated in Joh 15:15, whereas a friend has access to things kept secret from others.
Hence Abraham is not to have hid from him that which the Lord was about to do in the judgment of the cities of the plain; and that not only because of the privilege conferred upon him, but because of his moral character and worth. He was privileged not only to become a great nation but also to be the progenitor of the Messiah in whom all the nations would be blessed. His character was such that the Lord could say: “I know him,” and that he would maintain what was right, not only personally but also in his family and household. So later on the prophet, speaking on God’s behalf, could say, “Abraham My friend.” (Isa 41:8).
Thus it was that when two of the three had proceeded on their way to Sodom, Abraham was permitted to speak to the Third, even to the Lord Himself, and even to reason with Him. Of all the cases recorded in the Old Testament where men were brought face to face with God this instance stands alone, we think, in the intimacy and liberty enjoyed, coupled with absence of fear. Abraham, secure in his own standing before the Lord, took the place of an intercessor.
He reasoned before the Lord in the assurance that the Judge of all the earth would do right, and in his pleadings he doubtless had in view Lot and his family. In the next chapter we read of Lot’s sons-in-law, so probably he reckoned that together with his wife, unmarried daughters, married daughters and their husbands, as many as ten could be found in Sodom who could be accounted righteous. Hence, starting at fifty, and descending to forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty, he stopped satisfied at ten. The next chapter shows that even ten were not to be found.
Though Abraham knew such liberty in the Lord’s presence we find him, like all others who really have to do with God, deeply sensible of his own sin and nothingness. We hear Job saying: “Behold, I am vile;” Isaiah saying: “I am undone;” Peter saying: “I am a sinful man, O Lord;” Paul saying: “I am chief” of sinners. Abraham says, I “am but dust and ashes,” and, as far as the Scripture record goes, he heads the list, the first to condemn himself in the presence of God.
And he who thus condemned himself is the man called the friend of God. In both these respects are we following in his train?
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT
Our lessons are grouping themselves around the great facts of Scripture as we proceed, and while we are omitting nothing essential, emphasis is laid on the strategic points. In this lesson the point is the token of the covenant God made with Abram, but there are other thoughts leading up to and giving occasion for it.
SARAI AND HAGAR (Gen 16:1-6)
The incident we now approach is not creditable to Abram or his wife, but there is an explanation of it. At least ten years had elapsed since God promised a seed to Abram (compare Gen 12:12 with Gen 16:16), and yet the promise had not been realized. Abram had been a monogamist until now, but concubinage was the custom, and the idea impressed Sarai that the delay in the promise might mean a fulfillment of it in another way. Might it be that they should help God to fulfill it? A wise teacher has said that human expediency to give effect to divine promises continues still one of the most dangerous reefs on which the lives of Gods people are wrecked. The result might have been foreseen so far as Hagars treatment of Sarai is concerned (Gen 16:4), but the latters unfairness towards her husband does nothing to redeem her previous improper conduct. Abrams action (Gen 16:6) will be differently judged by different people, but seems consistent with the original purpose to accept of Hagar not as on equality of wifehood with Sarai, or even as his concubine, but as a supplementary concubine of his wife.
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD (Gen 16:7-14)
It is not an angel of the Lord here brought before us, but The Angel, an expression always referring to the second Person of the Trinity. He assumes the divine prerogative at (Gen 16:10, and is identified as God at (Gen 16:13. It is no objection to say that it is only Hagar who thus identifies Him, not only because she must have had evidence of His identity, but because the inspired record in no way contradicts her. While the Angel is Jehovah, it is remarkable that in the name Angel, which means messenger or one sent, there is implied a distinction in the Godhead. There must be one who sends if there is one sent, and since the Father is never sent but always sends, the conclusion is that The Angel of the LORD must be God the Son.
Identify on the map the way to Shur (Gen 16:7) and observe that Hagar was departing in the direction of her own land. Ishmael means God heareth. Why was he to be thus called (Gen 16:11)? What character and experience are prophesied of him (see RV)? Where was he to dwell? In the presence of his brethren seems to mean over against or to the east of his brethren.
THE COVENANT RENEWED (Gen 17:1-8)
Abrams disobedience or unbelief as illustrated in the matter of Hagar kept him out of fellowship with God for fourteen years or more. (Compare the first verse of this chapter with the last of the preceding one.) What takes place after so long a time? With what new name does God choose to introduce Himself?
The Hebrew here is El Shaddai. El means might or power, and Shaddai means a shedder forth of bounty. The name depicts God as the all-bountiful One and comes as His revelation of Himself to Abram just when the latter needed to learn that the strength of God is made perfect in human weakness. Abram sought to obtain by his own energy what God only could give him, and having learned his lesson and being ready to give himself to God, God is ready to give Himself to Abram and make him fruitful. He puts something into Abram which at once changes him from Abram to Abraham something of His own nature.
But what is required of Abram, however, before this (Gen 17:1)? He must be perfect, not in the sense of sinlessness, impossible to mortal, but in that of doing the whole will of God as it is known to him. And on that condition what promise is renewed (Gen 17:2)? It is not as though the covenant of chapter 15 had been abrogated, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom 11:29), but that now the first step is to be taken in its fulfillment. What new attitude, physically considered, is now assumed by Abram in his intercourse with God (Gen 17:3)? What new name is given him, and its meaning (Gen 17:5)? How does the promise of Gen 17:5 read in the Revised Version?
Compare the promise as more fully outlined in Gen 17:6-8 for features additional to those previously revealed. What does God say He will make of him? And what shall come out of him? Have either of these things been said before? What did God say He would establish, and with whom, and for how long? What is new here? A father of many nations indeed has God made Abraham, if we consider his offspring not only in the line of Isaac, but of Ishmael, to say nothing of the children born to him by Keturah, subsequently to come before us.
These nations include the Jews, Arabians, Turks, Egyptians, Afghans, Moroccans, Algerians, and we know not how may more. But we are not to understand the covenant as established with all of these but only with the Jews of Israel, as descendants of Isaac. Isaac is the seed of Abraham in mind here, and of course his antitype, Jesus Christ, is the seed ultimately in mind. Keeping this latter point in view, therefore, the seed includes more than Israel after the flesh, since it takes in all who believe on Jesus Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles (Gal 3:29). Peculiar privileges belong to each, but their origin is the same.
THE COVENANT TOKEN (Gen 17:9-14)
It is in dispute whether circumcision was original with Abraham and his descendants, or had been a custom in other nations, though of course for other reasons in their case. Nevertheless, the rainbow was chosen to be the sign of the covenant with Noah though it may have existed before, so the prior existence of circumcision does not render it less fit to be the sign of the covenant with Abraham, or less significant. It was the fit symbol of that removal of the old man and that renewal of nature which qualified Abraham to be the parent of the holy seed. To what extent was it to be carried out among the males? What was the penalty for its omission (Gen 17:14)? This cutting off of the people from the covenant did not mean physical death, but exclusion from all their blessings and salvation, an even more serious judgment, since in the end it denoted the endless destruction and total ruin of the man who despised Gods covenant. To despise or reject the sign was to despise and reject the covenant itself (see Gen 17:5, last clause). A serious thought for the professing Christian who neglects to observe both parts of the obligation in Rom 10:9-10.
THE PROMISE CONCERNING SARAH (Gen 17:15-27)
How is the name of Sarai changed at this point (Gen 17:15)? God had never promised she should be a mother, and Ishmael, now thirteen years old, had doubtless been recognized through the whole encampment as his fathers heir. But now what distinct promise does God give concerning her (Gen 17:16)? How is it received by Abraham (Gen 17:17)? This laughter of Abraham was the exultation of joy and not the smile of unbelief. In this connection note that Isaac means laughter, and also that it is with him, and not Ishmael, that the covenant is to be established everlastingly.
Are you not pleased that Abraham should have thought of Ishmael as he did (Gen 17:18)? Ishmael as an Arab of the desert, with his descendants, does not make much of a future among the nations of the earth until we consider him as the ancestor of Mohammed. It is estimated the he holds one hundred and fifty million of the inhabitants of the world subject to his spiritual sway, which indicates that Ishmael still lifts his head aloft among the great founders of empires, and in the moral sphere greater than them all.
QUESTIONS
1.How do Gods people sometimes wreck their lives, as illustrated in this lesson?
2.How does this lesson afford another foreshadowing of the doctrine of the Trinity?
3.Give the meaning of the name Almighty God.
4.Name some of the nations proceeding from Abraham.
5.Who does the seed of Abraham include?
6.How does this lesson impress us with the importance of confessing Christ?
7.Where in this lesson have we a kind of parallel to Luk 24:41?
8.What distinguished descendant of Ishmael can you name?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Planning for God
Like so many after her, Sarai ran out of patience. She thought of a plan to achieve the end God had in mind. In the land of the Chaldees, a woman who could not bear children could give one of her slaves to her husband. Any child born of such a union would be counted as the wife’s child. If the slave began to think of herself as being her mistress’ equal, she could treat her again as a slave but not sell her.
Sarai had an Egyptian slave named Hagar. She gave Hagar to Abram. When it was obvious she was with child, Hagar began to treat Sarai in a disrespectful way. Sarai complained to Abram and he put the unruly servant back under her control. Harsh treatment drove Hagar away from the camp. The Angel of the Lord met her at a spring on the way back to Egypt. He directed her to return to the camp and place herself under her mistress. As the angel promised, she bore a son named Ishmael when Abram was eighty-six years old. Ishmael became the father of a vast multitude (16:1-16).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Gen 16:1. We have here the marriage of Abram to Hagar, who was his secondary wife. Herein though he may be excused, he cannot be justified; for from the beginning it was not so: and when it was so, it seems to have proceeded from an irregular desire to build up their families, for the more speedy peopling of the world.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 16:1. God had promised Abraham a son, but had not said that he should be born of Sarah. Hence his wife having no hope in herself, almost compelled him to receive Hagar to his bed, not considering the painful consequences likely to ensue.
Gen 16:2. I may obtain children by her. It being a customary law that a patriarch must have children, a dotal maid was often given with the bride, that in case of failure of issue, the maid might bear children for her mistress. Pharaoh, it is presumed, had given this maid to Sarah as an apology for his error in having designs against the wife of the princely stranger.
Gen 16:7. The angel of the Lord found her by a fountain. The Messiah, who here reveals the secrets of providence with regard to the Ishmaelites in future ages, receives from Hagar the appellation of God, and divine worship. He spake to her, as he had done to Abraham; I will multiply thy seed. The angel even dictated the name of Ishmael; that is, heard of God, to certify to Hagar that her prayer was heard.
Gen 16:9. Return to thy mistress. God, who is here for the first time called an Angel, addresses Hagar as a servant, and not as the second wife of Abraham. God indeed has often blessed the children of concubines, but good coming out of evil does not diminish the fault.
Gen 16:12. His hand will be against every man. In Ishmaels race, or rather, in the Arabians or Saracens, this prophecy has been strikingly accomplished. No candid man who reads the history of that nation, can refuse assent to its truth. Follow them in the bloody career of conquest, cruelty, and tyranny to the Mogul empire, through all India, through Ethiopia and the isles, and in all the richer districts of western Africa. See them scourge the Arian church to the gates of Vienna. Alas, and is this natural religion!
Gen 16:13. Have I here also looked after him that seeth me? This place is difficult to translate. The LXX read, I have seen him plainly who appeared to me: Jehovah the Angel. Others turn it, that she saw the backward parts of the Angel, as Moses, Exodus 33. Our Dr. Lightfoots reading is preferable. Thou art a God of vision; for she said, did I here also look for a vision? The name of the well called Beer-lahai-roi, or well where I plainly saw him, apparently confirms the reading of the Seventy. This well, and indeed all other places where God had appeared to cheer and encourage his servants, by enlarging the promises of the covenant, became favourite retreats, and places where the patriarchs often worshipped. Isaac dwelt near this well, and Jacob built an altar at Bethel.
Gen 16:15. Abram called his name Ishmael; that is, God heard thy affliction, and helped and saved thee: Hagar therefore gave thanks to God.
REFLECTIONS.
Was Sarah barren; and did she attribute her situation to the restraining hand of God? Let all christian families, so circumstanced, learn to ascribe the lack of children to the same cause. By submission to his wise and holy will, he can give them a name and a blessing better than the enjoyment of children, who sometimes prove the greatest crosses to their parents.
Was Sarah a woman so distinguished for her beauty, that two kings endeavoured to obtain her for a wife; and did the Lord see it meet to check all propensity to glory in her beauty, by the recollection of her barrenness? We see then the wise and gracious hand of God in directing our crosses to a sanctified end. The Lord in all his chastisements seeks our good.
Did Hagar, after conception, suffer herself to be elated with the idea that she should now be the favourite wife of the patriarch, and that her child should be the heir of all his wealth? Let the sinner learn not to be exalted in the day of prosperity, for in one moment our empty boasting may receive a blast. Self-knowledge is the most useful study for a man flattered by the world. He should ever remember that he is but sinful dust, and should never exalt himself in his own sufficiency, lest the wicked deride him in his fall.
Did Hagar also behave with insolence to her mistress, who had been the cause of her elevation? Let us learn to be grateful to our benefactors, though their motives may not have been altogether pure in doing us good: for ingratitude is a sin which God has often punished with the strongest marks of abhorrence.
Did the Lord, notwithstanding, approach this woman when she fled from her mistress; and give her counsel and comfort in the day of trouble? Then let all strangers, exiles, and wanderers, yea all families in like circumstances, be careful to take no rash and hasty steps. Let them seek God by weeping and supplication, and he will surely guide them in the way they ought to go. It is better for a servant who may find himself harshly treated, patiently to suffer a little, and especially when he is faulty, than rashly to rush into greater calamities. But let the backslider also, who has wandered from God and his people, hear this voice which commanded Hagar immediately to return.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Genesis 16
Here we find unbelief casting its dark shadow across the spirit of Abraham, and again turning him aside, for a season, from the path of simple, happy confidence in God. “And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold the Lord hath restrained me from bearing.” These words bespeak the usual impatience of unbelief; and Abraham should have treated them accordingly, and waited patiently on the Lord for the accomplishment of His gracious promise. The poor heart naturally prefers anything to the attitude of waiting. It will turn to any expedient – any scheme – any resource, rather than be kept in that posture. It is one thing to believe a promise, at the first, and quite another thing to wait quietly for the accomplishment thereof. We can see this distinction constantly, exemplified in a child. If I promise my child anything, he has no idea of doubting my word; but yet, I can detect the greatest possible restlessness and impatience in reference to the time and manner of accomplishment. And cannot the wisest sage find a true mirror in which to see himself reflected, in the conduct of a child? Truly so. Abraham exhibits faith, in Gen. 15 and yet he fails is patience, in Gen. 16. Hence the force and beauty of the apostle’s word, in Hebrews 6, “followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” God makes a promise, faith believes it; hope anticipates it; patience waits quietly for it.
There is such a thing, in the commercial world, as “the present worth” of a bill or promissory note, for if men are called upon to wait for their money, they must he paid for waiting. Now, in faith’s world, there is such a things as the present worth of God’s promise; and the scale by which that worth is regulated, is the heart’s experimental knowledge of God; for according to my estimate of God, will be my estimate of His promise; and moreover, the subdued and patient spirit finds its rich and full reward in waiting upon Him for the accomplishment of all that He has promised.
However, as to Sarah, the real amount of her word to Abraham is this, “the Lord has failed me; it may be, my Egyptian maid will prove a resource for me.” Anything but God for a heart under the influence of unbelief. It is often truly marvellous to observe the trifles to which we will betake ourselves, when once we have lost the sense of God’s nearness, His infallible faithfulness, and unfailing sufficiency. We lose that calm and well-balanced condition of soul, so essential to the proper testimony of the man of faith; and, just like other people, betake ourselves to any or every expedient, in order to reach the wished-for end, and call that “a laudable use of means.”
But it is a bitter thing to take ourselves out of the place of absolute dependence upon God. The consequences must be disastrous. Had Sarah said, ‘Nature has failed me, but God is my resource,’ how different it would have been! This would have been her proper ground; for nature really had failed her. But, then, it was nature in one shape, and therefore she wished to try nature in another. She had not learnt to look away from nature in every shape. In the judgement of God, and of faith, nature in Hagar was no better than nature in Sarah. Nature, whether old or young, is alike to God; and, therefore, alike to faith; but, ah! we are only in the power of this truth when we are experimentally finding our living centre in God Himself. When the eye is taken off that Glorious Being, we are ready for the meanest device of unbelief. It is only when we are consciously leaning on the only true, the only wise, the living God, that we are enabled to look away from every creature stream. It is not that we shall despise God’s instrumentality. By no means. To do so would be recklessness and not faith. Faith values the instrument, not because of itself, but because of Him who uses it. Unbelief looks only at the instrument, and judges of the success of a matter by the apparent efficiency thereof, instead of by the sufficiency of Him who, in grace, uses it. Like Saul, who, when he looked at David, and then looked at the Philistine, said, “thou are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for thou art but a youth.” Yet the question in David’s heart was not as to whether he was able, but whether Jehovah was able.
The path of faith is a very simple and a very narrow one. It neither deifies the means, on the one hand, nor despises it, on the other. It simply values it, so far as it is evidently God’s means, and no further. There is a vast difference between God’s using the creature to minister to me, and my using it to shut Him out. This difference is not sufficiently attended to. God used the ravens to minister to Elijah, but Elijah did not use them to exclude God. If the heart be really trusting in God, it will not trouble itself about His means. It waits on Him, in the sweet Assurance that by what means soever He pleases, He will bless, He will minister, He will provide.
Now, in the case before us, in this chapter, it is evident that Hagar was not God’s instrument for the accomplishment of His promise to Abraham. He had promised a son, no doubt, but He had not said that this son would be Hagar’s; and, in point of fact, we find from the narrative, that both Abraham and Sarah “multiplied their sorrow,” by having recourse to Hagar; for “when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.” This was but the beginning of those multiplied sorrows, which flowed from hastening after nature’s resources. Sarah’s dignity was trampled down by an Egyptian bond-woman, and she found herself in the place of weakness and contempt. The only true place of dignity and power is the place of felt weakness and dependence. There is no one so entirely independent of all around, as the man who is really walking by faith, and waiting only upon God; but the moment a child of God makes himself a debtor to nature or the world, he loses his dignity, and will speedily be made to feel his loss. It is no easy task to estimate the loss sustained by diverging, in the smallest measure, from the path of faith. No doubt, all those who walk in that path will find trial and exercise; but one thing is certain, that the blessings and joys which peculiarly belong to them are infinitely more than a counterpoise; whereas, when they turn aside, they have to encounter far deeper trial, and nought but that.
“And Sarai said, My wrong be upon thee.” When we act wrong, we are, oft-times, prone to lay the blame on some one else. Sarah was only reaping the fruit of her own proposal, and yet she says to Abraham, “My wrong be upon thee;” and then, with Abraham’s permission, she seeks to get rid of the trial which her own impatience had brought upon her. “But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarah dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.” This will not do. “The bond-woman” cannot be got rid of by hard treatment. When we make mistakes, and find ourselves called upon to encounter the results thereof, we cannot counteract those results by carrying ourselves with a high hand. We frequently try this method, but we are sure to make matters worse thereby. If we have done wrong, we should humble ourselves and confess the wrong, and wait on God for deliverance. But there was nothing like this manifested in Sarah’s case. Quite the reverse. There is no sense of having done wrong; and, so far from waiting on God for deliverance, she seeks to deliver herself in her own way. However, it will always be found that every effort which we make to rectify our errors, previous to the full confession thereof, only tends to render our path more difficult. Thus Hagar had to return, and give birth to her son, which son proved to be not the child of promise at all, but a very great trial to Abraham and his house, as we shall see in the sequel.
Now, we should view all this in a double aspect: first, as teaching us a direct practical principle of much value; and secondly, in a doctrinal point of view. And, first, as to the direct, practical teaching, we may learn that when, through the unbelief of our hearts, we make mistakes, it is not all in a moment, nor yet by our own devices, we can remedy them. Things must take their course. “Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” This is an unalterable principle, meeting us, again and again, on the page of inspiration, and also on the page of our personal history. Grace forgives the sin and restores the soul, but that which is sown must be reaped. Abraham and Sarah had to endure the presence of the bond-woman and her son for a number of years, and, then, get rid of them in God’s way. There is peculiar blessedness in leaving ourselves in God’s hands. Had Abraham and Sarah done so, on the present occasion, they would never have been troubled with the presence of the bond-woman and her son; but, having made themselves debtors to nature, they had to endure the consequences. But, alas! we are often “like a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke,” when it would be our exceeding comfort to “behave and quiet ourselves as a child that is weaned of his mother.” No two figures can be more opposite than a stubborn bullock and a weaned child. The former represents person senselessly struggling under the yoke of circumstances, and rendering his yoke all the more galling by his efforts to get rid of it; the latter represents one meekly bowing his hand to everything, and rendering his portion all the sweeter, by entire subjection of spirit.
And, now, as to the doctrinal view of this chapter. We are authorised to look at Hagar and her son, as figures of the covenant of works, and all who are thereby brought into bondage. (Gal. 4: 22-25) “The flesh” is, in this important passage, contrasted with “promise;” and thus we not only get the divine idea as to what the term “flesh” implies, but also as to Abraham’s effort to obtain the seed by means of Hagar, instead of resting in God’s “promise.” The two covenants are allegorised by Hagar and Sarah, and are diametrically opposite the one to the other. The one gendering to bondage, inasmuch as it raised the question as to man’s competency “to do” and “not to do,” and made life entirely dependent upon that competency. “The man that doeth these things shall live in them.” This was the Hagar-covenant. But the Sarah-covenant reveals God as the God of promise, which promise is entirely independent of man, and founded upon God’s willingness and ability to fulfil it. When God makes a promise, there is no “if’ attached thereto. He makes it unconditionally, and is resolved to fulfil it; and faith rests in Him, in perfect liberty of heart. It needs no effort of nature to reach the accomplishment of A divine promise. Here was, precisely, where Abraham and Sarah failed. They made an effort of nature to reach a certain end, which end was absolutely secured by a promise of God. This is the grand mistake of unbelief. By its restless activity, it raises a hazy mist around the soul, which hinders the beams of the divine glory from reaching. “He could there do no mighty works, because of their unbelief.” One great characteristic virtue of faith is, that it ever leaves the platform clear for God to show Himself; and truly, when He shows Himself, man must take the place of a happy worshipper.
The error into which the Galatians allowed themselves to be drawn, was the addition of something of nature to what Christ had already accomplished for them by the cross. The gospel which had been preached to them, and which they had received, was the simple presentation of God’s absolute, unqualified, and unconditional grace. “Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth crucified among them.” This was not merely promise divinely made, but promise divinely and most gloriously accomplished. A crucified Christ settled everything, in reference both to God’s claims and man’s necessities. But the false teachers upset all this, or sought to upset it, by saying, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” This, as the apostle teaches them, was, in reality, “making Christ of none effect.” Christ must either be a whole Saviour, or no Saviour at all. the moment a man says, “except ye he this or that, ye cannot be saved,” he totally subverts Christianity ; for in Christianity I find God coming down to me, just as I am, a lost, guilty, self-destroyed sinner; and coming, moreover, with a full remission of all my sins, and a full salvation from my lost estate, all perfectly wrought by Himself on the cross.
Hence, therefore, a man who tells me, “you must be so and so, in order to be saved,” robs the cross of all its glory, and robs me of all my peace. If salvation depends upon our being or doing ought, we shall, inevitably, be lost. Thank God, it does not; for the great fundamental principle of the gospel is, that God is ALL – man is NOTHING. It is not a mixture of God and man. It is all of God. The peace of the gospel does not repose, in part, on Christ’s work;, and, in part, on man’s work; it reposes wholly on Christ’s work, because that work is perfect – perfect for ever; and it renders all who put their trust in it as perfect as itself.
Under the law, God, as it were, stood still to see what man could do; but, in the gospel, God is seen acting, and as for man, he has but to “stand still and see the salvation of God.” This being so, the inspired apostle hesitates not to say to the Galatians, “Christ is become of no effect unto you; whosoever of you are justified by law, (en nomo,) ye are fallen from grace.” If man has anything to do in the matter, God is shut out; and if God is shut out, there can be no salvation, for it is impossible that man can work out a salvation by that which proves him a lost creature; and then if it be a question of grace, it must be all grace. It cannot be half grace, half law. The two covenants are perfectly distinct. It cannot be half Sarah and half Hagar. It must be either the one or the other. If it be Hagar, God has nothing to do with it; and if it be Sarah, man has nothing to do with it. Thus it stands throughout. The law addresses man, tests him, sees what he is really worth, proves him a ruin, and puts him under the curse; and not only puts him under it, but keeps him there, so long as he is occupied with it so long as he is alive. “The law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth;” but when he is dead, its dominion necessarily ceases, so far as he is concerned, though it still remains in full force to curse every living man.
The gospel, on the contrary, assuming man to be lost ruined, dead, reveals God as He is – the Saviour of the lost – the Pardoner of the guilty – the Quickener of the dead. It reveals Him, not as exacting ought from man; (for what could be expected from one who has died a bankrupt) but as exhibiting His own independent grace in redemption. This makes a material difference and will account for the extraordinary strength of the language employed in the Epistle to the Galatians: “I marvel” – “Who hath bewitched you” – “I am afraid of you” – “I stand in doubt of you” – “I would they were even cut off that trouble you.” This is the language of the Holy Ghost, who knows the value of a full Christ, and a full salvation; and who also knows how essential the knowledge of both is to a lost sinner. We have no such language as this in any other epistle; not even in that to the Corinthians, although there were some of the grossest disorders to be corrected amongst them. all human failure and error can be corrected by bringing in God’s grace; but the Galatians, like Abraham in this chapter, were going away from God, and returning to the flesh. What remedy could be devised for this? How can yon correct an error which consists in departing from that which alone can correct anything? To fall from grace, is to get back under the law, from which nothing can ever be reaped but “the curse.” May the Lord establish our hearts in His own most excellent grace!
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Gen 12:1 to Gen 25:18. The Story of Abraham.In this section the three main sources, J. E, P are present. Gunkel has given strong reasons for holding that J is here made up of two main sources, one connecting Abraham with Hebron, the other with Beersheba and the Negeb. The former associates Abraham with Lot. (For details, see ICC.) On the interpretation to be placed on the figures of Abraham and the patriarchs, see the Introduction. The interest, which has hitherto been diffused over the fortunes of mankind in general, is now concentrated on Abraham and his posterity, the principle of election narrowing it down to Isaac, Ishmael being left aside, and then to Jacob, Esau being excluded.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
HUMAN EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISH GOD’S PROMISE
Though Abram was a man of faith, Sarai his wife had not borne children, and she weakened his faith by making a mere fleshly suggestion that he should use Sarai’s bondmaid, Hagar, by whom to bear a child for Sarai (v.2). Abram’s experience with the Lord in chapter 15 ought to have strengthened him to realize that God’s promise was sure even though they had to wait so long for its fulfilment. As to the fulfilling of the promise, Abram did not have to resort to a means, not only merely human, but morally wrong. But he listened to the voice of Sarai rather than undividedly listening to the voice of God.
Sarai should surely have realized that a child born in this way would not be hers at all. Sarai could never be attached to the child in the same way that his mother would be. In fact, her giving her maid to Abram is expressed in verse 3 as giving her to Abram “as his wife.” Therefore the child could not possibly belong to Sarai. Hagar knew this, and when she had conceived she despised Sarai because Hagar had achieved what Sarai could not. What could Sarai do now? She becomes so distressed that she blames Abram for her dilemma: “My wrong be upon you” (v.15). How much better it would have been if she had accepted the blame for her own mistake and humbled herself before the Lord to ask His forgiveness.
In blaming Abram for the situation that arose after Hagar’s conception, Sarai asks that the Lord should judge between her and Abram, no doubt because she felt that Hagar was virtually robbing her of her husband. Abram did not remind her that the whole matter was her suggestion, but he made it clear to her that he had no intention of considering Hagar his wife. He tells Sarai that Hagar is her maid and she may do with her as she pleases. Sarai took advantage of this permission from Abram, and made life hard for Hagar, as countless numbers of employers have kept their employees in virtual misery by their cruel oppression. Understandably, Hagar became a runaway, not knowing where she was going, but going anyway.
But the Lord still had a good and kindly interest in Hagar. The angel of the Lord comes to her in her lonely distress as she is by a spring of water. At least she could find water, but it was a different matter to find food and shelter. The angel asked her where she had come from and where she would go. She could answer the first, but had no answer for the second. Though fleeing from her mistress, where could a pregnant woman go, specially when having no relatives or friends to contact?
There was only one course open to her, as the angel tells her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.” She was not only to return, but to cease from despising her mistress, and instead submit to her. A wrong attitude had made it hard for her: to change her attitude into one of submission would of course make Sarai’s attitude more favorable toward her.
Then Hagar, though a bondmaid, is given the promise that the Lord would multiply her descendants so greatly that they would be more than could be counted. This is true: all of Ishmael’s family (of Arabic descent) who have ever lived and are living today cannot possibly be numbered.
In these verses where the angel of the Lord is mentioned (vs.7,9,10) the angel is clearly the Lord Himself, for it is He who multiplies Abram’s posterity. The term “angel” is used to signify a messenger, and Mal 3:1 speaks of “the Lord whom you seek” as “the messenger of the covenant.”
Though Hagar was not to be the mother of God’s promised child to Abram, yet the Lord is interested in her and concerned about her and her expected child. He tells her that she is to name the child “Ishmael,” meaning “God will hear” (v.11). However, the character of the boy would be consistent with the fact of his being born from a union of contrary parents, the father a free man but the mother a slave. Ishmael would be figuratively “a wild donkey of a man,” self-willed and rebellious (v.12). He would be contentious, his hand against all other men, and of course they would therefore be against him. This had been one of the characteristics of the Arabs from that time, and their animosity will culminate in the violent attack of the king of the north against Israel in the tribulation period (Dan 11:40). But it will be God’s sovereign way of teaching Israel a lesson they sorely need (Isa 10:5-6). Consider also verse 12 of the same chapter. Abram learned by experience, and all this history teaches us that a wrong union leads to trouble and sorrow.
Added to this is the interesting statement, “he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” This is an intended contrast to his father Abram who made a practice of dwelling in the presence of God. Chapter 25:18 also tells us that Ishmael “died in the presence of all his brethren.” Legality always places more importance upon the people and the opinions of the people than it does upon God and His word. Even in death a legal minded man does not abandon his desire for men’s approval in order to make God the supreme object of his heart.
Hagar was so impressed by this intervention of God that she called Him “the God who sees.” “For,” she adds, “Have I also here seen Him who sees me?” Not that she had seen God personally, but recognized Him in the words He had spoken to her, and was evidently subdued. Perhaps we cannot be fully sure if she was born again, but no-one can ever be the same again after having an interview with the Lord of glory. Usually such an experience either draws one nearer to Him or, if resisted, tends to harden the heart toward Him. The latter case does not seem to be true of Hagar.
The well seems to infer that she was in a good place, for typically it speaks of the refreshment of the living word of God, and this one is Beer-Lahai Roi, which means “the well of Him who sees me.” Thus, though Hagar is typical of the legal covenant, it is not necessary to suppose that she was therefore personally without God. No doubt there were many in Old Testament times of whom we can not speak definitely as to their being born again, but we know that this is true even now, when there is fullest reason for a clear, positive knowledge of salvation, since Christ has come and brought eternal redemption through the great sacrifice of Himself The birth of Ishmael is recorded in verse 15 He is called Abram’s son, not Sarai’s.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
16:1 Now {a} Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name [was] Hagar.
(a) It seems that she had respect for God’s promise, which could not be accomplished without issue.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Sarai and Hagar 16:1-6
Using a woman other than one’s wife (Gen 16:2) was a method of providing an heir in the case of a childless marriage apart from adoption. [Note: Speiser, p. 130; T. Frymer-Kensky, "Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law," Biblical Archaeologist 44 (1981):209-14.] Hagar was Sarai’s personal servant, not a slave girl. Abram also had at least one personal servant (Gen 24:2).
"It was a serious matter for a man to be childless in the ancient world, for it left him without an heir. But it was even more calamitous for a woman: to have a great brood of children was the mark of success as a wife; to have none was ignominious failure. So throughout the ancient East polygamy was resorted to as a means of obviating childlessness. But wealthier wives preferred the practice of surrogate motherhood, whereby they allowed their husbands to ’go in to’ . . . their maids, a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Gen 6:4; Gen 30:3; Gen 38:8-9; Gen 39:14). The mistress could then feel that her maid’s child was her own and exert some control over it in a way that she could not if her husband simply took a second wife." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 7.]
People in Abram’s culture regarded a concubine as a secondary wife with some, but not all, of the rights and privileges of the primary wife. [Note: Bush, 1:258.] In effect Hagar became Abram’s concubine.
". . . one Nuzi tablet reads: ’Kelim-ninu has been given in marriage to Shennima. . . . If Kelim-ninu does not bear children, Kelim-ninu shall acquire a woman of the land of Lulu (i.e., a slave girl) as wife for Shennima.’" [Note: West, p. 69.]
Not only was using a concubine an option, but in Hurrian culture husbands sometimes required that if their wife could not bear children she had to provide a concubine for him. [Note: Livingston, p. 152. Cf. Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):245.]
". . . any child of the bond-slave would necessarily belong to the mistress, not the mother." [Note: Thomas, p. 147. Cf. J. Cheryl Exum, "The Mothers of Israel: The Patriarchal Narrative from a Feminist Perspective," Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):64.]
This custom helps explain why Abram was willing to be a part of Sarai’s plan that seems so unusual to us in the West. Abram agreed to his wife’s faithless suggestion as Adam had followed Eve’s lead. Abram’s passivity contrasts with his earlier valiant action to save Lot from his captors (ch. 14). Like Eve, Sarai also blamed someone else for the results of her act, namely, Abram (Gen 16:5).
Did Sarai mean that she would obtain children through Hagar by adopting them as her own or by becoming fertile herself as a result of Hagar’s childbearing (Gen 16:2)? Most interpreters have taken the first position, but some have preferred the second. [Note: E.g., Samson Kardimon, "Adoption As a Remedy For Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs," Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):123-26. See John Van Seters, "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel," Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968):401-8.] The basis of the second view is the not infrequent phenomenon of a woman who has had trouble conceiving becoming pregnant after she has adopted a child.
Though using a woman other than one’s wife to bear one’s children was a custom of the day, it was never God’s desire (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:4-5). Abram and Sarai here repeated the failure of Adam and Eve, namely, doubting God’s word. This episode ended in total disaster for everyone involved. Hagar lost her home, Sarai her maid, and Abram his wife’s servant and his child by Hagar.
"A thousand volumes written against polygamy would not lead to a clearer fuller conviction of the evils of that practice than the story under review." [Note: Bush, 1:259. See also Waltke, Genesis, p. 339.]
Sarai tried to control the will of God by seizing the initiative from God (cf. Gen 3:17). She and Abram chose fleshly means of obtaining the promised heir rather than waiting for God in faith (cf. Gen 25:21). [Note: See George Van Pelt Campbell, "Rushing Ahead of God: An Exposition of Genesis 16:1-16," Bibliotheca Sacra 163:651 (July-September 2006):276-91.] They let their culture guide them rather than God.
"It’s a shame that she [Sarai] hadn’t comprehended the fact that her infertility could be used by the Lord to put her in a place of dependence on Him so that fruit could be born in her life." [Note: Don Anderson, Abraham: Delay Is Not Denial, p. 93.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
BIRTH OF ISHMAEL
Gen 16:1-16
IN this unpretending chapter we have laid bare to us the origin of one of the most striking facts in the history of religion: namely, that from the one person of Abram have sprung Christianity and that religion which has been and still is its most formidable rival and enemy, Mohammedanism. To Ishmael, the son of Abram, the Arab tribes are proud to trace their pedigree. Through him they claim Abram as their father, and affirm that they are his truest representatives, the sons of his first-born. In Mohammed, the Arabian, they see the fulfilment of the blessing of Abram, and they have succeeded in persuading a large part of the world to believe along with them. Little did Sarah think when she persuaded Abram to take Hagar that she was originating a rivalry which has run with keenest animosity through all ages and which oceans of blood have not quenched. The domestic rivalry and petty womanish spites and resentments so candidly depicted in this chapter, have actually thrown on the world from that day to this one of its darkest and least hopeful shadows. The blood of our own countrymen, it may be of our own kindred, will yet flow in this unappeasable quarrel. So great a matter does a little fire kindle. So lasting and disastrous are the issues of even slight divergences from pure simplicity.
It is instructive to observe how long this matter of obtaining an heir for Abram occupies the stage of sacred history and in how many aspects it is shown. The stage is rapidly cleared of whatever else might naturally have invited attention, and interest is concentrated on the heir that is to be. The risks run by the appointed mother, the doubts of the father, the surrender now of the mothers rights, -all this is trivial if it concerned only one household, important only when you view it as significant for the race. It was thus men were taught thoughtfully to brood upon the future and to believe that, though Divine, blessing and salvation would spring from earth: man was to co-operate with God, to recognise himself as capable of uniting with God in the highest of all purposes. At the same time, this long and continually deferred expectation of Abram was the simple means adopted by God to convince men once for all that the promised seed is not of nature but of grace, that it is God who sends all effectual and determining blessing, and that we must learn to adapt ourselves to His ways and wait upon Him.
The first man, then, whose religious experience and growth are recorded for us at any length, has this one thing to learn, to trust Gods word and wait for it. In this everything is included. But gradually it appears to us all that this is the great difficulty, to wait; to let God take His own time to bless us. It is hard to believe in Gods perfect love and care when we are receiving no present comfort or peace; hard to believe we shall indeed be sanctified when we seem to be abandoned to sinful habit; hard, to pass all through life with some pain, or some crushing trouble, or some harassing anxiety, or some unsatisfied craving. It is easy to start with faith, most trying to endure patiently to the end. It is thus God educates His children. Compelled to wait for some crowning gift, we cannot but study Gods ways, It is thus we are forced to look below the surface of life to its hidden meanings and to construe Gods dealings with ourselves apart from the experience of other men. It is thus we are taught actually to loosen our hold of things temporal and to lay hold on what is spiritual and real. He who leaves himself in Gods hand will one day declare that the pains and sorrows he suffered were trifling in comparison with what he has won from them.
But Sarah could not wait. She seems to have fixed ten years as the period during which she would wait; but at the expiry of this term she considered herself justified in helping forward Gods tardy providence by steps of her own. One cannot severely blame her. When our hearts are set upon some definite blessing things seem to move too slowly, and we can scarcely refrain from urging them on without too scrupulously enquiring into the character of our methods. We are willing to wait for a certain time, but beyond that we must take the matter into our own hand. This incident shows, what all life shows, that whatever be the boon you seek, you do yourself an injury if you cease to seek it in the best possible form and manner, and decline upon some lower thing which you can secure by some easy stratagem of your own.
The device suggested by Sarah was so common that the wonder is that it had not long before been tried. Jealousy or instinctive reluctance may have prevented her from putting it in force. She might no doubt have understood that God, always working out His purposes in consistency with all that is most honourable and pure in human conduct, requires of no one to swerve a hairs-breadth from the highest ideal of what a human life should be, and that just in proportion as we seek the best gifts and the most upright and pure path to them does God find it easy to bless us. But in her case it was difficult to continue in this belief; and at length she resolved to adopt the easy and obvious means of obtaining an heir. It was unbelieving and foolish, but not more so than our adoption of practices common in our day and in our business which we know are not the best, but which we nevertheless make use of to obtain our ends because the most righteous means possible do not seem workable in our circumstances. Are you not conscious that you have sometimes used a means of effecting your purpose, which you would shrink from using habitually, but which you do not scruple to use to tide you over a difficulty, an extraordinary device for an extraordinary emergency, a Hagar brought in for a season to serve a purpose, not a Sarah accepted from God and cherished as an eternal helpmeet. It is against this we are here warned. From a Hagar can at the best spring only an Ishmael, while in order to obtain the blessing God intends we must betake ourselves to Gods barren-looking means.
The evil consequences of Sarahs scheme were apparent first of all in the tool she made use of Agur the son of Jakeh says: “For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear. For a servant when he reigneth, and a fool when he is filled with meat; for an odious woman when she is married, and a handmaid that is heir to her mistress.” Naturally this half-heathen girl, when she found that her son would probably inherit all Abrams possessions, forgot herself, and looked down on her present, nominal mistress. A flood of new fancies possessed her vacant mind and her whole demeanour becomes insulting to Sarah. The slave-girl could not be expected to sympathise with the purpose which Abram and Sarah had in view when they made use of her. They had calculated on finding only the unquestioning, mechanical obedience of the slave, even while raising her practically to the dignity of a wife. They had fancied that even to the deepest feelings of her womans heart, even in maternal hopes, she would be plastic in their hands, their mere passive instrument. But they have entirely miscalculated. The slave has feelings as quick and tender as their own, a life and a destiny as tenaciously clung to as their God-appointed destiny. Instead of simplifying their life they have merely added to it another source of complexity and annoyance. It is the common fate of all who use others to satisfy their own desires and purposes. The instruments they use are never so soulless and passive as it is wished. If persons cannot serve you without deteriorating in their own character, you have no right to ask them to serve you. To use human beings as if they were soulless machines is to neglect radical laws and to inflict the most serious injury on our fellow-men. Mistresses who do not treat their servants with consideration, recognising that they are as truly women as themselves, with all a womans hopes and feelings, and with a life of their own to live, are committing a grievous wrong, and evil will come of it.
In such an emergency as now arose in Abrams household, character shows itself clearly. Sarahs vexation at the success of her own scheme, her recrimination and appeal for strange justice, her unjustifiable treatment of Hagar, Abrams Bedouin disregard of the jealousies of the womens tent, his Gallio-like repudiation of judgment in such quarrels, his regretful vexation and shame that through such follies, mistakes, and wranglings, . God had to find a channel for His promise to flow-all this discloses the painful ferment into which Abrams household was thrown. Sarahs attempt to rid herself with a high hand of the consequences of her scheme was signally unsuccessful. In the same inconsiderate spirit in which she had put Hagar in her place, she now forces her to flee, and fancies that she has now rid herself and her household of all the disagreeable consequences of her experiment. She is grievously mistaken. The slave comes back upon her hands, and comes back with the promise of a son who should be a continual trouble to all about him. All through Ishmaels boyhood Abram and Sarah had painfully to reap the fruits of what they had sown. We only make matters worse when we endeavour by injustice and harshness to crush out the consequences of wrong-doing. The difficulties into which sin has brought us can only be effectually overcome by sincere contrition and humiliation. It is not all in a moment nor by one happy stroke you can rectify the sin or mistake of a moment. If by your wise devices you have begotten young Ishmaels, if something is every day grieving you and saying to you, “This comes of your careless inconsiderate conduct in the past,” then see that in your vexation there is real penitence and not a mere indignant resentment against circumstances or against other people, and see that you are not actually continuing the fault which first gave birth to your present sorrow and entanglement. When Hagar fled from her mistress she naturally took the way to her old country. Instinctively her feet carried her to the land of her birth. And as she crossed the desert country where Palestine, Egypt, and Arabia meet, she halted by a fountain, spent with her flight and awed by the solitude and stillness of the desert. Her proud spirit is broken and tamed, the fond memories of her adopted home and all its customs and ways and familiar faces and occupations, overtake her when she pauses and her heart reacts from the first excitement of hasty purpose and reckless execution. To whom could she go in Egypt? Was there one there who would remember the little slave girl or who would care to show her a kindness? Has she not acted madly in fleeing from her only protectors? The desolation around her depicts her own condition. No motion stirs as far as her eye can reach, no bird flies, no leaf trembles, no cloud floats over the scorching sun, no sound breaks the death-like quiet; she feels as if in a tomb, severed from all life, forgotten of all. Her spirit is breaking under this sense of desolation, when suddenly her heart stands still as she hears a voice utter her own name “Hagar, Sarais maid.” As readily as every other person when God speaks to them, does Hagar recognise Who it is who has followed her into this blank solitude. In her circumstances to hear the voice of God left no room for disobedience. The voice of God made audible through the actual circumstances of our daily life acquires a force and an authority we never attached to it otherwise.
Probably, too, Hagar would have gone back to Abrams tents at the bidding of a less authoritative voice than this. Already she was softening and repenting. She but needed some one to say, “Go back.” You may often make it easier for a proud man to do a right thing by giving him a timely word. Frequently men stand in the position of Hagar, knowing the course they ought to adopt and yet hesitating to adopt it until it is made easy to them by a wise and friendly word.
In the promise of a son which was here given to Hagar and the prediction concerning his destiny, while there was enough to teach both her and Abram that he was not to be the heir of the promise, there was also much to gratify a mothers pride and be to Hagar a source of continual satisfaction. The son was to bear a name which should commemorate Gods remembrance of her in her desolation. As often as she murmured it over the babe or called it to the child or uttered it in sharp remonstrance to the refractory boy, she was still reminded that she had a helper in God who had heard and would hear her. The prediction regarding the child has been strikingly fulfilled in his descendants; the three characteristics by which they are distinguished being precisely those here mentioned. “He will be a wild man,” literally, “a wild ass among men,” reminding us of the description of this animal in Job: “Whose house I have made the wilderness, and the barren land his dwelling. He scorneth the multitude of the city, neither regardeth he the crying of the driver. The range of the mountains is his pasture, and he searcheth after every green thing.” Like the zebra that cannot be domesticated, the Arab scorns the comforts of civilised life, and adheres to the primitive dress, food, and mode of life, delighting in the sensation of freedom, scouring the deserts, sufficient with his horse and spear for every emergency. His hand also is against every man, looking on all as his natural enemies or as his natural prey; in continual feud of tribe against tribe and of the whole race against all of different blood and different customs. And yet he “dwells in the presence of his brethren”; though so warlike a temper would bode his destruction and has certainly destroyed other races, this Ishmaelite stock continues in its own lands with an uninterrupted history. In the words of an authoritative writer: “They have roved like the moving sands of their deserts; but their race has been rooted while the individual wandered. That race has neither been dissipated by conquest, nor lost by migration, nor confounded with the blood of other countries. They have continued to dwell in the presence of all their brethren, a distinct nation, wearing upon the whole the same features and aspects which prophecy first impressed upon them.”
What struck Hagar most about this interview was Gods presence with her in this remote solitude. She awakened to the consciousness that duty, hope, God, are ubiquitous, universal, carried in the human breast, not confined to any place. Her hopes, her haughtiness, her sorrows, her flight, were known. The feeling possessed her which was afterwards expressed by the Psalmist: “Thou knowest my down-sitting, and mine uprising, Thou understandest my thoughts afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. Thou tellest my wanderings; put Thou my tears in Thy bottle; are they not in Thy book?” Even here where I thought to have escaped every eye, have I been following and at length found Him that seeth me. As truly and even more perceptibly than in Abrams tents, God is with her here in the desert. To evade duty, to leave responsibility behind us, is impossible. In all places we are Gods children, bound to accept the responsibilities of our nature. In all places God is with us, not only to point out our duty but to give us the feeling that in adhering to duty we adhere to Him, and that it is because He values us that He presses duty upon us. With Him is no respect of persons. the servant is in his sight as vivid a personality as the mistress, and God appears not to the overbearing mistress but to the overborne servant.
Happy they who when God has thus met them and sent them back on their own footsteps, a long and weary return, have still been so filled with a sense of Gods love in caring for them through all their errors, that they obey and return. All round about His people does God encamp, all round about His flock does the faithful Shepherd watch and drive back upon the fold each wanderer. Not only to those who are consciously seeking Him does God reveal Himself, but often to us at the very. farthest point of our wandering, at our extremity, when another days journey would land us in a region from which there is no return. When our regrets for the past become intolerably poignant and bitter; when we see a waste of years behind us barren as the sand of the desert, with nothing done but what should but cannot be undone; when the heart is stupefied with the sense of its madness and of the irretrievable loss it has sustained, or when we look to the future and are persuaded little can grow up in it out of such a past, when we see that all that would have prepared us for it has been lightly thrown aside or spent recklessly for nought, when our hearts fail us, this is God besetting us behind and before. And may He grant us strength to pray, “Show me Thy ways, O Lord, teach me Thy paths. Lead me in Thy truth and teach me: for Thou art the God of my salvation; on Thee do I wait all the day.”
The quiet glow of hopefulness with which Hagar returned to Abrams encampment should possess the spirit of every one of us. Hagars prospects were not in all respects inviting. She knew the kind of treatment she was likely to receive at the hands of Sarah. She was to be a bondwoman still. But God had persuaded her of His care and had given her a hope large enough to fill her heart. That hope was to be fulfilled by a return to the home she had fled from, by a humbling and painful experience. There is no person for whom God has not similar encouragement. Frequently persons forget that God is in their life, fulfilling His purposes. They flee from what is painful; they lose their bearings in life and know not which way to turn; they do not fancy there is help for them in God. Yet God is with them; by these very circumstances that reduce them to desolateness and despair He leads them to hope in Him. Each one of us has a place in His purpose; and that place we shall find not by fleeing from what is distressing but by submitting ourselves cheerfully to what He appoints. Gods purpose is real, and life is real, meant to accomplish not our present passing pleasure, but lasting good in conformity with Gods purpose. Be sure that when you are bidden back to duties that seem those of a slave, you are bidden to them by God, Whose purposes are worthy of Himself and Whose purposes include you and all that concerns you.
There are, I think, few truths more animating than this which is here taught us, that God has a purpose with each of us; that however insignificant we seem, however friendless, however hardly used, however ousted even from our natural place in this worlds households, God has a place for us; that however we lose our way in life we are not lost from His eye; that even when we do not think of choosing Him He in His Divine, all-embracing love chooses us, and throws about us bonds from which we cannot escape. Of Hagar many were complacently thinking it was no great matter if she were lost, and some might consider themselves righteous because they said she deserved whatever mishap might befall her. But not so God. Of some of us, it may be, others may think no great blank would be made by our loss; but Gods compassion and care and purpose comprehend the least worthy. The very hairs of your head are all numbered by Him. Nothing is so trivial and insignificant as to escape His attention, nothing so intractable that He cannot use it for good. Trust in Him, obey Him, and your life will yet be useful and happy.