The Birth of Ishmael, 1-16
Duguid: in the previous three chapters, we have seen Abraham as a man of failure. In this chapter he is presented as a man of failure. This is a reminder to us all:
1 Corinthians 10:12 (NET) — So let the one who thinks he is standing be careful that he does not fall.
Steinmann outlines the context:
‘Between two statements of God’s covenant to Abram concerning his numerous offspring (see Gen 15:4–5; 17:3–8, 19), Sarai proposes a way for Abram to have a child. The giving of Hagar to Abram and the birth of Ishmael is a misguided attempt to induce God’s promise through human effort. Nevertheless, God will remain faithful to his promise and even bless Hagar with many descendants, since her son will also be Abram’s. In this way God shows himself faithful to his promises even when human beings doubt those promises and feel the need to take matters into their own hands.’
Wenham notes that women are the principal actors in each of the three scenes of this chapter: vv2-6, Sarai’s scheme’ vv7-14, Hagar’s encounter with the angel; v15, Hagar gives birth to Ishmael.
16:1 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had not given birth to any children, but she had an Egyptian servant named Hagar. 16:2 So Sarai said to Abram, “Since the LORD has prevented me from having children, have sexual relations with my servant. Perhaps I can have a family by her.” Abram did what Sarai told him.
Sarai…had not given birth to any children – For a woman to be childless was, in Bible times, a matter of great shame. It might, indeed, be regarded as a sign of divine disfavour. But divinely-enabled reversals, leading to the birth of a prominent figure, feature several times in Scripture:
- Sarah’s barrenness ends with the birth of Isaac (Gen 21:1–7).
- Rebekah’s barrenness ends with the birth of Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:21–26).
- Rachel’s barrenness ends with the birth of Joseph (Gen 29:31; 30:22–24).
- Manoah’s wife’s barrenness ends with the birth of Samson (Judg 13:2–5).
- Hannah’s barrenness ends with the birth of Samuel (1 Sam 1:19–20).
- Elizabeth’s barrenness ends with the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:7, 24–25, 36).
These are often seen as an answer to prayer (Gen 25:21; 1 Sam 1:9–11). In Gen 16, however, Sarai does not pray to the Lord to remove her barrenness. Instead, she blames him for it, and takes the matter into her own hands.
Waltke & Fredricks:
‘Had Sarah also sought God’s counsel, we can be sure he would have ruled out surrogate motherhood for her as he had ruled out adoption for Abraham (Gen. 15:1–4; cf. 17:19; 18:9–15).’
The clock is ticking. We first learned about Sarai and her childlessness in ch. 12. It is now ten years later, and by the Bible’s reckoning she is 75 years old. (Goldingay tentatively suggests a ‘literal’ age of perhaps half this). Adding to the pressure was God’s promise that Abraham would have thousands of offspring. Both Sarai’s longing and God’s promise intertwine to force Sarai into thinking, perhaps, that they have either misunderstood the situation or that God’s needs their help to achieve what otherwise seems impossible.
Sarai’s experience anticipates that of others, including Hannah and Elizabeth.
It may be that Abram was willing to wait for God’s promise to be fulfilled; but his wife Sarai was not.
One or both of them seems to have forgotten God’s promise:
Genesis 15:4–5 (NET) — But look, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but instead a son who comes from your own body will be your heir.”5 The LORD took him outside and said, “Gaze into the sky and count the stars—if you are able to count them!” Then he said to him, “So will your descendants be.”
An Egyptian servant named Hagar – The name is Semitic, not Egyptian, and was possibly given to her by Abraham after she left Egypt.
Abraham’s acquisition of Hagar is possibly explained by:
Genesis 12:15–16 (NET) — 15 When Pharaoh’s officials saw [Sarai], they praised her to Pharaoh. So Abram’s wife was taken into the household of Pharaoh,16 and he did treat Abram well on account of her. Abram received sheep and cattle, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.
She was a maidservant:
‘a personal servant owned by a rich woman, not a slave girl answerable to the master.’ (Waltke & Fredricks)
Hagar in feminist interpretation
In her 1984 book Texts of Terror, Phyllis Trible discusses the story of Hagar, along with accounts of Tamar, the Levite’s concubine, and the daughter of Jephthah.
According to the Fortress Commentary on the Bible,
‘The traditional interpretation of the Hagar stories portrays Hagar as an impertinent shrew who casts aspersions on her mistress because of Sarai’s inability to conceive. Sarai and Abram are generally viewed as above reproach in their abuse of Hagar. If there is anything they have done wrong, it is that they have not waited on YHWH to act, but have tried to fulfill God’s promise to them on their own. Scarcely is a word uttered about their abuse of power and violation of a seemingly unwilling young woman.’
Carol A. Newsome, writing in The Women’s Bible Commentary, notes the work of Josephine Butler (1828–1906):
‘[Butler] came from a high-ranking and well-to-do British family that was deeply involved in social reform. Butler herself became a social activist, abolitionist, and advocate for political equality for women. Her work with female prostitutes and sexually exploited children in particular made her into a sharp critic of the cruelties and hypocrisies of Victorian society. In 1894 she published a collection of essays on various biblical texts, entitled The Lady of Shunem. In chapter 4 she recounts the story of Hagar and interprets it through the hermeneutical lens of the victimized prostitutes whose lives she had come to understand. In passionate language she excoriates the behavior of Abraham and Sarah toward Hagar, directly comparing them to the self-righteous “respectable” society of her own day, which refused to see its role in abusing and despising the outcast “fallen” woman. Butler also took to task the commentators who refused to exercise ordinary moral judgment in interpreting the narrative and instead defended the actions of Abraham and Sarah.’
Feminist writers also comment on Paul’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah, in Gal 4:21-31. This allegory has become, it is claimed:
‘a “proof text” for a violent and supersessionist Christian disalignment from the other of Judaism. This polarity is famously depicted in the defeated and blindfolded female body of the “Synagogue,” opposed by the triumphant woman “Ecclesia,” in many churches in Europe. In line with Genesis 16 and 21, Gal. 4:21–31 has been read as another “text of terror” (Trible) that canonized the “legitimate” oppression and exclusion of Hagar not only as “Jew” but also as the abused and traded woman, the exploited African American (sex) slave, the single mother, the disposable foreigner (Williams 1993; 2006; Briggs, 224). Furthermore, the equally relentless stance of Gal. 4:30 against Hagar’s son Ishmael, who was according to Qur’an 2:121 the cofounder of the Kaaba in Mecca, could very well preconfigure contemporary anti-Islamism (Hassan). Without a Roman “reading lens,” the harsh verdict against Hagar can indeed all too easily change into the epitome of Christian anti-Judaism, patriarchy, xenophobia, and “kyriarchal” social master codes as they are commonly attributed to Paul (Schüssler Fiorenza 1999, 163–65).’ (Fortress Commentary on the Bible)
Sarai said to Abram – Duguid reminds us that the Devil does not always approach us as a roaring lion: sometimes, he comes in the garb of an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), or, in this case, in the form of our nearest and dearest. Satan didn’t only confront Jesus head-on, as in the wilderness (Mt 4:1-11), but also through the words of one of his closest friends, Peter (Mt 16:23). Obedience to God’s word must be more precious to us than the counsel of even our closest friends.
“The Lord has prevented me from having children” – Was Sarai guilty of ‘blaming’ the Lord (Steinmann)? Or is she simply acknowledging the fact that it is the Lord’s prerogative to give or withhold children (cf. 25:21; 30:2; Lev 20:20, 21; Deut 28:11; Ps 113:9)? Either way, barrenness was very shameful in that culture. In partial mitigation of her plan, God had promised offspring to Abram, without naming her (yet) as the mother.
Wenham comments:
‘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.’
“Have sexual relations with my servant” – God has a problem; but don’t worry! Sarah has a solution! When Sarah realised that she was barren, she gave her maidservant to Abraham so that the family line could be continued through her. An example of this ancient custom has been discovered in the Nuzi tablets. Such surrogate marriage would have been considered normal in the Ancient Near East. The Genesis text itself, however, seems to disapprove of this attempt to force God’s hand (Steinmann, Wenham).
Goldingay notes that Sarai’s proposal is not tantamount to a invitation to commit adultery. It is a proposal, rather, for him to take another wife:
‘One of my African students described to me how his father became head of his village and therefore wanted to take another wife because of the status he now had; his first wife agreed and suggested a friend of hers. One of my Egyptian students described how today in up-country areas a woman might suggest that her husband take a second wife for precisely the reasons described in this story. If the second wife then gets pregnant, she will have her baby while lying between the legs of the first wife so that the first wife shares in the birth and the baby belongs at least as much to her as to the second wife. Symbolically, the first wife has had the baby, so the community will view the child as the first wife’s.’
Brueggemann urges that this account should be seen, not so much as a failure of morality (bearing in mind ancient norms) but rather as a failure of faith on the part of both Sarah and Abraham.
Nevertheless, the Bible assumes throughout that polygamy is second best to manogamy, and that, while it can appear to solve some problems, it also brings problems of its own (as here).
Enns and Byas comment:
‘It is quite possible that Abraham and Sarah figure that Hagar would have to be the one to bear the children promised to Abraham. After all, Sarah is way too old to have children. Sarah might not be acting impulsively but logically. And remember that God didn’t mention Sarah in his promise to Abraham; he never said who the mother would be. Finally, in the ancient world, it was common practice to use a surrogate mother to ensure descendants.’ (Genesis for Normal People)
A number of commentators observe that when we are told that ‘Abram did what Sarai told him’ (lit. ‘Abram obeyed his wife’), this echoes the previous time a husband is said to have done what his wife told him (Gen 3:17).
In fact, as Berg (ctied by Wenham) observes, there is a rather close parallelism between the two passages:
‘The actors correspond: in Gen 16:3 the woman takes the initiative as she does in 3:6b. The recipient of the gift is in both texts the man, in Gen 16:3 the husband, in Gen 3:6b the man for whom the woman was created as partner. In both stories the man reacts appropriately to the woman’s action. In 3:6b he eats the proffered fruit: in 16:4a he goes in to the offered Hagar. The means (of sin), the fruit/Hagar, is accepted by the man. The sequence of events is similar in both cases: the woman takes something and gives it to her husband, who accepts it.
‘This leads to the conclusion. By employing quite similar formulations and an identical sequence of events in Gen 3:6b and 16:3–4a, the author makes it clear that for him both narratives describe comparable events, that they are both accounts of a fall.’
There was, as Duguid remarks, a certain plausibiity in this plan. God’s promise had been to Abraham, and not to Sarah, and so it was not implausible to suppose that the longed-for heir would come via another wife. And, in taking Hagar as a second wife, Abraham was not motivated by lust, but by a desire to see God’s promised fulfilled. And, as already noted, the taking of more than one wife was widely accepted in the Ancient Near East. Satan’s reasoning was similarly plausible:
‘“Why don’t you make these stones into bread? Otherwise, you may die of hunger, and that would hardly forward God’s plan! Throw yourself down from the top of the temple, showing yourself to be the one who comes gloriously on the clouds. Otherwise, the people may despise the humble manner of your coming to earth, and thus miss out on the blessing you came to bring. You are going to appear that way someday, so why not now? Take possession of the world’s throne now. Otherwise, you may end up with nothing but a cross. Isn’t the crown yours by right anyway?” (cf. Matt. 4:3–10). Satan’s proposals all seem so sensible. They seem to achieve God’s purposes by a shortcut. But if you give in to Satan’s wiles, you will discover, like Abram, that the shortcut doesn’t lead you where you want to go.’
Counting against this scheme is the fact that according to Gen 15:4 Abraham would have a ‘real’ son, not an adopted one.
16:3 So after Abram had lived in Canaan for ten years, Sarai, Abram’s wife, gave Hagar, her Egyptian servant, to her husband to be his wife. 16:4 He had sexual relations with Hagar, and she became pregnant. Once Hagar realized she was pregnant, she despised Sarai. 16:5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You have brought this wrong on me! I allowed my servant to have sexual relations with you, but when she realized that she was pregnant, she despised me. May the LORD judge between you and me!”
Sarai, Abram’s wife, gave Hagar, her Egyptian servant, to her husband to be his wife – ‘Hagar is treated as property with no personal rights’ (Waltke & Fredricks)
There is, understandably, ambiguity in this network of relationships. On the one hand, Hagar is Abram’s second ‘wife’, v3. On the other hand, she remains Sarai’s ‘servant’. under Sarai’s authority (v6).
Polygamous marriages. Gen 2:24 establishes monogamy as the biblical norm. However, polygamy was quite common in the ANE. Esau, Jacob, David and Solomon all took multiple wives (Gen 26:34; 29:21–30; 1 Sam 18:17–30; 1 Kgs 11:3). The Mosaid law made provision for the support of all the wives in such a relationship (Exod 21:10; Deut 21:15–17). But polygamous marriages are repeatedly shown to be dysfunctional, exhibiting, favoritism (Gen 30:1f), rivalry (1 Sam 1), and conflict (Judges 9; 1 Kings 1-2).
Goldingay notes that in this story, as elsewhere in Scripture, marriage and sex do not revolve exclusively around romantic love (as they tend to in Western societies).
He had sexual relations with Hagar – The comment of the Fortress Biblical Commentary…
‘In what can best be described as a “rape,” Sarai gives Hagar to her husband Abram without consulting her. The subsequent act of Abram “going in” to her without her permission seems both to be brutal and to demonstrate the gross abuses of a system that allows for slavery and the commodification of this young woman’s sexuality.’
…is probably an overstatement, given the customs and mores of the time.
Once Hagar realized she was pregnant, she despised Sarai – Goldingay says that there is some ambiguity in the text. The NET text may be correct: Hagar sees that she herself is pregnant so that Sarah is belittled in Hagar’s eyes. The alternative meaning is that Sarah sees that Hagar is pregnant, so that Sarah is belittled in her own eyes. Perhaps both are true.
‘Despised’ is translated ‘cursed’ in Gen 12:3.
Walton (Bible Background Commentary) notes that women in ancient times gained honour either by marriage or by childbearing. The relationship between Sarah and Hagar therefore, was bound to be difficult.
Commenting on the subsequent account in Gen 21, P.B. Overland (in DOT:P, art. ‘Hagar’) writes:
‘Perhaps the tension presented in Genesis 21 arose from a conflict of international inheritance expectations, Mesopotamian (affirming primary wife’s son) and Egyptian (favoring firstborn, albeit by slave mother).’
“You have brought this wrong on me!” – But it had been her idea! Cf. Gen 3:12f.
How apt we are to blame others! ‘It’s him! It’s her! It’s them! It’s it!’ – But it’s never ‘me’.
“May the LORD judge between you and me!” – “The LORD will show who’s wrong—you or me” (NLT). Or even (suggests Ross), “God will get you for this.”
16:6 Abram said to Sarai, “Since your servant is under your authority, do to her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai treated Hagar harshly, so she ran away from Sarai.
Abraham throws the problem back to Sarah. “You sort it out!”
Neither Sarah nor Abraham was willing to take responsibility:
‘Sarai blamed Abram for the whole mess: “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering” (Gen. 16:5). Abram wanted Sarai alone to take full responsibility for what happened to Hagar: “Your servant is in your hands. Do with her whatever you think best” (16:6). Hagar was caught in the middle and responded by running away.’ (Duguid)
Sarai treated Hagar harshly – Whether physically, or psychologically, we don’t know. The victim becomes the victimizer.
As Waltke & Fredricks remark:
‘Neither Sarah nor Hagar acquit themselves well here: the mistress is harsh and overbearing; the maidservant is unrepentant and insubordinate.’
Wenham:
‘Thus the first scene ends in total disaster for all concerned. Hagar has lost her home, Sarai her maid, and Abram his second wife and newborn child.’
16:7 The LORD’s angel found Hagar near a spring of water in the desert—the spring that is along the road to Shur. 16:8 He said, “Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?” She replied, “I’m running away from my mistress, Sarai.”
The Lord’s angel found Hagar – Divine mercy meets human folly.
The Lord’s angel. This is the first mention of ‘the angel of the Lord’. Lit. ‘messenger’. Variously thought to be
(a) a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (so many early Christian interpreters, including Poole, JFB);
(b) a theophany – an appearance of God (Hamilton: a representation, rather than a representative, of God), cf. Gen 16:10;
(c) an angel, speaking for and representing God. Waltke & Fredricks: possibly the ‘angel of the Lord’ of the NT, who ‘announces the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:11) and of Jesus (Matt. 1:20, 24; Luke 2:9) and identifies himself as Gabriel (Luke 1:19)’.
According to the CSB Spurgeon Study Bible:
‘To all intents and purposes she was a friendless, outcast woman. She had left the only tents where she could claim a shelter. She had gone into the wilderness—no father, no mother, no brother, and no sister to care for her. She turned her back on those who had any interest in her, and now she was left alone—alone, alone in a desert land without an eye to pity or a hand to help. Under those peculiar circumstances of trial and of sin commingled, God met with her.’
The road to Shur – The location of Shur itself is disputed; but it is known that the road itself leads back to Egypt (Hagar’s home). Exactly where Hagar thought she was going, or what she expected to do there, we do not know. As a runaway servant, she could hardly have expected to be treated favourably there.
“Hagar, servant of Sarai” – Whereas the narrative never records either Sarah or Abraham referring to her by name, the Angel never refers to her as Abram’s wife. She would bear Abram’s child, but she would not be part of God’s covenant with him.
“Where have you come from, and where are you going?” – Rhetorical questions: since the angel already knows Hagar’s name, he surely knows the answers to these questions, too. It is like the LORD asking Adam “where are you?” (Gen 3:9) or Cain “where is Abel?” (Gen 4:9). But a good questioner will often ask anyway, in order to prompt the respondent to speak for herself. In the event, Hagar answers the first question, but doesn’t address the second.
Wenham notes:
‘This is, in fact, the first time the LORD has asked someone their whereabouts since Gen 4, and it emphasizes the parallel between this story and those earlier ones.’
16:9 Then the LORD’s angel said to her, “Return to your mistress and submit to her authority. 16:10 I will greatly multiply your descendants,” the LORD’s angel added, “so that they will be too numerous to count.” 16:11 Then the LORD’s angel said to her,
“You are now pregnant
and are about to give birth to a son.
You are to name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard your painful groans.
16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man.
He will be hostile to everyone,
and everyone will be hostile to him.
He will live away from his brothers.”
“Return to your mistress and submit to her authority” – This will be hard for Hagar, but better than an uncertain existence back in Egypt.
As Overland suggests:
‘The angel’s instruction need not equate to sanction of Sarai’s rough treatment (contra Trible 1985, 227). The angel plainly labels her experience as “misery” (ʿŏnî, still another word related to ʿnh, Gen 16:11). By directing Hagar to return, the angel marks out a high road of conduct, calling on her to render respect due Sarai by virtue of her position as employer (Gen 16:8, cf. 1 Tim 6:1–2; 1 Pet 2:18). By her compliance Hagar earns a position among those Gentiles of the biblical record who by their actions exceed the piety of certain of their Hebrew contemporaries.’
“I will greatly multiply your descendants” – cf. the promise to Abram, Gen 13:16. Hagar will be part of the fulfilment of God’s promise to Abram, but not the complete fulfilment.
“You are about to give birth to a son” – The first of several birth announcements by this angel, Gen 17:19; Judg. 13:3, 5, 7; Luke 1:11–20, 26–38.
Wenham:
‘Two thousand years later Mary, handmaid of the Lord, was to be similarly addressed: “Behold, you will conceive … and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” Both Hagar and Mary stand as examples of women who obediently accepted God’s word and thereby brought blessing to descendants too many to count.’
“Ishmael” – meaning, ‘God has heard’, explained as, ‘The Lord has heard your painful groans’.
“The Lord has heard your painful groans” – God had not been deaf or blind when Hagar had been ill-treated by Sarah. But it may seem strange that he is now sending her back to her! She is not to return to Egypt and thus disappear from God’s story: she is to return to Sarah and remain part of that story.
“He will be a wild donkey of a man” – A compliment, not an insult.
Believed to refer to the Syrian wild ass (onager). It was small (1m high at the shoulder), but fast and fearless. It was untameable. It became extinct in 1927.
He will be at home in the wilderness:
‘He will survive. He will be a man who likes his independence and doesn’t need to cozy up to other people in order to thrive. He will be prepared to take anyone on and defend himself against anyone. He will not be afraid or petrified by thinking about how people have done him wrong. He will not crumble or lie down and die. He will hold his head up high. He’s got his life to live. Oh yes, he will survive.’ (Goldingay)
We may see in Ishmael the prototype of the Bedouin:
‘of whom Ishmael is the ancestor (in Arab and Muslim tradition, he is the ancestor of many if not all the Arab peoples). They live their lives away from peoples living in villages or towns, or even people moving around with sheep like Abraham. And they survive.’ (Goldingay)
He will be hostile to everyone, and everyone will be hostile to him – As Ross (CBC) remarks, the world has ever since suffered because of the tribal conflicts in the Middle East between the different sons of Abraham.
Baldwin:
‘Even today the Arab descendants of Ishmael are in dispute with their neighbours who have descended from Isaac, and they continue to manifest a rugged independence.’
Ross comments:
‘According to [Arab] tradition, Abraham and Ishmael established the holy shrine in Mecca, and Ishmael was to be the heir of the promise of the land. Interestingly, the prophecy in Genesis 16 predicted that he and his descendants would lift their hand against everyone, and that everyone would lift their hand against them, and that they would live in hostility to all their brothers (16:12). Under the customs of the day, Ishmael could have been the heir if Sarai remained barren and if Abram declared him to be the heir. But that never happened, according to the Bible (which Islam rejects). God told Abram that Isaac would be the heir, and so Abram was instructed to send Ishmael away (21:11–13). God promised to make Ishmael into a great nation as well—but the line for the covenant and the Messiah would come through Isaac.’
Ross continues:
‘In many ways the ancient conflicts between the Israelites and the Ishmaelites are being played out today. God has blessed both lines with numerous descendants, just as he promised. But both claim their right to the land of Canaan as the heir of Abram…And so until Christ returns, we must try to promote peace and justice in that troubled part of the world without naively choosing sides, for we have two nations, very closely related, who are forced to live together in one land.’
Waltkey & Fredricks note:
‘By the end of the Abrahamic narrative, Ishmael and Isaac live in separation (Gen. 25:18).’
16:13 So Hagar named the LORD who spoke to her, “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “Here I have seen one who sees me!” 16:14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi. (It is located between Kadesh and Bered.)
Hagar named the Lord who spoke to her – There is no indication that Hagar herself knew that it was Yahweh.
Walton comments:
‘This is the only example in the Old Testament of someone assigning a name to deity. Usually naming someone or something is a way of affirming authority over the one named. Here it is more likely that since she does not know the name of the deity that has shown her favor, she assigns a name to him as an identification of his nature and so that she might invoke him in the future.’
Waltke & Fredricks:
‘This is the only instance in the Bible where a human being is represented as conferring a name on God. Hagar gives God a name that expresses his special significance to her. She responds to the person, not to the promise. She no longer gloats that she is pregnant but marvels at the Lord’s care for her.’
According to the CSB Spurgeon Study Bible:
‘And there came home to her what she had often heard before but never felt. “There is a God. God is not an impalpable somebody up there who has nothing to do with me, but there is God here, here, and he sees me. God deals with me—not far away, asleep, or blind—but God sees me.” Oh, it is a glorious thing when that conviction arises in the soul: “I am not alone, I am not friendless, after all. There is a God and a God who sees me and who takes such notice that he speaks to me.”’
“You are the God who sees me” – El-roi means, literally, ‘God of my seeing’. So, this could mean either: ‘You are the God who sees me/look for me/looks out for me’, or, ‘You are the God whom I have seen/looked out for’. (Goldingay, who adds that both are true).
This is
‘is an expression of thankful amazement that God cares for people in the most unexpected situations (cf. Ps. 139:1–12).’ (Wenham)
Wenham:
‘In Scripture when God sees, he cares (cf. Gen 29:32; Exod 3:7).’
Abram and Sarai had pushed Hagar out of their sight; but God sought and found her.
This is, perhaps, an unexpected response by Hagar. She focusses not on the promise, but on the fact that God ‘sees’ her. We are used to God naming people; but for Hagar to name the Lord makes her (as someone has suggested) the Bible’s first theologian.
“I have seen one who sees me!” – To see God, and to be seen by him!
Beer Lahai Roi – ‘well of the Living One who sees me’.
16:15 So Hagar gave birth to Abram’s son, whom Abram named Ishmael. 16:16 (Now Abram was 86 years old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael.)
Ishmael – See v11, where the name is first revealed to Hagar, along with its significance (‘for the Lord has heard your painful groans’).
Ross remarks that this name, along with the name she herself gave to God, would have given great comfort to Hagar. We too can derive great comfort from the twin truths that God sees and hears us.
Sarai had hoped that the son would be regarded as her own; but this is clearly not the case. It seems from Gen 17:8 that Abram, at least, regarded Ishmael as his promised heir.
Baldwin agrees:
‘Originally it had been Sarai’s intention to adopt the slave-girl’s baby as her own (v2), but she did not do so. The Lord in his encounter with Hagar had prepared the way for the break that was to come between Ishmael and Isaac, and in any case it is doubtful whether Sarai would have wanted to adopt the boy after clashing so violently with his mother.’
The uncertainty concerning God’s promise to Abraham continues. Sarah is, and will continue to be, childless.
Theologically, along with Genesis 17:1–18:15,
‘this part of the story addresses the issue of faith in the face of delayed fulfillment of God’s promises.’ (LRC)
Looking forward to Jesus:
‘The supreme example of God fulfilling his promises amid what appears to be his utter absence is the cross of Christ. Here, if ever, it seemed that Satan was winning. Yet it was precisely here that God was at work to decisively fulfill his promises to his people.’ (Gospel Transformation Study Bible)
Abram’s failure did not frustrate God’s plan:
‘God had entered into a covenant with Abram and had vowed to take upon himself alone the curse of disobedience. That is precisely what he did for us in Jesus on the cross. Our failures, like those of Abram, were laid upon him, so that his righteousness might be credited to us. That’s good news for Abram the failure and Hagar the wanderer—and it’s good news also for you and me.’ (Duguid)
So, as Ross remarks, God provided for Hagar, the pregnant woman who fled into the wilderness. God promised that she would be a matriarch. He promised that her son would become the father of great tribe of hostile people (Gen 25:18) wandering in the Arabian desert (Gen 25:12-18). But they would not be part of the chosen descendants of Abraham. In fact, the Ishmaelites would complicate matters: for example, they would seize Sarah’s grandson Joseph and take him by force into Egypt (Gen 37:28).
God’s plan continues to unfold:
‘Human effort may be part of the life of obedience to God, but not if it turns to the world for a solution to the plan of God, especially if that solution violates the institutions of God. But the good news for the people of God is that God can turn even false starts into something useful. God blessed Hagar and he blessed her descendants; but he did so in a way to preserve the covenant with Abram and his true heir.’ (Ross)
Gangel & Bramer (Holman OT Commentary) adopt a strongly (and, in my view mistaken) Zionist view:
‘In spite of the human logic that supports the Arab claim, God’s plan has not changed. Palestine was given to Israel and will be theirs entirely some day as fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham.’
Yet to be discussed is Paul’s discussion of Hagar and Sarah in Gal 4:24, 25.
Overland cites J. L. Martyn, who conludes that in Galatians
‘Paul did not intend to pit Christianity against Judaism (as Marcion supposed). Rather, he had in mind “the crucial distinction between the two Gentile missions, one observant of the Law and one Law-free.… It is a grave mistake to speak here of a polemic against Judaism itself”.
On God’s apparent slowness in fulfilling his promises, cf. 2 Pet 3.
Martin Luther was found by a friend in a state of exasperation. “What’s wrong, Martin?” the friend enquired. “The problem is that I’m in a hurry, but God isn’t”).
‘Lord, give me patience. And give it to me NOW!’
LRC: ‘God’s plan and promise are not invalidated by our failures’ –
‘Abram and Sarai made a misstep on their journey of faith, but God was still true to His promise. He was so faithful to His promise that He even extended a portion of it to this new line of Abram’s family.’
Isaiah 28:16 (NET) — “The one who maintains his faith will not panic.”
We have to live with our mistakes. The past can be forgiven, but cannot be obliterated.
‘God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.’