Genesis 16 – Walking With Giants

The Birth of Ishmael, 1-16

God has promised Abraham both land and descendants. Gen 12-15 dealt mainly with the first of these, while Gen 16-22 focuses more on the second.

Mariottini: this chapter records the third in a series (of five) failures on Abraham’s part. They all relate, directly or indirectly, to God’s promise of an heir.

The first occurred when Abram and Sarai entered Egypt, and he told he to say that she was his sister. As a result of this deception, Pharaoh took Sarah into his house, and she became his wife.

The second occurred when Abram, following the custom of his country of birth, adopted his trusted slave Eliezer as his son and heir (see Gen 15:4 for God’s verdict).

The fourth will relate to Abraham’s laughter at the divine promise (Gen 17:15–21).

The fifth repeats his deception in passing Sarah off as his sister – this time, to Abimelech, king of Gera (Gen 20:1f).

Duguid: in the previous three chapters, we have seen Abraham as a man of success. In this chapter he is presented as a man of failure.

Kidner agrees:

‘It is ironical that after the heights attained in the last two chapters, Abram should capitulate to domestic pressure, pliant under his wife’s planning and scolding, and quick to wash his hands of the outcome. Meanwhile the Lord…watches over the disregarded person and pattern, and ‘works His sovereign will’.’

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.

Calvin agrees:

‘The faith of both Abraham and Sarah was defective; not indeed with regard to the substance of the promise, but with regard to the method in which they proceeded; 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.’

Steinmann summarises 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.’

Kidner:

‘This chapter marks another stage in eliminating every means but miracle towards the promised birth.’

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.

NRSV Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian slave-girl whose name was Hagar, 2 and Sarai said to Abram, “You see that the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.

Sarai…Abram…Hagar – This chapter’s three actors are introduced. Except Abram is not really an ‘actor’ at all – he is passively obedient to his wife.

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.

Kidner: Custom sanctioned this way of obtaining children, but this chapter and Gen 30 demonstrate its ‘unwisdom’. Sons born in this way would count as full members of Jacob’s household.

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.”

Baldwin (BST) ponders Sarai’s state of mind:

‘The more clearly God’s promises were spelt out to Abram, the more clearly Sarai saw herself as the failure. Though she continued to preside over the household, which may by this time have included some of the concubines and their sons (Gn. 25:1–6), and though she was the legal wife, she felt keenly the humiliation of her barrenness. Each passing year diminished her hopes of becoming a mother and of giving to Abram the son of the promise. She saw no answer to her prayers and may easily have come to the conclusion that she had for some reason forfeited the Lord’s favour. If so, she was wrong. The very reverse was true, but reason, in conflict with faith, for the time being won the day.’

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)

Clare Amos:

‘Hagar must have been one of those slave-girls given to Abram by Pharaoh (Gen 12:16), so Abram’s apparent deception in that escapade is going to have long-term consequences in his family life.’

Hagar in feminist interpretation

In the Women’s Bible Commentary (3rd ed.) Elaine James notes that:

‘Contemporary feminist and womanist theologians…have been keen to rehabilitate Hagar. Phyllis Trible (Texts of Terror, 1984), and Delores Williams (Sisters in the Wilderness, 1993), and many subsequent others, have explored the story’s potential to illustrate women caught in malignant distortions of power, especially with respect to patriarchy and race. This discussion often emphasizes Hagar’s suffering and her final achievement of liberation and divine recognition.’

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)

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. Trible sees Hagar as a ‘symbol of the oppressed. As such:

‘Hagar becomes many things to many people. Most especially, all sorts of rejected women find their stories in her.77 She is the faithful maid exploited, the black woman used by the male and abused by the female of the ruling class,78 the surrogate mother, the resident alien without legal recourse, the other woman, the runaway youth, the religious fleeing from affliction, the pregnant young woman alone, the expelled wife, the divorced mother with child, the shopping bag lady carrying bread and water, the homeless woman, the indigent relying upon handouts from the power structures, the welfare mother, and the self-effacing female whose own identity shrinks in service to others.’

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, Mariottini)? More probably, I think, she is acknowledging the fact that it is the Lord’s prerogative to give or withhold children (cf. Gen 25:21; 30:2; Lev 20:20, 21; Deut 28:11; Ps 113:9).

Edwards offers the following comment:

‘The God who alone superintends life and death (29:31; 30:22) is inevitably called to account in the Bible when infertility or barrenness jeopardizes the future of the family name, property, and land. “Give me children, or I shall die” (30:1), laments Rachel bitterly, whose womb is opened only when God “remembers” her (30:22). An angel of the Lord appears to barren Manoah and his wife, promising the birth of a son, Samson (Judg 13:2–20). The Lord who “closed Hannah’s womb” then answers her prayer for a son, whom she names Samuel (1 Sam 1:5–20). The Lord announces to agnostic Ahaz that “a virgin will bear a son,” as a sign of God’s sovereign purpose (Isa 7:10–17). An angel appears to aged Zechariah, announcing that Elizabeth, his barren wife, will bear a son named John, who will be endowed with the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:5–20).’

In any case, barrenness was very shameful in that culture. In partial mitigation of her plan, God had promised offspring to Abram, without naming her (yet – see ch. 17) 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” – Lit. ‘Go into my slave-girl’. According to Mariottini, the Heb. wording suggests that she is pleading with him, rather than commanding him.

God has a problem; but don’t worry! Sarah has a solution! What God has prevented, she can enable. When Sarah realised that she was barren, she gave her maidservant to Abraham so that the family line could be continued through her. In doing this:

‘Sarah was following the customs of family laws prevalent in Nuzi and in the society in which she had lived. Nuzi was an ancient Mesopotamian city located near the Tigris River in modern Iraq.’ (Mariottini)

Such surrogate marriage, then, would have been considered normal in the Ancient Near East. Both Rachel (Gen 30:4) and Leah (Gen 30:9) will make similar arrangements between Jacob and their slave maids.

According to Edwards, the procude involved taking the newborn from the birth mother and placing it on the knees of the adoptive mother, who would then raise the child .

In the present case at least, however, the Genesis text seems to disapprove of this attempt to force God’s hand (Steinmann, Wenham).

Keown:

‘The problem with their action is not that it was immoral in that society but that it showed lack of faith.’

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)

“Perhaps I can have a family by her” – Lit. “I can build a family”. And so Sarai seeks to take matters into her own hands. In doing so, she seems to be mindful of her own interests, rather than those of her husband, her maidservant, or her God.

Keown: Throughout Genesis, Ishmael is always referred to as Hagar’s, not Sarah’s child. Perhaps this was due to Sarah beng offended by what she perceived to be Hagar’s bad attitude that she refused to accept the child as her own.

Lesson: ‘Don’t let your longings trump your trust’ (Rico Tice, oral ministry)

Sarai does not cover herself with glory in this episode. It is she who:

comes up with the ill-conceived plan.
passes the blame on to God (?) and her husband.
mistreats her madiservant.

Abram, for his part, is passively obedient to her.

Abram did what Sarai told him – He listened to his wife, not to the Lord.

Keown:

‘Hagar is treated deplorably; her opinion is not asked for; she is a possession rather than a person.’

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:

Genesis 3:17 — 17 But to Adam he said, “Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

In fact, as Berg (cited 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.’

Kuruvilla notes a few more similarities:

‘There are a number of parallels between Abram’s acquiescence to his wife and Adam’s to his in Gen 3, indicating, not so subtly, that Abram’s giving in to his wife’s demands was not laudatory. Both 3:2 and 16:2 have “[woman/Sarai] said to”; 3:6 and 16:3 have “she took”; 3:6 and 16:3 have “she gave to her husband”; 3:17 and 16:2 have “listened to the voice”; “seed” shows up in both (3:15 and 16:10); “good” (16:6) and “in her/your eyes” (16:5, 6) are allusions to 3:6, where Eve assesses the fruit to be “good” and a delight “to the eyes”; and when God arrives on the scene aﬅer the tragic transactions, he asks “Where . . .?” on both occasions (3:9 and 16:8). These allusions make it clear that Sarai’s scheming and Abram’s compliance are remarkably similar to the sin of Eve and Adam, a lack of faith in God’s word and an attempt to operate according to their own wisdom, outside of the will of God.’

Abram’s passivity is sadly typical of many men today.

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!”

NRSV 3 So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife. 4 He went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my slave-girl to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!”

Abram had lived in Canaan for ten years – and still the promise of a son and heir had not been fulfilled. Time to take matters into their own hands! Still, it would be another 15 years before Isaac was born to Sarah.

Kuruvilla wonders:

‘Does the delay of a decade between intention of plot (16:2) and execution of plot (16:3–4) hint at the couple’s hesitation to go through with this machination? Had they waited and waited for Yahweh to work and ﬁnally, aﬅer ten years, decided they need to shove deity out of the way to get something accomplished?’

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)

Kuruvilla: In spelling out the (otherwise redundant) information that Sarai is Abram’s wife, and he her husband, and that Hagar is given by Sarai to Abram ‘to be his wife’, the arrator is evidently showing disapproval for this more.

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 Sarai is belittled in Hagar’s eyes. The alternative meaning is that Sarai sees that Hagar is pregnant, so that Sarai is belittled in her own eyes. Perhaps both are true. Either way, Sarai has made the situation not better, but worse.

‘Despised’ is translated ‘cursed’ in Gen 12:3. However, Trible (Texts of Terror) thinks that this is too harsh: perhaps the meaning is simply that Sarah was lowered in her esteem. Sarai, hoping to be ‘built up’, is lowered.

See:

Proverbs 30:21–23 (NET) — 21 Under three things the earth trembles, and under four things it cannot bear up: 22 under a servant who becomes king, under a fool who is stuffed with food, 23 under an unloved woman who is married, and under a female servant who dispossesses her mistress.

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!” – Or, “May the wrong done to me be upon you” (NASB, AV, NKJV, NRSV).

But it had been her idea!

History repeats itself. Many commentators draw attention to:

Genesis 3:12f — 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”

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.”

As Mariottini comments, a fundamental tension occurs because Ishmael is Abraham’s firstborn son. As such, he is Abraham’s heir. But he is not heir to God’s promise to Abraham. Nevertheless, Abraham asks for God to bless Ishamel, and he does so, Gen 17:20.

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.

NRSV 6 But Abram said to Sarai, “Your slave-girl is in your power; do to her as you please.” Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she ran away from her.

Abram:

‘does not refer to Hagar as a wife, concubine, mother of his child, or in any terms referring to his own involvement.’ (Kuruvilla)

Hagar is thrown around as if she were a non-person. She was given to Abrama. Now, she has become a problem which he throws back to Sarai. “Nothing to do with me. You sort it out!”.

Keown:

‘Abram’s attitude is that Sarai owns the slave and can treat her accordingly, but he ignores the fact that Hagar is also his wife and that he should have protected her (16:3). Both Sarai and Abram treat the slave deplorably.’

Kidner:

‘Each of the three characters displays the untruth that is part of sin, in false pride (4), false blame (5), false neutrality (6).’

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)

There is total family chaos:

‘Hagar, expelled, has lost her home while preg-nant; Sarai has lost her maid; and Abram has lost a wife and a child, to say nothing of the loss of marital and domestic peace!’ (Kuruvilla).

Sarai treated Hagar harshly – Whether physically, or psychologically, we don’t know. The victim becomes the victimizer.

Mathews:

‘Mosaic law provided for fair treatment of foreigners (Exod 22:21[20]; 23:9; Lev 19:33; Deut 23:7[8]), and equitable consideration for a slave was characteristic of the upright (Job 31:3).’

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.’

She ran away – Edwards quotes Gunkel:

‘Better all the dangers of the desert path than humiliation in Sarah’s tent!’

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.”

NRSV 7 The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?” She said, “I am running away from my mistress Sarai.”

The Lord’s angel found Hagar – Divine mercy meets human folly.

According to Edwards, Hagar would have traveled at least 70 miles in a southwest direction.

A decisive intervention, an injection of divine grace into a story of human confusion.

This is the first mention (of 48 in the OT) of ‘the angel of the Lord’. Lit. ‘messenger’. Variously thought to be

(a) a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (so many earlier Christian interpreters, including Poole, JFB, Hodge);
(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)’.

This uncertainty stems from the text itself, which sometimes distinguishes between the angel and God, and sometimes does not. Mathews states:

‘Chapter 16 illustrates the ambiguity of the angel’s identity. He speaks in first person as God himself (v. 10), and both the narrator and Hagar’s speech identify the angel as the Lord God (v. 13).’

As Amos notes:

‘It is impressive that the first recipient of such an appearance should be a slave-woman, who is apparently not even a descendant of Shem, and who is presently existing outside the land of promise.’

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.

If there are echoes of Gen 3 in this narrative, there are also anticipations of the Exodus:

‘Sarai’s mistreatment of her maid…is precisely echoed in the description of the Egyptians mistreatment of Israel, employing the same verb in Exod 1:12. The consequence of one was that Hagar “ﬂed” (Gen 16:6, 8); the consequence of the other was that the Israelites “ﬂed” (Exod 14:5). And both maid and nation ﬂee to the “wilderness” (Gen 16:7; Exod 15:22; etc.).’ (Kuruvilla)

“Hagar, servant of Sarai” – The narrative never records either Sarah or Abraham referring to her by name: to them, she is a mere possession. The Angel does address her by name. However, he 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.”

NRSV 9 The angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit to her.” 10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, “I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude.” 11 And the angel of the LORD said to her,
“Now you have conceived and shall bear a son;
you shall call him Ishmael,
for the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 He shall be a wild ass of a man,
with his hand against everyone,
and everyone’s hand against him;
and he shall live at odds with all his kin.”

“Return to your mistress and submit to her authority” – This will be hard for Hagar, but better than an uncertain existence back in Egypt. It is in her best interests.

Trible understands the angel to mean: ‘Suffer affliction under her hand’, noting that ‘the verb (ʿnh) is the same word used for Sarai’s earlier abuse of Hagar (16:6b).’

This then becomes, for Trible, a ‘text of terror’. She continues:

‘Inexplicably, the God who later, seeing (r’h) the suffering (ʿŏnî) of a slave people, comes down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians (Exod. 3:7–8) here identifies with the oppressor and orders a servant to return not only to bondage but also to affliction.’

Longman, however, maintains:

‘This command is not necessarily a requirement to go back to an abusive relationship. Since the abuse was because Hagar lorded it over Sarai, the hope was that the former’s submission to the latter would also alleviate the abuse.’

Mariottini:

‘At first, God’s command seems to be heartless; God is asking Hagar to return to the oppressive situation in which she lived under Sarah. One writer writes that God’s two commands to Hagar to return and submit to Sarah, “bring a divine word of terror to an abused, yet courageous, woman.” The God who later identified himself with the people who were oppressed in Egypt, “here identifies with the oppressor and orders a servant to return not only to bondage but also to affliction” (Trible 1984:16).’

But, as Mariottini remarks, her present situation was hazardous in the extreme. She needs to return to Abraham’s house and seek to resolve the problem there. She has received God’s blessing, and her son will receive blessing too – both from Abraham and from the Lord (ch. 17; cf. Gen 21:12).

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”…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.’

And Edwards comments:

‘The angel summons Hagar to return to that from which she had fled not with a promise that her burden will be lighter but with a promise that the object of her abuse—the unborn child in her womb—will increase beyond number (v. 10). The angel’s mandate is one of the severe mercies of Scripture (e.g., Rom 11:22), the ultimate objective of which is hope.’

“I will greatly multiply your descendants” – a clear parallel to God’s promise to Abram, Gen 13:16; 15:5. Hagar may have been mistreated by Sarai and Abram, but she is known and blessed by God.

Hartley:

‘Hagar is the only woman in Genesis who received such a promise directly from God.’

Her many descendants would provide for her and keep her safe. This would be in addition to Abram’s patronage.

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.)

NRSV 13 So she named the LORD who spoke to her, “You are El-roi”; for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” 14 Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; it lies 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.

Spurgeon: God both sees our tears and hears our sighs – even when we cannot turn a naked wish into articulate words.

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.

“Here I have seen one who sees me!” – The meaning is unclear, and is variously translated:

So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing,” for she said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.” (ESV)

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? (KJV)

She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen [or ‘seen the back of’] the One who sees me.” (NIV)

Thereafter, Hagar referred to the LORD, who had spoken to her, as “the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have seen the One who sees me!” (NLT)

So she named the LORD who spoke to her, “You are El-roi”; for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” (NRSV)

But the general meaning is clear enough:

‘In spite of the difficulties in understanding Hagar’s words, the general sense is clear, that she is greatly encouraged to know that God is watching over her and that he is aware of her maltreatment at the hands of her mistress.’ (Keown)

Kuruvilla quotes Gordon:

‘Hagar’s conﬁdent, even joyful response suggests her realization of an all-seeing moral order in which the suﬀering of the helpless and insigniﬁcant do not go unnoticed.’

Edwards:

‘Hagar’s attempts to name and describe her encounter with the angel of the Lord typify the inadequacy of all human speech about God. What is not unclear and of greatest importance is her astonishment in the divine presence, for Hebrews commonly believed that one could not behold God face-to-face and live. Hagar has seen the Lord, however, and she remains alive.’

Beer Lahai Roi – ‘well of the Living One who sees me’.

Brueggemann: A blessing for the banished one:

‘It is vigorous blessing, but it is not the Abrahamic blessing of the land. It is a blessing to be in another place, out of the promised land, living by his own resources, that is, not by the primal promise.’

Kuruvilla: Hagar is ‘quite the sensation’:

‘She is the only woman to be addressed directly by God/angel of Yahweh and to receive a theophany in Genesis (16:7–12; in fact two theophanies — the second in 21:17–18), she is the only woman to call upon Yahweh in this book (16:13), she receives divine promises, and she bears for Abram his ﬁrst seed—a fact stressed three times in 16:15–16. Moreover, only God is shown as speaking to this woman in Scripture (and God alone addresses her by name, 16:8), and she never speaks to anyone else but God, in the text! It is striking that Hagar does not call upon the name of Yahweh; rather, she calls the name of Yahweh—it is an identiﬁcation, not an invocation. And she identiﬁes him as the one who sees. “Hagar actually confers on deity a name. No other character in the OT, male or female, does that. It is not unusual for mortals to give names to family members, to animals, to sacred sites, but never to one’s God, with the exception of Hagar.”’ (Kuruvilla, quoting Hamilton)

Again:

‘Coming from an Egyptian, a bond-woman and an alien in a foreign land, with no voice in her destiny, such a realization of the sovereignty of God and the exhibition of an unshakeable trust in his plans and purposes—incomprehensible though they surely were, especially when they involved suﬀering—is quite remarkable. In Gen 16, Hagar is a foil for the untrusting patriarch and the unscrupulous matriarch, both of whom decide to take matters into their own hands to “help” God with this seed-production business.’

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.)

NRSV 15 Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram named his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. 16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.

Keown: So Hagar returns to Sarai. There is no indication that Sarai treats her any better. Indeed, Hagar will flee once again (Gen 21:8-10). But something has changed: she now knows that God sees her and knows her and cares for her.

…whom Abram named Ishmael – See v11, where the name is first revealed to Hagar, along with its significance (‘for the Lord has heard your painful groans’).

Hartley:

‘His naming the child meant he received the boy as his own with all the privileges that attended such a position. His action also indicated that he had heard and accepted Hagar’s report of the special visitation of the messenger of Yahweh. For the time being Abram accepted this son as the fulfillment of God’s special promise.’

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 encouragement 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.’

Within the Genesis narrative, the uncertainty concerning God’s promise to Abraham continues. Sarah is, and will continue to be, childless.

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).

So what has been achieved? –

‘Genesis 16…does not resolve the problem of childlessness of Abram and Sarai. True, it removes the promising but false option of surrogate motherhood as a means of fulfilling the divine promise, but it complicates the fulfillment of the promise, for Ishmael, the surrogate son of Abram, will accompany Isaac, the divinely promised son of Abram, as a shadow figure henceforth in history, sometimes as an advocate but more often as an adversary.’ (Edwards)

Implications and applications

Theological overview. 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)

God’s care for the foreigner. Overland remarks on the unexpected nature of God’s favourable treatment of Hagar:

‘Ancient readers could have listed three reasons potentially disqualifying Hagar: she was a servant, a woman and not part of Abraham’s ethnic group. The divine visitations issue a clear message: God is at odds with the notion that gender, economic status or nationality may dispose him to disregard a person. Quite the opposite. As maker of all, God values all, in particular the downtrodden. Hagar further stands out as the only person in the Bible who deigns to assign a name to the deity (distinct from calling on the name of the deity; Trible 1985, 229), and the only woman receiving a promise of numerous progeny.’

Amos’ notes a tension between the particularity and universaility of God’s care and concern:

‘Genesis exists in a sort of tension between particularity (God’s special care for particular individuals and a particular people) and universality (God’s involvement with all humanity). This tension is nowhere more visible than in the two stories of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 16:1–16; 21:1–21).’

A virtual paradigm for Jesus’ encounters with women like Hagar:

‘The encounter of the angel of God with Hagar becomes a virtual paradigm for the encounter of the Son of God with women like Hagar. Examples include the revealing and healing conversation of Jesus with a woman at the well of Samaria (John 4:4–42), Jesus’s mercy and advocacy for a penitent woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36–50), his attending to a woman with a hemorrhage rather than dismissing her as a distraction in a crowd (Mark 5:21–34), his citing a poor woman’s unremarkable financial contribution in the temple as a remarkable example of faith (Mark 12:41–44), his determination to heal a deformed woman on the Sabbath as an example of new creation (Luke 13:10–17), his hearing the plea of a mother interceding on behalf of her two sons (Mark 10:35–45), his compassion on Martha and Mary at the death of their brother Lazarus (John 11:1–44), his advocacy for a woman about to be stoned by religious authorities (John 8:1–11), his healing of Peter’s infirm mother-in-law (Mark 1:29–30), and his compassion for the distraught “daughters of Jerusalem” at his crucifixion (Luke 23:27–31). The gracious intervention of the angel of the Lord on behalf of Hagar is a defining characteristic of God, and the first instance of the divine compassion that supremely characterizes the Son of God.’ (Edwards)

Two dimensions. Brueggemann:

‘Seen vertically, with reference to God, it asserts that God has not exclusively committed himself to Abraham-Sarah. God’s concern is not confined to the elect line. There is passion and concern for the troubled ones who stand outside that line. Seen horizontally, from the agenda of Abraham-Sarah, Ishmael is a temptation not to trust the promise. The very child who discloses the passion of God for the outsider is no small threat to the insider.’ (Emphasis added)

Broadening this out slightly, we might say that God has regard for people of all faiths and none, but without their theologies and ideologies ever supplanting the gospel of Jesus Christ. This illuminates future relations between Israel and Arab.

Zionism not supported. 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.’

On not taking matters into our own hands (Already exemplified in Gen 3:6–8; 4:3–7; 11:1–9; 12:10–20; 13:1–12; 14:21–24):

‘The story is a poignant reminder of the strong temptation to take matters into our own hands when God’s promises seem to be beyond fulfillment. Sarai’s desire for children to fulfill God’s promise bypassed her calling to trust the Lord and his own timing. Yet even in the midst of Sarai’s failure God showed mercy not only to Hagar but also to Sarai, who eventually did bear a son—a birth that truly fulfilled God’s promise to Abraham and that would ultimately result in the birth of Christ. God’s people are called to trust him no matter how hopeless his promises may seem.’ (Gospel Transformation Study Bible)

Prayerlessness. Sarai took matters into her own hands. Abram did as she suggested. Neither consulted the Lord.

There is a theory that Judas, in betraying Jesus, was motivated less by avarice and more by a desire to hasten what he thought was an inevitable crisis and ultimate victory of Christ’s kingdom.

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.’

Nevertheless, our failures do have consequences. Doing things our way and not God’s way has consequences. We have to live with our mistakes. The past can be forgiven, but cannot be obliterated.

Looking forward to Jesus: in the annunciation of his birth…

Edwards:

‘Both Hagar and Mary are addressed by angels of the Lord (16:7, 9, 10, 11; Luke 1:26). Both are unentitled women—Hagar, a “maidservant” or “slave maid,” and Mary, an unmarried (Luke 1:34) “servant” or “slave” (Gk. doulē) of the Lord (Luke 1:38). Both are promised sons from men who at the time are not their husbands. To these two women, the angel of the Lord delivers the same annunciation: “Behold, you will become pregnant and bear a son, and you shall call his name. . . .” (Gen 16:11; Luke 1:31). The annunciation to Hagar concludes with the name “Ishmael,” and that to Mary with “Jesus.” Both Hagar and Mary are informed that they (16:9; Luke 2:35) and their sons (16:12; Luke 2:34) will suffer hardship. And both annunciations end in confessions of faith—“I have seen the LORD who sees me, and I am alive” (16:13), and “Let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). Already at his annunciation, the life and mission of Jesus are subtly identified with Ishmael—an outsider destined for opposition. Already at his annunciation, the life and mission of Jesus are subtly designated for Ishmael—“to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10).’

…and, supremely, in the cross:

‘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)

Paul’s discussion of Hagar and Sarah in Gal 4:24, 25. Overland cites J. L. Martyn, who concludes 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”.

Faith, not works. Kidner:

‘The New Testament likens Hagar’s son, ‘born after the flesh’, to the products of self-effort in religion (Gal. 4:22ff.), ever incompatible with those of the spirit (Gal. 4:29).’

Mathews (EDBT):

‘The birth of Ishmael and the promise concerning him were ‘according to the flesh’, i.e. after the normal pregnancy of Hagar. Isaac, however, was born ‘through the promise’, which was made before Sarah’s exceptional pregnancy.’

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)

God is working his purposes out… ‘God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.’ Isaiah 28:16 — “The one who maintains his faith will not panic.” On God’s apparent slowness in fulfilling his promises, cf. 2 Pet 3.

Patience. As Edwards notes:

‘The essence of the story…is about three individuals who are pressed to extreme measures to remedy a problem—childlessness—for which none of them is responsible. They do their best to resolve the problem, but their combined efforts fail, and the failure results in pain and humiliation for each of them. Genesis 16 is a tragic subplot in the Abraham cycle, although a necessary tragedy that underscores the lesson of ch. 15—that Abram and Sarai must trust God for the fulfillment of the promise.’

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”).

Or, as we sometimes sigh: ‘Lord, give me patience. And give it to me NOW!’

The difficulty of faith. Brueggemann:

‘Faith is not easy. It calls for a persistence which is against common sense. It calls for believing in a gift from God which none of the present data can substantiate.’

Homiletical Idea

Human frailty cannot thwart God’s purposes