Genesis 21:8-21
Genesis 21: 8-21
Hagar & Ishmael are Cast Out Into the Wilderness
Or
Sarah Plays the Lovely Homemaker Once Again
Once again, we see the “First Family” in turmoil and tumult, greatly akin to the conflict in Genesis 16. In that chapter, we find Sarai encouraging Abram to birth a child through her handmaiden Hagar in an attempt to fulfill God’s prophecy on her terms. However, with the birth of Isaac, the subsequent, eight-day-later, celebratory ritual circumcision (known as a bris) and the weaning feast that occurred typically ate age 3 (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV, p46), it seems that Sarah and Hagar have again entered into a conflict over who has the true place in the household. And as mothers are prone to do, the welfare of their children takes precedence in any circumstance, decent social behavior be damned.
At the party to mark the occasion of Isaac’s birth and circumcision, Sarah sees Ishmael fooling around and she didn’t quite like it. Gazing across several translations of Genesis 21:9, there are several different English words in use – “laughing” (ESV), “mocking” (NIV), “laughing” (Alter, p98), “playing” (JPS Tanakh), “mocking” (NASB), and “poking fun” (The Message). Any mother that I have ever known who has ever held a party for one of their children would have, at the least, been quite perturbed at Ishmael’s behavior as he played around at the party. And at the most, the mother would have reacted quite strongly and harshly to a supposed celebrant mockingly making fun of the person who was the focal point of the party, and most likely would have quickly called the child’s mother onto the carpet for the child’s behavior.
Plaut’s Commentary on the Torah does attempt to give this explanation of this passage: “Some commentators have suggested that it was sexual play that brought forth Sarah’s strong reaction. There is nothing, however, to substantiate this. The use of metzachek is an allusion to Yitzchak (i.e., Isaac). The word play seems to indicate that Sarah, seeing the children together, suddenly realizes their close affinity. It is then that she resolves to end the relationship by freeing Hagar and sending her away.” (Plaut, p139)
Now, without parsing the Hebrew a bit to finely, though some commentators do so in an attempt to disparage Hagar’s mothering ability, I would make the claim that Sarah’s declaration to Abraham that Hagar and Ishmael must be cast out of the house is quite understandable. What it is not is acceptable – Sarah could have handled the content and context of this situation with greater finesse. However, as we have seen in the last 10 chapters, tact, discretion, and subtlety are absent from Sarah’s repertoire of necessary societal skills. But Sarah pays no mind to how Hagar feels, since she realizes that, with the birth of Isaac, Ishmael has no place in their tents because Isaac is the son of promise. Whether it’s a matter of maternal politics or societal politics, Hagar and Ishmael are on their way out of the tent doors and out to wander in the wilderness.
Now, Abraham, as the biological father, remembers the lessons that he learned from Chapter 16 and is quite distressed over having to make such a harsh decision concerning his son. However, God is quite aware that Abraham is distraught over having to perpetrate this difficult deed and issues this promise to Abraham: “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.” (Genesis 21:12b-13, ESV) It seems that God was both honoring Sarah’s faith and belief in the promises of God regarding Isaac as well as Abraham’s faith and belief in the promises of God regarding any of his offspring (Brueggemann, p183).
Thus, with such a promise received, Abraham sends out Hagar and Ishmael into the deserts of Beer-Sheba (the Sinai Peninsula) with a bag of water and some bread. “Why doesn’t Abraham do more to prepare Hagar and Ishmael for their exile? Why does he give them only ‘some bread and a skin of water’ (21:14)? Why provision them so meagerly? He could have also given them a camel or a servant – or, at the very least, a blessing. In acting this way, Abraham demonstrates his faith that God will provide. He takes to heart God’s promise that Ishmael will become a great nation. This episode is a rehearsal of his later test of faith with his other son [Isaac].” (Frankel, p29) However, as idyllic and wonderful as that answer to those pointed questions sounds, my cynical nature takes over and wonders how Abraham could have sent his own son and his son’s mother out into the desert with “approximately three gallons” of water (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV, p46). It just doesn’t seem right to me, on several levels.
From here, Hagar and Ishmael wander in the desert, but their period of wandering doesn’t last very long, or at least the timeline provided in this passage doesn’t allow for much time to have transpired. Granted, two people were being forced to share about 3 gallons of water in the midst of a wide, uncivilized expanse of desert; 3 gallons wouldn’t last very long before one or both parties would quickly begin to expire. So, Hagar has Ishmael lie down under a bush, in hopes of getting him out from under the direct sunlight and to give him a bit of relief in his last moments on earth. From there, she walked “a bowshot away” (Genesis 21:16, JPS Tanakh) so that she would not see her son die and begin to weep in distress.
“God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, ‘What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.’” (Genesis 21:17-18, TNIV)
Then, amidst what should be a slow, agonizing death in the desert, an angel comes to visit Hagar, much in the same way as she was visited in Genesis 16. Indeed, these two scenes are reminiscent of each other because they are both rooted in similar circumstances. The timeline in both instances runs like this: 1) Sarah sees something in Hagar’s (or Ishmael’s) behavior that she doesn’t like; 2) Sarah complains to Abraham about it and asks him to get rid of her; 3) Abraham is reluctant to do so because Ishmael is his son; 4) Hagar leaves to die in the desert; and 5) an angel appears to her, making her aware of God’s desire to save her and Ishmael’s life because, as Abraham’s son, Ishmael is able to receive the protection and privileges afforded the biological offspring of Abraham.
Over and over again, it seems that God has a place and a plan for Ishmael that doesn’t quite agree with how Sarah sees the world. Rest assured, Sarah is acting with faith in God’s promises concerning Isaac’s status as the miraculous child of promise through whom Abraham and Sarah will sire a great nation. I do not feel that we are to attack Sarah out of pure sympathy for her treatment of Hagar and Isaac; to do so rejects Sarah’s faith in the promise of God. However, what we are to see is that human strategies and designs quite often fail and pale in comparison to how God sees the world and how God just might want humanity to see the world. God often blesses whomever God feels is worthy of such treatment, even if God’s opinions of a certain person or persons don’t quite agree with ours.
Thus, if you want a thesis statement, Hagar and Ishmael were protected, helped, healed, and given promises all their own because God honored the promises Abraham received about any children he would bear. God’s children will always be taken care of, no matter the shape, color, stripe, pattern, hue, tone, ability level, or individual eccentricity.
And in case you might like some additional scholarly texts to read through on this topic, I present the following passage from Interpretation: Genesis by Walter Brueggemann:
“The conflict between the two sons, between the two mothers and within the reluctant, ambiguous father, is complex (cf. 16:1-6). The story knows what it wants to tell. Isaac is the child of the future. But the story has no easy time imposing its will on the characters. Ishmael will not be so easily reduced. He has some claims. He has a claim because he is the oldest son of father Abraham. He is not adopted, not an intruder, but born to the man of promise. And Abraham is not ready to discard him (cf. 17:18). … But most compelling, God has this special commitment to Ishmael (cf. 16:7-12). For some inscrutable reason, God is not quite prepared to yield easily to his own essential plot. … God cares for the outsider whom the tradition wants to abandon. There is no stigma attached to the ‘other’ son. All are agreed on the preciousness of Ishmael – Yahweh, angel, Hagar, Abraham – all but Sarah. … The text is unambiguous: Isaac is the child of promise. That much is not in doubt. … But the text is equally clear that God is well inclined toward Ishmael. The ‘other son’ is not to be dismissed from the family. … It is, of course, evident that Ishmael’s promise is short of the full promise given to Isaac. And yet it is a considerable promise not to be denied. God is attentive to the outsider (cf. 30:17). God will remember all the children like a mother remembers all her children (cf. Isaiah 49:15). … Isaac is a gift to be explained in no other way than as a wonder. And Ishmael is a child gotten by skillful determination and planning. As oldest son, Ishmael is the child of ‘entitlement,’ possessing all natural rights.” (Brueggemann, p183-184)
Hagar & Ishmael are Cast Out Into the Wilderness
Or
Sarah Plays the Lovely Homemaker Once Again
Once again, we see the “First Family” in turmoil and tumult, greatly akin to the conflict in Genesis 16. In that chapter, we find Sarai encouraging Abram to birth a child through her handmaiden Hagar in an attempt to fulfill God’s prophecy on her terms. However, with the birth of Isaac, the subsequent, eight-day-later, celebratory ritual circumcision (known as a bris) and the weaning feast that occurred typically ate age 3 (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV, p46), it seems that Sarah and Hagar have again entered into a conflict over who has the true place in the household. And as mothers are prone to do, the welfare of their children takes precedence in any circumstance, decent social behavior be damned.
At the party to mark the occasion of Isaac’s birth and circumcision, Sarah sees Ishmael fooling around and she didn’t quite like it. Gazing across several translations of Genesis 21:9, there are several different English words in use – “laughing” (ESV), “mocking” (NIV), “laughing” (Alter, p98), “playing” (JPS Tanakh), “mocking” (NASB), and “poking fun” (The Message). Any mother that I have ever known who has ever held a party for one of their children would have, at the least, been quite perturbed at Ishmael’s behavior as he played around at the party. And at the most, the mother would have reacted quite strongly and harshly to a supposed celebrant mockingly making fun of the person who was the focal point of the party, and most likely would have quickly called the child’s mother onto the carpet for the child’s behavior.
Plaut’s Commentary on the Torah does attempt to give this explanation of this passage: “Some commentators have suggested that it was sexual play that brought forth Sarah’s strong reaction. There is nothing, however, to substantiate this. The use of metzachek is an allusion to Yitzchak (i.e., Isaac). The word play seems to indicate that Sarah, seeing the children together, suddenly realizes their close affinity. It is then that she resolves to end the relationship by freeing Hagar and sending her away.” (Plaut, p139)
Now, without parsing the Hebrew a bit to finely, though some commentators do so in an attempt to disparage Hagar’s mothering ability, I would make the claim that Sarah’s declaration to Abraham that Hagar and Ishmael must be cast out of the house is quite understandable. What it is not is acceptable – Sarah could have handled the content and context of this situation with greater finesse. However, as we have seen in the last 10 chapters, tact, discretion, and subtlety are absent from Sarah’s repertoire of necessary societal skills. But Sarah pays no mind to how Hagar feels, since she realizes that, with the birth of Isaac, Ishmael has no place in their tents because Isaac is the son of promise. Whether it’s a matter of maternal politics or societal politics, Hagar and Ishmael are on their way out of the tent doors and out to wander in the wilderness.
Now, Abraham, as the biological father, remembers the lessons that he learned from Chapter 16 and is quite distressed over having to make such a harsh decision concerning his son. However, God is quite aware that Abraham is distraught over having to perpetrate this difficult deed and issues this promise to Abraham: “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.” (Genesis 21:12b-13, ESV) It seems that God was both honoring Sarah’s faith and belief in the promises of God regarding Isaac as well as Abraham’s faith and belief in the promises of God regarding any of his offspring (Brueggemann, p183).
Thus, with such a promise received, Abraham sends out Hagar and Ishmael into the deserts of Beer-Sheba (the Sinai Peninsula) with a bag of water and some bread. “Why doesn’t Abraham do more to prepare Hagar and Ishmael for their exile? Why does he give them only ‘some bread and a skin of water’ (21:14)? Why provision them so meagerly? He could have also given them a camel or a servant – or, at the very least, a blessing. In acting this way, Abraham demonstrates his faith that God will provide. He takes to heart God’s promise that Ishmael will become a great nation. This episode is a rehearsal of his later test of faith with his other son [Isaac].” (Frankel, p29) However, as idyllic and wonderful as that answer to those pointed questions sounds, my cynical nature takes over and wonders how Abraham could have sent his own son and his son’s mother out into the desert with “approximately three gallons” of water (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV, p46). It just doesn’t seem right to me, on several levels.
From here, Hagar and Ishmael wander in the desert, but their period of wandering doesn’t last very long, or at least the timeline provided in this passage doesn’t allow for much time to have transpired. Granted, two people were being forced to share about 3 gallons of water in the midst of a wide, uncivilized expanse of desert; 3 gallons wouldn’t last very long before one or both parties would quickly begin to expire. So, Hagar has Ishmael lie down under a bush, in hopes of getting him out from under the direct sunlight and to give him a bit of relief in his last moments on earth. From there, she walked “a bowshot away” (Genesis 21:16, JPS Tanakh) so that she would not see her son die and begin to weep in distress.
“God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, ‘What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.’” (Genesis 21:17-18, TNIV)
Then, amidst what should be a slow, agonizing death in the desert, an angel comes to visit Hagar, much in the same way as she was visited in Genesis 16. Indeed, these two scenes are reminiscent of each other because they are both rooted in similar circumstances. The timeline in both instances runs like this: 1) Sarah sees something in Hagar’s (or Ishmael’s) behavior that she doesn’t like; 2) Sarah complains to Abraham about it and asks him to get rid of her; 3) Abraham is reluctant to do so because Ishmael is his son; 4) Hagar leaves to die in the desert; and 5) an angel appears to her, making her aware of God’s desire to save her and Ishmael’s life because, as Abraham’s son, Ishmael is able to receive the protection and privileges afforded the biological offspring of Abraham.
Over and over again, it seems that God has a place and a plan for Ishmael that doesn’t quite agree with how Sarah sees the world. Rest assured, Sarah is acting with faith in God’s promises concerning Isaac’s status as the miraculous child of promise through whom Abraham and Sarah will sire a great nation. I do not feel that we are to attack Sarah out of pure sympathy for her treatment of Hagar and Isaac; to do so rejects Sarah’s faith in the promise of God. However, what we are to see is that human strategies and designs quite often fail and pale in comparison to how God sees the world and how God just might want humanity to see the world. God often blesses whomever God feels is worthy of such treatment, even if God’s opinions of a certain person or persons don’t quite agree with ours.
Thus, if you want a thesis statement, Hagar and Ishmael were protected, helped, healed, and given promises all their own because God honored the promises Abraham received about any children he would bear. God’s children will always be taken care of, no matter the shape, color, stripe, pattern, hue, tone, ability level, or individual eccentricity.
And in case you might like some additional scholarly texts to read through on this topic, I present the following passage from Interpretation: Genesis by Walter Brueggemann:
“The conflict between the two sons, between the two mothers and within the reluctant, ambiguous father, is complex (cf. 16:1-6). The story knows what it wants to tell. Isaac is the child of the future. But the story has no easy time imposing its will on the characters. Ishmael will not be so easily reduced. He has some claims. He has a claim because he is the oldest son of father Abraham. He is not adopted, not an intruder, but born to the man of promise. And Abraham is not ready to discard him (cf. 17:18). … But most compelling, God has this special commitment to Ishmael (cf. 16:7-12). For some inscrutable reason, God is not quite prepared to yield easily to his own essential plot. … God cares for the outsider whom the tradition wants to abandon. There is no stigma attached to the ‘other’ son. All are agreed on the preciousness of Ishmael – Yahweh, angel, Hagar, Abraham – all but Sarah. … The text is unambiguous: Isaac is the child of promise. That much is not in doubt. … But the text is equally clear that God is well inclined toward Ishmael. The ‘other son’ is not to be dismissed from the family. … It is, of course, evident that Ishmael’s promise is short of the full promise given to Isaac. And yet it is a considerable promise not to be denied. God is attentive to the outsider (cf. 30:17). God will remember all the children like a mother remembers all her children (cf. Isaiah 49:15). … Isaac is a gift to be explained in no other way than as a wonder. And Ishmael is a child gotten by skillful determination and planning. As oldest son, Ishmael is the child of ‘entitlement,’ possessing all natural rights.” (Brueggemann, p183-184)
posted by APN | 7:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home