Why Did God/Sarah/Abraham Expel Hagar and Ishmael?
Categories: Genesis Class Discussion, Romans Bible Study Materials
Question [Edited]:
I wanted to ask about Hagar as I taught it in Sunday school for junior-high kids long ago. The kids were concerned when they got to the part about Hagar and Ishmael getting kicked out into the desert. The crux of the matter - spotted by my teens - was the expulsion of the slave woman and child into the desert. The study guide we had accompanied the expulsion with a renaissance painting of the two going and being gently handed a pitcher and bade farewell. Of course my teens were appalled.
Why expel the slaves into the dessert? Was expulsion the norm - even required - at the time? Was it a question of inheritance?
Response:
Unfortunately, I think that the renaissance painting has some very flawed theological undertones. The issue of expelling slaves isn't relevant here, since it is written that Sarah "took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife" [Gen 16:3]. Abraham took Hagar as a wife, not a surrogate mother. So, what happened?
1. Sarah says "the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac" [Gen 21:10]. This is a derogatory statement; Sarah does not refer to Hagar and Ishmael by name, but rather calls them slaves. At first it seems that God agrees with Sarah. God also refers to Hagar and Ishmael as "the slave woman and her son." However, God does not agree with Sarah's rationale for expulsion. Instead, God says "through Isaac will your seed be reconciled" [Gen 21:12]. What this means is that through Isaac, Abraham's seed will be reconciled, but that does not necessarily exclude Ishmael (or anyone else) from sharing in the inheritance, as long as they are reconciled through Isaac [and his seed - Christ] by faith.
2. Why did God/Abraham/Sarah expel Hagar and Ishmael? Isaac's name means "laughter." In some English versions, it is written that "Ishmael mocked Isaac." The Hebrew root word for laughter and mocking is the same. Ishmael was being a mocker, a category of person which God despises in both the Old and New Testaments (Acts 2, Psalm 51, Passion Narratives, etc.). God's enemies mock Him and His Holy Community. Thus, Ishmael mocking Isaac was in fact blasphemous. This action is what caused him and his mother to be expelled from the Holy Community. In other words, this is church discipline in action [Matthew 18].
3. Even though Hagar and Ishmael were expelled, God did not give up on them. As we read further, we see that God saves Hagar and Ishmael in the desert. Hagar "lifts up her eyes" and Ishmael is saved by a drink of water. Both concepts are Biblical images of repentance/conversion. In the desert, Hagar and Ishmael repent and are brought back into relationship with God. Afterwards, God is with Ishmael [Gen 21:20].
4. When Abraham is buried, Abraham's sons, Isaac and Ishamel bury him. Ishmael is called a "son" inferring that Ishmael has rejoined the Holy Community/Family. Although Abraham has other sons and daughters, it's clear that these other sons are not within the Holy Community, since they did not bury their spiritual father Abraham.
What was the point? God loves both His friends and His enemies, both the elect and the non-elect. God loved Hagar and Ishmael and used the concept of church discipline to bring them to repentance. Those of us in the Holy Community that war against other members become slaves to sin. This is why God, but not necessarily Sarah, calls Hagar and Ishmael slaves. If we remain in sin, we remain slaves to sin. To help secure our release from the slavery of sin, God has instituted Church Discipline [Matthew 18], which may result in expulsion, for a time, from the Holy Community. This is a difficult process (notice how Abraham was grieved) but necessary to help those we love become free from sin/slavery and rejoin fellowship as brothers and sisters in Christ.
I hope this helps, In Christ, Marty
Comment [Note: I edited the Genesis references to the ESV and inserted the Hebrew Text]
Dear Sir,
The following issue can destroy ISLAM or ISRAEL ; study it thoroughly to see if there is any truth to it.
READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM.
Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.
Genesis 21:14 So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child [ dl,Y ] , and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba .
Genesis 16:16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.
Genesis 21:5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in Genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!
BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING
THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21
BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.
Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?
Genesis 21:14 So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child [ dl,Y ], and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba . 15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the child [
dl,Y
] under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went and sat down opposite him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot, for she said, "Let me not look on the death of the child. [
dl,Y
]" And as she sat opposite him, she lifted up her voice and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the boy [
r[;N
], and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the boy [
r[;N
] where he is. 18 Up! Lift up the boy [
r[;N
], and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make him into a great nation." 19 Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy [
r[;N
] a drink. 20 And God was with the boy [
r[;N
], and he grew up. He lived in the wilderness and became an expert with the bow. 21 He lived in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt .
Reply to this
Thank you for your contribution.
I think you have brought up a really important issue that the Three Abrahamic Faiths constantly debate. The issue you have brought up is an exegetical issue and raises two critical problems. First, was there a failure to transmit the text faithfully from its original form? This is called Lower Criticism. Second, what was the original intent of the author of Genesis? This is called Higher Criticism. My cursory understanding is that the Quran does not necessarily debate the point of the Genesis text (as a whole), but claims that some Scribe, at some point, "exchanged" Ishmael for Isaac. Similiarly, I understand that the Quran claims that Judas and Jesus were also "exchanged," by some scribe as well.
So, for the time being, I am going to focus on the Lower Critical concern, meaning: Did a Scribe exchange Isaac for Ishmael?
From the texts you brought up, yes, I would agree with you that Ishmael was approximately 17 years old when he was expelled. The word used to describe him in Gen 21:14,15, and 16 is [ dl,Y ] and it allows for a range of meaning, which could include a young man, boy, or even an infant. Interestingly, the language used to describe Ishamel changes in Genesis 21:17,18,19, and 20 to [ r[;N: ]. This word has a "tighter" range of meaning; HALOT defines it as "a male who is available for marriage and is not yet betrothed." In other words, after God hears Ishmael's voice, Ishmael transforms from a boy into a man. The point of this text, therefore, is that Ishamel "grows up" through this experience and henceforth God is with him. Within this context, the entire story makes alot of sense. Ishamel, as a boy sinned, but he repents and raises His voice to God, who hears him. Ishmael becomes reconciled with God and later on, with Abraham and Isaac as well.
Unfortunately, this just explains half the story. What about Isaac? Genesis 21:22-34 creates an "intercession" in the Abrahamic narrative. From this text, we know that at the time of the expulsion, Abraham made a treaty with Abimelech [v21] and then sojourned there for many days [v34]. After these things, the Sacrifice of Isaac Narrative initiates with "after these things" [Genesis 22:1] implying that some time has passed. Throughout the Sacrifice narrative, Isaac is described in every instance as [ r[;N: ], meaning a young man. Using your logic, I dont find it unreasonable to think that Isaac and Ishmael were approximately the same age in their respective experiences.
You asked: 1) Why was there no verbal communication between Hagar and Ishamel? 2) Why was Ishmael crying like an boy? 3) Why did Hagar need to give him a drink to save him? The simple answer is this: for the same reasons that Abraham and Isaac did not speak, except for the the one exchange about the sacrifice for the burnt offering and Abraham needing to get the ram to sacrifice in Isaac's stead. In other words, the two stories parallel each other. They are almost the same story with at least 10 common features. I taught a class on this subject. Check out the link to the slides and look at slide #6.
http://biblicaltheology.us/2007/02/10/genesis-handouts--feb-11th-class.aspxTherefore, based on the form and structure of the passages, particularly the parallelism between the Expulsion and the Sacrifice, the point of the two narratives, and the beautiful explanation of how Ishmael grows into a man, I think its doubtful that Ishmael and Isaac were switched. In fact, they approximately the same age when each had his respective encounter with God. Both become young men by acts of faith.
I hope you find this helpful.
Thanks again for the response, Marty
Reply to this
Yes this was a matter of inheritance.
Sarah says "the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac" [Gen 21:10]. Sarah now refers to this woman as a “slave woman”. A slave woman who was in good stead when she served a purpose of bearing a son for Abraham when it was believed that Sarah was barren. However, how attitudes seem to change once Sarah is found fertile with Isaac.
She states in Genesis 21:6-7 that she had become a mockery. “ and Sarah said, ‘God has made laughter for me, everyone who hears will laugh over me’ and she said ‘Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would suckle children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age’.”
So the passage above states that Isaac arrival is a mockery from God in Sarah’s eyes. Marty makes mention that Isaac’s name means “laughter”. Marty also points out that the word for laughter is interchangeable in Hebrew for mockery. If so would that imply that Isaacs name also meant mockery?
There is simply one statement in the book of Genesis regarding the catalyst of expulsion. It states “But Sarah saw the son of Hagar, the Egyptian whom she had borne to Abraham playing with her son Isaac.” Now that is how the statement reads in the bible. If the verb “playing” is correct then the statement makes some sense, but not a whole lot. Ok, so Ishmael is playing with Isaac, who at the time is three years old to Ishmael 17 years of age. What’s wrong with this picture? Not much. However if you replace the word “playing” with “mocking” the impetus becomes a little clearer.
Marty states that some translations of Genesis says “mocking” as opposed to “playing” Actually they say to “make laughter of” as was pointed out already that the Hebrew root word can be translated in both manner.
As stated above the statement that Ishmael was mocking Isaac is more along the lines that Sarah was being mocked by Ishmael’s arrival prior to Isaac’s. This was documented in the verses Genesis 21:6-7 which is prior to the versus regarding expulsion.
However, mockery is not always intentionally or maliciously implemented. Joseph was a threat and mockery to his brothers through his dreams. It is clearly stated that Sarah was in belief that she was being mocked by God through Ishmael. Therefore, she wants Ishmael expelled and she wants Isaac as the sole heir. This is pretty clear to me and if you wish to twist it around for purpose of lineage, then it is my opinion you are twisting the word of God.
Reply to this
Thanks for your response and participation. I need to give a technical response to the issue you are bringing up. Here is the argument:
The Hebrew word pronounced ZHQ is the foundation for the English word pronounced "Isaac" (think of ZHQ as "iZHaaQ). Fortunately, there are only 12 instances of the ZHQ verb group in the Bible (excluding Isaac's proper name), so we can examine all 12 pieces of biblical evidence rather quickly to reach a solid and irrefutable conclusion. Here are the 12 instances:
1. Gen 17:17
2. Gen 18:12-15 (4X)
3. Gen 19:14
4. Gen 21:9
5. Gen 26:8
6. Gen 39:14, 17 (2X)
7. Exo 32:6
8. Jdg 16:25
The root word ZHQ in the Hebrew Root or "Qal" form means "(s)he laughs" hence Isaac - "God has made 'he laughs'..." However, in the "Piel" form, ZHQ takes only one of two meanings: 1) to mock, or 2) to fondle, as a man does a woman. In the Bible, ZHQ only takes the Qal or Piel forms, so the other 6 or so forms Hebrew verbs may take need not be examined because they are never used.
When the Genesis text applies the ZHQ verb towards describing Abraham in Gen 17:17, it uses the Qal form: "Abraham fell on his face and laughed saying in his heart shall a child be born to a man 100 years old?..." Likewise, in Gen 18:12-15, every instance of ZHQ takes the Qal form, creating the undisputed interpretation that Sarah laughed just like Abraham did when she heard that she would bear a child. After Isaac is named, the Qal form of the verb ZHQ NEVER shows again, either in Genesis or the rest of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Thus, the first 5 appearances of ZHQ in the Bible always mean "(s)he laughs." Incidentally, the last person to use the Qal form of (s)he laugh is God - hence God gets the last laugh in Gen 18:15. Amazing, huh?
What about the other 7 appearances of ZHQ? All 7 are all Piel usages and show up after Genesis 18:15. The Piel form of the verb first appears in Gen 19:14 with the Sodom narrative: "Lot appeared in the eyes of his sons-in-law to be mocking." To understand this as playing, would be dangerous... since plenty of jokes and other humor are true. Mocking is to be making fun of something by portraying it as untrue. Thus, when Ishmael "mocks" Isaac you get the sense that he is mocking the way of salvation as Lot's sons-in-law understood Lot to be.
In Gen 26:8, Isaac is "fondling" his wife Rebecca, not playing (the Piel form of the verb ZHQ). Had Isaac merely been playing with Rebecca, as two siblings, I don't think that Abimelech would have noticed they were husband and wife. Similiarly, in Gen 39:14-17 (2x), Potiphar's wife falsely accuses Joseph; she does so saying "this Hebrew came to mock us... " and "he came to fondle me..." The idea of playing doesn't make any sense. Sexuality is exploding in the use of ZHQ in Gen 26:8, 39:14, and 39:17.
Additionally, in Exo 32:6, the text is clear that Israel is "mocking" God with the Golden Calf - presenting something false against something that is true and mocking what is true. In other words, the Golden Calf and ensuing celebration made a mockery of God and His salvation. The final instance of ZHQ in the Bible is when Samson is blinded, bound and brought out to perform for the Philistines [Jdg 16:25]. From the text and the context of the text, it is absolutely clear that Samson is the object of great ridicule and mockery. The Philistines are not playing with Samson the way two boys play.
Hence, in no instance can ZHQ ever be interpreted to mean "play or playing" and any English Bible that renders such a meaning has suspect exegesis. In the Qal form, ZHQ always means "(s)he laughs" and in the Piel form, it either means 1) (s)he mocks or 2) (s)he fondle... (as a man does a woman).
In terms of the larger issue, was this about inheritance? I think this was already discussed in detail in the previous postings. Sarah's motivations are suspect, but God seems to have had a plan of salvation for both Isaac and Ishmael. However, it is not God who is mocking Sarah, but Ishmael is mocking Isaac, unless of course you choose the only other interpretive option and believe that Ishmael was "fondling" Isaac... which seem ridiculous given the exegetical evidence.
I hope this helps, in Christ, Marty
Reply to this
Thank you for your generousity is posting your research and understanding of God's word and for your explanations. Know that it is helpful to those of us who seek a better understanding of the bible and its relationship to God's devine plan.
Keep the faith and keep writing.
Thank you and God Bless!
Reply to this
Thank you for the kind words and encouragement. In Christ, Marty
Reply to this
Oh such a very enticing article that I already read. Your choosen verse was beautiful indeed. I do believe that many of the couples who are suffering just like the situation regarding to the bible character which is already mention,inspire onto it. That behind upon waiting gradually upon wishing to have child is becoming given at the right time. Mostly the patient to wait on it.
Reply to this