GEN. 16:1-15
A small boy* and his paternal grandmother, who lived with the boy’s family, would sometimes visit his maternal grandparents, who lived in the country. They would ride public transportation part of the way and then walk about a mile along a dirt road for the rest. On one trip while energetically running ahead of his grandmother, the boy spotted what seemed to be a beautifully colored stick lying in the road. He ran ahead to look and was just about to pick it up when his grandmother caught sight of him and screamed. The “stick” was a copperhead snake, very deadly. Needless to say, the boy kept step with his grandmother the rest of the way.
Like this experience, difficulties—even tragedies—can happen when we run ahead of God’s timetable. But that is exactly what Abram and Sarai did in the narrative that is the focus of this chapter. The results were disastrous and had lasting consequences. This is the first time Sarai really became actively involved in the developing relationship with God that had engaged her husband. It was to Abram that God had given the promises, although it was understood that Sarai was to be the means through which the promise of a son would be fulfilled.
Ten years had passed since the couple had arrived in Canaan (Gen. 16:3), and there had been no evidence of the promise’s fulfillment. Understandably impatient, Sarai came to Abram with the proposal that she give her maid, Hagar, to Abram as a second wife to bear a child. Most interpreters observe that this was a common and ethically acceptable practice in the culture of the time. After all, Hagar was a servant, probably acquired during the ill-fated visit to Egypt, and belonged to Sarai, who could dispose of her as she wished. If Hagar bore a child, it would legally belong to Sarai, and so Sarai reasoned, with a little help, God’s promise would be fulfilled. Here is a good example of “the Lord helps those who help themselves” theology.
Right off we see a potential problem from a human perspective. No matter what the culture may have allowed, as a human being Hagar’s sense of self-worth was bound to suffer damage from her being used in this way. It will take many years, even centuries, before a person, especially a female person, will be acknowledged as intrinsically valuable and not used as a means to an end.
Similarly, the culture approved the practice of what we today would call “surrogate” motherhood. But here is a case of cultural mores running counter to God’s creative intention for the human race. Walter Brueggemann opines, “No moral judgment need be rendered against the alternative device for securing a son, as this may be attested as a proper legal practice elsewhere in the biblical period.”1 However, this understanding is basically flawed because the principle at work is not positive legal or cultural practice but something far more fundamental to human nature. Based on the creation narrative, the divine intention was for monogamous marriage, one man and one woman. Thus, as is so often the case when the structure of human personhood as created by God is violated, unsatisfactory results occur. In this case the result was the destruction of harmony in Abram’s home.
The polygamy introduced here continued to be practiced among the patriarchs of Israel with far-reaching and undesirable consequences. While the giving of wives was a common practice when nations entered into treaties, the acquisition of many wives by David and Solomon had unfavorable outcomes. At a personal level, the families involved in these situations were all dysfunctional.
Friction, hatred, and tragedy were certain to result from such circumstances. As H. L. Leupold expressed it, “Polygamy is always bound to be the fruitful mother of envy, jealousy, and strife.”2 This dysfunctional character is vividly expressed in Sarai’s response to what developed next. Hagar began displaying a condescending attitude toward her mistress, and this behavior stirred Sarai to jealousy and anger (vv. 4-5). As is so often the case in family disharmony, she blamed Abram for her discomfort, even though she initiated the arrangement (v. 5).3
In running ahead of God’s timetable, Abram and Sarai set in motion the circumstances of domestic discord. Few situations are more disruptive than this kind of relationship. When one spouse blames the other for circumstances that are mostly his or her own doing, marriage is changed from what God intended it to be. Instead of the the most intimate and happiest of relationships, it becomes a painful union of unhappiness.
It would be chauvinistic to suggest that Abram and Sarai’s situation illustrates a violation of some sort of divinely ordained status of male headship. It is true that the “father of nations” (Adam) fell by listening to his wife, just as the “father of the faithful” (Abram) failed in his faith by listening to Sarai. More to the point here is the implication that too often temptation to deviate from God’s way comes from those closest to us in our own households. Sarai’s suggestion was doubtless made in good faith, but as Griffith Thomas observed, “It is a little surprising that Sarah’s quick womanly perception did not forewarn her of these results of pride and jealousy.”4
Besides the disharmony and hard feelings introduced into the home, long-range consequences were implied in the Lord’s description of Hagar’s offspring (vv. 8-12). The tension between Ishmael and Isaac that developed continues among their descendants down to the present day. Bad decisions many times have unexpected consequences, often of a devastating character. How much better it would have been for Abram to wait on the Lord in faith to fulfill his promise in his own time!
In his allegory of Hagar and Ishmael in Gal. 4:21-31, Paul draws a parallel between the births of Abram’s sons and the circumstances of the Galatians. In this imagery the birth of Ishmael as a potential heir in Abram’s family is presented as an alternative to the promise. Ishmael was thus “born according to the flesh” (v. 23) and was a substitute for what God intended, but Isaac was “born through the promise” (v. 23) and was the true heir God planned. Likewise, in the case of the Galatians, they were pursuing an alternative to the promise in their own lives; their temptation to return to the Law for their religious authenticity meant forsaking the promise, which is God’s basis for acceptance (vv. 28-29). They were choosing the substitute over the genuine. Like Hagar and Ishmael in this allegory, the Law is the way of slavery, while the way of promise is the way of freedom (vv. 30-31).