Genesis 21:8-13

CRITICAL NOTES.—

Genesis 21:8. And the child grew, and was weaned.] The weaning was often delayed till three years, or more, after birth (2Ma. 7:27). Samuel was not weaned till he was old enough to be left with Eli, when he would, probably, be more than three years old. Made a great feast. The occasion is still celebrated in the East as a family feast, to which friends are invited. The child partakes of it with the rest, as it is regarded as his introduction to the customary fare of the country.

Genesis 21:9. Mocking.] From the same root as the name Isaac, i.e., laughter. The word cannot here be understood in an innocent sense. It was a bitter, sarcastic laugh. St. Paul fastens upon it the character of persecution (Galatians 4:29).

Genesis 21:12. In Isaac shall thy seed be called.] Heb. In Isaac shall seed (posterity) be called to thee. Explained by the Apostle (Romans 9:7). The whole history is allegorised (Galatians 4:20).

Genesis 21:13. Make a nation.] A renewal of the promise made in Genesis 16:10; Genesis 17:20. Because he is thy seed. “It seemed to be a specialty of Abraham’s descendants to multiply into nations; the very fact of descent from him is alleged as a reason why Ishmael should become one.” (Alford.)

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Genesis 21:8

THE EXPULSION OF ISHMAEL

This portion of the history, though it staggers our natural judgment, is that very incident of which the most emphatic use is made in other parts of Scripture for the purposes of the spiritual life.

Beyond all question the thing here done is felt, at first sight, on all hands to be harsh, and the manner of doing it even harsher still. Surely never was slight offence more spitefully avenged! An unmannerly boy vents some ill-timed and ill-judged jest, and his mother, as well as himself, must be cast helpless on the wide world on account of it! This looks like the very wantonness of female jealousy and passion. No wonder that the patriarch needed a Divine communication to make him recognise in his irritated partner’s unrelenting demand the very mind and will of God Himself. (Genesis 21:12.) It is not necessary to acquit Sarah of all personal vindictiveness, or to consider her as acting from the best and highest motives, merely because God commanded Abraham to hearken unto her voice. This may be only another instance of evil overruled for good. It is true the Apostle Paul still more directly and immediately ascribes Divine authority to the suggestion of Sarah, when he formally quotes her words as a portion of the inspired record and revelation of the Divine decree. (Galatians 4:30.) Even this, however, may imply nothing more than what is said in the Gospel of a most remarkable utterance concerning the death of Jesus. (St. John 11:49.) The high priest consulted but the dictates of a worldly policy, yet he gave forth what turned out to be an oracular Divine prediction. And it may have been with equal unconsciousness of its being a heaven-directed and heaven-inspired voice, that Sarah, yielding to her own impetuous temper, called for the removal of a rival out of the way of her own son’s succession and title to the inheritance. There are certain circumstances which we should take into account, not for the vindication of Sarah’s character and conduct, but for the better understanding of the Divine procedure.

I. Let the actual offence of Ishmael be fairly understood and estimated. He was now no longer a child, but a lad of some fourteen years of age. St. Paul represents his conduct in a strong light: “He that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit,” and he points to it as the type and model of the cruel envy with which the “children of promise” are in every age pursued. (Galatians 4:28.) And our Lord Himself, when, with an evident reference to the expulsion of Ishmael, He speaks of “the servant not abiding in the house for ever, but the son abiding ever,” goes on to add—identifying the unbelieving Jews with the servant, or the bondmaid’s son, and taking to Himself the position of the real son, the true Isaac—“Ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.” (John 8:37.) “Ye seek to kill me.” Is there no allusion here to violence threatened against Isaac on the part of Ishmael and Hagar? Is not this the actual parallel intended between their treatment of the child of promise and the treatment Jesus met with at the hands of the Jews—the treatment which His followers also meet with at the hands of the unbelieving world? From the history itself, it is plain that Ishmael’s mocking had a deeper meaning than a mere wild and wanton jest. That it had respect to the birthright is evident, both from Sarah’s reasoning and from the Lord’s. She assigns, as the cause of her anxiety to have Ishmael cast out, her apprehension lest he should claim a joint-interest with Isaac in the inheritance. And the Lord sanctions her proposal on this very ground, when He says to Abraham, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

II. The competition in question admitted of no compromise. Whatever might have been her motives, Sarah did, in point of fact, stand with God in the controversy. She believed God, when, in accordance not more with her own natural feelings than with the known will of God, she determined to resist every attempt to interfere with the prerogative of the child of promise. For it was with Isaac, and with his seed after him—that seed being no other than the Messiah Himself—that God had expressly said He would establish His covenant for an everlasting covenant. And the determination of Sarah might be the more decided if she saw any indication of hesitancy in the mind of even the patriarch himself. For Abraham may have been swayed by his affection for his first-born child, as well as Sarah by her fondness for the son of her old age. In point of fact, Abraham felt great reluctance to give up his hope of Ishmael being his heir and successor in the covenant. Before the birth of Isaac, he clung to that hope with great tenacity, and pleaded hard on behalf of Ishmael that he might have the birthright blessing (ch. Genesis 17:18). And even after Isaac was born, he seems stilt to have a leaning towards his old partiality for Ishmael. Even after he has got the child of promise bodily in his arms, his faith sometimes wavers. He can scarcely persuade himself to hazard all on so precarious a risk as the puny life of an infant who has so strangely come, and may as strangely pass away. He would fain keep Ishmael still in reserve, and not altogether lose his hold of that other line of descent. This is rendered extremely probable by the pains which the Lord takes to remove the last scruples of lingering unbelief, to reconcile him to the destiny of Ishmael.

III. The severity of the measure resorted to is apt to be greatly exaggerated if it is looked at in the light of the social usages of modern domestic life. It was usual, in those primitive times, for the head of a household to make an early separation between the heir, who was to be retained at home, and the other members of the family, who must be sent to push their way elsewhere. Abraham himself adopted this course on other occasions as well as the present with reference to his other sons whom he had besides Ishmael (ch. Genesis 25:5). The presumption, therefore, is warranted that Abraham meant to deal on the same terms with Ishmael when he and his mother were cast out, and that this is intended to be indicated in the brief description subsequently given of his manner of disposing of his children generally.—(Candlish.)

THE DESTINIES OF ISHMAEL

At the weaning of Isaac there was a feast. Hagar and her son heard the merriment, and it was gall to their wounded spirits; it looked like intentional insult, for Ishmael had been the heir presumptive, but now, by the birth of Isaac, had become a mere slave and dependant; and the son of Hagar mocked at the joy in which he could not partake. Wherefore Sarah said unto Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son.” These were harsh words: it was hard for one so young to have all blighted; it was grievous in Abraham’s sight to witness the bitter fate of his eldest born. And yet was it not the most blessed destiny that could happen to the boy? The hot blood of the Egyptian mother, which coursed through his veins, could not have been kept in check in the domestic circle among vassals and dependants; he was sent to measure himself with men, to cut out his own way in the world, to learn independence, resolution, energy; and it is for this reason that to this very day his descendants are so sharply stamped with all the individuality of their founder. In them are exhibited the characteristics of Abraham and Hagar, the marvellous devoutness of the one with the fierce passions of the other, and together with these the iron will, the dignified calmness of self dependence wrought out by circumstances in the character of Ishmael.—(Robertson.)

THE ALLEGORY OF ISAAC AND ISHMAEL

We have the authority of St. Paul for giving this history an allegorical interpretation. (Galatians 4:22.) It is, without doubt, a real history, recording the thoughts and actions of living men; but it is capable of being treated as an allegory. Moreover, it requires such a treatment. The facts themselves have a spiritual meaning. Ishmael and Isaac, Mount Sinai and Mount Zion, Jerusalem which now is, and Jerusalem which is above, are all of them contrasted in antagonistic pairs, as representing principles essentially distinct. Hagar “answereth to that Jerusalem which now is,” and Sarah to that “Jerusalem which is above, and which is the mother of us all.” These things correspond, each to each. In the fact that Abraham had a twofold seed—one after the flesh, and the other by promise, we have the germ of the Gospel—the essential characteristics of the legal and evangelical dispensations. The history of God’s chosen people was under His distinct and special control, and was so ordered and governed as to be a fitting vehicle for the conveyance of spiritual lessons. We shall understand how this history teaches the difference between the genius of the Law and the Gospel, if we make a contrast between these two sons of Abraham.

I. Contrasted as to their origin. Ishmael was born after the ordinary manner. There was nothing more remarkable about his birth than about that of any other child. But Isaac came by a miraculous birth. His superior position and spiritual significance is, however, not derived from the fact that he was born of Sarah (though in a miraculous manner), but rather from the fact that he was “the child of promise.” His parents could have no doubt that he was a special gift from God—an accomplishment of the word of Him who spoke from heaven. These two sons represent two different societies—the world, and the Church. One is from beneath—arises here in the ordinary course of things; the other is from above, not derived from any earthly society, but “being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23.) This gifted society—the Church—holds fellowship with the unseen world, and owns a heavenly citizenship. The birth from above distinguishes the children of this world from the children of light.

II. Contrasted as to their position in the household. The relative positions of Ishmael and Isaac in the household were essentially different, and that in two respects.

1. As to the liberty enjoyed. Ishmael, being born of a bond-servant, had no natural right to freedom. Such is the position of man under the legal covenant. He is in a state of bondage, and though he may strive to please God and to keep the Law, he is like a slave working towards freedom, and not as one who works with the inspiring thoughts of a man already free. He feels the yoke. However willing to rise to the highest ideal of duty, he is oppressed with a sense of failure. (Romans 7:7.) This covenant “gendereth to bondage,” exacts high service under severe penalties, which conditions the natural man is not able to fulfil. The case is still more hopeless when a man gains some spiritual insight, and sees “how exceedingly broad are God’s commandments.” Isaac, on the other hand, was in the house as a free-born son. Liberty was his birthright. More than this, he was “born not after the flesh,” but “by promise.” He was placed by the Divine will under the new covenant. So, under the Gospel, believers are in the house of God not as bond, but as free. They have not to work for liberty. They are free already, and work cheerfully from a sense of their freedom.

2. As to the security of their positions. Ishmael had no permanent standing in the house. The dark spot of slavery was upon him, and he only held the blessings of his home on sufferance. Isaac, as a free-born son, abides in the house for ever. The promise of God gave him more than a double security. It gave him absolute security. No earthly power could rob him of his high privilege. Under the Law the position of men is, at best, precarious. They can only abide in the house on sufferance. Their title is forfeited by disobedience and shortcomings in duty. If they fail to fulfil the conditions imposed, their position is gone. We know in what all this must issue for sinful man striving to maintain a place in the household of God by means of the Law, and without that assistance and sense of security which the Divine grace can alone impart. It must issue in his expulsion. But Isaac’s position is ours, under the Gospel. We are in the house as fully approved. Our place is secured in perpetuity by the Divine promise. We have the “glorious liberty of the sons of God.” Such is our heritage under the law of grace. Ishmael’s condition, though it fitly serves the purpose of the allegory, may be also regarded as affording a ground of hope to us sinful men. We are all born in slavery, and can only obtain freedom by a special grace. Ishmael might have retained the privilege of remaining in Abraham’s family. He might have partaken of Isaac’s birthright, if, instead of persecuting, he had stooped to “kiss the son.” If, instead of standing upon his own right, he had been willing to take the benefits of Isaac’s title, he, too, would have continued to enjoy the glorious inheritance. Even if the stain on our birth be ever so black, and our natural prospects ever so gloomy, if we are willing to abandon our ground of confidence, and to receive the free gifts of grace, we are accepted. The grand lesson is, to renounce all confidence in the flesh—to trust no privileges or works (Philippians 3:7; Philippians 3:9), but by faith freely to receive our share in the heritage of God’s first-born Son.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Genesis 21:8. St. Augustine observeth here, that this solemnity at the weaning of Isaac was a type of our spiritual regeneration; at, and after which, the faithful keep a continual feast. “Let us keep the festivity” (1 Corinthians 5:7), or holy day, saith Paul, that “feast of fat things, full of marrow; of wines on the lees well refined” (Isaiah 25:6), proceeding from milk to stronger meat (Hebrews 5:12), and being to the world as a weaned child. His mouth doth not water after homely provisions, that hath lately tasted of delicate sustenance.—(Trapp.)

It is probable that Abraham gathered his friends and servants around him at this feast. The “prophet” would not be likely to miss such an opportunity of discoursing upon God’s special favour to himself, and exhorting his company to trust in God, and to the praise of His name. They were all interested in those gifts of the Divine goodness imparted to this distinguished man, in whose seed all the families of the earth were to be blessed.
There can be no true religion amongst mankind without fellowship, and the joyful recognition of God’s blessings. There must be an element of joy and gladness which swallows up the sense of sorrow and sin. The Christian religion has its feasts, for it is glad tidings of great joy.

Genesis 21:9. Now is recorded the casting out of Ishmael—the son of a human expedient. This was—

1. To make the whole hope depend upon the son specially given by God.
2. To separate this hostile element from the Covenant family. Though this was in the plan of God, yet there was to be an occasion for it, and that was the wilful mocking of Isaac by Ishmael.—(Jacobus.)

Ishmael despised this child, and ridiculed the idea that he should be the origin of a great history charged with so much importance to mankind. This persecution was prompted by unbelief, envy, and pride. Thus God’s way of deliverance—His salvation—cannot be appreciated by those who are inwardly separated from the household of faith.
Persecution arises from that inward hostility which must ever be between natural and spiritual men.

St. Paul says that Ishmael persecuted Isaac (Galatians 4:29), and he is here designated the “son of Hagar the Egyptian,” to intimate that, the predicted four hundred years’ affliction of Abraham’s seed by the Egyptians commenced at this time in the insults and taunts of Ishmael, the son of an Egyptian woman.—(Bush.)

Genesis 21:10. The facts have an underlying sense, namely, that there are two dispensations represented by Hagar and Sarah—the Law and the Gospel, and two classes of sons in the visible Church, as there are these two in the family of Abraham—the one of the legal spirit, the other of the Gospel; the one after the flesh, the other after the spirit; the former persecuting and opposing the latter. But the separation must be made, as is here done, in Abraham’s house. The son of the bondwoman—the Ishmael—the children of bondage, of the Judaizing, legal spirit—must be cast out as not allowed to inherit along with the son of the freewoman. They who are in bondage to the righteousness of the law, do thus scorn and persecute those who are of the free spirit of the Gospel. They cannot live in the same house.

(1) The same great idea runs through all the history of the Church, and pervades all the Scripture and all God’s dealings.
(2) We see the unity of the Bible and of the Church.—(Jacobus.)

Genesis 21:11. He who is singled out as an example of faith to all ages, is also, throughout the whole course of his history, an example of tender human feeling.

The conflict of human duties is often a sore trial to the saints of God.

Genesis 21:12. God enjoins this as reasonable, on the ground that in Isaac was his seed to be called. This means not only that Isaac was to be called his seed, but in Isaac, as the progenitor, was included the seed of Abraham in the highest and utmost sense of the phrase. From him the holy seed was to spring that was to be the agent in eventually bringing the whole race again under the covenant of Noah in that higher form which it assumes in the New Testament.—(Murphy.)

God overrules the stormy passions of human nature to bring about His own large purposes of good.
We must not refuse to join in doing what God commands, however contrary it may be to our natural feelings, nor on account of the suspicious motives of some with whom we are called to act.—(Fuller.)

The history of God’s chosen people leads the way up to that One Name which alone brings salvation.

The wife, then, is to be hearkened to when she speaks reason. Samson’s mother had more faith than her husband (Judges 13:23); and Priscilla is sometimes set before Aquila. Paul’s hearers at Philippi were only women at first (Acts 16:13.) And St. Peter tells Christian wives that they may win their husbands to Christ by their “chaste conversation, coupled with fear” (1 Peter 3:1). “The Scripture” is said to “say” what Sarah here saith (Galatians 4:30).—(Trapp.)

Genesis 21:13. Abraham is comforted in his stern duty by the renewal of the old promises concerning Ishmael (Genesis 17:20).

Those who are shut out from God’s external dispensations are not, therefore, cut off from His mercy. God has His own designs to fulfil in assigning to men a particular place in human history, but no appointment of this kind is intended as a bar to their individual salvation.
The peculiar blessing was all on the side of Isaac, as being the child by whom the promise should be fulfilled. But the question is, whether there is anything to be deduced from Scripture against the salvability of the offspring of Hagar. The blessings promised to her are principally of a temporal nature (Genesis 16:10; Genesis 17:20; Genesis 21:20); but such blessings would have been the greatest curses on the horrible supposition, that all his descendants had been excluded from the possibility of obtaining eternal happiness. As to the character which is given of Ishmael and his posterity (Genesis 16:12), whilst it forms a prophetic description of the character and manners of the Turks and Arabians, it determines nothing whatever against their salvability. Such as they are, they will be judged according to their means of knowledge. The inhabitant of the desert will not be judged for his want of civilisation, nor will the child, who has been educated in the errors of Mahometanism, be punished for his want of Christian baptism. It should be remembered that the death of Ishmael is mentioned in Scripture with all the circumstances of that of a pious patriarch (Genesis 25:17.—(Grinfield.)