A Journey Through The Old Testament - Elmer Towns

must be viewed as intentional mocking rather than mere childish quibbling. A sense of
maliciousness is implied both here in the context and by Paul’s use of the word “persecuted” in
Galatians 4:29. Even the RSV which here translates the word “playing” elsewhere translates it
“jesting” (Gen. 19:14) and “to insult” (39:14, 17). Isaac had the promise of being next in line to
be the “Father of nations.” Yet Ishmael was motivated by unbelief, envy, and pride to attack
Isaac. Isaac, the source of his father’s holy laughter, was now the object of carnal laughter. Isaac
was the object of ridicule. God had said, “Is anything too wonderful for the Lord?” Ishmael
disagrees in unbelief.
Ishmael’s actions on this occasion offended Sarah not only because they were directed at
her son, but because they were reminiscent of her own treatment of Hagar. The trampling of
Hagar by Sarah was imitated by Ishmael’s trampling of Isaac. Most parents discover too late how
their children pick up their prejudices as well as their blessings.
Sarah responded to the mocking of Ishmael by calling on Abraham to “cast out this
bondwoman and her son” (21:10). Two different Hebrew words are translated by the single English
word “cast” or “placed” in this chapter (vv. 10, 15). The first is qaresh meaning “to drive
away, to expel,” or in the context of casting off a wife, “to divorce. “ The second verb is
shalache meaning “to throw, cast off, away, or down,” or in the context of Hagar casting Ishmael
under a shrub, “to drop.” When Hagar cast off her son, she probably dropped him from
exhaustion (v. 15). Here, however, the verb must be understood as a formal request from Sarah
that Abraham divorce his slave wife and expel both her and her son from the household.
What Sarah requested was not the normal cultural proceeding but was permitted in the
legal statutes of the day. According to the code of Hammurabi, the sons of a slave wife could
share in an inheritance equally with the sons of a free wife only if the father legitimized them at
his own initiative. While the status of the son of a slave wife given by a free wife for the purpose
of producing an heir is unclear, it would appear from the biblical record that Abraham had in fact
treated Ishmael as his legitimate heir. According to the code of Lipit-Ishtar, about 150 years
earlier than that of Hammurabi, the son of a slave wife would relinquish any inheritance claim in
return for his freedom. Ishmael was apparently a legitimized son and secondary heir after Isaac,
but Sarah here called on Abraham to give him his freedom and so force him to give up his rights
as heir.
While the whole account of the divorce of Hagar and casting out of Ishmael is set in a
context 4,000 years old, it is characteristic of the conflict tearing apart many families today.
Second marriages, particularly those in which each spouse had children of a former marriage, are
often characterized by the “my son” (v. 10) “his son” (v. 11) type of dispute Abraham and Sarah
here had. For Abraham it was “very displeasing” even to think of casting out his son. Had God
not intervened, Abraham may not have done so. It is hard to cut off the flesh.
God was in this context using Sarah to reveal His will for Abraham. Abraham was
instructed to obey Sarah’s request “for in Isaac your seed shall be called” (v. 12). The Hebrew
word zara’ (seed) is a collective noun in which the context must determine whether it is singular
or plural. The context here demands the noun be understood as singular. This is further
demonstrated by Paul’s use of this statement to demonstrate that Christ is the Seed (singular) of
Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:16).
Characteristic of Abraham’s walk of faith is his ready obedience to the clearly revealed
will of God. “So Abraham rose early in the morning” (Gen. 21:14), probably the next morning.
There is an urgency in making one’s break with the flesh. It becomes increasingly more difficult
to do so the longer we wait. Abraham filled a bottle of water, probably a resewn goatskin holding