History and Story (6)
Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. Genesis 21:3 NASB
Abraham called– Perhaps the naming of Isaac is innocent. Perhaps it is simply a joyful reminder of that glorious day when God promised a child. But we should note that it is Abraham, not Sarah, who names Isaac. This might be the standard cultural expectation, but do you suppose that naming the son with a variation of the verb ṣāḥaq just might be a subtle act of revenge? Abraham grieved over losing Ishmael. Clearly, Abraham had an emotional connection with Hagar and her son. Sarah’s bitterness affected this failed marriage as much as anything else. Now the son of the promise is born. What name should be bear? Just as Adam names the woman with a reminder of her failure (Havvah), so Abraham names the son with a reminder of Sarah’s failure. There is no forgiveness in this family.
All of this discontentment waits for the right opportunity to show itself. That moment arrives a few years later. The final extended story regarding Sarah is the account of the culmination of her long hatred for Hagar. It comes in Genesis 21.
Sarah observes Ishmael “playing” with Isaac. The exact sense of this word is difficult to determine. There is some reason to believe that the word connotes sexual abuse[1]but it could mean something as innocent as showing off or mocking. Since Sarah is in no mood (for many years) to have her son become the object of any ridicule by the son of a slave, even if it is only the showing off behavior of a teenager, she explodes with wrath. Notice the carefully chosen language Sarah employs:
“Drive out that slave woman with her son! No son of this slave woman is going to share the inheritance with my son, with Isaac!”
Observe that Sarah will not refer to either Hagar or Ishmael by name. She strips them of personal identity. She uses nothing but derogatory titles to describe these two human beings. Put yourself in the camp of Abraham when this occurs. Sarah storms into the presence of her husband. Her eyes are wide and fiery. Her hands are clenched. Anger seethes from her.
“You!” She points an accusing finger at Abraham. “Get rid of that slave woman and her son right now. I won’t tolerate her in my house a single minute longer. I can’t stand the sight of her or her wretched offspring. I’ve made up my mind. She has to go. I’m not going to risk any issues about inheritance with Isaac. Get her out of here!”
The text reveals a hidden motive. Sarah uses the excuse of the “playing” to press a matter that has been on her mind ever since the birth of Isaac. Now the word used for her son’s name, a word that has humiliated her for years, will be used to expel that source of humiliation. The putative rationale is the issue of inheritance. No matter what the promise of God, Ishmael is still the first-born son of Abraham. But Sarah pretends that there is a legal problem. We can see her consternation over the inheritance issue by noticing a shift in the word used to describe the status of Hagar. In chapter 16, Hagar is referred to as a “maid” (sipha), but here Sarah uses the term ama. Hagar’s status has progressed from slave-girl to second wife, even if she is still Sarah’s slave. This change in status represents a real threat to Sarah because it calls into question the right of inheritance. Ancient legal codes confirm that the sons of slave women had legal status in the matter of inheritance. Sarah wants nothing to interfere with the inheritance of Isaac (and consequently, with her own status). So, she uses this opportunity to rid herself of the problem.
The word she uses for “drive out” is the same word that is used to describe the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. This is not a passive or friendly dismissal. It is a permanent and forceful ejection. In the environment where Sarah lives, it is as good as a death penalty. That, of course, is exactly what she has in mind. Sarah is protecting her son’s interest by insisting on the death of her two antagonists. Once again we replay the story, and the emotional context, of the Garden.
But Abraham is not nearly as compliant this time. Ishmael is still his son. Abraham has had at least fourteen years of enjoyment with Ishmael. The bond is not easily broken. Abraham resists. He has been in this situation before. The last time he gave passive approval of the abuse of Hagar. But God intervened and Hagar returned from her flight to accept Sarah’s wrath. Now Sarah will not be appeased. Abraham knows he will lose Ishmael. The text tells us that God told Abraham to accept this situation and follow Sarah’s wishes. With heavy heart, Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael into the desert. It is important to notice that Hagar does not know that God has promised protection and prosperity for her and her son. Apparently, Abraham did not tell her that God would be with her. She believes quite legitimately that she and her son will die. Even in his compassion, Abraham omits a significant piece of information that would have offered Hagar hope.
Topical Index: Sarah, Isaac, ṣāḥaq, discontent, Genesis 21:3
[1]Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50, Eerdmans, 1995, p. 78.
Skip,
Abraham didn’t name Isaac. YHWH told him the name of the child: Genesis 21:9 – Then God said: “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.
Of the patriarchs, this is why his name was never changed. Man named Abram. YHWH changed it to Abraham. Man named Jacob. YHWH changed it to Israel.
Next item: I don’t have Hamilton’s, The Book of Genesis, so I don’t know how he comes to the conclusion of sexual abuse. But in Genesis 26:8, the same word is used of Isaac’s “showing endearment” to Rebekah that is used in the Ishmael and Isaac incident. Seems pretty clear Ishmael’s actions toward Isaac was more than making fun of him.
And Sodom and Gomorrah have already been destroyed, so this hint in the Hebrew bears even more weight. This adds a layer to Sarah’s anger, and to God’s comment that Abraham is to listen to her voice.
Yes, Abraham was instructed to name the son Isaac. Does that change the picture? I’m not so sure. There are instances of father’s renaming children. It also seems as though this case is a double entendre, as further statements in the text suggest. So, are we saying that God deliberately named the son in such a way that it leaves open the possible shame of Sarah? Is Abraham willing to allow this? Or is Abraham’s obedience once more at the cost of Sarah’s identity? There seem to be a lot more questions about this text.
In my opinion, yes it does change the picture. “Just as Adam names the woman with a reminder of her failure (Havvah), so Abraham names the son with a reminder of Sarah’s failure. There is no forgiveness in this family“
I believe that at this point, Abraham is obedient to Yah. If it is about forgiveness in this family, it would be rather a reminder that Yah is in control (no Sarah nor Abraham). And if that is not enough, Yah tests again Abraham asking him to sacrifice his son… How is Sarah’s heart at that point?
I think what we are really doing (hopefully) is resetting the Western idea of “righteousness” with the one we really find in the Bible. Righteousness is not an abstract ideal. If it were, then we could ‘count’ on things (such as the name of Isaac) that God gave as ‘perfect ideals’, but that is not how names work. God’s name IS His character. In those ancient times, names did not GIVE character; they revealed it, did they not? God is not ‘good’ because His name is good: His name shows us Who He is already. Goodness (His name) is not an abstract ideal we paste God onto: goodness is goodness because that is what God’s character already is. (Thanks, Skip, for teaching me that.) Isaac does not have a ‘perfect’ name; he has the one that showed him where he was coming from. Where he was going had to start from there.
God always starts with us where we actually are. I think He started with Isaac where he actually was in the family dynamic. Now, of course, we can look back with perfect hindsight and trace the name “Isaac” down through the rest of the Bible as a name to be proud of; a redeemed name; a name of a man who, on his very deathbed, learned what YHVH really desires of us: “to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God”. Isaac, like most of us, was given a lifetime to ‘get it’ because, for most of us, that is what it actually takes. May I ‘get it’ by the time I breathe my last, too, is my prayer.
Perhaps this is why the name is ambiguous. When given it could mean either one of these paths. Only after a lifetime of trauma resolution does the name come to mean what we have been taught. Only after a LIFE TIME. But, of course, there is also the impact of names on OTHERS. How do you suppose Sarah heard this name? The text is deliberately ambiguous. That tell us something too.
Perhaps it is not as ambiguous as it is flexible. Why must Isaac’s name be limited to one meaning?
We laugh for many reasons; in joy, disbelief, nervousness, mockery, contagiousness, fun, love making (? Gen 26:8), surprise, and jokes etc.
Abraham controlled hundreds of men, to the point of leading them into war, and having them circumcised as adults. I doubt these people were laughing at his wife Sarah when she miraculously gave birth to Isaac at age ninety. I don’t doubt she laughed in disbelief at hearing the messenger say she would give birth in her old age but she must have laughed in joy at his birth. It also seems Ishmael laughed deridingly at him and his name and according to Paul at Galatians 4:29, Paul says Ishmael “persecuted” Isaac.
Its sad but so human..I dont know what I would do…Thanks Skip its so revealing to read between the lines and so emotional for both Avraham and Sarah for Hagar and Ismael…no forgiveness..you dont get these kind of insights in church..its quite shocking to recognize your own humanity..so much to learn from it!
Skip, could I be bold and ask you until when you are in Parma?
You see maybe we could meet because I am now in Massa Lubrense in the south of Italy until 10 of oktober then I travel back by car to Holland and will pass also Modena thats about an hour to Parma.
Please let me know and I understand if you would not have time but I just try..
Shalom and saluti da Napoli!
We leave for Milan on 2 October. Glad to see you if it can be worked out.
How long are you going to be in Milan? Or where are you after the 10th of oktober?
“just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.” 1 Peter 3:6 NASB This verse is even harder to understand after this study. She doesn’t seem like the type of mother that would inspire me to want to become one of her children. Abraham doesn’t seem like the model father either. The pathos presented here presents the ravages of sin and the continued consequences so starkly. The fear that is frightening to me is the wages of Sarah’s sin.
Hold on! We aren’t done yet.
I can relate a little in regards to names. When I was born my father was an active alcoholic. My mother named me “Lawrence Michael“ also known as “Larry”. My father didn’t like the name so he named me after two of his drinking buddies, “Gordon” and “Harlowe”. Although Gordon Harlowe is on the birth certificate, my mother continued to call me Larry. So when I went to first grade I told the teacher and the students that my name was Gordon Harlowe but you can call me Larry! That was my beginning! And the rest, as they say, is history! Oy vey !
I can relate too Larry… my mom named me Lorraine Lucille then my dad a few days later changed it to Lucille Lorraine. So not exactly a different name altogether but just an ordering issue. Realizing names do matter.. I like Lucille Lorraine. Thanks daddy!!! Love you too mom! Both at rest now…
Regarding Sarai and Avram’s name changes and all of the clarity Skip has shared regarding the undercurrents of the story, I can’t help but notice that they both received a “hei” in their names just before the promised son was conceived. Biblical name changes seem to represent YHWH’s movement in the lives of his children, so I think it’s safe to assume this is putting his representation on them. However, Sarai already had a ‘yud’. Her yud (with the equivalent of 10) seems to have been split into the 2 hei’s (each with a numerical equivalent of 5).
I could easily be misreading (or over-reading) this, but it seems to represent Sarai losing her true identity in being Avram’s ezer – her desire for her husband was greater than her desire for YHWH, thus she lost her true identity as ‘princess’ when tried to ‘help’ her husband keep his life and achieve the promises.
Sadly, this seems to continue to be true in so many marriages today.
It is like a father’s heart that Abraham named by YHWH, father of many nations, had a deep emotional connection with Ishmael & Hagar and being the 1st born son he must have thot this was the fulfillment of the promise given him & Sarah. And Sarai being barren for so long acted no differently than did Rebecca, Rachel, Hannah or most woman who were barren in that culture. Isaac was the true promised seed and Abraham knowing this, should have disciplined Ishmael, if he was mocking Isaac and made known to Hagar her rightful place in the family. It appears to me that since Abraham did not fulfil his role as head of the household, Sarah took it upon herself to do what Abraham should have done but not with the right spirit. Personally speaking, I find when women act in place of the authority of a man, the spirit is not right. Sarah may have been too protective of Isaac but after all, this great feast Abraham prepared on the same day Isaac was weaned, was it not to acknowledge the heir-apparent and instead of celebration & merriment, Ishmael showed signs of jealousy. Thru Isaac will come the seed of Jesus Christ and so can YHWH afford another Cain & Abel tragedy? I think there are other perspectives to this story than merely looking at this through the eyes of a too human, dysfunctional family dynamics but, as well, seeing it as a prophetic shadow of two women & two covenants that Paul elaborates in Gal. 4:22-31. Not to justify Sarah’s attitude towards Ishmael & Hagar but I feel she was acting out what YHWH would have desired of Abraham who would have settled this family discord and
acted with more empathy.
I’m not sure why sexual abuse would be implicated. Isaac would have been about a year old. That seems somewhat ridiculous. Ishmael had a baby brother, and I think he was celebrating the birth of his half-brother. He loved his brother. Sarah felt threatened by Ishmael so she used him as a pawn. How many times do we see this happen to children in broken homes? Parents using their children as weapons. It is possible to believe Ishmael may have understood the implications behind the birth of Isaac in regards to inheritance, but I don’t think so. Ishmael may not have liked Sarah because of how she treated his mother, and because she sent them away. Ishmael is not the chosen one, but he was still blessed by God four times. We find both Isaac and Ishmael burying Abraham. According to Midrash, the rabbis say both Isaac and Abraham reconciled with Hagar and Ishmael but only after Sarah died. Maybe Isaac sensed his father’s grief over Ishmael, and so he initiated the reconciliation process.
Names play such a significant role in this series of events. For 13, 14 years, Sarah had to hear God Dwells (Hagar) call her son’s name God Hears (Ishmael) and even say it herself when using his name, not to mention Abraham using it as well. All the while realizing the man-made plan that produced God Hears didn’t include any cry of distress to the God who had promised a nation.
Have you seen God Hears, he was playing just outside the tent? Or, God Hears, God Hears, come back here! Which parent hasn’t spoken this way about a child many times a day? For Sarah and Abraham the reminder that they’d acted on their own must have been very heavy upon them.