History and Story (7)

Sarah died in Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. Genesis 23:2  NASB

Weep– We have reached the end of our stories about Sarah.  The only remaining mention of her is a short account of her death (she is the only woman in the Bible whose age at death is mentioned, a practice that is otherwise exclusively patriarchal).  However, there are two New Testament references that shed light on this woman.  The first is 1 Peter 3:6, a verse that proclaims Sarah an example of submission to a husband.  Peter calls such women “holy women of former ages who hoped in God.”  Here is an insight that is not obvious in the Genesis accounts.  We do not see Sarah portrayed as holy and a woman of hope, but Peter certainly considers her to be both.  This theme is repeated in Hebrews 11:11 – “By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised.”  Here is a different Sarah, a woman who trusted in God’s promise.  Three characteristics emerge about Sarah. First, she is obedient.  Secondly, she is holy.  And thirdly, she trusts God’s promise.

We can certainly find the first of these attributes in her relationship to Abraham.  She follows him obediently into the desert to a land God will show them. She obeys Abraham even when it requires her to submit her body to another man (twice).  In fact, we see a lifetime of obedience punctuated with moment of emotional outbursts and demands.

“Holy” is a bit more difficult. Peter uses the word hagios, a word that derives its meaning from the context of ritual purity and ceremonial observance.   In Peter’s context, it means “morally upright” or “consecrated.”  The problem is that the stories surrounding Sarah do not seem to fit this description.  Peter amplifies this by adding, “who hoped in God.”  Here is the connection to Sarah.  Obedience and hope.  Peter is arguing that a wife with a disobedient husband must take a new approach to revealing God’s truth.  She must submit to her husband in a spirit of holiness and hope in God.  In this way, the witness of her character will bring the truth of God’s redemption to bear on her husband.  Peter uses Sarah as his example because she did submit to unjustified suffering at the hand of her husband during a time when he was being disobedient.  On both occasions when Abraham told her to offer sexual relationship with a potential threat, she did so.  The results were disastrous, but that does not discredit the obedience.  In fact, the only way that Pharaoh knew his action was displeasing to God must have come from the mouth of Sarah.  She did not trust her husband’s protection, but she did not stop trusting God’s.  In the midst of a very difficult situation, she still proclaimed the authority of Yahweh (even over Pharaoh).  Perhaps obedience and hope were not so far from her character after all.

Finally, Hebrews tells us that Sarah demonstrated “faith” since she considered God faithful to the promise. Given our story about her laughter, this may seem hard to reconcile.  The Greek word “faith” in this verse is pistei, a derivative of pistis.  It means, “a firm conviction or belief in the truth.”  In order to understand the example of Sarah, we must see that Hebrews 11:1 focuses our attention on the idea that faith is firm hope in the reality of things not present in observable evidence.  The definite article is absent before the word pistis, indicating that this is the general idea of faith, not necessarily the New Testament particular concept of faith.  So, the author of Hebrews is telling us what characteristics accompany the broadest definition of faith and those are simply, hope in unseen realities.

In this regard, the author gives Sarah as an example.  First, he makes it clear that Sarah herself exemplified hope in unseen reality. The inclusion of the pronoun (herself) emphasizes that this woman who previously did not exemplify faith (the story of her laughter) nevertheless came to the place of putting trust in God. The exact verb is hegeomai, a word that means “to regard, to esteem” or “to count as.”  She put trust in God in that she regarded God’s promise as truth even when the observable evidence seemed contrary.  In fact, this must have been the case.  Sarah became pregnant.  She must have committed herself to the actions required to achieve pregnancy even though she formally said that she was worn out and that her husband was too old.  She obeyed the implications of her commitment to hope in God’s promise.

These two New Testament references to Sarah help us see the full picture of this woman.  Sarah was a woman of trials.  She lived with a man who disappointed her trust in serious breeches of fidelity.  She learned to adapt but that adaptation initiated a pattern of abuse rather than release. Her bitterness brought revenge rather than repentance.  Sarah’s life displayed the results of discontentment.  Even her victorious moment was laced with humiliation.  If Sarah shows us anything, she shows us how destructive the disobedience of one spouse can be to the other.

But this is not the end of Sarah’s story because the story of Sarah is not really about Sarah at all.  It is about God.  Sarah is the instrument of God.  She is the vehicle through whom God fulfills His covenant plans.  If this were not clear enough from the stories, the author of Hebrews presses us to this conclusion when he says, “By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive.”  The Greek can be read in the sense that her body divinely received the needed ability to accept the deposited sperm—literally “into the throwing down of sperm.”   This is an Hebraic account reflecting the story of Mary.  A woman who cannot conceive because it is physically impossible for her to become pregnant is empowered by God so that her body becomes fertile.  It is God’s work through her.  In fact, God deliberately waits so that there is no human claim possible.  Sarah’s discontent is directly connected to God’s deliberate intention.  This is the reason that the author of Hebrews makes it clear that “even Sarah herself” finally sees God’s prior restraint is divine deliberation.

Sarah is vindicated.  But not in the way she hoped.  Her life has shaped her into a woman who cannot see the impossible glory of God’s unexpected surprises.  The story of Sarah is the story of God working in spite of us.  In the end, Sarah can only acknowledge the truth sarcastically, “God has made a joke of me.”  God’s joke is the triumph of His faithfulness regardless of human complaint.  God’s joke is the announcement of El Shaddai, “Is anything too difficult for me?” God’s joke is verdict that His wisdom seems foolishness to us.

Sarah is the foil of God.[1]  It is Sarah’s life that shows God’s triumph, not Abraham’s.  Abraham is a man on the journey to obedience, a man who must eventually sacrifice his own hopes and dreams for those of His Lord, a man who realizes that there is only one life-giver, El Shaddai.  Abraham is the recipient of life’s object lessons, played out in vivid detail in the lives of his wives and his sons.  Abraham is the beneficiary of Sarah’s sacrifice for it is Sarah who throws her life up against the wages of discontent and despair in order that God may show Abraham that life comes from what cannot be done.

In the end, perhaps it is Sarah who truly fulfills the meaning of “wife” from the Hebrew word ezer (Genesis 2:18).  This is a masculine word used to describe a female who is equal (alongside) the male. Moreover, it is the word used to describe Yahweh’s relationship to His chosen people, a word of considerable status. The meaning behind this word is “to save from danger” and “to deliver from death.”  This is the Sarah we know.  Her obedience, even in infidelity, is a saving sacrifice for Abraham.  Her acceptance of God’s empowered fertility is a deliverance from the death of Abraham’s line.  Sarah may have been unaware that her life of discontent became the very ground God used to plant a tree of deliverance.

The end of Sarah’s life is almost unnoticed in the text.  But there is one phrase that we should not overlook.  Genesis 23:2 tells us something about Sarah that completes the picture.  “Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her.”  The word for “mourn” is mispēd.  It is the customary grief shown for the dead.  We would expect it here.  But the text adds, “and to weep for her.”  Here is the verb bākâ, a word that shows particularly strong emotions.  Most interestingly, this word has five different senses in the Semitic languages, from weeping for joy to weeping over distress and sorrow.  But one sense is unique to the Tanakh.  It is the weeping of repentance.  Are we allowed in these circumstances to suggest such a meaning?  Abraham has spent his entire life with this woman. She has seen him through struggle and triumph, through disobedience and submission, through loss and gain.  She has endured his duplicity and his passivity. She has protected his legacy and provided his heir.  And in the end, Abraham may have seen his tragic abuse of a woman whose discontent came from his own disobedience to his God.  Perhaps Abraham is sobbing while repenting for what he did to her.

Sarah lived 127 years on this earth, the mother of the children of obedience.  When I finally meet her in His kingdom, I will humbly present myself before her and ask her to tell me the secrets she learned at God’s hand so that we can both laugh.  God made a joke of me so that His purposes would prevail.  That is my life too.  I serve a God who turns my expectations into jokes of independence in order that I might become a person of faithfulness.

Topical Index:  Sarah, mispēd, mourn, bākâ, weep, Genesis 23:2

[1]Sarah is also the foil of Mary.  There are many examples of figures in the Tanakh whose lives are counterbalances to New Testament people.  Consider Pharaoh in Exodus and Paul.  One refuses God’s command, the other obeys.  Both choices change history.

Subscribe
Notify of
29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
I.M.

What a story! What a conclusion! I think I am in shock.

Gayle

Thank you for presenting this view of Sarah. And for pointing out that this story is about God. I have always wondered why these obvious implications were ignored in what I read.

Satomi

Abraham as well as Sarah had almost 37 years to reflect on the faithfulness of YHWH’s promise to them and although we don’t know all the details of what happened in those years, we do know when YHWH changed their names, He also would have transformed their characters to reflect that change. I feel those statements in the book of Hebrews and New Testament about Abraham or Sarah were the legacy they left. What hope that He sees our face in the future as present & done!

Laurita Hayes

There can be no doubt that Abraham loved Sarah. They had spent their entire lives together (as half siblings surely they grew up together). When two people spend that much life together they share not only mindsets and world views; we now know their very DNA becomes attenuated. After an entire lifetime they probably even ended up looking alike! The marriage vows are descriptive as well as prescriptive; two people really do become “one flesh”. Love IS connection, but that shared connection also includes shared disfunction. However, just because two people are disfunctional together does not mean they do not love each other; it only means that the love is occluded with that disfunction.

I never doubted my ex-husband’s love for me: it’s just that his trust issues kept him from being successful in showing that love correctly, just as mine kept me from the same. Sin occludes true identity, but it does not mean that identity does not exist. Those two really did love each other: YHVH was the third Person in that marriage binding them together “for better or for worse”.

In the end, Abraham was buried next to the wife he loved the most. The storms of marriage only show us our defects of love after all; they do not CREATE them. Instead, I think marriage gives us a real opportunity to fix stuff we would never have been able to see otherwise. May we all learn to use these painful blessings in our disfunctional relationships as an opportunity to take our disfunction to God so that our relationships can prosper: hopefully before we find ourselves crying in bitterness at each others’ funerals!

Mark Parry

“Mann Tracht, Un Gott Lacht” is an old Yiddish adage meaning, “Man Plans, and God Laughs “. I think Sarah might suggest now that she sees clearly that he laughs with us not at us. He and she laugh together now at the spectacle of our human limitations- fear, pride and vanity purified and even purged from us through the light of his glory, majesty grace and power.

Laurita Hayes

I agree! I have often thought about the verse where we are promised that God will “wipe all tears from our eyes”. When my grandfather died, I had a dream where we met in the new earth and looked at each other and then spent the next year rolling on the grass laughing at all the absurd things that had kept us from each other. I suspect that laughter at the absurdity of sin may be the best antidote yet for that sin that tries so hard to make us take it seriously.

Martin Luther, who had some room to talk, said that the devil cannot stand to be laughed at. That is too much like the truth about sin for him, apparently!

Donna R.

Wow, Skip! I cannot tell you how much this speaks to me today! I have been asking Him for understanding of something He spoke to me several nights ago. This shows me. Once again, thank you for your faithfulness and steadfastness!

George Kraemer

This 7 day discussion has had many questions and alternative choices of interpretation and ends with; “But one sense is unique to the Tanakh. It is the weeping of repentance. Are we allowed in these circumstances to suggest such a meaning?”

My understanding is that Jews can entertain contradictory concepts without jeopardizing their faith. For me this is what I like about the Hebrew approach of “you right, you right, you abzolooootry right, …….. now I show you why you wrong” (unknown rabbi), or “on the one hand ………… on the other hand ………….” (Tevye)

Typical Western Christianity wants everything black or white and pronounces as such with dogma and doctrine, you must take it or leave it. You are either with us or against us. I have been told as much in the RCC. Is it any wonder I left? It is a wonder to me that anyone stays.

Well done Skip. Thanks.

Rich Pease

An excellent series. Skip.
In the end, we all look kinda foolish in all our meager
attempts to ultimately accomplish what only God can do. And does.
We all have our stories of faith. Your recounting the stories of Abraham
and Sarah was invigorating to my faith. Thanks!
And so we all . . . press on. He has much awaiting us!
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1Cor 2:9
It’s all about HIM!!!

Lesli

Gah- I must be the only outlier here…… fringe perhaps…… however, I will risk myself and the thumbs down that may come….. I am sorry for frustrating any of y’all…..

I read this NOT as absolute (abzoloooootly…..George K had me laughing as I also read it much like him) truth but as an IDEA of what may have transpired by reading the clues of original words -that’s what I come here to find out….. so , I am only left with more questions….. and I can only from MY paradigm…. as that is the only way I can “relate” (as twisted as my paradigm is)

How much did Sarah have as far as RELATIONSHIP with G-d? I don’t recall her having a direct exchange with anyone but the angels. Isaac tells HIS wife to consult G-d….. but I don’t know…. I’m just thinking about this person as a real person….

What were the ancient marriage vows that would have been exchanged (ketubah?)?

Did having sex with Hagar MAKE her a wife? Was there ceremony? Is that where the illegitimate angle comes (from Sarah’s mouth)?

All of this was before any Torah was given so what gods were around/acceptable as Hagar clings back to her roots (Egypt?)…. right? Did Ishmael cling somewhat to whatever his father TOLD him (taught?) him about as a young man… in the tribe of like-circumscribed males…….

I have more but any insight on these would be appreciated.

robert lafoy

Probably a pretty good bet that you’re not the only “outlier” here, 🙂 it may help to resolve some of your questions (and more than likely add a few more) if you consider that the “law” as given to the Israelites (written down) was already known and being obeyed by some. Abraham was said to be obedient to God’s commandments and laws, the knowledge of them perhaps being passed through Shem. It’s always a good thing to not limit ourselves to the confines of a particular incident (in this case, Abraham and Sarah) for understanding but to draw from other parts to “fill up” our understanding. A couple of things that shed some additional light on this story is the absolving of the right of the firstborn by Jacob in regards to Rueben. Although it was his natural right, it was dismissed because of his actions in placing the family in extreme danger due to the defiling of his sister. Esau also dismissed his natural right by his actions. (is this the “opportunity” Sarah was waiting for?) Also, Jacob was given slaves as wives (ceremonies aren’t mentioned) and were deemed as legitimate. All this is consistent with what was codified in torah as given to Israel as the “proper” treatment of a woman “humbled” by a man. (outside of a paid harlot) In light of this, not only can we see that the principles of torah were being followed, it may shine further light on Sarah’s actions in regards to Hagar. Perhaps it wasn’t anger or vengeance that was motivating her, as much as a true repentance of the harm she caused by giving Hagar to Abraham in the first place, and maybe that helps us understand God’s otherwise harshly understood statement to do what Sarah said. (throwing them out) There’s One who said, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. God creates/gives opportunity, we get to choose. In the end, God has His way as He says to Abraham, take your son, your ONLY son whom you love. Who knows how it would have played out if Sarah hadn’t taken this action, but it most likely wouldn’t have been very good. Faithful Sarah cut the problem to the quick and although it was beyond her to fix what had already occurred, she acted on the opportunity given.

Lesli

How deeply insightful! It never occurred to me that right if the firstborn was removed here. Very excellent point.

Just as you wrote… gave me more questions but a VERY good step towards finding the next piece!

Tank you so much! *tips hat

Theresa T

What a difference a day makes! If I had read this series thirty five years ago, my life may have been different. I thought that I had to obey an abusive husband to be faithful to God as part of His set apart people. Sarah was to be my example. God hates divorce. Is anything too hard for Him? I was taught that if I had enough faith, prayed and memorized Scripture that God would heal my marriage. That is HIs will. I kept hoping and the years went by. “If Sarah shows us anything, she shows us how destructive the disobedience of one spouse can be to the other.” This is so true.

LaVaye Billings

In my years of Christian teaching, ( I am 85 years old and still doing it-near the largest Military Base in the U.S.) we always reminded our students that: Yes, God hates divorce, BUT reminded them over and over that GOD LOVES DIVORCEES!

Daniel Kraemer

I hope this helps you and others.

Divorce is never the ideal, but because God Himself is a divorcee, I think we can safely say that divorce itself is not necessarily a sin. (Note the words in capitals.)
Jer 3:8 “And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had SENT her AWAY and given her a WRIT OF DIVORCE,

Deu 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he WRITES her a CERTIFICATE of DIVORCE and puts it in her hand and SENDS her out from his house,

There are two important phrases here, “sent away,” and “divorce”. Although many translations think their meaning is interchangeable, they are not. “Puts(KJV) / sends away” is the simple act of separation, while a divorce is a lawful procedure, including a certificate, by which the marriage is terminated.

This should be straightforward, but the because, 1. apparently, Israelite (men) had been skirting the Law, 2. English translators are not consistent in translation, and 3. readers don’t pick up on the distinctions, we therefore think that Jesus all but forbade divorce, when He didn’t.

Divorce is one word, G647, and send/put away, (or dismiss), is another, G630. The above verses were very clear that one must be legally divorced with a certificate, before one can be sent away, and the Pharisees (and the NASB) quoted Moses correctly when,

Mat 19:7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”

Jesus replied,
Mat 19:9 (NASB) “And I say to you, whoever divorces (or puts away KJV) his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

BUT the word translated divorce in this last verse is INCORRECT, it should be, “put away” as in the KJV, but even that must NOT be understood as a legal divorce. Putting away is a casual dismissal or simple separation.

Without a divorce certificate, the man is committing adultery when sleeping with another woman. Jesus is thus demanding a certificate to protect both parties from being accused of adultery. And this prevented the men from casually dismissing their wives (as mere possessions) because they had to go to court where, we assume, justice was done. I believe this was a huge elevation of the Hebrew women over the pagan cultures of the time.

Lee

I really appreciate the explanation about the difference between putting away and a divorce. I have listened to someone speak on this topic and explain this but had forgotten, so good to get a concise explanation. But verses 4-6 provide the basis before the fall. Shouldn’t that be the goal for all believers? Yes. But we do live in a fallen world and if God makes allowance for this, I believe it is possible in other areas as well. Only God can see into the “heart” of a person. I mean adultery was one of the ten sayings and God Himself wrote these ten commandments.

Larry Reed

Skip wrote, “ she did not trust her husband’s protection, but she did not stop trusting God‘s (protection). This line really jumped out at me. I think we are always looking for someone to place our complete faith in, someone who will not fail us, someone we can always trust, someone who always has our back. How many marriages actually start out this way, with one or both with this type of thinking. It doesn’t take long before we realize that we are all flawed in one way or another. We need to constantly turn to God, who never fails, who always has our back, who always has our best interest in mind, the one who never changes! Jesus never fails. People come and people go. People react to our humanity and abandon us. But God will not. First Thessalonians 5:24 says “faithful is he who has called you, he will do it“. We place our faith and confidence in God !

I also appreciated the words that Laurita used in one of her responses …..” painful blessings”.
Two words that are antithetical. Only in God’s kingdom can this be true! How much it would help us if we could develop this mindset. Not seeing difficulties, struggles and trials as negative but as opportunities for growth and development in God . James 1:2-4.

Seeker

God deliberately waits so that there is no human claim possible. Amen Skip.

How often do we misunderstand God through our logic and choice. To be blessed as God intended we need to wait for when the sole power of God can be revealed so that only He can be glorified. This is how we should understand God’s covenants with man. It is not about us worshipping and glorifying His will. Just think how unfaithful the father of faith was…

It is about us being that instrument for His power when He needs a story to be an example unto others.

Well I must be living in the wrong era or is that doctrine and theology as my fear keeps me from even trying to consider to be as adultorous and muderous as much of the main characters in God’s story book turned out to be…

Or is there a lot of catching up that still lies and waits for me even though my theology says I must rule over it… or am I reading this incorrect. Do it get over it and forget that it happened is that how I should rule over temptations. Just joking as Skip has a nice discussion on Gen 4:6 …

Daniel Kraemer

Skip, that was an insightful new look at the dysfunctions of a family we have formerly been taught was pretty well ideal. Thank you, but I have some comments on your definitions.

You say you have a difficult time seeing Sarah as “holy” because it means, “morally upright”. Last year you supplied the book, “The Simplicity of Holiness” to my brother George. Matthew Wilson, the author, after demonstrating that holy does NOT mean, morally upright, sinless, pure, or even, set apart, convincingly showed that it simply means, “devoted”. So then, perhaps it is easier to see Sarah as still “wholly devoted” to both God and Abraham, even with her faults. This devotion naturally leads to her obedience, faith and hope.

Because of Heb 11:11, “By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive”, we naturally jump to the conclusion that Sarah conceived because she had sufficient faith, but the main point of the story is not Sarah’s faith but the FAITHfulness of God to produce the heir for her that He had promised.

You write that faith is “a firm conviction or belief in the truth”. I don’t think so. First, lots of people have great faith in things that are total lies. Second, faith is the noun for belief, so that explains nothing. Third, a “firm conviction” is the definition of “hope” and so you are confusing it with faith.

Faith is nothing but an assumption but we believe in the assumption even though we cannot prove it. We may have good evidence for our assumption, but nevertheless we cannot demonstrate it. Often, we find our faith misplaced, and so we change it.

As mentioned, you confuse your definition of, “faith” by putting the definition of “hope” within it, “a firm conviction or belief in the truth”. It is, “hope” that should be defined as a “firm conviction” not faith. I know that this is not the modern understanding of “hope” but that is its Biblical meaning. Paul’s “hope” in the resurrection (Acts 23:6) was not fanciful or wishful, but was, according to Strong, an, “anticipated, expected, and, confident” emotion. That is how we should translate hope here and dozens of other verses, e.g. the “expectation” of Israel, Act 28:20.

Laurita Hayes

This was good, Daniel.

“Devoted”. Hmm. Devotion is a summary of a bunch of choices; specifically the choices that we DON’T make. Devotion means that we don’t let anything or anyone come in between us and who or what we are devoted to. “Holy” means the same thing, doesn’t it? And if God is “holy” doesn’t that mean He is supremely devoted to Himself? Wouldn’t this be a description of Echad? God is faithful, then, BECAUSE He is holy; He never lets anyone or anything come IN BETWEEN.

Jealousy fits into this because that is the emotion that arises when there is something or someone in between those who are devoted to each other. Sarah was right to be jealous, as YHVH is right to be jealous when we allow anyone or anything in between Him and ourselves. We are called to be holy too: nothing in between. Marriage is “holy and undefiled” when there is nothing or no one in between, too.

I am still such a long way from holiness!

Daniel Kraemer

1Pe_1:16 it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy. (Lev 11:44)

The whole holy point is, you don’t have to be anywhere near perfect to be holy. If you are devoted, the rest will follow, even in imperfection. Witness David.

(And yes, holy does have its roots in wholly. Devoted means committed, and committed means wholly, ergo, wholly means holy means devoted.)

God is holy, not to Himself but to Israel. He put His holy name on IsraEL. And when they rejected Him and their holy calling, (devotion to Him), God put them into exile but He could not forever have His devoted name (meaning the faithful character attached to His name) tarnished in the eyes of the nations, and so, for the sake of His holy name, He redeemed them.

(It all starts to make more sense, doesn’t it?)

George Kraemer

Dan, I am somewhat confused on your position, “and so, for the sake of His holy name, He redeemed them.” I thought you are a “replacement theology” advocate meaning the church has replaced Israel as His chosen people.

Can you clarify “redeemed” please?

Daniel Kraemer

God promised to be devoted to Israel for an “aion” (not “forever” as in the KJV, but for an extremely long and still current “eon”) but that didn’t stop God from forsaking them for periods of time due to their adulterous idolatry. They are in a constant, on again, off again, relationship. The redemption I was specifically referring to was from the Babylonian exile. Since then, they have not been replaced but they have lost their priority (as a nation), at least for the time being, not by the “Church” but by the “nations”.

Rom 11:25 For I do not want YOU, BRETHREN, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a PARTIAL hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

Paul largely gave up on Israel (as a nation) and turned to the (gentile) nations. See Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28. But admittedly, there were a lot of dispersed Israelites within the gentile nations, (in this case Rome). Note that Paul uses the term, “brethren” in this verse. That word is/was originally a genetic term. It is Strong # G80, it comes from the word, “womb” or “uterus” and so primarily it refers to a blood relative. (Secondary meanings are, fellow countrymen; believers; associates; other.) So, Paul was not ignoring individual Israelites but actively engaging them.

George Kraemer

Dan, I agree mostly with what you are saying but Paul did not “largely give up on Israel”. In consultation with the apostles in Jerusalem it was agreed amongst them that he would leave Israel to the apostles and he would be the primary disciple to go to the Gentile nations. He was best able to do this because as a Roman citizen he had the protection of the Roman law courts if necessary.

He did so ALWAYS by going directly to the local Jewish synagogue every Sabbath and preaching there or nearby. Gentiles were always welcome there and his message was believed by MANY Jews and interested Gentiles everywhere he went. It was the only way he could reach the Gentiles effectively.

pam wingo

Have you ever attended a 50 wedding anniversary of a couple you know intimately. You might be privy to some not so nice character traits of either of them, but you often see them defend each other to the hilt if someone casts dispersion on either one of them.its like one thing for me too talk about my spouse lack of character but a whole different ball game if you do. Now God revealing character flaws is a whole different thing ,we can learn from others mistake as well as their victories.we all have such different personalities and have proclivities to read the word from our life experiences. Though I have lived through trauma it just doesn’t define me . I look back and see wow God thanks for all your help in helping me to be an overcomer in so many areas. Maybe when I meet Sarah and Abraham I will thank them for showing me endurance, devotion,and being overcomers in what seemed as impossible odds and failures and thanks for hanging in there.Could you imagine if they didn’t God sure knew who to pick!!!

Pat

Again, in a practical way, I think a woman’s voice can help much with understanding Sarai/Sarah. The woman’s role as wife speaking to the man/husband can say – this is wait, this is carrying and protecting an unborn child, this is labor, this is the birthing experience. That same voice can help much with understanding promises. For what promise doesn’t have a waiting period and labor before birth?
Many women are alarmed, frightened even, when their cycle is interrupted. Anxiety manifests as they wait for proof, pregnant – not pregnant. It seems to me Sarah had reached an age where her body no longer menstruated. What proof did she wait for, maybe that flutter inside, of life? I find her remarkable.

Jacqualine Avery

I finally finished reading this 7 part series & ended up crying! What an amazing journey you have lead us on Skip – thank you once again for making this story so very real for us. What an amazing God we have!

Anca

Skip,
Have you seen the word Baal used in Genesis 20:3 when God tells Abimelech that he is a dead man because Sarah is this man’s Baal? It does not say his Isah, rather Baal. What do you make of it?