Why did Sarah demand Hagar and Ishmael be cast out in Genesis 21:10? Historical and Textual Background Genesis 21 records the fulfillment of God’s long-promised birth of Isaac and immediately juxtaposes that joy with household tension. “But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, ‘Drive out this slave woman and her son! For the son of this slave woman will never share in the inheritance with my son—Isaac!’ ” (Genesis 21:9-10). The request appears harsh unless its covenant, cultural, and prophetic layers are explored. The Immediate Narrative Context Abraham had waited twenty-five years for Isaac (Genesis 12:2; 21:5). Ishmael, now about sixteen or seventeen (cf. Genesis 16:16; 17:25; 21:5), was “mocking” (Hebrew מְצַחֵֽק, meṣaḥēq)—a participle related to Isaac’s name (“he laughs”). The narrative contrasts covenant laughter (Isaac, Genesis 17:19) with derisive laughter. Ancient Jewish expositors (e.g., Jubilees 17:4) and the Targum Onqelos render the word as “persecuting,” implying hostility rather than playful teasing. Ancient Near Eastern Inheritance Customs Tablet archives from Nuzi (15th c. BC) show that a concubine’s son could contend for inheritance unless formally disinherited. The Code of Hammurabi §170 likewise allowed sons of slaves to inherit if acknowledged. Sarah’s demand directly addresses this legal backdrop: if Ishmael remained, Isaac’s undisputed status could be challenged at Abraham’s death. The Theological Significance of the Promise Through Isaac God had declared, “through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned” (Genesis 21:12; cf. 17:19-21). The covenant line, culminating in Messiah (Luke 3:34-38), required an unambiguous heir. Sarah’s plea, though personal, aligned with divine revelation already received by Abraham. Sarah’s Motives: Protective Maternal Instinct and Covenant Zeal 1. Maternal protection—seeing her toddler threatened or belittled by a teenage half-brother. 2. Zeal for God’s promise—she had first suggested Hagar as surrogate (Genesis 16:2) but now recognized the potential threat to God’s stated plan. 3. Social order—slave/concubine rivalry endangered family peace (cf. Proverbs 30:21-23). Ishmael’s “Mocking”—Hebrew Linguistic Insights Meṣaḥēq appears elsewhere for immoral or violent derision (Genesis 19:14; Exodus 32:6). Paul interprets it as persecution: “the son born according to the flesh persecuted the one born according to the Spirit” (Galatians 4:29). The nuance suggests more than sibling banter; Ishmael’s attitude foreshadowed later hostility between their descendants (Genesis 25:18). Legal Precedent for Expulsion of a Slave Woman and Her Son Hittite texts allow masters to free or expel slaves; patriarchal authority was virtually absolute. Abraham’s distress (Genesis 21:11) proves his affection yet underscores the legal right to comply. God Himself assures Abraham, legitimizing the action (21:12-13). Divine Ratification: God’s Affirmation to Abraham “Do not be distressed… Listen to whatever Sarah tells you” (21:12). God’s endorsement reveals that the expulsion serves redemptive history: Ishmael becomes “a great nation” (21:13) outside the covenant line, fulfilling earlier prophecy (16:10-12) while preserving Isaac’s distinctive role. Typological and New Testament Development Paul employs the episode as an allegory of law versus promise (Galatians 4:21-31). Hagar represents Sinai and bondage; Sarah represents the Jerusalem above. Casting out symbolizes the supersession of works-righteousness by grace through faith in Christ, the true Seed (Galatians 3:16). Practical and Pastoral Implications Believers must guard gospel purity from syncretism (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Just as Isaac’s inheritance could not be mixed with Ishmael’s, salvation cannot be shared between grace and self-effort (Ephesians 2:8-9). Conclusion Sarah’s demand arose from intertwined maternal, legal, and theological factors. Her action, ratified by God, safeguarded the covenant line, anticipated redemptive typology, and reflected authentic Near Eastern custom. The episode upholds the coherence of Scripture and showcases God’s sovereign orchestration of history toward the Resurrection-centered gospel. |
    |