In Genesis 15, there is a covenantal ceremony that is similar to the one that occurs at Sinai when the Law is given. Genesis 16 actually presents Mount Sinai and the giving of the Law. This particular interpretation doesn’t jump out. It requires the assistance of Paul in Galatians 4:21-31. Here, he interprets the story of Sarai and Hagar allegorically. They are two covenants, two mountains, two cities. One is Law, Sinai, and the present Jerusalem; the other is Gospel, Zion, and the Jerusalem that is above. Their respective children, Ishmael and Isaac, are born into slavery and freedom. Paul tells the churches of Galatia that, like Isaac, they are children of promise. Isaac foreshadowed Christ. Starting from Paul’s interpretation, it is possible to read this narrative and see the relationship that exists between the two covenants.
The story of Hagar actually extends through Genesis 21:21. Moses has written it in such a way that the beginning of the story acts as a preview to the whole. Hagar is lifted to a place of honor. She then holds Sarai in contempt and, after Sarai deals harshly with her, flees into the wilderness. The angel of the Lord instructs her to return. Later on the altercation is between their children. Ishmael laughs at Isaac. Paul elaborates: this was a form of persecution. Sarah demands that Hagar and her son be cast out. Once again, God watches over Hagar and Ishmael. This part of the story can wait. For now, focus on the opening in Genesis 16:1-6.
This passage is often interpreted as the impatience of Abram and a lapse in his faith. I believe, however, that this not only misses the greater point of the passage, it may not even be correct. Abram knew that the promised seed wouldn’t be Lot or Eliezer: God had told him that it would actually be his own son. Furthermore, Abram had not yet been told that the child would actually be Sarai’s and it was accepted practice for a woman to have children through a female servant. The distinction between Ishmael and Isaac as sons of the flesh and of promise is not to be found in Abram’s actions but in God’s. Therefore, getting beyond the moralizing, what does the passage say about Christ?
So far in the narrative, Abram has been the Christ figure. There is no need to change this now. Paul has identified Sarai as the Jerusalem that is above. Comparing this with similar images in scripture, we learn that she represents the true church. She is the bride of Christ. Nevertheless, the covenant on Earth extends beyond those who are elect. It encompasses the visible church and, in OT times, the whole nation of Israel: the nation that had been to Sinai. And just as God had entered into a covenant with Israel at Sinai, even so, Christ enters into a covenant with the visible church. This is typified when Hagar is elevated to the status of Abram’s wife. Yet, this covenant is conditional. It lasts only as long as Israel keeps the terms. When Hagar treats Sarai with contempt, Abram gives Sarai the authority to judge her. In the same way, Christ has given to the church the keys of the kingdom. That Sarah’s final judgment is ultimately righteous is seen when Paul attributes her words in Genesis 21:10 to the scripture. It is God’s will that, in the end, those who are not of the children of promise will be cast out.
Although this passage typifies the church’s role in Christ’s final judgment of the apostate world, historically, Hagar was still under the covenant protection of Abram’s house. Because of this, Christ himself, in the person of the angel of the Lord, deals with her in the next section. He instructs her to go back to Sarai and submit to her. This serves a double function: it shows that Christ has subjugated the Law to Grace and that he has given authority to the church. The angel goes on to tell her that her offspring will be innumerable. She is the mother of Abram’s child. The covenant promises will apply to him also, even though they are only earthly and temporary. The name “Ishmael,” which means “God hears,” would be a reminder of God’s mercy towards Hagar in her affliction. Ishmael, she is told, will be “a wild donkey of a man.” The connotation here is that, unlike their mother, Hagar’s descendents would be free. [There is no conflict with this and the Pauline allegory. The covenant promised to Hagar’s son is genuine; however, it is conditioned upon the ultimate acceptance of Christ. Once Christ is rejected, then the final distinction is made between the children of the flesh and the children of promise.] The wild donkey, spoken of in Job 39:5-8, was an animal that could not be domesticated, and, as that text implies, this is God’s doing (See Shimon Bar-Efrat “Narrative Art in the Bible” p. 207). They would live in conflict with those around them; however, this, in itself, is not a curse. The same would be true of the seed of promise while still on this earth. The last segment of the angel’s promise can be understood in two different ways. Either, “he will be in conflict with his kinsmen,” or “he will live next to his kinsmen.” My own preference is for the latter. Geographically, this is fulfilled in the position that Ishmael’s descendents end up taking between both Egypt and Israel. In terms of the allegory, it would refer to the extent of the visible covenant in encompassing both the children of the flesh and the children of promise until the final judgment.
There is nothing in the angel’s words to indicate that Ishmael’s descendents could not become one with the children of promise. Hagar’s response is positive. She recognizes who the angel is and calls him “A God who sees me.” The well where they were speaking was named “Beer-lahai-roi,” or, “The well of the living one who sees me.” Hagar obeys the angel and returns to Abram’s house where she bears him a son who is included in the covenant and will later receive the sign of that covenant. The depiction of Christ in Genesis 16 has been two-fold: he is both the Lord of the Covenant and a God of mercy
Posted by kcourter at agosto 28, 2003 10:39 PM