《Expository Notes on the Whole Bible – Genesis》(Thomas Constable) Commentator

16 Chapter 16
Verses 1-6

Sarai and Hagar 16:1-6

Using a woman other than one's wife (Genesis 16:2) was a method of providing an heir in the case of a childless marriage apart from adoption. [Note: Speiser, p. 130; T. Frymer-Kensky, "Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law," Biblical Archaeologist 44 (1981):209-14.] Hagar was Sarai's personal servant, not a slave girl. Abram also had at least one personal servant (Genesis 24:2).

"It was a serious matter for a man to be childless in the ancient world, for it left him without an heir. But it was even more calamitous for a woman: to have a great brood of children was the mark of success as a wife; to have none was ignominious failure. So throughout the ancient East polygamy was resorted to as a means of obviating childlessness. But wealthier wives preferred the practice of surrogate motherhood, whereby they allowed their husbands to 'go in to' ... their maids, a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Genesis 6:4; Genesis 30:3; Genesis 38:8-9; Genesis 39:14). The mistress could then feel that her maid's child was her own and exert some control over it in a way that she could not if her husband simply took a second wife." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 7.]

People in Abram's culture regarded a concubine as a secondary wife with some, but not all, of the rights and privileges of the primary wife. [Note: Bush, 1:258.] In effect Hagar became Abram's concubine.

". . . one Nuzi tablet reads: 'Kelim-ninu has been given in marriage to Shennima.... If Kelim-ninu does not bear children, Kelim-ninu shall acquire a woman of the land of Lulu (i.e., a slave girl) as wife for Shennima.'" [Note: West, p. 69.]

Not only was using a concubine an option, but in Hurrian culture husbands sometimes required that if their wife could not bear children she had to provide a concubine for him. [Note: Livingston, p. 152. Cf. Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):245.]

". . . any child of the bond-slave would necessarily belong to the mistress, not the mother." [Note: Thomas, p. 147. Cf. J. Cheryl Exum, "The Mothers of Israel: The Patriarchal Narrative from a Feminist Perspective," Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):64.]

This custom helps explain why Abram was willing to be a part of Sarai's plan that seems so unusual to us in the West. Abram agreed to his wife's faithless suggestion as Adam had followed Eve's lead. Abram's passivity contrasts with his earlier valiant action to save Lot from his captors (ch. 14). Like Eve, Sarai also blamed someone else for the results of her act, namely, Abram (Genesis 16:5).

Did Sarai mean that she would obtain children through Hagar by adopting them as her own or by becoming fertile herself as a result of Hagar's childbearing (Genesis 16:2)? Most interpreters have taken the first position, but some have preferred the second. [Note: E.g., Samson Kardimon, "Adoption As a Remedy For Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs," Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):123-26. See John Van Seters, "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel," Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968):401-8.] The basis of the second view is the not infrequent phenomenon of a woman who has had trouble conceiving becoming pregnant after she has adopted a child.

Though using a woman other than one's wife to bear one's children was a custom of the day, it was never God's desire (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-5). Abram and Sarai here repeated the failure of Adam and Eve, namely, doubting God's word. This episode ended in total disaster for everyone involved. Hagar lost her home, Sarai her maid, and Abram his wife's servant and his child by Hagar.

"A thousand volumes written against polygamy would not lead to a clearer fuller conviction of the evils of that practice than the story under review." [Note: Bush, 1:259. See also Waltke, Genesis, p. 339.]

Sarai tried to control the will of God by seizing the initiative from God (cf. Genesis 3:17). She and Abram chose fleshly means of obtaining the promised heir rather than waiting for God in faith (cf. Genesis 25:21). [Note: See George Van Pelt Campbell, "Rushing Ahead of God: An Exposition of Genesis 16:1-16," Bibliotheca Sacra 163:651 (July-September 2006):276-91.] They let their culture guide them rather than God.

"It's a shame that she [Sarai] hadn't comprehended the fact that her infertility could be used by the Lord to put her in a place of dependence on Him so that fruit could be born in her life." [Note: Don Anderson, Abraham: Delay Is Not Denial, p. 93.]

Verses 7-14

The angel of the LORD and Hagar 16:7-14

This is the first of 48 references to "the angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament. Sometimes, as here, the Angel is deity, and in other places he appears to be an angelic messenger from the Lord.

"The prophetic description of Ishmael as a 'wild ass of a man' [Genesis 16:12] (RSV) is rather intriguing. The animal referred to is the wild and untamable onager, which roams the desert at will. This figure of speech depicts very accurately the freedom-loving Bedouin moving across vast stretches of land." [Note: Davis, p. 189. Cf. Jeremiah 2:24; Hosea 8:9.]

This prophecy was not an insult or a curse. Ishmael would enjoy the freedom his mother sought. The Lord named Ishmael (Genesis 16:11), whose name means "God hears," and Hagar named the Lord (Genesis 16:13) "the One who sees." These two names constitute a major revelation of God: He hears and He sees. This may be the only instance in Scripture of a human being conferring a name on God.

Abram and Sarai's action proved to be a source of much difficulty for everyone involved (cf. Abram's error in going to Egypt, Genesis 12:11-13). God, however, took care of and blessed Ishmael even though he was the fruit of Abram's presumption. This is another occasion when Abram did not trust God as he should have (cf. Genesis 12:10-20).

"Both Hagar and Mary [the mother of Jesus] stand as examples of women who obediently accepted God's word and thereby brought blessing to descendants too many to count." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 13.]

Paul wrote that this story contains (not is) an allegory (Galatians 4:24). An "allegory" today means a story without factual basis. Paul did not deny the factuality of Genesis 16, but he used this story as the basis for a comparison. "Illustration" or "comparison" would be better words to use. Hagar represents the Mosaic Covenant, and Ishmael is its fruit (slaves). Sarai is the Abrahamic Covenant, and Isaac is its fruit (free sons). Children of the flesh persecute children of the promise (Galatians 4:29).

There is much irony in this story. Barren Sarai lived in a fertile land whereas fertile Hagar ended up living in a barren land. The Egyptians, to whom the attacked Hagar fled for freedom, later enslaved the attacker, Sarai's descendants.

Resorting to fleshly means rather than waiting for God to provide what He has promised always creates problems. This story also shows that human failure does not frustrate God's plans ultimately.

"If we have made mistakes which have led us into sin, the primary condition of restoration is complete submission to the will of God, whatever that may involve." [Note: Thomas, p. 149.]

When in great distress, people should pray because God is aware of their needs and will fulfill His promises to them.
17 Chapter 17
Verses 1-8

Thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael (Genesis 16:16) God spoke to Abram again (the fifth revelation; Genesis 17:1). God called Himself by a new name: El Shaddai (the Almighty God). This was appropriate in view of the thing God proceeded to reveal to Abram that He would do. It would require supernatural power.

The references to the "covenant" in this chapter have caused some confusion. The Abrahamic Covenant (ch. 15) is in view (Genesis 17:4; Genesis 17:7; Genesis 17:11; Genesis 17:19; Genesis 17:21) but also the outward sign of that covenant that was the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17:2; Genesis 17:9-10; Genesis 17:13-14; cf. Acts 7:8). Thus Moses used the word "covenant" with two different references here, though throughout, the Abrahamic Covenant is in view. Perhaps visualizing the covenant of circumcision as a smaller circle within the larger circle of the Abrahamic Covenant will help. Whereas the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, the covenant of circumcision depended on Abram's obedience (Genesis 17:1-2). God would bless Abram as Abram obeyed God by circumcising his household. This blessing would be in the form of multiplying Abram's descendants "exceedingly," even more than God had already promised. The rite of circumcision was to be a continuing sign of the Abrahamic Covenant to all of Abram's descendants.

God also gave Abram and Sarai the added assurance that they would have a multitude of descendants by changing their names. [Note: See note on 1:4.] He changed the name "Abram" (high or exalted father) to "Abraham" (father of a multitude), and he changed the name "Sarai" (my princess [perhaps a reference to her noble descent]) to "Sarah" (royal princess [from whom kings would come, Genesis 17:16]). Abraham's name emphasized the number of his seed. Sarah's evidently stressed the royal nature of their line (Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 17:20; cf. Genesis 12:2).

"The choice of the word be fruitful in Genesis 17:6 and multiply in Genesis 17:2 seems intended to recall the blessing of all humankind in Genesis 1:29 : 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land,' and its reiteration in Genesis 9:1 : 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land.' Thus the covenant with Abraham was the means through which God's original blessing would again be channeled to all humankind." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 157.]

Circumcision was "an everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:7) because it marked the eternal salvation of the person who believed God as Abraham did, not because God wanted people to practice it forever. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 203.] God has not commanded circumcision of the flesh for Christians. Some Christians in the reformed traditions of Protestantism regard baptism as what God requires of us today in place of circumcision. They practice infant baptism believing that this rite brings the infant into the "covenant community" (i.e., the church) and under God's care in a special sense. Some believe baptism saves the infant. Others believe it only makes the infant a recipient of special grace. The Bible is quite clear, however, that baptism is a rite that believers should practice after they trust Christ as their Savior as a testimony to their faith. There are parallels between circumcision and baptism, but God did not intend baptism to replace circumcision. God did command circumcision of the Israelites in the Mosaic Law, but He has not commanded it of Christians. We do not live under the Mosaic Law (Romans 4:10-13; Romans 6:14-15; Romans 7:1-4; Romans 10:4).

Verses 9-14

God wanted Abraham to circumcise his male servants as well as his children. The reason was that the Abrahamic Covenant would affect all who had a relationship with Abraham. Consequently they needed to bear the sign of that covenant. The person who refused circumcision was "cut off" from his people (Genesis 17:14) because by refusing it he was repudiating God's promises to Abraham.

"This expression undoubtedly involves a wordplay on cut. He that is not himself cut (i.e., circumcised) will be cut off (i.e., ostracized). Here is the choice: be cut or be cut off." [Note: Hamilton, p. 473.]

There are two main views as to the meaning of being "cut off" from Israel. Some scholars hold that it means excommunication from the covenant community and its benefits. [Note: J. Morganstern, "The Book of the Covenant, Part III-The Huqqim," Hebrew Union College Annual 8-9 (1931-32):1-150; and Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law, pp. 28-32.] However there is also evidence that points to execution, sometimes by the Israelites, but usually by God, and premature death. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:224; Hamilton, p. 474; M. Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel," Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):195-201; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, pp. 241-43; W. Horbury, "Extirpation and excommunication," Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985):16-18, 31-34; and Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 25.] The threat of being cut off hung over the Israelite offender as the threat of a terminal disease, that might end one's life at any time, does today.

The person who refused to participate in circumcision demonstrated his lack of faith in God by his refusal. Thus he broke the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17:14).

Only males underwent circumcision, of course. In the patriarchal society of the ancient Near East people considered that a girl or woman shared the condition of her father if she was single, or her husband if she was married.

Circumcision was a fitting symbol for several reasons.

1. It would have been a frequent reminder to every circumcised male of God's promises involving seed.

2. It involved the cutting off of flesh. The circumcised male was one who repudiated "the flesh" (i.e., the simply physical and natural aspects of life) in favor of trust in Yahweh and His spiritual promises.

3. It resulted in greater cleanliness of life and freedom from the effects of sin (i.e., disease and death).

Circumcision was not a new rite. The priests in Egypt practiced it as did most of the Canaanites, the Arabs, and the Hurrians (Horites), but in Mesopotamia it was not customary. Later the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites practiced it, but the Philistines did not. [Note: See Davis, p. 192; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 23-24; and J. Sasson, "Circumcision in the Anceint Near East," Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):473-76.] By commanding it of Abraham and his household God was giving further evidence that he would bless the patriarch. Circumcision has hygienic value. One evidence of this is that cancer of the penis has a much higher incidence in uncircumcised males. [Note: Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet, "Moses and Preventive Medicine," Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):276.] Circumcision was a rite of passage to adulthood in these cultures. [Note: Kidner, p. 174.] Normally it was practiced on young adults (cf. ch. 34). Circumcising infants was something new.

"Research indicates that other Middle Eastern cultures practiced circumcision ... However, the Hebrews were unique in that they practiced infant circumcision, which, though medically risky if not properly performed, is less physically and psychologically traumatic than circumcisions performed at an older age." [Note: Fawver and Overstreet, p. 277.]

"Designating the eighth day after birth as the day of circumcision is one of the most amazing specifications in the Bible, from a medical standpoint. Why the eighth day?

"At birth, a baby has nutrients, antibodies, and other substances from his mother's blood, including her blood-clotting factors, one of them being prothrombin. Prothrombin is dependent on vitamin K for its production. Vitamin K is produced by intestinal bacteria, which are not present in a newborn baby. After birth prothrombin decreases so that by the third day it is only 30 percent of normal. Circumcision on the third day could result in a devastating hemorrhage.

"The intestinal bacteria finally start their task of manufacturing vitamin K, and the prothrombin subsequently begins to climb. On day eight, it actually overshoots to 110 percent of normal, leveling off to 100 percent on day nine and remaining there for the rest of a person's healthy life. Therefore the eighth day was the safest of all days for circumcision to be performed. On that one day, a person's clotting factor is at 110 percent, the highest ever, and that is the day God prescribed for the surgical process of circumcision.

"Today vitamin K (Aqua Mephyton) is routinely administered to newborns shortly after their delivery, and this eliminates the clotting problem. However, before the days of vitamin K injections, a 1953 pediatrics textbook recommended that the best day to circumcise a newborn was the eighth day of life. [Note: L. Holt Jr. and R. McIntosh, Holt Pediatrics, pp. 125-26.]

Another writer saw the eighth day as symbolic of completing a cycle of time corresponding to the Creation. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 261.]

Verses 15-21

Abraham's laugh (Genesis 17:17) may have expressed his incredulity, but it could have been a joyful response to God's promise. [Note: See Raymond L. Cox, "What Made Abraham Laugh?" Eternity (November 1975), pp. 19-20.] Sarah's laugh (Genesis 18:15) seems to have arisen from a spirit of unbelief. God did not criticize Abraham for laughing, but He did Sarah when she laughed.

Verses 22-27

The writer's use of the phrase "the very same day" (Genesis 17:26) points to a momentous day, one of the most important days in human history (cf. Noah's entry into the ark, Genesis 7:13; and the Exodus, Exodus 12:17; Exodus 12:41; Exodus 12:51).

This fifth revelation from God advanced God's promises in six particulars.

1. Part of God's blessing would depend on Abraham's maintaining the covenant of circumcision, though the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole did not depend on this (Genesis 17:1-2).

2. Many nations would come from Abraham (Genesis 17:4-6).

3. The Abrahamic Covenant would be eternal (Genesis 17:7-8).

4. God would be the God of Abraham's descendants in a special relationship (Genesis 17:7-8).

5. Sarah herself would bear the promised heir (Genesis 17:16).

6. This is also the first time God identified the Promised Land as Canaan by name (Genesis 17:8).

"Abraham's experiences should teach us that natural law [barrenness] is no barrier to the purposes and plans for [sic] God." [Note: Davis, p. 193.]

"Thus Abraham and Noah are presented as examples of those who have lived in obedience to the covenant and are thus 'blameless' before God, because both obeyed God 'as he commanded them' (Genesis 17:23; cf. Genesis 6:22; Genesis 7:5; Genesis 7:9; Genesis 7:16)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 160.]

Blameless does not mean sinless but with integrity, wholeness of relationship (cf. Genesis 6:9). God requires a sanctified life of those who anticipate His promised blessings.
18 Chapter 18
Verse 1

Abraham was living near Hebron at this time (cf. Genesis 13:18).

Verses 1-15

8. Yahweh's visit to Abraham 18:1-15

Chapters 18 and 19 constitute one integrated story, but we shall consider this episode in the Abraham narrative section by section. Like the Flood story, it has a chiastic structure, this time focusing on the announcement of the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19:12-13). [Note: See Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 41, for the chiasm.] Again there is a mass destruction with only one man and his family escaping. Both stories end with intoxication and shameful treatment by children that have consequences for future generations. [Note: See ibid., pp. 43-44; and Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 212-13; for more parallels.]

We perceive the Lord's gracious initiative toward Abraham in His visit to eat with the patriarch in his tent. This was a sign of intimate fellowship in Abraham's culture. On the basis of that close relationship God guaranteed the soon arrival of the promised heir. In response to Sarah's laugh of unbelief the Lord declared that nothing would be too difficult for Him.

This chapter and the next may seem at first reading to be extraneous to the purpose of the Abraham narrative, which is to demonstrate God's faithfulness to His promises to the patriarch, but they are not. Chapter 18 contributes the following.

1. It records another revelation (the sixth) in which God identified for the first time when the heir would appear (Genesis 18:10; Genesis 18:14). With this revelation God strengthened Abraham's, and especially Sarah's, faith.

2. It fortifies Moses' emphasis on God's supernatural power at work to fulfill His divine promises in spite of apparently impossible circumstances (Genesis 18:9-15).

3. As a literary device it provides an interlude in the story line and heightens suspense by prolonging the climax. We anticipate the arrival of the heir with mounting interest.

4. It presents Abraham as an intercessor, one of the roles of the prophets of whom Abraham was one of the first (cf. Genesis 20:7).

5. It records God's announcement of judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-33), which follows in chapter 19.

"The noon encounter in this chapter and the night scene at Sodom in the next are in every sense a contrast of light and darkness. The former, quietly intimate and full of promise, is crowned by the intercession in which Abraham's faith and love show a new breadth of concern. The second scene is all confusion and ruin, moral and physical, ending in a loveless squalor which is even uglier than the great overthrow of the cities." [Note: Kidner, p. 131.]

"There is also a blatant contrast between how Abraham hosted his visitors (ch. 18) and how the Sodomites hosted the same delegation (ch. 19)." [Note: Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50, p. 5.]

Verse 2

The "three men" were "the LORD" (the Angel of Yahweh, Genesis 18:13; Genesis 18:17; Genesis 18:20; Genesis 18:33) and "two angels" (Genesis 19:1; Genesis 18:22) who later visited Lot. If Abraham had previously met the Angel of the Lord it seems likely that he would have recognized Him at once (cf. Genesis 17:1; Genesis 17:22). If he had not, Abraham became aware of who this Angel was during this interview (cf. Genesis 18:25).

Verses 3-11

Abraham's hospitality reflects oriental custom as practiced in his day and, in some respects, even today in the Middle East. He was behaving more wisely than he realized since he did not yet know that his guests were divine visitors (Genesis 18:8). "Where is Sarah?" (Genesis 18:9) recalls God's earlier questions about Adam (Genesis 3:9) and Abel (Genesis 4:9).

Verse 12

Sarah's laugh sprang from a spirit of unbelief due to long disappointment, as is clear from the Lord's response to it (Genesis 18:14). Abraham's laugh (Genesis 17:17) did not draw such a response.

Verse 13

The fact that the Lord knew Sarah had laughed and knew her thoughts demonstrated his supernatural knowledge to Abraham and Sarah. This would have strengthened their faith in what He told them.

Verse 14

The Lord's rhetorical question, one of the great statements of Scripture, reminded the elderly couple of His supernatural power and fortified their faith further (cf. Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27).

Verse 15

Sarah evidently denied that she had laughed from fear of the Lord's powers or from fear of offending Him. Again, God built confidence in His word. If the Lord could read Sarah's thoughts, could He not also open her womb?

Believers should never doubt God's promises because nothing is impossible for Him.

Verses 16-21

God chose to reveal His intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah to Abraham. He did so because of His plans for Abraham. He wanted to challenge Abraham to act wisely and nobly for justice.

"In this section [Genesis 18:1-21] we have an illustration of fellowship with God and some of its essential features. Fellowship is the crowning purpose of God's revelation (1 John 1:3). There is nothing higher than this, for man's life finds its complete fulfillment in union and communion with God. Notice the following elements:

"1. Sacred Intimacy. . . .

"2. Genuine Humility. . . .

"3. Special Revelation. - Fellowship with God is always associated with the knowledge of His will. Servants do not know their master's purposes, but friends and intimates do....

"4. Unique Association. - The man who is in fellowship with God does not merely know the Divine will, but becomes associated with God in the carrying out of that will. . . ." [Note: Thomas, pp. 161-62.]

God always thoroughly investigates a situation before passing judgment and sending calamity (Genesis 18:21).

"The Lord would not arbitrarily destroy them [the people of Sodom and Gomorah]. As a fair and just judge, He would examine the evidence and then reward their deeds appropriately. The anthropomorphic language veils the ontological reality of God's omniscience, but the Lord seems to have been more concerned in this context with revealing Himself as a fair judge, emphasizing the importance of human responsibility and inviting Abraham to assume the role of an intercessor." [Note: Robert B. Chisholm Jr., "Anatomy of an Anthropomorphism: Does God Discover Facts?" Bibliotheca Sacra 164:653 (January-March 2007):9.]

Verses 16-33