Last Sunday, I explained that Sarai and Abram attempted to solve the problem of their childlessness through Sarai offering her maid, Hagar, to Abram as a second wife.
I said that, even though we find this unacceptable today, in that day and age this was a socially acceptable way to raise an heir.
The problem with doing this was not that it was socially unacceptable but that it did not arise out of their trust in God.
During the sermon, I gave one clue the narrator leaves that this is so: Sarai is repeatedly referred to in Genesis 16 as "Abrams' wife." The implication is that when God promised Abram miraculous offspring in Genesis 15, we were meant to infer the obvious: Against all odds, God would grant Abram and his wife a son.
For those who are interested in following this up, here is another clue. The phrase "Abram listened to the voice of" his wife (Genesis 16:2) has very close echoes of the fall narrative (compare Genesis 3:17). Once you've realised that, the next thing you notice is that this phrase feels familiar too: "Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife." (Genesis 16:3). Cutting out a few of the words, notice the shape of that sentence
She "took … and gave … to … her husband".
The plan that Abram and Sarai cook up here is a recapitulation of the fall. They decide that they want to determine how things should be done, rather than live by reference to the word of God.
That's why this is not a trusting solution to their predicament.
Add new comment