It’s one of those “tough” Old Testament passages. Abraham and Sarah (Abram and Sarai at the time) force their Egyptian slave girl to be the surrogate mother of their son. Abram was probably 85 years old at the time (Gen 16:16). And so, a barren mother in desperation gives her helpless slave girl to an old man, who obliges without reluctance.
The narrative is seemingly silent on the moral implications of this patriarchal sexual abuse. On the surface, Scripture offers no comment, no hints that God disproved of Hagar’s rape. For many modern readers, Genesis 16 becomes another problem passage that, like the Canaanite genocide, seems to point to a god who has more in common with Baal and Asherah than Jesus. (See The Epic Gospel We’ve Forgotten for why this isn’t the case with the Canaanite genocide.)
The problem isn’t with God, as if somehow His sense of morality changed over time. The problem lies with us. In the modern West, most Christians have never been taught how to read the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) as it is meant to be read. It functions in a unique way, offering commentary on itself in subtle but powerful ways. As moderners, we tend to look for explicit explanations of events, wishing that God’s moral viewpoint of “tough” Old Testament passages would be spelled out for us. But when we discover Scripture’s internal commentary, God’s viewpoint on the matter becomes clear.
The Hebrew Bible functions through the use of hyperlinks (Tim Mackie’s term)—repeated words and phrases that contribute to the literary design and connect narratives with each other. These hyperlinks then often provide the internal commentary on the moral implications of narratives that otherwise appear to be silent on the matter.
Genesis 16 is set in parallel to Genesis 3 and 6:1-4 (among others, including David’s affair with Bathsheba), which are clearly negative. Genesis 3 is obviously catastrophic, and Genesis 6:1-4 lays the groundwork for the corruption of the world leading to the Flood. Once the hyperlinks are discovered, the moral viewpoint becomes obvious.
| Genesis 3:6 | Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis 16:2-4 |
| When the woman saw that the tree was good, she took… | the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were good and took… | Sarai took Hagar |
| and gave some to her husband | Sarai…gave her to Abram her husband | |
| the man listened to the voice of his wife | Abram listened to the voice of Sarai | |
| the sons of God came into the daughters of man | [Abram] went into Hagar | |
| they bore children to them | she conceived |
The writer of Genesis purposely set Abram and Sarai’s abuse of Hagar in parallel with the cataclysmic events that brought death into the world (Gen 3) and then corrupted the entire world save for Noah (Gen 6:9-12). Once we learn how to see the connections, it becomes clear that Scripture is not silent on this matter. God’s view of Abram and Sarai’s choice is that it is the type of behavior that ruins God’s good creation and leads to death. It’s the worst of the worst. Left unchecked, this type of behavior corrupts all creation.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the very next chapter (Gen 17) sees God instructing Abraham to be blameless and affirming his promise to Abraham through a sign, which is…wait for it…circumcision. Ouch. Circumcision was purposely visual, later meant to set Israel apart from the rampant sexual perversion of the idol worship of the nations around them.
But for Abraham, circumcision came with the instruction to be blameless. This physical sign would be a daily visual reminder of both his fault in the abuse of Hagar and the importance of choosing to be blameless going forward. Set against Genesis 3, God’s opinion on the matter seems pretty clear. For Abraham and Sarah to repeat this type of abusive behavior would be synonymous with listening to the voice of the serpent.
Don’t forget, Abraham. Don’t forget.
Epic Gospel 