10<\/strong>. “Hebrew custom provided for the recognition of the children of the maid-servant (Gen 30:3<\/span>), and Ishmael according to the Elohist (Gen 21:10<\/span>) was coheir with Isaac” (Stanley Cook, p. 140).<\/p>\n Verse 10<\/span>. Cast out this bondwoman and her son<\/B><\/I>] Both Sarah and Abraham have been accused of cruelty in this transaction, because every word reads harsh to us. Cast out; garash<\/I> signifies not only to thrust out, drive away<\/I>, and expel<\/I>, but also to divorce; (see Le 21:7<\/span>); and it is in this latter sense the word should be understood here. The child of Abraham by Hagar might be considered as having a right at least to a part of the inheritance; and as it was sufficiently known to Sarah that God had designed that the succession should be established in the line of Isaac, she wished Abraham to divorce<\/I> Hagar, or to perform some sort of legal act<\/I> by which Ishmael might be excluded from all claim on the inheritance.<\/P><\/p>\n 1892<\/I> She was enraged by this fact, and perceived it was but a beginning and earnest of greater evil designed by him against her beloved Isaac; being also guided by the wise counsel and providence of God, as appears from Gen 21:12<\/span>. Though the fact was done by Ishmael, yet Sarah plainly saw that this and other like carriages were from his mothers instigation and encouragement, who being of an imperious and petulant disposition, as appears from Gen 16:4<\/span>,9<\/span>, in all probability comforted herself, and animated her son, by that right he had to his fathers inheritance as he was his first-born, as may be gathered both from the custom of women in such cases, and from the last words of this verse. Besides, if the mother had been continued, she would easily have prevailed with Abraham to fetch the child back again. <\/P> <\/p>\n 10. Wherefore she said unto Abraham,Cast out this bondwoman<\/B>Nothing but the expulsion of both couldnow preserve harmony in the household. Abraham’s perplexity wasrelieved by an announcement of the divine will, which in everything,however painful to flesh and blood, all who fear God and are walkingin His ways will, like him, promptly obey. This story, as the apostletells us, in “an allegory” [Ga4:24<\/span>], and the “persecution” by the son of the Egyptian<\/I>was the commencement of the four hundred years’ affliction ofAbraham’s seed by the Egyptians.<\/I><\/P><\/p>\n Wherefore she said unto Abraham, cast out this bondwoman and her son<\/strong>,…. Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid and bondservant, and her son Ishmael; by this it appears that Hagar was concerned in this affair, and set her son on to mock Isaac, at least she encouraged him in it, buoying: him up with his being the firstborn, and having a right to the inheritance; wherefore Sarah saw plainly that there would be no peace nor comfort for her and her son, unless Hagar and her son were turned out of doors, for which she moves Abraham; and this not merely in a passion, but by divine direction and influence, as is evident from God’s approbation of it:<\/p>\n for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac<\/strong>; which he would seem to be, if continued, and would think himself so, and there would be continual bickerings about it; wherefore, to put it out of all doubt who was heir, she desires that he and his mother both might be cast out of the house, which would be a clear determination of this matter. Sarah may seem to take upon her too much, to be so peremptory, as to declare who should, and who should not be heir, which more properly belonged to Abraham, whom she called her lord, Ge 18:12<\/span>; but what will sufficiently free her from any charge of this kind is the revelation of the divine will, and the promise of God that so it should be; namely, that the covenant God had so often renewed with Abraham should be established with Isaac, and not with Ishmael, Ge 17:19<\/span>. Now what was the design of God, in guiding Sarah to make such a motion as this to Abraham, is taught us by the Apostle Paul, who makes these two women to be types and figures of the two covenants, and their sons of those that are under them, see Ga 4:22<\/span>.<\/p>\n 10. Cast out this bondwoman. Not only is Sarah exasperated against the transgressor, but she seems to act more imperiously towards her husband than was becoming in a modest wife. Peter shows, that when, on a previous occasion, she called Abraham lord, she did not do so feignedly; since he proposes her, as an example of voluntary subjection, to pious and chaste matrons. (1Pe 3:6<\/span>.) But now, she not only usurps the government of the house, by calling her husband to order, but commands him whom she ought to reverence, to be obedient to her will. Here, although I do not deny that Sarah, being moved by womanly feelings, exceeded the bounds of moderation, I yet do not doubt, both that her tongue and mind were governed by a secret impulse of the Spirit, and that this whole affair was directed by the providence of God. Without controversy, she was the minister of great and tremendous judgment. And Paul adduces this expression, not as a futile reproach, which an enraged woman had poured forth, but as a celestial oracle. But although she sustains a higher character than that of a private woman, yet she does not take from her husband his power; but makes him the lawful director of the ejection. <\/p>\n (10) Bondwoman.<\/strong>Heb., ammh. <\/em>This word is rightly translated handmaid <\/em>in Gal. 4:22<\/span>, &c., Revised Version. It is rendered maid <\/em>in Gen. 30:3<\/span>, and in the plural, maidservants, <\/em>in Gen. 20:17<\/span>, where, as we have seen, it means Abimelechs inferior wives. So also in 1Sa. 25:41<\/span>, Abigail professes her willingness to descend from the position of an ammh <\/em>to that of a maidservant in Davids honour. The rendering bondwoman unduly depresses Hagars condition, and with it that of the Jewish Church in the allegory contained in Gal. 4:22-31<\/span>.<\/p>\n 10<\/strong>. <\/strong> Cast out <\/strong> Her old spirit of persecution, now embittered by what she saw in Ishmael, came back with imperious force . Comp . Gen 16:4-6<\/span>. “Seeing in Ishmael nothing but the contemptible son of an Egyptian bond-maid forgetting that he was that offspring of her husband whom she had herself desired and heedless of the blessings which God had pronounced upon him she demanded his expulsion, together with that of his detested mother.” Kalisch.<\/p>\n Gen 21:10<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Cast out this bond-woman and her son, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> It is evident from what follows, Gen 21:12<\/span> that Sarah acted, in this affair, by a Divine impulse. While, at the same time, the character of Abraham appears in a very amiable light, from the anxious tenderness which he discovers for Hagar and Ishmael; nor can he be charged either with cruelty to them, or with a too uxorious deference to Sarah, when we remark, that he acted entirely by the Divine direction, and upon the certain assurance that Ishmael should live and flourish under the protection of God. See Gen 21:12-13<\/span>. <\/p>\n Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac.<\/p>\n Ver. 10. Cast out this bondwoman.<\/strong> ] Who had been, likely, either an author or abettor of her son’s sin, in ambitiously seeking the inheritance. Out they must, therefore, together: as all hypocrites one day must be cast out of God’s kingdom. Heaven is an “undefiled inheritance”: no dirty dog ever trampled on that golden pavement. There is no passing e coeno in coelum<\/em> . Heaven would be no heaven to the unregenerate. Beetles love dunghills better than ointments; and swine love mud better than a garden. <\/p>\n “ Quid Paris? ut salvus regnet vivatque beatus,<\/p>\n Cogi posse negat .”<\/p>\n “What of Paris? To reign in saftey and live in happiness,<\/p>\n – nothing, he says, can force him.”<\/p>\n – Horat., epist. 2, lines 9, 10.<\/p>\n Cast out, &c. See the Divine interpretation. Gal 1:3, Gal 1:6-29; Gal 4:22-31. <\/p>\n with my son, &c Hebrew idiom “with my son with Isaac”. Compare Num 12:8. <\/p>\n Cast out: The word rendered “cast out,” signifies also to divorce. See note on Lev 21:7. In this latter sense, it may be understood here. Gen 25:6, Gen 25:19, Gen 17:19, Gen 17:21, Gen 20:11, Gen 22:10, Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, Mat 8:11, Mat 8:12, Mat 22:13, Joh 8:35, Gal 4:22-31, 1Jo 2:19 <\/p>\n heir: Joh 8:35, Gal 3:18, Gal 4:7, 1Pe 1:4, 1Jo 2:19 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 16:1 – bare Gen 24:36 – unto Gen 25:5 – General Gen 25:9 – Isaac Gen 30:4 – to wife Exo 18:23 – God 1Ch 1:28 – Ishmael Pro 22:10 – General Eze 16:5 – but thou Gal 3:29 – Abraham’s Gal 4:30 – Cast<\/p>\n Gen 21:10. Cast out the bond-woman This was a type of the rejection of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they were the seed of Abraham, yet, because they submitted not to the gospel covenant, were unchurched and disfranchised. And that which above any thing provoked God to cast them off, was, their mocking and persecuting the gospel church, Gods Isaac, in its infancy.<\/p>\n Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac. 10. “Hebrew custom provided for the recognition of the children of the maid-servant (Gen 30:3), and Ishmael according to the Elohist (Gen 21:10) was coheir with Isaac” … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 21:10”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/532\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"