And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking.
Abraham held a feast on the day Isaac was weaned, and one boy in the household would not join the joy. What Sarah saw that day shaped the rest of Abraham's family story.
(The ESV says "laughing." Older translations say "mocking," and the writers quoted here use that older word.)
The same event drew two opposite reactions under one roof. One writer puts the contrast at the centre of the scene:
The arrival of such a child marked a great turning point. And it was soon found that he was set for a sign that would be spoken against, as well as for the joy of the chosen. Abraham makes a feast, but Ishmael mocks over the same event. Here was the revealing of hearts. One taunts what the other glories in. But Sarah is bolder still. She will not just share Abraham's joy; she would judge the scorners. "Cast out the slave woman and her son," she says. Here was another heart revealed. She would sweep out everything that could disturb Isaac's full and unrivalled heirship.
Ishmael had long lived in Abraham's household without any recorded trouble. What changed was the public honour now given to the younger son:
There came a day when "a great feast" is made in honour of the heir. This honour put on the heir stirs up jealousy and hatred in those who had long held a place in Abraham's household.
Ishmael's character had not changed that day; it had only become visible. The writers read the two sons, and their two mothers, as a picture:
Sarah stands for the covenant of grace; Hagar for the covenant of law. Hagar's son also pictures the flesh. Isaac pictures the nature that grace gives. Ishmael shows his true character. As long as there was no Isaac, we hear nothing of Ishmael. The presence of Isaac makes known what was in the son of the slave woman. The presence of the new nature makes known what the flesh really is.
Isaac was the child God had promised, not a prize Abraham earned. That is what the mockery targets:
He looks at Isaac as worthless and unimportant. He mocks Sarah's old age, next to the strength and good looks of Hagar. "So also it is now." There is nothing man's nature dislikes more than grace. He cannot bear the thought that God makes one person differ from another, and that man does not make that difference himself. Man naturally frets more against God's grace than against His holiness. He assumes that by some method of his own he can meet God's holiness. But grace is God's ability to meet man in his greatest need, and to bless him beyond words.
Genesis calls it mocking. Paul calls the same act persecution:
"But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now" (Galatians 4:29). The Spirit of God saw in the mocking of Ishmael an expression of the deep-rooted hatred of flesh toward Spirit. Paul knew much of this. Had he been a preacher of circumcision, he would have been spared much. That would have put honour on the first man, and no persecution would have followed for him.
The pattern did not stop with Ishmael:
On the day when Isaac was weaned, Ishmael mocked. It is the same now: the one born according to the flesh, under the bondage of law, will persecute the one born after the Spirit, in the liberty of grace. The flesh and the Spirit are always opposed. It was so in Abraham's house, it is so in the world, and even in the heart of the believer.
Sarah's demand looks harsh. Yet God told Abraham to listen to her:
It is all the more instructive and important to notice that here Abraham was weak, and Sarah strong. He did not give glory to God as she did. So God called on Abraham to listen to Sarah's voice… She was in the secret of the Lord more deeply than her husband, while he gave the claims of flesh too much room.
The same clash meets anyone who gives Christ first place:
Bringing in the true Isaac, and giving Him undisputed first place, exposes all that man is after the flesh. It stirs up the deep hostility of his heart. If we insist that man after the flesh must go, and that Christ alone must have first place, we shall find that Ishmael is still a mocker.
- Feast — Public honour to the promised heir triggered the mocking. Until Abraham celebrated Isaac, no one heard a word about Ishmael.
- Exposure — The new nature does not reform the old. It shows what the old always was.
- Grace — The mockery resents a blessing man did not earn and cannot claim by right.
- Persecution — Genesis says "mocked." Paul calls it persecution — the pattern for how flesh treats Spirit ever since.
- Decision — Sarah judged rightly where Abraham was weak, and God backed her. What mocks the heir cannot share his inheritance.
And she said to Abraham, Cast out this handmaid and her son; for the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son -- with Isaac.
At Isaac's weaning feast, Sarah demands that the slave woman and her son leave the house for good. Her words sound like a jealous mother's outburst. Scripture later treats them as a settled rule about who inherits, and why.
The feast honoured Isaac. That honour brought something ugly into the open.
But there is one voice out of tune among the rejoicings of the great feast — Ishmael mocks! When Isaac is given his rightful place, the true character of Ishmael is exposed. In the same way, the true Isaac is brought in and given first place beyond dispute. That exposes all that man is in the flesh. It stirs up the deep hatred of his heart. If we insist that man in the flesh must go, and that Christ alone must have first place, we will find that Ishmael is still a mocker. The flesh in us cannot bear the thought of being set aside. But it must go!
The gap between the two boys made the scorn easy.
In Abraham's house, where he first appears, he was insolent. Isaac was little more than a feeble infant when he was a sturdy youth of fourteen. He plays with this newly weaned child; he mocks Isaac, who was an easy target for him. The flesh, or the strength of nature, might well despise Isaac, for he was a child and could not speak. He was weakness itself in the hand of his older brother. He is too weak to do anything for himself; someone else must take up his cause.
Sarah spoke, but the New Testament treats the sentence as coming from a higher source than a wife's demand.
God Himself stepped in to tell Abraham not to be grieved at acting on Sarah's word. However he felt about it, his feelings were not to rule in this matter... In fact, Galatians 4:30 calls Sarah's words "Scripture": "What does Scripture say? 'Cast out the slave woman and her son.'" In other words, it was God who put those words on Sarah's lips.
On this occasion the wife saw further than the husband.
Here is something instructive and important: Abraham was weak in this matter, and Sarah was strong. He did not give glory to God as she did; so God called on Abraham to listen to Sarah's voice... Abraham must not treat Sarah's feeling as mere offended pride. She was not just a mistress who could not put up with the airs of an ambitious, mocking Ishmael. She shared the Lord's secret more deeply than her husband did. He was allowing the claims of the flesh more than he should. The plan to send the slave woman's son out of the house grieved him.
The reason given is inheritance. Writers turn to Galatians 4 to explain it.
In his Letter to the Galatians, the apostle asks us to see in these two children "the two covenants": one producing bondage, the other liberty. He also asks us to see in them samples of Abraham's fleshly seed and spiritual seed. The first was "born according to the flesh," the second "born according to the Spirit." Nothing could be sharper than the dividing line between the two covenants and the two seeds. They are completely distinct from each other, and can never by any process be made to blend.
The refusal is not of the person only, but of a partnership.
Grace refuses partnership with law or flesh. The child of promise alone inherits.
Nobody suggests reforming Ishmael. The answer is removal.
The birth of Isaac did not improve Ishmael; it only brought out his real opposition to the child of promise. He might have carried on quietly and properly until Isaac appeared. But then he showed what he was. He persecuted and mocked the child of resurrection. So what was the remedy? To make Ishmael better? Not at all... Here was the only remedy. "What is crooked cannot be made straight." So get rid of the crooked thing altogether. Then give your attention to what God Himself has made straight.
Obeying cost Abraham something real.
It was very painful work for Abraham to have to thrust out his son. "The thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son." But it made no difference. Ishmael had to go, because the son of a slave woman could never inherit promises made only to the spiritual seed. If Ishmael had been kept, it would have been an open allowance of the claims of the flesh. Abraham would have found something "according to the flesh," and so would have had grounds to boast.
- Honour — Isaac's weaning feast gave the heir his place, and that place drew Ishmael's mockery into the open.
- Exposure — the mocking did not create the problem. It revealed a character that had stayed quiet until Isaac came.
- Authority — Galatians calls Sarah's demand "Scripture." The words are God's, not a household quarrel.
- Separation — the two sons picture two covenants and two seeds. They never mix. Nothing mends the flesh; it must go, and the child of promise alone inherits.
- Cost — Abraham grieved, but obeyed. Keeping Ishmael would have meant keeping a claim of the flesh in the house.
And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.
Sarah demanded that Abraham send Hagar and Ishmael away, and it wounded him, because Ishmael was his own son. Here God's purpose cuts straight across a father's love, and older translations put it strongly: the thing was "very grievous in Abraham's sight."
Abraham's grief was genuine, but it was not Abraham at his best. God tells the husband to listen to his wife.
It is even more instructive and important to notice this: in this matter Abraham was weak, and Sarah strong. He did not give glory to God as she did; so God called on Abraham to listen to Sarah's voice... She was let into the Lord's secret more deeply than her husband. He was allowing the claims of the flesh more room than he should, and the plan to send the servant's son out of the house grieved him.
God does not argue with Abraham's feelings. He gives a reason that stands above them, and He stands behind the words Sarah spoke.
Abraham found this extremely hard to do, because, after all, Ishmael was actually his son (v. 11). So God Himself stepped in to tell him not to be grieved at acting on Sarah's word. However he felt about it, his feelings were not to rule in this matter. The reason he must put Hagar and Ishmael out is told him plainly: "through Isaac shall your offspring be named" (v. 12). Again we get the clear message that grace and law cannot be mixed. In fact, Galatians 4:30 calls Sarah's words "scripture": "What does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the slave woman and her son.'" In other words, it was God who put those words into Sarah's lips.
The pain was unavoidable, because of what keeping Ishmael would have meant.
But it was most painful work for Abraham to have to thrust out his son this way. "The thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son." But it made no difference. Ishmael had to go, because the son of a servant woman could never inherit promises made only to the spiritual seed. If Abraham had kept Ishmael, it would have been an open allowance of the claims of the flesh. He would have found something gained by the flesh, and so would have had something to boast about.
One writer turns the scene on the reader. What Abraham felt about his son, we feel about the law we will not let go.
It was indeed "grievous" to Abraham to cast them out; it went against his feelings and affections to do so. But it was no more "grievous" to Abraham to do this than it is for us to turn the law out of doors. It clings to us so tightly. It seems so grievous to give up the works of our own hands and to renounce what we have been proudest of. But until Hagar is gone, there is and can be no peace in Abraham's house. Until we give up the law completely, along with every hope we place in it, there is no peace in the soul. As Scripture says, "since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God."
Abraham's sorrow did not stop him. The next morning shows what faith does with a hard word.
Here was a severe test for Abraham. "The thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son." Yet he responded to it. He made the renunciation. "Abraham rose up early in the morning" — here we see the energy of his faith.
Another writer names both the cost and where it leads.
To refuse the flesh will call for self-denial, and this involves suffering. So casting out the slave woman was "grievous in Abraham's sight." Yet God reminds him that all blessing is tied to Isaac.
The ones sent away did not drop out of God's care.
Hagar and Ishmael stood for something unhappy in this picture, and they belonged to the world rather than to the house of faith. Yet they were needy creatures, and as such objects of mercy.
- Grief is real. The verse does not hide Abraham's pain. But his feeling ran with the flesh, while Sarah was closer to God's mind.
- Grief is overruled. God does not remove the sorrow. He gives a reason above it — "through Isaac shall your offspring be named" — and He claims Sarah's demand as His own word.
- Grief has a cause. Keeping Ishmael would have been an open allowance of the claims of the flesh, giving Abraham something to boast in.
- Grief is ours too. Letting go of what we have prided ourselves in feels just as hard — and until it goes, there is no peace in the soul.
- Grief ends in blessing. Abraham rose early and obeyed. Mercy still reached the ones he sent away, and all blessing stayed tied to Isaac.
And God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad and because of thy handmaid [in] all that Sarah hath said to thee hearken to her voice, for in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee.
God tells Abraham to do the one thing his heart refuses: send away his own son. He gives a reason: the promise runs through Isaac alone, and the rest of the Bible keeps coming back to that one line.
God was not asking Abraham to feel differently. He was asking him to act on a word that cut across his feelings.
Abraham found this extremely hard to do, because, after all, Ishmael was actually his son (v.11). Therefore God Himself stepped in to tell him not to be grieved in acting on Sarah's word. However he felt about it, his feelings were not to rule in this matter.
The pain was real. God did not remove it. He overruled it.
But it was most painful work for Abraham to thrust out his son. "The thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son." Yet it made no difference. Abraham had to put him out, because the son of a slave woman could never inherit promises made only to the spiritual seed. Keeping Ishmael would have been an open allowance of the claims of the flesh. Abraham would have found something "as pertaining to the flesh." He would then have had something to boast about.
God tells Abraham to listen to Sarah. In this moment it was she, not he, who gave God the glory.
Notice something instructive and important here: in this transaction Abraham was weak, and Sarah strong. He did not give glory to God as she did. So God called on Abraham to listen to Sarah's voice, whatever the natural submission of wife to husband might be. It is that very submission in which the apostle Peter points to this same Sarah as an excellent pattern for Christian women. But here the weaker vessel was by grace the stronger of the two.
Her demand was not a wounded mistress settling a score. The New Testament treats it as God's own verdict.
When Galatians 4:30 refers to this matter, it calls Sarah's words "Scripture": "But what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the slave woman and her son.'" In other words, it was God who put those words into Sarah's lips.
God's reason is not Ishmael's conduct. One son came from human effort, the other from God's promise.
The apostle quotes the saying recorded in Genesis 21:12: "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." His inspired comment on this is: "This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." The flesh can produce nothing except what is flesh… God knew it was a corrupt source and therefore a source of nothing but corruption. So He passed by Ishmael, the child of the flesh. His election rested on Isaac, the child of promise — the son who owed his origin to the resurrection power of God, shown in His promise of earlier years.
The difference between the two sons runs deeper than family history.
One son was by a slave woman, the other by a free woman; one born after the flesh, the other by promise, and the two mothers stand for the two covenants… Grace refuses partnership with law or flesh. The child of promise alone inherits.
One house cannot hold both freedom and bondage. Someone has to speak, and someone will be grieved.
But there must be liberty in the house for all who are of God, and no entangling with the yoke of bondage. Every remnant of law, world, and flesh must be expelled, and only what is of promise may remain… Then comes the decisive moment. What is of the flesh persecutes what is of the Spirit. Grace enables the Sarahs to speak out, and God will have it heard and acted on, though an Abraham may be grieved.
Choosing Isaac was not the same as discarding Ishmael.
For Abraham's sake Ishmael does not go without His blessing. He fathers twelve princes and becomes a great nation. …So a saint's reasonings fall, and God's will alone stands — even in blessing outside the covenant of promise.
That one sentence is what made God's later command to sacrifice Isaac so hard. The promise itself hung on this son.
"Your son" — this word stirred in Abraham the tenderest of feelings; and he had to sacrifice that son! And more: this name reminded him of the promises of God. It was in this son that God would fulfil them, for He had plainly told him, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
- Promise, not production. Ishmael came from Abraham's own effort; Isaac came from God's word. Only what God promises can inherit what God promises.
- Promise overrules feeling. Abraham's grief was real. God did not deny it. He told him not to let it rule.
- Promise speaks through Sarah. God directs Abraham to his wife's voice, and the New Testament calls her words Scripture.
- Promise refuses partners. Law and flesh cannot share the house with grace; the child of promise alone is heir.
- Promise still blesses the outsider. Ishmael is sent out yet made a nation — God's choosing of one is not the abandoning of the other.
But also the son of the handmaid will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
Sarah told Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away. The demand cut him to the heart. God backed it, but He added a promise for the son who had to go. The verse raises the question at the centre of the whole episode: if only one son can be heir, what becomes of the other?
Abraham's reluctance was natural — Ishmael was his own child. God does not argue with the feeling; He gives a reason that settles the matter.
Abraham found this very hard to do, because, after all, Ishmael was his own son (v. 11). So God Himself stepped in and told him not to grieve over doing what Sarah said. However he felt about it, his feelings were not to rule in this matter. God plainly tells him why Hagar and Ishmael must go: "through Isaac shall your offspring be named" (v. 12). Again we get the clear message that grace and law cannot mix. In fact, when Galatians 4:30 refers to this matter, it calls Sarah's words "scripture": "What does the scripture say? 'Cast out the slave woman and her son.'" In other words, it was God who put those words into Sarah's lips.
The promise in this verse rests on one stated ground: Ishmael's descent from Abraham. That link is enough to guarantee a people — and not enough to guarantee anything more.
God assured Abraham that He would make a nation of Ishmael because he was Abraham's seed. The Ishmaelites lived as wanderers, yet God would preserve them as a nation, as He has for centuries… We must not forget that God's dealings with whole nations are different from His dealings with the people inside them. Israel is His chosen nation, but that does not limit Him. He works in the hearts of people in any nation under heaven. And being born an Israelite does not guarantee personal blessing. The New Testament makes it clear that personal faith in the living God is required before anyone receives the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
The next scene leaves mother and son alone in the desert with nothing left. Being outside the household of faith did not put them outside God's pity.
True to her name the poor woman became a wanderer in the wilderness. Soon all their small supplies were gone, and the boy came close to death. The Apostle James tells us, in connection with Job, that the Lord is "compassionate and merciful." We see it shown here. Hagar and Ishmael stood for something sad in this picture, and they belonged to the world rather than to the house of faith. Even so, they were needy creatures, and so objects of mercy.
Scripture later uses these two sons as a picture. One came by promise, the other in the ordinary human way, and they cannot share one inheritance.
One son was by a slave, the other by a free woman. One was born after the flesh, the other by promise. The two mothers answered to the two covenants… The story of the child of promise is used again to show two things. First, that the son born after the flesh persecuted the son born after the Spirit then, and does so now. Second, that the sentence of scripture is, "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." Grace refuses partnership with law or flesh. The child of promise alone inherits.
Later, some claimed God's promise by bloodline alone. That claim runs straight into Ishmael, who was Abraham's son too.
You claim to be children, and children of promise only, because you are Abraham's natural descendants. But it is written, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." If you take it as descent by the flesh, you must let the Ishmaelites in too.
Abraham's grief is one we share. Letting go of what God sets aside never feels natural to us.
Giving up all hope of blessing on the ground of law, and dispossessing the flesh, does not please us by nature. It does the opposite. Still it is the course that is according to God… God takes away the first, "in order to establish the second" (Heb. 10:9). If Christ the Second Man fills our vision, the first man and the covenant of law that applied to him are set aside.
- Seed named. Ishmael goes because of God's word, not Sarah's temper. The line runs through Isaac, and nothing may compete with it.
- Seed still. God promises Ishmael a nation because he is Abraham's seed. Descent can build a nation. It can never give personal blessing.
- Seed spared. He is cast out of the house, but not out of God's pity. Those outside the household of faith are still objects of mercy.
- Seed divided. Two sons, two mothers, two covenants. Grace refuses partnership with law, and only the child of promise inherits.
- Seed replaced. What grieved Abraham is what God asks of us — the first set aside so the second may stand.