Download - Sarah and Hagar in ChristianhRetellings Oxford ... · Sarah and Hagar in ChristianhRetellings ... Hagar, at one point called “mother of the Arabs,” is the wife of Ibrahim to whom

Sarah and Hagar in Christian Retellings

of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: University ofDenver; date: 27 October 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

SharedStories,RivalTellings:EarlyEncountersofJews,Christians,andMuslimsRobertC.Gregg

Printpublicationdate:2015PrintISBN-13:9780190231491PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:August2015DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190231491.001.0001

SarahandHagarinChristianRetellings

RobertC.Gregg

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190231491.003.0008

AbstractandKeywords

St.Paul’srecastingofSarahandHagarinhisbriefallegory(Galatians4:21–31)allowedhim(andhisChristiansuccessors)toassertthatGod’scovenantwithAbrahamnowbelongedtothebelieversthatJesuswastheMessiah,andnottohisJewishdetractors.Itfelltothechurches’theologians,preachers,andartiststodemonstratethesignificanceofthevisitingangels’announcementofIsaac’sfuturebirthtoSarahandAbraham.AtypologicalinterpretationproposedthatthetidingsofIsaac’smiraculousbirthtoSarahprefiguredtheannunciationtoMarythevirginofJesus’sbirth(Luke1:26–38).Origen,thefamedthird-centurythinkerandpreacherdisplayshisapplicationsofliteral,allegorical,andspiritualinterpretationinhissermon,OnthebirthofIsaacandthefactthatheisweaned.AnalysesoffourpiecesofChristianartcompletethechapter.

Keywords:Paul,allegory,Origen,annunciation,Sta.MariaMaggiore


of 32


WhenearliestbelieversthatJesuswasGod’smessiahclaimedthattheywerenowGod’scovenantpeople,theywereobligedtoexplaintheirrelationtoAbraham,andtohistwowomen.AprovocativeobservationbyElizabethClarkisagoodonetoplaceoverthischapter—andtotestasweproceed:

ExegesesofthestoriesofHagar,Sarah,andAbrahambythechurchfatherswerebornofneeds,astheyperceivedthem,oftheirowndays....[Their]mainconcernistodefendthehonorandreputationofAbraham,theforefatheroftheMessiah,oftenattheexpenseofthewomenwithwhomhesharesthestory.ThatSarahandHagarare“used”bytheFatherstoillustrateotherpointsofChristiantheologyshows,aboveallelse,thathoweverlittleconcerntheyhadforthesefemalecharactersintheirownright,they,likewomenelsewhere,were“good”formen“tothinkwith.”

ElizabethA.Clark,“InterpretiveFateandtheChurchFathers”1

ForJewsandChristiansonlythecouple,AbrahamandSarah,andtheirsonIsaacheldcentralimportance.Withthat“side”ofthepatriarch’sfamily,theBiblemadeclear,God’scovenantanditspromiseswereoperative.Sarah,then,hadthestatusofreveredmatriarch—itwashersonandhisownoffspringwhowereespeciallyblessed.Christianity’sassertionthatitbecamethatAbrahamic“family,”thepreferredandchosenpeopleofGod,wasattheheartofJewish-Christiandebateanddifference,andwilloccupyusinthefollowingpages.IslamexultsinthedivinewillthatbroughtintobeingfatherIbrahimtheprophet,andcelebratesespeciallyIshmaelandhisprogeny,fromwhomcontinuedthatlineofGod’semmisariesthroughthe(p.155) centuries—downtotheappearanceofMuhammad.Hagar,atonepointcalled“motheroftheArabs,”isthewifeofIbrahimtowhomMuslimsgivespecialhonor.

Wehaveseentherabbis’judgmentsofSarahandHagarinconflict.WhatkindsofvaluationsofthetwowomendidearlyChristiansreach,andwhatbecameoftheirpersonaeasscripturalcharacterswhenpreachers,theologians,andartistsexpandedupontheiridentitiesandtheirsignificances?Inparticular,whatinterpretivefatewillbefallHagar?

St.PaulonSarahandHagarandTheirSons

Galatians4:21–31

NoearlyChristianwriter’suseofSarahandHagar“tothinkwith”wasmoreinfluentialthanPaul’s,eventhoughtwootherpassagesintheNewTestamenteffectivelyfashionedSarahintotheexampleofwifelyobedience(1Peter3:6)andoflifelived“byfaith”(Hebrews11:11).2TherecipientsoftheEpistletotheGalatians,whichPaulsentsometimeintheearly50sCE,couldonlyhavebeensurprisedbyhisanalysisoftheSarah-Hagarstoryinhisletter.TakinglibertieswithtraditionalJewishunderstandingsoftheGenesisnarrative,PaulradicallyreimaginedAbraham’sfamilyintermsconsistentwiththerevelationhehimselfhadexperienced.Hisconversioncausedhimtoleavebehindhis“earlierlifeinJudaism”(anaccountofwhichhegivesinGalatians1:11–2:14)


of 32


andbecomethe“apostle[ofGod]totheGentiles”(Galatians2:8;Romans11:13).Abrahamandhisfamilyarethusinterpretedinawayconsistentwiththe“gospelfortheuncircumcised”(2:7)thathepreached,apparentlypersuasively,tothecongregationsinthisareainAsiaMinor.

TheunexpectedmeaningsPaulderivesfromthetaleofSarahandHagarandtheirtwosonshavechallengedcommentatorsthroughthecenturies,includingmodernscholarsoftheNewTestamentandthosewhoinvestigatethehistoryofrelationsbetweenJewsandChristians.Largeissuesareatstake.PaulassertsinGalatians(1)thatobediencetocommandsofGodwasnotthebasisuponwhichAbrahamwas“reckoned”orcountedrighteous;(2)thattherevealedMosaiclawwasadivineinterventionnecessarytoGod’sdealingswithhispeople,butthatitspurposeandeffectshadbeensurpassedintheremovalofthe“curse”uponhumankindbyJesus’sdeathonthecross;(3)thatthelaw,whichisimpossibleformenandwomentoobeyinitsentirety,isanegativeweight,aburden,aformofslavery(aviewpeculiartoPaulamongfirst-centuryJewishteachers);3and(4)that“works”ordeedsundertakentosatisfytherequirementsofJudaiclaw(p.156) havenobearinguponthesalvationnowmadeavailabletoconvertsfrom“thenations,”theGentiles,whothroughChristhavebecomechildrenofAbrahamandsonsanddaughtersofAbraham’sGod.

InthisletterPaulrespondsindeepangertowhathehaslearnedofrecenteventsinthe“churchesofGalatia.”WhenpreachingthereasonedivinelysenthehadconvertedanumberofGentilestofaithinJesusastheJewishGod’sagentofsalvation,butsubsequentlyandinhisabsenceothermissionarieshadcometotroublethefaithfulthere.Theserivalpreachersproclaimeda“differentgospel”andsought,hesays,“topervertthegospelofJesusChrist”(Galatians1:6–7).TherevelationthatPaulchampionedamongthem(whenhefirstwasintheirmidstasamissionaryandnowevermorefirmlyinthiscrisis-moment)wasthe“goodnews”thatGentile(polytheist)convertsareclaimedasGod’sownbytheirfaithinJesusChrist,andnotthroughadherencetoJewishlegalobservance.HavingbeenvisitedbyGod’sspiritwhichworkedmiraclesamongthem(Galatians3:3–5),andhavingbeenrituallycleansedfromfalsebeliefsanddestructivebehaviors(“youwerebaptizedintoChrist”(Galatians3:27)),thesebelieversarenow,together,a“newcreation,”nolonger“JeworGreek…slaveorfree…maleorfemale…butoneinChristJesus”(Galatians3:27–28).Indeed,Paulasserts,thenewlyinitiatedfaithfulhavebecometheauthentic“IsraelofGod”(Galatians6:14–18).Paul’sannouncementofwhathasbeengiventothem—freedomfromwaywardnessandtheblessingofbelongingtoGod—isthreatenedbytheinterlopers.Accordingly,heframeshisletterasanapologia:thatGreco-Romangenreoflegalspeechandwritingdesignedtorefutechargesthathavebeenbrought.

What,specifically,isPaulprotestinginhisfollow-upcommuniquétotheGalatianchurches?Thecompetingmissionaries,withtheirdeviantdoctrine,werepersuading(male)GentileconvertsthattocompleteandconfirmtheirnewconvictionthatJesusistheirsavior,itwasnecessaryforthemtobecomecircumcised—toacceptasaneffectivemarkoftheirsalvationthetraditionalsignofinclusioninGod’scovenantpeople.4Paul


of 32


denounceshisrivalmissionariesfortheirfailuretounderstandandacceptthenewrevelationandpromiseofGod—bothitsaccessibilitytohumankind,anditsliberatingforce.“Accursed”promotersofthisaliengospelintheGalatianchurcheswill,hehopes,intheirzealforcircumcising,somehow“castratethemselves”(Galatians5:12).

Theapostle’scondemnationandcursefallsalso,thoughabitlessferociously,uponthose“foolishGalatians”whohavebeendupedintotakingupJewishlawanditsobligations.Todoso,heinsists,istoforfeitthegiftGodgavetotheminthelife,suffering,death,andvictoryofChrist—thatwhich,undertheinspirationofPaul’spreachingandteaching,inspired(p.157) themandledthemtotheirnewandsavingconvictions.Reflectiveofhispostconversionretrospectiononhispersonalreligiousstruggles,asE.P.Sandersconvincinglydemonstrated,PaulpresentsapictureofJudaiclawthatholdsittobea“yoke,”aservitudethatheisconvincednowwasremovedwhenhecametoacknowledgeandtobelieveinJesus,whosedeathonthecrossentailedtakingonhimselfthesin/“curse”thathadseparatedhumankind(andcertainlytheapostlehimself)fromGod(Galatians5:1,3:10–14).5

ImportanttoPaul’sargumentagainsttheunwelcometeachingthatGentilebelieversinJesusmustundergotheJewishpracticeofcircumcisionishisowndoctrinethatAbraham’srightrelationshipwithGodcameaboutthroughthepatriarch’sfaith:“AbrahambelievedGod,anditwasreckonedtohimasrighteousness”(Genesis15:6).6Itwasnotthroughthepatriarch’sobservanceofdivinerequirementsanddemandsthathewas“justified.”Paul’sassertioncarriesthereminderthatthisencounterandtransactionbetweenAbrahamandGodprecededAbraham’scircumcision,whileitalsostatesthefact(andPaulisadamantinunderliningthis)thatMosaiclaw“camefourhundredthirtyyearslater”(i.e.,than“thepromisesmade…toAbrahamandhisoffspring,”astheprecedingv.16notes).Sinai,hesays,“doesnotannulacovenantpreviouslyratifiedbyGod,soastonullifythepromise”(Galatians3:17).ThetruegospelhebroughttothechurchesinGalatiaisatonewithandfulfillsitsancientbiblicalprecedent:

3:7Soyousee,thosewhobelievearethedescendantsofAbraham.8Andthescripture,foreseeingthatGodwouldjustifytheGentilesbyfaith,declaredthegospelbeforehandtoAbraham,saying,“AlltheGentilesshallbeblessedinyou”[seeGenesis12:3;18:18;22:18].9Forthisreason,thosewhobelieveareblessedwithAbrahamwhobelieved.

PassionateandstarkideasandlanguagemakeupPaul’srebuketothosewhorejectthetruthofhisdeclarationthatthose“baptizedintoChrist”nolongerstandinneedofthelaw’stutelageordiscipline,butare“free”(3:23–29,5:1–6),aresonsanddaughtersofAbraham,“heirsaccordingtothepromise,”andthereby“childrenofGodthroughfaith.”

WhenhedeploysaspartofhisapologiaaretellingofwhoSarahandIsaac,HagarandIshmaelare—theclearlessonsheseesintheirstory—Paulisaninterpreterofscriptureexcitedtomeethisimmediatechallenge.ThecrisisinthecongregationsinGalatiadictatesateverypointwhathechoosestohighlightinhisrepresentationofAbraham’swomenand


of 32


sons.PaulisimpelledtoadoptamodeofreadingthatreconstructstheSarah-Hagarstoryinotherthanliteralorhistoricalterms.

(p.158) Themodernreaderisstruck,nolessthantheancientwas,bytheemotionalandintellectualferocityinPaul’sallegoryandtheversessurroundingit.Radiatingfromtheselinesistheforceful,daring,andoftenoverstretchedreasoningthatisapolemicist’ssharpesttool:

4:22Tellme,youwhodesiretobesubjecttothelaw,willyounotlistentothelaw?ForitiswrittenthatAbrahamhadtwosons,onebyaslavewomanandtheotherbyafreewoman.23One,thechildoftheslave,wasbornaccordingtotheflesh(katasarka);theother,thechildofthefreewoman,wasbornthroughthepromise(di’epaggelias).24Nowthisisanallegory:thesewomenaretwocovenants.Onewoman,infact,isHagarfromMountSinai,bearingchildrenforslavery.25NowHagarisMountSinaiinArabiaandcorrespondstothepresentJerusalem,forsheisinslaverywithherchildren.26ButtheotherwomancorrespondstotheJerusalemabove;sheisfreeandsheisourmother.27Foritiswritten,

“Rejoice,youchildlessone,you

whobearnochildren,

burstintosongandshout,you

whoendurenobirthpangs;

forthechildrenofthedesolate

womanaremorenumerous

thanthechildrenoftheone

whoismarried”[Isaiah54:1LXX].

28Nowyou,myfriends,arechildrenofthepromise,likeIsaac.

29Butjustasatthattimethechildwhowasbornaccordingtotheflesh(katasarka)persecutedtheonebornaccordingtothespirit(katapneuma),soitisnowalso.30Butwhatdoesthescripturesay?

“Driveouttheslaveandherchild;forthechildoftheslavewillnotsharetheinheritancewiththechildofthefreewoman”[quotingPsalms21:10LXX,towhichPaulhasaddedthefinalphrase,“ofthefreewoman”].31Sothen,friends,wearechildrennotoftheslavebutofthefreewoman.

Acloselydetailedexplorationofthispassageandscholarlydebatessurroundingitisnotpossiblehere.ForourpurposesitwillsufficesimplytounderlinePaul’smajorassertions—andtoseeinthemadistinctivepieceofbiblicalinterpretation.


of 32


Thepassage’sopeningmodeofrhetoricmaybeclassifiedasdiatribe—apseudodialogueinwhichthespeakerchallengestheopponentandthenprovides,controls,ormuteshisresponses.HencethechallengingridiculeinPaul’sinvitation:Soyouwanttocleavetothelaw.Thenletusexamine(whichistosay:letmelayoutforyouinunmistakableterms)whatthe(p.159) lawsays.7ItisnotthebodyoflawsnoranyparticularlawintheTorahthatPaulthentakesup,butratherwhatscriptureteachesinanarrative—thatofAbraham’swomenandsons.Heisintentuponmakingelementsinthestory“standfor”andspeaktothecontroversyathand—oneinwhichhearguesfortheGalatianbelievers’salvation“inthegraceofChrist,”rebuttinghisopponents’teachings,which“perverttheGospelofChrist”(Galatians1:7).

ThedisputeoverthetwodefinitionsofbeingChristianbeingadvocatedinthechurchesofGalatiaistheenginethatdrivesPaul’ssearchingoutofcontrastsbetweenthetwowomen,eachwithherson,andwhattheysignify.Opposedare(1)asonmarkedbyslaveryand“flesh”versusafreebornsonwhosebirthfulfilledadivinepromise;(2)twowomen(who“are”twocovenants),onelinkedwithSinaiandtheJerusalemofPaul’stime,whosechildrenareenslaved,versustheotherwho“correspondstotheJerusalemabove,”shewhoisfreeand“ourmother.”Protectingthedivinetruthhe“received…througharevelationofJesusChrist”(Galatians1:11–12),Paul’sallegorydiscovers(orinvents)contraries,andthensharpensthem.Comparedtowhatwehaveseeninrabbinicalinterpretations,andevenviewedonitsowntermsasanargumentadvancedbyabiblicallyinformedJewofthefirstcentury,themoststartlingelementinPaul’streatmentofAbraham’ssonsandwomeninvv.24–26iswhatbecomesofHagar.ShesignifiesMountSinai—thatis,theLawgiventotheHebrewsthereintheageofMoses.(Paul’ssupportofthiscuriousattributionconsistsinhisreportthatSinaiisinArabia,thelandwithwhichheassociatesher,andinhisfurtherstrictidentificationofthetwo:HagarequalsMountSinai.ThislatterconstructionissoperplexinganduntenableasaclaimissuingfromeitherhistoryorlegendthatwesuspectthatPaulissimplyrestating,bycompression,histrope.Hagar,orMountSinai,“bear[s]childrenforslavery”[24.b].Thephraseisnotsoambiguousasitissuggestive,andintwodirections:itplaysonHagar’sstatusasSarah’sservant—seeingherprogenyalsoas“slaves,“anditpointstoconditionsoflife“underthelaw,”inbondagetothatcovenant—thatis,lifethatdoesnotpartakeintheliberationwonforGalatianconverts.Inchoosingtobecircumcised,the“foolish”inthosechurchesarechoosingtobe“cut…offfromChrist,”who“hasset[them]free”(Galatians5:4;5:1).

ThehaplessHagar“correspondstothepresentJerusalem,forsheisinslaverywithherchildren”(25b).EnslavedJerusalemisametonymforJudaism—thepanoplyofitsbeliefsanditspractices(andnot,itseems,anallusiontoIsrael’spastandpresentconditionsofbeinginvadedandgovernedbyforeignrulers).TheTorahcovenantis,asPaularguesatvariouspointsinhisletter,“slaveryunderthelaw”(seeGalatians3:22–25,(p.160) 28;4:1–10;5:1).ThedescriptionofJerusalemandherpeopleas“inslavery”constitutesoneofPaul’sstrongestassaultsontheJudaiclawanditsobservers.Hedisparagesinasinglephrasepreciselythatrevelation,vision,andcommunitytowhichhehad,untilrecently,beenfullycommitted.


of 32


Paul’sinterpretationisstunninglycontrary.Hagar,whointhescriptureisnofriendto,andcertainlynowillingparticipantin,thedivineplanmakingIsaacandhisprogenyinheritorsofthelandpromisedbyGod,ishereidentifiedbyPaulwiththatpeopleoftheoldcovenant.Herslavestatusqualifieshertorepresent,orrather,tobeJerusalem,Judaism,anditslaw,anditrendershertheforemotherofthoseheldinthrall—Jews,andbyextension,Gentileconvertswhoresorttocircumcision.ThisradicalalterationintheidentityandvalueofHagar,strangeandunprecedentedasitis,workstoPaul’sadvantageasacontroversialist,andhasitsjustificationinthat.

Sarah,bycontrast,Pauldivorcesfromassociationwiththelaworwithanyservitude“underit.”Sheisfree,andtheJerusalemshe“correspondsto”istheheavenly,notearthly,one—theholyandtranscendentcity“above”—theimaginedfinalhomeoftheblessed.8

Sarahdidnotproduceherson“naturally”(whichisoneconnotation,forPaul,of“accordingtotheflesh”),but“throughthepromise,”andthroughitsmiraculousanddivinefulfillment.PaulwantsnoonetobeuncertainabouttheapplicationofhisallegorytothemattersathandinGalatia:“you,myfriends,arechildrenofthepromise,likeIsaac.”ThoseadheringtothegospelPaulpresentedareheirsbornofsupernatural“promise”intothe“freedom”ofsalvation,whotravel,liketheirforefather,towardthesuperiorJerusalem:“AndifyoubelongtoChrist,thenyouareAbraham’soffspring,heirsaccordingtothepromise”(5:29).

Ontheotherside,Hagar,thepresentJerusalemwhosechildrenareinbondage,thelifeaccordingtothefleshwhichshebegets,and“doingworksofthelaw”(3:5)allstandforandidentifypeopleoutsidethesavingcovenant,unredeemedbyGod.

Inverses29through30PauloffersananalogythatseekstomakeparallelthecircumstancesofIsaac,ofPaul,andofthosefollowersofJesuswhosidewithhim.AwareofthetraditionwemetinGenesisRabbahthatIshmael“persecuted”Isaac,Paulsuggeststhathisgospelanditsadherentsarelikewisesubjectedtothreatandhostilityin“playing”withhim.PaulprobablyrefersbothtowhatheregardsasthetormenthesuffersfromthoseJudaizingtroublersofGentileconvertsofGalatiaandalsootherreportedrun-insheandhisdevoteeshadexperiencedatthehandsofJewishfoesof(p.161) histeaching(cf.1Thessalonians2:15–16).9Inthefaceofsuchconflicts,heseesnootherrecourseexceptthatactionthatwasoriginallytaken(Genesis21:10):throwouttheslaveandherson,anddenytothemtheinheritancethatbelongsto“thechildofthefreewoman.”Paulisencouragingthoughtsofexpellingtheadvocatesofcircumcisionwhotroublethechurchesthere,onthegroundsthattheyhavenorighttothepromisesGodhasmadeavailableinChrist,buthesettlesforanotherdivisionorpolaritywhichhehopeswillsolidifyandencouragehisallies:“Sothen,friends,we[unlikeouropponentsinGalatiaandthe‘fools’whoheedtheirteaching]arechildren,notoftheslave,butofthefreewoman.”Inotherwords,thosewhostandwithhimandhisteachingaretheonessavedbyGod,whilehisopponentshavetakenuponthemselvesoncemoretheslaveryfromwhichtheywerereleasedbyChrist’ssacrificialdeathandhisresurrection.


of 32


Again,thepointanddirectionofPaul’sallegoricalcontrast,thistimefocusedonthe“freewoman,”canbegivenbluntsummarization:“Sarah=heavenlyJerusalem=Christianity,”asHansDieterBetzputitinaformula.10Thelineageofthe“family”enjoyingGod’sparticularfavornowruns,atleastasPaulpresentsthecasehere,fromAbraham,Sarah,andIsaactotheirchildreninthechurcheshehascalledintobeing.Paul’szealforhisgospeltotheGentiles,ferventlyarticulatedinhisbattleagainstthe“circumcisionparty,”drivesawedgebetweenthenewrevelationtowhichhetestifies,ontheonehand,andJudaism,oranyconfidencepeoplemightputintheMosaiccovenantandtherewardsoftheirfaithfuladherencetoit.Israel’smatriarchandherson,“bornaccordingtothespirit”and“accordingtothepromise”are,inPaul’sviewofthehistoryofsalvation,coguarantors,withAbraham,ofthedivinepledgenowgiventothosewhowillsoonbeknownas“Christians”(Acts11:26).

Romans4:11–12,18–21;9:2–13

Bynomeansadiatribe,PaulwroteRomans(ca.58CE)withobjectivesdifferentfromthoseinhislettertotheGalatians,andinanothermode—oneappropriatetotheaddresseesandtopresentcircumstances.

Abrahamisthemodelfor“aperson[who]isjustifiedbyfaithapartfromtheworksofthelaw”(Romans3:28),butPaul’sinterpretationofhimisaltered.Adifferentaudiencerequiresadifferentandparticularapproach.Here,whenPaulturnstoAbraham’sstory,hisemphasisisshapedbyhisknowledgethatbothJewsandpolytheists/GentilesmakeupthechosencommunitythatwillgreethiminRome.Weseethisinatopichetakesupwithcare:thebiblical(p.162) testimonythatAbrahamwascircumcised—butcircumcisedafterhishavingbeenfoundrighteousonthebasisofhisbeliefinGod:

4:11Hereceivedthesignofcircumcisionasasealoftherighteousnessthathehadbyfaithwhilehewasstilluncircumcised.Thepurposewastomakehimtheancestorofallwhobelievewithoutbeingcircumcisedandwhothushaverighteousnessreckonedtothem,12andlikewisetheancestorofthecircumcisedwhoarenotonlycircumcisedbutwhoalsofollowtheexampleofthefaiththatourancestorhadbeforehewascircumcised.

InthislineofargumentPauldoesnotatallhaveinmindthecircumcision-temptedGentileconvertsinGalatianchurches.Rather,inhis“longingtosee”membersoftheRomanchurches,heaspiresto“share…somespiritualgifttostrengthen[them]”(1:11).Oneofhischiefgoalsinwritinghisletteristocreateroomandcomplementarity,onbiblicalandtheologicalgrounds,forGentileandJewishbelieversinJesus’smessiahship.InpursuitofthisgoalheamplifieshisteachingaboutwhatAbraham’scircumcisionsignifies.Paulspellsoutthemeaningofthepatriarch’scircumcisionintermsdirectlypertinenttothoseheaddresses:JewswhonowcallJesus“lord,”andcountthemselvesmembersof“thebodyofChrist”—thatis,congregationmembers—mustcountassecondarytheircircumcisionsandtheiradherencetoJewishlaw,eventhoughthosecovenantloyaltiespredatetheiradoptionofnewbeliefandfunctionasholy“tradition”forthem.Whatisprimaryandessential—namely,“therighteousnessofGodthroughfaithin


of 32


JesusChristforallwhobelieve”(3:22)—standsasthekeyandsavingdatum.Theirloyaltyto,andobservanceof,thelaw,followsuponthisand,ineffect,servesonlytoconfirmit:“[Abraham]receivedthesignofcircumcisionasasealoftherighteousnessthathehadbyfaithwhilehewasstilluncircumcised”(4:11).

OnlytworeferencestoSarahoccurinRomans.Hagargoesunmentioned—anintriguingomissiontobeexaminedabitlater.In4:19Sarah’snameappearsaspartofPaul’stestimonytothesteadfasttrustAbrahamhadinGod’spledgetohimthatheandhisoffspringwould“inherittheworld”(4:13).PaulrecapitulatesapartoftheGenesissagathathethinksveryhelpfultohisletter’spurposes:

4:18Hopingagainsthope,hebelievedthathewouldbecome“thefatherofmanynations,”accordingtowhatwassaid,“Sonumerousshallyourdescendantsbe”[seeGenesis17:5and15:5].19Hedidnotweakeninfaithwhenheconsideredhisownbody,whichwasalreadyasgoodasdead(forhewasaboutahundredyearsold),orwhenheconsideredthebarrennessofSarah’swomb.20NodistrustmadehimwaverconcerningthepromiseofGod,buthegrewstronginhisfaith(p.163)ashegaveglorytoGod,21beingfullyconvincedthatGodwasabletodowhathehadpromised.Thereforehisfaith“wasreckonedtohimasrighteousness.”

PaulpresentsSarah’sbarrennessasadescriptive“fact”which,takenalongsideAbraham’soldageandimpotency,onlymakesherhusband’shopemoreadmirable.TheGreekregularlyrendered“barrenness”is,moreliterally,aphraseaboutthenekrosis(thedeadnessorthenecroticstate)ofherwomb,anditismeanttoechoPaul’suseofthesameword-rootincallingAbraham’sbody“asgoodasdead.”Inthis“note”aboutSarahwesurmisethatPaulwasawareofthediscussionsinrabbiniccirclesaboutwhetherSarahwasinfertile(e.g.,GenesisRabbahXLV,above,pp.129-131)andhadtakenapositiononthequestion.GenesisitselfreportsonlythatatthetimeofGod’spromiseofasontobenamedIsaac,Abrahamwondered(havingfallentotheground,laughing)whetherthiscouldhappenwhenhewasahundredyearsold,andSarahwasninety(17:17).ThoughPaulisworkingimaginativelyandwiththeologicalintent,hismentionofSarahin4:19doesnotinterpretherinthesymbolicorallegoricalmode.DrawinguponatraditionstemmingfromexegesisoftheTorah,andusingitasa“historical”datum,hepresentsSarahsimplyasawomanincapableofpregnancyandchildbirth,importantinsofarasherconditionunderlinesthestrengthofAbraham’sfaith,andthewondrousnatureofGod’spowerinmakingtheonehecalledforthfromUr“thefatherofmanynations.”

ThoughSarahappearsinRomans9:9onlyinaquotationofGenesis,sheistheremorerichlyinterpreted(thanin4:19)simplybyvirtueofthepassage’splaceinthemidstofPaulineruminationsaboutGod’spromise.Thesurroundingideasarequitefamiliarfromwhatwemetintheallegory(oratleastinhalfofit)inGalatians4.The“promise”isassociatedwiththe(new)covenant,withSarah’sson,andwiththe“Zion”tobeenteredwhenthe“day”ofjudgmentarrives,usheringinthatsalvationthatPaulclaimsis“nearertousnowthanwhenwebecamebelievers”(13:11).


of 32


ThehardandpainfulquestionatissueforPaul:WillIsrael,theelectofGod,beamongtheredeemed?

9:2Ihavegreatsorrowandunceasinganguishinmyheart.

3ForIwishthatImyselfwereaccursedandcutofffromChristforthesakeofmyownpeople,mykindredaccordingtotheflesh.

4TheyareIsraelites,andtothembelongtheadoption,theglory,thecovenants,thegivingofthelaw,theworship,andthepromises;

5tothembelongthepatriarchs,andfromthem,accordingtotheflesh,comestheMessiah,whoisoverall,Godblessedforever.Amen.6ItisnotasthoughthewordofGodhasfailed.FornotallIsraelitestrulybelongtoIsrael,7andnot(p.164) allofAbraham’schildrenarehistruedescendants;but“ItisthroughIsaacthatdescendantsshallbenamedforyou”(Genesis21:12).8ThismeansthatitisnotthechildrenofthefleshwhoarechildrenofGod,butthechildrenofthepromisearecountedasdescendants.9Forthisiswhatthepromisesaid,“AboutthistimeIwillreturnandSarahshallhaveason”(Genesis18:10,14).10Noristhatall;somethingsimilarhappenedtoRebeccawhenshehadconceivedchildrenbyonehusband,ourancestorIsaac.11Evenbeforetheyhadbeenbornorhaddoneanythinggoodorbad(sothatGod’spurposeofelectionmightcontinue,12notbyworksbutbyhiscall)shewastold,“Theeldershallservetheyounger”(Genesis25:23).13Asitiswritten,“IhavelovedJacob,butIhavehatedEsau”(Malachi1:2b–3a).

Theselines,deployingpassagesofscriptureas“prooftexts”andargument-builders,aremovingtowardPaul’suncompromisingdeclarationin9:31–32that“Israel,whodidstrivefor[righteousness]thatisbasedonthelaw,didnotsucceedinfulfillingthatlaw,”andtherebytrippedonthestoneGodplacedinZionto“makepeoplestumble,”andtheyfell—thatis,erred.Buthere,in9:2–13,PaulputshiswishfortheJews’conversiontobeliefindramaticpersonalterms,andacknowledgesthehallowedgloriesconstitutiveofIsrael’ssacredhistory.Thereisareserveclauseeveninthisrecital,however,forbyrepeatingthephrase“accordingtotheflesh,”hemaintains(thoughlessabrasivelythanhisformulationintheGalatiansallegorydid)thestatus,overagainsttheethnicandgeneticrealityofbeingIsraelites,ofthosewhoarenow,sinceChrist’scoming,God’struesonsanddaughters“accordingtothespirit”or“thepromise.”

SarahdoesherdutyinthecitationofGenesis18:10,14–15;sheisthemotherofthechildwhofulfillsGod’spromise,aninstrumentintheplanofsalvationforallofAbraham’ssonsanddaughtersinthegenerationsstemmingfromIsaac.TheotherchildrenofAbrahamarenotincluded;IshmaelandhisposteritymustbemostprominentlyinPaul’smind.ButthatisnotthedistinctionPaulismostanxioustomakeatthispointinhismessagetoRomanbelievers.Rather,heiskeentocommunicatehisinsight,thefruitoftherevelationhereceived,thatthoseareofIsaac’sseedwhoarechildrenofthepromise.“Childrenoftheflesh,”ontheotherhand,arenot“countedasdescendants”


of 32


andarenot“childrenofGod”(v.8).God’sfavorandparenthoodhingenotongenetics,butonGod’spromiseasitisgivenandreceived.Paul’schosenterm,“promise”(eppangelia),isastand-infor“covenant”(diatheke),whichhedoesnotwanttoemploy;heisintentuponmaintainingthedifference,centraltohisunderstandingofGodandsalvation,betweenGod’scompactwithAbrahamandhislatercovenantwithMoses,articulatedinthelaw.11OnlythosebelongtotheseedofAbrahamand“countasdescendants”whohavecometoknowGod’spromise,and(p.165) haveresponded—thatis,respondedbyfaithandinbelieving,notbyundertakingdeedsmeanttocomplywithandsatisfythelaw’sdemands.ByPaulnowredefinedandreconfiguredaspeople“born”accordingtothepromise,orspiritually,thedescendantsandheirsofIsaachaveincommonnotsimplytheiractofbelieving(asopposedtoeffortsatlaw-obedience),butanecessarilycontent-specificconviction:thattheJewaccordingtotheflesh,Jesus,whowascrucifiedandraisedup,isnoneotherthanGod’s“messiah,whoisoverall.”

CounterposingtheelectionofIsrael“accordingtotheflesh,”withwhichhebeganthepassage,totheelectionofthosewho,inacceptingJesusasGod’smessiah,arechildrenof“thepromise,”PaulinterpretsSarahashehadintheallegoryofhisearlierletter:sheandhersonIsaac,withAbraham,arethetrue—thatis,thespiritual—forebearsofJewsandGentileswhohearandbelieveinthegospelthathe,theapostle,preaches.

Paulinsertsanadditionalinterpretivetwistin9:10–13byseekingenforcementforhisclaimsintheprocreativehistoryofIsaac.God’s“promise”orelectionwasatworkinthecaseofthesonsRebeccaborehim,forGod’sworddeclaredthatthefirstofthetwinstobebornwouldservethesecond-born.FromthepropheticbookMalachiPaulprovidesanothersupportivedivinedeclaration,thisoneaboutGod’slove(orfavor,orchoice)ofJacob,andhishatred(ordisfavor,orpassingover)ofEsau.PaulischampioningGod’sfreedomtoact,andtopreferandelectparticularpersonsandpeoplesforhiscareandprotection,“evenbeforetheyhadbeenbornorhaddoneanythinggoodorbad”(9:11).Covenantsaregiven,orenacted,Paulagaininsists,bydivineinitiative,anddonotoriginatein,norcontinueby,the“logic”ormechanicsofhumandeeds—thatis,by“works”thatareassumedtoearnGod’sattentionandeffectreconciliationwithhim.

ApieceofunfinishedbusinesslingersattheendofourtreatmentofPaulonAbraham’swomen.WhyisHagar,soserviceableinhislettertotheGalatianchurches,absentfromhisEpistletotheRomans?WhydidhechoosetoexcludefromthepresentationofthegospelmessagehewasforecastingtotheRomanChristianshischaracterizationofHagarinGalatians4as“fromMountSinai,bearingchildrenforslavery….correspond[ing]tothepresentJerusalem”?Wehaveseenthattheheatofhisearlierassaulton“Judaizers”ofGentileconvertsinspiredhisstrained,evenbizarre,connectionofthewomanandsonexpelledbyAbrahamwithJudaismandtheLaw.Thisallegoricalassociationmadenorealsenseintermsofthehistoricallegendssurroundingher,andthereforesignaledtheexegete’sreachforaforcefulinterpretation,howevernovel.PaulworkedinGalatianstodistinguishthroughoppositionalimagesthefreedomwonforpeopleofthe“nations”fromwhathedepictsasthe“slavery”ofJudaism.

(p.166) IntheRomancommunityofbelievers,hehasamuchdifferentappealtomake.


of 32


TheassociationoffollowersofJesuswhounderstandthemselvesashavingbeencalledintoexistencebeforetheeschaton’sarrivalismadeupofJewsandGentiles.DissensionorconfusionisnotthepresentedreasonforPaul’swriting,asithadbeeninhiscorrespondencewiththechurchesinGalatia,Thessalonica,andCorinth.Together,andbyvirtueoftheircommonfaithinGod-sentJesustheChrist,thebelieversinRome,asPaulseems(orhopes)toseethem,makeupthenewpeopleofGod,enjoyingunity.Theyareonepeople“sinceGodisone;andhewilljustifythecircumcisedonthegroundoffaithandtheuncircumcisedthroughthatsamefaith”(3:31).InlanguagehewouldnothaveusedinaddressingturmoilafflictingtheGalatianchurches,headds:“Dowethenoverthrowthelawbythisfaith?Bynomeans,onthecontrary,weupholdthelaw.”PaulmeansthatheupholdsthelawforJewsasaconfirmation,asealing,ofthatrighteousnessgrantedtothem,onthebasisoftheirfaith,byGod.

ThisdifferenceinPaul’saudienceandthusinhisviewpoint,withitsemphasisonaninclusivegospel,dictatedthatPaulnotemploytheHagarhalfofhisSarah-Hagarallegory,forthoughhismakingherintoametaphorforJudaiclawwhichenslavesandforJerusaleminbondagespoketothecontroversyinGalatia,thatargumentcouldonlyunderminehisefforttoassureRomanChristiansof“thecontinuingvalidityofIsraelinGod’spurpose.”12

Paul’sinsistencethatbelieversinJesusenjoyedaconvenantwithGodthatsupersededtheformerwasdestinedtostirdeepcontentionandanimosityinallsubsequenthistoricalseasonsofinteractionsbetweenJewsandChristians.Tobehistoricallyconsciousandconscientious,weareobligedtoseethislineofreasoning—thatis,thatmembersofchurcheswerethecovenantpeople,havingtakentheplaceoftheJewswhorejectedGod’smessiah—inthecontextwhichpromptedhimtowritehislettertotheJesus-followersinRome.HisconfidentvisionofGod’smostrecentactionsisthatofafirst-centuryJewwhowascompelled(miraculously,byhisownaccount)tobelieveinJesusasGod’sagentofsalvation—theredeemerofPaulhimself,ofallthenations,andofthoseJewswhowouldhonorJesusastheir“lord.”

PaultheapostleofChristdidinfactuseSarahandHagar“tothinkwith,”presentingbothwomenasrepresentativeofsomethingotherthan“femalecharactersintheirownright,”asGenesismightbesaidtoportraythem.Paul’sallusions—andadjustments—toAbraham’swomen,especiallyinhisaggravatedlettertothechurchesinGalatia,symbolizethemasfiguresforspiritualpromise,inthecaseofSarah,andofenslavementandexclusionfromGod’ssavingcovenant,inthecaseofHagar.

(p.167) WillwefindsignificantdifferencesinthewayoneofearlyChristianity’smoststellarscripturescholars(andadeepadmirerofPaul)retellsthestoryofAbraham’shousehold,andtheconflictbetweenhistwowives?

Origen’sGenesisHomilyVII:OntheBirthofIsaacandtheFactthatHeIsWeanedBythetime,around240,thatOrigen(ca.185–254)wasregularlypreachingtoacongregationintheportcityHerodhadbuilt,CaesareaMaritima,hewasamanof


of 32


significantandwidespreadreputation.13Reportsofhislifecirculatedandgrewafterhisdeath,asweknowfromabiographicalsketchinEusebius’sEcclesiasticalHistory,writtenbeforethemid-fourthcentury,andfromnoticespennedbyotherChristianwriters.HewasrememberedasaboyinAlexandriawhosefather’smartyrdominspiredinhimadesireforthesamefate.HiszealfortheChristianlife(increasinglyimaginedbysomeinhiscirclesinasceticterms)ledtohischoiceasayoungmantobecome,throughcastration,a“eunuchforthekingdomofheaven”—thatis,apersonendeavoringtoguardagainsttheluresanddistractionsofsexualappetites.TheadmirationandauthorityhegainedasaChristianrhetor-philosopherandcatechistinAlexandriawasafactorinawranglewithhisbishop,Demetrius,andeventuallyledtohisrelocationfromEgypttoCaesareaMaritimainPalestine.Therehewasordainedapresbyterandspentthelasttwodecadesofhiscareer,havingamonghisdutiesregularpreachingtoaChristiancongregationinthe“liturgyoftheword”whichprecededthecommunionmeal.Fortunatelyforus,afteratimeheallowedstenographerstorecordhissermons.

Whatfollowsisanexperiment—acasestudyinOrigen’sapproachtoreadingscriptureasobservedinasinglebriefsermon,onedevotedtoourstory.Inthetracking,point-by-point,ofhishomily’slineofreasoningandthestrategiesitemploys,wehaveintereststhathavealreadybeenidentified.HowdohisexegeticalinterestsinSarahandHagarcomparewiththoseofPaul?InwhatwaysdoesOrigendistinguishbetweenandmanipulatethekindsofmeaningthatcenterontheGenesistext’sstorylineinitsliteralsense,ontheonehand,andthosethataresymbolicormetaphorical,ontheother?Inwhatcomestoexpressionaspreachedscripturalcommentarymadeaccessibleforagroupoflisteners,doeshisconcernforthesymbolicmeaningsoverwhelmorabandonthetext’shistoricallevelofmeaning?Andwehavethelargerquestionofthischapterinview:isitthecasethatOrigen’spenchantforunderliningspiritualmeaningsinasacredstoryresultsinadistinguishableearlyChristianretellingofthe(p.168) story—whencomparedwiththeinterpretivestrategiesofrabbinicandMuslimcommentators?

Origen’sthree-yearcycleofsermonsdevotedtotextsoftheOldTestamentincludedhishomilydevotedtoGenesis21:1–21,thescriptureportionrecountingtheeventsfromIsaac’sbirthtothetrialinthewildernesssufferedbyHagarandherson.Itsmostaccurateandsuccincttitlewouldbe,asabiblicalscholarlabeledthisportionofGenesis,“Isaac’sbirth,Ishmael’sExpulsion.”14

AboutOrigen’spresuppositionsinapproachingbiblicalinterpretationweneedstillmoreintroduction.God’swisdomfillsscriptureandsupportsbelieversinaccordancewiththeircurrentcapacitiestounderstand.Thereisguidance—andsalvation—forthosewhoreadorhearthetext“plainly,”initsexplicitlanguage.MoreprofoundcomprehensionofGod’swisdomawaitsthosewhogrowintheirabilitiestoconsidertheBible’srevelationswithincreasingcareanddiscernment.ThosemessageswhichinvitestudentsofscriptureclosesttothemysteryofGod’sgoodnessandhelparenotobvious.Eventhesilencesinscripturearepregnant.WhenwaxingtheoreticalaboutthisinhisOnFirstPrinciples,hewrote:


of 32


Onemustportraythemeaningofthesacredwritingsinathreefoldwayuponone’sownsoul,sothatthesimplemanmaybeedifiedbywhatwemaycallthefleshofthescripture,thisnamebeinggiventotheobviousinterpretation;whilethemanwhohasmadesomeprogressmaybeedifiedbyitssoul,asitwere;andthemanwhoisperfectandlikethosementionedbytheapostle:“Wespeakwisdomamongtheperfect....”—thismanmaybeedifiedbythespirituallaw,whichhas“ashadowofthegoodthingstocome.”Forjustasmanconsistsofbody,soul,andspirit,sointhesamewaydoesthescripture,whichhasbeenpreparedbyGodtobegivenforman’ssalvation.15

SucharesomeofthekeyassumptionsinformingOrigen’swritingsandthoseofhisoralteachingsthatsurvive.Hisadviceisplain:ifyouintendtobeaChristian,bepreparedtofollowJesus’sprecept,“Searchthescriptures”(John5:39).Bepreparedalsotobechangedfromachildtoanadult,fromapersonwhosemodeofperceptioniscarnaltoonewhothinksandseesinawaythatisspiritual—whoprayerfullyreadswitheyesopenedandupturned.

Inthissermon,Origenregularlyandfirmlydeclarestherulesofthegameinencounteringscripture.Hewarns.Heteases.Hegoadsthecongregation:Areyoucontentwiththescripture’smostobviousandliteralsense?Areyouuptothechallengeofdiggingforsignificantmeaningswhenyouencounterinthebiblicalnarrativeelementsthatstrikeyouasunedifyingorillogical?

(p.169) YouwillnothearwhatGodistellingyouinthisstoryofAbraham’sfamily,Origenregularlyasserts,unlessyoupressforitsdeepestmeanings,whichcontaintruthsrelatingtoyouinyourownexistence.AbiblicalnarrativedoesnotrevealGodinitsancientstorynessalone,saysthepreacher:inandthroughscriptureyouarebeingaddressed—summonedintoyourfull,maturefaithandbeckonedtowardyourLord.

Origen’shomilycommencesnotwithareferencetoanopeningverseintheday’stext,Genesis21,butwithaprayerthatalludestoPaul’steachingabouthowbelieversare(andarenot)toreadandhearscripture:

Mosesisreadtousinchurch.Letuspray[to]theLordlest,inaccordancewiththeApostle’sword,evenwithus,“whenMosesisreadtheveilbeupon”our“heart.”16

Origennodoubthopedthatsomeinthecongregation,hearinghisinvocation,wouldrecallthecontentof2Corinthians3:12–18,inwhichPaulmakestheveilthatMoseswearsinExodus34intoametaphorforIsrael’scurrentblindnessto“theLord.”ImploringboththeLordandthemembersofhischurchthatthisJewishveilormisunderstandingnotobscure“eventous”thetextandthesermon,thepreacherisaskingforaparticularlyChristianencounterwithMoses—thatis,withthisday’sscripturalmessagefromGod.Origen’sprefatoryprayerbaldlyidentifiesawrongwaytohearandcomprehendscripture,andwarnsagainstthatmisguidedwayofinterpreting,andthepeoplewhopracticeit.Itremindshiscongregantsimmediatelyofwhotheyareasan


of 32


assembledgroup(incontradistinctionto“Israel”).

Significantalsoinhisopeningprayerandadmonitionisthatitrevealswhathebelievesaboutlevelsortiersthatareinvolvedinpursuitofmeaning—levelspresentbothinthesacredstoryitselfandinthoseinhisflockwhomightlearnandbeaffectedbyit.

TurningtoGenesis21,Origensummarizesitsopeningverses:Abraham,atahundredyearsold,conceivedIsaac;SarahwondersaloudwhowillinformAbrahamthatshenursesachild.Inapresumed“dialogue”withhisaudience,thepreacherpausesfirsttoconsiderwhatisstrikingin21:4:“AndthenAbrahamcircumcisedthechildontheeighthday.”OrigencommentsonthefactthatitisnotIsaac’sbirthdaythatiscelebratedwith“agreatfeast”(21:8),butthedayofhisweaning.

Why?DowethinkthatitistheHolySpirit’sintentiontowritestoriesandtonarratehowachildwasweanedandafeastwasmade,howheplayedanddidotherchildishthings?OrshouldweunderstandbythesethingsthathewishestoteachussomethingdivineandworthythatthehumanracemightlearnfromthewordsofGod?17

(p.170) Origencontinueshisexhortativetheme:letuslookandlistenforthenoblermeaningswhichtheHolySpirithasplacedinourscripture;todootherwiseistoremainchild-like,tobeawarechieflyofourbodilysenses,tolanguishinourcarnalstates,andworstofall,tomissthefeastawaitingtheweaned,thespiritual.

ProceedingtotheGenesispassage’snextcomment-worthyitem,Origenrecapitulatesthefewversesrecountingthe“play”ofIshmaelwithIsaac,Sarah’sanger(thisplayisa“disaster”(pernicium)toher)inspiresherdemandthat“thebondwoman”becastout,sothatIshmaelnotbecoinheritorwithIsaac.Thepreacherpostponesconsiderationoftheseverses(21:8–10)untilhecanconsultPaul,forhewantstoprobehismentor’sallegoryofthetwomothersandtheirsons.How,hewondersaloud,shouldwetaketheapostle’swordsinGalatians4:21–24,wherePaulgivescontrastingcharacterizationsofthetwosons—Ishmael“bornoftheflesh”andIsaacborn“bythepromise”?

Isitliterallytrue,Origenasks,thatIsaacwasnotbornnaturally—“accordingtotheflesh”?Wasn’thebornfromSarah,circumcisedintheflesh,anddidhenotplaywithIshmael“humanly”?WhatisPauldrivingat?Origenobservedthat“Hecalledthings‘allegorical’whichwerequiteobviouslydoneintheflesh.”

Hispurposeisthatwemightlearnhowtotreatotherpassages,andespeciallytheseinwhichthehistoricalnarrativeappearstorevealnothingworthyofthedivinelaw.18

SimultaneouslyendorsingandinterrogatingPaul’ssymbolicinterpretationofthepassage,Origenseizesthemomenttostateoneofhisinterpretiveprinciples:somebiblicalnarrativescontainnoimportantor“worthy”sense,whenreadintheliteral-historicalregisterofmeaning,andthese,therefore,begfurtherexamination.AsOrigenhad


of 32


writtensomefifteentotwentyyearsearlierabout“theinspirationofdivinescripture”:

Ourcontentionwithregardtothewholeofdivinescriptureisthatitallhasaspiritualmeaning,butnotallhasabodilymeaning....Consequentlythepersonwhoreadsthedivinebooksreverently,believingthemtobedivinewritings,mustexercisegreatcare.19

SensenexthastobemadeofPaul’sremarkthatasIshmael“persecutedhimwhowasaccordingtothespirit,soalsoitisnow”(Galatians4:17).Origenarguesthattheapostle’spointwas“thatinallthingsthefleshisopposedtothespirit.”Hewantstomovehishearerstoconsidertheseveralformsthisoppositionmighttake,andhowclosetotheirown(p.171) life-situationspersecutioncomes“now.”Itispossible,hedeclares,toimaginepersecutionsincasesinvolvingtwoquitedifferentpeoplesornations,onecarnalandtheotherspiritual.(Tothistypeofconflicthewillreturn.)Butwithinourowncommunity,hesays,onefindsoppositionbetweenmembers—somewhoareflesh-boundagainstsomewhoarespiritual.Persecutionandhostilitybetweenthebrothers,Abraham’ssons,is,uponmorethoughtfulscrutiny,notsimplyinthepastbutinourpresentand,indeed,amongandwithinus:

Forevenyou,ifyoulive“accordingtotheflesh,”areasonofHagarandforthisreasonareopposedtothesewholive“accordingtothespirit.”Orevenifweinquireinourselves,wefindthat“thefleshlustsagainstthespiritandthespiritagainstthefleshandthesearecontrarytooneanother”(cf.Galatians5:17)....Doyouseehowgreatthebattlesofthefleshagainstthespiritare?20

InsuggestingthathishearerscanbeIshmael,Origenisnotspeaking,likePaul,tofirst-centuryGalatianJesus-followersconflictedovertheplaceofJewishobservanceintheirpersonalandcommunallife.Rather,hisaudienceconsistsofthird-centuryChristiansconsciousofwhotheyare—onegroupwithinareligiouslydiversepopulaceinaseaportcity.HehasbeentransposingPaul’s“Jewish”Ishmael—carnalandthusenslaved—intoacategoryapplicabletohisChristianhearersandthetestsandtemptationsmetintheirmoralandspirituallives.

However,whenhenextreferstoastillmoredifficultbattlethantheoneshehasjustidentified—namelyagainstthose“whounderstandthelaw‘accordingtotheflesh’”—hisaudienceknowsthatheistargetingtheJewishcommunityanditsleaders—peopleforwhom,asOrigenseesthings,“spiritualdiscernment”isoutofreach.Hisanti-Jewishcriticism,Pauline,butnowOrigen’sown,surfacesagainatthispoint,butnotforthelasttimeinhissermon.

Thepreachertrainshiseyeonceagainonhisownlisteners,andpreparesthemtotakeonanothernameandabetteridentity.Inaseriesofconditionalphrases(“ifyouhaveinyourself,”“Ifonlyyoucansay,”“ifyoucanbesuch”)hereiteratesthechallengethattheday’sreadingposes:asinyourcarnalityyoucanbeIshmael,being“jointheirswithhimwhowas‘bornaccordingtotheflesh,’sotooyoucanbeIsaac”—“heirsindeedofGod,andjointheirswithChrist”(Romans8:17).TowhichofAbraham’ssonsdoyouwishtobe


of 32


related?Ifitistothesonof“thepromise,”willyouactresolutelyuponthischoiceofyours?IsaacandIshmael,spokenofasdifferently“born,”havebeenmadesubjectsfortropological,ormoral,exegesis.ThehearersaretochoosebetweenthetwolivesthatAbraham’ssonsrepresent.

(p.172) Anotherunexpectedandunexplaineditemintheday’sreadingcatchesthepreacher’sattention.Asilenceinthetextraisesquestions.Whatcouldpossiblyhavebeeninvolvedinthe“playing”ofthetwoboysthatsoangeredSarah,causinghertodemandexpulsionofthe“sonofthebondwoman”?“CertainlynopersecutionofIshmaelagainstIsaacisrelatedtohavebeenundertaken,exceptthisplayoftheinfantalone.”21OrigenattributestoPaulanexplanationthatrecastsandidealizesSarah,andaccordinglyframestheimaginedinteractionsoftheboysatplay.Iftheflesh,orcarnality,whichIshmaelstandsfor,“attractsthespirit,whichisIsaac,anddealswithhimwithenticingdeceitfulness,[and]ifitallureshimwithdelights....thiskindofplayofthefleshwiththespiritoffendsSarahespecially,whoisvirtue.”22

HavingmadethecauseofSarah’sangerattheboys’playingintoalessonmeanttogiveethicalguidance,OrigencannowaskhishearerstoconsiderIshmael-likepersecutionstheythemselveshavesuffered—orcommitted.Heisprovocativelyconversational.

You,therefore,Ohearerofthesewords,donotsupposethatthataloneispersecutionwheneveryouarecompelledbythemadnessofthepaganstosacrificetoidols.Butifperhapsthepleasureofthefleshalluresyou,iftheallurementoflustsportswithyou,fleethesethingsasthegreatestpersecutionifyouareasonofvirtue.Indeed,forthisreasontheApostlealsosays:“Fleefornication[1Corinthians6:18].”Butalsoifinjusticeshouldattractyou,sothat,accepting“thecountenanceofthemighty[Cf.Leviticus19:15],”andbecauseofhisartfultwistingyourenderanunjustjudgment,yououghttounderstandthatundertheguiseofplayyousufferaseductivepersecutionininjustice.Butyoushallalsoconsideritapersecutionofthespiritbyindividualguisesofevil,eveniftheyarepleasantanddelightfulandsimilartoplay,becauseinallthesevirtueisoffended.23

Genesis21:11–21describesthefortunesofIshmaelandHagar,andOrigen’sinterpretationmakesroomforanewsetofinsights—onestriggeredbydetailsandimagesinthestoryofthebanishedpair.WhilecontinuingtousePaul’sallegorizingtodevelopmoreofhisown,Origenintroducesathematiccounterpoint,onethat,asJohnThompsonobservedinhisWritingtheWrongs,renders“Hagartrulyenigmatic”—andnottheobjectofscornthattheApostlemadeherouttobe.24

AhintofthisispresentinOrigen’streatmentofGenesis11–13,whereAbrahamrequestsGod’sconsiderationforhisolderson,andreceivesdivinereassurance.OrigenatthispointthinksaboutAbraham’ssonsinawaythatqualifiesthestrictoppositionposedinGalatians4:22–29.HeispayingheedtowhattheGenesistextliterallyreports.Ishmaeldoesnotbecomehisfather’sheir,yet“hereceivesgiftsandisnotsentawayempty.”(p.173) WhileIsaacmayobtain“thepromise,”Ishmaelisgranteda“blessing.”Isaac“becomesthepeopleofadoption,”butIshmaelbecomes“agreatnation.”Thereis


of 32


spiritualsensetobemadeofthedifferentboonsgrantedtothesons,andthepreacherproceedstoidentifytwogroupswithintheChristianchurchwhohavebecomesonsof“Abraham”:thereare“some[who]clingtoGodonthebasisoflove,othersonthebasisofdreadandfearoffuturejudgment.”25TheformerwerebornofAbrahamand“thefreewoman,”whilethelatter(thetypesofthesonofthebondwoman)arelikeone“whokeepsthecommandmentsnotinperfectlove,but…infearofpunishment.”Dramatic,consistentwarningsaboutthefierytormentawaitingunbelievershadpromptedthepaganphilosopherCelsustoteasetheChristiansforthinkingoftheirGodasaperiodic“cook”(Origen,AgainstCelsus5:14)—andyearslaterOrigengivesevidencethattheconvictionofadreadfuljudgmentdayisoneinwhichmanyChristiansaredeeplyinvested.Herehecomparestwoformsoffaithfulness—oneenjoyedinthefreedomoflove,andtheother,aninferiortype,characterizedby“slavishfear.”Thecontrastissharp.Nevertheless,thoughIshmaelandtheIshmael-likearepresentedasimperfect,thatis,cheerlessandjudgment-warysonsofAbraham,theyare(inhisexegesishere)incorporatedinthefamilyofGod(those“whocometotherecognitionofGodbyfaith”).Origen’sapplicationofhisreadingrecalibratesIshmaelthe“blessed”andthoseChristianslikehim,eveniftheyhavenotbeenfullyliberatedintothecovenantpromise.ThecombinationofcloseattentiontowhatGenesistellsaboutIshmael’sgiftfromGodandhisdesiretoexposetwoexpressionsoffaithfoundamongpeopleinhiscongregationmovesOrigenatleastmomentarilytoanestimateofIshmaelthatisnotnearlysouncompromisinglynegativeasPaul’s.

Origentheninviteshiscongregationtopondertheexpulsionscene:

LetusseewhatAbrahamdoesmeanwhileafterSarahisdispleased.Hecastsoutthebondwomanandherson,butneverthelessgiveshimabottleofwater.Forhismotherdoesnothaveawelloflivingwater,norcouldtheboydrawwaterfromawell.IsaachaswellsforwhichhealsosuffersstrifeagainstthePhilistines;butIshmaeldrinkswaterfromabottle,butthisbottle,asitisabottle,fails,andtherefore,heisthirstyanddoesnotfindawell.26

Liketherabbiswithwhomhesometimesdiscussedscripture,OrigenconsidershisGenesispassagewithaneyeandeartootherbiblicaltexts.Hehasmentallyscannedthem,evaluatingtheirhomileticutility.Atthisjunctureinhissermon,scripturalreferencestobottle,water,andwellssuggestcreativepossibilities.ThesayingofJesustotheSamaritanwomanatthewellabout“livingwater”hasbecomepartoftheinterpretationhewilloffer,(p.174) ashastheGenesisnarrative’sstoryinchapter26ofthewellsthatIsaacreclaimed(theyhadoncebelongedtoAbraham)andprotected.Becauseitwillservetheargumenthewantstoadvance,Origenaltersadetailinthebiblicaltext,havingAbrahamgivethewaterbottletoIshmaelratherthantohismother(whereasGenesis21:14relatesthatthePatriarch“tookbreadandaskinofwater,andgaveittoHagar”).LiteralandfiguralmeaningsareoperatinginparallelasOrigendescribesHagarasonenotpossessing“awelloflivingwater”andashenotesthathersonwasunabletodrawwaterfromawell.ThesemotifsarerecognizablefromtheaccountofHagar’sandIshmael’sdirecircumstanceinthewilderness(Genesis21:15–


of 32


16).Atthestory’sliterallevel,thereisthatplighttoberegistered,butanothercrisisexistsatthespirituallevel,foritis“living”waterthatOrigensaysHagardoesnothaveaccessto,whileIshmaelisequippedonlywiththebottle,nowempty.ThecontrastOrigenmakeswithIsaac’swellsisatonce“factual”andspiritual—evenideological.Abraham’ssonbySarahisof“thepromise,”theprimarybeneficiaryofGod’sprovidentialcare,thebegetterof“thepeopleofadoption.”Hehasrightstohisfather’swells.Ontheotherhand,blessedanddestinedtobefatherof“agreatnation”thoughhemaybe,Ishmaelishereagainpicturedasbeing,incomparisonwithhisyoungerbrother,inferiorinstatusandsignificance.Indeed,thewaterbottlehereceives,soontobeempty,putshislife(andthatofHagar)atrisk,endangeringGod’sclaimabouthisfuture.TheGenesisnarrativeandelementsfromPaul’sallegoryareinterwovenbutdistinct.

Origenturnsthelessonshespiesinthisportionofthetextinthedirectionofhissermon’smainthemes.YouarenotlikedesperateIshmael,unabletofindawell,hetellspeopleinhiscongregation.Youareason(ordaughter)“ofpromise,asIsaac.”OrigenringsinProverbs5:15–16,withitsurgingthatthosewhoaspiretowisdomshoulddrinkfromtheirownabundantwells,andbenefitfromthewatersthatflowintheirstreets.27Heisgearingthisimageofabundantwellstohispresentemphasis,whichreiteratesPaul’suseofthetwosonsofAbrahamtodrawboundariesbetweenopposingreligiousbeliefsandbehaviors.Now,inOrigen’seraandsetting,thesonsrepresentJudaismandChristianity.

He“whoisbornaccordingtotheflesh”drinkswaterfromabottleandthewateritselffailshimandhelacksinmanythings.ThebottleoftheLawistheletterfromwhichthatcarnalpeopledrinks,andthencereceivesunderstanding.Thisletterfrequentlyfailsthem.Itcannotextricateitself;forthehistoricalunderstanding(historialisintelligentia)isdefectiveinmanythings.ButtheChurchdrinksfromtheevangelicandapostolicfountainswhichneverfail,but“runinthestreets,”becausetheyalwaysaboundandflowinthebreadthofspiritual(p.175) interpretation(spiritalisinterpretationis).TheChurchdrinksalso“fromwells”whenitdrawsandexaminescertaindeeperthingsoftheLaw.28

HavingregisteredhisclaimaboutJudaism’slackof“evangelicandapostolicfountains,”—thatis,thatithasnotbelievedintheonewhopromises“livingwater”—thepreacherturnstowardhisconcludingassertions,whichexpounduponwater,wells,andwomen.

Themysteryofthe“deeperthings”thatChristiansfindinspiritualinterpretationshedslightonanepisodeOrigenisanxioustoinsertinhistreatmentofwhatbefallHagarinthewilderness.AsaLogos-theologianinthetraditionofJustinMartyr,ClementofAlexandria(hispredecessorasacatechistthere),andothers,OrigenpresumesthatwhenGodappearsandisheardinJewishscripture,thisisnotthehighGodhimself,whoinhistranscendenceisbynatureinvisibleandincomprehensible,butratherGod’s“Word”/Logoswhospeaks,appearsinangelicform,andwho,asGodtheSon,will“inthefullnessoftime”beenfleshedasJesus.ThereisforOrigennorealtheologicaldistancebetweentheappearanceoftheangel-agentwhospeakswithdespairingHagar,reassuringherthatGodhas“heard”or“heeded”thevoiceof“theboywhereheis,”


of 32


andJesus’sappearancetotheSamaritanwoman.Godvisibleandaudibleis,forhimandothersinhisfaithcommunity,theWord,whobecameincarnateinJesusChrist.Thepreacher’sdominantinteresthereisinjuxtaposingtheonedialoguewiththeangelinGenesis21:17–19thatleadstoHagar’seyesbeingopenedtoseeasavingwellofwater(preservingthehopeofIshmaelbecoming“agreatnation”)withtheepisodeinJohn4:7–15inwhichaSamaritanwomandrawingwaterfromJacob’swellisengagedbyJesusinadiscussionaboutthe“livingwater”heprovides—thequickeningwatersheaskshimtogivetoher.

HowfarwillthepreachertakethisconnectionbetweentheSamaritanwoman,whorecognizesJesusasaprophet,receivinghistestimonythatheisthepromisedmessiahofGod,withdesperateHagar?Thetwostorieshaveepiphaniesofwaterandawellincommon.HagarleavesIshmaeltohimselfinordernottoseehisdying,andwhilesheweepsatadistanceanangelappears,tellingher:“Godhasheededthecryoftheboywhereheis.Come,liftuptheboyandholdhimbythehand,forIwillmakeagreatnationofhim”(Genesis21:17–18).Inthenextversewereadthat“Godopenedhereyesandshesawawellofwater.”Origen’slicenseaspreacherandexegeteenableshimtoinsinuateandapplytheJohanninephrase(concerningthewaterthatrescuesandpreserveslife)toIshmaelandHagar.This,Jesusdeclares,willbecome,inthosewhodrinkit,“aspringofwatergushinguptoeternallife”(John4:14).29

(p.176) OrigenassertsthatJesusdeclaredtotheSamaritanwoman“asifhewerespeakingwithHagarherself,”thattheone“whoshalldrinkofthewaterwhichIgive…shallnotthirstforever.”ToreadtheHagarstoryinthelightofJesus’spromiseof“livingwater,”thepreacherinsists,istobeinthecommunitythat“drawsandexaminesdeeperthingsfromtheLaw.”30

Whatmayhaveseemedtohishearers(andtomoderns)anunexpected,evenarbitraryconnectionoftwowomenandtwowellsandtworescuesflowseasilyfromOrigen’srepertoireastheologian-exegete-preacher.Hecapitalizesonobviousbutusefulandsuggestivecorrespondences.WenoticethatOrigen,renownedforhisspiritualizingstrategiesinexegesis,payscloseattentiontoHagar’s“historical”actionsandattitudes,asbiblicallynarrated,andthattheseobservationsplayastrongroleinhisrepresentationofher.Herwailingandtearsareseen,asthetextmakesclear,asworthyofdivineattention.WhatJohnThompsonreferstoas“literalHagar”isinthepreacher’smind,andhedepartssharplyfromthenegativecaricatureofherinPaul’sallegory,obligedtodosobythecontentoftheGenesistextread“historically,”forittellsofthegoodoutcomeforHagarandIshmaelintheirwildernessordeal.OrigenisusingHagar“tothinkwith,”buthisinterpretationofHagarisnotstrictlynorexclusivelymetaphoricalandspiritual.HiscloseattentiontoheractionsintheGenesistextallowshimtokeepinsightthewoman’s“history”—herdescriptioninscriptureasacharacter“in[her]ownright.”31

“Allegorical”Hagardoesnotfarenearlysowell,however,asOrigenemploysherinwhathemusthopewillbearousingconclusiontohishomily.HewondersaloudwhatsignificanceliesinthebiblicalclaimthattheLord“openedHagar’seyes”:


of 32


Howcanthesewordsberelatedtohistory?Forwhendowefind[inthetext]thatHagarhasclosedeyesandtheyarelateropened?Isnotthespiritualandmysticalmeaningofthesewordsclearerthanlight,thatthatpeoplewhichis“accordingtotheflesh”isabandonedandliesinhungerandthirst,suffering“notafamineofbreadnorathirstforwater,butathirstforthewordofGod”[seeAmos8:11]untiltheeyesofthesynagogueareopened?32

OncemoreadetailintheGenesistext—here,somethingunexplained—sparksaninterpretivemove.ThereisnomentionofHagar’sblindnessorclosedeyesprecedingtheiropening,andthusonlyametaphoricalmeaningwillsuffice.OrigenrevertstoPaul’sassociationofHagarwiththelawthatenslaves,butthewordthatmobilizeshisargumentderivesfromRomans11:25,wheretheApostleseekstoexplainwhya“blindness”(or,“hardeningofheart”)hascomeuponpartofIsrael.Thislackofvision,Paulasserts,(p.177) abidesuntilalltheGentilesareincorporatedinGod’splan,andthen“allIsraelwillbesaved.”Untiltheblindness,whichisthe“veiloftheletter,”istakenawaybyGod’sangel,she—Israel(Hagar’snonliteral,allegoricalsignifier)—cannot,orwillnot,seethe“livingwater”offeredtoher.Thefinaldenunciationisstark:“FornowtheJewsliearoundthewellitself,buttheireyesareclosedandtheycannotdrinkfromthewelloftheLawandtheprophets.”33

Intheend,asinthebeginningofhishomily,Origen’scriticism,judgment,andwarningagainstJudaismisalsobroughtclosertohome—replayed—inanadmonitiondirectedtoChristians.WeChristianstoo,hesays,liearoundthewell.Weholdandreadthedivinescriptures,“butwedonottouchuponthespiritualsense.”The“literal”Hagarisenlistedasamodelandinspiration.Origensuggests:Maybethereisaneedamongus,thefaithful,for“tearsandincessantprayerthattheLordmayopenoureyes.”34

Yetanothercouplingofapassageintheday’sreadingfromMoseswithanincidentinaGospelservesthepreacher’spurpose:eventheblindmeninJericho(Matthew20:30)wouldnothavereceivedtheirsighthadtheynotcriedouttotheLord,likeHagarinherdesperateneed.Whilequicktoreassurehislistenersthatheisnotclaimingthattheireyeshavenotbeenopened,Origennonethelessstateshisfearthatawakenedmembersofhischurchmayclosetheireyesagain,fallingintoaslumbersodeepthattheycannotbe“watchfulinthespiritualmeaning.”Or,thoughawareofdangeroustemptations,thesemaynotstirthemtolabor,toavoidsleepandto“contemplatethingswhicharespiritual.”Ortheymightfallintotheerrorsthatbeset“thecarnalpeoplesetaroundthewateritself.”AwordfromtheprophetDavid(Psalms131:4–5)canonlybeheardasanexhortation:Untilabeliever“findsaplacefortheLord,atabernaclefortheGodofJacob,”hewillnot,orshouldnot,sleepnorslumber.OrigenproclaimsthatthistabernacleistobefashionedandfoundwithintheindividualChristian,enlightenedandencouragedbythings“divineandworthythatthehumanracemightlearnfromthewordsofGod.”Throughouthishomily,andemphaticallyhereatitsconclusion,OrigenpromoteshisbeliefthatspiritualmaturationandtheadvancetowardallthatGodpromisestohispeopleiseffectedprimarilythroughdeepenedinsightintodivinewritings.TolearnhowtohearandtoheedGod’swordsinthesacredtextsistobecomespiritual


of 32


andfree—tobesaved.

OrigenhasreiteratedtheassertionvitaltoearlyChristiansthattheyareheirsofGod’scovenantpromisesmadetoAbraham,continuedthroughIsaacandJacob.Andyet,morethansomeChristianexegetesandtheologianswereinclinedtodo,Origen’ssermonrevealedhisconcerntohonortheblessinggiventoIshmael,ensuringthatfromhimwouldcomeastrong(p.178) nation.Thismotif,whichunderlinesdivinefavorshared(thoughdifferentiatedasgreaterandlesser),isbornofOrigen’sloyaltytowhatGenesisrelates,anditresists(atleastinthatmomentinthesermon)thestarkcontrastthatinPaul’sallegoryinGalatianspitsthesonsagainsteachother—theonefreeandsaved,theotherenslavedandcondemned.OfcourseOrigenacceptsandenunciatesthealreadyentrenchedandnecessaryclaimofthechurchthatbelieversinChristhavebeen“adopted”aschildrenofAbrahamandareheirsofthedivineboonsgiventothem.Intheimageryofhissermon,theJewshavefailedtodrinkfromthewellofscripture,andhaveputthemselvesatadistancefromGod—theGodnowunderstoodastheonewhoinJesusChristprovidesthe“livingwater”guaranteeingeternallife.BecauseinOrigen’sdaytheChristiansenjoystrongerself-definitionasarecognizedanddistinctreligion,hespendsasmuchtimeapplyingthesekindsofargumentstotensionswithinthechurchesashedoestotensionsbetweenJewsandChristians.Yes,themembersofchurchesarenowexclusivelythechildrenofAbrahamandSarah,throughIsaacandJacob,yetOrigeninsiststhatitiswithinChristiancommunities,intheethicalpracticesofindividualChristians,andeveninthewaysbelieversclingtoGod(in“slavishfear”orin“thefreedomoflove”)thatpeopleworkoutwhichson—IshmaelorIsaac—theymostresemble.Origen’sscripturalinterpretationbynomeansignoresthezoneofreligiouscompetitioninwhichhelivesandworks.However,hewritesandspeakstoChristians,andturnsthebiblicalwisdomthathefindsinward—directingittothemultifacetedchurchesandthemultifacetedindividualsmakinguptheirnumber.

ThewomenofAbraham,inOrigen’sretelling,areoften,itistrue,recognizableintheirsimilaritytootheridealizedandallegorizedrepresentationsbyotherauthors.Andyet,becauseOrigenisobligedtoreadcompletelyandtoworkthroughtheday’slectionfromGenesis,hebreaksfromPaul’sone-dimensionalcaricatureofHagar,includingheramongthosewhoseeyesopenedtosee(andtodrinkfrom)thewellthatgivessalvation.Likewise,the“blessing”thatinscriptureGodgivestoIshmaelisnotbypassed,andtheeldersonisatleastbriefly,orqualifiedly,presented(contraPaul)asoneamongthosewhoenjoyGod’sfavor.

TheframeforourexplorationofOrigen’ssermonanditsinterpretivestrategyisacomparativeanalysisofhowsacredstorieswereretoldinantiquityinthreedifferentreligiouscommunities.WehaveseenOrigenandhisthinking,especiallyaboutJudaism,inthehistoricalcontextofthe“partingoftheways”betweenJewsandChristiansasthatseparationhadadvancedinthethirdcentury.35Origen’streatmentofAbraham’swomendisplaysnotonlyhisdexterousimagination,butalsothevibrantmultireligious(p.179)worldinwhichhemadesenseforhimselfandforhisfellowbelieversbypursuingJesus’sadmonitionto“searchthescriptures.”


of 32


ChristianArtists’InterpretationsofAbraham’sWomen

TheAshburnhamPentateuch

UniqueinearlyChristianiconographyisthefollowingdepiction(Figure5.1)oftheconflictbetweenSarahandHagar:

Figure5.1 SarahmakeshercasetoAbraham.AshburnhamPentateuch.©BibliothéquenationaledeFrance,Paris.Ms.lat.nouv.acq.2334,folio18r.

AcompressionoftheactionsfamiliartousfromGenesis21:8–13(andfromOrigen’ssermon),thepaintedimagehasbothHagarandSarahpresent,standingbeforetheseatedAbraham.IshmaelandIsaacalsofaintlyappearinthedamagedpainting,depictedasyoungboys,onesmallerthantheother,“playing”—thatis,tussling—infrontoftheirmothers.“HereisHagar,”theLatinsuperscriptaboveherheadtellsus.Sarah,thescene’scentralfigure,gesturesinAbraham’sdirection.TheLatin(paraphrasingGenesis21:1)thatsurroundsherrelatesherspeech:“SarahsaystoAbraham,‘Behold,(the)sonofmyservantwillnotbe(an)heir!’”Abrahamisgivennowords,buthisextendedhandisinterpretableasarequestforthewomen’stestimonies,ormorelikely,hisresponsetoSarah’sdeclaration.Initscontent,theimagefreezesthatpartofthenarrativeinGenesis21:1–14theartistwishestopresent.Itmaybesimplyareport,graphicallydisplayed.Yettheviewerissupposedtounderstandwhatthistension-filledmomentresolved,andwhatit“states.”Sarahistheactor.Inthiscontest,sheisalsothevictor.Herdemand,approvedbyGod(Genesis21:12),securesIsaac’sinheritance.IshmaelandhismotherHagararetobesentaway.

Thesceneisonlyoneofseventhatfillfolio18aintheAshburnhamPentateuch.Theilluminationsdepictepisodesfromchapters19through21inGenesis,anarrativesectionthatbeginswiththestoryofLotandthedestructionofSodomandGommorahandendswiththeejectionofHagarandIshmaelfromAbraham’shousehold.Atthebottomoffolio18aanothercriticalincidentinSarah’slifeisshown(Figure5.2)intwoscenesabuttingtheonejustdescribed.


of 32


Figure5.2 Sarah’sencounterwithAbimelech.Detail.AshburnhamPentateuch.©BibliothéquenationaledeFrance,Paris.Ms.lat.nouv.acq.2334,folio18r.

InapicturetotheleftsideofthepageweareshownAbimelechsleepingonhisbed,withhisqueenandSarahidentifiedasthetwowomenseatednearby.(Abimelech’squeendoesnotappearintheGenesisnarrative;perhapstheartistbelievedthatherappearanceintheking’sbedroomwouldheightenthedramaandimplicationsofhishaving“taken”Sarah.)SomeofthewordsspokentoAbimelechinhisdream-statedialoguewithGodarerelatedintheLatin.“HeretheLordtellsKingAbimelechthatSarahisthe(p.180) (p.181) (p.182) wifeofAbraham”—hiswife,nothissister.Abimelech,soinformed,heedsGod’swarningandissparedthedeaththatwouldhavecometohimhadhehadintercoursewithSarahandhadhenotreturnedhertoherhusband.

Theadjoininglowerscenedepictsthisdangerousepisode’sconclusion.AbimelechonhisthronedispatchesAbrahamandSarahtosafesettlementsomewherewithinhisterritory.“KingAbimelech,whereherestoresSarahtoAbrahamandgivestohimsheepandoxenandmaleandfemaleslaves”(seeGenesis20:14).OscarvonGebhardtdescribedthebody-languageofthescenes’characters:Abimelech“holdshisrighthandaloft,asifforanoath;withthelefthandhesurrendersSarahtoAbraham,whoseizesherlefthandwithbothhandsandinclineshisheadtowardsher.”36

ItisworthaskingwhetherthethreepanelsfeaturingSarah—inAbimelech’schamber,departingfromGerarafterhercloseencounterwiththeking,andbeforeAbraham,makinghercaseagainstIshmaelandhismother—aresimplygraphicrepetitionsofthetext.Hasthepaintersimplyrenderedtheliteral/historicalaccountinimagesandwithidentifyingLatintags?Orisitmorelikelythattheartistintendedinthesescenesmorethansheerchronicling?Theincidentsselectedforportrayalhaveincommonanoccupationwithdecisions,choices,ethicalquandaries,andtheactionsofGodinsuchhumandramas.IntheiralienresidenceinGerar,therewasAbraham’sfearofhisowndeath,shouldhiswifeSarahbedesired,Abimelech’sthreatened“integrityofheart”ashesoughtto“approach”thewomanhebelievedtobeunmarried,andGod’sinterventionwhichprotectedandrescuedSarah.Abimelech’sreturnofSarahtoAbrahamfolloweduponatruth-tellingencounterbetweenthetwomen(Genesis20:9–13),andwas


of 32


accompaniedbythegiftsdepictedinthepainting.Endangeredvirtuesarepreserved.OthermomentsinSarah’slife,andintheinteractionsbetweenthepatriarch’swives,couldhaveclaimedspace,buttheseimagesrepresentwhattheartistwishedtosetforthasthecentrallyimportantoutcomeofthescripturalnarrative:thecovenantpromiseofGodtoAbrahamrestswiththechildpromisedto,andbornof,Sarah—Isaac.WithouthavingahandofGodpointingtowardSarahasshespeakstoherhusband,thepersonviewingthepaintedscenerecallsthatthiswasGod’sdecree.SarahisdefendingtheGod-preferredheir,andthepeopleofhislineage.InwhatseemtobestraightforwardrenditionsofbiblicalhappeningsconcerningSarahandHagar,thereresidediscerniblelessonsandteachings.

Weareleft,however,withanintriguingquestion.Ifthesepaintingswerecreatedwithmoralinstructioninmind,howisSarahdepicted,andwhatishermessageinethicalterms?InthefirstofthescenesdepictingSarah’slife,shesitscomposedlyinAbimelech’schamber,butnoparticularindicationisgiveneitherofherstateofmindorheractions.Indeed,theimagemay(p.183) haveitsfocusnotsomuchinSarah(andAbimelech’squeen)asinthesleepingking.Forthebiblicallyinformedviewerthescenecallstomindwhattranspiredintheking’sdream:God’sdisclosureaboutthemarriedstatusofthewomanhehasclaimedforhimself.NotholdingherresponsibleforcomplyingwithAbraham’sfalsehood,wearefreetoseeSarahasaninnocentparticipant—evenapawn—inaportentousstruggleornegotiationinvolvingtwomales(three,withtheLordcountedin)—allofwhomhaveavitalinvestmentinwhatdecisionsaremadeandwhatactionsaretaken.Similarly,Sarah’spresenceinAbimelech’ssend-offofthepaircarriesnoobviousandperceptiblemoralimportance—excepttothosewhoknowthatintheGenesistextshehasbeenexoneratedofanysuspicionbytheking,whotellsher,“youarecompletelyvindicated”(20:16b).Another,arguablygreater,significancebelongstoSarah,atleastinthemindsofthosewhoknowthenarrativewell,forinthesucceedinglineswelearnthatSarah,havingescapedbecomingAbimelech’sconcubine,conceivesandgivesbirthtoAbraham’schild,inaccordancewithwhatGodhadpromised(21:1–2).

Thecontentofthefinalscene,whichtakesustotheseparationofAbraham’stwosonsandwives,hasonlySarahasaspeaker.Veryprobablytheartistseesherasaparagonofvirtueintwoimportantsenses—sheisnotoneofthemorallycompromisedcharactersinthisartisticcomposition(theartdoesnotpresentuswiththeSarahwhoscoffs,norwiththeSarahwhoisirate),andherworthinessexpressesitselfasresponsivenessandloyaltytowhatGodhasrevealedthathewilldowithher.TheclaimthatshemakesisbasedinGod’sownproclamationthattheheirofthecovenantwithAbrahamwouldbeIsaac.Further,depictionoftheconflictbetweenthetwoboyswouldservetojustifySarah’sfearthathersonisvulnerabletoIshmael’saggression,whichitselfchallengestheprovidentialplanofGod.HagarandIshmaelarepresentinthepaintingasantagonists,butSarahisadamant.SheistheforemotherofthecovenantpeopleofGod,who,forthosegatheringforworshipinachurchinthesixthcentury,arethemselvesandtheirfellow-believersinChrist.

TheAshburnhamPentateuch’spaintingofAbraham’stwowomenandtwosonsinhis


of 32


presencemustfinallybedecipherednotsimplyasliteralorhistorical,butratherasacomponentpartinanartisticpresentationthat,mediatedthroughitsselectionofactionstobeportrayed,strivestowardpictorialethicaleducation.Itsstrategyisnotallegorical—rather,thepaintedscenes’persons,deeds,andtheirfates,forgoodorforill,serveasmoralexamples.

IntheRomanchurchdedicatedtotheVirginMaryandcreatedundertheauspicesofSixtusIII,popefrom432–440,wefindthisbeautifullyexecutedtwo-tiereddepictionofAbraham’shospitalitytospecialvisitors(Figure5.3).

Figure5.3 ThehospitalityofAbraham.Amid-fifth-centuryCEmosaic.SantaMariaMaggiore,Rome©ArtHistoryImages.

(p.184) Withbendedkneeandoutstretchedhand,thepatriarch,hisadvancedagewellcapturedinhiswhitehairandbeard,extendshiswelcometotheangels,oneofwhomisdistinguishedbythetranslucentmandorlasurroundinghim.(WerecallthatinGenesis18Abrahamextendshishospitalityto“threemen,”butonedeliversthepromiseofthebirthofIsaacwithinayear,andtherepeatedannouncementisattributed,atGenesis18:13–14,to“theLord.”)ThemosaicistisChristianizingthescripturalsceneinanunmistakableway:inaccordancewithChristianLogos-theology,itistheWordofGod,theSon,whoispresenttoAbrahamandSarahastheLord—hewhowouldbecomeincarnateasJesus,God’s(p.185) anointedone,theChrist.37(Theovalmandorla,inthisperiodandafterward,mostfrequentlysurroundsimagesoftheresurrectedJesus,orofMary.)

Thelowersceneistwoinone,withAbrahamintheforegroundturnedtowardSarah(herheadcoveredandherdressahandsomecombinationofwhite,black,andbrightorange).


of 32


PresumablyheasksthatSarahprepareamealofcakes(Genesis18:6),buthiscountenancecouldbethoughttoregistersomethingbetweenanxietyandconsternation.Atadeeperdimensionintheimage,Abrahamturnstothetable,abouttosetbeforehisangel-messengerguests“thecalf,tenderandgood”(Genesis18:7).Twooftheangelslooktowardtheirhost,thecenteronereachingtowardtheplatterasiftoreceiveit.

Wehaveseenthisbasiciconographybefore,bothinthefloorpanelintheSepphorissynagogueandinthemosaicwithintheRavenna’ssixth-centurychurchofSanVitale.ThevisitationoftheangelstoAbraham,withtheevent’smainpurposeimplied—thepromiseconcerningthebirthofasontoSarah—wasforbothJewsandChristiansasacredstory,butonethatChristianartists,aswellastheologians,wereespeciallykeentoreimagineandreimage.

Wetakenoteofasmalldetailinthismosaicartist’stransformationofthebiblicalnarrativeintoaChristianone.Abovethedoorlintelofthesmallbuilding(the“tent”)behindSarahappearsacross.ThismarkingofthecampofAbrahamasChristianisinkeepingwithatypologicalunderstandingoftheLord’s/angels’announcementthatSarahwillgivetothepatriarchason.Highabovethissceneinthechurch’sgreatarchthereappearsthedepictionoftheotherannunciationwhichitanticipates,Gabriel’svisittoMary(Figure5.4).

Figure5.4 TheAnnunciation,amosaicdecorationinthetriumphalarchofSta.MariaMaggiore,Rome.Mid-fifthcenturyCE.©ArtHistoryImages.

Forfifth-centuryChristianswhogatheredinthegreatchurchofSaintMary,theportraitofAbrahamandSarahwasavisuallyreadableforecastandcelebrationnotonlyoftheparents-to-beofIsaac,butalso,andmoreprofoundly,oftheyoungvirginwhowouldbecome“themotherofGod.”38

BiblicalinterpretationsofAbraham’stwowomenasweencountertheminthetwoquitedifferentvisualcommentaries—thefoliointheAshburnhamPentateuchandSta.MariaMaggiore’smosaic—reveal,especiallywhenconsideredalongsideNewTestamentpassagesandOrigen’ssermon,thevarietywithwhichtheseChristiansthinkersre-toldandre-presentedtheirsacredstories.Takentogether,ourtextsandartinthischapterdemonstratethestrongtendencytowardseekingmoral,typological,andspiritual


of 32


meaningsthatemergedimmediatelyandgrewin(p.186) creativity(andcomplexity)inChristianliteratureandartoftheearlycenturiesofthecommonera.

ThesemodesofinterpretationalsoappearedinJewishwritings—admittedlylesssointhemidrashoftherabbinicperiodthaninPhilo’sreadingsofscripture—andalsoinMuslimtafsirandart.WhileChristiansdidnotcometoignoretheliteralandhistoricalelementsinthetexts,andJewsandMuslimsdidnotshyawayfrommoral,philosophical,andtheologicalorspiritualimplicationstheyfoundinthetextstheystudied,itisstillquitenoticeableinthecaseofinterpretationsofAbraham’swomenhowstronglyPaulandOrigen,inparticular,pursued,andledotherstopursue,meaningsbeyondthe“letter.”

Qur’aninterpreters,whilehonoringSarahandcountinghersonIsaacaprophetofGod,weremostoccupiedbythefortunesoftheotherhalfofAbraham’sfamily,HagarandIshmael,whodwelledinthevicinityof“God’shouse”inMecca.ToMuslimvisionsandunderstandingsofAbraham’swomen,comparedwiththoseoftheJewsandChristians,wenowturn.

Notes:

(1.)ElizabethClark’sessay“InterpretiveFateamidtheChurchFathers”appearsinPhyllisTribleandLettyRussell,eds.,Hagar,Sarah,andTheirChildren;thisquotationat143.

(2.)ThemakingofSarahintoavirtueisakintoPhilo’streatmentofherinhisOnAbraham42:“Everywhereandalwaysshewasathisside,noplaceoroccasionomitted,histruepartnerinlifeandlife’sevents,resolvedtosharealikethegoodandtheill.Shedidnot,likesomeotherwomen,runawayfrommishapsandliereadytopounceonpiecesofgoodluck,butacceptedherportionofbothwithallalacrityasthefitandpropertestofaweddedwife.”IfindconvincingtheargumentadvancedinHughMontefiore,ACommentaryontheEpistletotheHebrews,194,thatSarah,notAbraham,isthesubjectofthesentenceinHebrews11:11,yielding:“ByfaithSarahherself,thoughbarren,receivedpowertoconceive,evenwhenshewastooold,becausesheconsideredhimfaithfulwhohadpromised.”

(3.)Sanders,E.P.,PaulandPalestinianJudaism.SeetreatmentofSanders,andothersinJohnG.Gager,ReinventingPaul.

(4.)Itremainsamatterofscholarlydebatewhetherthese“agitators”(5:12),withtheir“Judaizing”agendawereJewswhohadbecomefollowersofJesus(“Jewish-Christians,”astheyaresometimeslabeled),insistinguponamodeofbeliefandbehaviorthatcontinuedinobservanceofJudaism’sprecepts,or,rather,thattheywereGentileconvertswhowereintentuponincorporatingintheirnewfaithoneofthecentral“traditionsoftheancestors,”asPaulidentifiesJudaisminaphrase.

(5.)Sanders,Paul,[431]–556.

(6.)SeeGalatians3:6–29,andRomans4.Genesis15:6iscitedbyPaulinGalatians3:6


of 32


andRomans4:3.

(7.)HansDieterBetz’sanalysisofthispassage,towhichIammuchindebtedinwhatfollows,isfoundinhiscommentary,Galatians,238–252.OnthepassageinGalatians4:21–31,Betzcomments:“Paul’smethodofinterpretationisstatedclearlyinv24a.Whathecalls‘allegory’isreallyamixtureofwhatwewouldcallallegoryandtypology.Itshouldbeadmittedthatbothmethodsarecloselyrelated.TypologyinterpretshistoricalmaterialcommonlyusedinprimitiveChristianity.Persons,events,andinstitutionsofScriptureandtraditionaretakenasprototypesofpresentpersons,events,andinstitutions,whichareexplainedastheirfulfillment,repetition,orcompletionwithinaframeworkofsalvationhistory.Indistinctiontotypology,allegorytakesconcretemattersmentionedinScriptureandtradition(mythology)tobethesurfaceappearanceorvestigeofunderlyingdeepertruthswhichthemethodclaimstobringtolight.Therebyconcretemattersinthetextaretransportedintogeneralnotionsofphilosophicalortheologicaltruth.Paul’stextconsistsofquotationsofLXXandJewishhaggadicmaterialinGreektranslation;hedoesnotmakeanydistinctionbetweenthetwo.InageneralsensePaul’sinterpretationoftheAbrahamtraditionandofthefiguresofHagarandSarahispartofahistoryofsuchinterpretations.Paul,however,doesnotsimplytakeoverthisinterpretation,butatthesametimehegivesithisownimprint”(239).

(8.)JerusalemasaheavenlyplaceisspokenofonlyhereinPaul’sletters,butisimaginedinvariouswaysinJewishapocalypticandearlyChristianwritingslike4Ezra7:26;10:40ff,Jubilees4:26,2Apoc.Baruch4:207;32:2–3,1Enoch90:28ff.,Hebrews12:22–24,andRevelation21:1–22:5.Seenotes81–85inBetz,Galatians.

(9.)ErnestDeWittBurton,Galatians,226.

(10.)Betz,Galatians,249.

(11.)SeeG.WalterHansen,AbrahaminGalatians,162.

(12.)LeanderKeck,inhisintroductiontoRomansinWayneMeeks,ed.,TheHarperCollinsStudyBible,2115,drewattentiontothefactthatthediscussioninRomansisframedinasituationquiteunlikethatinwhichPauldefendedhis“gospeltotheuncircumcised”whenmeetingwithJames,Peter,andJohninJerusalem(theeventPaulrecountsinGalatians1–2):“inRomeheneededtodefendthecontinuingvalidityofIsraelinGod’spurpose.Hisletter,therefore,insiststhatthereisonegospelforallhumanity,albeit‘totheJewfirst’”(1:16).

(13.)RonaldE.Heine,Origen:HomiliesonGenesisandExodus,127–135.InquotationsofHeine’stranslation,slightchangesandadaptationsaremadeinspellingsofnames(“Hagar”for“Agar,”forexample).ThesesermonsofOrigen,preachedinCaesareaMaritimaca.238–244,surviveinLatintranslations—orbetter,paraphrases—bythescholar-monasticRufinusofAquileia(ca.340–410),asupporterofOrigen’swhencontroversyswirledaroundhisworkandthought,tendinginthedirectionofbranding“Origenism”aheresy.Heine,Origen,1–43,providesaconciseandhelpfulintroduction


of 32


tothelifeofOrigenandtothehistoryofthesesermons,includingtreatmentofRufinusastranslator.

(14.)GerhardvonRad,Genesis,225.

(15.)Butterworth,OnFirstPrinciples,4.2.4.

(16.)Origen,HomilyVII,127.

(17.)Ibid.

(18.)Ibid.,128–129.

(19.)Origen,FirstPrinciples4.3.5,297.


(21.)Ibid.,130.

(22.)Ibid.,131.Here,Origen’sdebttoPaulissurpassedbyhisdebttoPhilo,whointhecourseofworkingoutviaallegoryalessonaboutthetrainingofthemind(Abraham),anditsneedfor“preliminarystudies”(Hagar)towhichknowledge,philosophy,thevirtues(Sarah)givesassent,representsHagar’sflight“fromthefaceofSarah”(Genesis16:6–8)intheseterms:“thesoulwasfoundfleeingfromvirtue,notbeingabletoreceivediscipline.”SeePhilo,QuestionsandAnswersonGenesis3:27,47.InThePosterityandExileofCain33:130,theideaisconnectedtoanothersegmentofthestoryofthetwowomen:“[God],[i.e.,scripture]showsusHagarfillingawater-skinandgivingthechilddrink.Hagarrepresentsimperfecttraining,beinghandmaidofSarahwhorepresentsperfectvirtue.”


(24.)JohnL.Thompson,WritingtheWrongs,31.

(25.)Origen,HomilyVII,131–132.


(27.)InitsowncontextintheHebrewtextofProverbstheadviceinvokesmetaphorsofwater/liquidsinrelationtomale-femalerelations,sexualenjoyment,andwarningsagainstaman’sintoxicationwithanotherwoman,and“embrac[ing]thebosomofanadulteress”(v.20).Further,itclearlywarnsagainstlettingwatersspilloutintothestreetsandflowaway.


(29.)RufinushasaddedvivaetotheoldLatintextoftheBiblethathequotes,whichreferssimplytoputeumaquae(awellofwater),buthisadaptationnodoubtreflectsthe


of 32


GreekofOrigen,whohasdrawn“living”waterfromJohn4:10–11intohistreatmentofGenesis21:19.


(31.)Thompson’sassessmentofOrigen’streatmentofHagarisincisive.InhisWritingtheWrongs,31,weread:“WhatmakesOrigen’simageofHagartrulyenigmatic…isthat,havingdrawnsuchapotentiallytoxicconnectionbetweenHagarandtheunspiritual‘letter,’heshowsnointerestinvilifyingHagar.PaulmaythinkthatHagarsymbolizestheoldcovenant,butOrigensidestepsanysuchconclusion.InsteadoffaultingHagar,whetherthehistoricalconcubineortheallegoricalone,Origenallegoricallydisparagesthebottle(ofwater)thatAbrahamgavetoHagarassheleft.InthiswayOrigendoesnotbrandHagarwiththestigmaofthelawandtheletter,butactuallyfreesherfromboth:‘ThebottleofLawistheletter,fromwhichthatcarnalpeopledrinks…Thisletterfrequentlyfailsthem,…forthehistoricalunderstandingisdefectiveinmanythings.’TheChurchontheotherhand,drinksfromthefountainofspiritualinterpretation—asdoesHagar,itwouldsuddenlyseem.Shethusemergesnotasascapegoatbutasanexemplarofsorts.LiketheSamaritanwoman…Hagarhashadhereyesopenedtoseethetruewelloflivingwater,whichisJesusChrist.Apparently,sheisnolongertobecountedamongthe‘carnal’Jews.”


(33.)Ibid.

(34.)Ibid.,134–135.

(35.)SeeinparticularDanielBoyarin,ARadicalJewandJohnDavidDawson,ChristianFiguralReading.

(36.)OscarvonGebhardt,TheMiniaturesoftheAshburnhamPentateuch,14.

(37.)InanotherSta.MariaMaggioremosaicscene,thehaloedChristoverseestheblessingthatMelchizedekbestowsuponAbrahamfromthecloudsabove,hishandextendeddownwardtowardMelchizedekandthebasketofloavesheliftsuptowardthepatriarch,whoisamountedwarriorattheheadofhisarmy.

(38.)SeeinRobinJensen,FacetoFace,191–194,ahelpfulsummarizationofthedevelopmentofearlyiconographictraditionsofMary.ThetheologyandsupersessionistideologyofChristianpowerinthefifthcenturywasaggressive,withtypologyitsforcefulmedium.ThestrongthemeofJas’Elsner’sImperialRomeandChristianTriumphissummarizedinhiscomments,228,onSta.MariaMaggiore’sart:

ItcomprehensivelyreinterpretsadetailedOldTestamentcycle(onthenavewalls)intermsofitsfulfillmentinthetriumphofChristianity.ItisnotjustthatspecificOldTestamentthemesprefigurethelifeofChrist,butthatthewholenarrativeofJewishhistoryispresentedassubservientto,completedin,theIncarnation….


of 32


Suchvisualprogrammesinthemajorchurchestransposedtherelativelysmall-scaletypologicalimagesofcatacombsandsarcophagi,aswellasthestilltinierChristianimageryofgems,glassware,andivorytoamonumentalgrandeur.Indoingso,theytransformedasectarianimageryofcultidentityintoacanonicaliconographyofstatereligionwheretheonlyplaceforpagans(suchastheMagi)orJews(thefiguresinOldTestamentcycles)wasasastagetobesurpassedinChristianity’steleologyoftriumphalism.

Download - Sarah and Hagar in ChristianhRetellings Oxford ... · Sarah and Hagar in ChristianhRetellings ... Hagar, at one point called “mother of the Arabs,” is the wife of Ibrahim to whom

Top Related