The influence of social status and identity in a struggle for matriarchal power: Genesis 16:1–15

Introduction

The story of the Israelites as God’s chosen people emerges as a prominent, unifying thread in Genesis and the Hebrew Bible as a whole. Yet, before God’s chosen nation came to be and its matriarch and patriarch became examples of great faith to countless generations, Abram and Sarai questioned whether the child God promised would ever come. Indeed, Sarai and Abram’s faith in God’s promise of progeny was tested, as Sarai’s barrenness served as a formidable threat. This test is especially evident in the Gen 16:1–15 narrative in which they sought to leverage the power afforded to them by wealth and social standing. While this narrative is often cited as a great test of human faith, it is also a story about power, who has it and why. In the analysis that follows, I argue that Gen 16:1–15 depicts a struggle for matriarchal power and control between Sarai and Hagar, who are on the opposite ends of power within their ancient Near Eastern society. Ultimately, the Lord proves sovereign over all, hearing and seeing the powerful and weak alike. By uncovering deeper meanings of this rich and layered Hebrew text, the modern reader overcomes translation barriers and gains an appreciation for how modern systems of power perpetuate human conflict. But readers leave with hope: the Lord is sovereign and hears and sees those most afflicted.

Status of women, surrogate motherhood, and slavery in the ancient Near East

The laws, customs, and social norms of the ancient Near East as reflected in the book of Genesis provide an interpretative lens through which Gen 16 must be read. Particularly, the power dynamics at work in the narrative are dictated by the prevailing norms and laws regarding the social status of women, surrogate motherhood, and slavery. Scholars estimate the historical time period of Genesis to be around 2000 BCE ¹ during either the Middle Bronze Age 1 or 2. ² In a world dominated by male authority, a woman’s status was determined in large part by her ability to bear children. Simply stated, a woman’s social status increased with fertility and decreased with infertility or barrenness. As such, ancient Near Eastern codes of law provided options for surrogate motherhood whereby a wealthy, free woman could give her own maidservant/female slave to her husband to bear children for her. ³ Likewise, husbands of barren wives could take other wives and concubines to obtain children, and they could adopt a male slave from their household to become their heir. ⁴ Examples of ancient codes permitting such practices include Hammurabi’s Code, a Nuzi text, an Old Assyrian marriage contract, and a Neo-Assyrian text, all of which describe a barren wife giving her female servant/slave to her husband and/or a husband taking another woman to bear him children. ⁵ Altogether, surrogate motherhood was a means for a “barren woman to regularize her status” in the world; otherwise, she faced the humiliation and taunting of her co-wives and society at large. ⁶ Sarai and Abram each pursued these options. In doing so, however, they sought power and control over a situation in which only God was sovereign.

Another aspect of ancient Near Eastern social context central to Gen 16:1–15 is the social and economic institution of slavery. Ancient Near Eastern civilizations such as Anatolia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syro-Palestine all had systems of slavery during the Bronze and Iron Ages. ⁷ In these cultures, slavery was the “voluntary or involuntary servitude to an individual, the state, or temple that entails reduction of legal and social status to the level of property.” ⁸ As property, slaves were bought and sold and were a form of currency and wealth, passed on after death. ⁹ Slaves were relegated to a life of serving their masters and could not move about freely in society; thus, they were assigned a level of dependence upon their masters. ¹⁰ Although some slaves did find themselves in more favorable conditions, harsh exploitation was not uncommon, ¹¹ as seen in the example of Gen 16. Moreover, Hagar represents the small number of enslaved persons owned by individuals for domestic purposes, ¹² rather than as a prisoner of war in service to a king. ¹³

In addition to the socio-historical context of Gen 16:1–15, understanding its authorship and literary context aids analysis and interpretation. E. A. Speiser identifies Gen 16 as primarily from the Yahwist source, with some Priestly text included. ¹⁴ Gordon Wenham agrees that, in line with standard critical theory, Gen 16 is primarily a Yahwist text; yet, he disagrees with the attribution of verses 1, 3, and 15–16 to the P source since the key phrase “in the land of Canaan” also occurs in E and J texts. ¹⁵ He contends that the full chapter could be attributed to the J source alone. ¹⁶ Similarly, Marianne Kartzow agrees and argues that Gen 16 is a Yahwist text. ¹⁷ Meanwhile, Philip Yoo posits that 16:3 and 16:15–16 are from the Priestly source with the remaining text likely non-Priestly (both J and E). ¹⁸ As the present analysis will discuss, the sources of Gen 16:1–15 have important theological implications.

Social identity and power

Genesis 16:1–15 is situated within Genesis’s Patriarchal History and appears early in the larger arc of Abram and Sarai’s story. The Gen 16 episode occurs after Abram and Sarai, advanced in age, seemingly give up on conceiving an heir naturally, each attempting to exert power by producing surrogate heirs. Noteworthy is the editor’s placement of the narrative between two narratives that each outline the covenant between God and Abram. ¹⁹ In Gen 15, Abram has expressed doubt that God would fulfill God’s promise of offspring as made to him in Gen 12:16. Abram asks that his servant, Eliezer, would be his heir, but God says Eliezer would not be his heir and reiterates God’s covenant (15:4). Subsequently, the Gen 16 narrative is followed by God again reiterating God’s promise of many offspring and land in Gen 17. In this chapter, which includes a name change for the pair, Abraham asks that Ishmael might live as his heir (17:18), but God promises Isaac to him and Sarah (17:19). Consistent with the promise God makes to Hagar, God promises to bless Ishmael and make him a great, but separate, nation (17:20).

The Gen 16 narrative is structured in four major sections that occur in three “scenes,” ²⁰ functioning as a dramatic play of sorts, with both narration and character dialogue. In each scene, the women are principal actors as Abram takes a subservient role. ²¹ The setting of scene one is Abram’s household camp. In 16:1–3, Sarai recognizes and leverages her power as a childless wife by devising the plan to give her Egyptian slave-girl, Hagar, to Abram to obtain the children the Lord has withheld. Three details in these verses have implications for the struggle that follows: (1) Sarai’s identity as a barren wife, (2) Hagar’s identity as an Egyptian and foreigner, and (3) Hagar’s identity as a slave.

First, Sarai’s barrenness arguably drives her selfish motives. As Cynthia Chapman highlights, in ancient Near Eastern culture, barrenness was so socially stigmatizing that the inability to bear children was akin to dying a social death. ²² Noteworthy is Sarai holding the Lord responsible for her lack of children. In verse 2a, she says, “The Lord has prevented me from bearing children.” Yet, Sarai is not alone in this belief. Throughout the Bible, the ability to have a child is portrayed as a direct gift from God, ²³ for God “remembers” women by “opening their wombs.” ²⁴ Later in Genesis, Rachel cries out to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!” to which Jacob responds, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (Gen 30:1–2). In contrast to modern ideas and practices regarding infertility, the only “treatment” for being unable to conceive in the ancient world was praying that the divine would intervene on one’s behalf. ²⁵ The other acceptable option was using one’s power as a wealthy, barren woman to employ a surrogate mother. ²⁶ Although Sarai’s barrenness threatens Yahweh’s promise to Abram, it is used purposefully as part of J’s didactic scheme, as identified by Gerhard von Rad: Yahweh’s promises may be threatened, but God is faithful and can be trusted to fulfill God’s promises. ²⁷

Next, verse 1b introduces Hagar’s identity as an Egyptian and foreigner. According to Wilda Gafney, in Hebrew, the name ha-gar “means ‘the foreigner,’ ‘alien,’ or ‘sojourner.’” ²⁸ Gafney argues that “Hagar” is not truly this Egyptian girl’s name, but merely what she is called in the passage. ²⁹ Although the text does not record when or how Hagar became Sarai’s “slave-girl,” when Abram and Sarai sojourn to Egypt as aliens due to famine (Gen 12), because Pharaoh finds Sarai very beautiful (v. 14), Pharoah “dealt well” with Abram by gifting him livestock and “male and female slaves” (v. 16). Thus, Hagar’s being one of the female slaves mentioned is plausible. ³⁰

Third, verse 1 also makes note of Hagar’s identity as a slave. The Hebrew word for “slave-girl” is šip̱ḥāh, meaning “female slave,” “maid,” or “maidservant.” ³¹ Although the NRSV renders the translation “slave-girl,” other translations call Hagar Sarai’s “servant” (ESV), “slave” (NIV), “handmaid” (KJV), and “slave woman” (NASB). Wenham explains that the word characterizes the relationship between Sarai and Hagar and reflects the domestic slavery that occurred in ancient society. ³² As a “maid,” Hagar is the “servant companion of a rich woman,” often included in the rich woman’s dowry and under a mistress’s control. ³³ “Slave-girl” connotes that Hagar was legally responsible to Abram as her master, as opposed to Sarai. ³⁴ Nonetheless, scholars argue that the terms have relatively little difference in meaning and are used interchangeably. ³⁵ Philip Drey describes the etymology of šip̱ḥāh as contentious. It has been associated with the Hebrew root š-f-ḥ, “to pour out, shed blood,” as well as being understood as “maidservant of the mistress.” ³⁶ Drey also notes that the term has been associated with ʾamah or “concubine,” as is used in Gen 21:10. ³⁷ A third option, which Drey argues is a better understanding, is that šip̱ḥāh comes from a connection between the Ugaritic verb s-f-ḥ, “being together,” and the Hebrew word mišpaḥah, “clan,” and thus means “someone who joins or is attached to a person or a clan.” ³⁸

While the ancient audience of Genesis could tolerate the broad meaning of šip̱ḥāh, because of the nuanced meanings of “servant” and “slave,” modern readers, especially in Western countries such as the United States, likely have trouble interpreting the relationship between Hagar and Sarai and Abram due to the sociocultural experiences and understandings they bring to the text. Consequently, this analysis of the range of meanings for šip̱ḥāh is of significant interpretive value to the modern reader.

A struggle for matriarchal power

In the next section of the text (16:4–6), also set in the household camp, a matriarchal power struggle ensues. Despite her lack of power and agency in having forced intercourse with Abram, which would be considered rape by modern standards, Hagar’s social status has changed as a result of her conceiving the child Sarai could not. ³⁹ Hagar “looked with contempt on her mistress” (v. 4b, NRSV), though the Hebrew here is better translated as “her mistress was light in her eyes” ⁴⁰ or “her mistress was lowered in her eyes.” ⁴¹ Kathleen O’Connor argues that Hagar would have every right to express “contempt” for her mistress; at the very least, however, “the relative value of the two women in this patriarchal culture turns topsy-turvy.” ⁴² Because she is now carrying Abram’s heir, Hagar can feel an air of superiority. ⁴³ The text does not state why Hagar reacts this way, but Drey suggests the Lipit-Ishtar Code offers insight. This ancient Near Eastern code contains a law that states the children of a father’s first wife and a second wife will divide his property equally. ⁴⁴

Ironically, Sarai responds to Hagar’s shift in status by blaming Abram and cursing him (v. 5). Abram then reminds Sarai of her power (v. 6), clearly signaling her authority within the household as manager. ⁴⁵ This reminder prompts Sarai to “deal harshly” with Hagar, perhaps to reassert control as Hagar’s mistress. Hagar then runs away. Interestingly, the same Hebrew word describing Sarai’s treatment of Hagar is used in Exodus to describe the Israelites’ suffering in Egypt (Exod 1:12; also Gen 15:13). ⁴⁶ Similarly, the Hebrew term translated to describe Hagar’s running away is used to describe the Israelites leaving Egypt (Exod 14:5). ⁴⁷ This turn of events presents an ironic parallel to Sarai and Abram’s descendants’ story of enslavement and liberation in Egypt. Delores Williams notes that in fleeing from Sarai, Hagar becomes the first female in the Bible to liberate herself from oppression. ⁴⁸ Williams suggests that Hagar’s escape to the wilderness is an expression of “survival and quality of life,” as well as God’s divine presence at work in the process. ⁴⁹

Yahweh’s sovereignty

The struggle for power and control changes in the third section of the narrative (16:7–12) as the scene shifts to the wilderness. The wilderness is often a place of divine encounters in the Bible, ⁵⁰ and Hagar’s story is no exception. In the wilderness, the sovereign Lord, Yahweh, appears as an angel and finds Hagar by a spring of water on the way to Shur (v. 7). Shur’s location in the northwest Sinai is in a desert region that must be crossed when traveling from Canaan to Egypt. ⁵¹ Some hypothesize that Hagar may have been on her way back to her homeland, Egypt. ⁵²

The angel of the Lord questions Hagar, and, after Hagar tells the angel she is running away from Sarai (v. 8), the angel tells Hagar to return to her mistress in submission (v. 9). Williams’s response to Yahweh’s command in this verse is strong: “The angel of Yahweh is, in this passage, no liberator God.” ⁵³ Yet, Williams goes on to reason that given high infant mortality in the ancient Near East, Yahweh’s command is about “survival and future quality of life for Hagar and Ishmael.” ⁵⁴ Susan Pigott argues, “The command to return and submit” must be read in light of the Lord’s promise to Hagar and the annunciation of Ishmael’s birth. ⁵⁵ In the next verse, hearing her affliction, the angel makes Hagar a promise of a multitude of offspring beginning with the child she is carrying (vv. 10–11). Here, Hagar assumes a surrogate patriarch role by receiving a promise similar to the promise Yahweh makes to Abram in Gen 15:2–6. ⁵⁶ As Pigott argues, Hagar is simultaneously a “Mother Patriarch” and an “Other Patriarch.” ⁵⁷ She writes, “Hagar is the only matriarch to receive the patriarchal promise of multiplied seed, and she is the only matriarch who received divine messages from the angel of the Lord.” ⁵⁸ Pigott continues by highlighting the fact that Hagar is an “other,” a non-Hebrew, Egyptian female, who “would be the progenitor of a nation.” ⁵⁹ In verse 11, the angel’s annunciation of Ishmael is set apart in poetic verse. Notably, Hagar is the first woman in the Bible to receive an annunciation of a son. ⁶⁰ Two annunciations in the New Testament Gospel of Luke later parallel this announcement to Hagar. ⁶¹ The child’s name bears great significance given everything Hagar has been through. Ishmael means “God hears,” “for the Lord has given heed to [Hagar’s] affliction” (v. 11). Next, the angel of the Lord “forecasts” how Hagar’s son will be and live, which may sound like a curse to modern ears, but instead is a blessing: ⁶²

He shall be a wild ass of a man,

with his hand against everyone,

and everyone’s hand against him;

and he shall live at odds with all his kin. (v. 12, NRSV)

The first part of this couplet refers to Ishmael as a pereʾ or “wild ass of a man.” Here, modern English readers again encounter difficulty understanding the meaning conveyed by the Hebrew text. Whereas the word “ass” in English means a “domesticated donkey,” in Hebrew, it refers to “an onager” or “a wild animal that has never been domesticated.” ⁶³ Pigott suggests a better English translation for pereʾ is “wild stallion”; thus, the way Hagar would hear this proclamation is that her son would be a free man, unlike his mother. ⁶⁴ Furthermore, Pigott notes additional translation choices that make interpretation of the second and third clauses of this verse challenging. In the second clause, the Hebrew preposition bet is translated as “against.” Since this preposition usually means “in,” “by,” “on,” or “with,” she translates this clause instead as “his hand will be with everyone and everyone’s hand will be with him.” ⁶⁵ Pigott makes a similar argument regarding the third clause: the preposition ‘al is translated negatively in the NRSV, and the phrase could be translated instead as “before his brothers he will dwell.” ⁶⁶ As with the discussion of šip̱ḥāh above, such translation differences have much interpretive value to the modern-day audience.

In the final section of this passage (16:13–15), as Yahweh takes control while Hagar is in the wilderness, Hagar is compelled to respond to Yahweh’s kindness and compassion. Hagar’s recognition of the angel as God brings the wilderness scene to its climax. ⁶⁷ In verse 13, Hagar names Yahweh, El Ro’i, a “God of seeing” or “God who sees.” As Phyllis Trible notes, with these words, Hagar becomes the only person in the Bible to give God a name. ⁶⁸ Here, not only is Yahweh a God who “hears,” but Hagar acknowledges Yahweh is a God who “sees” as well. Wenham makes a keen observation: Hagar calls God “El,” but the narrator calls God “Yahweh,” the name revealed to Moses. As such, the writer makes the connection that “the God who rescued Hagar in the wilderness is the one who redeemed Israel from Egypt.” ⁶⁹

In the second part of verse 13, again the meaning of the Hebrew text is unclear. The NRSV renders it “for she said, ‘Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?’” Other English versions translate the text as “for she said, ‘Truly here I have seen him who looks after me,’” (ESV) and “for she said, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me’” (NIV). Pigott considers a literal translation of the verse: “Have I also thus far seen after one seeing me?” ⁷⁰ But she settles on “have I not gone on seeing after being seen [by God]?” ⁷¹ Wenham usefully explains how this text “has caused much perplexity and prompted many emendations” and repeats the argument of other scholars (i.e., Booij and Koenen) that the commonly adopted emendation, “Have I seen God and lived after seeing him?” simply captures the essence of Hagar’s astonishment at her divine encounter with God. ⁷² Furthermore, O’Connor’s analysis is useful as well. She notes the play on words in Hagar’s statement: “[Hagar] reflects on the reciprocity of [God] seeing. God sees her and she sees God.” ⁷³ O’Connor highlights the irony in Hagar’s words, for the tradition in ancient Israel was that a person could not see God’s face and live, as noted in Moses’s encounter with God (Exod 33:20–23). ⁷⁴

As the wilderness scene closes, the narrator references the name of the well at which Hagar sees and names God. “Beer-lahai-ro’i” means “well of the living one who sees me” (16:14). Though the narrator does not specify who named the well, Hagar’s encounter with God is so transcendent that the place of that encounter was memorialized with the name Hagar gave the Lord. ⁷⁵ As such, Hagar’s authority in naming God serves as a surrogate for a male authority, who would traditionally take on the duty of naming places such as wells and shrines. ⁷⁶

Finally, the third scene begins with verse 15. After naming God, in obedience to God, Hagar returns to Sarai. Hagar gives birth, and Abram names Ishmael, suggesting Hagar and Abram have conversed about her wilderness encounter with the Lord. Perhaps, Abram believed Ishmael, as his first-born, was the fulfillment of God’s promise, ⁷⁷ which would make sense given his later desire for Ishmael to live in God’s sight as the promised child (17:18). Sarai’s absence in this scene is ironic. Though Sarai’s plan of obtaining a child via surrogacy succeeds, Ishmael is clearly Abram’s son, and not Sarai’s. In the end, Sarai is powerless as Abram claims the child she has rejected. Yahweh has proven sovereign in redirecting Sarai’s plan and changing the course of events in a way she never intended. Even more, Yahweh’s plan has prevailed as Hagar responds to God’s kindness and compassion with obedience.

Conclusion

Truly every person, no matter how young or how old, desires to be seen. This was undoubtedly Hagar’s desire as she endured the affliction of enslavement and the unknown dangers of fleeing into the wilderness. As a slave of foreign birth, Hagar was not seen or heard in society or in her household. The only words she utters throughout the Gen 16 narrative are the ones she speaks to the Lord. Her escape was her only means of exerting a measure of power over her mistress, Sarai, who had the power to control every aspect of her life. Indeed, Gen 16:1–15 depicts a struggle for human power and control when ultimately God sees all and is the sovereign Lord in control. This passage demonstrates the Lord’s power to upend societal power dynamics by exhibiting sovereignty in the lives of God’s chosen people. In the end, the Yahwist’s theological agenda in Hagar’s naming God is achieved: Yahweh is a God who is present and compassionate toward an enslaved and abused girl from Egypt, a foreigner whose desires and needs have been utterly overlooked. Furthermore, Hagar’s seeing God as compassionate in the direst of “wilderness” situations offers the assurance that God is very present in the lives of those who call upon the Lord.

Ultimately, Gen 16:1–15 reveals God’s sovereignty in the lives of God’s people, despite their efforts to exert control in their lives. This observation begs the question: how much do God’s people attempt to control the events of their lives, with little regard to God’s plan or timing? The struggle for control and power continues in the world today, both in the lives of individuals and in society at large. Like Hagar and Sarai, women in particular struggle to exert power in a world that continues to oppress them. In addition, similar to these women, status and power differentials further divide women when ideally they would be unified against a common adversary. Gen 16:1–15 reminds God’s people, however, that not only is the Lord sovereign, but God acts in favor of the oppressed. God favors Hagar in a way that defies human expectations. As O’Connor puts it, “God attends to the foreigner, the captive woman, the sex slave, and the surrogate mother who has no voice in the matter.” ⁷⁸ God does fulfill God’s promise that Abram’s heir would come from his union with Sarai, but this passage shows “Israel’s God is the God of all peoples, not merely of chosen Israel, but God even of Israel’s opponents and enemies.” ⁷⁹ This idea challenges God’s people to consider how much they side with the oppressed and marginalized of society, rather than aligning with those in power. God’s people must seek justice for the unseen and unheard among society, rather than amplifying the selfish interests of those in power. Siding with justice rather than power begins with the way God’s people read and interpret Biblical texts such as Gen 16. Perhaps, Hagar and God’s mutual seeing can inspire readers of this text to truly see one another as well.