Skip to content

Sarah Series #4: "you are Sarah's daughters IF you…"

“YOU ARE SARAH’s DAUGHTERS” (condtional upon doing “what is right” and “do not give way to fear”)

1 Peter 3:6
like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

“Sarah’s DAUGHTERS” means Sarah is our MOTHER, right?
I used to have this really REALLY negative disrespectful view of Eve which cast a shadow on ME (since she is representative of “woman”). And I was disrespectful of SARAH- considering her mistaken to give Hagar to her husband. I dishonored her. I got thinking about my critical attitude toward Sarah, and the critical attitude I have seen in various places versus the Bible which has no CRITICISM of Sarah anywhere (that I know of). She is given as the 1 Peter 3 role model, and she is in the Hebrews 11 “hall of faith”. Who am I to think that I know better than GOD, that I am justified to view her negatively when HE never does? I felt like I needed an attitude adjustment- HONOR your MOTHERS!!!

I was reading the words of Jesus, and thinking about the systematic and widespread DIShonor of our “Mothers“:

Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[c]—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother;[d] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.�

I have recently read this in Katharine Bushnell’s book. Its in Lesson 77 of her book which was written @ 100 years ago (before American women could vote). From here:

616. It is well known that when a man gets lost on the prairie, he begins to go round in a circle; it is suggested that one side (the right, generally), being stronger than the other, he pulls unconsciously with greater strength upon the corresponding guiding rein of his horse. Just so does the translator; he pulls unconsciously on the strong side of preconception or self-interest. This may not be intended, but it is none the less inevitable to the uninspired hand. For this reason, neither class nor sex should have an exclusive right to set forth the meaning of the original text. It is notorious that the Samaritan Hebrew text, even, has been manipulated to a considerable extent to suit the Samaritan prejudices, so that that manuscript must be corrected by comparison with others before it can be trusted on points that involve Samaritan interests. The Alexandrian, or Septuagint version, shows traces of an attempt to meet the prejudices of Egyptians. What wonder that all versions, having for all time been made by men, should disclose the fact that, on the woman question, they all travel more or less in a circle, in accordance with sex bias, hindering the freedom and progress of women, since (in times past more than at present), the self interest of man led him to suppose that woman served God best as his own undeveloped subordinate?

Where are the female voices in “traditional” interpretation? “TRADITION” has NOT HONORED THE “CHURCH MOTHERS“!!!

Reading the following brought Sarah’s esteem up a bunch of notches in my view and confronted me with how I had disrespected her. It seems to me that she was doing the VERY BEST she knew in a very awkward, painful situation….

from Bushnell:

537. The legal requirements of King Hammurabi which Sarah obeyed read: “If a man has married a wife, and she has not granted him children, that woman has gone [shall go] to her fate [is to be divorced], if her father-in-law has returned him the dowry that that man brought to the house of his father-in-law,” etc. (par. 168). Par. 138 of the same Code describes the conditions under which a man may “put away his bride who has not borne him children.” Par. 144 says: “He shall not take a concubine” if his wife “has given a maid to her husband;” and Par. 146 says, if “she has given a maid to her husband and she has borne him children [and] that maid has made [should make] herself equal with her mistress,” the mistress may reduce her to servitude again, but may not sell her. This is surely wonderful confirmation that Sarah’s treatment of this whole matter, up to the time of Isaac’s weaning, was precisely in accord with the legal provisions and customs by which the country was governed. But when Isaac was weaned, she took another course, and God, by express revelation to Abraham, confirmed her new departure as in the line of His will.…
539. Sarah did go through the form of asking Abraham to bear a son by Hagar, but the act should be judged by the fact that a man had legal right to divorce a childless wife, and she was now past seventy-five years of age. That Sarah had had reason to fear divorcement seems certain, because when Hagar became arrogant in her treatment of Sarah, the latter accuses Abraham of being himself to blame for Hagar’s conduct, in the words: “My wrong be upon thee.” The Septuagint gives the idea conveyed by the words as, “I am wronged by thee.” Sarah is opening her eyes in new self-respect; she tells Abraham he had no right to have ever brought Hagar¾the price of her humiliation¾into the family; and then to have so conducted himself as to have created in her the fear of being divorced, through no fault of her own, but merely because she had not fulfilled for him the promises of God, that he should have a son. This is what we understand by her expression, and she adds: “The Lord judge between me and thee,” declaring her confidence that her position was just in God’s sight.540. And Abraham yielded, which he would not have done so readily had he not felt she was right. Then Sarah did the only thing allowable under the law; she attempted to discipline Hagar, and return her to the position of a handmaiden….

543. And furthermore, a wrong position of affairs can seldom be put right without suffering to the innocent, or at least without causing more suffering to others than really deserved. The further incidents show this. When Isaac was weaned, a feast was given, at which Sarah saw Hagar’s son “playing.” Some suppose we must understand this to mean “mocking,” and so the A.V. translates (Genesis 21:9). This is not necessary. Sarah was neither angered nor jealous of a rival’s child. Had this been the case, it is impossible that God should have endorsed, as He did, her conduct that day. Sarah had advanced greatly in character by this time, for we are told that “through faith Sarah received strength to conceive seed” (Hebrews 11:11), and this implies no mean state of grace, for a woman barren from youth, and now past ninety. Sarah had become so enlightened that she revolted at any appearance of polygamy in her household, where Isaac was to be brought up,¾for he had been given them to train for a very definite and holy purpose. Such surroundings were neither wholesome for Isaac nor Ishmael.

%d bloggers like this: