Wivu - Makala ya Kitaalamu

Hagar ni mtumishi wa Sarah mke wa Abrahamu katika Biblia.
Anakuwa mama wa Ishmaeli.
Hajatajwa kwa jina katika Qur’an, lakini anajitokeza katika mapokeo ya baadaye ya Kiislamu.

Hagar ni mtu kutoka katika kitabu cha Mwanzo. Anaelezwa kuwa mtumishi wa Misri wa mke wa Abramu, Sarai (ambaye baadaye aliitwa Sara). Sara asipoweza kupata watoto, anampa Hagari kwa Abramu ili aweze kumzalia mtoto kwa niaba yake.

Hagar kisha anajifungua Ishmaeli, mtoto wa kwanza wa Abramu. Hii inamfanya kuwa mtu muhimu katika urithi wa pamoja wa Uyahudi, Ukristo, na Uislamu.

Ingawa Hajiri hakutajwa kwa jina lake katika Qur'ani, anatokea katika mapokeo ya baadaye ya Kiislamu (hadithi) kama mama wa Ismaili. Baadhi ya mapokeo haya pia yanajumuisha maelezo ya ziada, kama vile wazo kwamba huenda alitolewa kwa nyumba ya Ibrahimu wakati wa kukaa kwao Misri.

Katika masimulizi ya Biblia, Hagari ni zaidi ya mtu wa kawaida tu anayetajwa pembezoni. Yeye anakutana moja kwa moja na Mungu na hata anampa jina, jambo linaloangazia umuhimu wake binafsi.

Kwa hiyo wakati Sehemu ya 5 inachochewa zaidi na masimulizi ya kibiblia, vipengele vikuu vya hadithi ya Hagara, hasa jukumu lake kama mama ya Ishmaeli, ni inatambuliwa katika mapokeo yote, hata kama maelezo yanatofautiana.

Hagari alikuwa mjakazi wa Kimisri wa Sarai mke wa Abramu (Mwanzo 16:1). Kwa pendekezo la Sarai, Hagari alikuwa “mke wa pili” wa Abramu ili awe mzao wa kumzalia Abramu mtoto kwa niaba ya Sarai (Mwanzo 16:4). Hagari alimzaa mtoto wa kwanza wa Abramu, Ishmaeli (Mwanzo 16:15). Hagari hatajwi katika Qur’an, lakini ametajwa kama mama wa Ishmaeli na Hadith ya baadaye inayofuata ufafanuzi wa Kiyahudi kuhusu Mwanzo uliodokeza kwamba huenda alikuwa binti ya Farao wa Misri.

Hagari alikuwa mtumishi wa kike Mmisri wa mke wa Abramu, Sarai (Mwanzo 16:1), na huenda alipatikana wakati kambi ya Abramu ilipokaa Misri ili kutoroka njaa (Mwanzo 12:10 & 16). Kama mwanateolojia John Goldingay anavyoonyesha:

Ni kupotosha kufikiria watumishi wa namna hiyo kuwa “watumwa” kwa maana ya Kiuro-Amerika. . . . Katika utamaduni huo. . . . Wewe au familia yako mnaweza kupata wakati mgumu na msiweze tena kujitegemea; hivyo mnaweza kuhitaji kuingia katika utumishi, na kisha mnaweza kununuliwa na bwana mwingine.[73]

Hakuna kitu katika Biblia kinachopendekeza kwamba Hagari alikuwa binti ya Farao, lakini tafsiri za baadaye za Kiyahudi za Mwanzo (zilizokusanywa katika Midrash Rabbah) zinajumuisha dhana kwamba “Hagari alikuwa miongoni mwa zawadi ambazo Farao alimpa Sara baada ya yeye na mumewe kuwa wageni huko Misri. . . . Rabbi mmoja alidhani kwamba Hagari angeweza kuwa binti ya Farao mwenyewe (Mwa. R. 45).”[74] Dhana hii kutoka kwa rabi wa Kiyahudi iliingia katika Hadithi kuhusu Hajiri: “ Hadithi ya Abu Huraira inafuata mkondo unaofanana na mapokeo ya raba ya kwamba Hajar alikuwa mtumwa wa Sara kama zawadi kutoka kwa mfalme ambaye Sara alikaa naye kwa muda kama ‘dada’ ya Abrahamu. . . . (Sahih Bukhari 4.577-578; Sahih Bukhari 7.21).”[75]

Kukutana kwa Hagar na malaika wa Bwana ni simulizi ya kwanza kati ya simulizi kadhaa za “kutangazwa” kuhusu kuzaliwa katika Biblia, na Hagar ndiye mtu pekee katika Agano la Kale anayempa Mungu “jina” (Mwanzo 16:13), jina ambalo Goldingay anal Tafsiri kuwa “Mungu wa kuona”, “ambalo linashughulikia vizuri zote mbili ‘Mungu anayetuona’ na ‘Mungu ninayemwona’.”[76]

Ndiyo, hadithi hiyo inaendana vizuri na desturi za kale zinazojulikana.
Inajumuisha maelezo halisi kama vile mbinu za uzazi wa hiari na mifumo ya kutoa majina.
Pia inaonyesha viongozi wakuu wakiwa na mapungufu, jambo ambalo linaunga mkono ukweli.

Kuna sababu kadhaa zinazowafanya wanazuoni kuona simulizi hii kuwa ya kuaminika kihistoria, hata bila ushahidi wa moja kwa moja wa kiakiolojia.

Kwanza, inajumuisha kile ambacho wanahistoria wanakiita “kizoevu cha aibu” Watu muhimu kama Abramu na Sara wanaonyeshwa wakiwa na mapungufu na maamuzi duni, jambo ambalo haliwezekani kama hadithi hiyo ingebuniwa tu ili kuwatukuza.

Pili, majina yanayotumika katika hadithi hiyo, kama vile Ishmaeli, Isaka, na Yakobo, yanalingana na mifumo ya majina ya kawaida katika mapema katika milenia ya pili KK. Aina hizi za majina zinakuwa nadra sana baadaye, ikionyesha kuwa utamaduni huu unaakisi kipindi halisi cha wakati.

Tatu, hadithi inaenda sambamba na desturi za Mashariki ya Kale ya 3000 KK. Ukodishaji wa tumbo kupitia kwa mtumishi ulikuwa desturi inayojulikana na inayotambulika kisheria, hasa kwa wanandoa waliokuwa wakihangaika na utasa. Sheria za wakati huo, kama vile Kanuni za Hammurabi, hata zinaelezea hali na mivutano inayofanana na hiyo.

Mitazamo ya wahusika, pamoja na mgogoro kati ya Sara na Hagari, pia inaendana vyema na matarajio yanayojulikana ya kiutamaduni na mienendo ya kijamii.

Hatimaye, jiografia iliyotajwa, kama vile barabara ya Shuri kuelekea Misri, ni sahihi na ya kweli.

Ikichukuliwa kwa pamoja, maelezo haya yanapendekeza kwamba hadithi si ya kubahatisha au ya kutungwa, bali iliyo na mizizi ya kina katika mazingira yake ya kihistoria na kitamaduni.

Hadithi ya kuzaliwa kwa Ishmaeli kupitia mama mbadala ina alama kadhaa za kuaminika kihistoria, ikiwa ni pamoja na uwasilishaji wake wa mababu wanaoheshimiwa kama watu wenye kasoro, na matumizi yake sahihi ya desturi za zamani za kupeana majina.

Alama kuu ya uaminifu wa kihistoria ni jinsi masimulizi yanavyowasilisha mababu zao wanaoheshimika kama watu wenye kasoro, jambo ambalo linapita “kigezo cha aibu” cha kihistoria. Ishara nyingine muhimu ya uaminifu wa kihistoria ni ukweli kwamba majina yanayoanza na sauti i/j (herufi ya Kiebrania y), kama vile Ishmaeli, Isaka, Yakobo au Yusufu, “ni za kawaida sana katika maandishi ya kiakiolojia kutoka Mashariki ya Kale ya Karibu ya milenia ya pili KK ya mapema” lakini “hupungua kwa kiasi kikubwa katika mara kwa mara baada ya wakati huo.”[77] Kwa hiyo, ikiwa masimulizi ya Mwanzo hayakuwa ya kuaminika, bali yangebuniwa baadaye (kwa mfano wakati wa uhamisho wa Babeli), matumizi sahihi ya majina hayo katika simulizi yangekuwa yasiyowezekana kabisa.

Simulizi hii inaonyesha uhalisi wa kiutamaduni katika mitazamo ya mhusika wake mkuu kuelekea uzazi wa badala. Katika utamaduni wa Mashariki ya Kati ya Kale, “Ilikuwa ni desturi inayojulikana vyema na kukubalika kwa wanandoa, hasa lakini si pekee wale waliokuwa hawawezi kupata watoto wenyewe, kutumia mzaa-badala, au suria, ili kupata watoto.”[78] Kama mwanateolojia John E. Hartley anavyotoa maoni:

Katika Mashariki ya Kale ya Karibu, utasa ulikuwa aibu kwa mke. . . . Mikataba ya ndoa kutoka Mesopotamia ilikuwa na kipengele kilichomlazimisha mke aliyetokuwa na uwezo wa kupata watoto kumpatia mumewe mjakazi ili apate familia. Katika kujibu shinikizo kubwa la kijamii la kushughulikia utasa wake, Sarai anaweza kuwa alifuata desturi hii.[79]

Cha kufurahisha ni kwamba, sheria katika karne ya 18^th Karne ya K.W.K. Kanuni ya Hammurabi ilisema kwamba mjakazi ambaye alimzalia mtoto bwana wake na kujikweza juu ya mke mkuu alikuwa adhibishwe kwa kushushwa hadi kuwa mtumwa.[80] Aina hii ya misingi ya kiutamaduni inaweza kuonekana katika jibu la Abramu kwa malalamiko ya Sarai kwamba Hagar aliyekua mjamzito alikuwa akimdharau. Hartley anaita jibu la Abramu “uamuzi wa kisheria ambao kwayo alimrudisha Hagar katika hali yake ya zamani kama mtumishi wa kike chini ya mamlaka ya Sarai.”[81] Vyovyote vile, mwitikio wa awali wa Hagari kuwa mjamzito, na jinsi Sarai na Abramu walivyopokea mwitikio wake, unaeleweka kitamaduni (ona Mithali 30:21-23). Kama mwanateolojia Tremper Longman III anavyosema: “Ujauzito wa Hagari unamfanya afanye kosa la msingi katika uhusiano wake na Sarai. Anaamini kwamba ujauzito wake unamfanya kuwa bora zaidi . . .”[82]

Simulizi katika Mwanzo 16 pia linafaulu mtihani wa usahihi wa kijiografia, likitaja “‘barabara ya Shur,’ ambayo ndiyo njia ya kusini kabisa kutoka Kanaani hadi Misri.”[83]

Hapana, Biblia inasifu uzao wa wake wengi lakini haiidhinishi.
Inaakisi utamaduni ambao watu waliishi nao wakati huo.
Bado msimamo unaowasilishwa ni mwanamume mmoja na mwanamke mmoja.

Simulizi ya Biblia inaelezea ndoa ya wake wengi kama kitu ambacho ilitokea, si kitu ambacho ni iliyoamrishwa au iliyoidhinishwa.

Katika Mashariki ya Kale ya Karibu, kuoa wake wengi na mipango ya uzazi wa kimkakati ilikuwa ya kawaida na ilikubaliki kijamii. Abram kumchukua Hagar kunaonyesha mtazamo huu wa kitamaduni badala ya agizo la kiungu.

Wakati huo huo, Biblia inatoa wazi bora ya ndoa mapema katika Mwanzo: mwanamume mmoja na mwanamke mmoja wakawa mwili mmoja (Mwanzo 2:24). Hii inapendekeza kwamba ndoa ya mke mmoja ni mfano uliokusudiwa.

Muhimu zaidi, hadithi yenyewe inaangazia matatizo zinazotokea kutokana na mpangilio huu. Mizozo, wivu, na mvutano kati ya Sara na Hegari ni msingi wa masimulizi haya, jambo ambalo linaashiria kuwa hali hii haionyeshwi kwa mtazamo chanya.

Baadhi ya wanazuoni hata wanabainisha kuwa hadithi hiyo inaenda sambamba na makosa ya awali ya wanadamu, ikiimarisha wazo kwamba hiki ni kosa, si kielelezo cha kufuata.

Kwa hiyo, ingawa Biblia inarekodi uwingi wa wake kama sehemu ya hali halisi ya kihistoria, haiuungi mkono. Badala yake, inaonyesha jinsi maamuzi ya kibinadamu ndani ya kanuni za kitamaduni bado yanaweza kuleta broken relationships and consequences.

This narrative is reporting the actions of people within a cultural context where polygamy was an accepted legal practice, but this doesn’t mean the narrative endorses these actions.

As theologian J. McKeown observes: “in the OT, reflecting the customs of the ancient world, the ideal of monogamy was not always practiced.”[84] God’s intention for marriage to be a monogamous union of one man and one woman is expressed in the story of Adam and Eve (see Genesis 2:24). However, as John C. Lennox explains:

In her desperation for a child [Sarai] suggested to Abram that he take her maidservant Hagar as concubine/wife so that she could perform the duty of a surrogate mother, a practice not uncommon among the customs of the time . . . . Professor of Old Testament R. K. Harrison writes that what Sarai did was “in full accord with the prevailing local customs in northern Mesopotamia”.[85]

Theologian John Goldingay notes that “We learn nothing about Hagar having any say in what happens”[3] with respect to this surrogacy marriage, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t have any say (which may be culturally assumed).[86] Goldingay notes that “a servant girl might regard such a marriage as a great step up in the world in terms of status and economic security.”[87]

The Bible reports many marriages that fall short of God’s ideal, but this does not mean that the Bible endorses these less than ideal marriages. Indeed, as theologian A. E. Steinmann observes: “any reader of Genesis is immediately confronted by the problems in the families of Abraham and Jacob caused by friction among their multiple wives.”[88] Theologian Tremper Longman III points out that: “Sarai’s act of giving Hagar to Abraham is presented in a way parallel to Eve giving the fruit to Adam and by thus connecting the two [the narrative] indicates the negative nature of Sarai’s act . . .”[89]

Concerning polygamy in the Bible, W. G. Williams writes that:

When the people of God’s covenant had advanced further in faith, having more adequately assimilated God’s truth, the practice became taboo. This situation helps us to realize that God does not create cultural practices; people do, and His preferred way of handling such situations is to change people so they will then change cultural practices. Sometimes that may be the best way to permanent learning.[90]

Scholars disagree on this.
It may be God appearing directly or a messenger speaking for Him.
Either way, Hagar encounters God’s care and receives His message.

The identity of “the angel of the Lord” is debated among scholars.

Some understand this figure as a direct appearance of God (a theophany), or even as a special manifestation of God in visible form. In these cases, the angel is not separate from God, but a way God reveals Himself.

Others see the angel as a messenger representing God, speaking in the first person because he carries God’s authority. This was a known practice in the ancient Near East, where messengers could speak as if they were the sender.

In Hagar’s story, both interpretations fit the text. The angel speaks with divine authority, and Hagar responds as if she has encountered God Himself.

What is clear, regardless of interpretation, is the message: God sees Hagar, cares for her, and makes promises about her child.

So whether Hagar spoke directly with God or through His messenger, the encounter shows that God is personally attentive even to those on the margins.

Wachambuzi hawakubaliani kuhusu jibu la swali hili. Vyovyote vile, Mungu anafunua utunzaji wake kwa Hagar na anampa ujumbe ule ule.

Commentators disagree about how best to interpret the Old Testament figure of “the angel of the Lord.” On the one hand, many commentators see “the angel of the Lord” as a re-occurring mwonekano wa Mungu (i.e. a divinely caused audio and/or visual “display to human beings that expresses the presence and character of God”[92]); or even an appearance of the second person of the Trinity (a so-called Kristofania[93]). On the other hand, it is possible that this angel is a messenger from God who speaks God’s words in the first person because they are acting as God’s official representative/ambassador. As theologian John H. Walton points out: “in Ugaritic literature, when Baal sends messengers to Mot, the messengers use first person forms of speech.”[94] Vyovyote vile, Hagari alikuwa na mkutano wa pekee sana ambapo Mungu alionyesha upendo na utunzaji Wake kwa Hagari na kwa mtoto wake ambaye hajazaliwa, na ambapo alipokea ujumbe ule ule wa kimungu.

God meets Hagar in her distress and redirects her to safety.
He promises her protection and many descendants.
It shows that God sees and cares for the overlooked.

The meeting between Hagar and the angel of the Lord highlights a key theme: God sees and cares for those in distress, even outsiders.

Hagar is fleeing a difficult situation and heading into the desert, likely toward Egypt. This would have been dangerous, especially for a pregnant woman alone. The angel redirects her back, not to endorse her mistreatment, but because returning offers protection and survival.

At the same time, God gives her a promise: she will bear a son, and her descendants will become numerous. The name “Ishmael” means “God hears,” emphasizing that God has heard her suffering.

Some scholars note that her story mirrors Israel’s later experience in Egypt, reinforcing a broader pattern of oppression and deliverance.

So the meaning of this moment is not just guidance, but revelation: God is not distant or selective in His care, but actively attentive to the vulnerable, guiding, protecting, and promising a future even in difficult circumstances.

The angel of the Lord turns Hagar back from a desperate and dangerous attempt to return to Egypt via the dessert caravan route. The angel encourages Hagar to make the first move to heal her broken relationship with Sarai, and assures her that returning to Abram’s company means she will give birth to her son in safety and will be blessed with many descendants.

The fact that “the angel of the Lord” (Genesis 16:7) visits Hagar, and is the only character in the narrative to use her name, shows that “God is concerned about oppression no matter who suffers it. A downtrodden foreigner has God’s attention as much as a parent of the chosen Israelites.”[95] Theologian A.E. Steinmann notes that Sarai’s mistreatment of Hagar and Hagar’s subsequent fight from her is a mirror image of Israel’s later exodus from Egypt:

Here the Hebrew mistreats the Egyptian and the Egyptian flees. In the exodus the Egyptians mistreat the Hebrews and the Hebrews flee. The words for mistreat and flee used in verse 6 are used in Exodus to describe Israel’s situation (Exod. 1:12; 14:5; 22:21; 23:9).[96]

The content of the angel of the Lord’s message for Hagar also shows God’s concern for her and for her unborn son. As theologian J. McKeown explains:

Hagar is told by the angel to return to Sarai and submit to her. This is wise advice. When the angel meets Hagar she is on her way to Shur, which was on the caravan route to Egypt. Apparently, she is attempting to return to her native land, but it was an impossible journey for a pregnant woman on her own. Therefore the angel sends her back to the family of Abram and Sarai, where she . . . will receive protection until the baby is born. The angel’s instruction to return to Sarai does not condone the harsh treatment meted out to the Egyptian but is in Hagar’s best interests.[97]

Indeed, God’s concern for Hagar and her unborn child is expressed in the angel of the Lord’s instruction that she should name her child “Ishmael,” since this name means “God hears”[98] and thus indicates that “the LORD has heard your cry of affliction.” (Genesis 16:11, CSB.)

As theologian John Goldingay suggests: “it is better to be a foreigner in this family through which Yahweh is at work than to be at home in Egypt . . .”[99] Hence, as theologian Tremper Longman III observes: “God asks Hagar to endure in a hard situation for his purposes, but also to bless her and her future son.”[100] Indeed, as Longman explains:

The angel of the Lord then tells her to return and submit to Sarai. This command is not necessarily a requirement to go back to an abusive relationship. Since the abuse was because Hagar lorded it over Sarai, the hope was that the former’s submission to the latter would also alleviate the abuse. But even further her return would be rewarded with a blessing that she (like Sarai) would have innumerable descendants. Further, God delivers an oracle concerning her and her future offspring (vv. 11 – 12). She will give birth to a son, and he will be called Ishmael. This name is formed from the root “to hear” and is explained as referring to God who has heard of Hagar’s misery.[101]

The angel of the Lord’s oracle concerning Ishmael may not sound particularly comforting to modern ears, but as Dennis Prager observes: “Hagar was probably pleased to learn that she . . . would give birth to a strong, virile man who would fight others and emerge victorious enough to father many descendants.”[102] As the famous nineteenth century German Bible commentators Karl Keil and Franz Delitzsch observed: “in contrast with the oppression which has had endured and still would endure, she received the promise that her son would endure no such oppression.”[103] Theologian John Goldingay suggests that the description of Ishmael as:

not someone you can mess with . . . like the wild donkeys of the wilderness. . . . as aggressive and determined may suggest that he will be a true son of his father, as Abraham was portrayed in Gen. 14.[104]

While the second half of Genesis 16:12 can be translated as a prophecy that Ishmael “will live in hostility toward all his brothers” (NIV), other translators offer a meaning like “he will settle near all his relatives” (CSB) or “He will live apart from all his relatives.” (GNB.) Theologians David J. Zucher and Rebecca Gates Brinton write that Genesis 16:12 “hardly suggests a relationship of continuous conflict.”[105] Moreover, theologian John E. Hartley points out that “There are no records of any conflict between the descendants of Ishmael and the children of Israel . . . [King] David’s administrators include Obil the Ishmaelite . . . and his sister married an Ishmaelite (1 Chron. 2:13-17).”[106]

Hagar names God the “God of seeing” (Genesis 16:13), and as Longman explains: “God’s seeing implies his care here. He is not simply observing her from afar, but taking action in order to save her.”[107] Hartley notes that the fact that Abram is recorded as giving Ishmael his name after he is born: “meant he received the boy as his own with all the privileges that attended such a position.”[108]