Envy - Scholarly Article

Hagar is a servant of Abraham’s wife Sarah in the Bible.
She becomes the mother of Ishmael.
She is not named in the Qur’an, but appears in later Islamic tradition.

Hagar is a figure from the book of Genesis. She is described as an Egyptian servant of Abram’s wife, Sarai (later called Sarah). When Sarah is unable to have children, she gives Hagar to Abram so that she can bear a child on her behalf.

Hagar then gives birth to Ishmael, Abram’s first son. This makes her an important figure in the shared heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Although Hagar is not mentioned by name in the Qur’an, she appears in later Islamic tradition (hadith) as the mother of Ishmael. Some of these traditions also include additional details, such as the idea that she may have been given to Abraham’s household during their time in Egypt.

In the biblical account, Hagar is more than just a background character. She has a direct encounter with God and even gives Him a name, highlighting her personal significance.

So while Episode 5 draws primarily from the biblical narrative, the core elements of Hagar’s story, especially her role as Ishmael’s mother, are recognized across traditions, even if the details differ.

Hagar was the Egyptian maidservant to Abram’s wife Sarai (Genesis 16:1). At Sarai’s suggestion, Hagar became Abram’s “second wife” in order to be a surrogate to bear a child for Abram on Sarai’s behalf (Genesis 16:4). Hagar gave birth to Abram’s first son, Ishmael (Genesis 16:15). Hagar isn’t mentioned in the Qur’an, but is mentioned as the mother of Ishmael by a later Hadith that follows a Jewish commentary on Genesis that suggested she might have been a daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh.

Hagar was the Egyptian maidservant to Abram’s wife Sarai (Genesis 16:1), and had likely been obtained when Abram’s company stayed in Egypt in order to escape a famine (Genesis 12:10 & 16). As theologian John Goldingay points out:

It is misleading to think of such servants as “slaves” in the Euro-American sense. . . . In that culture. . . . You or your family might hit hard times and no longer be able to survive independently; thus you might need to enter service, and you might then be bought by a different master.[73]

Nothing in the Bible suggests that Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh, but later Jewish interpretations of Genesis (collected in the Midrash Rabbah) include speculation that “Hagar was among the gifts Pharaoh gave to Sarah after when she and her husband had been sojourning in Egypt. . . . One rabbi speculated that Hagar might be a daughter of Pharaoh himself (Gen. R. 45).”[74] This speculation from a Jewish rabbi worked its way into the Hadith about Hagar: “The hadith of Abu Huraira follows a similar line to the rabbinical tradition that Hagar (Hajar) became Sarah's slave as a gift from the king with whom Sarah stayed temporarily as Abraham's ‘sister.’ . . . (Sahih Bukhari 4.577-578; Sahih Bukhari 7.21).”[75]

Hagar’s encounter with the angel of the Lord is the first of several “annunciation” narratives concerning births in the Bible, and Hagar is the only person in the Old Testament to “name” God (Genesis 16:13), a name Goldingay translates as “God of seeing”, “which nicely covers both ‘God who sees’ and ‘God whom I see’.”[76]

Yes, the story fits well with known ancient customs.
It includes realistic details like surrogacy practices and naming patterns.
It also portrays key figures with flaws, which supports authenticity.

There are several reasons scholars see this narrative as historically credible, even without direct archaeological proof.

First, it includes what historians call the “criterion of embarrassment.” Key figures like Abram and Sarah are portrayed with flaws and poor decisions, which is unlikely if the story were invented simply to glorify them.

Second, the names used in the story, such as Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob, match naming patterns common in the early second millennium B.C. These types of names become much less common later, suggesting the tradition reflects an authentic time period.

Third, the story aligns closely with ancient Near Eastern customs. Surrogacy through a servant was a known and legally recognized practice, especially for couples struggling with infertility. Laws from the time, like the Code of Hammurabi, even describe similar situations and tensions.

The reactions of the characters, including conflict between Sarah and Hagar, also fit well with known cultural expectations and social dynamics.

Finally, the geography mentioned, such as the road to Shur toward Egypt, is accurate and realistic.

Taken together, these details suggest the narrative is not random or invented, but deeply rooted in its historical and cultural setting.

The story of Ismael’s birth by surrogacy bears several hallmarks of historical reliability, including its presentation of revered ancestral protagonists as flawed people, and its accurate use of ancient naming practices.

A major hallmark of historical reliability is the account’s presentation of its revered ancestral protagonists as flawed people, something that passes the historical “criteria of embarrassment.” Another important indication of historical reliability is that fact that names beginning with the sound i/j (the Hebrew letter y), like Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph, “are extremely common in archaeological texts from the ancient near east of the early second millennium B.C.” but “diminish in frequency sharply after that time.”[77] Consequently, if the Genesis accounts were not reliable, but had been invented at a later date (e.g. during the Babylonian exile), the narrative’s accurate use of such names would be very unlikely.

The narrative displays a cultural verisimilitude in its protagonist’s attitudes towards surrogate motherhood. In the culture of the Ancient Near East “It was a well-known and accepted practice of couples, particularly but not exclusively those that were unable to produce children on their own, to use a surrogate, or concubine, to produce children.”[78] As theologian John E. Hartley comments:

In the ancient Near East barrenness was a disgrace for a wife. . . . Marriage contracts from Mesopotamia had a clause that obligated an infertile wife to provide her husband a surrogate so that he might have a family. In responding to the great social pressure on her to deal with her barrenness, Sarai might have been following this custom.[79]

Interestingly, a law in the 18^th century B.C.E. Code of Hammurabi stated that a maid who bears a child for her lord and elevates herself above the head wife was on that account to be punished by being lowered to the status of a slave.[80] This sort of cultural background may be reflected in Abram’s response to Sarai’s complaint that the pregnant Hagar was looking down on her. Hartley calls Abram’s response “a legal pronouncement by which he returned Hagar to her former status as a maidservant under Sarai’s authority.”[81] In any case, Hagar’s initial response to becoming pregnant, and the reactions of Sarai and Abram to her response, are culturally plausible (see Proverbs 30:21-23). As theologian Tremper Longman III comments: “Hagar’s pregnancy leads her to make a fundamental mistake in her relationship with Sarai. She believes her pregnancy makes her superior . . .”[82]

The account in Genesis 16 also passes the test of geographical verisimilitude, mentioning “the ‘road of Shur,’ which is the southernmost route from Canaan to Egypt.”[83]

No, the Bible reports polygamy but does not endorse it.
It reflects the culture people lived in at the time.
The ideal presented is still one man and one woman.

The biblical narrative describes polygamy as something that happened, not something that is commanded or approved.

In the ancient Near East, polygamy and surrogate arrangements were common and socially accepted. Abram taking Hagar reflects this cultural context rather than a divine instruction.

At the same time, the Bible presents a clear ideal of marriage earlier in Genesis: one man and one woman becoming one (Genesis 2:24). This suggests that monogamy is the intended pattern.

Importantly, the story itself highlights the problems that arise from this arrangement. Conflict, jealousy, and tension between Sarah and Hagar are central to the narrative, which signals that this situation is not being portrayed positively.

Some scholars even note that the story parallels earlier human failures, reinforcing the idea that this is a misstep, not a model to follow.

So while the Bible records polygamy as part of real historical situations, it does not endorse it. Instead, it shows how human choices within cultural norms can still lead to 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.

Commentators disagree about the answer to this question. Either way, God reveals His care for Hagar and gives her the same message.

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 theophany (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 Christophany[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] Either way, Hagar had a very special encounter in which God revealed His care for Hagar and for her unborn child, and in which she received the same divine message.

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]