“Therefore Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne no children, but she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar. She said to her husband, "Behold, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children, so go into my maidservant; perhaps I shall obtain children by her." And when he agreed to her request, she took Hagar the Egyptian maidservant after ten years of dwelling in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband as a wife. He went in to her, and when she saw that she had conceived, she despised her mistress, etc. The Apostle to the Galatians has fully discussed how Hagar and Ishmael symbolize the Synagogue and the Old Testament, while Sara and her son Isaac symbolize the Church and the New Testament. As for the matter in question, it is not to be inferred at all that this concubine's relationship implies a crime on Abraham's part, for he used her to produce offspring, not to fulfill lust; nor did he act insultingly, but rather in obedience to his wife, who believed that the fertile womb of the maidservant would provide comfort for her own barrenness, an act that nature could not accomplish but will made her own; and that right which the Apostle states: "Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Corinthians 7:4), the wife could make use of another for bearing children when she could not do so herself. Lastly, when the pregnant maidservant became haughty towards her barren mistress, and Sarai, in womanly suspicion, blamed her husband, Abram demonstrated that he had been not a lover, but a willing progenitor, preserving modesty with Hagar and fulfilling his wife's will rather than his own. He said, "Behold, your maidservant is in your hand, use her as you see fit."”

“Some might still be struck by the fact that Abraham had a relationship with his slave girl when he was already conversing with God, as it is written: "Sarah said to Abraham, 'See now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my maid to make children from her.' " And this is exactly what happened. But we should consider first of all that Abraham lived prior to the law of Moses and before the gospel; adultery, it seems, was not yet prohibited at this time. The penalty for the crime goes back only to the time of the law, which made adultery a crime. So there is no condemnation for the offense that precedes the law but only one based on the law. Abraham then cannot be said to have violated the law since he came before the law. Though in paradise God had praised marriage, he had not condemned adultery. In fact, he does not wish the death of sinners, and for this reason he promises the reward without exacting the penalty. Indeed, God prefers to stimulate with mild proddings than to terrify with severe threats. If you too sinned, when you were a pagan, you have an excuse. But now you have come to the church and have heard the law, "You shall not commit adultery," you no longer have an excuse for the offense. However, since this discourse is directed also to those who are inscribed to receive the grace of baptism, if anyone has committed such a grave sin, let him be sure that he will be pardoned, but as one who has committed an offense. Let him know, however, that for the future he is obliged to abstain. Indeed, in the case of the adulterous woman spoken of in the Gospel, whom the scribes and Pharisees presented to the Lord, the Lord forgave her former sins but said, "Go, and from now on be careful not to sin any more." In saying this to her, he says it to you. You have committed adultery as a pagan; you have sinned as a catechumen. The sin is forgiven you, remitted through baptism; go, and in the future, see that you do not sin. Such is the first defense of Abraham.”

“The apostle saw in these women the type of the two covenants, in accordance with the rule of allegory, but since what the text narrates actually took place, the literal sense also deserves consideration. The saints entered the married life not to pursue pleasure but for the sake of children. There is in fact a tradition that says they would go with their wives only when the time was suitable for conception. They would not go with them during the lactation period, when they were nursing their young, or when they were with child, because they regarded neither of these times as suitable for coming together.…When Sarah, therefore, who was wise and holy, had observed for a long time that in spite of coming together with her husband she was not conceiving, she abstained from conjugal relations, and since she knew that it was in the order of things that he should have children, she gave him her slave girl as a concubine. This shows the moderation (sophrosyne) and the absence of jealousy of Sarah and the passionlessness (apatheia) of Abraham, who chose this solution at his wife's instigation and not on his own initiative and who yielded to her request only in order to give birth to children. The literal sense too, then, is useful according to the considerations offered above.”

“(Chapter 16, Verse 2) Behold, the Lord has made me barren, so go in to my maidservant; perhaps I shall obtain children by her. Take careful note that the procreation of children is written in Hebrew as building. For it is read there: Go in to my maidservant, that I may perhaps build through her. And see, lest perhaps this is what is said in Exodus: God blessed the midwives, and they built houses for themselves (Exodus 1:20).”

“אולי אבנה ממנה IT MAY BE THAT I SHALL BE BUILDED UP THROUGH HER — This statement of Sarah teaches that a person who has no children is not firmly established (literally, built up: his name and future are not perpetuated) but is unstable (lit, demolished) (Genesis Rabbah 45:2). אבנה ממנה I SHALL BE BUILDED UP THROUGH HER— through the merit that I admit her as a rival into my house. לקול שרי TO THE VOICE OF SARAI— to the Holy (prophetic) Spirit that was in her (Genesis Rabbah 45:2).”

“AND ABRAM HEARKENED TO THE VOICE OF SARAI. Scripture does not state, “And he did so.” Rather it says that he hearkened to the voice of Sarai, thus indicating that even though Abram was very desirous of having children, he did not do so without permission of Sarai. Even now it was not his intention to build up a family from Hagar, and that his children be from her. His intent was merely to do Sarai’s will so that she may build a family from Hagar for she will find satisfaction in her handmaid’s children, or that by the merit of this act she will become worthy to have children, as our Rabbis have said. Scripture further says, And Sarai took, to inform us that Abram did not hurry the matter until Sarai took Hagar and gave her to him. Again, Scripture mentions Sarai Abram’s wife… to Abram her husband, to allude that Sarah did not despair of Abraham and that she did not render herself distant from him as she was his wife and he her husband, but she wanted that Hagar also be his wife. This is why the verse states, And she gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife, meaning that she was not to be as a concubine but as a woman married to him. All this reflects the ethical conduct of Sarah and her respect towards her husband.”

“It was not because he was ablaze with the heat of some unbridled passion, not because he was overcome by the charm of seductive beauty that Abraham gave preference to a relationship with a slave girl over the conjugal bed, but through a desire to procure a posterity and to enlarge his progeny. After the flood the human race was still numerically sparse. Hence it was also a matter of moral obligation that no one be seen to have failed to render the debt to nature. For this reason, even the children of holy Lot were inspired by this motive to procure a posterity for themselves so that the human race would not become extinct. Thus the merit of having done one's duty to society excused individual guilt. And it is not without significance that the wife is presented as the instigator of the deed. In [a] sense [this] exculpates her husband, so that no one could believe that he was carried away by some mad perversion. At the same time … women might learn to love their husbands, not to allow themselves to be tormented by empty suspicions of infidelity and not to dislike their stepchildren, when they themselves have been childless. That wonderful wife desired only that her husband forgive her sterility, and, wishing to avoid being herself the reason for her husband's not having children, she persuades him to go in to the slave girl. Later on, Leah and Rachel did the same thing. Learn, O woman, to put aside jealousy, which often drives women to madness.”

“As we said above, it is a most authentic proof of moderation (sophrosyne) that Sarah gives in offering her slave girl to Abraham without a hint of jealousy, after she had observed that in ten months' time she had not conceived. And we have acknowledged too the passionlessness (apatheia) of the wise man, in that his clear purpose in yielding to his wife's request was to have children.The anagogical [mystical] sense has already been expounded. It is in accordance with its goal that virtue asks us to first make use of the introductory sciences so as to first have children by them. This does not prevent the works of preparatory education from being themselves children of virtue, since they are engaged for the sake of virtue. By employing these, it was not long before the wise man effected a conception, for progress is spontaneous for the wise man.”

“ותקח שרי AND (SARAI TOOK [HAGAR] — She took (won her over) by kindly speech saying, “Happy are you in that you will be privileged to consort with so holy a person as this” (Genesis Rabbah 45:3). מקץ עשר שנים AFTER [ABRAM HAD DWELT] TEN YEARS — the period appointed for a woman who has lived with her husband for ten years without having borne children to him when he is bound to take another. 'לשבת אברם וגו [TEN YEARS] AFTER ABRAHAM HAD DWELT IN THE LAND OF CANAAN — As Abraham had been married to Sarah before he entered Canaan this statement virtually informs us that the period he dwelt outside the land was not to be included in the number of these ten years (Yevamot 64a), for the promise, “And I will make of thee a great nation” was made to him with the intention of being fulfilled only after he had come into the land of Israel.”

“AT THE END OF TEN YEARS. This is the established period for a woman who has lived with her husband for ten years without having given birth to children, after which he is bound to take another. AFTER ABRAM DWELLED IN THE LAND OF CANAAN. This tells us that the period he dwelled outside of the Land is not to be included in the count of those ten years since he was not told And I will make of thee a great nation until after he had come to the land of Israel. Thus the language of Rashi. This reason is not proper since it is a clear-cut halachic decision that the time spent living outside the Land is not to be included in the ten year period for any person in the world., was made to Abraham after he had come to the Land of Israel?” This language would make it appear that only in Abraham’s case was the time spent living outside the Land excluded from the ten year period, when it really applies to everyone. The Mishnah containing this principle applies to all men. And if it were as Rashi stated it, i.e., on account of this promise made to Abram, then for other people [the years they dwelled outside the land of Israel] should be included in the ten years period! Some Talmudic commentators have already made another mistake concerning this rule, stating that the law does not require a person who dwells outside the Land to divorce a woman with whom he has lived for ten years without her giving birth, nor does the law require him to marry another woman. But the matter is not so. Rather, the intent [of the law which excludes the period one dwells outside the land of Israel from the ten year total] is that if a man lived with his wife for five or ten years outside the Land and then they came to the land of Israel, we give them a period of ten years from the time they came to the Land, for perhaps due to the merit of the Land they will build up a family. And thus did Abraham and Sarah our mother do from the time they came there.”

“ויבא אל הגר ותהר AND HE CAME UNTO HAGAR AND SHE CONCEIVED from the first union (Genesis Rabbah 45:4). ותקל גברתה בעיניה HER MISTRESS WAS SLIGHTED IN HER EYES — She said, “As regards this woman Sarai, her conduct in private can certainly not be like that in public: she pretends to be a righteous woman, but she cannot really be righteous since all these years she has not been privileged to have children, whilst I have had that blessing from the first union” (Genesis Rabbah 45:4).”

“The words ek sou can be understood in two ways: either "by you" or "from the time that." The interpretation "by you" gives the following sense: When one who has engaged the preparatory exercises in view of virtue and perfect wisdom [the promise of faith] remains at that preparatory level [that is, the relation with Hagar], in a sense he wrongs virtue, because he has not properly employed what comes before it. But the translation "from the time that" also yields the same sense, the only difference being the one already mentioned, because in this case too virtue is wronged by one who is eager to have children from the preliminary exercises alone and who makes of this level of child bearing a kind of end in itself.”

“חמסי עליך MY WRONG BE UPON THEE — The wrong done to me (חמסי)— the punishment for it I call down on you (עליך). “When you prayed to the Holy One, blessed be He, (15:2) ‘what wilt Thou give me, seeing that I go childless’, you prayed only on behalf of yourself whereas you should have prayed on behalf of both of us — then would I have been borne in mind (by God) together with you” (i.e. when you had the gift of a child it would have been “my” child also — not that of a strange woman). Besides this, you deprive me (חומס) of your protecting words since you hear how I am despised and yet you keep silent (Genesis Rabbah 45:5). 'אנכי נתתי שפחתי וגו ביני וביניך I HAVE GIVEN MY HANDMAID etc… [MAY THE LORD JUDGE] BETWEEN ME AND THEE — Wherever this word “between thee” (masc.) occurs in Scripture it is written defective (i.e. without the second yod) whilst here it is written plene, therefore read it as וּבֵינָיִךְ (the fem form that corresponds to ביניך in our text — as though Sarah turned to Hagar saying “May God judge between me and thee”). Thus she cast the evil eye on Hagar so that she miscarried on this occasion. This explains what the angel said to Hagar, (16:11) הנך הרה “behold, thou wilt conceive”; but had she not already conceived and yet he announces to her that she would conceive? This therefore informs us that she miscarried in this, her first conception (cf. verse 11) (Genesis Rabbah 45:5).”

“In the literal sense, this statement introduces the beginner to the passionlessness (apatheia) of the patriarch, who had received the slave girl from his wife without looking for pleasure and who now yields to his wife and withdraws in accordance with her wishes. As for the spiritual sense, the zealous man, even if he is still at the introductory level, since he is not altogether a stranger to virtue, receives with pleasure her reproaches and thus more rapidly abandons the petty things. As one who submits to her, he follows her directions in the use of the preparatory exercises and allows her to control them. Since he is desirous to make virtue the goal of all his words, actions and thoughts, he willingly accepts any corrections that come from her.”

“And here follow the times of Abraham's sons, the one by Hagar the bondmaid, the other by Sarah the free woman, about whom we have already spoken in the previous book. As regards this transaction, Abraham is in no way to be branded as guilty concerning this concubine. For he dealt with her for the begetting of progeny, not for the gratification of lust, and not to insult but rather to obey his wife, who supposed it would be solace of her barrenness if she could make use of the fruitful womb of her handmaid to supply the defect of her own nature. By that law of which the apostle says, "Likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife," Sarah could, as a wife, do benefit to him through childbearing by another, when she could not do so in her own person. Here there is no wanton lust, no crude lewdness. The handmaid is delivered to the husband by the wife for the sake of progeny and is received by the husband for the sake of progeny, each seeking not guilty excess but natural fruit. Then the pregnant bondwoman despised her barren mistress, and Sarah, with womanly jealousy, rather laid the blame of this on her husband. Yet even then Abraham showed that he was not a slavish lover but a free begetter of children and that in using Hagar he had guarded the chastity of Sarah his wife and had gratified her will and not his own. He had received her without seeking her, gone in to her without being attached, impregnated without loving her. For he says, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please." Here is a man able to treat different women as they require—his wife temperately, his handmaid compliantly, neither intemperately!”

“AND SARAI DEALT HARSHLY WITH HER, AND SHE FLED FROM BEFORE HER FACE. Our mother did transgress by this affliction, and Abraham also by his permitting her to do so. And so, G-d heard her [Hagar’s] affliction and gave her a son who would be a wild-ass of a man, to afflict the seed of Abraham and Sarah with all kinds of affliction.”

“It is well too that Hagar was found "by a spring of water," for beginners find themselves engaged in purifications, which are signified by water. By contrast, those who are more fully matured come into a desert place, no longer needing purifications, having already rid themselves of vices and having been endowed with virtue.”

“And when the angel found her by the spring of water in the wilderness on the road to Shur, he said to her, "Hagar, maidservant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" Consequently, the Egyptian on the road to Shur, which leads through the desert to Egypt, was hastening. For the desert of Shur stretches up to the Red Sea, which reaches the borders of Egypt.”

“From this text one gains insight into the virtue of Hagar as well, and one becomes aware that she is a woman not to be despised since an angel converses with her and shows concern for her that is hardly superficial, for it is evidently by the will of God that [the angel speaks]. It is not at all improbable that Hagar was a person of zeal, because she was chosen by the holy woman Sarah to sleep with Abraham. Her nobility of soul is likewise shown by the fact that she says, "I am fleeing from my mistress, Sarah," without saying anything bad about her. We earlier had hypothesized that Sarah represented virtue and a spiritual understanding of the Scriptures but that Hagar represented the introductory knowledge and the shadow. One who approaches the divine teaching should listen to Scripture in such a way as to understand it first according to the letter, while grasping its spirit gradually and in due order.Sarah's child therefore requires an introductory course so that by this means he might reach the more perfect things. Similarly it would be said of the Israelites that they were "the first to whom the oracles of God were entrusted," which were given to them "until the time of correction." No one, in fact, who remains trapped in the letter and at the introductory level can claim Wisdom itself. If then lovers of Wisdom, who make use of what belongs to the introductory level, should remain there, they are in a sense despising virtue, but if they return to better sentiments, they put aside the introductory method so that it makes a kind of flight. For once progress has arrived, the earlier things pass away. That which has been the possession of Hagar the Egyptian is transcended. It is to earthly examples that the introductory teaching appeals for support.… The angel then, having found her fleeing because of the greatness of virtue, makes her retrace her steps. The word of the Master indeed causes even what belongs to the introductory exercises to redound to virtue.… The virtuous one must in fact know the principles and the goal, while the one who is still at the introductory stage often remains at this level under the pretext that virtue is too high. He flees, as it were, the effort required by perfection. This is what is revealed in the statement "I am fleeing from Sarah, my mistress."”

“The literal sense is clear enough. From the point of view of allegory, it is suggested that even in the case of one who has done a purposeless act that he believes to be obligatory for those who revere the shadow of the law and who is in a sense fleeing from its spiritual sense, the Word of the Master brings him back to the original divine intention. And in fact the Lord gradually made it clear that the things in Scripture that were of the shadow would cease to be, when he says, "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?" and "Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High."11It is a great thing then to be "under the hands" of the spiritual doctrine, referred to as "mistress," and to be "humble under her hands"; not that the slave girl is of lowly estate in herself, but only with respect to the mistress. For in this matter what is glorified is not really glorified at all, because its glory is transcendent.”

“As in concrete image, we see here foreshadowed the fact that once the Emmanuel has appeared and his mystery has been shown to the world, the types of the Mosaic cult necessarily disappear, giving way to the evangelical teachings, the better and more perfect precepts. Of what image am I speaking? Because Sarah had not had children, Hagar, after having given birth to Ishmael, began to show arrogant contempt for her owner, the free woman. Sarah was unable to bear that arrogance and began also to mistreat the Egyptian woman. The latter fled from the house and lost her way in the desert. An angel from heaven asked her where she was going and where she had come from. She replied, "I am fleeing from my mistress, Sarah." And the holy angel replied, "Return to your mistress, and humble yourself under her hands." She was ordered then, by the voice of the angel, not to depart from the free woman—from instruction, that is, which summons to the dignity of free persons—and to humble herself instead under the free woman's hands. The cult according to the law, in fact, which takes place through images and types, is as it were the servant of evangelical teachings. In it, obscurely, the beauty of the truth is revealed. At this point in time, the law, which was once established by Moses through the ministry of angels, receives an order from the voice of an angel to bend the neck to the evangelical oracles and to bow and yield, even if unwillingly, to the free woman. This, I maintain, is the spiritual interpretation of Hagar's imposed submission to the rule of Sarah. We should remember, moreover, that even the venerable Paul sees Hagar and Sarah as prefiguring the two Testaments: "One, who bears children for slavery, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem," and the other—Sarah—who bears for the dignity of the free.”

“It is not implausible that one who is living the life of a beginner should also be judged worthy of a blessing, for, if his progress continues toward the appropriate goal, he will arrive at perfection. But notice that when the text was talking about virtue—for it is from virtue that the true seed of Abraham comes—after God had led him outside and said to him, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars if you can count them," he had added, "So shall your descendants be." But notice that in the case of Hagar it is not said, "Your descendants will be like the stars," but only "They will not be able to be numbered for their multitude." Can you not conclude from this a difference: that the progeny of that which is perfect is luminous and that which pertains to the introductory level is not?”

“At that time, giving birth to children was regarded as a matter of great importance in view of the multiplication of human beings, as we have explained—this, moreover, at a time when virginity and the teaching on virtue did not yet have much credibility. This is why even prayers were said for conception and they counted such a thing as giving birth among the blessings. So much for the literal explanation. As for the spiritual sense, it could be this: One who has begun to be educated according to God and who is at the introductory stage is like one in a gestation period. The Master's word, however, makes him the promise that he will give birth, for masters who teach are often perspicacious when they see the efforts of their disciples and they acknowledge too their natural gifts. That the fruit of the womb is uncertain one can learn from a Gospel saying, when the Savior remarks, "Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!" Such situations in fact are precarious when a trial comes along. This is why, wishing to wean those who are in this situation, the Word says, "Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast, affliction upon affliction, hope upon hope," for, as people who are henceforth on a solid diet, they receive affliction upon affliction. But there are imperfect people of whom Paul writes, "I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready."”

“Behold, he said, you have conceived and will bear a son, and you shall call his name Ishmael. Ishmael means God hears, and the reason for the name is explained when it is immediately added: because the Lord has heard your affliction. It is to be noted, however, that he was the first to receive a name from the Lord before he was born, and Isaac the second, clearly for a certain mystery, because both the Old Testament, which is signified in Ishmael, and the New, which is in Isaac, were heirs foreknown in divine election before the ages.”

“הנך הרה BEHOLD THOU WILT BE WITH CHILD — when you return you will conceive, just as the same phrase הנך הרה (Judges 13:7) spoken of the wife of Manoah (where it certainly appears to be thou wilt conceive in the future). וְיֹלַדְתְּ בן AND THOU SHALT BEAR A SON — The word appears to be grammatically a combination of the perfect tense וְיָלַדְתְּ and the participle וְיֹלֶדֶת but it is similar in sense to וְיֹלֶדֶת (the participle); so, also, (Jeremiah 22:23) “O thou that dwellest יֹשַׁבְתְּ) in Lebanon, and art nestled (מְקֻנַּנְתְּ) in the cedars.” וקראת שמו AND THOU SHALT CALL — This is a command, just as one would say to a man (וְקָרָאתָ), as (Genesis 17:19) “And thou shalt call his name Isaac”.”

“AND THOU SHALT CALL HIS NAME ISHMAEL. The angel informed Hagar that his name will be Ishmael — just as in the verse, Behold, a son shall be born unto the house of David Josiah by name — and he told her that she should so call him, and thus remember that G-d heard her affliction. (G-d heareth) is, as the angel explained to Hagar, “because the Eternal hath heard thy affliction.” (Verse 11.) Now Abraham either called him by this name on his own,. with the intent that G-d hear him and answer him, or the Holy Spirit rested upon him, as Rashi has it, and he called him Ishmael because G-d had heard his mother’s affliction, as the angel had said. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the angel commanded Hagar that she call him so, but she, being a concubine, was afraid to give a name to her master’s son, so she revealed the matter to him, and Abram fulfilled the word of G-d. Scripture, however, did not need to delve at length into this matter.”

“There are a number of differences that distinguish a man who is studious, sophisticated and urbane from a man who is none of these things. We say then of this latter type that by comparison with one who is a city person and a man of science, he is a simpleton, a rustic or "man of the country," and that by comparison with an educated and cultivated individual, he is uneducated or at least of low education. The fruit engendered by virtue is a style of life conformed to laws. So the person who does not live as a citizen according to the laws of the "city of the living God," of the heavenly city, is a man of the country. For, since he is not able to live up to the constitution of this city, he lives in the country and not yet in the city. And it is well that the text says not only that he is "of the country" but also that he is "a man," for a share in the Word of God is not yet given to one who is just beginning. This will not happen until he has made some progress—for those whom Scripture called "godly" are those into whom the Word of God has entered. It is then that he will be a citizen of the heavenly city. Appropriately of such people, in fact, the wise Paul writes these words in the epistle to the Hebrews: "To the mountain of Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." For it is there that they will be inscribed. The Savior indeed says, "Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." This is certainly not to be taken in the sense that these names composed of syllables are literally written in heaven. But these are names relative to virtue, and as such they have in heaven an inscription that will perpetuate their memory. Such are the people who are inscribed in heaven, but those who are of contrary mind, who are concerned only with earthly things, have not managed to do more than inscribe their names on earthly things. Jeremiah rightly says in their regard: "Those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth."”

“(Verse 12) This will be a rustic man. His hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand against him, and he will dwell against the face of all his brothers. In Hebrew, Phara () is written for rustic, which means onager. It signifies that his descendants will dwell in the wilderness, that is, the wandering Saracens, in uncertain lands, who attack and are attacked by all the nations to which the desert is adjacent.”

“He will be a wild man, his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him, and he will dwell opposite all his brothers. His offspring will inhabit the desert, that is, the wandering Saracens with uncertain dwellings, who attack all the nations bordering the desert and are attacked by all: but this was in ancient times. Now, however, his hand is against everyone, and everyone's hand is against him to such an extent that they oppress all of Africa in its length, as well as the greater part of Asia and some of Europe, being despised and opposed by all. But when it says: He will pitch his tents; it shows the ancient custom of the people, who always used to dwell in tents, not in houses.”

“פרא אדם A WILD MAN — One who loves the open spaces to hunt wild animals, as it is written of him (Genesis 21:20) “And he dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer.” ידו בכל HIS HAND SHALL BE AGAINST EVERY ONE — a highwayman. ויד כל בו AND EVERYONE’S HAND AGAINST HIM — everyone will hate him and attack him. ועל פני כל אחיו ישכון AND HE SHALL DWELL IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN — his descendants will be numerous, (so that his territory must extend over that which his brethren have; cf. Genesis 25:18).”

“‘PERE ADAM.’ Rashi comments: “One who loves the deserts is thus, according to Rashi, synonymous with “desert,” as it says peraim bamidbar (Job 24:5). Pere adam is thus: “a man who loves the desert.” (Mizrachi.) [and] to hunt wild animals, as it is written, And he dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer. His hand shall be against every man. This means that he will be a highway man. And every man’s hand against him. Everyone will hate him and attack him.” The correct interpretation is that pere adam is a construct form, meaning that he will be a wild-ass man accustomed to the wilderness, going forth to his work, seeking for food, devouring all and being devoured by all. The subject pertains to his children who will increase, and they will have wars with all the nations. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: “His hand shall be against every man in that he will be victorious at first over all nations, and afterwards, every man’s hand shall be against him, meaning that he will be vanquished in the end. And in the face of all his brethren, who are the sons of Keturah, he should dwell, meaning that Ishmael’s children will outnumber those of Keturah.””

“In the verses read before, it was an "angel of God" who was speaking with Hagar. Here she names him "Lord" and "God." It is not too much of a stretch to say that the angel was not in the service of his own words but of God's, as are also the prophets. For, in a certain sense, when angels exercise their ministry and when they foretell the future, they do the work of prophets. The name angel indicates an activity, not a substance; the same is true of the name prophet. [Since] the angel was speaking the words of God, Hagar called him God because of the One who lived in him. Similarly, when Isaiah prophesies, he sometimes speaks in his own person, as a man who has within himself the prophetic spirit, and he sometimes, as it were, makes God the character who speaks, without adding "says the Lord." For example, he writes, "I made the earth and created man upon it," but (it is he himself speaking) as one sent by the Lord he proclaims, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the Lord has spoken." We say this to show that the words of Isaiah are not all spoken as though he were merely an intermediary but that participation in God confers also the authority of God; and because of God's dwelling in them, those who share in him are called gods. This is so true that an angel speaking to Moses was also called God. It is written in fact: And the angel of the Lord called him and said to him, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." If one looks at the minister, these are words of angels, but if one looks at the sense, they are words of God.”

“She called on the name of the Lord who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me." For she said, "Surely here I have seen the back of the one who sees me," therefore she called that well, "The well of the living one who sees me." It is clear from these words that Hagar could not see the face of the angel speaking with her, but only the back as he was departing; nevertheless, she recognized that she had seen him showing mercy and that he was living, that is, that he was truly God, or had come to her in the presence of the living God. The woman's wisdom is remarkable, or rather not remarkable at all, since she belonged to Abraham's household, in naming the well, by which she was comforted by the divine oracle, after that same God's name; as if clearly understanding that the well signified the deep divine dispensations by which He showed mercy to her affliction, commanded her to return to her mistress, and foretold that her offspring would be great; and just as in that well or fountain, as mentioned above, she saw living and perpetual water, so she understood the depth of the divine substance as always living and enduring without end or beginning, and rightly believed the well should be named after it. In correspondence with this figure, the Psalmist, having said: "As the deer longs for the streams of water, so my soul longs for you, O God" (Psal. 41:2); immediately added: "My soul thirsts for the living God." So that we might understand that just as the fountains have living and unfailing water, so God maintains an enduring life within himself. It is also noteworthy that Hagar's well between the wilderness of Kadesh and Bered is still shown today, and rightly so; as a testimony of her faith and confession.”

“אתה אל ראי THOU ART A GOD OF SEEING — The word is punctuated with a Chataph Kametz because it is a noun, and the meaning is “a God of seeing” — One who sees the humiliation to which people are subjected by others (Genesis Rabbah 45:10) הגם הלום HAVE I ALSO [SEEN] HERE — This is an exclamation of surprise: “could I have ever imagined that here also — in the wilderness — I would see the messengers of the Omnipresent after I have seen them in Abraham’s house, where I saw them regularly!” You may know that she used to see them there regularly from this: That Manoah saw the angel only once and exclaimed, (Judges 13:22) “We shall surely die”, and she saw angels four times, one after the other, and she showed no fear (Genesis Rabbah 45:7).”

“There was indeed on earth, so long as it was needed, a symbol and foreshadowing image of this city, which served the purpose of reminding men that such a city was to be rather than of making it present; and this image was itself called the holy city, as a symbol of the future city, though not itself the reality. Of this city which served as an image, and of that free city it typified, Paul writes to the Galatians in these terms: "Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which genders to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, you barren that bear not; break forth and cry, you that travail not, for the desolate has many more children than she which has an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what says the Scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son: for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. And we, brethren, are not children of the bond woman, but of the free, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free." [Galatians 4:21-31] This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants — the old and the new. One portion of the earthly city became an image of the heavenly city, not having a significance of its own, but signifying another city, and therefore serving, or "being in bondage." For it was founded not for its own sake, but to prefigure another city; and this shadow of a city was also itself foreshadowed by another preceding figure. For Sarah's handmaid Agar, and her son, were an image of this image. And as the shadows were to pass away when the full light came, Sarah, the free woman, who prefigured the free city (which again was also prefigured in another way by that shadow of a city Jerusalem), therefore said, "Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac," or, as the apostle says, "with the son of the free woman." In the earthly city, then, we find two things — its own obvious presence, and its symbolic presentation of the heavenly city. Now citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin, but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin; whence the former are called "vessels of wrath," the latter "vessels of mercy." [Romans 9:22-23] And this was typified in the two sons of Abraham — Ishmael, the son of Agar the handmaid, being born according to the flesh, while Isaac was born of the free woman Sarah, according to the promise. Both, indeed, were of Abraham's seed; but the one was begotten by natural law, the other was given by gracious promise. In the one birth, human action is revealed; in the other, a divine kindness comes to light.”

“It is plausible to say that it was to establish the fact that Hagar was a serious woman and Ishmael an authentic son of Abraham that Scripture went out of its way to remark that Hagar bore a son "to Abram." What follows is clear as to the literal sense, but let us examine too the anagogical [mystical] sense. When the person who is making progress gives birth according to the goal assigned by the master, the child he bears is not to be despised. The verse then applies the metaphorical notion of generation to the master who correctly teaches and who thus provides profitable seed. This is why it is said, "Hagar bore to Abram." The proof that the meaning is indeed what I have indicated according to the terms of Scripture is that, in the following phrase, "And Abram called the name of his son," the Word adds, "whom Hagar bore him." If an idea (like the one I suggested) were not in the background here, the text would simply have said, "And Abram named his son," without adding "whom she bore him."”