Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The account of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son in Genesis 22:1-19 is one of the most significant and debated passages in the Bible. It raises profound theological and historical questions about the identity of the son described as Abraham’s “only son,” the nature of God’s covenant with Abraham, and the conflict between biblical and Islamic traditions. This article will carefully examine the biblical text, explore the historical context, and address Islamic claims regarding this narrative, all while adhering to the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

The Biblical Account in Genesis 22: Who Was Abraham’s “Only Son”?

Genesis 22:2 provides the foundation for understanding this event:

“He said, ‘Please take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'” (Genesis 22:2, UASV)

Here, Isaac is explicitly identified as Abraham’s “only son.” This terminology is significant, as Ishmael, the son of Abraham through Hagar, had already been born years earlier. The phrase “only son” must be understood not in terms of numerical count but in terms of covenantal status and divine choice. Isaac is described as the son of promise, through whom Jehovah’s covenant with Abraham would be fulfilled (Genesis 17:19-21).

The Hebrew term translated as “only son” is yachid (יחיד), meaning “unique” or “beloved.” This term underscores Isaac’s special status in God’s covenantal plan, not a literal exclusivity as Abraham’s only child. While Ishmael was Abraham’s biological son, he was not the heir of the promise. The apostle Paul echoes this distinction in Galatians 4:22-23, explaining that Ishmael was born “according to the flesh,” while Isaac was born “through promise.”

The Covenant Line: Isaac, Not Ishmael

The covenant established by Jehovah with Abraham and his descendants centers on Isaac, not Ishmael. This is affirmed repeatedly in Scripture:

Genesis 17:19-21: God explicitly states that Isaac, not Ishmael, is the child of the covenant:

“But God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac; and I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly. He will become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.'”
Genesis 21:12: Jehovah commands Abraham to listen to Sarah’s demand to send Ishmael away:

“But God said to Abraham, ‘Do not be distressed because of the boy and your slave woman; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your seed will be called.'”
Romans 9:7-9: The apostle Paul reiterates the divine election of Isaac over Ishmael:

“Nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; but, ‘Through Isaac your seed will be named.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.'”

The centrality of Isaac in the covenantal promises confirms his status as the chosen heir. Jehovah sovereignly determined the line of descent for the Messiah, choosing Isaac to carry the seed of promise.

Islamic Claims and Their Refutation

Islamic tradition, as expressed in the Qur’an, claims that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. While the Qur’an does not explicitly name the son in Surah 37:99-113, Islamic interpretations often assert that it was Ishmael. Muslims argue that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures were altered to obscure Ishmael’s role as the true heir of the covenant. This claim, however, is inconsistent with historical evidence and the biblical text.

The Qur’an’s Ambiguity: The Qur’an itself is vague regarding the identity of the son in Surah 37. It only describes the event in general terms, leaving the specific identity of the son open to interpretation. In contrast, the Bible unequivocally identifies Isaac as the son of the promise (Genesis 22:2).
Historical Integrity of the Bible: The Hebrew Scriptures have been meticulously preserved, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts. The claim that Jewish scribes altered the text to replace Ishmael with Isaac is baseless and lacks any supporting evidence. The New Testament, written centuries before the advent of Islam, consistently affirms Isaac’s role in the covenant (e.g., Matthew 1:2; Luke 3:34).
Theological Inconsistencies: Islamic claims undermine the theological coherence of God’s covenant. Jehovah’s promise to Abraham involved a son born to Sarah, not Hagar. This son would be the child of promise, fulfilling God’s supernatural intervention (Genesis 17:15-19). Ishmael’s birth through Hagar, a concubine, does not align with the specific terms of the covenant.

Genealogy and the Promised Seed

The identification of Isaac as the son of promise is further affirmed by the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ lineage through Isaac, underscoring his role in the messianic line. Matthew 1:1-2 states:

“The record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham fathered Isaac, Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers.”

Luke 3:34 similarly affirms this lineage, leaving no doubt that Isaac, not Ishmael, is the ancestor of the Messiah.

Conclusion: The Authority of Scripture

The biblical evidence overwhelmingly supports the identification of Isaac as the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. Jehovah’s covenant with Abraham, reaffirmed through Isaac, points to the ultimate fulfillment of the promise in Jesus Christ. The claims of Islamic tradition are not grounded in Scripture or historical evidence and must be rejected in favor of the clear teaching of the Bible.

By faithfully adhering to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, Christians can confidently affirm the truth of Genesis 22 and the divine election of Isaac as the child of promise. This understanding not only preserves the integrity of Scripture but also reinforces the centrality of Jesus Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises.

You May Also Enjoy

How Can We Defend the Faith Against Modern Challenges?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00