Did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob know about Mount Sinai and its sacredness?
The biblical accounts suggest that Mount Sinai and its sacredness were not known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The significance sacred of Mount Sinai is primarily associated with the story of Moses and the Israelites’ liberation from Egypt, as described in the Book of Exodus. However, it’s important to note that beliefs and interpretations may vary among different religious traditions.
The belief that the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac, including the promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed, is held by some, particularly within Islamic tradition. Here’s a more detailed articulation of their argument:
Ishmael and the Covenant.
- Ishmael as the Firstborn: Supporters of this view argue that Ishmael, being Abraham’s firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant. They emphasize that Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born to Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant.
- Sacrifice Narrative: They contend that the narrative of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son originally referred to Ishmael, not Isaac. This is based on the belief that ancient scriptures were altered by Israelite scribes to emphasize Isaac’s role.
- Blessing and Land Promise: The promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations is seen as applying to Ishmael’s descendants. Islamic tradition views Ishmael as an ancestor of the Arab peoples, and thus sees the fulfillment of these promises through the Islamic Hajj and in the rise of Islamic civilization.
Scriptural Alteration Argument.
- Scribal Changes: They argue that ancient Israelite scribes altered the scriptures to shift the focus from Ishmael to Isaac. This was done to establish a theological foundation for the Israelites’ claim to the land and their unique covenantal relationship with God.
- Evidence from Quranic Texts: The Quran refers to the story of Abraham and his son, implying that Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed. This, combined with historical accounts and interpretations, is used to argue for the primacy of Ishmael in the covenantal promises.
Ishmael: The Rightful Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant – Revisiting Biblical Circumcision and Lineage
The Abrahamic covenant stands as a foundational pillar in the sacred histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Central to this covenant is the rite of circumcision, instituted by God as a binding sign between Himself and Abraham’s descendants. Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations assert that Isaac, the son born to Abraham and Sarah, is the rightful heir through whom this covenant is fulfilled.
However, a careful reexamination of the biblical chronology challenges this assumption. This article argues that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the first and only son to receive the covenantal sign alongside Abraham himself—prior to Isaac’s birth—thereby establishing Ishmael as the sole and true heir of the original Abrahamic covenant. By exploring the timing, recipients, and implications of circumcision in Genesis 17 and 21, this piece invites readers to reconsider long-held views and appreciate the overlooked centrality of Ishmael in the divine covenant.
1. The Biblical Basis for Circumcision as a Covenant
The Bible establishes circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham:
Genesis 17:9–11
“Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised… it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.’”
Here, circumcision is the definitive sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
2. The Timing of Circumcision Before Isaac’s Birth
The Bible affirms that circumcision was performed before Isaac was born:
Genesis 17:23–26
“On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him… Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was thirteen.”
At this critical juncture, only Abraham and Ishmael were Abraham’s natural descendants to receive the sign of the covenant. Isaac had not yet been born.
3. Ishmael as the Sole and True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant
This sequence of events reveals that:
Circumcision is the outward and binding sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
Ishmael was the only son of Abraham present to receive this sign alongside him.
All others circumcised at that time were household members and servants—not Abraham’s direct offspring.
Therefore, Ishmael alone stands as the true and sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant, sharing this foundational covenantal sign with Abraham himself.
4. Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members
When Isaac was born, he too was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 21:4). However, this circumcision occurred after the covenant was already established through Abraham and Ishmael. Like the other members of Abraham’s household, Isaac simply entered into an existing covenantal practice rather than establishing or uniquely embodying it.
In this understanding:
Isaac’s circumcision parallels that of Abraham’s other household members.
He was brought into the covenantal sign but did not share in the original covenantal enactment alongside Abraham.
Thus, Isaac is seen merely as a participant in the Abrahamic covenant, not as its unique heir.
5. Distinction from the Sinai Covenant
The Sinai covenant was revealed exclusively to the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Israel), establishing a separate covenantal framework for the Israelites.
In contrast, the original Abrahamic covenant—established through circumcision before Isaac’s birth—finds its complete and exclusive fulfillment in Ishmael, who was the first to embody and share this sign with Abraham.
6. Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views
Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations place Isaac as the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. However, this argument radically reorients that view:
Ishmael alone shares the covenantal enactment with Abraham.
Isaac, like the other household members, enters a covenantal practice already established.
Therefore, Ishmael alone emerges as the true and rightful heir of the Abrahamic covenant.
Summary of the Articulation
Circumcision, the outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael before Isaac was born. This historical reality establishes that while Isaac and others in Abraham’s household were participants in the sign of the covenant, only Ishmael shared in the covenant’s original establishment and thus stands as its true and exclusive heir. In this perspective, Ishmael’s role transcends mere participation—he alone embodies the Abrahamic covenant in its full and foundational form.
Here is how the Jewish scribe manipulated Ishmael’s story:
- The age of Ishmael at the time of his departure from Abraham’s house.
- Abraham’s son, who was offered as a sacrifice.
Some people think that Ishmael, when sent away by Abraham in the Torah, was just a young child, not a teenager, based on the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21, verse 20. They point out that the Hebrew word “yelid” is used for both Ishmael and baby Moses (Exodus 2, verse 6). How do they explain this argument?
The argument is articulated by pointing out the use of the Hebrew word “yelid” in both Genesis 21, verses 14 to 15, and Exodus 2, verse 6. In these verses, “yelid” is used to describe both Ishmael and infant Moses. Supporters of the argument claim that since “yelid” is used to describe Moses when he was an infant, it should also be understood to mean that Ishmael was still a young child in Genesis 21, verse 20.
Additionally, the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21, verse 20, is interpreted by some to imply that Ishmael was still in the process of growing and developing, suggesting a younger age. They argue that if Ishmael were already a teenager or older, it would not be necessary to mention his growth.
It should be noted, however, that interpretations of biblical texts can vary, and different scholars or readers may have different understandings of the intended meaning.
Why are the statements about Abraham wanting to sacrifice his son in Genesis 22, verse 2, and verse 16 problematic? In one case, the son is referred to as “the only,” while in the other, the name of the son is not mentioned.
The story of Abraham being tested to sacrifice his son in Genesis 22 has raised some interpretative questions and concerns among readers. Specifically, the statements as mentioned in verses 2 and 16 are problematic for a couple of reasons.
First, in Genesis 22, verse 2, when God calls Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac is described as “your only son.” However, this raises a discrepancy because at that point, Abraham already had an older son named Ishmael, born to Hagar. Ishmael was not mentioned in this context, leading to confusion regarding why Isaac was referred to as the “only” son. This linguistic inconsistency has led some scholars to suggest that the story might have been composed independently from other narratives that mention Ishmael.
Secondly, in Genesis 22, verse 16, after Abraham successfully passes the test and God intervenes by providing a ram as a substitute sacrifice, God blesses Abraham and says, “because you have not withheld your son, your only son.” This repetition of “your only son” raises another concern since Isaac’s name is not mentioned. It seems that the narrative originally presents the unnamed and only son of Abraham, alluding to Ishmael who lived as Abraham’s only son for almost 14 years before Isaac was born.
These discrepancies may be due to several factors, such as different sources or traditions being woven together, intentional theological messaging, or even potential editorial modifications over time. Scholars have examined these issues and proposed various explanations to reconcile the inconsistencies, but it remains a topic of debate and interpretation.
Ultimately, the problematic nature of these statements arises from the textual and narrative intricacies within the story, which have led to questions about authorship, redaction, and theological implications.
ABRAHAMIC THEOLOGY 