Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
 |
 |
 |
The Apparent Difficulty
Genesis 22:2 records one of the most pivotal and often debated commands in Scripture:
“He said, ‘Please take 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.’” (UASV)
Here Jehovah specifically names Isaac as the son to be offered. Yet Islamic tradition, as preserved in the Qur’an and later writings, insists that it was not Isaac but Ishmael who was the intended sacrifice. According to Islam, Jewish scribes allegedly corrupted the biblical text to erase Ishmael’s role and transfer the covenant promises to Isaac, thereby cutting off Ishmael’s descendants from the line of blessing. This claim creates one of the sharpest divides between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
If Ishmael were the son of sacrifice, the covenant line—and thus the messianic hope—would pass through him. If Isaac were the son, the biblical account remains unbroken, and the New Testament’s claim that Christ is the promised Seed stands firmly on historical and theological ground.
 |
 |
 |
The Context of the Abrahamic Covenant
From the beginning, Jehovah declared that His covenant would pass through Sarah’s son, not Hagar’s. In Genesis 17:19, He spoke directly to Abraham:
“But God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.’”
Again, in Genesis 21:12, God reinforced this:
“But God said to Abraham, ‘Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, listen to her voice, for through Isaac your seed shall be named.’”
Thus, Isaac was not chosen because he was Abraham’s firstborn—that was Ishmael—but because he was the son of promise, miraculously born to Sarah when she was barren and beyond childbearing years. Ishmael, while blessed to become a great nation (Genesis 21:18), was explicitly excluded from carrying the covenant promises.
This covenantal framework means that when Abraham was tested in Genesis 22, the command to offer Isaac was not arbitrary. It was a direct confrontation of Abraham’s faith in God’s word. Would Abraham trust that Jehovah’s covenant promises would still stand if Isaac were given up?
 |
 |
 |
The Meaning of “Your Only Son”
Some argue that calling Isaac Abraham’s “only son” is inaccurate since Ishmael was born first. However, the Hebrew word yāḥîd does not mean “only child” but “unique, singular, one-of-a-kind.” The emphasis is on status, not chronology. Isaac was Abraham’s “only son” in the sense that he was the covenant heir—the uniquely chosen son through whom God’s redemptive plan would unfold.
This is parallel to the New Testament usage of monogenēs, often translated “only begotten,” to describe Christ (John 3:16). Jesus is not the “only” Son of God in the sense that God has no other sons (since believers are called children of God), but in the sense that He is the unique, incomparable Son who alone inherits and fulfills all divine promises.
In the same way, Isaac was Abraham’s “only son” in covenantal status. By identifying him with the triple expression—“your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac”—Genesis 22:2 leaves no room for confusion. The intended son was Isaac.
 |
 |
 |
The Defense Against the Ishmael Claim
1. The Explicit Text Names Isaac
Genesis 22:2 itself specifies Isaac by name. To maintain that Ishmael was meant requires rewriting the plain text. The claim that Jewish scribes “changed” the original collapses under the weight of manuscript evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate both Christianity and Islam by centuries, contain Genesis and clearly name Isaac. No textual corruption exists.
2. The Covenant Formula Excludes Ishmael
Throughout the Old Testament, the covenant line is always identified as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exodus 3:6; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:13). Ishmael is never included in this covenantal refrain. He was blessed with posterity, but he was not the heir of the promise.
3. The New Testament Reaffirms Isaac
Paul makes this distinction crystal clear:
-
Romans 9:7–8: “‘Through Isaac your descendants will be named.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as seed.”
-
Galatians 4:22–23: “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. But the son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.”
The inspired New Testament writers unanimously uphold Isaac as the covenant child.
4. The Genealogy of Christ Confirms Isaac
Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 trace Jesus’ genealogy through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, leading to David and ultimately to Christ. This genealogy was a matter of public record in the temple archives. Significantly, no Jewish opponents of Jesus ever challenged His lineage during His ministry. After A.D. 70, when the temple records were destroyed by Rome, such verification became impossible. Only Jesus, prior to that destruction, had verifiable credentials as the Seed of Abraham through Isaac.
5. The Typology of Christ Demands Isaac
The theological symbolism collapses if Ishmael were substituted. Isaac, the beloved son, carried the wood up Mount Moriah—foreshadowing Christ carrying His cross. Isaac was offered but spared; Christ was offered and not spared. Isaac’s role as the child of promise mirrors Christ’s role as the ultimate fulfillment of God’s covenant. Ishmael, though blessed, does not fit this typological pattern.
 |
 |
 |
The Theological Weight of Genesis 22
Genesis 22 is not just a story about Abraham’s devotion. It is a divinely orchestrated preview of God’s plan of salvation:
-
Abraham was asked to give his beloved son; God the Father gave His beloved Son.
-
Isaac carried the wood; Christ carried the cross.
-
A ram was provided as a substitute; Christ became the true Lamb of God.
-
Isaac was the “only son” in covenantal terms; Christ is the “only begotten Son” in eternal terms.
The narrative loses its prophetic coherence if Ishmael replaces Isaac. The unity of Scripture demands that Isaac was the son of sacrifice.
 |
 |
 |
Answering the Islamic Objection
The Islamic claim that Ishmael was the son of sacrifice arose over two millennia after Genesis was written and over 600 years after Christ. The Qur’an itself never names the son in the sacrifice account (Surah 37:100–112). Only later Islamic commentators insisted it was Ishmael, in part to align the narrative with Islam’s claim that the Arab peoples, as Ishmael’s descendants, were the true heirs of Abraham.
But the biblical record is clear, ancient, and corroborated by manuscripts predating Islam. The text names Isaac, the covenant heir, as the son of sacrifice. No evidence exists for a textual corruption. The charge is historical revisionism, not textual truth.
 |
 |
 |
The Final Testimony
The evidence is overwhelming:
-
The Hebrew Scriptures name Isaac explicitly.
-
The covenant formula confirms Isaac.
-
The New Testament reaffirms Isaac.
-
Christ’s genealogy depends on Isaac.
-
The typology of Calvary requires Isaac.
Ishmael was blessed, but he was never the covenant heir. Isaac was Abraham’s “only son” in the covenantal sense, and through Isaac came Christ, the true Seed, who secured salvation for all who believe.
 |
 |
 |
You May Also Enjoy
Did Jacob Wrestle with an Angel or God, and How Could He Have Been Victorious Either Way?
About the Author
CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE
