🔥 Who really inherits the promise of Abraham?

For over two thousand years, this question has divided believers. To Jews, the answer is Isaac, father of Israel. To Christians, following Paul, Isaac again becomes the key—but in a spiritualized sense, fulfilled in Christ. To Muslims, however, the heir is Ishmael, the firstborn son, consecrated through sacrifice and covenant, and the forefather of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

This is not just a matter of family tree—it’s about the very meaning of faith, law, and salvation. Islam and Paul tell two radically different stories about Abraham’s covenant, and those stories still shape how billions of people understand their relationship with God today.

⸻

Abraham (Ibrahim, عليه السلام) is one of the few figures who holds such a central position in the Abrahamic faiths. Revered as the friend of God, he embodies pure monotheism and the bearer of a covenant that continues to shape history. Yet the legacy of Abraham takes two very different paths in Islam and in the theology of Paul of Tarsus.

➤ In Islam, Ishmael (Ismāʿīl عليه السلام) is upheld as the true heir of the covenant.

➤ In Paul’s epistles, Isaac becomes the symbolic heir, while Ishmael is cast aside.

This is not a minor exegetical debate—it is a fundamental clash over lineage, covenant, and the meaning of salvation itself.

⸻

Abraham in Islam ✦ Ishmael as Covenant Heir

The Qur’an presents Abraham as chosen to lead humanity through his submission:

“Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people.”

Abraham asked, “And of my descendants?”

Allah replied, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”

— Qur’an 2:124

✔ The covenant was universal and ethical, not restricted by ethnicity.

✔ Ishmael was alive when circumcision—the sign of the covenant—was established (Genesis 17:23–26). Isaac was not yet born.

✔ Abraham prayed for a prophet from Ishmael’s descendants (Qur’an 2:129), which Muslims believe was fulfilled in Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

Even the sacrifice story in Surah Aṣ-Ṣāffāt (37:100–113) aligns with Ishmael as the son offered—his submission alongside his father consecrated him as the rightful heir of Abraham’s mission.

⸻

Paul’s Theology ✦ Faith and Isaac

Paul reframes Abraham’s covenant for a Gentile audience. His central claim: true heirs of Abraham are those who share his faith, not his bloodline.

✦ “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.” — Galatians 3:7

✗ Circumcision, Paul argues, is unnecessary. Abraham was justified by faith before being circumcised (Romans 4:9–11).

✗ In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul allegorizes the two sons:

• Ishmael = slavery, law, bondage.

• Isaac = freedom, promise, fulfillment in Christ.

Here, Paul reverses what Islam upholds: Ishmael is not heir but excluded, while Isaac is made central to salvation history.

⸻

The Sinai Covenant ✦ Broken or Temporary?

➤ Islam’s View:

• The Mosaic covenant was valid but conditional.

• Israel repeatedly broke it through disobedience (Qur’an 2:63, 5:13).

• Ultimately, God restored the Abrahamic covenant universally through the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

➤ Paul’s View:

• The Law was never ultimate but only a temporary guardian (Galatians 3:24–25).

• With Christ, the covenant of grace supersedes the Law entirely.

• The Sinai covenant is not revoked for disobedience but rendered obsolete by design.

⸻

Key Contrasts ✦ Islam vs. Paul

✔ Covenant Heir

• Islam: Ishmael, consecrated through sacrifice and circumcision.

• Paul: Isaac, symbol of promise; Ishmael cast as bondage.

✔ Sign of Covenant

• Islam: Circumcision, first practiced by Abraham and Ishmael.

• Paul: Faith alone—ritual is secondary.

✔ Fulfillment of Covenant

• Islam: Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, descendant of Ishmael, restoring pure monotheism.

• Paul: Jesus Christ, descendant of Isaac, fulfilling promise through death and resurrection.

✔ Path to Salvation

• Islam: Submission (islām), obedience, and faith in one God.

• Paul: Grace through faith in Christ, apart from works of the Law.

⸻

Conclusion ✦ Competing Visions of Abraham’s Legacy

Islam and Paul stand on opposite sides of Abrahamic theology.

✦ Islam preserves Ishmael as heir, upholding the covenant through lineage, obedience, and the coming of Muhammad ﷺ.

✦ Paul spiritualizes the covenant, detaches it from law and ritual, and anchors it solely in faith through Christ.

At stake is more than which son was chosen—it is the very definition of what it means to be a true child of Abraham:

• In Islam: surrender to God’s will.

• In Paul’s theology: faith in Christ’s grace.

⸻

✨ This contrast continues to define how Islam and Christianity understand their Abrahamic roots—not merely as history, but as competing theological claims about covenant, salvation, and divine promise.

⚔️ A Polemical Reading of the Quote

“If you begin with Paul, you will interpret Jesus incorrectly;

if you begin with Jesus, you will interpret Paul differently.”

— John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity

This statement is a direct indictment of mainstream Christian theology. It exposes a fundamental inversion at the heart of Christianity as it is commonly taught.

⸻

1️⃣ Beginning with Paul: Theological Distortion

To begin with Paul is to hand over the keys of Christianity to a man who never met Jesus, never heard his parables firsthand, and never followed him during his ministry—yet whose theology now dominates the religion.

When Paul is made the starting point:

• Jesus is reduced to a theological instrument

• His life, teachings, and ethics are overshadowed by abstract doctrines

• The Kingdom of God becomes a theory about salvation rather than a lived reality

Jesus the Jewish prophet—preaching repentance, justice, obedience, and covenantal faithfulness—is buried under layers of Pauline metaphysics:

• Justification formulas

• Cosmic atonement theories

• Faith divorced from law, practice, and moral struggle

This is not interpretation.

This is retroactive colonization of Jesus’ message.

⸻

2️⃣ Paul Before Jesus = Paul Over Jesus

Polemically speaking, much of Christianity does not follow Jesus at all—it follows Paul’s interpretation of Jesus.

Jesus says:

• “Keep the commandments”

• “Love God and neighbor”

• “The Kingdom of God is at hand”

Paul says:

• Law is a burden

• Faith alone justifies

• The cross, not the teaching, is the center

When Paul is read first, Jesus is forced to agree with Paul—whether he actually does or not.

This is why:

• Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is preached but not obeyed

• His ethical demands are admired but neutralized

• His Jewish context is ignored as inconvenient

Paul becomes the filter, Jesus the raw material.

⸻

3️⃣ Beginning with Jesus: Paul Put on Trial

But when you reverse the order—when you begin with Jesus—everything changes.

Jesus then stands as the standard, not Paul.

Suddenly, Paul must be asked uncomfortable questions:

• Why does his theology sound so different from Jesus’ preaching?

• Why does he minimize the law Jesus upheld?

• Why does he emphasize belief about Jesus rather than obedience to God?

Paul is no longer an unassailable embodiment of scripture

He becomes what he historically was:

• A post-Jesus interpreter

• A missionary theologian

• A man responding to Gentile problems Jesus never addressed

In short, Paul becomes derivative, not definitive.

⸻

4️⃣ The Unspoken Accusation

Crossan’s quote carries an implicit accusation:

Christianity chose Paul over Jesus.

It chose:

• Doctrine over practice

• Creed over conduct

• Salvation theory over prophetic ethics

This is why Christianity can affirm Jesus as “Lord” while ignoring:

• His strict monotheism

• His covenantal obedience

• His alignment with the law of Moses

⸻

5️⃣ Why This Is Explosive

If Crossan is right—and historically, textually, and chronologically he is—then much of Christianity is built backwards.

Not:

Jesus → interpretation → theology

But:

Paul → theology → reconstructed Jesus

That is not discipleship.

That is theological revisionism.

⸻

🧭 Final Polemical Verdict

Begin with Paul, and Jesus sounds like Paul’s preacher—focused on grace, faith, and the cross.

Begin with Jesus, and Paul stands out as a later figure trying to explain Jesus to a new audience—fallible, contextual, and not the original voice.

And that single reversal threatens the entire doctrinal architecture of Christianity as it is commonly known.

— Azahari Hassim

Founder, The World of Abrahamic Theology