📜 Reassessing the Claim: Who was Abraham’s true “only son” in Genesis 22 — Isaac or Ishmael?

A Textual-Critical and Theological Investigation Into the Identity of Abraham’s “Only Son”

Abstract

This study examines the theological coherence and logical consistency of the proposal that Genesis 22—the near-sacrifice narrative—chronologically precedes Genesis 17, despite its later placement in the canonical text. Through a combination of source criticism, internal narrative analysis, and comparative tradition, the article evaluates whether this reordered sequence renders Ishmael—not Isaac—the son described as Abraham’s “only son” in Genesis 22. While such a reading conflicts with canonical Jewish and Christian chronology, it demonstrates internal validity within a reconstructed textual framework and aligns with Islamic tradition. The analysis suggests that the episode may reflect an older Ishmaelite tradition preserved within the E source, later subordinated by priestly redaction.

⸻

❇️ 1. Introduction

The Akedah (Genesis 22:1–19) is one of the most influential and contested narratives within the Abrahamic tradition. Judaism and Christianity historically identify Isaac as the sacrificial son, based on the canonical order of Genesis in which Isaac is born in Genesis 21 and offered in Genesis 22. Islamic tradition, however, identifies Ishmael as the son of sacrifice — a position paralleled by certain textual-critical reconstructions.

This article evaluates the academic argument that:

Genesis 22 originally preceded Genesis 17 — the chapter that introduces the promise of Isaac — and therefore the ‘only son’ offered in the earlier version of the narrative would have been Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn.

The analysis draws upon biblical scholarship, internal narrative assessment, and comparative theology.

⸻

❇️ 2. Logical Structure of the Argument

The central claim is based on a clear and internally consistent sequence of reasoning:

1. Genesis 17 contains the first announcement of Isaac’s forthcoming birth.

2. Before Genesis 17, Isaac does not yet exist.

3. In Genesis 22, Abraham is commanded to sacrifice his “only son.”

4. If Genesis 22 originally preceded Genesis 17 in the narrative chronology, then only Ishmael could have been Abraham’s “only son” at that time.

5. Therefore, under this reconstructed order, the son intended for sacrifice in Genesis 22 must be Ishmael.

This challenges the traditional view—held in both Judaism and Christianity—that Isaac is the son in Genesis 22. That view introduces a logical tension: Why would God promise a covenant and future lineage through Isaac in Genesis 17, only to command his near-destruction in Genesis 22?

The argument becomes logically sound if one accepts the possibility of textual reordering as proposed by source-critical scholarship. In that context, the sequence aligns more consistently with narrative logic and internal chronology.

⸻

❇️ 3. The Composite Nature of Genesis and the Case for Reordering

Modern biblical scholarship widely recognizes Genesis as a composite work, formed through the integration of multiple literary sources. These include:

• E (Elohist): Originating in the northern kingdom of Israel, this tradition is marked by prophetic themes and a strong emphasis on divine communication.

• J (Yahwist): Developed in the southern kingdom of Judah, the Yahwist source is known for its vivid narrative style and anthropomorphic depiction of God.

• P (Priestly): Composed later—likely during or after the Babylonian exile—the Priestly source is characterized by formal structure, genealogies, and a distinct theological agenda centered on covenant, ritual, and Israelite identity.

Within this compositional framework:

• Genesis 22 is generally attributed to the Elohist source. It preserves older sacrificial and covenantal themes that function largely independently of the more systematic theology found in the Priestly tradition.

• Genesis 17 is assigned to the Priestly source. It reflects a later stage of theological development in which Israel’s identity is more sharply defined, and Isaac is explicitly designated as the sole covenantal heir. This creates a degree of tension with earlier, more inclusive or open-ended traditions.

Text-critical analysis suggests that certain references to Isaac—particularly those that appear abrupt or misaligned with the surrounding narrative—may be later Priestly insertions. These additions likely served to reshape earlier traditions by emphasizing Isaac’s centrality in the covenant, in alignment with the Priestly author’s theological objectives.

Given these distinct sources and layers of editorial activity, it is both structurally coherent and historically plausible to propose a non-canonical chronological sequence in which Genesis 22 precedes Genesis 17. This reconstruction implies that a later redactor reorganized and integrated independent traditions to develop a unified covenantal theology centered on Isaac and the formation of Israel’s identity.

⸻

❇️ 4. The Meaning of “Only Son” in Genesis 22

The phrase “your son, your only son, whom you love” (Hebrew: yeḥidkha) creates an interpretive difficulty if Isaac is intended:

• Abraham had two sons at the canonical time of Genesis 22.

• Isaac was not literally his “only” son.

Jewish and Christian interpreters resolve this by redefining “only son” to mean “unique son of promise,” but this requires theological inference.

Under the reconstructed chronology, however:

• Isaac has not yet been promised or born,

• Ishmael is Abraham’s only biological son for nearly 14 years,

• The phrase regains its literal meaning without theological reinterpretation.

• That is, the expression “your only son” becomes literal rather than theological.

Thus, the textual and semantic fit is stronger with Ishmael under the reordered sequence.

⸻

❇️ 5. Narrative Coherence: Isaac’s Name Contradicts a Sacrificial Role

One of the most compelling internal arguments for the Ishmael reading emerges from the meaning of Isaac’s name. The Hebrew name Yitzḥaq (“he laughs,” “he brings joy”) encapsulates Isaac’s identity as the child of joy and miraculous fulfillment:

• Sarah laughs at the promise (Genesis 18:12).

• Abraham laughs in wonder (Genesis 17:17).

• Sarah celebrates the birth with laughter and delight (Genesis 21:6).

• Isaac is explicitly framed as the child of comfort, hope, and divine blessing.

Isaac’s narrative role is therefore constructed around themes of:

• joy,

• promise,

• celebration,

• continuity.

This stands in stark contradiction to the role of a child destined for trial, burden, or death.

A child named for laughter and joy is theologically incongruent with the archetype of a sacrificial son. Nothing in Isaac’s narrative arc suggests impending crisis or divine testing. His story is one of assurance, not ordeal.

By contrast, Ishmael’s life is consistently shaped by:

• wilderness trials (Genesis 16; 21),

• existential fear,

• near-death experience,

• divine intervention,

• themes of testing and endurance.

Ishmael’s identity aligns naturally with the Akedah’s motifs of danger, trial, and divine rescue. Thus:

Isaac’s joyful identity contradicts the sacrificial profile of Genesis 22, while Ishmael’s narrative fully embodies it.

This provides strong internal support for the view that Genesis 22 originally concerned Ishmael.

⸻

❇️ 6. Canonical Jewish and Christian Chronology

The canonical sequence upheld by rabbinic and Christian tradition is:

1. Genesis 16 — Ishmael’s birth

2. Genesis 17 — covenant + Isaac’s first announcement

3. Genesis 21 — Isaac’s birth

4. Genesis 22 — near-sacrifice of Isaac

Within this framework:

• “Only son” becomes “only covenantal son,”

• Isaac becomes the heir of promise,

• Ishmael is excluded from the covenantal lineage.

Thus, canonical tradition remains coherent only by reinterpreting “only” to mean “unique heir,” not “sole child.”

This differs from the textual-critical reading, which seeks chronological and narrative coherence rather than theological harmonization.

⸻

❇️ 7. Historical-Critical Support

Multiple scholars note features that suggest Genesis 22 may have originally been an Ishmael narrative:

• The “only son” designation fits Ishmael literally.

• The structure resembles ancient Near Eastern “trial of the firstborn” motifs.

• The E source may contain pro-Ishmaelite or non-Isaac traditions.

• The Qur’anic narrative preserves a memory of Ishmael as the sacrificial son.

• Genesis 17 (P) introduces Isaac in a way that appears to supersede earlier traditions.

Thus, while the Isaac reading is canonical, the Ishmael reading is historically and textually plausible.

⸻

❇️ 8. General Evaluation

Logical Consistency:

The reconstructed chronology produces a fully coherent and logically airtight reading of Genesis 22.

Theological Coherence:

The Ishmael reading aligns with:

• the textual structure of E traditions,

• the narrative identity of Ishmael,

• the meaning of Isaac’s name,

• the thematic profile of divine testing.

Canonical Compatibility:

No, it remains incompatible with Jewish and Christian canonical order but fits comfortably within:

• Islamic tradition,

• source-critical reconstructions,

• non-canonical chronological models.

⸻

❇️ 9. Conclusion

The proposal that Genesis 22 originally preceded Genesis 17 and that Ishmael was the original referent of “your only son” demonstrates:

• internal logical strength,

• narrative coherence,

• textual-critical plausibility,

• alignment with Ishmael’s life themes,

• and deep theological resonance.

Isaac’s identity as the child of joy makes him an unlikely candidate for a narrative of trial and near-sacrifice, whereas Ishmael’s life is defined by the very motifs reflected in the Akedah (The Near-Sacrifice Story). While the Isaac interpretation remains normative in Jewish and Christian tradition, the Ishmael interpretation is academically viable and theologically consistent within a reconstructed pre-canonical framework.

This also resolves a major tension:

It appears contradictory that God would guarantee a covenant and future descendants through Isaac in Genesis 17, only to instruct his near-destruction in Genesis 22.

This contradiction dissolves entirely under the reconstructed chronology.

— Azahari Hassim

Founder, The World of Abrahamic Theology