Abraham's Sacrifice: Isaac or Ishmael?
One of the most significant narratives in both the Bible and the Quran is Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son at God's command. However, the two scriptures disagree on a crucial detail: which son did Abraham nearly sacrifice? The Bible clearly identifies Isaac, while Islamic tradition typically claims it was Ishmael. This disagreement has profound implications for understanding God's covenant promises and the legitimacy of competing religious claims.
The Biblical Account
The book of Genesis provides a detailed narrative of what Christians and Jews call the "Binding of Isaac" (Akedah):
"Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, 'Abraham!' 'Here I am,' he replied. Then God said, 'Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.'" (Genesis 22:1-2)
The biblical account includes several specific details:
- Isaac is explicitly named multiple times throughout the narrative (Genesis 22:2, 3, 6, 7, 9)
- Isaac is called Abraham's "only son" despite Ishmael being alive at the time
- The location is specified: Mount Moriah, later identified with Jerusalem
- Isaac was old enough to carry wood and ask questions about the sacrifice
- The sacrifice was prevented by an angel, and a ram was substituted
This event occurs in Genesis 22, well after Ishmael's birth (Genesis 16) and his departure from Abraham's household (Genesis 21). The chronology makes it impossible to confuse the two sons—Isaac is the son of promise born to Sarah, while Ishmael is the son of Hagar, Sarah's Egyptian servant.
The Quranic Account
The Quran mentions Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son but does not explicitly name which son:
"And he said, 'Indeed, I will go to [where I am ordered by] my Lord; He will guide me. My Lord, grant me [a child] from among the righteous.' So We gave him good tidings of a forbearing boy. And when he reached with him [the age of] exertion, he said, 'O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you, so see what you think.' He said, 'O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, of the steadfast.' And when they had both submitted and he put him down upon his forehead, We called to him, 'O Abraham, You have fulfilled the vision.' Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good. Indeed, this was the clear trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice, And We left for him [favorable mention] among later generations: 'Peace upon Abraham.' Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good. Indeed, he was of Our believing servants. And We gave him good tidings of Isaac, a prophet from among the righteous." (Surah 37:99-112)
Notice that the Quran does not name the son to be sacrificed. However, many Islamic scholars have concluded it was Ishmael based on the phrase "And We gave him good tidings of Isaac" coming after the sacrifice narrative, suggesting Isaac's birth was a reward following the sacrifice.
Islamic tradition is actually divided on this question. Early Muslim scholars, including some companions of Muhammad, believed it was Isaac. However, the dominant view in later Islamic tradition became that it was Ishmael, partly to establish Ishmael's (and thus the Arabs') special status in salvation history.
Why Muslims Identify Ishmael
Several factors have led many Muslims to identify Ishmael as the son of sacrifice:
1. The Sequencing Argument: Since the Quran mentions good tidings about Isaac after the sacrifice narrative, some Muslims argue Isaac hadn't been born yet, therefore the son must have been Ishmael.
2. Connection to Hajj Rituals: The Islamic pilgrimage (Hajj) includes sacrificing an animal during Eid al-Adha, commemorating Abraham's sacrifice. Since Islamic tradition places Abraham and Ishmael in Mecca (not Jerusalem), it seems natural to connect Ishmael with the sacrifice.
3. The "Only Son" Problem: Some Muslims argue that since Ishmael was born first, he was Abraham's "only son" at one point, making him the more likely candidate. However, this ignores the biblical timeline, which places the sacrifice after Ishmael's departure from Abraham's household.
4. Theological Priority: Identifying Ishmael as the sacrifice elevates the Arab peoples (traditionally descended from Ishmael) and creates a stronger connection between Islam and Abraham's most profound act of faith.
The Biblical Evidence for Isaac
The biblical evidence that Isaac was the son of sacrifice is overwhelming:
1. Explicit Identification: Genesis 22:2 directly names Isaac: "Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac." There is no ambiguity in the Hebrew text.
2. "Your Only Son": While Ishmael was still alive, God calls Isaac Abraham's "only son." This makes sense in the context of the covenant promise. God had specifically promised that Abraham's covenant heir would come through Sarah (Genesis 17:19-21): "But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."
3. Chronological Consistency: Genesis provides a clear timeline. Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86 (Genesis 16:16). Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 (Genesis 21:5). Ishmael left Abraham's household when Isaac was weaned, probably around age 3 (Genesis 21:8-21). The sacrifice occurred when Isaac was old enough to carry wood and engage in theological discussion—probably in his teenage years or early twenties. By this time, Ishmael had been gone for many years.
4. The Location: The Bible specifies Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:2), later identified with Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 3:1). This is where Solomon's Temple was built. Ishmael, according to Islamic tradition, lived in Arabia near Mecca—thousands of miles away.
5. New Testament Confirmation: The New Testament references Isaac as the son of sacrifice, not Ishmael: "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.'" (Hebrews 11:17-18)
The Theological Significance
Why does it matter which son Abraham nearly sacrificed? Because the identity of the son connects to God's covenant promises:
The Covenant Through Isaac: God explicitly established His covenant through Isaac, not Ishmael:
"Then God said, 'Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.'" (Genesis 17:19-21)
This covenant would lead to the nation of Israel, the line of David, and ultimately to Jesus Christ. The promise of blessing to all nations through Abraham's offspring (Genesis 12:3) finds its fulfillment in Jesus, who descended from Isaac, not Ishmael.
Typology and Prophecy: For Christians, the sacrifice of Isaac prefigures the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God provided a ram to die in Isaac's place (Genesis 22:13), just as God later provided His own Son as a substitute sacrifice for humanity. John the Baptist's declaration about Jesus—"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)—echoes back to Abraham's statement in Genesis 22:8: "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering."
The location is also significant. Mount Moriah, where Isaac was to be sacrificed, is the same location where Solomon later built the Temple, and approximately the same location (nearby) where Jesus was crucified. This geographical connection reinforces the theological typology: the place where God provided a ram to substitute for Isaac is near the place where God provided His Son as a substitute for humanity.
The Problem with Changing the Narrative
The Islamic identification of Ishmael as the son of sacrifice creates several problems:
1. Contradicting Earlier Scripture: The Torah, written approximately 1000 BC, explicitly names Isaac. The Quran, written around 650 AD, does not name the son but Islamic tradition identifies him as Ishmael. This requires believing that either the Torah was corrupted at some point (despite no manuscript evidence for such corruption), or that 1,600 years of Jewish and Christian understanding was wrong.
2. Breaking the Covenant Line: If the sacrifice was Ishmael, it disconnects this crucial event from God's covenant promise, which explicitly runs through Isaac to Jacob/Israel. The entire redemptive narrative from Abraham to Christ depends on the covenant line through Isaac.
3. Requiring Textual Corruption: To maintain that Ishmael was the son of sacrifice, one must believe that the specific mentions of "Isaac" in Genesis 22 are corruptions of the original text. However, there is no manuscript evidence for this. The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to before the time of Christ, confirm the current text of Genesis including the specific references to Isaac in chapter 22.
Early Islamic Confusion
It's significant that early Islamic scholars were divided on this question. According to the tafsir (commentary) tradition:
- Ibn Abbas, a cousin of Muhammad, reportedly said it was Isaac
- Some early traditions held it was Isaac
- Later scholars increasingly identified Ishmael, possibly influenced by desire to elevate Ishmael's (and thus the Arabs') status
This confusion is revealing. If the Quran intended to correct the biblical account, why didn't it explicitly name Ishmael as the son to be sacrificed? The ambiguity suggests either the Quran assumed readers would know from the biblical account (Isaac), or Muhammad was uncertain about which son was involved.
Biblical Contrast: The Covenant Through Isaac
The Bible is unambiguous about the covenant line and Isaac's role:
"Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: 'We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us: "I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth."'" (Acts 13:46-47)
Paul explains in Galatians that the promise to Abraham finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ:
"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)
This interpretation depends on the covenant running through Isaac (to Jacob, to Judah, to David, to Jesus), not through Ishmael. Changing the identity of the son of sacrifice disrupts this entire redemptive narrative.
Questions to Consider
- Why does the Bible explicitly name Isaac multiple times in Genesis 22, while the Quran does not name the son at all?
- What manuscript evidence exists for believing the name "Isaac" in Genesis 22 is a later corruption?
- How do we reconcile God's explicit promise to establish His covenant through Isaac (Genesis 17:19-21) with claims that Ishmael was the son of sacrifice?
- Why would God call Isaac "your only son" if Ishmael was still alive and was actually the one to be sacrificed?
- If the sacrifice occurred at Mount Moriah (later Jerusalem), how could it have been Ishmael, who lived in Arabia?
- Why was there confusion among early Islamic scholars about which son was sacrificed if the Quran intended to correct the biblical account?
- How does changing the identity of the sacrificed son affect the typological connection to Christ's sacrifice?
- What theological motivation might exist for later Islamic tradition to identify Ishmael as the sacrificed son?
- Does the New Testament's explicit identification of Isaac as the son of sacrifice (Hebrews 11:17-18) carry any weight in evaluating competing claims?
The biblical account is clear, consistent, and confirmed by multiple sources: Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac, the son of promise, through whom God's covenant would continue. This event points forward to God's ultimate sacrifice of His own Son, Jesus Christ, to redeem humanity. The Islamic claim that Ishmael was the sacrificed son lacks support from the earliest sources and requires us to dismiss explicit biblical testimony in favor of later tradition. The identity of the son matters because it connects to God's covenant purposes and the coming of the Messiah through the line of Isaac, Jacob, and David.