Ishmael in Genesis 21: Baby vs. Mocking Teenager

A Case for Interpolation in Genesis 21:9–10

The Core Contradiction

Genesis 21 contains two irreconcilable portrayals of Ishmael:

• Genesis 21:14–20: Ishmael is depicted as a helpless child—carried on Hagar’s shoulder, laid under a bush, and rescued by an angel. Verse 20 reinforces this image: “And God was with the boy, and he grew.” If Ishmael had already been a teenager or older, it would not have been necessary to mention his growth..

• Genesis 21:9–10: Ishmael appears as a teenager “mocking” Isaac, prompting Sarah to demand his expulsion to secure Isaac’s inheritance.

But according to Genesis 16:16 and 21:5, Ishmael was 16–17 years old at this point. The surrounding verses (vv. 14–20), however, treat him as if he were an infant. This is not a stylistic flourish but a direct contradiction in age and behavior within the same episode.

The Textual Inconsistency

The contradiction is sharp:

• Genesis 21:14–20 + 21:20 → Ishmael is a small boy growing up under God’s care.

• Genesis 21:9–10 → Ishmael is a mocking adolescent, a threat to Isaac’s status.

This inconsistency strongly suggests that Genesis 21 combines two traditions or has been redacted with an interpolation to reshape the story.

Why 21:9–10 is Interpolation

Several factors converge:

1. Contradictory portrayals: helpless child vs. mocking teenager.

2. Abrupt insertion: v. 9 introduces a sudden and unexplained motive.

3. Theological shaping: vv. 9–10 are designed to exclude Ishmael from inheritance.

4. Textual fluidity: the LXX (Septuagint) shows this very section was unstable.

5. Narrative flow without vv. 9–10: the story reads smoothly if Sarah’s demand is absent—Abraham provides, Hagar departs, baby Ishmael nearly dies, God rescues, Ishmael grows.

Hebrew Note

In Genesis 21:14, the Hebrew says:

וַיִּתֵּ֣ן אֶל־הָגָ֑ר שָׂ֣ם עַל־שִׁכְמָ֔הּ וְאֶת־הַיֶּ֖לֶד

“He put [the bread and water] on her shoulder, and [he gave her] the child.”
Some translations smooth this as if Abraham “placed the child on her shoulder,” reinforcing the infant image. Others take it as “gave her the child,” but the syntax still suggests dependence and smallness—clashing with the teenager portrayal of vv. 9–10.

The Islamic Resonance

The “helpless child” imagery in Genesis 21 aligns closely with the Islamic tradition, in which Abraham leaves Hagar and infant Ishmael in the valley of Makkah, where God miraculously provides water (the well of Zamzam). This suggests that the older stratum of the story remembered Ishmael as a baby. The later interpolation (vv. 9–10) reframes him as a rival heir to justify his expulsion and Isaac’s primacy.

Conclusion

Genesis 21 preserves two incompatible portrayals of Ishmael: one as a baby in need of rescue, another as a mocking teenager. The tension is best explained by redactional activity, with Genesis 21:9–10 functioning as an interpolation to serve Israel’s covenantal theology. Without those verses, the passage regains coherence and aligns with an earlier tradition—one that resonates strongly with the Islamic account of Ishmael’s infancy.

Abraham’s Near Sacrifice: Why No Torah Commemoration?

The story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son stands as one of the most dramatic and defining episodes in the shared heritage of the Abrahamic faiths. Known in Jewish tradition as the Akedah (“the binding”), this test of obedience demonstrates Abraham’s total submission to God. Yet one striking question remains: why does the Torah prescribe no festival or ritual to commemorate such a pivotal event, even though it ordains commemorations for other moments of salvation and faith?

📖 Torah’s Silence

The book of Genesis describes the scene in stark terms:

“Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering…” (Genesis 22:2)
The text names Isaac as the intended son. Yet, for all its significance, the Torah gives no command to remember this event in the ritual life of Israel. By contrast, the Torah carefully prescribes detailed festivals for other acts of divine deliverance: Passover recalls the Exodus, Shavuot remembers the giving of the Law, and Sukkot marks the wilderness wanderings. In the case of the Akedah, however, silence reigns.

🕋 Islam’s Commemoration

Islam preserves the story in living ritual through the festival of Eid al-Adha. Each year, millions of Muslims worldwide commemorate Abraham’s test of faith with practices that echo the original event:
• Qurbani (sacrifice of livestock) recalls God’s substitution of a ram.
• Prayers unite the community in remembrance.
• Charity ensures that the poor share in the meat.
• Universality makes the commemoration a global act of worship.

In Islamic tradition, the son who was nearly sacrificed is identified as Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn. Thus, what Judaism remembers only in narrative, Islam enshrines in ritual and practice.

❓ The Scholarly Puzzle

This divergence raises a significant puzzle: why would Judaism, with its rich festival calendar, omit commemoration of such a defining story? If Isaac was truly the son placed upon the altar, then surely his survival—no less than the Exodus—warrants annual remembrance.

Some scholars suggest that Genesis 22:2 may have undergone redaction, with the name “Isaac” inserted in place of “Ishmael.” If the original tradition centered on Ishmael, the absence of Jewish ritual commemoration begins to make sense: a story once attached to Abraham’s firstborn was later reshaped, and silence became the safest theological option.

🏺 Historical-Critical Insight

From a historical-critical perspective, the silence of the Torah may itself be evidence of earlier memories. It is possible that the original story celebrated Ishmael as the son of sacrifice, a view preserved in Islamic tradition. Later scribes, seeking to reinforce Israel’s covenantal identity through Isaac, may have shifted the narrative. The result was a text that names Isaac, but a ritual calendar that refuses to enshrine the memory—reflecting the unease of a rewritten tradition.

🔍 Comparative Framework

The contrast between traditions can be summarized as follows:
• Judaism → The Torah recounts the story but prescribes no festival. The Akedah is remembered in prayer and commentary, but not ritually enacted.
• Islam → The near sacrifice is ritually commemorated through Eid al-Adha, making it a central act of worship and identity.
• Scholarship → The absence of Jewish commemoration is itself a clue, pointing to possible textual evolution and redaction.

🌟 Conclusion

The silence of the Torah is as meaningful as its words.
• For Judaism, the story of Abraham’s test lives in memory but not in ritual practice.
• For Islam, it is a central, annual commemoration, binding the global community in submission to God’s will.
• For scholars, the absence of Torah commemoration hints at deeper layers of textual evolution and theological rewriting.

In the end, the children of Abraham inherited the same story but carried it forward in different ways—Judaism with silence, Islam with celebration. This divergence reflects not only theological difference, but also the complex history of how sacred texts were remembered, reshaped, and lived.

The Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants: An Islamic Perspective on Sacred Continuity and Relics

In the comparative theology of Abrahamic religions, the concept of divine covenants occupies a central role. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all trace their spiritual lineage to the Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim عليه السلام), but they diverge in their understanding of which covenant is binding and through whom it continues.

One unique Islamic perspective highlights the theological and symbolic significance of sacred relics and the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai (Mosaic) Covenant. This article explores how Islamic scholars frame the continuity of divine promise, drawing attention to the absence of Abrahamic relics in Jewish tradition and the centrality of Abrahamic symbolism in Islamic rites.

1. Two Covenants: Abrahamic and Sinai

The Abrahamic Covenant, as recorded in both the Bible and Qur’an, was made between God and Abraham, promising:

• A multitude of descendants

• A blessed lineage

• A divinely appointed land

In contrast, the Sinai Covenant—or Mosaic Covenant—was established generations later, between God and the Israelites through Moses at Mount Sinai. This covenant was heavily centered on legal ordinances, ritual purity, and national identity.

Islamic scholars underscore this distinction, arguing that while the Sinai Covenant was specific to the Israelites and conditional upon their obedience, the Abrahamic Covenant is universal, unconditional, and eternal, forming the foundation of Islamic monotheism.

2. Islamic Continuity: Inheriting the Abrahamic Legacy

From an Islamic theological standpoint, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is seen as a direct descendant of Abraham through his firstborn son Ishmael. This lineage is critical in Islamic thought, as it places Muhammad ﷺ and the Muslim ummah within the direct stream of Abrahamic blessing and covenantal responsibility.

Islam views itself not as a new religion, but as the revival and perfection of the original Abrahamic faith. This perspective is reinforced by the Qur’an’s emphasis on following “the religion of Abraham, the upright” (Qur’an 3:95), and by prophetic traditions affirming the the reconstruction of the House of God (Kaaba) by Abraham and Ishmael.

3. The Role of Sacred Relics

A distinctive element of the Islamic argument involves the presence or absence of Abrahamic relics:

In Islam, the Kaaba (House of God) in Mecca is considered the house built by Abraham and Ishmael (Qur’an 2:125–127), accompanied by the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) and the Station of Abraham (Maqam Ibrahim). These physical sites serve as living relics of the Abrahamic legacy, venerated by over a billion Muslims worldwide.

In Judaism, no physical relic directly associated with Abraham has been preserved. The most significant ancient artifact, the Ark of the Covenant, belongs to the Mosaic era and is tied to the Sinai Covenant, not Abraham. Moreover, it was lost during the destruction of the First Temple.

Islamic scholars point to this contrast to suggest that the direct covenantal heritage of Abraham has been preserved in Islam, not in Judaism. The absence of relics connected to Abraham in Jewish tradition is interpreted by some as symbolic of a rupture in the transmission of his legacy.

4. The Ark of the Covenant: Significance and Loss

The Ark of the Covenant remains an iconic symbol in Jewish history. It was said to contain the tablets of the Law (Torah) and represented the divine presence among the Israelites. However, from an Islamic perspective, the Ark is not seen as an Abrahamic relic but rather as a Mosaic artifact.

Its eventual loss during the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple is often viewed by Islamic scholars as a symbolic termination of the Sinai Covenant, marking the end of that specific historical phase of divine interaction.

5. Universality of the Abrahamic Covenant in Islam

A key theme in Islamic theology is the universality of the Abrahamic Covenant. Unlike the Sinai Covenant, which was exclusively for the Children of Israel, the Abrahamic Covenant—according to Islamic understanding—was meant for all peoples who follow the monotheistic path of submission to God (Islam).

This universalism is enshrined in the Qur’an (Surah 22:78):

“It is He who has named you Muslims before and in this [revelation], that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over mankind.”
Thus, Islam positions itself as the final and universal expression of the Abrahamic mission, encompassing all of humanity beyond ethnic or tribal lines.

6. Supersession and Theological Fulfillment

While Islam respects the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, many Islamic scholars adopt a form of theological supersessionism: the idea that Islam, as revealed to Muhammad ﷺ, completes and supersedes previous revelations. This includes both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

According to this view, the Qur’an is the final testament, and the Muslim community (ummah) is the rightful heir to Abraham’s spiritual legacy, fulfilling his vision of pure monotheism (tawḥīd) untainted by tribal exclusivism or theological alteration.

Conclusion

The Islamic view on the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants is deeply rooted in both theological reasoning and historical symbolism. By emphasizing the continuity of Abrahamic rites, the preservation of sacred relics, and the universal scope of its message, Islam asserts itself as the true fulfillment of the covenant established with Abraham.

The absence of equivalent Abrahamic relics in Jewish tradition and the eventual disappearance of the Ark are seen not as mere historical events, but as spiritual markers—signifying a shift from the tribal covenant of Sinai to the universal mission embodied by Islam.

While these perspectives are uniquely Islamic and may not be shared by Jewish or Christian theology, they contribute meaningfully to the broader discourse on how each faith understands its relationship with Abraham, the friend of God.

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.