Why is there no command in the Torah to commemorate Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac?

What is the reason there is no command in the Torah to commemorate Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac?

Some argue that the absence of a command to commemorate Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac in the Torah suggests that Genesis 22, verse 2, was altered to include Isaac's name. This absence is often juxtaposed with the Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha in scholarly discussions. How is their argument articulated?

The scholarly argument that the absence of a command to commemorate Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac in the Torah suggests that Genesis 22, verse 2, was altered to include Isaac's name can be articulated as follows:

1. Textual Observation:

Genesis 22, verse 2, identifies Isaac as the son that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice.

However, the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) does not contain any divine commandment or ritual to commemorate this pivotal event in the life of Abraham.

2. Comparative Analysis with Islamic Tradition:

In contrast, the Islamic tradition commemorates this event through the annual festival of Eid al-Adha.

Eid al-Adha includes specific rituals such as animal sacrifice (qurbani), distribution of meat to the poor, communal prayers, and multi-day celebrations.

This festival is one of the most significant observances in the Islamic calendar, underscoring the centrality of Abraham's sacrifice in the Muslim tradition.

3. Scholarly Questions and Implications:

The absence of any commemorative command or ritual for the Binding of Isaac (the Akedah) in the Torah is seen as puzzling by some scholars.

This is particularly notable given that the Torah typically prescribes commemorative rituals for other major events in Jewish history, such as the Exodus (Passover) and the giving of the Torah (Shavuot).

The contrast between the absence of commemoration in the Jewish tradition and the elaborate observance in the Islamic tradition raises questions about the potential development and evolution of the biblical narrative.

4. Historical-Critical Perspective:

Some scholars argue that the absence of a commemorative command in the Torah may suggest that the identification of Isaac as the son in Genesis 22, verse 2, was a later addition or alteration to the original narrative.

The argument suggests that the earlier tradition may have been focused on Ishmael, and the inclusion of Isaac's name might represent a later theological development.

The absence of a commemorative commandment may suggest a possible evolution in the text.

5. Scholarly Framework:

This argument employs a comparative religious studies approach, juxtaposing the treatment of the Abrahamic sacrifice narrative in the Jewish and Islamic traditions.

The contrast between the absence of commemoration in the Torah and the presence of a major festival in the Islamic tradition is used as a basis for textual-critical analysis of the biblical narrative.

It is important to note that this argument represents one scholarly perspective, and there are various interpretations and counterarguments within the academic discourse on this subject.

Islamic Eid al-Adha (feast of sacrifice) vs Jewish Passover

Some contend that the celebration of Eid al-Adha (feast of sacrifice) by all Muslims, in contrast to the Jewish observance of Passover, suggests that Muslims are linked to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, while Jews are associated with the Sinai covenant. How does their argument go?

The argument that Muslims are linked to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, while Jews are associated with the Sinai covenant, is based on a few key points:

1. Eid al-Adha commemorates Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, which Muslims believe was Ishmael rather than Isaac. This directly connects Muslims to Abraham and Ishmael.

2. All Muslims worldwide celebrate Eid al-Adha by sacrificing an animal, reminiscent of Abraham's sacrifice. This universal observance is seen as linking all Muslims to the Abrahamic covenant.

3. The Quran portrays Ishmael as assisting Abraham in building the Kaaba (House of God) in Mecca, further cementing the connection between Muslims, Abraham and Ishmael.

4. In contrast, Passover specifically commemorates the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under Moses' leadership. This event is directly tied to the giving of the Torah and establishment of the Sinai covenant.

5. The Sinai covenant, with its 613 commandments, is seen as specifically binding on Jews rather than on all people.

6. Some argue there is a distinction between the Abrahamic covenant characterized by promise, and the Sinai covenant characterized by law.

7. While both trace ancestry to Abraham, Muslims see themselves as spiritual descendants of Ishmael, while Jews trace their lineage through Isaac and Jacob.

Therefore, this difference in religious observances implies that Muslims see themselves as heirs to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, while Jews associate themselves more closely with the later Sinai covenant.
However, it's important to note that both religions still consider Abraham a key patriarch and founder of monotheism.

This argument highlights some of the theological differences between Islam and Judaism regarding their relationship to Abraham and divine covenants, though both religions still revere Abraham as a major prophet and patriarch.

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.