Why does God call Isaac Abraham's only son, when Abraham also had Ishmael for a son? Doesn't only mean only?

Question

"And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac..." Gen 22: 2

"...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." Gen 22: 12.

"...and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:" Gen 22: 16

The Bible says that Ishmael's mother, Hagar, was a wife to Abraham. Which means Ishmael was a legitimate son, not a bastard.

"And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Gen 16:3.

When Ishmael and Hagar were sent away it was clear that Ishmael was not to be the rightful heir, but it is also clear that Ishmael would remain Abraham's son. God said, "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed." Gen 21:13.

Even after Abraham died Ishmael is still called Abraham son. "And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah..." Gen 25:9.

Also, "Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bare unto Abraham:" Gen 25:12.

So the Bible never stops calling Ishmael Abraham's son. So why, just because Isaac is the heir is he the "only" son?

Thank you for your additional ideas, Pam. I have read the Bible, and I do read the Bible. I still think my question is legitimate.

Answer 1

It is the divine reversal - a pattern that is constantly repeated throughout the Bible ...

It is even hidden in the Hebrew (and the Greek too) language of the text in a literary form called a chiasm.

In a chiasm, concepts or ideas are placed in a special symmetric order or pattern in a mirrored structure to emphasize them.

For example, Matt 20:16a “So the last will be first, and the first last.” This sentence is a simple chiasm:

A So the **last**
B will be **first**
B’ and the **first**
A’ **last**.

And that is exactly what a chiasm does: it places the last first and the first last. When you break down a chiasm, the letters on the right are used to show which parts of the chiasm correspond to each other. Look at it like a mirror. The second half reflects the first half.

This divine reversal is seen also in the Biblical characters...

Cain is the firstborn, of the two Abel is last. But Abel's offering is accepted and Cain's is rejected.

Ishmael is the firstborn, of the two Isaac is last. But Ishmael is rejected as the Messiah's lineage and Isaac is accepted.

Esau is the firstborn, Jacob is last. But Esau is rejected and Jacob is accepted.

And there are more ... like David ... the youngest son rejected by his brothers and father but who ended up in the Messiah's bloodline etc

All of these that are rejected are only rejected from being in the Messiah's bloodline. They are not rejected from the love of God. It is never about the individual, it is about Jesus coming through their bloodline.

It is ultimately all about Jesus. Because actually, God calls Israel His firstborn son, yet He calls Jesus His "ONLY" begotten Son, echoing His own words to Abraham in Genesis 22:2. So the divine reversal comes into play there again. Isaac is a 'type' of Christ. It is never about rejection of the first son, it is about Jesus and the bloodline that led up to His birth.

God bless you

Answer 2

Oh oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know this one!

Gen 16:15-16: Abram has a son named Ishmael

Gen 17:5: Abram receives a new name: Abraham

Gen 18: God promises a son to Sarah, Abraham's wife (Hagar is a concubine)

Gen 21 - Isaac is born to Sarah and Abraham and Sarah has Hagar and Ishamael cast out. (Don't be too harsh on Sarah, there were real safety concerns here because it wasn't uncommon for someone in Ishmael's position to kill a young heir like Isaac.) This effectively ends Abraham's relationship with both Hagar and Ishmael, legally speaking.

Gen 22 - Isaac is the only son.

So the answer to your question is:
a) "Abram" was the father of Ishmael and "Abraham" was of Isaac: thus "Abraham" had only one son

b) Ishmael was the son of a concubine and not an heir

c) Ishmael and Hagar had been disowned by and legally removed from the family

Side Note: Those that are answering that Ishmael was illegitimate and thus not an heir are incorrect. Ishamel was considered legally the son of Sarai (Sarah before God changed her name) as per Gen 16:2. Ishmael *would* have been an heir had not Isaac been born.

Besides, such answers are imposing a 21st century marriage standard onto poor Abraham. Neither of his sons was illegitimate. A concubine was a wife from the servant class, not a "mistress."

Answer 3

Where are you getting the "only son" statement about Isaac? The Lord clearly made a covenant with Isaac Which he did not make with Ishmael although Ishmael still got some blessings for being a son of Abram. Notice that AFTER Abram had Ishmael God changed Abram's and his wife Sarai's names to Abraham and Sarah respectively, to signify that there was a new order with the covenant He made with them so consequently Isaac is the son of promise under that covenant (Gen chapter 17) and not Ishmael.

Answer 4

Abrahams Son

Answer 5

You haven't read your bible, have you? Abraham had sent away Ishmael, his other son.
Isaac was the "ONLY SON" that Abraham had left. Ishmael was not the "promised child". He was a mistake that Abraham made because he lacked faith to patiently wait on God for the promise of a son through Sarah. Even though Ishmael was a mistake, God still promised to bless him for Abraham's sake. But God made Abraham send Ishmael away because he would not be heir with Isaac. Isaac was the only heir. Abraham had more children after Sarah's death with another wife and they were not heirs either. At Abraham's death, they were sent gifts but not the substance of what Abraham had. Isaac was the only heir and through him alone God would fulfill his promises to Abraham.

Answer 6

Son Of Abraham

Answer 7

He's the only son of the promise, the covenant. He's the only son born from the faith in the promise that God gave Abraham. He's the only son who could receive his birthright.

Ishmael was what happened when Sarah and Abraham decided that God wasn't making good on His promise quickly enough and they decided to speed things up a bit. We see how well that's gone. *sigh*

This is actually an interesting issue to study from both a natural and supernatural level --- it has *much* to teach us about waiting on God and what happens when we do things out of the flesh rather than following after God's Spirit.

Fleshly actions produce spiritually illegitimate children. Walking after the Spirit produces results beyond what we can imagine.

Answer 8

1. Isaac was his only legitimate son...ie the son of Sarah, his wife. Ishmael was the sone of Hagar, a servant and concubine.

2. Isaac was his only son in the sense that Isaac embodied the teachings of his father that would be passed down to Jacob and eventually to the entire Israelite (Jewish) people.

3. Isaac was prophesied as the son who would inherit and maintain Abraham's legacy.

Answer 9

Ishmael was his son through Hagar, a handmaid of Sarah. He was not a legitimate child, or heir, to Abraham.

Answer 10

Remember that by this time, Ishmael was a grown man, and had LONG before left Abraham's Bedouin encampment. He lived a good distance off, and was founding his own tribe, so Isaac was Abraham's "only son" in the sense that he was the only one left at home, I suppose.