Question: In Genesis 22:12 and 16 G-d addresses Abraham regarding Isaac as “your only son”. What about Ishmael? Is he not Abraham’s first born son?

Answer: Hi! Interesting question you’re asking. To add to it, G-d uses the phrase before these in verse 2 of the same chapter: “Take your son, your only son, that you love – Isaac…”

To answer your question, take a look at the previous chapter, 21(12-13), where G-d simultaneously reassures Abraham about Ishmael and declares Isaac’s sole legitimacy:

“G-d said to Abraham, don’t feel bad about the child (Ishmael) and the handmaiden (Hagar); everything that Sarah said, you should listen to her voice, because Isaac will be the one called your descendant. But also the son of the handmaiden I shall make into a nation; he is (after all) your descendant too.”

Follow-up Question: First of all, let me thank you for taking of your time to answer.

On the simple level, your explanation for this riddle might do. But still, I’m digging deeper.

True, in Gen. 21:12 and 13 Torah states legitimacy. But how come in Genesis 22:2 it says “your legitimate son” instead of—or besides—“your only son”. Torah is very sharp. It states categorically “your only son”, after saying”I will make a great nation from him, because he (Ishmael) is also your seed.” Please note it does not state “your descendence” but “your seed”. True or false heritage, nevertheless he is also his seed.

Maybe it all has little to do with Abraham but to legitimate Sarah, now a princess, instead of the constrained Sarai, bitter and barren for a hundred years. Perhaps the whole matter has to do to legitimate matrilineal descendance and once and for all separate the two sons—the two worlds.

Yes, Abraham loves Ishmael—can you not love a son?—but when Sarah, the Princess, asks (commands) him to send both Haggar and his eldest son away, he does not hesitate. Hagar was Sarai’s handmaiden and only with her blessings Hagar bore him a son, so as Abraham would not be left childless. Later on, Sarah cries “the wolf”, “the wolf”, leaving Abraham in an awkward situation thus forcing him to make the entire situation “Kosher”. Let us remember monogamy was not a custom in Abraham’s days. And maybe a child out of wedlock should not be considered legitimate, then and now.

Rashi explains that Sarah’s prophetical level was higher than Abraham’s. And maybe this is what it is all about. Nothing is missing from Torah, but somehow I feel something is lacking. This is the eternal problem with the unsaid. As the verse states “G-d opened Hagar’s eyes” and she “saw the water”, I do hope G-d will open mine.

Thank you again.

Answer: Thanks again for your interesting question. You added a lot of interesting ideas. Maybe I’ll just add a few more points:

I don’t know of a word for “legitimate” in Hebrew, or its opposite (nor a word for descendant aside from “seed”). Still, it’s clear from both sets of verses we discussed that the Torah is separating between Abraham’s “real” son, Isaac, and his “other” son, Ishmael. As you pointed out, the Torah even says why. Genesis 17(19-20): “Sarah, your wife, shall bear to you a son; call his name Isaac – I will establish my covenant with him… And I will listen (to your pleas) about Ishmael…” The covenant must continue through a child of Sarah. (In a separate point, the Torah there also implies that Abraham must be circumcised before he can bear the child that will carry on the covenant.)

It’s fascinating, by the way, to see the struggle that Abraham has with this very issue. The Midrash says that G-d had some work to do to identify the object of the Akeidah (binding). Abraham absorbs it slowly: Take your son – I have two sons. Your only son – both are only sons to their mothers. That you love – I love both of them. Isaac – ...

Note that questions of legitimacy did not enter into the children of Jacob. Four of them were also from maid-servants, but all twelve were entirely legitimate founders of tribes. The difference is that the maid-servants did not take advantage of the opportunity to upset the mistresses, and the families were able to remain together.

I don’t agree, by the way, that monogamy was not the custom. There were exceptions, but it was even then understood to be the ideal. Abraham didn’t marry two wives by choice; he was forced into it by his and Sarai’s need to have a child. Afterwards, the strife involved forced him to send Hagar away. Isaac never had more than one wife. And even Jacob didn’t take four wives by choice; he was first tricked into two by his father-in-law, then required to take their maidservants for the same reason as Abraham. Aside from kings for national reasons, it was almost unheard of for (decent) people to have several wives, in the Torah or in the Talmud.

Thanks for your comments.

Best wishes,
Michoel Reach