God's Rejection of Ishmael

[Ronnee743]

And God said; Sarah your wife
shall bear you a son indeed; and
shall call his name Isaac: and I
will establish my covenant with him.
(Genesis 17.19)

It had been almost thirty years since Abraham heard God's call to follow him. He left Ur, not knowing where he went, he took with him Sarai, his father Terah and Lot, his nephew.


God said he would establish his covenant with Isaac, not Ishmael. When Abraham pleaded with God to let Ishmael live before him, God said no.

This is clear proof in the Bible that God
did not choose Ishmael,
but rather told Abraham that he would bless
Ishmael also, however he said he would make him a great nation. (Which God has fulfilled that)

But Muslims seem to think the word "nation" means religion. Nowhere did God ever promise to make Ishmael a religion.

There is no nation of Islam, since that
is not what God said he would make of Ishmael.
If God had meant religion, he would have said religion.

God said nation.
The dictionary defines a nation as
"a stable historically developed community
of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture, and language in common.The
people of a territory united under a single
government; country; state."

The dictionary says religion means,
"A system of religious belief, ethics, practices.etc."


Two different words......two different meanings

Muslims erroneously think it is the Bible that is wrong and not Muhammed.

God's words cannot be ignored; Jesus said in
John 10.35 that the scriptures cannot be broken.

This scripture means that soon Islam will be destroyed by the Lion of Judah.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This scripture means that soon Islam will be destroyed by the Lion of Judah.

Don't forget also that God "hated" Esau, but never hated Ishmael. Esau and Jacob were also "twins". All "alleghory and symbolic" I believe.

Malachi 1:1 The burden of a word of Jehovah unto Israel by the hand ofMalachi: 2 I have loved you, said Jehovah, And ye have said, `In what hast Thou loved us?' 3 Is not Esau Jacob's brother? --an affirmation of Jehovah, And I love Jacob, and Esau I have hated, And I make his mountains a desolation, And his inheritance for dragons of a wilderness.

 

[morningstar2651]

This is clear proof in the Bible that God
did not choose Ishmael,
but rather told Abraham that he would bless
Ishmael also, however he said he would make him a great nation. (Which God has fulfilled that)

This is a claim. A claim is defined as [SIZE=-1]an assertion that something is true or factual.

Now, here is the problem: Claims are not proof. Claims REQUIRE proof. I can claim that I'm a fairy princess, but that doesn't make it so. Now, if I were to accompany the claim with supporting evidence, then the claim is much more likely to be true.

PS - The book was originally written in Hebrew - not English. You might want to check the connotation of the Hebrew words, rather than the denotation of the English translation.
[/SIZE]

 

[Ronnee743]

PS - The book was originally written in Hebrew - not English. You might want to check the connotation of the Hebrew words, rather than the denotation of the English translation.
[/SIZE]

The proof is in the pudding.

Isaac was the father of Jacob and Jacob the father of Judah and Judah the father of Perez,
and on down to Mary the mother of Jesus Christ.

Isaac's birth begins the long line of sons that will be born in a direct line for
thousands of years until Jesus is born from that same line to Mary..

That does not apply to Ishmael who has no pedigree.

Some may doubt it, but it is still a fact.

 

[Ronnee743]

There is no purpose for Ishmael in the plan of salvation that God sent his Son. He sent Jesus through Isaac's family tree.

 

[Ronnee743]

Don't forget also that God "hated" Esau, but never hated Ishmael. Esau and Jacob were also "twins". All "alleghory and symbolic" I believe.

Malachi 1:1 The burden of a word of Jehovah unto Israel by the hand ofMalachi: 2 I have loved you, said Jehovah, And ye have said, `In what hast Thou loved us?' 3 Is not Esau Jacob's brother? --an affirmation of Jehovah, And I love Jacob, and Esau I have hated, And I make his mountains a desolation, And his inheritance for dragons of a wilderness.

But LLOJ, if you study the ancestry of Jesus Christ, you will see where he came from. He descended directly from Isaac.

Ishmael is not in the lineage of Jesus Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But LLOJ, if you study the ancestry of Jesus Christ, you will see where he came from. He descended directly from Isaac.

Ishmael is not in the lineage of Jesus Christ.

Correct.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

 

[Clark_98C]

EDIT: I was angry. I won't add to the hatemongering. As I can see where this will probably go.

Why don't we all try to act like Christ. Would Christ have started this thread?

 

[peepnklown]

He descended directly from Isaac.

First, compare the genealogy of David from the Hebrew bible and Matthew/Luke and you’ll see some problems with the Matthew/Luke.
Second, Matthew/Luke genealogy says nothing about Mary.
Third, even if you want to play the Mary card, this would invalidate Jesus from the line of David.

 

[Kathaleen]

Ronnee, you have some serious hate issues happening. You might want to refocus and act a little more Christ-like. It's not very becoming.

1) Ishmael is Abraham’s first-born son. 2) Hagar is Abraham’s lawfully wedded wife. 3) The covenant seed will be as numerous as the stars. 4) The covenant seed will be given the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers. 5) Ishmael was Abraham’s only son and seed for fourteen years. 6) Circumcision is the symbol of God’s covenant. 7) Ishmael was circumcised with his father on the same day to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins. None of the above have anything to do with Isaac.

In Deuteronomy 21:15-17 we read: "If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day of bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Therefore, it doesn't matter whether Abraham loved Ishmael, he is the first-born.

According to the Bible, Ishmael is Abraham’s son through his wife Hagar. Now listen to what Abraham has to say about the mother of Isaac, Sarah: "Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they kill me on account of my wife. But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife" (Genesis 20:11-12). Once again we have a breach of the book of Deuteronomy: "Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.And all the people shall say, Amen!" (Deuteronomy 27:22). If Abraham lived during the time of Moses, He would have been stoned to death. So how can the son of Abraham’s sister be legitimate? He can’t!

Peace,
Kathaleen

 

[akulion]

i guess that pretty well says it all. excellent post.

bro aku

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

1) Ishmael is Abraham’s first-born son. 2) Hagar is Abraham’s lawfully wedded wife. 3) The covenant seed will be as numerous as the stars. 4) The covenant seed will be given the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers. 5) Ishmael was Abraham’s only son and seed for fourteen years. 6) Circumcision is the symbol of God’s covenant. 7) Ishmael was circumcised with his father on the same day to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins. None of the above have anything to do with Isaac.

That is ok by me. The arabs/muslims can have all of Israel and Jerusalem if that is what it says.
Btw, who is the King in Ezekiel 37 just for the heck of it.

Ezekiel 37:21 "Then say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; 22 "and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again.

 

[jlujan69]

Ronnee, you have some serious hate issues happening. You might want to refocus and act a little more Christ-like. It's not very becoming.

1) Ishmael is Abraham’s first-born son. 2) Hagar is Abraham’s lawfully wedded wife. 3) The covenant seed will be as numerous as the stars. 4) The covenant seed will be given the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers. 5) Ishmael was Abraham’s only son and seed for fourteen years. 6) Circumcision is the symbol of God’s covenant. 7) Ishmael was circumcised with his father on the same day to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins. None of the above have anything to do with Isaac.

In Deuteronomy 21:15-17 we read: "If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day of bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Therefore, it doesn't matter whether Abraham loved Ishmael, he is the first-born.

According to the Bible, Ishmael is Abraham’s son through his wife Hagar. Now listen to what Abraham has to say about the mother of Isaac, Sarah: "Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they kill me on account of my wife. But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife" (Genesis 20:11-12). Once again we have a breach of the book of Deuteronomy: "Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.And all the people shall say, Amen!" (Deuteronomy 27:22). If Abraham lived during the time of Moses, He would have been stoned to death. So how can the son of Abraham’s sister be legitimate? He can’t!

Peace,
Kathaleen

If Abraham lived during the time of Moses, he would have been breaking God's Law. However, he did not. If you read the accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, there were plenty of things they did which would later be outlawed. You should also understand these things within the context of God's sovereignty. Does the clay tell the potter what to do with it? Why did God call out Abram, of all the Semitic people? Also, by looking at the lives of those whom God chose--Abraham (instead of someone else), Isaac (instead of Ishmael), Jacob (over Esau), Joseph (over his older brothers), David (over his brothers and Saul), or Jesus' disciples (why those specific twelve?), we can get a clue as to what God foresaw in them--a willingness to trust Him and cling to Him.

 

[jlujan69]

As an added thought, it's quite probable that Ishmael was a believer in the One True God of Israel. That would make him one of our (OT and NT believers) many brothers in the Lord. His mom may have been a believer as well, though it's not so clear with her.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As an added thought, it's quite probable that Ishmael was a believer in the One True God of Israel. That would make him one of our (OT and NT believers) many brothers in the Lord. His mom may have been a believer as well, though it's not so clear with her.

How do you view Ezekiel 37?

Ezekiel 37:22 "and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one King shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again.

Revelation 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

 

[peaceful soul]

Ronnee, you have some serious hate issues happening. You might want to refocus and act a little more Christ-like. It's not very becoming.

1) Ishmael is Abraham’s first-born son.

True, but the promise through the union of Abraham's legitamate wife, Sarai. The promise was given in Gen 11 or 12 I think. At that point, Abram was married to Sarai, and this was before God told Abram to leave his home and go afar, if I recall correctly. Additonally, even before Ishmael was born, God refused the proposal Abram gave Him to allow one of his servants be heir. At that time, God reiterated to him that Sarai would bear a child although she had been barren all this time. Also, later in Genesis (perhaps19 or 20 chpt.), God made it clear that the heir would come from the bowels of Abram, which meant from him and Sarai.

2) Hagar is Abraham’s lawfully wedded wife.

Continuing from above: The reason that Abram and Hagar had sexual intimacy was for the sole purpose of creating an heir for Abram. As I understand, it was a custom of that time I (perhaps Hammurabi Code) to go outside of marriage to have a child if the wife could not bear a child. It was frowned upon for a woman not bear a child. To finish the thought: it was Sarai's invention to allow Abram to mate with Hagar. It was not Abram's idea. Sarai failed to believe God when He told her that she was going to be the mother of a child. It was a lack of faith on both sides, Abram and Sarai, that produced Ishmael. This is the reason that God rejected Ishmael, not because of his rank as the first born, but due to an unfruitful relationship which God did not endorse. God's way was through Abram and Sarai, but they had other plans for God. I guess they figured that they could help God out of a jam by substituting their fruitless efforts and not believe God for His promise to first, Abram and then Sarai. The marriage between Hagar and Abram was a cultural norm of that time, but was not a divine act prophecied or instituted by God. God made it more clear as time neared for Isaac to be born that the covenant was through Abram and Sarai's offspring, Isaac.

3) The covenant seed will be as numerous as the stars.

Two things you need to be clear on: 1) The covenant was as you said but 2) it did not include Ishmael. God granted leniency on Hagar and Ishmael after Abram's pleading before God to grant Ishamael a part of his inheritance. God declined but promised that through Ishmael a nation of princes would be born. This does not count as a covenant because it is an unconditional promise. A covenant is a conditional promise, whereby Abraham had to comply to the terms of circumcision and a few other things in order for this covenant of promise to be invoked.

4) The covenant seed will be given the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers.

I can not verify that at the moment, but what would this prove?

5) Ishmael was Abraham’s only

quote]son and seed for fourteen years.

I have already addressed that issue. That had no bearing on what God promised Abram when he and Sarai were the only ones around when the promise was given.

6) Circumcision is the symbol of God’s covenant.

OK. Let's extend this logic to say that since every male was circumcised in Abram's house, everyone were included in the Covenant although God made it with Abram; furthermore, the maidservants would also create great nations too! Circumcision was not always a sign of a covenant. God's covenant with Adam was not of circumcision, as one glaring example.There were other ways that covenants were made too.

7) Ishmael was circumcised with his father on the same day to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins. None of the above have anything to do with Isaac.

Are you sure? Read below.
KJV:

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Gen 17:15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
Gen 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
Gen 17:18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
Gen 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
=====================================
Gen 21:1 And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken.
Gen 21:2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
Gen 21:3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.
Gen 21:4 And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

 

[peaceful soul]

...Continued

In Deuteronomy 21:15-17 we read: "If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day of bequeaths his possessions to his sons

, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Therefore, it doesn't matter whether Abraham loved Ishmael, he is the first-born.

Unlike the Qur'an perhaps, you can not go hopping around the Bible without keeping everything in context and chronology. The Law given to Moses has nothing to do with Abram, just as Abram's circumcision had nothing to do with Noah. These people were born in different times and had not seen the progressive revelation that God showed to later generations. The nature of progressive revelation is just that - progressive. You can not use specific applications of Deut as a litmus test for a former generation far removed from its implementation.

According to the Bible, Ishmael is Abraham’s

son through his wife Hagar. Now listen to what Abraham has to say about the mother of Isaac, Sarah: "Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they kill me on account of my wife. But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife" (Genesis 20:11-12). Once again we have a breach of the book of Deuteronomy: "Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.And all the people shall say, Amen!" (Deuteronomy 27:22). If Abraham lived during the time of Moses, He would have been stoned to death. So how can the son of Abraham’s sister be legitimate? He can’t!

Peace,
Kathaleen

Well, why don't get a time machine and go back to Noah's time and stone everyone who committed adultery. We can take a copy of the Mosaic and Levitical Laws and pass judgement upon them for all of their sinfulness. We can also tell Noah that he can eat pork, which God made acceptable to him and those after the flood. Lets make every law passed in by legislatures retroactive to let's say 50 years ago. Let's retroact the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 back to 1840 when there were no computers around and charge everyone for downloading music off of the Internet.. At what point should we stop this madness of yours?

As I just pointed out, we can not go out of God's timing and retrofit the present with the past. If you want to apply that logic, then you should be able to understand why it is possible for Jesus to fulfill the Law of Moses and Leviticus in the future whereby many of the Jews would look at this progression in revelation as a disconnect with what the had previously known. Mosaic Law was not given to every living creature either before or after the time of Moses. Abram was not a Jew and was not under the Law; so, those two things alone should suffice in my rebuttal to your argument.

PS: I thought that I should make it clear that my sacrasm in this last post is not to be taken personally. I am attacking the thought process of the individual and not the individual. I felt it was necessary to drive home a point. Whether that point is taken is out of my control. No offense to anyone, especially Kathaleen.

 

[Arthra]

God does not reject Ishmael:


Well unlike the first post in this thread I don't think God rejected Ishmael Consider Genesis 16:11 where it says the Angel of the Lord said to Hagar:

"Now you have conceived and you will bear a son and you shall call him Ishmael for God has heard your cries of distress..."

This is very special indeed as very few personages in the Bible receive a name from God.

The later part of the passage Genesis 16:12 I think could be translated differently:


"...a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."

Could be:

as a "a swift running man assisting each other dwelling in tents in the presence of his brethren."


So the negative translation which we have at first glance above is not entirely justified I think when we study the original Hebrew.



Also, there's another verse in the Bible that seems quite clear to me that God does not reject Ishmael.

See Genesis 17:20-21

"For Ishmael too I grant your request: I bless him and I will make him fruitful and greatly increased in numbers. He shall be the father of twelve princes and I willmake him a great nation."

So God is not rejecting Ishmael.

You could say the Covenant passed to Isaac according to scripture and the Bible is not completely silent about Ishmael's descendents as it mentions for the twelve princes and the tribes that are descendents of Ishmael later.

So the descendents of Ishmael are mentioned in the Bible and he has a line of descent.

According to tradition Prophet Muhammad is a descendent of Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael.. and so inherits if you will the Covenant made with all the descendents of Abraham mentioned in Genesis 17:7.

The descendents of Isaac and the prophetic line are also acknowledged in the Qur'an.

- Art

 

[peaceful soul]

God does not reject Ishmael:


Well unlike the first post in this thread I don't think God rejected Ishmael Consider Genesis 16:11 where it says the Angel of the Lord said to Hagar:

"Now you have conceived and you will bear a son and you shall call him Ishmael for God has heard your cries of distress..."

This is very special indeed as very few personages in the Bible receive a name from God.

The later part of the passage Genesis 16:12 I think could be translated differently:


"...a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."

Could be:

as a "a swift running man assisting each other dwelling in tents in the presence of his brethren."


So the negative translation which we have at first glance above is not entirely justified I think when we study the original Hebrew.



Also, there's another verse in the Bible that seems quite clear to me that God does not reject Ishmael.

See Genesis 17:20-21

"For Ishmael too I grant your request: I bless him and I will make him fruitful and greatly increased in numbers. He shall be the father of twelve princes and I willmake him a great nation."

So God is not rejecting Ishmael.

You could say the Covenant passed to Isaac according to scripture and the Bible is not completely silent about Ishmael's descendents as it mentions for the twelve princes and the tribes that are descendents of Ishmael later.

So the descendents of Ishmael are mentioned in the Bible and he has a line of descent.

According to tradition Prophet Muhammad is a descendent of Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael.. and so inherits if you will the Covenant made with all the descendents of Abraham mentioned in Genesis 17:7.

The descendents of Isaac and the prophetic line are also acknowledged in the Qur'an.

- Art

Arthra, the point is that God's covenant was through the bowels of Abram, which meant that it would be an offspirig through Abram and Sarai. I already stated that Abram's plea to God is the reason for God's blessing upon Ishmael through Hagar. God gave Hagar an uncoditional promise. That means that there were no strings attached. Hagar and Ishmael had no obligation to perform anything to recieve it. Contrast that with Abram's promise which had strings attached. The first one was that a child would be born through the union of Abram and Sarai that would be the child of promise, and 2) Circumcision had to be preformed as an conditon to seal the promise. Those two acts alone shows that there was a special relationship going on between God and Abram that was totally unlike that of Abram's relation to Ishmael through God's orders.

There is no need to put a spin on scripture. It speaks clearly for itself, espcially in these passages. No amount of twisting and revisionism is going to change the fact that God had specific plans for Isaac and his gerneartions to follow. It can be easily seen in the prophetic calling of prophet after prophet out of the line of Isaac. God delivered the line of Kings through Isaac as He promised. There is really nothing worthwhile to debate about the big picture. Conjecture and specualtion are not worth mentioning here. It will get us nowhere at this point. It is better to take the scriptures at their face value and let it be. If you read Gen chpt 11 - 23, and take good notes, you will not be able to make any side claims and speculations. It is fairly cut and dry if you are reading in context of all events. So now, I will sign off.

 

[jlujan69]

How do you view Ezekiel 37?

Ezekiel 37:22 "and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one King shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again.

Revelation 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

I believe it speaks of the full restoration of Israel (Israel and Judah) when she finally accepts Jesus as Messiah. Israel can hardly be called fully restored just yet since peace doesn't even qualify as a pipedream in this land. Of course, the one King is Jesus Himself. The 144,000 are the Jewish believers, specially anointed by God.