Genesis 22:2 quite confusing

[th1b.taylor]

Between Ph8th and Jason, they have covered it, leaving anything I might add as simple repetition. Great points gentlemen.

 

[jasonc]

This chapter is one the most direct links from abraham to jesus

 

[Jim Parker]

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

Didn't GOD regard or consider Ishmael as Abraham's son?

No. He told Abraham to cast him out. So Abe sent him and his mother away. (Gen 21)

 

[HalleluYAH]

Only begotten of Sarah and Abraham. This leaves Ishmael out of the loop.

 

[brother Paul]

But how about his progeny: the Ishmaelites today?

Do you know who these are? Do you think perhaps that all Arabs are his progeny? They are not....neither (especially) are all Muslims....

One researcher (sorry I forget the name so feel free to dismiss if you wish) says

Nebaioth: He settled with his descendants to the south of the Dead Sea, where they were known to the Chaldeans as the Nabat, and to the Assyrians as the Nabaiate. Their own inscriptions render the naem as 'nbtw.' The Greek historian, Diodorus, mentions them, and Ptolemy knew them as theNabatei. The Nabataeans' final demise was brought about by Augustus Caesar, who cut off the trade routes of Arabia. By the time of Tiberius Caesar, all the land east of Judea was known as Nabataea.

Kedar: Known to the Hebrews as the Qedar, and the Assyrians as the Qidri, his descendants became the great tribe of Arabs who settled in the northwest Arabian peninsula, and whose black tents were to become proverbial in the ancient world. We are informed in Babylonian sources that the armies of Nebuchadnezzar confronted the tribe of Kedar in a major skirmish of the year 599 BC, an incident that was foretold by Jeremiah (49:28 and 29). The tribe of Kedar is also mentioned in the annals of Ashurbanipal, with whom they clashed, and in various other Assyrian documents. In these, the men of Kedar are mentioned in close association with the men of Nebaioth. The founder of Islam, Mohammed, was to trace his own direct descent from Kedar.

Adbeel: He was the founder of a tribe who were known to the Akkadians as the Idibilu. This same people were subsequently mentioned in the annals of Tiglath-pileser III, who tells us how he conquered the Idiba'leans and employed them to guard the approaches to Egypt's borders. Their area of settlement was in northwest Arabia, close to the lands of Kedar and Nebaioth.

Mibsam: An otherwise unknown Bedhouin chieftain.

Mishma: He settled with his descendants in what is known today as Jebel Mishma in the vicinity of Tema.

Dumah: The Assyrians and Babylonians knew Dumah's descendants as the Adammatu. Nabonidus later tells us how he conquered the Adummu. Ptolemy referred to them as the Domatha; and Porphyry recorded their name as the Dumathi. We know them today as the Idumaeans. The name of Dumah is still preserved in the modern Arab city of Dumat-al-Jandal, the erstwhile capital of his tribe.

Massa: The descendants of Massa were known to the Assyrians as the Mas'a, who with the tribe of Tema were forced to pay tribute to Tiglath-pileser III. He tells us how he conquered them along with the peoples of Haiappa, the Idiba'leans and others. Ptolemy knew the tribe as the Masanoi, who lived to the northeast of Dumah. Josepheus records their name as Mesanaeans, and that in his day their lands were known to the Romans as Charax Spasini.

Hadad: The name is rendered as Haddu in Akkadian inscriptions as the name of a pagan god. Hadad himself, however, seems to be unknown in extra-biblical sources.

Tema: Still known by today's Arabs as Taima', the city of Tema's descendants lies some 70 miles northeast of Dedan. Nabonidus, king of Babylon, (556-539 BC), passed his years of exile in this city, which he also knew as Tema. The city of Tema, with those of Dedan and Dumah, formed stages in the caravan route from Babylon to Sheba.

Jetur: he was the progenitor of the Ituraeans, who were known to the Greeks as the Itouraia. The Ituraeans are mentioned in the works of Dio Cassius, Josephus, Pliny, Strabo and others; and were known to the Roman authorities as a tribe of robbers. The descendants of Jetur perpetrated a massacre of Lebanese Christians in AD 1860.

Naphish: He and his lineage are variously known in the biblical records as Nephish, the children of the Nephusim, and the Nephishesim. They are seemingly unknown from extra-biblical sources.

Kedemah: He and his descendants settled in what was later known as the Wilderness of Kedemoth. The tribe dwelt in the city that is known today as es-Za'feran.

 

[tim-from-pa]

OK folks. Some genealogy is in order here. These are the lineages that God said the birthright promise was to go:

Abraham --> Isaac --> Jocob (Israel) -->Joseph (both Ephraim and Manasseh)

There were many promises which I won't elaborate on detail here but basically involved a lineage of Kings (and multiple kings at the same time), many people, nations and a great nation with specific land to inherit which passed down as a unit blessing as the birthright. Once it got to Jacob, he split the promises mainly the Kingly lineage to go to Judah, and the rest of the promises, specifically the national ones to Joseph as the birthright. While the Jews in recent times became populous and powerful again, the name is derived mainly from Judah and as such are the people of our Lord, the ruling tribe. They did not have the birthright blessing of becoming populous and with many nations. That was left to the rest of the scattered tribes after a period of punishment in which later they would blossom into many nations. In the end times, the "two sticks" of the ruler and birthright peoples will be rejoined and become one nation in the land of Israel again. Right now they are still separated, i.e. there are two groups of chosen (national) people. Christians may or may not be descended from Abraham, although I believe the vast majority originally were without their realizing it as they were dispersed and became unrecognizable as Israelites just as Joseph was not recognized by his brethren (a forerunner as to what would happen to Israel in their captivity becoming Gentiles). But some people oversimplify separating the two as Christians and Jews, when in fact the vast majority of Israelites may not be Christians, but they are still chosen to be converted and restored later.

And that's your genealogical promise line in a nutshell.

 

[Classik]

Great and insightful posts from the last two.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

Didn't GOD regard or consider Ishmael as Abraham's son?

It was a test by God to the faith of Abraham and a type of how God would provide for us a sacrifice.

 

[Classik]

Yeah. That is what it is; but my question is on why God had to say 'your only son' but not 'one of your 'sons'

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yeah. That is what it is; but my question is on why God had to say 'your only son' but not 'one of your 'sons'

Ah, I see what you're getting at.

I don't think anyone, including God, argues that Ishmael was not a son of Abraham. Even Paul says Ishmael was a son of Abraham's:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons" (Galatians 4:22 NASB)

Apparently it's the issue of Sarah being his wife (as opposed to a concubine) that makes Isaac his 'only' son. His only son by Sarah. The son that matters--the son from his wife.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that he had sent Hagar and Ishmael away and only had Isaac left(?)

 

[Classik]

Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that he had sent Hagar and Ishmael away and only had Isaac left(?)

This makes more sense but depending on which event took place first: of course the birth of Isaac took place afterwards

 

[Douglas Summers]

Yeah. That is what it is; but my question is on why God had to say 'your only son' but not 'one of your 'sons'

?Because that was his only son according to the true blood line. Ishmael was his son through a bond servant . One was free from bondage, the other was under bondage. Gal. 4: 19-21

 

[tim-from-pa]

Keep in mind, folks, that Isaac was the son of promise, and keep in mind the 3 visitors. Abraham wanted to "help" God by allowing his inheritance to go thru Ishmael since Sarah was barren. The promises to Abraham were just that: promises. So God wanted to pass them on by a son of promise as God made the promises. As it was already pointed out in Galatians, Ishmael was born thru a slave woman, a product of flesh (works) whereas Isaac came because of Abraham's faith where God Himself made a heir, though Abraham and Sarah's physical bodies, He allowed her to finally conceive. This is what Paul often points out the difference between flesh and works, vs faith and Spirit. In God's eyes, the promises are only to those He deemed the rightful heir. Isaac was the only special son of promise by Abraham and Sarah, no other kids by them. The other sons were of the flesh by other wives.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Keep in mind, folks, that Isaac was the son of promise, and keep in mind the 3 visitors. Abraham wanted to "help" God by allowing his inheritance to go thru Ishmael since Sarah was barren. The promises to Abraham were just that: promises. So God wanted to pass them on by a son of promise as God made the promises. As it was already pointed out in Galatians, Ishmael was born thru a slave woman, a product of flesh (works) whereas Isaac came because of Abraham's faith where God Himself made a heir, though Abraham and Sarah's physical bodies, He allowed her to finally conceive. This is what Paul often points out the difference between flesh and works, vs faith and Spirit. In God's eyes, the promises are only to those He deemed the rightful heir. Isaac was the only special son of promise by Abraham and Sarah, no other kids by them. The other sons were of the flesh by other wives.

Amen tim.

 

[Jim Parker]

Keep in mind, folks, that Isaac was the son of promise,

And that is important to keep in mind.

 

[Jim Parker]

Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that he had sent Hagar and Ishmael away and only had Isaac left(?)

Ishmael was man's attempt to "help" God keep His promise when, to the natural man, it looked like GOd's promise was impossible to be fulfilled.

Things tend to go badly when we decide to give God a little help or take over His project.

 

[Jim Parker]

Do you know who these are? Do you think perhaps that all Arabs are his progeny? They are not....neither (especially) are all Muslims....

One researcher (sorry I forget the name so feel free to dismiss if you wish) says

Great info!
If you remember the researcher, please post it.
Thanks

iakov

 

[Sinthesis]

Rom 9:13 - As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Luk 14:26 - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.​

It's the same word: Strong's G3404
I'm sure nobody believes Jesus demands His disciples hate so many others, rather it would make sense that they should love these others, only just less than they love Christ.

 

[JohnDB]

Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that he had sent Hagar and Ishmael away and only had Isaac left(?)

There is that, the typology of God sending his only Son, and the poetry (in Hebrew) of this section all go together.

I find Isaac's willingness or lack of willingness to be missing (unlike Jesus' dedication towards being crucified). But many seem to ”discover" it in Isaac's questions. Unimportant but interesting speculation. Not unlike the Talmud.

Facing the reality is that a 100+ year old guy is not going to catch a teenager who wants to get away...but Isaac loves and trusts his father too.