The Contrast Between Isaac and Ishmael
Why were Isaac and Ishmael circumcised at different ages?
 | 
We read in Genesis (17:7–27) how G‑d appears to Abraham and instructs him to circumcise himself and all the males of his household. G‑d further commands that henceforth every newborn male should be circumcised on the eighth day of his life, as a sign of the “eternal covenant” between G‑d and the seed of Abraham.
G‑d then informs Abraham that, in one year’s time, he and Sarah will have a son, Isaac. Abraham was nearing his hundredth year at the time, and Sarah was approaching the age of ninety; the two had been married for 75 childless years, and Sarah was physically incapable of having children. Abraham already had a son, Ishmael, born thirteen years earlier, after Sarah had urged him to marry her maidservant Hagar, so that he could father a child through her.
Abraham’s reaction to the divine promise was to proclaim, “If only Ishmael would live before You!” Abraham seems to be saying that he would be perfectly happy to see Ishmael as his heir—as the one who continues his life’s work and perpetuates his special relationship with G‑d.
G‑d rejects Abraham’s proposal. He reassures him that Ishmael will become a great people, “but my covenant I shall establish with Isaac.” Only Isaac, the son you will have with Sarah, can be your true heir, and only Isaac can father the people with whom I will enter into a covenant as my “kingdom of priests and holy nation.”
This is more than a technical choice. G‑d’s insistence on Isaac as the progenitor of His chosen people tells us something very fundamental about the nature of our relationship with Him.
For Ishmael and Isaac differed in two significant respects:
- Ishmael came into the world by natural means, while Isaac’s birth was a supernatural event.
- Ishmael was circumcised at the age of thirteen, the age of daat (awareness), whereas Isaac entered into the covenant of circumcision as an eight day-old infant—an age at which a person is not even aware of what is taking place, much less of its significance.
In other words, Ishmael represents a rational relationship with G‑d, one that is based upon a person’s nature and understanding. Isaac represents a supranatural, supra-rational bond.
Abraham discerned many positive qualities in Ishmael, and was prepared, and even desirous, to see him as his heir. Yet G‑d insisted that his covenant with Abraham be perpetuated specifically through Isaac and Isaac’s descendants—a people whose commitment to G‑d will transcend the natural and the rational.
| |
|
Latest Comments:
Totally, strangely, the word Covenant keeps coming up for me lately. I just met a social worker who was at the Clinic where I worked in Framingham, and she is working at Covenant House, but before this I got a gift of a butterfly necklace from a friend with a sweet card that was a benefit card for Covenant House, and after this, I actually was in my husband's car when he drove past Covenant House. I do believe this work is for people with addictions. But there are "other" Covenants, and the one I keep coming back to is the Covenant of salt. Salt and Lot's story of his wife and that pillar of Salt come to mind, and our "Lot " in life. A lot of life seems to be the luck of the draw, as in our birth, where we come to be born, and what is borne, for us all, is a story, that is deep, often sorrowful and hopefully having a learning curve towards compassion. I think this story is a coming "attraction", namely a story for us all, about LOVE and THAT particular Covenant.
|
This article strangely conflates nature and reason. But reason is inherently supra-natural: reason tells us what *ought* to be, what we *ought* to do, as opposed to what *is*.
Accordingly, it is bizarre to say, on the one hand, that circumcision is a form of perfection over what's naturally given, and on the other hand to claim that the choice to circumcise is supra-rational.
Indeed, insofar as circumcision is a form of perfection, it is inherently rational, for to bring perfection into this world and make it as it ought to be is the greatest demand reason makes of us.
|
One could say, within Biblical story there are good guys and bad guys, and sometimes, in the re-examination of these stories, it could be, the assumption of who is bad, is up for interpretation.
I have read many commentaries on Esau, for example, and how bad he was, and about Ishmael, and it always seems there is the "chosen" one and the one who is not chosen, who also suffers, and deeply.
Who and what is being sacrificed to make this story.. and if there is such sacrifice, and often it appears wrong, as in the stealing of a birthright, maybe we are meant to ponder all of this.
I feel for Sarah in learning about Isaac, and what she was not told. How right was this?
I think we're meant, even now, to think about this, if we keep revisiting, reinterpreting and trying to make sense, of stories that do inhabit, our lives
Appellations such as "the hairy one" are judgmental and color our perceptions.
|
Ishmael was brought into the covenant of Abraham's house, and so I feel kind of sorry for Abraham, because he had to "sacrifice" two sons, one was Ishmael when he sent him away (must have been hard to do!) and then later he is asked by G-d to sacrifice Isaac too! Poor guy!!
|
we can see a great difference in between Ishmail and Issac in Gen 25.5,6 ( in relation to the wealth)
|
I understand what you are saying about these births and G-d's choice. In looking backwards over history it does seem this story of brothers and separate but connected destiny has led to so much anguish between Arabs and Jews. In fact Muslims claim that the binding involved Ishmael.
In a way, given this ongoing and so far unresolved conflict it seems to be a story G-d wrote whose conclusion, if love, must resolve in love, meaning a renewal of blood ties that are about greater family.
One could argue that the lesson within has to do with unity & that all Biblical stories carry lessons which is why we keep revisiting them and holding them to the light.
I think all Birth could be termed, in a larger sense, a supernatural event as life itself is the ultimate miracle for us all!
|
just because some people try to be more 'observant' or look more observant, do not make them ethical people. that a Jewish person, observant or not, could choose to do 'unorthodox' acts is a given i guess otherwise all our acts would be controlled. i also think it is interesting that people, esp Jewish people judge harshly the unethical acts of more observant Jews harsher than they judge the ever more pervasive unethical acts by non-observant Jews.
|
I always find it interesting that the people of G-d can perform the most unorthodox acts. When we fail to trust G-d and fail to believe Him, we bring trouble on ourselves. G-d has revealed some things to me, and I asked Him, "Why cannot I not talk about it?' He said, "Sharon, I have a problem." Did you know that G-d has problems. He said, "When I tell people what is going to happen, one of two things happen: (1) They say, 'Oh, G-d cannot cause that; I will do something different;' or 'I will help Him'." Either way, we fail to trust, or we believe that He cannot do it His way in His time. We have to do it our way or help. He does not need our help; He only wants our obedience and faith. Shalom, May we trust and obey,
|
|
|  |
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
8 Comments
