The Covenant of Promise: Abrahamic Lineage, Prophetic Inheritance, and Covenantal Atonement in Christian–Muslim Encounter

ARTICLE GUIDE

At a Glance

This study examines Abraham as a contested figure in Christian–Muslim theology, focusing on the covenantal line through Isaac, the identity of the son in the sacrifice tradition, and the relationship between promise, substitution, and revelation.

What This Study Explores

The study evaluates the Abrahamic promise, the ʿAqedah/al-dhabīḥ traditions, early Muslim disagreement reported by al-Ṭabarī, the Qurʾān’s claims about prior Scripture, and the contrast between Islamic inlibration and biblical incarnation.

Does the Abrahamic Covenant Run through Isaac or Ishmael?

Genesis distinguishes Ishmael’s real national blessing from the everlasting covenant established through Isaac. Genesis 17:19–21 names Isaac as the covenant bearer, while Genesis 21:12 and the binding narrative maintain that line. The distinction is vocational rather than a denial of Ishmael’s dignity: blessing extends to Ishmael, but the sworn redemptive promise proceeds through Isaac.

The Qurʾān does not name the sacrificed son in Sūrah 37, and early Islamic authorities divided over his identity. Its own formulas repeatedly associate Scripture and prophethood with Isaac, Jacob, and Israel. Read canonically, the ʿAqedah anticipates resurrection and substitution: God preserves the promised son and provides a sacrifice in his place, a trajectory Christian Scripture brings to its climax in Messiah.

Key Claims

Genesis names Isaac as covenant bearer. Ishmael receives blessing and nationhood, but Genesis 17 explicitly locates the everlasting covenant in Isaac’s line.
Sūrah 37 leaves the sacrificed son unnamed. The later Ishmaelite consensus should not be projected backward as an explicit Qurʾānic identification.
Early Islamic tradition was divided. Al-Ṭabarī preserves authorities for both Isaac and Ishmael, demonstrating that the earliest reception was not unanimous.
The binding tests resurrection faith. Hebrews 11 interprets Abraham’s obedience through confidence that God could raise the dead and keep his oath.
Gentile inclusion does not erase Israel. Romans 11 describes believers from the nations as grafted into Israel’s cultivated olive tree.

Interpretive Context

The essay treats Samy Tanagho as a pastoral conversation partner while testing the claims against Genesis, the Qurʾān, classical tafsīr, manuscript history, and Reuven Firestone’s study of the sacrifice traditions. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.’s promise-plan supplies the canonical framework.

The argument distinguishes text-immanent criticism from caricature. It acknowledges variant Muslim readings of Q 4:157, debates over sacred geography, and the difference between material blessing and covenantal office while maintaining a non-supersessionist reading of Romans 11.

Selected Scholarship

Firestone, R. (1989). Abraham’s son as the intended sacrifice. Journal of Semitic Studies, 34(1), 95–131.
Firestone, R. (1990). Journeys in Holy Lands. SUNY Press.
Kaiser, W. C., Jr. (2008). The Promise-Plan of God. Zondervan.
Nickel, G. (2011). Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qurʾān. Brill.
Wenham, G. J. (1994). Genesis 16–50. Word Books.

Scripture Connections

Genesis 3:15; 12:1–3; 15:1–21; 17:18–21; 21:12; 22:1–18; Deuteronomy 18:18; John 1:14, 29; Romans 4:1–25; 8:32; 11:17–29; Galatians 3:7–29; Hebrews 11:17–19; Qurʾān 5:43–48; 29:27; 37:99–113; 45:16

Related Guides

Continue on Substack

The complete article remains on Rabbit Room Apologetics at Substack.

Open on Substack

Originally published September 17, 2026. This WordPress page is a discovery guide; the complete article is hosted on Substack.