Prophecies About Ishmael

[Hugh Slaman]

First of all, my apologies to all those who were discussing Islam with me recently. My offline work caught up with me, and, as a very slow typist, I found it hard to keep up with the discussions, since I found I had to write lot of stuff to make the points I thought were necessary. If the relevant threads are saved, I will return to them as time permits, and address the points that were directed at me.


Here is something that may not tax me as much, since I am basically just asking for information.

In the Book of Genesis, there is a prophecy concerning Ishmael. From memory, the prophecy reads as follows. God addresses Abraham:

"As for Ishmael, I have heard you. I have blessed him, and I will make of him a great nation."

The prophecy is repeated to Hagar.

Here are my questions:

(1) Has this prophecy been fulfilled, according to Christians?

(2) If it has been fulfilled, who was the "great nation" mentioned, according to Christians?

(3) If it has not been fulfilled, what will be the significance of the "great nation", according to Christians?

I am well aware that Christians may disagree on this prophecy, and if they do, I would love to get a sense of the spectrum of views they take.

Thank you.

[Hugh Slaman]

Moderators...we have a pornographic spammer on these boards.

[Patroclus]

We are working on taking care of it. Thanks for keeping an eye out.

[jpholding]

Howdy,

(1) Has this prophecy been fulfilled, according to Christians?

Yes. :smile:

(2) If it has been fulfilled, who was the "great nation" mentioned, according to Christians?

In the collective nations of the Arab world.

Since I answered 2, 3 is a pass.

Thanks for the note. Sorry to be short, it's my turn to be in a hurry.

[Andrew]

Hugh, I'm glad you have the sense not to read into that verse prophetic tidings, as some Muslims are wont to do. :smile:

Anyway, if we examine a few more of the verses, all will become clear:

"Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, ‘Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’ And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh that Ishmael might live before You!’ But God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.’" Genesis 17:17-21

Compare this to:

"Now these are the records of the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's maid, bore to Abraham; and these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, in the order of their birth: Nebaioth, the firstborn of Ishmael, and Kedar and Adbeel and Mibsam and Mishma and Dumah and Massa, Hadad and Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages, and by their camps; TWELVE PRINCES according to their tribes. These are the years of the life of Ishmael, one hundred and thirty-seven years; and he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people. They settled from Havilah to Shur which is east of Egypt as one goes toward Assyria; he settled in defiance of all his relatives." Genesis 25:12-18 (Cf. Gen. 16:7-15; 21:13,18)

:smile:

[spl_cadet]

02-21-2003 @ 11:27 PM
Hugh Slaman:

Moderators...we have a pornographic spammer on these boards.

I missed it? :bawl: :bawl: j/k :angel:

[Hugh Slaman]

Andrew,

I understand your point to be that the second passage you quoted describes the fulfillment of the prophecy in the first passage.

First, my recollection is that the word "princes" can be appropriately translated as "chieftains". This would make sense,because from the second passage you quoted above, these twelve lived in "villages" and "camps".

Second, how does the mere birth to Ishmael of twelve sons who became chieftains constitute his children becoming a "great nation"?

I'm not disparaging Ishmael's achievment in having successful sons, (desert life is harsh, after all) but these chieftains would have led small tribal groups in the desert, either settled or (quite likely) nomadic, and the conglomeration of these groupings does not seem to do justice to the "greatness" that is predicted for Ishmael's offspring.

The Biblical writers knew of the rise and fall of vast empires and kingdoms: it seems implausible that they had in mind a small congeries of tribal villages and settlements as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Genesis.

Do you go along with JPH's interpretation above?

[Hugh Slaman]

02-22-2003 @ 02:44 PM
jpholding:

Howdy,

(1) Has this prophecy been fulfilled, according to Christians?

Yes. :smile:

(2) If it has been fulfilled, who was the "great nation" mentioned, according to Christians?

In the collective nations of the Arab world.

Since I answered 2, 3 is a pass.

Thanks for the note. Sorry to be short, it's my turn to be in a hurry.



I think I see a problem with this answer, which I can best express from a Christian perspective.

The "collective nations of the Arab world" are predominantly Muslim, and so they are committed to rejecting the crucifixion as an illusion, rejecting the Trinity, rejecting the Atonement, and rejecting the divine sonship of Jesus. They are therefore a huge hindrance to the spread of the light of the Christian faith, and they will evidently continue to be, in the foreseeable future.

Now, Genesis mentions this prophecy to Ishmael in the context of BLESSING him through the nation to which he will give rise.

But how can the most determined and spectacularly successful and resilient OPPONENTS of the truths of Christianity (namely, the Muslims who predominate in the Arab nations) possibly be construed as a BLESSING on Ishmael (which is surely the point of the passage in Genesis)?

In fact, the problem I see is even more acute: the only time the Arabs ever became, in any sense of the word, a GREAT nation was THROUGH the rise of Islam -- before that they were not a significant force on the world stage.

This fact does not sit well, at first glance, with the reading that JPH gave the prophecy: would God promise as a blessing on Ishmael the rise of a nation that was fundamentally committed to the elimination of The Good News of the Atonement?

Comments?

[Andrew]

Hugh, I would say that the Gen 25 passage is a fulfillment of what was in mind at the time of Gen 17. Furthermore, "great" doesn't connote a particular theological persuasion.

Genesis consistently and clearly emphasises that it would be Abraham's descendents from Sarah that would be blessed with kings and prophets, serve in a foreign land for four hundred years, possess Canaan and become the nation of God. (Cf. Gen. 12:1-3; 15:13-16; 17:15-16,19,21; 21:12; 22:17-18; 26:24; 28:13-15; 35:11-12)

Interestingly enough, the Qur'an seems to go along with this:

[Qur'an 29:27] And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his reward in the world, and lo! in the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous.

A similar theme can be found in sura 2:47:

[Qur'an 2:47] O children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My message).

See also suras 45:16-17 & 2:122.

[jpholding]

Howdy,

Now, Genesis mentions this prophecy to Ishmael in the context of BLESSING him through the nation to which he will give rise.
As far as I can see it only promises that he will be a great nation.

To have such a promise in itself would have been regarded as a blessing. To have descendants after you would have been of great value to the ancients. That they turned out to be opponents of modern Christianity is neither here nor there in the promise.

In fact, the problem I see is even more acute: the only time the Arabs ever became, in any sense of the word, a GREAT nation was THROUGH the rise of Islam -- before that they were not a significant force on the world stage.

"Great" can be in the eye of the beholder. I don't think the Arabs would agree that it took Islam to make them great. :smile:

[The Curtmudgeon]

02-23-2003 @ 01:38 AM
Hugh Slaman:
I think I see a problem with this answer, which I can best express from a Christian perspective.

The "collective nations of the Arab world" are predominantly Muslim, and so they are committed to rejecting the crucifixion as an illusion, rejecting the Trinity, rejecting the Atonement, and rejecting the divine sonship of Jesus. They are therefore a huge hindrance to the spread of the light of the Christian faith, and they will evidently continue to be, in the foreseeable future.

Now, Genesis mentions this prophecy to Ishmael in the context of BLESSING him through the nation to which he will give rise.

But how can the most determined and spectacularly successful and resilient OPPONENTS of the truths of Christianity (namely, the Muslims who predominate in the Arab nations) possibly be construed as a BLESSING on Ishmael (which is surely the point of the passage in Genesis)?

In fact, the problem I see is even more acute: the only time the Arabs ever became, in any sense of the word, a GREAT nation was THROUGH the rise of Islam -- before that they were not a significant force on the world stage.

This fact does not sit well, at first glance, with the reading that JPH gave the prophecy: would God promise as a blessing on Ishmael the rise of a nation that was fundamentally committed to the elimination of The Good News of the Atonement?

Comments?

Hugh, here's some hopefully useful points on the text of Genesis 17:20 (I'm using the Blue Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/) site, by the way, which uses the KJV and Strong's Concordance).

On the word translated 'great', Hebrew gadowl in transliteration (I'm not going to try to get actual Hebrew characters in here), Strong's gives the following definitions (adjective forms only):

1) great
..a) large (in magnitude and extent)
..b) in number
..c) in intensity
..d) loud (in sound)
..e) older (in age)
..f) in importance
.....1) important things
.....2) great, distinguished (of men)
.....3) God Himself (of God)

I think we can safely ignore 'intensity', 'loud' and 'older' in this case, leaving only a question between 'large'/'in number' and 'importance' essentially. I believe that Strong's lists such definitions in usage-preference order, that is, 'large in magnitude/extent' and 'great in number' are preferable interpretations to 'great in importance' unless context shows otherwise. Other examples of the exact same Hebrew word from Genesis include 'great whales' in the Creation account, Cain's complaint "My punishment is greater than I can bear", Resen between Ninevah and Calan is a great city, etc.

The word translated 'nation', Hebrew gowy (modern "goy"), means "people" or "families" as well as our modern conception of "nation-state". It's the same word used in Genesis 10 in the "Catalog of Nations", talking about the "families and nations" of the sons of Japheth, of Ham and of Shem, the sons of Noah--such gowy as Magog, Elishah, Tarshish, Dodanim, Cush, Canaan, Sidon, Heth, "the Jebusite and the Amorite and the Girgasite". Thus, by using the same word for the descendants of Ishmael, the prophecy really only equates them with such nations and families, not necessarily with "nations" such as Babylon or Assyria or Egypt or Rome.

So the prophecy is that God will bless Ishmael with "large numbers/great in extent" "families and peoples" as his descenants. Any glance at the demographics of the Arabian/Islamic world will certainly show that such a prophecy has been literally fulfilled, even though these great numbers of Ishmaelite descendants have turned away from Jehovah God and reject His Scriptures and His Son. Ishmael's blessing was that his seed would not just die out and disappear, which as JPH points out above was certainly a huge blessing in ANE terms, no matter how those descendants turned out or lived/live their lives. Their rejection of Jesus as the Christ and the Bible as the Holy Scriptures reflects badly on them, but not on Ishmael their father.

The (but I'm a bachelor myself, so what do I know about descendants?) Curtmudgeon

[Cherith]

I know this is an old thread, but as it showed up as a "similiar threads" link at the bottom of another thread, and I couldn't resist.

I totally disagree with the idea that modern Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael. Those people have been overrun by other people groups and had their DNA intermingled with the nations just like the "Jews" of today. There are no pure-blood descendants of Ishmael today just as there are no pure-blood descendants of Isaac today. To perpetuate this idea is to do so despite the evidence of history and to promote a sort of theological racism.

I would also like to point out that Esau married one of Ishmael's daughters (Gen 28:9) and thus those two families became intermingled as well. Esau had at least 5 sons (Gen 36), but his son, Reuel, through Ishmael's daughter had 4 sons that we know of. Over time these four sons (Half-Edomite/Half-Ishmaelite) would have multiplied exponentially! And there is no way to know who their descendants married. They may even have married Israelites (cp. Deut 23:7-8) and eventually entered "the congregation of the Lord."

P.S. If anyone can define what is meant by "enter[ing] into the congregation of the Lord" I would love to know!

[Jezz]

I think this thread would be better suited to Comparative Religions... I'm moving it there.