Other aspects of the story of Ismael and Isaac do not make sense either. A prophet, one would think, must stand against unrighteousness under the most adverse and extreme conditions, without wavering. But Abraham, we are led to believe, could not even withstand a nagging wife even to save his firstborn son’s life? Is this behavior characteristic of a prophet (the father of three major religions, a man described as a friend and servant of God) to treat the mother of his firstborn child like a rag, to be used and then thrown away (Genesis 16:6 KJV) ‘But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee........’. Very cruel, if taken literally, to treat Hagar and Ismael so sickeningly! Until this day, preachers teach that God condones this behavior (it was all part of God’s plan) and other behavior like it.
Further muddying the waters of this so called ‘historical’ account is Deuteronomy 21:15-17 where it states that, ‘If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.’ So, to supplant the firstborn’s rights, as in the case of Ismael and Isaac, according to the Bible (and the Torah), is unlawful. This puts the Bible at odds with itself in both word and spirit.