Curious Parallels in the Book of Genesis

The Patriarchal stories in the Book of Genesis have strikingly parallel constructions.  Abraham discards Ishmael and then almost sacrifices Isaac.  In giving the covenant, Abraham bypasses Ishmael for Isaac, then Isaac bypasses Esau for Jacob.  Abraham and Isaac each passes off his wife as a sister.  Is there any theological message from this similarity?  Are there any meaningful differences between the constructs?

Sacrificing Isaac and Ishmael
The attempt to sacrifice Isaac, the Akedah, is well known.  Curiously, the prior expulsion of Ishmael along with his mother has the same effect as the intent of the Akedah —  eliminating a son from the family.  These parallel stories put an odd light on Abraham, to say the least.  For someone who has children only late in life, it is surprising how readily he agrees to lose them.

The theology of the stories, however, argues that Abraham has no choice.  One cannot run away from God’s command (“Why the Akedah” in Finding Judaism in the Torah).   However, the Torah shows that Abraham is upset when the order comes from Sarah and not God.  It says, “The matter distressed Abraham greatly for it concerned a son of his.”  He agrees to do as Sarah demanded only after God tells him to.  In both the Akedah and the expulsion of Ishmael, Abraham shows complete obedience to God.  The story of Ishmael shows, however, that he has normal feelings.

Why the Choice of Isaac and Jacob?
Ishmael is a hunter, while Isaac a shepherd.  The contrast is similar to that between Cain and Abel, as well as between Esau and Jacob.  A biblically compatible answer may be that a hunting occupation is identifiable with death, while farming and shepherding with life or creation.  From this perspective, the entire story of the Patriarchs is seen to have a connection to one of the main themes of the Torah — an emphasis on life rather than death.  It presages Moses’ admonishment to “choose life” at the end of Deuteronomy. 

A Difference Between Isaac’s and Jacob’s Selection
There is a difference regarding the person chosen to receive the covenant.   Isaac is picked by God to carry the covenant.  But, Jacob seems to be just a result of his mother Rebekah’s machinations.  While God tells her that “the older shall serve the younger,” it is not quite the same as stating explicitly that the covenant will be passed down to the younger son.  But, this communication from God may have been a motivating factor in her instructing Jacob to trick Isaac into giving him the covenant.  She is behind Jacob’s receiving the blessing.  Her role presages the put-down in Song of Songs that Solomon was crowned by his mother in contrast  to David having been picked by God through Samuel (see “Making Sense of the Song of Songs”…).  The downgrading of Jacob’s selection is consistent with his and his family’s straying more from the Abrahamic ideal than did Isaac (see “General Theory of the Torah”…).

A Wife or Sister?
Both Abraham and Isaac use his wife as a ploy to avoid being killed.   Abram asks Sarai to tell Egyptian guards that she is his sister, while Isaac tells Rebekah to do the same when they enter Gerar — both trying to avoid a famine.  There is a difference.  Abram asks Sarai to agree as such, but Isaac does not.  Abram says to Sarai, “Please say that you are my sister that it may go well with me because of you and that I may remain alive thanks to you.”  Isaac says without consultation with Rebekah that “she is my sister.”  He is “afraid to say “my wife,” thinking that he might be killed by the men of Gerar because of her beauty. 

Theologically, both episodes are consistent with the Torah’s theme that people should not wait for God to solve their problems but to do so themselves.  Lying about a wife for this purpose is not viewed as sinful.  However, Isaac’s failure to obtain Rebekah’s consent is consistent with the message in Genesis that each subsequent Patriarchal generation diverged further away from Abraham’s ideal behavior (see “A General Theory of the Torah,” .…).   Their divergence paved the way to slavery in Egypt and underscored the need for an explicit set of laws and commandments to elicit good behavior.

References are for my book, Finding Judaism in the Torah, available on amazon.com.

A Restrictive Covenant

Why does God restrict the passing of His covenant with Abraham to only one child, Isaac?  Besides Isaac and Ishmael, Abraham has six other children with his second wife Keturah.  Why shouldn’t Ishmael and they receive the covenant, as well?  Doesn’t God promise a good future (after 400 years of slavery) for all Abraham’s descendants?  What theological logic could explain why He would exclude all but one of Abraham’s children to carry the covenant?  Is it reasonable for God to have done so? 

An answer may be that God makes a covenant with a group of people only when it agrees to follow His laws and commandments.  And, Abraham’s children may not know or fully appreciate what the latter are.  In addition, the approach to teaching the need for laws and commandments may necessitate a relatively small group.

God’s initial covenant would seem to cover all the generations of Abraham’s progeny.  He promises that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars.  And. He grants them land and success.  But, He tempers this by saying they will have to endure 400 years of slavery first.  From what we know later, this makes the covenant not all inclusive of Abraham’s children.  The prediction of slavery involves only the generations made through Isaac and Jacob.  

The answer to God’s restrictive coverage of the covenant begins with the fact that the commandments and laws will not be given explicitly until Mount Sinai.  Without that knowledge, Abraham’s descendants are bound to behave incorrectly, making their society incompatible for God’s presence.  Evidence that this would be the likely outcome is seen from the chosen line of progeny, itself.  Isaac and then Jacob and his family fail to measure up entirely to the ideals seen in Abraham (see “A General Theory of the Torah” in Finding Judaism in the Torah).

To be sure, one would think that all of Abraham’s children are loyal to God and know how to behave properly.  Abraham would have taught them.  But, this might not have been so.  Jacob, and his wife Rachel, for example, do not appear to have as strong a commitment to God as did Abraham or Isaac (see “A General Theory…”).  Jacob’s sons violate a number of commandments related to interpersonal ethical behavior.  The history of the Israelites subsequent to Mount Sinai shows how difficult it is to live up to the covenant.

By picking only one line of Abraham’s progeny, God focuses on a small group to create a society compatible for Himself.  There could be a couple of reasons for this focus.  The group needs to suffer 400 years of slavery to understand that the “reward” approach does not achieve proper behavior but laws, commandments and the threat of punishment are required (see “A General Theory…”).  This experience would be impractical if all of Abraham’s descendants were involved.  Also, God may not want to be extensively involved with the world, extrapolating from the double penalty stipulation for requiring His involvement in a dispute found in Leviticus (see “What God Wants” ...).  The Israelites’ behavior shows how much attention is demanded of Him.  He presumably lets Abraham's other lines create a similar society by themselves over time (see “Why God Permits Chaos” ...).


P.S. My book Finding Judaism in the Torah is available on amazon.com.