The Nation of Isaac

In Genesis, thirteen chapters have stories dealing with Abraham, eight with Jacob, and thirteen with Joseph as the focus. Yet only one chapter deals with Isaac alone. From the paucity of “Isaac only” stories, we might think that he is not a significantly important figure in his own right — merely a bridge between his father Abraham and his son Jacob. However, the structure of the Torah indicates otherwise.

The Book of Genesis is broken up into sections that contain chiastic or similar structures. For example, the story of Abraham begins with the divine command Lekh Lekha (“Go forth!”) (Gen. 12:1), and his last major story, the Akedah, also begins with Lekh Lekha (Gen. 22:2). One of the principles of chiasms is that the middle story is the central element and provides the key to understanding all the preceding and subsequent stories in that structure. We can view the entire Book of Genesis as a chiasm with five sections: the Primeval Stories of Humanity (chapters 1-11, universal); the stories of Abraham (chapters 12-25, moving from Universal to Particular); the Isaac stories (chapter 26, purely Particular); the stories of Jacob (chapters 27-35, moving from Particular back to Universal); and the stories of Joseph (chapters 37-50, Universal again).

Based on this model, Isaac appears to be the focal point of Genesis — the most important character, not the least. But why? Perhaps Genesis was actually supposed to end with Isaac. Consider that at the beginning of chapter 12, God promises Abraham the land and a nation. Why could the book not simply have ended with Isaac being the son to found that nation, with no stories of children breaking off and no time spent outside the land? In the end, it does not work out that way, and the overall structure of Genesis seems to indicate that this was a failure, as the book ends with this promised nation in exile in a foreign land. The Isaac story’s very brevity makes us long for the story that could have been.

What Triggered the Decline

What exactly triggered the decline? There seem to be two related causes. One is that during a famine, Abraham decided to go to Egypt. As Ramban writes, Abraham’s leaving the land — which he had been commanded not to do — was itself a transgression, and because of this deed it was decreed that his seed would be in exile in Egypt under Pharaoh. God had just promised the land to Abraham, and Abraham could have had the necessary faith to stay.

The second cause is Abraham’s taking of Hagar, leading to the birth of Ishmael. Had Abraham had complete faith in God, he would have relied on Him to provide a child through Sarah. These two stories are connected: Abraham descends to Egypt, and Hagar comes from Egypt; in the end of Genesis, the family of Abraham gets stuck in Egypt as well. By introducing a universal element into what was intended to be a “particular” relationship, Abraham ultimately sets the course for his family to leave the particular and return to the universal in Egypt.

Isaac’s Faithfulness

The answer to this dilemma can be found in the contrast between Abraham and Isaac. Genesis never mentions Abraham praying for Sarah to have children, even though we know Abraham was capable of prayer — he prayed for Sodom and for Abimelech. In contrast, Isaac pleaded with the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren (Gen. 25:21) — a prayer unique to Isaac; even Jacob did not pray in similar circumstances when Rachel was barren.

The difference is that Isaac did not believe he had an alternative. Abraham and Jacob both left the Land of Israel when trouble came; both had other wives or concubines. Isaac, by contrast, never left the land and never married another woman — he was completely dedicated to Rebecca. R. Hirsch notes that Isaac must have known he would have children, since God had promised Abraham that it is through Isaac that offspring would continue; but because of his dedication to Rebecca, Isaac would not consider another choice. Prayer was the only option left to him.

Why does the lack of an alternative matter? If the goal of a relationship is to accomplish something external, an alternative land or spouse can be found. But if the relationship itself has value, the solution must be found within its confines. Isaac needed to stay and deal with the famine in the land, and remain with Rebecca despite her barrenness — and that is why he was the only one to pray in that situation. Understanding that a relationship requires exclusivity and particularity is the key to its ultimate health. Isaac also shows greater commitment to Rebecca than Abraham did to Sarah in Egypt: Sarah was taken by both Pharaoh and Abimelech, but Rebecca never was, because Isaac did not give up on her as quickly — he called her his sister only when asked, at the last minute, out of necessity (Gen. 26:7), unlike Abraham who volunteered the claim.

From Genesis to Sinai

Had Abraham acted like Isaac, the story might have ended with the birth of Isaac and the founding of the nation in the land. Instead, the parallel paths of descent to Egypt and choosing one son over another eventually led back to Egypt and a reset of the Genesis story. This reset was necessary because the expectations in the covenant between Abraham and God had not been made fully clear. Emuna did not simply mean believing that God exists — Abraham already knew that, since God spoke to him — but rather relying on God, showing Him ne’emanut, faithfulness. Abraham progressed from the difficulties of the descent to Egypt and the taking of Hagar to the full emuna shown at the Akedah; Isaac, having witnessed this later Abraham, showed that same ne’emanut throughout his life to both Rebecca and the land, understanding that in relationships based on dedication, no alternative need be sought.

Yet despite Isaac’s successes, the die had already been cast by Abraham’s earlier actions, and the later stories of Genesis lead to the descent to Egypt. What follows Genesis, however, is another Lekh Lekha: God once again takes His covenantal partner out of an empire, first with Abraham and now with Moses. This time is different, because the covenant of ne’emanut now included actual laws and mitzvot, not merely promises. If Israel would keep those mitzvot, they would be God’s treasured possession (segula) among the nations (Ex. 19:5) — a return to particularity, but conditioned on obedience. Acting like Isaac, showing God full ne’emanut, would allow the Jewish people to be rewarded by living as Isaac lived: Now at last the Lord has granted us ample space to increase in the land (Gen. 26:22).