Who is Rebekah: Schemer, Deceiver, or Righteous Christ-Figure? A Multi-Level Reading of Genesis 27
Reading the Bible is not for the faint of heart. It requires time, effort, prayer, patience, persistence, and a willingness to let Scripture speak. Often, through years of study, sermons, and trips through the text, we can develop ruts in our reading. In fact, such ruts are safeguards from misguided novelty. That said, some ruts can make it difficult to see what is actually in the text. And recently, in our sermon on Genesis 27, we encountered such a rut.
If you missed that sermon, take time to watch or listen. But if you heard it, you might have puzzled over the argument that I made regarding Rebekah’s righteousness and her actions to secure Jacob’s blessing. As most commentators have it, Rebekah led Jacob to deceive his father in order to steal Esau’s blessing. In fact, I had multiple comments (and a few texts) after the sermon that said one of two things: (1) I’ve never heard that Rebekah was in the right and that helps me understand the story, or (2) I’m not sure about Rebekah’s righteousness, for the animal skins certainly seem like a scheme to deceive.
Clearly, last Sunday’s sermon escaped from the rut. And it either did so rightly or wrongly. And so, I wanted to clear up a couple things and help us all to see what Genesis 27 does and does not say. And that begins with the fact that I did not sufficiently address the question of animal skins in the sermon.
And so, here’s my attempt to explain my reading of the text. Additionally, The Hope Desk will cover this subject on Monday. And if further questions remain, feel free to reach out.
For now, let me answer three questions on the way to better understanding God’s Word. And let me do so with three levels of interpretation. In other words, there is large scale, medium scale, and minute scale details in this story. And I believe that at the largest and medium levels, it is evident that Rebekah is acting righteously. And then at the most detailed level, Level 3, there are the most questions and uncertainties. So, proceeding from greater to lesser degrees of certainty in the text, let me offer three levels of answering the big question: Is Rebekah righteous? And then I will finish with a few reflections on why that matters.
Level 1: Is Rebekah on the right side in this story?
At the highest or widest level, we need to decide if Rebekah is in the wrong and trying to steal the blessing? Or if she is in the right blocking Isaac’s blessing of Esau? For if she is in the wrong in the big picture (siding with Jacob over against Isaac), then every other action is also wrong. Even if she is wrong, we know from the rest of Genesis that one of Moses’ thesis statements for the book is Gen. 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive as they are today." So we should not lose trust in God's plan or God's Word if this is the case. Yet, if she is in the right to help Jacob receive the blessing when Isaac seeks to bless Esau, then it points us in the opposite direction that her other actions are also right.
So, what evidence do we have that suggests she is on the right side in this story? There are at least three pieces of evidence.
First, her track record is unblemished.
From her willingness to follow the servant of Abraham and marry the son of Abraham (Gen. 24:58), to her prayerful pursuit of God when she was barren (Gen. 25:22), we have a record of Rebekah’s faithfulness. To put it differently, we have no evidence in Genesis 24–26 that she is a deceiver or given to trickery. To date, she has only conducted herself well. By contrast, there are evidences that Esau, Jacob, and Isaac are not so upstanding up to this point—either entirely (Esau), or partially (Isaac), or to date (Jacob). As Genesis records, Jacob’s faith comes later in life (Genesis 28–32), and has not yet been manifested. Still, for all of the men around Rebekah, she only has been blameless so far.
In fact, we can ground her unblemished character in the text even further. While Moses includes the words of Isaac in Genesis 27:35 that identify Jacob as being a deceiver (“But he said, ‘Your brother came deceitfully, and he has taken away your blessing.’”), we don’t have anything that targets Rebekah in the same way. Of course, an argument by silence does not wholly absolve her of guilt, but it is noteworthy that Moses records how Jacob “came deceitfully,” but nothing is said about Rebekah sending him deceitfully.
Second, her action in Genesis 27 opposes ignorance and wickedness.
Remember, Isaac was blind (Gen. 27:1), which was not only a physical condition but also a spiritual condition. How do we know physical blindness indicates spiritual condition? By comparison to other figures in the Bible. For instance, Eli was blind to his sons’ wickedness in 1 Samuel 3:2 and 4:5; and the Pharisees were blind to the Lord who stood before them in John 9. In both of these instances, the physical blindness is suggestive of moral decline.
Still, we don’t need run to other texts to see Isaac’s moral blindness. In the text itself, we see that Isaac’s willingness to bless his wicked son was evidence of his spiritual blindness. Just before we learn of Isaac’s blindness (Gen. 27:1), Genesis 26:34–25 tells us Esau had married two Hittite women, thus proving his wickedness. Accordingly, when Isaac attempted to bless this wicked man, it is plain to see that his blindness is more than physical. It is moral, too.
It is in this context, where Rebekah hears her husband’s foolish plan. She comes to his aid—seeking to prevent him from making the error of blessing the wrong son and thereby thwarting the plans of God. On the whole, Rebekah is not seeking evil; she is resisting it.
Third, her actions were based on God’s Word.
Most evident of all, Rebekah acted in keeping with God’s Word. In Genesis 25:23, God himself told Rebekah that the older (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob). And so, she is not acting for Jacob because she was playing favorites. Rather, she loved Jacob, as Genesis 25:28, because he was the son chosen by God. By any estimate, therefore, Rebekah is acting in faith and righteousness when she leads her son Jacob to seek the blessing from his father. And at this first and broadest level, we can say that she is not an “ambitious and designing mother” whose actions with Jacob were “utterly discreditable and indefensible.”[1]
That is how Rebekah is often portrayed, but is it correct to present her as a deceptive schemer? Before this episode, her track record shows no evidence of wrongdoing, and even now her actions are defensible, for God told her that Jacob was the chosen son. Thus, it was right for her to protect Jacob’s blessing from the folly of Isaac and the wickedness of Esau—a point that will lead her to send Jacob away in Genesis 27:41–45. Still, there is more to say, and this gets us to Level 2.
Level 2: Does Rebekah do the right thing?
Pressing into details, we come to Level 2. If we might affirm that Rebekah was ultimately on the right side (Level 1), we need to see if she might have acted in the wrong way (Level 2). As we see with Tamar in Genesis 38, it is possible to do the right thing (seek the promised seed) in the wrong way (by means of prostitution). And perhaps that is what Rebekah did here. Yet, upon further examination, I believe her decision to intervene in the situation is a further testimony to her righteousness and not an evidence of unrighteousness. Here are three more evidences to prove that point.
First, Rebekah stands in contrast to the deception of Eve, Sarah, and Daughters of Lot.
When we read Genesis, we are faced with a host of famous women, and we learn a great deal about them when we make comparisons. For instance, when Eve, Sarah, and the Daughters of Lot took initiative to lead Adam (Genesis 3), Abraham (Genesis 16), and Lot (Genesis 19), respectively, they all brought a curse into the world, as the men in their lives followed their lead. As God designed it, the husband and father is to be the spiritual head of the home, and in Eve’s offer of the fruit, Sarah’s offer of Hagar, and the Daughters’ offer of drink, these women exacerbated sin. And thus, the careful reader of Scripture learns early when women take initiative to lead their husband or their father, sin results. Yet, as Rebekah takes initiative in Genesis 27, that is not what happens.
In fact, Rebekah, whose name is associated with blessing (beraka), is the source of salvation in this story and a protector against the curse. As James Jordan frames it, “Rebekah is the great heroine in the book of Genesis. Her very name is a play on the word ‘blessed,’ for in Hebrew the word for bless is written BRK, while Rebekah's name is written RBK. When we meet Rebekah in Genesis 24 she is like a new female Abram” (Primeval Saints, 95).
So, Rebekah stands apart from the earlier women of Genesis and sets a new trajectory in the Bible. And that is the next observation to make.
Second, Rebekah begins a new pattern for women who stand to defend the seed of the woman.
Think of it, the midwives of Israel stand against Pharaoh’s edict to kill baby boys in Exodus 1, and Rahab offers protection to the spies in Joshua 2, when she is asked about Israelites in her home. In both cases, these women “deceive” the tyrannical authorities that are trying to kill the sons of Israel. Likewise, God blesses all of these women for their willingness to protect the seed of promise, even if they used deception against the seed of the serpent.[2]
Similarly, when Judah fails to secure a husband for Tamar and to ensure his seed will continue to David and Jesus, Tamar uses cunning to propagate the royal line of Israel. And what does Judah say of this woman, when he discovers that he is the father of her child? “Then Judah identified them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not know her again” (Genesis 38:26).
On the basis of the declaration, we learn why Tamar is more righteous—she was committed to the seed of promise in ways that Judah was not. And thus, we discover how women prove their righteousness in Israel. They protect the babies given to them, or to put it theologically, they seek and shelter the seed of the woman, which is the third evidence of righteousness.
Third, Rebekah’s actions are motivated by the gospel promise of Genesis 3:15.
It impossible to understand the storyline of Genesis without the original promise. Speaking to the Serpent (Satan), God says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” This promise secures the defeat of Satan and the salvation of all those who look to God for help from Satan. In the fulness of time, Christ will fulfill this promise. But short of that fulfillment, we see this promise play out in the history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel. And here in Genesis 27, Rebekah shows herself a true woman by protecting the seed of the woman and standing against the seed of the serpent.
By doing so, she shows herself to be more righteous than Isaac. But is she perfectly righteous, or only relatively righteous? That is what we must consider next.
Level 3: Is Rebekah (Perfectly) Righteous?
So far, we have seen that Rebekah stands on the right side of the story and that her actions do not lead her husband to do wrong, but to do right. But still, we have one more level to go and one more question to ask: Is Rebekah perfect in all her actions?
Now, on one hand, she doesn’t need to be perfect in her actions. And, if you follow James Jordan, you might simply conclude that her intentions were good, while her actions lack perfect righteousness. And if that’s how you see the text pointing, then you are seeing it far more clearly than the host who chide Rebekah as a scheming woman. Still, a central feature of this story turns on her own willingness to take the curse in the place of her son (v. 13), this suggests that she is a Christ-like figure and one, who in this case, must be righteous to actually secure her son’s blessing while offering to take the curse.
Again, there are other readings that frame Rebekah as doing the right thing, while employing deceit righteously, because Isaac is acting like a tyrant (James Jordan). But this only complicates things because she is his wife and he is not seed of the serpent, but a chosen vessel whose righteousness will be restored in Genesis 28. Thus, while Jordan’s reading permits the easier assessment that Rebekah lied, it runs into trouble with her ability to take Jacob’s curse in any real way. And it also runs into trouble with any Christological comparison.
So, I do think that her role in this story is that of the righteous heroine, whose wisdom proves her righteousness. Of course, this does not mean she is sinless or providing salvation like Christ. She is not a covenant head, and there are of course distinctions between Rebekah the wife and mother with Christ the Son of God, but all that being equal, Rebekah effectively secures the blessing for the promised seed by all that she does in vv. 5–17.
Restricting myself to these verses, let’s make four observations.
First, she does not lead with deception.
Rather, when she hears of Isaac’s intention to bless Esau, she takes initiative to cook food such as her husband likes so that Jacob would receive the blessing. Until Jacob responds with fear (vv. 11–12), there is no indication of subterfuge or dressing up like Esau. Yes, Rebekah is looking to take the blessing of Isaac away from Esau, but that is because Esau is wicked and not the chosen of God. In this way, her actions to deprive Esau of the blessing is good, not bad. And her actions of cooking a meal that her husband loves is also good.
Now, maybe, in this cooking, it was always the plan to deceive her husband. This is how faithful commentators like John Calvin and Iain Duguid read it.[3] But the difficulty of this reading is that Rebekah does not command deceit in verses 5–10. Instead, you see her taking initiative to provide her husband a better meal, given to Isaac by Jacob, not Esau. In this way, she does not, in my estimation, lead with deception.
Rather, the specter of deception comes in vv. 11-12, when Jacob expresses fear that his father will feel him. Again, this may have been Rebekah’s plan, but the text doesn’t say that. Instead, v. 13, which stands at the center of this section, presents the solution to Jacob’s fear: Rebekah volunteers to take the curse.
A vv. 5–10 Rebekah learns of the blessing and she calls Jacob to find food
B vv. 11–12 Jacob responds in fear, worried he will be found out and be cursed
C v. 13 Rebekah assumes the curse
B’ vv. 14 Jacob brings the animals and his mother prepares the food
C’ vv. 15–17 Rebekah gives Jacob Esau’s clothes, covers his flesh with skins, and puts the food (meat, bread, wine) in his hand
At a time when Rebekah could have reinforced the ruse, she doesn’t. She simply says that if your father curses you (because he finds you out), let that curse fall on me.
Maybe I am mistaken, but that promise seems to indicate that Jacob could have, if he trusted his mother, gone to his father, announced himself and his food and sought a blessing. And if his father protested, his mother would have helped again.
Again, this is a very subtle reading of the text. But remember, we are at Level 3. And that is the point. We are pressing into the details of the text. And at the most basic level, we have yet to find clear evidence that she led her son to deceive Isaac. At the least, she gives into Jacob’s fears and tells him to clothe himself like Esau to achieve the original purpose. This is a plausible reading. But if that is the case, she doesn’t lead with lying. And as I am about to argue, there are reasons to not assume the worst.
Second, Rebekah is not deceiving her husband with anything visible.
Whatever Rebekah does with the garments and the skins, in verses 14–16, it is not to deceive Isaac’s eyes. If he could see, this story would be entirely different. And because he couldn’t see, whatever else Rebekah was doing, it absolves her from trying to deceive his eyes. Rather, as I suggested above, her actions of bringing Jacob before her husband with the food he loved was intended to confront the blind man with the true son, Jacob.
Yes, Jacob feared being caught (vv. 11–12). But when Rebekah responds to that fear, she volunteers to take the curse for him (v. 13). And as the organization of the text puts that great exchange at the center, it seems to suggest that we should pay more attention to Rebekah’s Christ-like substitution, instead of maligning her for clothing her son with Esau’s garments and animal skins. I will return to this point in a moment, but for now, don’t miss the fact that Rebekah couldn’t have attempted to deceive Isaac with anything visible.
Third, the clothing and skinning has theological significance.
If we enter this story without awareness of the whole book of Genesis, then we won’t know where animal skins or garments given to firstborn sons show up. But if we read Genesis 27 with Genesis 3 and Genesis 37, we come to see a couple things.
First, animal skins were the gracious provision of God, when he sent Adam and Eve out of the garden. In that cursed setting, God killed an animal (for how else do you get skins?) provided a covering for the man and his wife. In a way, God exchanged their curse for a blessing, or at least by means of sacrifice he clothed them with garments. And not just any garments, but garments that match those of the priests.
In Genesis 3:21, we find the same word that is used for priestly garments in Exodus 28:4, 39, 40; 29:5, 8, 27. And actually, this same word is used of Joseph’s coat of many colors in Genesis 37:3, 23, 31, 32, 33. By way of this common word, we see a connection between priesthood and firstborn sons, which is a common feature of Genesis. The firstborn son would receive the blessing to be a blessing to his household as the next priest. And effectively, that is part of the background to Genesis 27, and why blessing Esau would have spelled disaster.
Keeping our eyes on the text of the story though, we can see how the clothing of Jacob in Esau’s best garments and with the skin of animals also conjoins firstborn and priest. Now it might be possible that the garments are made of the skins, but I would take them as separate but related and all of a piece where Rebekah is presenting Jacob as the true priestly firstborn.
For notably, the best garments of Esau are not in Esau’s possession. Instead, they are in Rebekah’s tent, which suggests that he had abandoned them, forgot them, or lost them when he left his mother’s side to marry two Hittite women (Gen. 26:46). To put it differently, the firstborn son had forsaken his best garments, just like he had forsaken his birthright—so little did he think of his portion in Isaac. Thus, with possession of these garments, she clothes Jacob as the true firstborn. And completing the image, she also puts skins on him—skins that likely came from the animal she just killed for eating.
Now, admittedly, we are weaving thin strings at this point. But if Rebekah (1) promised a blessing in place of curse, and (2) killed an animal for the meal, and (3) used the skins from the animal (or another) to clothe Jacob, and also (4) clothed him with firstborn garments, we really do get an incredible picture of how she was helping to secure a blessing for Jacob from his father. She was doing everything necessary to win the blessing from Isaac. The only question is: Did she intend for Jacob to say that he was Esau (v. 18)?
Fourth, Jacob lied to his father.
I guess we cannot know for absolute certain whether Rebekah told Jacob to call himself Esau, but at this point in the study, I hope you are at least willing to see the problem with that perspective. Undeniably, Jacob lied about who he was (v. 19) and his father called him deceitful as a consequence (v. 33), but we don’t have anything in the text that confirms that Rebekah told him to do that. Certainly, he used his garments and the skins to further his ruse, but making the connection between Jacob’s lie and Rebekah’s mastermind remains uncertain and maybe even dubious.
What is evident is that Jacob did not trust in his mother’s offer to bear the curse. Instead, when asked who he was, he lied. And in many ways, he receives the curse in himself, instead of letting her make the great exchange. And how did Jacob bear the curse? Well, after he lied, his brother hated him and he had to flee the land.
Now do the twenty years of servitude in Laban’s house (Gen. 31:38–41) equal the curse that his mother could have taken? It’s hard to say. But certainly Jacob’s faith came to life as he bore the burden of being exiled from his family. Under God’s hand of providence, the Lord used the deceit of Laban to undo the deceit of Jacob. And thus, it was a needed exile. Still, this process of sanctification—if we can call it that—only confirms Jacob’s lack of faith in Genesis 27.
It seems to me that Jacob was chosen by God and blessed, but not brought to faith until the episode at Bethel and maybe not even until Jacob wrestled the angel. In either occurrence, Jacob was not a man of faith in Genesis 27. And that means that while he did what his mother told him, he was also an unbeliever. He even identifies Yahweh as Isaac’s God, not his own (Gen. 27:20). Thus, I am content to believe that Rebekah’s faith floundered in her son’s execution of the plan, and that while Jacob lied, it was his own unbelief and his unwillingness to trust his mother’s offer of taking the curse that led to his lie.
Which would then mean that Rebekah did not urge him to lie. And she did not concoct a scheme to deceive his father to steal the blessing from his brother. Clearly, Jacob lied. But it is not clear that Rebekah did. And if anything is true, it appears that she was the most righteous character in this chapter and perhaps even righteous in her actions. For how else could she genuinely offer to take the curse?
Could I be wrong about Rebekah’s intentions?
In the end, I have made a case for the righteousness of Rebekah, based upon three things.
By these features of the text, read with the rest of Genesis, I am persuaded that Rebekah is righteous in her intentions and actions. Yet, it is far easier to see her righteousness at Level 1 (and Level 2) as compared to Level 3. Still, with each level reinforcing the other, I think it presents Rebekah to us as the hero of this story and a genuine Christ-like figure.
Ironically, commentators who call Rebekah sinful also believe her rash words point to Christ. Here is the assessment of Iain Duguid:
"In the most remarkable reversal of all Jesus graciously says to us what Rebekah rashly said to her son: “Let your curse be on me” (Gen. 27:13). The words Rebekah said so carelessly Jesus said to us knowing the full depths of what he was saying. The curse that you and I earn for ourselves every day by our many sins was laid upon him, so that the Father’s blessing that was rightfully his might be given to us, his undeserving people. Jesus wore the shroud of the cursed death that we deserved so that we might be clothed lawfully in our elder brother’s garments, the spotless robes of Christ’s righteousness, and be welcomed to receive the Father’s blessing as his beloved children."[4]
Incredibly, Duguid makes the same Christ-connections that I am making, but he does so against the grain of the text. Far better, as I have tried to show is the way that Rebekah’s commitment to the seed, her willingness to take the curse, her provision of the animals skins, and her clothing of the true son with priestly garments of the firstborn is righteous and something that rightly points to Christ.
All that being equal, you may remain unconvinced. Or maybe you believe that someone like Iain Duguid is right to assign blame to Rebekah, while also pointing to Christ. Or maybe in reading the complexities of this story, I am just wrong. In whatever position you find yourself, let me encourage you: if you are not convinced by my arguments here, don’t give up on the Bible. Rather, keep reading Genesis, examining the text, and asking, Why does Moses write it the way that he does? And, how does this passage relate to the storyline of Scripture that leads to Christ (John 5:39)?
As I said at the outset, reading the Bible is not for the faint of heart. But hopefully, in looking carefully at this passage together, it strengthens your heart to see how God works for the good of his people in the midst of harrowing circumstances. Lord willing, it also helps you see how the glories of Christ are hidden and revealed in the text of Scripture.
For truly, Genesis 27 is not simply a lesson on how parents can avoid family disasters; it is a story of how God is protecting and preserving his seed (the seed of the woman) by a woman who lays her life down for her son, who happens to be another type on the way to Christ. In this way, God’s Word is doing more than reporting history, so that we can find analogies. God’s Spirit is revealing the very character of God, along with patterns that repeat in Scripture.
For these reasons, therefore, the labor that it takes to read and understand Genesis 27 is worth the effort. Why? Because in working to understand the big picture and the smaller details, it conforms us into the image of Christ, as the Spirit who inspired the Word teaches us how to read it. And so keep reading, keep looking, and keeping searching for Christ in Scripture. And don’t settle for anything else.
For His glory and your joy in Christ,
Pastor David
[1] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (Dallas: Word, 1994), 214–215.
[2] For a thoughtful consideration of different kinds of lies in the Bible, see James Jordan, Primeval Saints, 87–90. Following Augustine and Luther, he distinguishes different ways that lies might be used righteously (e.g., Rahab defending the spies or Jesus, in Luke 24, hiding himself from his disciples). He defends Rebekah for deceiving Isaac, because Isaac was acting like a tyrant with Esau. I take a different view of the matter, but his reflections are worth considering, as he defends her use of deceit.
[3] Iain Duguid, Genesis, The ESV Expository Commentary, 248: “She [Rebekah] is the instigator and driver of this deception.” Offering a more complex view, Calvin says that her actions “certainly flowed from no other source than her faith,” but “her faith was mixed with unjust and immoderate zeal.” Noting the way that Calvin suggests sin arising from faith, the editor of his commentary notes, “This is a dangerous position, however it may be modified or explained.” John Calvin, Genesis, 85. As I will suggest, there is a better approach than framing Rebekah’s actions as singularly sinful.
[4] Duguid, Genesis, 252–53.
If you missed that sermon, take time to watch or listen. But if you heard it, you might have puzzled over the argument that I made regarding Rebekah’s righteousness and her actions to secure Jacob’s blessing. As most commentators have it, Rebekah led Jacob to deceive his father in order to steal Esau’s blessing. In fact, I had multiple comments (and a few texts) after the sermon that said one of two things: (1) I’ve never heard that Rebekah was in the right and that helps me understand the story, or (2) I’m not sure about Rebekah’s righteousness, for the animal skins certainly seem like a scheme to deceive.
Clearly, last Sunday’s sermon escaped from the rut. And it either did so rightly or wrongly. And so, I wanted to clear up a couple things and help us all to see what Genesis 27 does and does not say. And that begins with the fact that I did not sufficiently address the question of animal skins in the sermon.
And so, here’s my attempt to explain my reading of the text. Additionally, The Hope Desk will cover this subject on Monday. And if further questions remain, feel free to reach out.
For now, let me answer three questions on the way to better understanding God’s Word. And let me do so with three levels of interpretation. In other words, there is large scale, medium scale, and minute scale details in this story. And I believe that at the largest and medium levels, it is evident that Rebekah is acting righteously. And then at the most detailed level, Level 3, there are the most questions and uncertainties. So, proceeding from greater to lesser degrees of certainty in the text, let me offer three levels of answering the big question: Is Rebekah righteous? And then I will finish with a few reflections on why that matters.
Level 1: Is Rebekah on the right side in this story?
At the highest or widest level, we need to decide if Rebekah is in the wrong and trying to steal the blessing? Or if she is in the right blocking Isaac’s blessing of Esau? For if she is in the wrong in the big picture (siding with Jacob over against Isaac), then every other action is also wrong. Even if she is wrong, we know from the rest of Genesis that one of Moses’ thesis statements for the book is Gen. 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive as they are today." So we should not lose trust in God's plan or God's Word if this is the case. Yet, if she is in the right to help Jacob receive the blessing when Isaac seeks to bless Esau, then it points us in the opposite direction that her other actions are also right.
So, what evidence do we have that suggests she is on the right side in this story? There are at least three pieces of evidence.
First, her track record is unblemished.
From her willingness to follow the servant of Abraham and marry the son of Abraham (Gen. 24:58), to her prayerful pursuit of God when she was barren (Gen. 25:22), we have a record of Rebekah’s faithfulness. To put it differently, we have no evidence in Genesis 24–26 that she is a deceiver or given to trickery. To date, she has only conducted herself well. By contrast, there are evidences that Esau, Jacob, and Isaac are not so upstanding up to this point—either entirely (Esau), or partially (Isaac), or to date (Jacob). As Genesis records, Jacob’s faith comes later in life (Genesis 28–32), and has not yet been manifested. Still, for all of the men around Rebekah, she only has been blameless so far.
In fact, we can ground her unblemished character in the text even further. While Moses includes the words of Isaac in Genesis 27:35 that identify Jacob as being a deceiver (“But he said, ‘Your brother came deceitfully, and he has taken away your blessing.’”), we don’t have anything that targets Rebekah in the same way. Of course, an argument by silence does not wholly absolve her of guilt, but it is noteworthy that Moses records how Jacob “came deceitfully,” but nothing is said about Rebekah sending him deceitfully.
Second, her action in Genesis 27 opposes ignorance and wickedness.
Remember, Isaac was blind (Gen. 27:1), which was not only a physical condition but also a spiritual condition. How do we know physical blindness indicates spiritual condition? By comparison to other figures in the Bible. For instance, Eli was blind to his sons’ wickedness in 1 Samuel 3:2 and 4:5; and the Pharisees were blind to the Lord who stood before them in John 9. In both of these instances, the physical blindness is suggestive of moral decline.
Still, we don’t need run to other texts to see Isaac’s moral blindness. In the text itself, we see that Isaac’s willingness to bless his wicked son was evidence of his spiritual blindness. Just before we learn of Isaac’s blindness (Gen. 27:1), Genesis 26:34–25 tells us Esau had married two Hittite women, thus proving his wickedness. Accordingly, when Isaac attempted to bless this wicked man, it is plain to see that his blindness is more than physical. It is moral, too.
It is in this context, where Rebekah hears her husband’s foolish plan. She comes to his aid—seeking to prevent him from making the error of blessing the wrong son and thereby thwarting the plans of God. On the whole, Rebekah is not seeking evil; she is resisting it.
Third, her actions were based on God’s Word.
Most evident of all, Rebekah acted in keeping with God’s Word. In Genesis 25:23, God himself told Rebekah that the older (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob). And so, she is not acting for Jacob because she was playing favorites. Rather, she loved Jacob, as Genesis 25:28, because he was the son chosen by God. By any estimate, therefore, Rebekah is acting in faith and righteousness when she leads her son Jacob to seek the blessing from his father. And at this first and broadest level, we can say that she is not an “ambitious and designing mother” whose actions with Jacob were “utterly discreditable and indefensible.”[1]
That is how Rebekah is often portrayed, but is it correct to present her as a deceptive schemer? Before this episode, her track record shows no evidence of wrongdoing, and even now her actions are defensible, for God told her that Jacob was the chosen son. Thus, it was right for her to protect Jacob’s blessing from the folly of Isaac and the wickedness of Esau—a point that will lead her to send Jacob away in Genesis 27:41–45. Still, there is more to say, and this gets us to Level 2.
Level 2: Does Rebekah do the right thing?
Pressing into details, we come to Level 2. If we might affirm that Rebekah was ultimately on the right side (Level 1), we need to see if she might have acted in the wrong way (Level 2). As we see with Tamar in Genesis 38, it is possible to do the right thing (seek the promised seed) in the wrong way (by means of prostitution). And perhaps that is what Rebekah did here. Yet, upon further examination, I believe her decision to intervene in the situation is a further testimony to her righteousness and not an evidence of unrighteousness. Here are three more evidences to prove that point.
First, Rebekah stands in contrast to the deception of Eve, Sarah, and Daughters of Lot.
When we read Genesis, we are faced with a host of famous women, and we learn a great deal about them when we make comparisons. For instance, when Eve, Sarah, and the Daughters of Lot took initiative to lead Adam (Genesis 3), Abraham (Genesis 16), and Lot (Genesis 19), respectively, they all brought a curse into the world, as the men in their lives followed their lead. As God designed it, the husband and father is to be the spiritual head of the home, and in Eve’s offer of the fruit, Sarah’s offer of Hagar, and the Daughters’ offer of drink, these women exacerbated sin. And thus, the careful reader of Scripture learns early when women take initiative to lead their husband or their father, sin results. Yet, as Rebekah takes initiative in Genesis 27, that is not what happens.
In fact, Rebekah, whose name is associated with blessing (beraka), is the source of salvation in this story and a protector against the curse. As James Jordan frames it, “Rebekah is the great heroine in the book of Genesis. Her very name is a play on the word ‘blessed,’ for in Hebrew the word for bless is written BRK, while Rebekah's name is written RBK. When we meet Rebekah in Genesis 24 she is like a new female Abram” (Primeval Saints, 95).
So, Rebekah stands apart from the earlier women of Genesis and sets a new trajectory in the Bible. And that is the next observation to make.
Second, Rebekah begins a new pattern for women who stand to defend the seed of the woman.
Think of it, the midwives of Israel stand against Pharaoh’s edict to kill baby boys in Exodus 1, and Rahab offers protection to the spies in Joshua 2, when she is asked about Israelites in her home. In both cases, these women “deceive” the tyrannical authorities that are trying to kill the sons of Israel. Likewise, God blesses all of these women for their willingness to protect the seed of promise, even if they used deception against the seed of the serpent.[2]
Similarly, when Judah fails to secure a husband for Tamar and to ensure his seed will continue to David and Jesus, Tamar uses cunning to propagate the royal line of Israel. And what does Judah say of this woman, when he discovers that he is the father of her child? “Then Judah identified them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not know her again” (Genesis 38:26).
On the basis of the declaration, we learn why Tamar is more righteous—she was committed to the seed of promise in ways that Judah was not. And thus, we discover how women prove their righteousness in Israel. They protect the babies given to them, or to put it theologically, they seek and shelter the seed of the woman, which is the third evidence of righteousness.
Third, Rebekah’s actions are motivated by the gospel promise of Genesis 3:15.
It impossible to understand the storyline of Genesis without the original promise. Speaking to the Serpent (Satan), God says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” This promise secures the defeat of Satan and the salvation of all those who look to God for help from Satan. In the fulness of time, Christ will fulfill this promise. But short of that fulfillment, we see this promise play out in the history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel. And here in Genesis 27, Rebekah shows herself a true woman by protecting the seed of the woman and standing against the seed of the serpent.
By doing so, she shows herself to be more righteous than Isaac. But is she perfectly righteous, or only relatively righteous? That is what we must consider next.
Level 3: Is Rebekah (Perfectly) Righteous?
So far, we have seen that Rebekah stands on the right side of the story and that her actions do not lead her husband to do wrong, but to do right. But still, we have one more level to go and one more question to ask: Is Rebekah perfect in all her actions?
Now, on one hand, she doesn’t need to be perfect in her actions. And, if you follow James Jordan, you might simply conclude that her intentions were good, while her actions lack perfect righteousness. And if that’s how you see the text pointing, then you are seeing it far more clearly than the host who chide Rebekah as a scheming woman. Still, a central feature of this story turns on her own willingness to take the curse in the place of her son (v. 13), this suggests that she is a Christ-like figure and one, who in this case, must be righteous to actually secure her son’s blessing while offering to take the curse.
Again, there are other readings that frame Rebekah as doing the right thing, while employing deceit righteously, because Isaac is acting like a tyrant (James Jordan). But this only complicates things because she is his wife and he is not seed of the serpent, but a chosen vessel whose righteousness will be restored in Genesis 28. Thus, while Jordan’s reading permits the easier assessment that Rebekah lied, it runs into trouble with her ability to take Jacob’s curse in any real way. And it also runs into trouble with any Christological comparison.
So, I do think that her role in this story is that of the righteous heroine, whose wisdom proves her righteousness. Of course, this does not mean she is sinless or providing salvation like Christ. She is not a covenant head, and there are of course distinctions between Rebekah the wife and mother with Christ the Son of God, but all that being equal, Rebekah effectively secures the blessing for the promised seed by all that she does in vv. 5–17.
Restricting myself to these verses, let’s make four observations.
First, she does not lead with deception.
Rather, when she hears of Isaac’s intention to bless Esau, she takes initiative to cook food such as her husband likes so that Jacob would receive the blessing. Until Jacob responds with fear (vv. 11–12), there is no indication of subterfuge or dressing up like Esau. Yes, Rebekah is looking to take the blessing of Isaac away from Esau, but that is because Esau is wicked and not the chosen of God. In this way, her actions to deprive Esau of the blessing is good, not bad. And her actions of cooking a meal that her husband loves is also good.
Now, maybe, in this cooking, it was always the plan to deceive her husband. This is how faithful commentators like John Calvin and Iain Duguid read it.[3] But the difficulty of this reading is that Rebekah does not command deceit in verses 5–10. Instead, you see her taking initiative to provide her husband a better meal, given to Isaac by Jacob, not Esau. In this way, she does not, in my estimation, lead with deception.
Rather, the specter of deception comes in vv. 11-12, when Jacob expresses fear that his father will feel him. Again, this may have been Rebekah’s plan, but the text doesn’t say that. Instead, v. 13, which stands at the center of this section, presents the solution to Jacob’s fear: Rebekah volunteers to take the curse.
A vv. 5–10 Rebekah learns of the blessing and she calls Jacob to find food
B vv. 11–12 Jacob responds in fear, worried he will be found out and be cursed
C v. 13 Rebekah assumes the curse
B’ vv. 14 Jacob brings the animals and his mother prepares the food
C’ vv. 15–17 Rebekah gives Jacob Esau’s clothes, covers his flesh with skins, and puts the food (meat, bread, wine) in his hand
At a time when Rebekah could have reinforced the ruse, she doesn’t. She simply says that if your father curses you (because he finds you out), let that curse fall on me.
Maybe I am mistaken, but that promise seems to indicate that Jacob could have, if he trusted his mother, gone to his father, announced himself and his food and sought a blessing. And if his father protested, his mother would have helped again.
Again, this is a very subtle reading of the text. But remember, we are at Level 3. And that is the point. We are pressing into the details of the text. And at the most basic level, we have yet to find clear evidence that she led her son to deceive Isaac. At the least, she gives into Jacob’s fears and tells him to clothe himself like Esau to achieve the original purpose. This is a plausible reading. But if that is the case, she doesn’t lead with lying. And as I am about to argue, there are reasons to not assume the worst.
Second, Rebekah is not deceiving her husband with anything visible.
Whatever Rebekah does with the garments and the skins, in verses 14–16, it is not to deceive Isaac’s eyes. If he could see, this story would be entirely different. And because he couldn’t see, whatever else Rebekah was doing, it absolves her from trying to deceive his eyes. Rather, as I suggested above, her actions of bringing Jacob before her husband with the food he loved was intended to confront the blind man with the true son, Jacob.
Yes, Jacob feared being caught (vv. 11–12). But when Rebekah responds to that fear, she volunteers to take the curse for him (v. 13). And as the organization of the text puts that great exchange at the center, it seems to suggest that we should pay more attention to Rebekah’s Christ-like substitution, instead of maligning her for clothing her son with Esau’s garments and animal skins. I will return to this point in a moment, but for now, don’t miss the fact that Rebekah couldn’t have attempted to deceive Isaac with anything visible.
Third, the clothing and skinning has theological significance.
If we enter this story without awareness of the whole book of Genesis, then we won’t know where animal skins or garments given to firstborn sons show up. But if we read Genesis 27 with Genesis 3 and Genesis 37, we come to see a couple things.
First, animal skins were the gracious provision of God, when he sent Adam and Eve out of the garden. In that cursed setting, God killed an animal (for how else do you get skins?) provided a covering for the man and his wife. In a way, God exchanged their curse for a blessing, or at least by means of sacrifice he clothed them with garments. And not just any garments, but garments that match those of the priests.
In Genesis 3:21, we find the same word that is used for priestly garments in Exodus 28:4, 39, 40; 29:5, 8, 27. And actually, this same word is used of Joseph’s coat of many colors in Genesis 37:3, 23, 31, 32, 33. By way of this common word, we see a connection between priesthood and firstborn sons, which is a common feature of Genesis. The firstborn son would receive the blessing to be a blessing to his household as the next priest. And effectively, that is part of the background to Genesis 27, and why blessing Esau would have spelled disaster.
Keeping our eyes on the text of the story though, we can see how the clothing of Jacob in Esau’s best garments and with the skin of animals also conjoins firstborn and priest. Now it might be possible that the garments are made of the skins, but I would take them as separate but related and all of a piece where Rebekah is presenting Jacob as the true priestly firstborn.
For notably, the best garments of Esau are not in Esau’s possession. Instead, they are in Rebekah’s tent, which suggests that he had abandoned them, forgot them, or lost them when he left his mother’s side to marry two Hittite women (Gen. 26:46). To put it differently, the firstborn son had forsaken his best garments, just like he had forsaken his birthright—so little did he think of his portion in Isaac. Thus, with possession of these garments, she clothes Jacob as the true firstborn. And completing the image, she also puts skins on him—skins that likely came from the animal she just killed for eating.
Now, admittedly, we are weaving thin strings at this point. But if Rebekah (1) promised a blessing in place of curse, and (2) killed an animal for the meal, and (3) used the skins from the animal (or another) to clothe Jacob, and also (4) clothed him with firstborn garments, we really do get an incredible picture of how she was helping to secure a blessing for Jacob from his father. She was doing everything necessary to win the blessing from Isaac. The only question is: Did she intend for Jacob to say that he was Esau (v. 18)?
Fourth, Jacob lied to his father.
I guess we cannot know for absolute certain whether Rebekah told Jacob to call himself Esau, but at this point in the study, I hope you are at least willing to see the problem with that perspective. Undeniably, Jacob lied about who he was (v. 19) and his father called him deceitful as a consequence (v. 33), but we don’t have anything in the text that confirms that Rebekah told him to do that. Certainly, he used his garments and the skins to further his ruse, but making the connection between Jacob’s lie and Rebekah’s mastermind remains uncertain and maybe even dubious.
What is evident is that Jacob did not trust in his mother’s offer to bear the curse. Instead, when asked who he was, he lied. And in many ways, he receives the curse in himself, instead of letting her make the great exchange. And how did Jacob bear the curse? Well, after he lied, his brother hated him and he had to flee the land.
Now do the twenty years of servitude in Laban’s house (Gen. 31:38–41) equal the curse that his mother could have taken? It’s hard to say. But certainly Jacob’s faith came to life as he bore the burden of being exiled from his family. Under God’s hand of providence, the Lord used the deceit of Laban to undo the deceit of Jacob. And thus, it was a needed exile. Still, this process of sanctification—if we can call it that—only confirms Jacob’s lack of faith in Genesis 27.
It seems to me that Jacob was chosen by God and blessed, but not brought to faith until the episode at Bethel and maybe not even until Jacob wrestled the angel. In either occurrence, Jacob was not a man of faith in Genesis 27. And that means that while he did what his mother told him, he was also an unbeliever. He even identifies Yahweh as Isaac’s God, not his own (Gen. 27:20). Thus, I am content to believe that Rebekah’s faith floundered in her son’s execution of the plan, and that while Jacob lied, it was his own unbelief and his unwillingness to trust his mother’s offer of taking the curse that led to his lie.
Which would then mean that Rebekah did not urge him to lie. And she did not concoct a scheme to deceive his father to steal the blessing from his brother. Clearly, Jacob lied. But it is not clear that Rebekah did. And if anything is true, it appears that she was the most righteous character in this chapter and perhaps even righteous in her actions. For how else could she genuinely offer to take the curse?
Could I be wrong about Rebekah’s intentions?
In the end, I have made a case for the righteousness of Rebekah, based upon three things.
- She was on the right side of the story, as the text lays no charge against her.
- She was on the right side of the seed, as she protected the seed of the woman and stood against the seed of the serpent.
- She was on the right side of her husband and her son, as she developed a plan that centered on her own righteous offering to take the curse in order for her son to be blessed.
By these features of the text, read with the rest of Genesis, I am persuaded that Rebekah is righteous in her intentions and actions. Yet, it is far easier to see her righteousness at Level 1 (and Level 2) as compared to Level 3. Still, with each level reinforcing the other, I think it presents Rebekah to us as the hero of this story and a genuine Christ-like figure.
Ironically, commentators who call Rebekah sinful also believe her rash words point to Christ. Here is the assessment of Iain Duguid:
"In the most remarkable reversal of all Jesus graciously says to us what Rebekah rashly said to her son: “Let your curse be on me” (Gen. 27:13). The words Rebekah said so carelessly Jesus said to us knowing the full depths of what he was saying. The curse that you and I earn for ourselves every day by our many sins was laid upon him, so that the Father’s blessing that was rightfully his might be given to us, his undeserving people. Jesus wore the shroud of the cursed death that we deserved so that we might be clothed lawfully in our elder brother’s garments, the spotless robes of Christ’s righteousness, and be welcomed to receive the Father’s blessing as his beloved children."[4]
Incredibly, Duguid makes the same Christ-connections that I am making, but he does so against the grain of the text. Far better, as I have tried to show is the way that Rebekah’s commitment to the seed, her willingness to take the curse, her provision of the animals skins, and her clothing of the true son with priestly garments of the firstborn is righteous and something that rightly points to Christ.
All that being equal, you may remain unconvinced. Or maybe you believe that someone like Iain Duguid is right to assign blame to Rebekah, while also pointing to Christ. Or maybe in reading the complexities of this story, I am just wrong. In whatever position you find yourself, let me encourage you: if you are not convinced by my arguments here, don’t give up on the Bible. Rather, keep reading Genesis, examining the text, and asking, Why does Moses write it the way that he does? And, how does this passage relate to the storyline of Scripture that leads to Christ (John 5:39)?
As I said at the outset, reading the Bible is not for the faint of heart. But hopefully, in looking carefully at this passage together, it strengthens your heart to see how God works for the good of his people in the midst of harrowing circumstances. Lord willing, it also helps you see how the glories of Christ are hidden and revealed in the text of Scripture.
For truly, Genesis 27 is not simply a lesson on how parents can avoid family disasters; it is a story of how God is protecting and preserving his seed (the seed of the woman) by a woman who lays her life down for her son, who happens to be another type on the way to Christ. In this way, God’s Word is doing more than reporting history, so that we can find analogies. God’s Spirit is revealing the very character of God, along with patterns that repeat in Scripture.
For these reasons, therefore, the labor that it takes to read and understand Genesis 27 is worth the effort. Why? Because in working to understand the big picture and the smaller details, it conforms us into the image of Christ, as the Spirit who inspired the Word teaches us how to read it. And so keep reading, keep looking, and keeping searching for Christ in Scripture. And don’t settle for anything else.
For His glory and your joy in Christ,
Pastor David
[1] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (Dallas: Word, 1994), 214–215.
[2] For a thoughtful consideration of different kinds of lies in the Bible, see James Jordan, Primeval Saints, 87–90. Following Augustine and Luther, he distinguishes different ways that lies might be used righteously (e.g., Rahab defending the spies or Jesus, in Luke 24, hiding himself from his disciples). He defends Rebekah for deceiving Isaac, because Isaac was acting like a tyrant with Esau. I take a different view of the matter, but his reflections are worth considering, as he defends her use of deceit.
[3] Iain Duguid, Genesis, The ESV Expository Commentary, 248: “She [Rebekah] is the instigator and driver of this deception.” Offering a more complex view, Calvin says that her actions “certainly flowed from no other source than her faith,” but “her faith was mixed with unjust and immoderate zeal.” Noting the way that Calvin suggests sin arising from faith, the editor of his commentary notes, “This is a dangerous position, however it may be modified or explained.” John Calvin, Genesis, 85. As I will suggest, there is a better approach than framing Rebekah’s actions as singularly sinful.
[4] Duguid, Genesis, 252–53.
Recent
Archive
2026
January
February
March
April
May
2025
January
April
August
September
November
2024
April
May
August
November
2023
February
September
2022
February
April
September
2021
August
September