Genesis 26: A Flashback?

Go with me for a second. What if Genesis 26 is backstory? A flashback to a previous time? 

I know you’re skeptical because the narrative doesn’t typically stray from linear time, but there are exceptions. For instance, Exodus 10:27-29 & 11:4-8 are out of order. The former seems to occur after the latter takes place. Another example is found in Genesis 2. Verses 1-3 tell about Day 7 of creation, but then verses 4-25 go back to revisit Day 6 with more detail. All to say, revisiting something from the past is rare but it happens in the Torah. And I figure, if I––a mere human writer––can use flashback to enrich a storyline, why can’t my God?

You’re not convinced. Maybe because there are questions left to answer. Like, why would God break from the forward flow of Genesis to visit an earlier time?

I will make the case but first things first. What is flashback?

Flashback is a literary device used to create a background to the present situation. An author uses this device as an opportunity to provide insight and meaning within the story at hand. Flashback is one of the most common and recognizable writing techniques, and, when executed well, one of the most effective.

There is generally a trigger, something that causes the narrator to recall a particular event or detail from the past. The trigger is explored/explained in the flashback. The flashback provides new or important information that makes the central plot more meaningful. With this in mind, let me make the case that Genesis 26 is a flashback. 

Genesis 26 tells the story of Isaac and Rebekah living among the Philistines for a long time (26:8). Despite the length of their stay, no mention is made of their twin boys, Jacob and Esau. Their boys appear to be no factor at all. While Isaac publicly treats Rebekah like his sister, not one Philistine says, “By the way, who do these twin boys belong to?” Their whole charade appears to be uncomplicated by kids. Isaac and Rebekah’s togetherness remains a total secret and, somehow, they manage to get away with it for years. 

Of course, if we read Genesis 26 as a flashback, this is easy to explain. When Isaac and Rebekah lived among the Philistines, they hadn’t had any kids yet!

A flashback here makes for good storytelling, too. We would appreciate the Narrator’s decision to include it. Look at how a flashback adds color to the central plot. The central plot tells us that Esau is so careless as to give up his firstborn status for a pot of beans. “Esau despised his birthright” (25:34) is what triggers the flashback before we turn the page to Genesis 26. 

In Genesis 26, the flashback commences. It’s as if the Narrator has called a time-out. He’s like, Let’s go back and understand the magnitude of this birthright. Clearly Esau has forgotten its power, or he underestimates it, or he’s become complacent. I don’t want My readers to make the same mistake. 

Beginning Chapter 26, we find ourselves witnessing a time from years past. Jacob and Esau’s parents, Isaac and Rebekah, are living among the Philistines. The locals don’t realize these two are married because Isaac is lying, and acting like his wife Rebekah is really his sister. Why does Isaac lie? Because he is afraid! He is acting out of fear. And from this, we glean relevant insight.

It tells us that Isaac can lose sight of God’s covenant because what’s in front of him is the most pressing thing. He’s a godly man, for sure, but the danger in this Philistine city is clear and immediate, while God’s larger-than-life promises are larger than life. Isaac loses sight of those promises and decides to lie about his situation. He can justify those lies without end. 

No one knows his justifications better than his wife, Rebekah. Every day she has to pretend to be Isaac’s sister. She does so “for a long time.” This no doubt puts her in harm’s way, but she keeps true to her husband’s storyline. She knows it’s deceitful on their part, yes, but the ends justify the means. 

The final two verses in Genesis 26 cap the flashback. Before them we’re teleported back to where we left off. Their firstborn son, Esau, now a full-grown man, re-enters the narrative. Esau thought little of his birthright the last time we saw him, and now we see him thinking little of his family name as he intermarries with the Hittites. Still, he lives in anticipation of his father’s blessing. 

Time out! Important context ahead:

Here’s the birthright and the blessing in a nutshell.

The Birthright: the responsibility to take care of the family and the estate. 

The Blessing: the means with which to carry out that responsibility.

Whoever has the birthright (typically the firstborn son) needs to get the blessing 
because the blessing is the means with which to carry out the birthright. 

In this case, the firstborn son should not receive the blessing because, legally, he is not the firstborn son anymore! Esau sold his his firstborn status to Jacob. Jacob took on the responsibility of the firstborn son through that transaction. So Jacob, now technically the firstborn, is the one to whom the blessing should go. And his mother Rebekah knows this with such certainty. (After all, God told her long ago that the older would serve the younger.) But Rebekah also knows her husband well. She knows that her husband can, at times, lose sight of the big picture. He did it in Gerar and he is about to do it again. If he gives the blessing to Esau, it will be a mistake he cannot undo. And so, with the courage she learned as an “unmarried” women living among the Philistines, it is decided: she will make a bold move. She will be deceitful, yes, but the ends justify the means.  

In time, her husband would learn the truth. Isaac would learn that Rebekah was behind the scheme to swap Jacob for Esau. And Isaac would have been furious with her had it not been for one important discovery. Through Rebekah, he discovers that the birthright belongs to Jacob, not Esau! He discovers that Jacob legally possesses the firstborn status because Esau sold it away for a pot of beans! So Isaac can’t be too upset with his wife because his wife protected him from a terrible mishap. That is, to give the blessing to a son who does not possess the birthright in God’s eyes. 

Still, a very daring maneuver on Rebekah’s part, to instigate this whole son swap, to risk her name on a move so audacious. But she is no stranger to risk. She learned to accept risk during her long stay in Gerar, going out as a “single” woman among the Philistines. While Isaac was afraid, Rebekah learned how not to be afraid. She certainly wasn’t too afraid when she told her son Jacob, “My son, [if this ploy doesn’t work], let the curse fall on me. Just do what I say; go and get the ingredients [of the stew] for me.”

Can you see why I like to read Genesis 26 as flashback? Let me speak broadly. 

• God is the greatest author and the Torah is His book. If a human author can use flashback as a literary device to tell a story more powerfully, why can’t God do it in His book? 
• If Genesis 26 is a flashback, it explains how Isaac and Rebekah could successfully sell a brother/sister relationship. Shared children were not a factor.  
• Genesis 26, the flashback, is wedged between Jacob’s receiving the birthright (from Esau) and his receiving the blessing (from Isaac). Between these events, it makes sense to go back in time to visit Isaac and Rebekah in Gerar when everything was on the line. There too we learn that God will see His plan through. We ought not underestimate His sovereignty despite human error. 
• We see how Rebekah garnered the courage to make the decision she made, and perhaps why she was okay with a measure of deceit so long as the ends justified the means.
• We see why Isaac would have loved his wife even after she deceived him. After all, she had put up with his deception in Gerar for such a long time, and she’d done so at her own risk.  
• Finally, reading Genesis 26 as flashback yields a window into a beautiful moment. Remember when the king of Gerar spies Isaac and Rebekah being intimate with each other in Genesis 26:8? I like to think this detail captures the moment their twins, Jacob and Esau, were conceived. 

Rachel Steals the Idols, But Why?

Why does Rachel take her father’s idols? Here are five potential motives. 

1.    A noble act: She takes them from Laban as a kind of rescue, to wean her father away from idol worship. “If the idols can’t save themselves, then they can’t save you, Laban. You need to wake up to the truth.” 

2.  A prudent action: Laban’s idols are “oracles” according to Rabbi Hirsch. With this reading, Rachel recognizes that behind these idols are real and dark supernatural forces. She doesn’t want these forces to tell Laban the whereabouts of Jacob’s location. So, by taking the oracles, she is buying time. “I’ll steal the idols so Laban can’t consult them and learn our location.”

3.    A sentimental attachment: She grew up with these idols and now she simply can’t let them go. Almost like a teenage girl packing her time-raggled stuffed animal as she travels off to college. Or maybe like a Christmas nativity set from your childhood that you can’t seem to part with. “I’m taking these because I want something that reminds me of home.”

4.   A business move: It’s been pointed out that there was a tradition in ancient Mesopotamia that he who possessed the family gods possessed certain rights over the household. As revealed in Genesis 31:14, Rachel knew that her father had no intention of passing a share of his estate to her and her sister, Leah. So Rachel thinks, “I’ll take these idols so we can return after my father’s death and lay a claim to our inheritance.” (Proponents of this explanation reference the fact that Laban accepts the theft of his idols only after he receives a guarantee that Jacob will not cross a particular boundary line between them. Laban knows then that his sons’ inheritance will be protected; Jacob will not return and lay claim to any piece of Laban’s estate.)

5.    An act of spite: Rachel is so fed up with Laban that she wants to hit him where it hurts the most. “I’m going to steal these idols because I know how much they mean to my father, and he deserves to hurt after the way he’s treated me, after the way he ruined what should have been my wedding night.” 

These potential motives deserve consideration, and perhaps all factor in to some extent. The narrative provides two clues which may help us clarify the matter some. 

Clue #1: she doesn’t tell Jacob about the theft. 
Clue #2: she still possesses the idols after 10 days! 

Clue #1 leads me to believe that a guilty conscience is involved, thereby ruling out “the noble act” idea. Had it been a noble act, she would’ve told Jacob. 

Clue #2 leads me to believe that “the prudent move” isn’t the answer either. Had she just been trying to prevent Laban from consulting his oracles, she could’ve buried the idols at the first opportunity, her goal having been accomplished. Clue #2 also leads me to believe that “the act of spite” isn’t her primary motivation either. Had it been a simple act of spite, she would’ve discarded or destroyed them soon after their departure. There’s no need to keep incriminating evidence any longer than necessary. But as we know, Rachel was still holding on to them after 10 days!

“The business move” isn’t compelling because she already knows that Jacob is a wealthy man returning to a wealthy family. Rachel doesn’t need to claim additional riches from her father Laban. Besides that, this motivation doesn’t seem true to her character in my opinion.  

Does she take the idols due to sentimental attachment? Possibly. The tokens of our childhood can be difficult to let go of, especially if we derive a level of emotional security from them. Still, I don’t find this reason compelling in and of itself. 

There is another explanation, a sixth possibility. Dennis Prager puts it well: “Rachel surely believed in the God of Jacob, but she might well have still believed in the power of idols with which she grew up. When people believe in many visible gods, it takes a very long time to get them to believe in one invisible God. Rachel’s behavior may have been similar to that of Neils Bohr, the Nobel-prize winning physicist who was said to keep a rabbit’s foot in his laboratory. When an astonished visitor asked, ‘But surely, professor, you don’t believe in a rabbit’s foot?’ Bohr responded, ‘Of course not. But they say a rabbit’s foot brings you luck whether you believe in it or not.’”

Rachel was desperately anxious to have a child (Gen. 30:1) and then, later on, desperately anxious to have a second child. Prager points out that Rachel may have taken the idols because she was open to utilizing all means necessary toward procuring her goal, including mandrakes, Jacob’s God, and perhaps also the gods from her father’s household. This point, I believe, explains Rachel’s motivation in the most satisfying way. 1) She’s an anxious person by nature, 2) she is desperate to have children, and 3) she’s hedging her bets.