JACOB

Jacob Flees to Haran to Find a Wife of His Own Kin And Remains There Over Twenty Years Establishing His Own Sub-Tribe Before Returning Home (27.46-37.2a).

Jacob’s Departure (27.46-28.9)

27.46 ‘And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth such as these, of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do to me?” ’

It was always the intention of Isaac and herself to obtain a wife for Jacob from their kinsfolk. The way in which this is the constant aim of the family demonstrates a sense in which they felt themselves to be exclusive. They were like royalty in past days, but even more exclusive.

The purpose behind this was presumably the maintenance of the exclusiveness of the family tribe itself, and of its leadership within the tribe. To marry outside the family would be to introduce foreign elements. Canaanite daughters would introduce religious practises that were seen as evil, for Canaanite religion was debased. To marry within their own tribe could damage the recognition of their own patriarchal status.

There is a lesson for all Christians here to ensure that they marry those who will deepen rather than challenge their faith. Marrying a non-believer is condemned in Scripture (2 Corinthians 6.14).

There had been no hurry in bringing this about, but events have now precipitated matters. For his own safety from a revengeful brother Jacob must be got to a place of safety. Yet Isaac must be kept unawares of the strains within the family, and Rebekah knew that he would probably dismiss the threat to Jacob out of hand. He would say he should be able to stand up for himself. And he certainly would not like the suggestion that they were all waiting for him to die (27.41). So she goes to Isaac with the suggestion that now is the time to consider a wife for Isaac. However, like any wise diplomat she wants him to think that the suggestion is his.

So she satisfies herself with telling him how distressed she is to think of Jacob marrying a Canaanite woman. ‘Such as these’ may even suggest that some have been showing interest in Jacob and have been visiting the tribe. And her plan succeeds. She knew she had only to plant the seed and he would act on it.

But she had no conception of the fact that Jacob would be away for so long.

Thus 27.46 is the opening introduction to the new covenant narrative which continues in chapter 28. But it is also important as a connecting link. The compiler clearly wanted it to be seen as connecting directly with the previous narrative. Yet it is equally the commencement of the following narrative.

Jacob Seeks a Wife in Haran and Marries Leah and Rachel (27.46-30.24)

This covenant narrative is based around Yahweh’s covenant with Jacob in 28.13-15. He obtains wives and is abundantly fruitful, bearing many children. The initial covenant record was possibly 28.1-22 recorded by Jacob as solemn evidence of Yahweh’s covenant with him. The second, which records the fulfilment of the promise of fruitfulness, may have been added subsequently as a postscript, or may have been a separate record resulting from the vivid awareness by his wives of Yahweh’s intervention in the birth of their children.

28.1-2 ‘And Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and charged him and said to him, “You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Paddan-Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father, and take for yourself a wife from there from among the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother.” ’

Having been prompted by Rebekah’s words Isaac, unaware of the undercurrents around him, calls for Jacob and sends him to his wife’s family, the family of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, to find a suitable wife. The fact that he knows that Laban has daughters serves to demonstrate that the families kept in touch. (Compare for the detail 25.20).

But noteworthy is the fact that in contrast to the servant who went to Paddan-aram for Rebekah on Isaac’s behalf Jacob bears no expensive wedding gifts. Isaac is clearly not pleased with him. He must make his own way. Alternately it may be that the family tribe was going through hard times and such gifts were not possible. In those days catastrophe, disease and human enemies could soon devastate the fortunes of wealthy semi-nomads as Job 1 demonstrates.

28.3-4 “And God Almighty (El Shaddai) bless you and make you fruitful, and multiply you that you may be a company of peoples. And give you the blessing of Abraham to you, and to your seed with you, that you may inherit the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham.”

This charge now recognises that Jacob is to receive authority over the family tribe after Isaac has gone, not only the immediate tribe but over the wider family (‘the company of peoples’), and has become the recipient of the blessings of the covenant. The mention of El Shaddai (the Almighty God) as in chapter 17, where the ‘multitude of nations’ is also mentioned, links it with the wider covenant given there. Compare also 35.11 where God reveals Himself to Jacob as El Shaddai and ‘a company of nations’ is mentioned. The term El Shaddai is thus used when ‘many nations’ are in view in contrast with the more personal name of Yahweh which is more closely connected with the national covenant. Yahweh is the name of God, but He is given many titles in relation to His activities.

Jacob is to become a company of peoples, and is to receive the blessing of Abraham, which includes inheritance of the land in which they at present ‘sojourn’ (that is, live without a settled place to call their own). This anticipates the fact that future Israel will be made up of many nations. We can consider the mixed multitude who united with Israel at the Exodus 12.38 and the nations later conquered and absorbed through history.

28.5 ‘And Isaac sent Jacob away, and he went to Paddan-aram, to Laban, son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother.’

The continual emphasis of the detail confirms the importance put on the family connection. The repetition is typical of Ancient Near Eastern literature.

28.6-7 ‘Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram to take for himself a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge saying, “You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan, and that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother and was gone to Paddan-aram.’

Up to this point Esau had not considered the question of the provenance of his wives. He appears to have acted independently in his marriages and with little thought to the covenant community. Now the actions of Isaac bring him up short.

The writer is deliberately bringing out the contrast to establish the worthiness of Jacob to take over his father’s position. Jacob does that which is right by the family and the covenant, Esau did not. It is to Jacob, by his actions, that the inheritance truly belongs. With all his failings Jacob was true to the covenant.

‘That Jacob obeyed his father and his mother.’ The writer lays great stress on Jacob’s obedience in the marriage field. It demonstrates what a central feature it was in his thoughts. He sees Esau’s failure in this a crucial factor.

28.8-9 ‘And Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan did not please Isaac, his father, and Esau went to Ishmael, and added to the wives that he had Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife.’

This verse demonstrates the close connection kept with the wider family. Esau is welcomed by Ishmael’s family as a suitable husband for their daughter, and clearly knows fairly quickly where to find them in order to pursue his suit.

Esau’s love for his father constantly comes over. He desires to please him and the feeling is reciprocated. Yet he did so in independence and not like Jacob in filial obedience. Here he seeks to remedy, rather belatedly, his error in marrying Canaanite women. This brings out how independently he had acted when he married the latter. But even here he acts independently.

This union explains why we next see Esau as leader of a band of men in Seir. He has found the independent lifestyle of the Ishmaelites to his liking. And he is aware that he has no future with the family tribe, thus fulfilling Isaac’s words (27.40).

Jacob meets God at Bethel (28.10-22)

28.10 ‘And Jacob went out from Beersheba and went towards Haran.’

At this stage Isaac and the family tribe are still firmly situated in Beersheba. Twenty years later they will be found in Mamre near Hebron (35.27). That the tribe had kept in close touch with the children of Heth, who were connected with Mamre (23.17-18), is clear from 26.34; 27.46. Perhaps they had outstayed their welcome at Beersheba. That Jacob had kept in touch with his family comes out in that he later knows where to find them.

Jacob would not travel alone. In 32.10 he refers to crossing the river only having a staff, but that is probably because he did not see those who travelled with him as his own. They and the gifts were Isaac’s. He would almost certainly have servants with him, together with suitable gifts to present to the wider family. (It would seem for example that Rebekah sent with him her own nurse, a typical motherly gesture - see 35.8). Not to take gifts would be a solecism of the worst kind. But he was without the expensive marriage gifts which would have made his way easier. This omission is quite startling. It suggests Isaac’s displeasure with him. He did not want him back quickly and would be quite happy if he remained in Paddan-aram. Rebekah felt the same for a different reason. She wanted him where he would be safe. Alternately it may indicate a period of relative tribal poverty. It may be that Jacob is to restore the family’s fortunes.

28.11 ‘And he lighted on a certain place and tarried there all night because the sun was set, and he took one of the stones of the place and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.’

The coincidental nature of the resting place is stressed. Though he knows it not an invisible hand is guiding him. The stone is mentioned because it will become a sacred pillar (verse 18).

28.12 ‘And he dreamed, and behold, a ramp set up on the earth and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it.’

The word ‘sullam’ (‘heaped up) suggests a kind of ramp leading upwards. And moving up and down this ramp were angels of God. The general message is clear, that the messengers of God are watching over God’s purposes in the world, and especially as regards Canaan. Compare the angelic messengers in Genesis 19 and Zechariah 1.8-11. But the use of ‘God’ rather than ‘Yahweh’ indicates general activity rather than specific covenant activity. It is Jacob who is looked after by Yahweh Himself (verse 15).

We note in passing that there is no idea of these angels as having wings, that is why they need a ramp. In fact angels are never described as having wings. Wings are limited to the cherubim/seraphim.

28.13-14 ‘And behold Yahweh stood above it (or ‘by him’) and said, “I am Yahweh, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. I will give to you and to your seed the land on which you lie. And your seed will be as the dust of the earth, and you will break forth to the west, and to the east, and to the north and to the south. And in you and in your seed will all the families of the earth be blessed.” ’

Now Jacob has a theophany of Yahweh, as his fathers had had before him. He sees a vision of God in a dream, and God speaks to him directly as the God of his fathers. He confirms the promises made in the covenant. The land is to belong to their children, they will become countless as the dust of the earth, they will spread abroad widely in all directions, and through them the whole world will be blessed. The final purpose of God is always universal blessing. Jacob is now formally accepted as the seed through whom the promises would be fulfilled.

28.15 “And behold I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you again to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you of.”

God’s sovereign purpose in Jacob is revealed. It is not because Jacob is worthy but because God purposes it. Yet there is in Jacob that which will respond, and indeed has responded, and while his behaviour leaves much to be desired God will work on him to make him what he ought to be. Thus God will be with him and will keep and guard him, and will bring about His purpose through him. Jacob is Yahweh’s personal concern.

We too may feel unworthy in our walk with God, but it is not our sense of worthiness that matters but the fact that God is at work on our lives. If we are His He will work in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13).

28.16 ‘And Jacob awoke from his sleep, and he said, “Surely Yahweh is in this place, and I did not know it”. And he was afraid and said, “How awe-inspiring is this place. This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven”.’

Jacob awakes, still filled with the dread and awe that his experience has aroused in him. It is possible that he takes what he has seen literally and thinks that this is literally the place where heaven and earth conjoin and where there is a gate (in the sense of a city gate) through which angels can pass. But more likely he sees it as temporary. Yahweh is here, even though he had not been aware of it. And the place has thus become for the time being the dwelling-place of Yahweh, ‘the house of God’ (beth elohim) and the gateway to heaven.

All this must not be over-pressed. Jacob is aware that Yahweh has revealed Himself in a number of places, for example, at Shechem (12.6), in various unnamed places (15.1 on; 17.1 on) and in Beersheba (26.24). Each is in its own way as sacred as Bethel. And worship of Yahweh is not confined to Palestine (24.26, 48, 52. See also 29.32, 35 which demonstrate that Jacob has introduced his wives to the worship of Yahweh). The fact that Yahweh will be with him wherever he goes, and will not leave him, is a guarantee of that. But for him Bethel will always be special, for here was where he first met God personally and heard His voice speaking to him.

How often God comes to us when we least expect it. Like Jacob we wander to ‘a certain place’ and then God meets us there.

28.18 ‘And Jacob arose early in the morning and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it.’

The pouring of oil on the pillar was to sanctify it to God, to set it apart as ‘holy’ (Leviticus 8.10-11; Numbers 7.1). It was to become a sacred pillar, a pillar for a memorial of the covenant renewed with him. Setting up stones was regularly a physical reminder of covenants (compare Genesis 31.45-52; 35.14; 1 Samuel 7.12; Joshua 4.3; see also 2 Samuel 18.18). The pouring with oil gave it a special significance as a holy memorial.

Generally such stone pillars erected in this way were very large. If that is so here the stone will have been lying sideways when he used it as a pillow, mainly buried in the ground, and he put it up on end, no doubt with the help of his servants. In that case ‘took’ in verse 11 would simply mean ‘selected’.

28.19 ‘And he called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.’

Jacob names the place where he is ‘Beth-el’ (the house of God) but the closest city is called Luz. Its name was later changed to Bethel because of this incident. But the name is not static. Joshua 16.2 still distinguishes between Bethel and Luz, although they are clearly very close (Joshua 18.13). The use of Bethel earlier in Genesis is a result of scribal updating. It was not uncommon for ancient names to be updated when documents were copied. This constant changing or re-adaptation of names in Genesis reflects the gradual taking over of the land by the patriarchs.

28.20-22 ‘And Jacob vowed a vow saying, “If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothes to wear, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then shall Yahweh be my God, and this stone which I have set up for a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that you will give me I will surely give a tenth to you.” ’

Jacob makes a vow. If God will watch over him as He has promised (verse 15) then he will indeed be totally dedicated to Yahweh. The vow is threefold. Yahweh will be his God, the place where the stone has been erected will be a cult sanctuary to His worship, and he will give one tenth of all he receives to God.

We note that he says ‘if God will be with me’ where we might expect ‘Yahweh’. The terms were interchangeable. But he is going into a foreign land and thus thinks in terms of ‘God’ going with him. But if the journey is successful then he will establish His worship as the worship of Yahweh, the God of his fathers. He is not saying that Yahweh will become his God but that he will be reconfirmed as his God.

The verse demonstrates that Jacob sees ‘Elohim’ as firmly equated to ‘Yahweh’. The idea of the reconfirmation of Yahweh as his God parallels other examples where a similar idea is in mind (e.g. Exodus 6.3).

‘This --- pillar shall be ‘the house of God’ (beth elohim).’ As men approach the pillar they will recognise the presence of God and will engage in worship because it signifies that God appeared there and made his covenant with man. But Jacob does not limit God to a stone. His vision alone has made clear to him the transcendence of God. As 28.19 demonstrates he calls the area as a whole Bethel.

‘A tenth.’ A recognised percentage given to one to whom one owes dues, as with Abraham to Melchizedek (14.20). It was a principle recognised elsewhere in the Ancient Near East. The change from the third person to the first person in the last phrase reflects the depths of Jacob’s personal dedication.

It is quite probable that this section was put in written form immediately as a covenant document, either by himself or one of his men, a guarantee to Jacob that his future is secured by Yahweh.

Jacob’s vow brings home to us the importance of worship and measured Christian giving in response to the goodness of God.

Jacob Meets Come to His Relatives’ Family Tribe and Marries Laban’s Two Daughters (29.1-30). Jacob’s Sons are Born (29.31-30.24)

This covenant narrative reflects the fulfilment of Yahweh’s promise of fruitfulness to Jacob and is based on the covenant significance of the names given to the sons. It is not just a story. The names reflect their covenant relationship with God.

But it is noteworthy that, in remarkable contrast to Genesis 24, there is no mention of God until we come to the birth of the sons. It is as though the writer is telling us that, although God’s purposes came to fruition through it, God was not directly involved in the chicanery that took place. When Abraham’s servant sought a wife for Isaac, he went about it prayerfully and waited for God to show His will through another catering to the needs of his beasts. Here we have no prayer and Jacob pre-empts the situation. The contrast could not be more stark.

Then fourteen years pass very quickly with Jacob’s pursuits not worth a mention, the only point of importance being his two marriages that lead up to the birth of his sons. It is not so much concerned with the life of Jacob as with the heirs of the promise. Yahweh first steps in at verse 31. So the text is firmly based on covenant records.

29.1 ‘Then Jacob went on his way and came to the land of the children of the East.’

‘The children of the East.’ A general term for people who came from lands to the East of Canaan. In 1 Kings 4.30 the children of the East are, along with Egypt, looked on as a source of wisdom (compare Matthew 2.1). This suggests reference to the peoples of the Mediterranean area. Job could also be called one of ‘the children of the East’ (Job 1.3).

But the term is also used of peoples connected with the Amalekites and Midianites (Judges 6.3; 7.12; 8.10), with Moabites and Ammonites (Ezekiel 25.9-10), where they are probably unidentified groups of nomads banded together in an alliance (verse 4), and with Kedar (Jeremiah 49.28). It is therefore a term used to designate conglomerate peoples, without being too specific, with reference to their direction from Canaan. In this passage the reference is to the general area in which Haran is situated seen as part of the wider area of ‘Easterners’. (Compare the use of ‘Westerners’ and ‘Orientals’ today). Consider how the magi also came ‘from the East’ (Matthew 2.1).

29.2-3 ‘And he looked, and behold, a well in the field. And lo, three flocks of sheep lying there by it. For from that well they watered the flocks, and the stone on the well’s mouth was great. And to that place all the flocks were gathered, and they rolled the stone from the well’s mouth and watered the sheep, and put the stone again on the well’s mouth in its place.’

It would appear that the stone was so large that it was not easy to move. So every day the various flocks would gather at the well (water-source), waiting until all were gathered, and then the stone guarding the well would be removed and all the flocks would water there. It was possibly a private cystern owned by a group, with restricted access.

29.4-6 ‘And Jacob said to them, “My brothers, from where are you?” And they said, “We are from Haran.” And he said to them, “Do you know Laban, the son of Nahor?” And they said, “We know him.” And he said to them, “Is it well with him?” And they said, “It is well, and look, Rachel his daughter is coming with the sheep.”

Although it is still before evening three flocks have already gathered there. So by questioning their keepers Jacob discovers he has arrived at his destination, Haran, and asks after the man he seeks. A water-source was the natural place to find people to question, for it was a place where many would come. We note elsewhere how many meetings take place at water-sources. (One way of ensuring you met people was to wait at a water-source).

‘The son of Nahor.” Nahor is the head of the family. ‘Son of’ means ‘descended from’. Laban is actually the son of Bethuel, and is Nahor’s grandson.

29.7 And he said, “Look, it is yet high day, neither is it time that the cattle should be gathered together. Water the sheep and go and feed them.”

Jacob is puzzled why they are sitting around waiting. Sheep would normally be brought towards evening, but these have come while the sun is still high. Why do they then sit and wait, when they could water them and then take them where they can feed?

29.8 ‘And they said, “We cannot until all the flocks are gathered together, and they roll the stone from the well’s mouth. Then we water the sheep.” ’

The answer was that it was because the stone could not be moved. This may have been because there were not enough men there to move the stone. Most of the keepers of the sheep were probably women. Alternately it may have been because it was part of the agreement in respect of the private well that the stone not be removed until all were present. But we are probably intended to get the idea of the diligence of Jacob compared with the dilatoriness of the shepherds.

29.9-10 ‘While he yet spoke with them Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she looked after them. And so it happened that when Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban, his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth and watered the flock of Laban, his mother’s brother.’

Rachel, who had previously been spotted some distance away (verse 6), now arrives. So Jacob gets his men to help him to move the stone so that the flocks can feed. He is not used to having to wait and ignores any custom. He does not want to have to linger.

29.11-12 ‘And Jacob kissed Rachel and lifted up his voice and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother and that he was Rebekah’s son. And she ran and told her father.’

The meeting is emotional. In days when families were often out of touch for years such scenes were a regular feature of life when they came together. It must be considered certain that Jacob had said something introductory before he kissed Rachel, something like “I am your cousin’. He has after all gone to great trouble to water her sheep and this would hardly be done without saying anything. But after his rapturous welcome he then explains his relationship in more detail. Then, quite excited for she will have heard of her wider family, Rachel runs to tell her father.

‘Her father’s brother’, that is, a blood relation, his ‘kinsman’. Strictly he was his nephew. The word for ‘brother’ had a variety of meanings, compare 29.4.

29.13-14 ‘And so it was that when Laban heard the news of his sister’s son, Jacob, he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things. And Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” And he stayed with him for the period of a month.’

Jacob is welcomed as the ‘prince’ that he is by a fellow ‘prince’. Then Jacob tells him ‘all these things’, presumably the general circumstances of his journey and his purpose in coming. Laban’s stressing of the family connection indicates general agreement.

‘He stayed with him for the period of a month.’ It was normal not to hurry such transactions as this. It would generally have been considered impolite to a relative to hurry the matter. But the hospitality offered indicates acceptance of the principle involved. (Abraham’s servant, who had been in a hurry, emphasised his own position as a servant as a reason for not delaying).

29.15 ‘And Laban said to Jacob, “Should you serve me for nothing because you are my kinsman? Tell me, what shall your wages be?” ’

Once a decent time had passed Laban brings the matter up. He has now realised that Jacob has not come laden with expensive marriage gifts. These words are a delicate indication that Jacob is going to have to earn his wife by a period of service. (The question of wages would not normally arise between relatives of this standing. Those were for hired servants). He is asking how long he is prepared to serve as compensatory payment for a wife. When Abraham’s servant came he brought rich gifts which were accepted as recompense for the loss of a daughter and sister. It appears that Jacob has not brought such valuable gifts. Compensation would thus be made by service (compare Joshua 15.16; 1 Samuel 17.25), a practise well testified to elsewhere.

29.16-17 ‘And Laban had two daughters, the name of the elder was Leah and the name of the younger was Rachel. And Leah’s eyes were tender, but Rachel was beautiful and well-favoured.’

The word for ‘tender’ can mean soft, weak, delicate. This may indicate some weakness in the eye or it may simply mean timid or gentle-eyed (compare Deuteronomy 28.56). The point was that while Leah was not unattractive she paled in comparison with Rachel.

29.18 ‘And Jacob loved Rachel and he said, “I will serve you for seven years for Rachel your younger daughter.” ’

Jacob replies that he has made his choice as to which daughter he wants. He is prepared to offer seven years service in exchange for Rachel whom he loves. This may appear a long time but he knows that during the period he will be treated as a relative and equal (‘you are my brother’ - verse 15) and he has brought little with him. Offering service in exchange for a man’s daughter was a regular feature of the times.

In fact a period of seven years service appears to have been an accepted one in ‘Hebrew’ circles. Consider the stipulations re a Hebrew slave in Exodus 21.2; Deuteronomy 15.12, although the circumstances are not the same. (See Hebrews).

29.19 ‘And Laban said, “It is better that I give her to you than that I should give her to another man. Remain with me.”

The offer is accepted and it may be that at this stage Laban thought that Leah might be married within the seven years to someone else thus clearing the way for Jacob. The elder daughter was often more attractive status-wise. Thus it may be that at this point in time his aim was honest.

29.20-21 ‘And Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days for the love he had for her. And Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my days of service are completed.”

Jacob works out his seven years and demands his wages, the hand of Rachel in marriage. The comment about the depth of his love is touching.

29.22-24 ‘And Laban gathered together all the men of the place and made a feast, and so it was that in the evening he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him, and he went in to her. And Laban gave Zilpah his handmaid to his daughter Leah for a handmaid.’

The wedding feast is arranged. It will last for seven days (verse 27). And it is now that we first begin to see Laban’s deceitful ways, although we must be fair and recognise that he has been put in a difficult position. He had hoped that Leah might be married off, but it had not happened, and custom forbade Rachel being married first.

As he ponders the problem he sees the solution. Instead of being open and honest he foists Leah, who would be heavily veiled for the wedding, on Jacob. When they go to bed it is dark and presumably Leah kept silent. Thus Jacob does not realise until daylight that his silent and submissive companion is Leah. And by then it is too late. He is legally committed to Leah.

The mention of Zilpah is to indicate that she no longer belongs to Laban but to Leah, and thus indirectly to Jacob. She joins those whom Jacob has brought with him as a member of his ‘household’. But noteworthy is the meagreness of the gift. There is no mention of any other dowry. Laban is getting rid of his daughters on the cheap. (Rebekah was provided with a number of young women - Genesis 24.61). Jacob has come with little in the way of gifts. Laban returns the compliment.

29.25 ‘And it happened in the morning that behold, it was Leah. And he said to Laban, “What is this that you have done to me? Did I not serve with you for Rachel? Why then have you deceived me?”

When Jacob realises what has happened he is no doubt furious and immediately marches in to where Laban is to lay his complaint. The terms of his contract have been broken. The reader, however, knowing the story of Esau will recognise that he has received as he gave. The trickster has been tricked. He who deceived a blind man, has himself been deceived when blinded by a veil. He who supplanted an elder kin has an elder kin planted on him. What a man sows he reaps. And he learns his first lesson in dealing with Laban.

But Laban was no doubt waiting for the visit and has his excuses ready. He is a smooth-tongued liar and confident because the strength is on his side. Jacob can do nothing.

29.26-27 ‘And Laban said, “It is not so done in our place to give the younger before the firstborn. Fulfil the week of this one and we will give you the other also for the service which you will serve with me, yet seven more years.”

The taking of a second wife is well witnessed elsewhere, as is the later taking of slave-wives. But for the main wives there would be legal stipulations in the marriage contract, either written or oral and made in the presence of witnesses, preserving their position and relative freedom. The marrying by one man of two sisters was, however, later forbidden (Leviticus 18.18).

Laban knew that Jacob would have to recognise the strength of his argument. Custom could not be broken. Every one in the tribe would know the situation, and they were no doubt smiling behind Jacob’s back. And behind his triumphant but partly concealed smile is the implication that Jacob should have known, and that had he been smarter he would have known. It was probably not an uncommon requirement, although marriage to the elder daughter did in fact place Jacob in a more privileged position. (An argument which Laban might well have called on when placating Jacob. Marriage was not on the whole looked on as a romantic affair).

However Laban is not averse to Jacob and placates him with a further offer. Let him go through the seven-day wedding feast (see Judges 14.12) without trouble, giving Leah her full due, and then he can also marry Rachel. After which he must work another seven years for the privilege, as a now privileged member of the tribe.

It has been suggested in the light of parallels elsewhere that Laban adopts Jacob as a son, but there is nothing in the narrative to suggest this and much to demonstrate that he retained a level of independence. He was an established member of the family tribe, connected by marriage, but his services had to be retained by contract. Thus the new seven year contract.

29.28 ‘And Jacob did so and fulfilled her week, and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife.’

Jacob carries out his part of the bargain. He gives Leah due deference for the week of the marriage ceremony, and fulfils his responsibilities as a husband. Then he also marries Rachel. Leah’s part was not a happy one for she knows it is her sister that Jacob wants, but she was used to the fact that a woman could be married off by her menfolk and would accept her lot. She knew she could have done a lot worse. What grieved both her and Rachel was the particular way in which it was carried out so that neither of them received any financial benefit. Only a handmaid each (31.14-16). They felt that Laban had withheld from them some of their rights.

29.29 ‘And Laban gave Bilhah his handmaid to his daughter Rachel to be her handmaid.’

Once again Laban provides a handmaid for his daughter from his household, and another person is added to Jacob’s group. Again the suggestion is that that is all she receives.

29.30 ‘And he went in also to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah and served with him yet seven more years.’

Jacob plants his seed in both women as custom required, but his heart was with Rachel. And it needed to be for he had to serve another seven years for her.

Jacob’s Wives Are Fruitful As Yahweh Had Promised (29.31 - 30.24)

29.31 ‘And Yahweh saw that Leah was unloved and he opened her womb. But Rachel was barren.’

The bearing of a son was of vital importance in Jacob’s day for such a son or sons would inherit the family tribe and wealth and maintain the family name. A man felt he lived on in his sons. They would also eventually strengthen Jacob’s position. Thus Leah is delighted when she bears not one but four sons. But Rachel, who was barren was devastated.

The writer sees what has happened to Leah as a sign of God’s goodness to her. But it is noteworthy that he does not directly suggest that Rachel’s barrenness is God’s handywork, although others would see it that way.

‘Unloved.’ The word regularly means ‘hated’ but the previous verse suggests that although Jacob preferred Rachel he still had some love for Leah. Thus the translation ‘unloved’ is more likely. There is no suggestion that he treated her badly (contrast his words to his beloved Rachel in 30.2).

29.32-34 ‘And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben, for she said, “Because Yahweh has looked on my affliction (raah beonyi), for now my husband will love me.” And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because Yahweh has heard (shama) that I am unloved he has therefore given me this son as well.” And she called his name Simeon (Shimeon). And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Now this time my husband will be joined (lavah) to me because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore his name was called Levi.’

The names given by Leah are used to express the pain in her heart by a play on words. She is afflicted, Yahweh has heard that she is unloved, and she feels that her husband is not really one with her. But now that she has borne a full complement of sons - three is the number of completeness - she is confident that he will now regard her. She knows how important sons will be to him and is aware that she has fulfilled her responsibility.

‘Reuben’. As vocalised in the text it means ‘behold, a son’. But Leah also, by a play on words, reads a more bitter meaning into it. ‘Shimeon’ means ‘heard’, that is ‘God has heard.’ It initially celebrates the fact that Yahweh has heard in the giving of a son, but again Leah interprets it somewhat bitterly. The name Levi is associated with the verb ‘lavah’, to be joined. Possibly it indicated that Leah now felt joined with her husband’s God, Yahweh, but again she gives it her own bitter interpretation.

Note the reference to Yahweh. She now worships her husband’s God, for Yahweh can be worshipped anywhere.

It is possible that we are to see these three sons as triplets, born at the same time. This would explain why they are treated together and help to explain how Jacob had so many sons in seven years. But if so it is not made clear in the text. (‘Conceived and bore’ three times in succession does not exclude the possibility. Chronology was only secondary in Hebrew tenses). More probably we may see Simeon and Levi as twins. Note how they are coupled in Jacob’s blessing (49.5).

29.35 ‘And she conceived again and bore a son, and she said, “This time will I praise (hodah) Yahweh.” Therefore she called his name Judah (Yehudah), and she ceased bearing.’

With three sons her confidence has returned. Everyone will be congratulating her. So when a fourth is born she can express praise to Yahweh. Her husband’s God has been good to her and she acknowledges His goodness in the name of her son. The cessation of bearing is temporary (30.17), although lasting for some fair period, so that she seeks to maintain her position by bearing children through her handmaid.

30.1 ‘And when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister, and she said to Jacob, “Give me children or I die.”

Rachel’s great distress at the way things have turned out is apparent. She feels she has failed Jacob and is conscious of the congratulations being heaped on Leah. Her words here probably reflect a continual period of nagging, which to someone who loved her so much became exasperating.

‘Give me children or I die.’ Rachel sees little point in life and is suffering mild depression. And she seek partly to put the blame on Jacob. He too is aware of a feeling of guilt. But he feels he has proved his ability to have children. The fault must be Rachel’s. The account smacks of an eyewitness account.

30.2 ‘And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in God’s place? Who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?”

Rachel’s accusations stir up Jacob’s anger. He too no doubt feels frustrated. So he reacts with an outburst. He points out that it is God who is withholding a child not him. There is possibly a hint that Rachel is somehow to blame.

‘God’. The word is Elohim. Failure cannot be laid at the door of God as Yahweh. Indeed from now on the whole passage uses Elohim until we reach Rachel’s vindication in the bearing of a blood child (verse 24). What happens is no longer looked on as the direct intervention of Yahweh (compare 29.31), it is more pious comment.

30.3-4 ‘And she said, “See my maid Bilhah, go in to her that she may bear on my knees and I also may obtain children by her.” And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid as a wife and Jacob went in to her.’

‘Go in to her.’ A euphemism for sexual intercourse.

‘Bear on my knees’. This confirms what we earlier saw with Sarah. When the maid bears a child she does it on her mistress’s behalf. The child is Rachel’s. But as Sarah’s case demonstrated, the consequences were not always so simple when a blood child was later born. So the child does not rank fully with the true born unless fully accepted. It is to Jacob’s credit that he does not differentiate between his sons. On the other hand in his case the slave children were not the firstborn. There is not the same rivalry as with Ishmael and Isaac.

The handmaids are subsidiary wives. There is no marriage contract, they but do the bidding of their mistresses. But their status and position improves.

30.5-6 ‘And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son, and Rachel said, “God has judged (dan) me and has also heard my voice and has given me a son.” Therefore she called his name Dan.’

The depth of Rachel’s feelings comes out in her expression of vindication. She has shown that she is not morally to blame after all. He has not withheld a son through Bilhah. She sees her ‘son’ as God’s judgment passed on her situation. He has vindicated her. But there is not the intensity of feeling shown by Leah with her first four children, nor by herself when Joseph is born. Then it is Yahweh, the covenant God, Who acts, and her faith is renewed.

30.7-8 ‘And Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid, conceived again and bore Jacob a second son, and Rachel said, “With powerful wrestlings (literally ‘wrestlings of God’) have I wrestled (niphtal) with my sister and have prevailed.” And she called his name Naphtali.’

The rivalry between the two sisters comes out vividly. Rachel feels that she is having a great battle with her sister, and that she has now succeeded. The wrestlings must be seen as through prayer. She has fought for her position before God. Jacob will later be seen as wrestling with God although the Hebrew word is different (32.24).

30.9-13 ‘When Leah saw that she had stopped bearing she took Zilpah her handmaid and gave her to Jacob for a wife. And Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, bore Jacob a second son. And Leah said, “It is fortunate (gad).’ And she called his name Gad. And Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, bore Jacob a second son, and Leah said, “Happy am I! For the daughters will call me happy (to call happy = asher).” And she called his name Asher.

The names reflect Leah’s growing contentment. No longer torn at heart she now feels triumphant. She has done well by her husband. We note that the namings are by the two main wives. The slave wives take a secondary place.

30.14 ‘And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest and found mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said, “Give me, I beg you, of your son’s mandrakes.”

‘The days of wheat harvest.’ As with Abraham and Isaac these shepherd rulers also harvest the land.

Reuben is by this time just a few years old, four or five at the most. He discovers in the fields little, strongly smelling yellow fruits and he brings them to his mother. We do not know whether he knew what they were, but his mother knew immediately. They were mandrakes, well known for their supposed aphrodisiac qualities. They have been loosely called ‘love-apples’ because they look like small apples. Rachel, on seeing them, pleads for some so that she can quicken her sexual drive and effectiveness.

The mandrake is a perennial herb of the nightshade family which grew in fields and rough ground (compare Canticles 7.13). It had large leaves, mauve flowers during the winter, and these were followed by the development of fragrant round yellow fruits of the type found by Reuben.

30.15 ‘And she said to her, “Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband? And would you take away my son’s mandrakes also?” And Rachel said, “He will therefore lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes.”

Leah feels cast aside. Perhaps Jacob has decided she is beyond bearing. Certainly he seemingly refuses to sleep with her, preferring Rachel. So Rachel, aware of her power over him enters into a contract that if she receives the mandrakes Leah can sleep with Jacob that night. Indeed the next verse suggests that the contract may well have been in accordance with tribal custom between two wives.

30.16-18 ‘And Jacob came from the open country in the evening and Leah went out to meet him and said, “You must come in to me for I have surely hired you (‘sachar’ - to hire for wages) with my son’s mandrakes.” And he lay with her that night. And God listened to Leah and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son. And Leah said, “God has given me my hire (sachar) because I gave my handmaid to my husband.” And she called his name Is-sachar (hired man).’

Leah clearly has a sense of humour. Personally she sees the name as resulting from her hiring of Jacob with the mandrakes, but in God’s eyes and in the eyes of others she sees it as her reward for allowing her handmaid to bear children on her behalf.

‘The open country’ or ‘field’. It may well be that he had been labouring in the wheat fields where Reuben had found the mandrakes.

30.19 ‘And Leah conceived again and bore a sixth son to Jacob. And Leah said, “God has endowed me with a good dowry. Now will my husband dwell (zabal) with me because I have borne him six sons.” And she called his name Zebulun. And afterwards she bore a daughter and called her name Dinah.’

Now that Jacob realises that she can still be fruitful he lies with Leah again and she produces a sixth son. She clearly conceives easily.

‘God has endowed me with a good dowry.’ The suggestion has been that the wives brought little dowry with them. But now she feels God has made amends for this by giving her six sons, twice the perfect three. She has brought Jacob better than wealth.

‘Now will my husband dwell (zabal) with me.’ It seems that the bearing of further sons has established her status. She is no longer put to one side, but receives the honour due as a wife. The word zabal connects with a similar word used in Assyrian marriage law.

The mention of Dinah so abruptly is noteworthy. It prepares the way for the later event (chapter 34). But it may arise from the fact that she grew to be famous as an outstanding personality or beauty. Everyone knew about Dinah! Or the reference may stress that Jacob is a bearer of sons, with Dinah the exception, stressing his masculinity.

But more likely is that Dinah is mentioned to make the number of Jacob’s children up to twelve (see below). Twelve is seen as the full complement of tribal rulership.

30.22-24 ‘And God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. And she conceived and bore a son and said, “God has taken away my reproach.” And she called his name Joseph (yoseph), saying, “Yahweh add (yoseph) to me another son.” ’

The bearing of children through her handmaid has its own effect on Rachel’s body and at last she herself bears a son. Now she feels she can identify herself with Yahweh and His covenant. And in her exultation she looks to Him for more sons. Her words show once again how keenly she had felt her barrenness. It is now seven years since she was first married (verse 25).

We note in all this the stress laid on the fact the Leah’s first four sons and Rachel’s first son are from Yahweh Himself. These are the seal of Yahweh’s covenant with Jacob. And we note further that there are twelve children. Confederations of twelve are a recognised grouping of tribes in Genesis (22.20-24; 25.12-16) and the fact that Jacob’s sons and daughter provide a full tribal confederation does not go unnoticed. He has been truly blessed.

We know from elsewhere the concept of the amphictyony, a grouping of tribes around a central sanctuary, and this was the basis of these tribal federations. We later receive fuller details of such arrangements after the Exodus when Moses formally establishes such a confederation based on association with the twelve sons of Jacob. It should be noted that however the lists of names are changed, there are always twelve names on the list in order to maintain the whole..

But it should be carefully noted that there is no reference to tribal affairs in the comments made on the names of the sons in this passage. They are purely individual. This, together with the inclusion of Dinah to make up the twelve (prior to the birth of Benjamin), is proof of the ancientness of the narrative.

Jacob Prospers and Decides to Return Home (30.25-32.2).

This passage is centred around two theophanies and two covenants. In the first theophany Yahweh appears to Jacob and tells him to return home (31.3). Then Jacob, describing the theophany to his wives, amplifies what God said as the God of Bethel, emphasising the command to return home (31.11-13). And the second is when he meets the angels of God at Mahanaim (32.1-2). The passage also contains details of the two covenants made between Jacob and Laban (30.31-33 and 31.44-53). Originally separate covenant records may well have been involved.

Jacob Prospers (30.25-43).

30.25-26 ‘And it happened when Rachel had borne Joseph that Jacob said to Laban, “Send me away that I may go to my own place and to my country. Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let me go. For you know my service with which I have served you.” ’

Jacob’s servitude has come to its end. Now he seeks to clarify his position with Laban and his tribal confederation. He has fulfilled his dues and should be free to return home with all he has earned. His case is a little different from the normal ‘Hebrew bondsman’ for the latter would, on completion of his servitude, be required to leave his wives behind. But in this case they are his wages, and he is a relative of equal standing.

Note how carefully Jacob words his request. He is making clear the terms of the covenant between them and his complete fulfilment of it. He recognises the rights of the tribe but stresses that he has fulfilled all their requirement and therefore has the right to leave along with his family even though they are part of the tribe.

30.27-28 ‘And Laban said to him, “If now I have found favour in your eyes, stay with us. For I have divined that Yahweh has blessed me for your sake.” And he said, “Fix what your wages will be and I will pay them.” ’

Laban does not directly dispute Jacob’s right to leave along with his family (but see 31.43. The position was decidedly unusual). But it is to Jacob’s credit that Laban does not want him to leave. He recognises the prosperity that has come to the tribe through Jacob’s presence and activities. And he acknowledges that this is partly due to the God whom Jacob worships, even Yahweh.

‘Stay with us.’ Not actually in the text but to be read in by implication.

‘I have divined.’ By means of divination Laban has become aware of Yahweh’s influence in all this. he is not a worshipper of Yahweh but as with Balaam later (Numbers 22-24) Yahweh makes His way known through those who are not His.

‘Fix what your wages will be.’ Negotiations begin again. Jacob can name his own price for further service and participation in tribal activity and it will be considered.

30.29 ‘And he said to him, “You know how I have served you, and how your cattle have fared with me. For it was little which you had before I came, and it has broken forth as a multitude. And Yahweh has blessed you wherever I have turned. And now when shall I provide for my own house as well?” ’

Jacob puts his case. His activity has turned their fortunes and their flocks and herds have multiplied. And he agrees with Laban that this is due to Yahweh his God. But now it is time for him to consider his own prosperity. He wants flocks and herds of his own for the benefit of his family.

‘Yahweh has blessed you wherever I have turned.’ There seems little doubt in view of this and Laban’s previous confession that we are to see Yahweh at work throughout the following narrative.

30.31a ‘And he said, “What shall I give you?” Laban wants to know Jacob’s terms.

30.31b ‘And Jacob said, “You shall not give me anything.” ’ He does not want anything specific now, he is prepared to wait for the future to decide.

30.31c-33 “If you will do this thing for me I will again feed your flock and keep it. I will pass through all your flock today removing from it every speckled and spotted one, and every black one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats. Then my hire will be of such. So will my righteousness answer for me hereafter, when you shall come concerning my hire that is before you. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and black among the sheep that is found with me shall be counted as stolen.”

Jacob is not here saying that the sheep and goats he separates out will be his. He expects nothing at this point in time (verse 31b). They can be removed from the flocks. But he is saying that he is prepared to accept any future speckled and spotted goats and black sheep once the flocks have been first purged of the ones that are alive at present.

‘So shall my righteousness answer for me --’. The righteous position in the eyes of the tribe will be that the speckled goats and black sheep will be his and his righteousness before them will be demonstrated by his only retaining these.

Considering the fact that most sheep were white, and most goats were dark brown or black, and that such were unlikely to bear black sheep or speckled offspring the bargain must have seemed a good one to Laban and his sons. Jacob seemed to be deliberately making things difficult for himself. But what he does not explain is that he has probably made sure that the non-speckled and spotted goats and the non-black sheep have been carefully impregnated beforehand by the speckled and spotted goats and the black sheep, and that he has thus stacked the odds in his own favour.

Throughout the narrative five different words are used to designate the features that distinguished what belonged to Jacob (speckled, spotted, striped, ringstraked, grisled and so on). These were no doubt technical terms clearly recognisable to shepherds in the area who would know exactly what was indicated.

30.34 ‘And Laban said, “Behold, I would it might be according to your word.”

Thus Laban accepts the contract proposed by Jacob.

30.35-36 ‘And he removed that day the he-goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she-goats which were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the black ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hands of his sons. And he set three days journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks.’

There is no suggestion in the narrative that Laban has played false with Jacob, although he does the separating himself to make sure that it is done properly. Indeed it assumes that Laban is simply following out the terms of the contract, which must thus be read in this light (any deficiency in our understanding of it tells us more of our lack of knowledge of ancient Hebrew than of the failure of Jacob to express himself properly). The ‘three-days journey’ means a comparatively short distance while ensuring adequate distance between the flocks.

30.37-39 ‘And Jacob took him rods of fresh poplar, and of the almond and of the plane tree., and peeled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had peeled over against the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink. And they conceived when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks produced ringstraked, speckled and spotted.’

How far he thought that this was a method of actually producing speckled offspring (it would not explain the black sheep), and how far it was a red herring to disguise the fact that he was achieving his results by inter-breeding, we do not know. We know of no method of achieving this today. But there remains the possibility that something from the trees used entered the water and assisted the required effect.

It is quite clear that Jacob had developed into an expert shepherd and had observed certain things which he knew he could utilise to produce the kind of animals he wanted. We need not doubt that breeding was one of them. He may never have known what actually achieved the results but he used a successful combination. His contemporaries noted the most striking method.

‘Made the white (laban) appear.’ There is probably a subtle play on the word for white and the name Laban. Laban had been out-Labaned.

30.40 ‘And Jacob separated the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked and all the black in the flock of Laban. And he put his own droves apart and did not put them into Laban’s flock.’

Once the lambs had been weaned Jacob ‘set the faces of the flocks’ toward the ringstraked goats and black rams. This is a clear suggestion of a deliberate breeding policy. He did not trust to his gimmicks only.

He then maintains two flocks side by side, that which was now his and that which was Laban’s. The sentence seems a little ambiguous. The idea would seem to be that the lambs which were designated as his were kept apart, although the ringstraked he-goats (verse 35) and black rams were kept in Laban’s section to assist the work of breeding further gain to Jacob from Laban’s she-goats and sheep.

There is no real need to see this as a later addition. The writer is most taken up with Jacob’s more spectacular methods but here mentions in passing other tactics he has observed.

30.41-42 ‘And it happened whenever the stronger of the flock conceived Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the flock in the gutters so that they might conceive among the rods. But when the flock was feeble he did not put them in. So the feebler were Laban’s and the stronger Jacob’s.’

The description shows with what care Jacob bred the young. He took individual care to ensure that the right males studded the right females. He trusted inter-breeding and the white rods used in connection with the water troughs. And it worked. We may recognise the inter-breeding as the important factor, but there may well have been something in the trees used which got into the water supply and assisted the process. And there may even have been something in the psychological factor which is hidden from us today. Jacob trusted the whole. But there is the underlying assumption that his prosperity was due to Yahweh’s blessing (verses 27 and 30).

30.43 ‘And the man increased exceedingly and had large flocks and maidservants and menservants and camels and asses.’

Jacob managed what is his efficiently. As his flocks grew he took on his own maidservants and menservants and purchased camels (a sign of prosperity) and asses, building up his own ‘household’ (family tribe). But the tribal confederation of which Laban was a part would begin to see this as part of the confederation. Wives, sons and a few sheep and goats earned by a contract of service were one thing. But this was something else.

Jacob is Commanded by Yahweh to Return Home and Tries to Slip Away (31.1-21).

31.1-2 ‘And he heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying, “Jacob has taken away all that was our father’s, and he has obtained his wealth from that which was our father’s.” And he beheld the face of Laban, and look, it was not as friendly towards him as it had been before.’

The building up of wealth always provokes jealousy, especially from those who feel that they have lost by it. What had seemed a good bargain, and even rather clever, had now turned against them, and Laban’s sons are not amused. And Jacob could see that even Laban had cooled towards him. He was decidedly unpopular, which considering that he had not looked after Laban’s section of his charge very well was not surprising. He was beginning to feel uneasy.

31.3 ‘And Yahweh said to Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers and to your near family, and I will be with you.”

Jacob must therefore have been quite relieved when Yahweh appeared to him and told him it was time to return home. That Yahweh may have said a little more possibly comes out in verses 11-13.

But he was aware that his going would not be easy. He must first win over his wives, and then he would have the problem of his position in the tribal confederacy. They would not be happy with him if he sought to diminish the confederacy. So he concocts a convenient story for his wives based loosely on the truth.

31.4-9 ‘And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the countryside, to his flock, and he said to them, “I see that your father’s face is not friendly towards me as it was before. But the God of my father has been with me, and you know that with all my power I have served your father. And your father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times. But God would not let him hurt me. If he said, ‘The speckled will be your wages,’ then all the flock bore speckled. And if he said thus, ‘The ringstraked shall be your wages,’ then all the flock bore ringstraked. So God has taken away your father’s animals and has given them to me.” ’

‘Called Rachel and Leah to the countryside.’ They would come accompanied by their servants. The order of names is interesting, we would expect the elder first. But this probably arises from the fact that Rachel is Jacob’s favourite wife.

Had Jacob gone back to their permanent home at the time of shearing there would have been much comment and many questions, so he calls his wives to come to him. But they then return to their homes and secretly prepare for their journey. This is evidenced by the fact that Rachel steals her father’s gods.

Jacob’s summary of the situation which follows is rather tongue in cheek. He has, as we know, played his part in manoeuvring the situation but now he puts all his success down to God. He is trying to win his wives over.

‘The God of my father has been with me.’ He believes, and wants them to see, that his success has come through Yahweh.

‘Your father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times.’ He wants them to recognise that their father has not quite dealt fairly with him. This may have in mind the deceit over Leah. But it clearly also indicates that there has been some manipulation of the terms of the contracts by Laban, possibly over the meaning of some of terms such as ‘speckled’, ‘ringstraked’, and so on. ‘Ten times.’ This means ‘a number of times’.

So Jacob carefully puts the position to his wives without introducing any suggestion of his own manipulations. He is clearly not certain how they will feel about things. He wants them to think that all is of God and that he has had little to do with it. Then he introduces the theophany he has experienced.

31.10-12 “And it happened at the time that the flock conceived that I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream, and see, the he-goats which leaped on the flock were speckled and grisled. And the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob.’ And I said, ‘I’m here.’ And he said, ‘Lift up your eyes and see, all the he-goats who leap on the flock are ringstraked, speckled and grisled. For I have seen all that Laban has done to you.’

This may have resulted from a genuine dream, but it is Jacob’s interpretation of the situation for his wives’ consumption. He is representing a mythical picture of he-goats acting on their own volition under God’s control, when in fact it was he and his men who carefully ensured what happened. It may well have been through a dream that he came to recognise the importance of interbreeding but he does not want his wives to realise that he has manipulated the situation with regard to their father and therefore ignores the human connection. He then incorporates his theophany in this mythical ‘dream’ to give the ‘dream’ a sense of validity and sacredness.

31.13 “I am the God of Bethel where you anointed a pillar, where you vowed a vow to me. Now arise, get you out from this land and return to the land of your birth.”

He now adds strength to his supposed dream by incorporating into it the word he had received from Yahweh.

‘The God of Bethel where you anointed a pillar and where you vowed a vow to me.’ Not quite the simple words of verse 3. He has told his wives of his vivid experience of God at Bethel and now uses that to impress them. Whether God actually spoke these words at the recent theophany we do not know. They were for the wives’ consumption. Yet they are true nonetheless. But their importance lay in their association with the command to return home. It is that which he wishes to impress on his wives.

31.14-15 ‘And Rachel and Leah answered, and said to him, “Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house? Are we not counted by him as strangers? For he has sold us and has quite devoured our marriage portion.” ’

Jacob is very conscious that his wives are part of their tribe and that they may elect to remain with them. That is where their portion is and their inheritance. But he need not have worried. It is clear that Laban has demonstrated by his actions that he sees them as no longer having a part in the tribe.

‘Counted to him as strangers.’ He has demonstrated by his actions that, like Jacob, they are now ‘foreigners’ living among the tribe with no permanent rights. This bring out a rather unpleasant side to Laban’s character and behaviour, possibly resulting from the slow increase of his dissatisfaction with Jacob.

‘He has sold us and quite devoured our marriage portion.’ The marriage portion was for the wife’s benefit but Laban has purloined it. Thus he has in effect received a price for them and treated them as having been ‘sold’. They feel very bitter at having been so treated as chattels. Their complaint can be parallelled in other texts from the Old Babylonian period, Nuzu, and Elephantine, where on occasion a father would withhold from his daughter a part of the bride payment which was normally handed on as a dowry.

31.16 ‘”For all the riches which God has taken away from our father, they are ours and our children’s. Now then, whatever God has said to you, do.”

Because of his behaviour towards them Laban has lost the loyalty and love of his daughters. They are quite content to feel that God has reimbursed them in another way.

31.17 ‘Then Jacob rose up and set his sons and his wives on the camels, and he carried away all his substance which he had gathered, the animals he had obtained, which he had gathered in Paddan-aram, in order to go to Isaac his father, to the land of Canaan.’

It is difficult for us to appreciate this step that Jacob was taking. He knew that he would be seen as breaking the confederation and decimating the tribe, which was why he left in secret. Such behaviour would not be tolerated, for the wholeness of the tribe was a crucial element of men’s lives. On the other hand he probably did not feel bound by the tribal treaty, for he saw himself always as there with Laban on a ‘temporary’ basis and felt he had fully earned for himself what he possessed. But it was a far cry from when he had merely obtained wives and a comparatively few animals by his working contract. What left was a substantial family sub-tribe (see 30.43 - For camels see on 12.16).

31.19-21 ‘Now Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole the teraphim which were her father’s. And Jacob stole the heart of Laban the Aramean in that he did not tell him that he fled. So he fled with all that he had, and he rose up and passed beyond the River and set his face towards the hill country of Gilead.’

Jacob chose a good time for his departure. It was the time of sheep shearing. Everyone would be busy with shearing the sheep and with the subsequent feast (see 1 Samuel 25.11; 2 Samuel 13.23 on). And he was helped by the fact that Laban with his flocks was some distance away, by Laban’s choice (30.36). This explains how so great a move was achieved in some secrecy.

‘Rachel stole the teraphim which were her father’s.’ Teraphim were linked with divination and spiritist practises (Judges 17.5; Ezekiel 21.21; 2 Kings 23.24). They were almost always condemned in Scripture (1 Samuel 15.23; 2 Kings 23.24; Judges 17.6). We do not know what form they took or what material they were made of, although they are clearly here linked with household gods (verse 30). It is probable that they took on different forms. 1 Samuel 19.13 on may suggest that they were often in human form or like a human face, possibly a mummified human head but this is uncertain. The word probably links with the Hittite ‘tarpis’, a type of spirit sometimes seen as evil and sometimes as protective. The reason that Rachel stole the teraphim may have been in order to enjoy their protection.

There is an interesting example from Nuzu of the importance attached to these household gods. There a man called Naswi adopted Wullu, because he had no sons of his own. He thus became Naswi’s heir and responsible to care for him. However it was stipulated that if a son was born to Naswi Wullu would have to share the inheritance with him and the gods which Wullu would otherwise have inherited are to belong to the real son.

So at Nuzu right to possession of the household gods belonged to the blood relation, and it may be that they were seen as conferring special status. But if Rachel stole them for this reason it was in order to pay her father back for his ill treatment of his daughters, not in order to bestow any benefit on Jacob, for there is no suggestion that that status passed with illegal possession of the gods. The theft certainly stirred Laban to his depths. They were possibly the symbols of his authority and he felt it deeply.

‘And Jacob stole the heart of Laban.’ A second theft, though of a different kind. He causes great distress to Laban by stealing away unawares and depriving the tribe of what it saw as part of itself, without negotiation.

‘Passed over the River.’ That is, the River Euphrates.

31.22 ‘And on the third day Laban was told that Jacob had fled.’

Jacob’s initial success comes out in that Laban does not learn of his departure until ‘the third day’. The sheep shearing and what accompanied it had kept all his men busy. This may indicate a period of about one and a half days, or even longer. ‘On the third day’ may be like ‘three days journey’, not to be taken too literally but simply meaning a short period.

31.23 ‘And he took his brethren with him and pursued after him seven days journey. And he overtook him in the hill country of Gilead.’

Jacob had been making good progress and it took Laban some time to gather his ‘brethren’, that is his fellow confederacy leaders, together. It therefore took them ‘a seven day journey’ to overtake them. A ‘seven day journey’ indicates a longish journey as opposed to the shorter ‘three day journey’. It had therefore required greater preparation. It does not mean it was literally accomplished in seven days.

It would possibly take a little more than seven days to reach the hill country of Gilead (not the same as the later Gilead) although they would be moving at forced pace. This hill country was split into two halves, north (Joshua 13.31; Deuteronomy 3.13) and south (Deuteronomy 3.12 RV; Joshua 12.2, 5) of the Jabbok.

It is an indication of the seriousness of the situation that such a force should make such a journey. This was more than just something personal between Jacob and Laban. The whole tribal confederacy is involved. They are losing a part of themselves.

The picture is a vivid one. Jacob, aware that pursuit will come, urging his men and his flocks to ever greater efforts; Laban and his small army pounding through day and night, all the while becoming ever more determined to prevent their escape. But then comes divine intervention.

31.24 ‘And God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night, and said to him, “Take heed to yourself that you speak not to Jacob either good or bad.” ’

This is a crucial intervention. Laban is warned by God in a vivid dream, no doubt during a short period of snatched sleep, to be careful how he speaks to Jacob. That this awesome experience affects him deeply comes out in the subsequent narrative. His whole attitude is transformed. He ceases to be the powerful avenger and becomes the wary negotiator and broken-hearted parent.

‘Either good or bad.’ Compare 24.50; Numbers 24.13. He must not say what he wants to say but only what he is told. He must remember that he is speaking to one under God’s protection.

31.25 ‘And Laban came up with Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in a mountain, and Laban with his brethren pitched in the hill country of Gilead.’

Aware of the approaching threat, which he had long anticipated, Jacob takes his men and his possessions into a mountainous place. He knows that there may be fighting and he wants to protect his possessions and to have the advantage of the most strategic position. So he pitches his camp ‘in the mountain’. Then he watches as the forces of Laban arrive and camp below them.

31.26-28a ‘And Laban said to Jacob, “What have you done that you have stolen my heart and carried away my daughters as captives of the sword? Why did you flee secretly, and steal me, and did not tell me that I might have sent you away with mirth and with songs and with tabret and with harp, and have not allowed me to kiss my sons and daughters?” ’

Laban arrives at his camp with other confederacy leaders, mainly his sons. But Jacob must have been very surprised at the way Laban approaches the matter. These words are very different from those Laban had originally planned and are not what Jacob was expecting. The armed force makes it clear that the intention had been to force Jacob back to Paddan-aram in ignominy, and Jacob knew it. And that is what he expects. But Laban’s awesome experience has made him wary. He no longer dares to demand that Jacob return, so instead he seeks to put Jacob in the wrong socially and personally, and to demonstrate the deep hurt that Jacob has made him suffer.

‘Stolen my heart.’ Probably having in mind the tribal possessions Jacob has taken with him, but possibly including his daughters and grandsons.

‘Carried away my daughters as captives of the sword.’ Nothing makes clearer that he sees what Jacob has done as similar to an act of war. It was, of course, untrue, for they had gone willingly, but Laban cannot bring himself to believe that. Like many powerful men he did not perceive the harm he himself had done. He is trying to demonstrate that he is in the right.

‘And stole me.’ He is saying that Jacob had stolen what was a part of Laban himself. The unity of the tribe and family was very heartfelt.

‘And did not tell me that I might have sent you away ----.’ This idea results from the change of heart brought about by his experience with God. He is now in two minds. On the one hand he wants to restore the wholeness of the tribe, but on the other he recognises that, in the light of the theophany and the divine threat, he is restricted. So he seeks to salve his pride by putting Jacob in the wrong on other counts. Thus he suggests that Jacob has behaved dishonourably by leaving without proper farewells. But both he and Jacob are aware that had Jacob approached in the way he described his departure with all his possessions would have been prevented.

‘With mirth and with songs and ----.’ The picture is a brazen fiction and brings a smile to the face for its very effrontery. This was the way in which Rebekah had gone to Isaac (24.60), but the situations were very different. She was going to marry a powerful man who has paid handsomely in marriage settlements and guarantees her safety and protection. The tribe was not diminished but rather enriched. The thought of Laban and his confederates rejoicing at the departure of Jacob with all his possessions, together with his wives and children, all connections of the tribe, is ludicrous. He might have been allowed to leave, but he would have been allowed to take little with him, as both of them well knew.

‘And have not suffered me to kiss ---.’ Laban adds one fiction to another. The picture of him as the fond grandfather longing to kiss his grandchildren goodbye is simply a way of putting Jacob again in the wrong, and is equally ludicrous, although family ties were very strong and in its right place this would have been true.

So Laban is trying to put things in the best light for himself in view of the limitation placed on him by God. Yet we must be fair to Laban. He has much right on his side. The breaking away from the tribe was against all convention, as Jacob himself well knew. Indeed had it not been for God’s intervention there would have been no such sentimental thoughts on Laban’s part. Jacob would either have had to fight for it or have been put under arrest and brought on his way back to Paddan-aram, along with all he had, to face his punishment. But God’s intervention has made the difference.

31.28b-30 “Now have you done foolishly. It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt, but the God of your father spoke to me yesternight, saying, ‘Take heed to yourself that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad. And now, though you desire to be gone because you are very homesick for your father’s house, yet why have you stolen my gods?”

Laban knows that all the right is on his side although he would no doubt have admitted, if pressed, that any attempt by Jacob to get away with his possessions openly would have been in vain. So he still takes the position of the aggrieved party, albeit warily. He is not, of course, aware that Jacob left at God’s command but he does know that Jacob had put himself in a dangerous position by deserting the tribe secretly. Then he explains why he is being so lenient. He has had a vivid experience of God which he must obey.

It is at this point that he mentions the stolen gods. That the gods were the last thing on Laban’s mind comes out in that he has not mentioned them until now, but they provide a further grounds for complaint, a further means of blaming Jacob, and they were unquestionably important to him. Their theft is a flouting of his authority as well as being an insult to his family.

31.31 ‘And Jacob answered and said to Laban, “Because I was afraid, for I said ‘lest you should take your daughters from me by force’.” ’

This is the answer to ‘why did you flee secretly?’ (verse 27). Jacob had rightly feared that if he left openly it would have been with very little. The daughters were seen as belonging to the tribe and his service for them had not been sufficient to recompense the tribe for their loss. Nor was their protection sufficiently catered for outside the tribe.

31.32 ‘ “With whoever you find your gods, he will not live. In front of our brothers discover what is yours among my possessions and take it to you.” For Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them.’

Jacob gives permission for a search and agrees that any thief will suffer the death sentence. Let the confederacy leaders be witness to what happens. The hearer and reader, who are aware of what Rachel has done, now feel a mounting in tension. The death sentence has been passed on Rachel! But Jacob does not know what Rachel has done.

31.33-35 ‘And Laban went into Jacob’s tent and into Leah’s tent and into the tent of the two maidservants, but he did not find them. And he left Leah’s tent and went into Rachel’s tent. But Rachel had taken the teraphim and put them in the camel’s furniture and sat on them. And Laban felt all about the tent and did not find them. And she said to her father, “Let not my lord be angry that I cannot stand up before you, for the way of women is on me.” And he searched but did not find the teraphim.’

Laban is still convinced that it is Jacob who has stolen them. He searches all the tents thoroughly without exception. The teraphim were clearly too large to be hidden on the person, although not so large that they could not be hidden in the camel’s furniture. It is clear that Jacob watches the process in anger. He does not like all his personal belongings being searched (verse 37).

Entering women’s quarters was only justified in extreme circumstances and Laban does it himself. They are members of his family. But he finds nothing. Then he enters Rachel’s quarters. That he accepts his daughter’s word suggests that he cannot bring himself to believe that his own daughters would deceive him, for had he doubted it he would have been more than suspicious. But like many arrogant people he is oblivious to how badly he has treated them and never suspects for one moment that they are resentful. We must always remember that how we treat people will at some time rebound on us.

There is possibly in the description an underlying contempt for such idols. They are hidden under a woman in her uncleanness. They are a nothing, and can do nothing.

It is interesting that only the leader and his wives have tents. The servants and their wives sleep in the open for they are on a journey. (When Jacob was travelling as a single man he also only used a stone as a pillow).

31.36 ‘And Jacob was extremely angry and berated Laban. And Jacob answered and said to Laban, “What have I done wrong? What is my sin that you hotly pursued after me? In your feeling about among all my things what have you found of all your household possessions? Set it here before my brothers and your brothers that they may judge between us two. This twenty years I have been with you. Your ewes and your she-goats have not cast their young, and I have not eaten the rams of your flocks. What was torn of beasts I did not bring to you, I bore the loss of it. You required it of my hand whether stolen by day or stolen by night. I was thus. In the day drought consumed me, and by night the frost. And my sleep fled from my eyes. I have been in your house these twenty years. I served you fourteen for your two daughters and six years for your flock, and you have changed my wages ten times. Unless the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac had been with me surely you would have sent me away empty. God has seen my affliction and the labour of my hands and rebuked you yesternight.” ’

Having watched his possessions being mauled by Laban without result Jacob is very angry and makes clear his grievances in front of the leaders of the confederacy. Laban is necessarily on the defensive. He has been proved ‘wrong’. He has failed to justify his charge of theft.

Jacob’s arguments are:

• 1) Laban has failed to prove the charge of theft as the remainder have witnessed.
• 2) Jacob had paid well for what he has, both in wives and flocks and herds, by long and faithful service in which he endured much hardship. The hardship of the shepherd’s life is well depicted. Indeed Laban had demanded recompense for any failure to the full and constantly changed the terms of the contract, yet Jacob bore with it. Animals taken by wild beasts did not normally need to be accounted for (Exodus 22.10-14).
• 3) He has not taken advantage of his position. While as shepherd he had the right to eat of the flock he has not taken the fat rams. And he has tended the ewes at birth so that there was no failure in the birth process. This may suggest that not all shepherds were so fastidious.
• 4) Nevertheless when he left Laban would have sent him away with nothing apart from his own personal possessions and would still do so were it not for God’s intervention.
• 5 God has passed judgment on the situation, having seen what he has put up with and the price he paid, and has justified Jacob.