Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;
Gen 31:17-21
Then Jacob rose up.
Lessons
1. Concurrence of all things with the call of God points out the time of mans obedience to him.
2. He that hath Gods call for himself and others to any undertaking should prepare first for it.
3. It concerns husbands and fathers to provide for convenient motions of wives and children upon Gods call (Gen 31:17).
4. Prudence teacheth men to order all their substance as motions rightly upon Gods call.
5. Justice will suffer no man to take anything but that which is his own.
6. Courage becometh Gods servants to break through all difficulties to follow God (Gen 31:18) and go where He calleth them. (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Lessons
1. Providence finds work to call off such as would hinder obedience to His work from His servants.
2. Hard it is for souls bred up in superstition to be wholly taken off from it.
3. There may be a temptation upon children to rob parents, but it is grievous wickedness.
4. Hearts not purged will have their superstitions and means of will-worship, though they steal them.
5. God suffers such irregular practices in good families sometimes for the trial of His own (Gen 31:19). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Lessons
1. Providence directs Gods servants to prudence for escaping the hands of wicked men at His call.
2. It is no iniquity, not to declare Gods call and way to such as would oppose them (Gen 31:20).
3. Flight is not unbeseeming saints from under the hands of oppressors when God calleth to 2:4. Difficult passages Gods servants find sometimes in following Gods call.
5. No difficulties should discourage where God appears to warrant mans motions.
6. Mans face should be set to that mark which God points him out in his pilgrimage (Gen 2:21). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Lessons
1. Providence ordereth tidings of His delivering His servants, to come to their enemies when they are not to be hindered by them (Job 5:12; Job 5:10).
2. Tidings of mercy to saints may come to the wicked soon enough to try them (Gen 31:22). (G. Hughes, B. D. )
The Teraphim
Rachel stole the Teraphim, either, as has been advanced, because she wished to prevent Labans consulting them on the direction of their flight, or to secure their guardianship for a journey apparently fraught with difficulties and dangers. The value of the precious metal of which the idol might have been made was certainly a temptation subordinate to the superstitious motive. The example given by Jacob with regard to the worship of God, had manifestly exercised a greater influence upon Leah than upon Rachel; though both, therefore, acknowledged, in Jacobs blessing, the will and favour of God, and urged him to follow the Divine directions (Gen 31:16), Rachel continued to attach a high value to dumb images, and regarded herself safe only under the guardianship of her own gods. Our knowledge concerning the shape of the Teraphim is very limited. They resembled the form of man (1Sa 19:13), either consisting of the entire human body, or only of head and breast. They were made of various materials, and not unfrequently of silver, two hundred shekels of which were employed for one statue (Jdg 17:4). Our information is more accurate respecting the use and nature of the Teraphim. But we must distinguish between the earlier and later history of the Hebrews. The origin of the Teraphim seems to have been in Mesopotamia or Chaldea, a supposition probable from our passage, and from a later allusion in which the Babylonian king is related to have consulted them (Eze 21:26). Although no doubt comprised amongst the idols which Jacob is recorded to have removed in Shechem (Gen 35:4), they long remained in favour among his descendants; and while the Hebrews were always conscious of their crime whenever they worshipped other gods, they do not seem to have regarded the adoration of the Teraphim as equally reproachful. On this point, the history of Micah is highly instructive (Jdg 18:1-31.). It shows clearly, that the Teraphim were considered as tutelar deities, fully compatible with the homage solely due to the Lord; that they were used, by many, as oracles, like the Urim and Thummim, or like the Ark of the Covenant; and that they were deemed sacred and lawful, if but a descendant of Aaron performed the ministerial functions: they implied a transgression of the second, not of the first commandment. Thus we account for the fact, otherwise most strange, that the prophet Hosed enumerates the Teraphim among the boons of which the disobedient Israelites would be deprived (3:4); he threatens them with the dissolution of national and of family life; he predicts, that princes and sacrifices will disappear, and together with them their own domestic gods, the Teraphim, who, therefore, have there a political and social rather than a religious import. The prophet does not hesitate to mention them, because they were evidently in his time still considered as the mildest and most harmless form of idolatry. But gradually, when the pure doctrines of Mosaism began to be enforced with greater rigour, the Teraphim were naturally included among the objects of religious aversion; even the author of the Book of Judges, who wrote in the latest times of the monarchy (Jdg 18:30), inserted in his truthful narrative a remark of disapproval: in those days there was no king in Israel, every one did what was right in his own eyes (17:6); when king Josiah established the strict worship of monotheism, he destroyed among the other idols, the Teraphim also (2Ki 8:24); and, perhaps, exactly because they were considered as almost innocent images, the later writers were extremely severe in denouncing them: the crime of obstinacy against the Divine will is compared to the idolatry of the Teraphim (1Sa 15:23); they are classed among the detestations and abominations (2Ki 13:24); their oracles are described not only as falsehood, but as wickedness; they lead astray those who consult them like sheep which have no shepherd (Zec 10:2); and they are attributed to the Babylonian monarch together with his other absurd modes of divination, as the auguries taken from looking in the liver (Eze 21:26; Eze 21:28). (M. M. Kalisch, Ph. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
17. Then Jacob rose upLittletime is spent by pastoral people in removing. The striking down thetents and poles and stowing them among their other baggage; theputting their wives and children in houdas like cradles, onthe backs of camels, or in panniers on asses; and the ranging of thevarious parts of the flock under the respective shepherds; all thisis a short process. A plain that is covered in the morning with along array of tents and with browsing flocks, may, in a few hours,appear so desolate that not a vestige of the encampment remains,except the holes in which the tent poles had been fixed.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Jacob rose up,…. And went with them to Laban’s house, where his children were, as is plain from Rachel’s theft, Ge 31:19:
and set his sons and his wives upon camels; which were his own, see
Ge 30:43; creatures fit for travelling; on these he set his wives, Rachel and Leah, and his concubine wives, Bilhah and Zilpah; for these went with him, as appears from Ge 33:6; and “his sons”, or rather “his children”: for they were not all sons, there was one daughter, and they were all young; his eldest son Reuben could not be much more than twelve years of age, and his youngest son Joseph about six.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels; Jacob then set out with his children and wives, and all the property that he had acquired in Padan-Aram, to return to his father in Canaan; whilst Laban had gone to the sheep-shearing, which kept him some time from his home on account of the size of his flock. Rachel took advantage of her father’s absence to rob him of his teraphim ( penates), probably small images of household gods in human form, which were worshipped as givers of earthly prosperity, and also consulted as oracles (see my Archologie, 90).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
17 Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels; 18 And he carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padan-aram, for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan. 19 And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father’s. 20 And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled. 21 So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed over the river, and set his face toward the mount Gilead. 22 And it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob was fled. 23 And he took his brethren with him, and pursued after him seven days’ journey; and they overtook him in the mount Gilead. 24 And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night, and said unto him, Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.
Here is, I. Jacob’s flight from Laban. We may suppose he had been long considering of it, and casting about in his mind respecting it; but when now, at last, God had given him positive orders to go, he made no delay, nor was he disobedient to the heavenly vision. The first opportunity that offered itself he laid hold of, when Laban was shearing his sheep (v. 19), that part of his flock which was in the hands of his sons three days’ journey off. Now, 1. It is certain that it was lawful for Jacob to leave his service suddenly, without giving a quarter’s warning. It was not only justified by the particular instructions God gave him, but warranted by the fundamental law of self-preservation, which directs us, when we are in danger, to shift for our own safety, as far as we can do it without wronging our consciences. 2. It was his prudence to steal away unawares to Laban, lest, if Laban had known, he should have hindered him or plundered him. 3. It was honestly done to take no more than his own with him, the cattle of his getting, v. 18. He took what Providence gave him, and was content with that, and would not take the repair of his damages into his own hands. Yet Rachel was not so honest as her husband; she stole her father’s images (v. 19) and carried them away with her. The Hebrew calls them teraphim. Some think they were only little representations of the ancestors of the family, in statues or pictures, which Rachel had a particular fondness for, and was desirous to have with her, now that she was going into another country. It should rather seem that they were images for a religious use, penates, household-gods, either worshipped or consulted as oracles; and we are willing to hope (with bishop Patrick) that she took them away not out of covetousness of the rich metal they were made of, much less for her own use, or out of any superstitious fear lest Laban, by consulting his teraphim, might know which way they had gone (Jacob, no doubt, dwelt with his wives as a man of knowledge, and they were better taught than so), but out of a design hereby to convince her father of the folly of his regard to those as gods which could not secure themselves, Isa 46:1; Isa 46:2.
II. Laban’s pursuit of Jacob. Tidings were brought him, on the third day, that Jacob had fled; he immediately raises the whole clan, takes his brethren, that is, the relations of his family, that were all in his interests, and pursues Jacob (as Pharaoh and his Egyptians afterwards pursued the seed of Jacob), to bring him back into bondage again, or with design to strip him of what he had. Seven days’ journey he marched in pursuit of him, v. 23. He would not have taken half the pains to have visited his best friends. But the truth is bad men will do more to serve their sinful passions than good men will to serve their just affections, and are more vehement in their anger than in their love. Well, at length Laban, overtook him, and the very night before he came up with him God interposed in the quarrel, rebuked Laban and sheltered Jacob, charging Laban not to speak unto him either good or bad (v. 24), that is, to say nothing against his going on with his journey, for that it proceeded from the Lord. The same Hebraism we have, ch. xxiv. 50. Laban, during his seven day’s march, had been full of rage against Jacob, and was now full of hopes that his lust should be satisfied upon him (Exod. xv. 9); but God comes to him, and with one word ties his hands, though he does not turn his heart. Note, 1. In a dream, and in slumberings upon the bed, God has ways of opening the ears of men, and sealing their instruction,Job 33:15; Job 33:16. Thus he admonishes men by their consciences, in secret whispers, which the man of wisdom will hear and heed. 2. The safety of good men is very much owing to the hold God has of the consciences of bad men and the access he has to them. 3. God sometimes appears wonderfully for the deliverance of his people when they are upon the very brink of ruin. The Jews were saved from Haman’s plot when the king’s decree drew hear to be put in execution, Esth. ix. 1.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 17-24:
Jacob waited until Laban left the family home to shear his sheep.
According to custom, he would be away for several days, as this was regarded as a festive occasion. Jacob wasted no time. He gathered together all his flocks and household possessions, and set his wives and children upon camels to begin the long journey. The language denotes haste, for Jacob knew he must put as much distance as possible between him and Haran.
Rachel availed herself of the opportunity presented by Laban’s absence, to steal his “images,” teraphim or household gods. These were small human figures, made either of silver (Jg 17:4) or wood (Isaa 19:13), worshipped as gods. They were consulted as oracles (Eze 21:26; Zec 10:2), and were regarded as custodians of happiness. By taking these teraphim, Rachel thought to make it impossible for Laban to consult them to divine their whereabouts. There may have also been a touch of greed in her action, since the images would be quite valuable. This action also indicates that her faith was not yet fully mature, for she was unwilling at this point to dissociate herself completely from all forms of idolatry and accept fully the leadership and provision of Jehovah.
The “river” (verse 21) refers to the Euphrates. Jacob’s immediate destination was Mount Gilead. This was the hard, stony mountain range Jebel Ajlun, near Mahanaim and along the northern bank of Jabbok.
Word reached Laban of Jacob’s departure, on the third day of their journey. Laban quickly set out in pursuit, accompanied by his kinsmen. He overtook the caravan on the tenth day of their journey. From Padan-aram to Gilead was about 300 miles. Jacob covered this distance in ten days. Laban required but seven days, since he was unencumbered with children, women, and livestock. On the night before he overtook Jacob, God spoke to Laban in a dream and warned him not to say anything acrimonious to Jacob when he caught up with him. God was still at work, protecting His chosen one.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
17. Then Jacob rose up. The departure of Jacob Moses afterwards more fully relates, he now only briefly says that “he rose up;” by which he means, that as soon as he could obtain the consent of his wives to go with him, he yielded to no other obstacles. Herein appears the manly strength and constancy of his mind. For Moses leaves many things to be reflected upon by his readers; and especially that intermediate period, during which the holy man was doubtless agitated with a multiplicity of cares. He had believed that his exile from home would be only for a short time: but, deprived of the sight of his parents and of his native soil during twenty years, he suffered many things so severe and bitter, that the endurance of them might have rendered him callous, or, at least, might have so oppressed him as to have consumed the remnant of his life. He was now verging towards old age, and the coldness of old age produces tardiness. Yet the flight for which he was preparing was not free from danger. Therefore it was necessary that he should be armed with the spirit of fortitude, in order that the vigor and alacrity of which Moses speaks, might cause him to hasten his steps. And since we read that the departure of the holy man was effected by stealth, and was attended with discredit; let us learn, whenever God abases us, to turn our minds to such examples as this.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
PART FORTY-TWO
THE STORY OF JACOB: HIS RETURN TO CANAAN
(Gen. 31:17 to Gen. 33:20)
1. The Covenant in Gilead: The Biblical Account (Gen. 31:17-55).
17 Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon the camels; 18 and he carried away all his cattle, and all his substance which he had gathered, the cattle of his getting, which he had gathered in Paddan-aram, to go to Isaac his father unto the land of Canaan. 19 Now Laban was gone to shear his sheep: and Rachel stole the teraphim that were her fathers. 20 And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled. 21 So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed over the River, and set his face toward the mountain of Gilead.
22 And it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob was fled. 23 And he took his brethren with him, and pursued after him seven days journey; and he overtook him in the mountain of Gilead. 24 And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream of the night, and said unto him, Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad. 25 And Laban came up with Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mountain: and Laban with his brethren encamped in the mountain of Gilead. 26 And Laban said to Jacob, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters as captives of the sword? 27 Wherefore didst thou flee secretly, and steal away from me, and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth and with songs, with tabret and with harp; 28 and didst not suffer me to kiss my sons and my daughters? now hast thou done foolishly. 29 It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad. 30 And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because. thou sore longest after thy fathers house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods? 31 And Jacob answered and said to Laban, Because I was afraid: for I said, Lest thou shouldest take thy daughters from me by force. 32 With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, he shall not live: before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.
33 And Laban went into Jacobs tent, and into Leahs tent, and into the tent of the two maid-servants; but he found them not. And he went out of Leahs tent, and entered into Rachels tent. 34 Now Rachel had taken the teraphim, and put them in the camels saddle, and sat upon them. And Laban felt about all the tent, but found them not. 35 And she said to her father, Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise up before thee; for the manner of women is upon me. And he searched, but found not the teraphim.
36 And Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban: and Jacob answered and said to Laban, What is my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast hotly pursued after me? 37 Whereas thou hast felt about all my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us two. 38 These twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she-goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flocks have I not eaten. 39 That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night. 40 Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep fled from mine eyes. 41 These twenty years have I been in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy flock: and thou hast changed my wages ten times. 42 Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now hadst thou sent me away empty, God hath seen mine affliction and the labor of my hands, and rebuked thee yesternight.
43 And Laban answered and said unto Jacob, The daughters are my daughters, and the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks, and all that thou seest is mine: and what can I do this day unto these daughters, or unto their children whom they have borne? 44 And now come, let us make a covenant, I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and thee, 45 And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. 46 And Jacob said unto his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a heap: and they did eat there by the heap. 47 And Laban called it Jegar-saha-dutha: but Jacob called it Galeed. 48 And Laban said, This heap is witness between me and thee this day. Therefore was the name of it called Galeed: 49 and Mizpah, for he said, Jehovah watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another. 50 If thou shalt afflict my daughters, and if thou shalt take wives besides my daughters, no man is with us; see, God is witness betwixt me and thee. 51 And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this heap, and behold the pillar, which I have set betwixt me and thee. 52 This heap be witness, and the pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm. 53 The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge betwixt us. And Jacob sware by the Fear of his father Isaac. 54 And Jacob offered a sacrifice in the mountain, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mountain. 55 And early in the morning Laban rose up, and kissed his sons and his daughters, and blessed them: and Laban departed and returned unto his place.
(1) Flight and Pursuit (Gen. 31:17-25). It seems to have become obvious to Jacob that flight was his only way of extricating himself and his household from Labans shiftiness. Jacobs words to his wives will be recalled here: Your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times, Gen. 31:7; that is, a round number signifying just as often as he could (Leupold, EG, 832). The daughters themselves joined in affirming their fathers acts of exploitationhis efforts to fleece their husbandand even his avarice in his dealings with them (as if they were as of little concern to him as foreigners to be bought and sold at his will), Gen. 31:14-16 : It was considered miserly if a father-in-law did not return to his daughter a part of the sum paid over by the husband at the time of marriage (JB, 51, n.). The point in this instance, is elucidated by tablets from Hurrian centers, is that part of the bride payment was normally reserved for the woman as her inalienable dowry. Rachel and Leah accuse their father of violating the family laws of their country. Significantly enough, the pertinent records antedate Moses by centuries (Speiser, ABG, 245). Rachel and Leah mean to say that what Jacob had acquired by his six years of service with their father was no more than would naturally have belonged to him had they obtained their portions at the first (PCG, 376). The wives were already alienated from their father and willingly espoused their husbands cause. Encouraged, in addition, by the assurance of the God of Bethel that his vow had been accepted (Gen. 28:20-22) and the accompanying Divine authorization to get out of the land where he was and return to the land of his nativity, Jacob gathered all his possessions and departed at a most opportune time, namely, when Laban was away on a sheep-shearing mission, (Sheep-shearing, we are told, was the occasion of an important festival in ancient Israel [cf, Gen. 38:12 ff., 1Sa. 25:2 ff., 2Sa. 13:23]). Jacob with his retinue (all he hadcf. Gen. 30:43, sheep, goats, camels, asses, maidservants, men-servants, wives, and offspring) rose up and drove away, not leisurely, but with all possible haste; flocks, of course, had to be driven carefully lest they perish from over-exertion. (Note that he set the members of his family upon camels, Gen. 31:17). Crossing the River (the Euphrates, cf. 1Ki. 4:21, Ezr. 4:10; Ezr. 4:16), probably at the ancient ford at Thapsacus, the procession (one might well call it that) struck across the Damascus plain, and then the plateau of Bashan, thus finally entering the region known as Gilead, the area east of the Jordan that formed the frontier between Palestine and the Syrian desert. Gilead was a mountainous region, some sixty miles long and twenty miles wide, bounded on the north by Bashan and on the south by Moab and Ammon (Gen. 31:21, Deu. 3:12-17). (Cf. the cities of refuge, Deu. 4:41-43, namely, Bezer in the table-land, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan). From the crossing of the Euphrates at Thapsacus, the next objective naturally had to be the mountain of Gilead or Mount Gilead.
Jacob had not been, and was not intending to be after his return, a nomad. Gen. 31:18In addition to the cattle there were other possessions of Jacob that he had acquired in Paddan-aram or Mesopotamia. . . . By a repetition of miqneh, cattle, this part of his possessions is reverted to as constituting the major part of his property, quinyano, as K.W. well translates: der Viehbesitz, der sein Vermoegen bildete. The statement is rounded out by a double statement of the objective of his journey: on the one hand, he was going back to Isaac, his father, under whose authority he felt he still belonged, and to the land of Canaan, which according to divine decree was ultimately destined to be the possession of his posterity. Such precise formal statements including all the major facts are wont to be made by Moses when he records a particularly momentous act. The very circumstantiality of its form makes one feel its importancea device, by the way, quite naturally employed for similar purposes to this day. Critics miss all these finer points of style, for the supposed authors that the critics imagine have wrought out parts of Genesis (E, J, P, D) are poor fellows with one-track minds, not one of whom has the least adaptability of style, but all of whom write in a stiff, stilted fashion after one pattern only (EG, 838839).
Perhaps we should give more careful attention here, in passing, to Jacobs conversation with his wives prior to the flight, Gen. 31:7-13. This section is clarified greatly by Keil and Delitzsch as follows: From the statement that Laban had changed his wages ten times, it is evident that when Laban observed, that among his sheep and goats, of one color only, a large number of mottled young were born, he made repeated attempts to limit the original stipulation by changing the rule as to the colors of the young, and so diminishing Jacobs wages. But when Jacob passes over his own stratagem in silence, and represents all that he aimed at and secured by crafty means as the fruit of Gods blessing, this differs no doubt from the account in chapter 30. It is not a contradiction, however, pointing to a difference in the sources of the two chapters, but merely a difference founded on actual fact, viz., that Jacob did not tell the whole truth to his wives. Moreover, self-help and divine help do not exclude one another. Hence, his account of the dream, in which he saw that the rams that leaped upon the cattle were all of various colors, and heard the voice of the angel of God calling his attention to what had been seen, in the words, I have seen all that Laban hath done to thee, may contain actual truth; and the dream may be regarded as a divine revelation, which was either sent to explain to him now, at the end of the sixth year, that it was not his stratagem, but the providence of God which had prevented him from falling a victim to Labans avarice, and had brought him such wealth (Delitzsch); or, if the dream occurred at an earlier period, was meant to teach him, that the help of God, without any such self-help, could procure him justice and safety in spite of Labans covetousness (Kurtz). It is very difficult to decide between these two interpretations. As Jehovahs instructions to him to return were not given till the end of his period of service, and Jacob connects them so closely with the vision of the rams that they seem contemporaneous, Delitzschs view appears to deserve the preference. But the participial form in Gen. 31:12, all that Laban is doing to thee does not exactly suit this meaning. . . . The participle rather favors Kurtzs view, that Jacob had the vision of the rams and the explanation from the angel at the beginning of the last six years of service, but that in his communication to his wives, in which there was no necessity to preserve a strict continuity or distinction of time, he connected it with the divine instructions to return to his home, which he received at the end of his time of service. But if we decide in favor of this view, we have no further guarantee for the objective reality of the vision of the rams, since nothing is said about it in the historical account, and it is nowhere stated that the wealth obtained by Jacobs craftiness was the result of the divine blessing. The attempt so unmistakably apparent in Jacobs whole conversation with his wives, to place his dealings with Laban in the most favorable light for himself, excites the suspicion, that the vision of which he spoke was nothing more than a natural dream, the materials being supplied by the three thoughts that were most frequently in his mind, by night as well as by day, viz., (1) his own schemes and their success; (2) the promise received at Bethel; (3) the wish to justify his actions to his own conscience; and that these were wrought up by an excited imagination into a visionary dream, of the divine origin of which Jacob himself may not have had the slightest doubt (BCOTP, 295, 296).
We pause to say here, that Jacob did outwit Laban. Moreover, it is expressly emphasized that he outwitted Laban the Syrian (Hebrew, Aramean: Gen. 31:20; Gen. 31:24). We are compelled to wonder whether this specific designation is designed to point up the fact of Labans ingrained trickery, an art which he practised on Jacob at every turn. History seems to show that from most ancient times to the present the Syrians were, and are, the prime trouble-makers in the Near East. Bowie rightly suggests that the chronicler must have set down this account with a very human and perhaps unregenerate pleasure. Here was Jacob, the progenitor of Israel, outsmarting the uncovenanted Laban. From a natural point of view that seemed eminently appropriate. More than once Laban had deliberately cheated Jacob. He had promised him Rachel to wife, and after Jacob had served seven years for her he withheld Rachel and gave him Leah instead. According to Jacob, Laban had also changed his wages ten times (Gen. 31:7). Jacob had good reason therefore to be suspicious when Laban tried to persuade him to stay and work for him further (Gen. 31:27), and all the more so when Laban had added unctuously, for I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake. Anybody would have said that if Laban could now be cheated in his turn, it would be what he thoroughly deserved. As a matter of fact, Jacob does not cheat him. He carries through exactly the terms of an agreement which he had proposed to Laban, and which Laban explicitly accepted. He was not false like Laban: he was more inventive and adroit. When he had proposed to Laban that all he asked in the way of wages was that little fraction of the flock which might be odd in color, that seemed to Laban a highly desirable bargain, especially since he, Laban, took the opportunity then and there to remove from the flock all the sheep and goats that might breed the type that would belong to Jacob, The trouble was that he did not foresee the extraordinary device by which Jacob would be able to make the flock breed according to his interesta device not ruled out by the bargain. So by every secular standard Jacob was entitled to his triumph. However, Dr. Bowie goes on to say, the interest of the story lies in the fact that the narrator was not judging by secular standards, He believed that Jacobs triumph was directly linked to his religion, He describes Jacob as saying to Rachel and Leah, God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me (Gen. 31:9). Moreover, an angel appears to Jacob and gives him Gods message thus: I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God of Bethel . . . where thou vowedst a vow unto me (Gen. 31:12-13). In other words, Jacobs clever stratagem and the success it brought him are the result of the commitment which he believed God had given to him at Bethel to make him prosperous. A curious blending of the earthy and the heavenlya blending which one must recognize to exist in part of the O.T. and in influences which have flowed from it! The people of Israel were convinced that there is an intimate relationship between favor with heaven and material well-being in this world. The positive aspect of that was to give powerful sanction to keen-wittedness and commercial sagacity, so that the Jew in many practical matters has exhibited an intelligence greater than that of his non-Jewish rival. As with Jacob in his contest with Laban, he can show that he deserves to win. The negative aspect is of course the implication that prosperity ought to be the concomitant of religion. That is not confined to Judaism: John Calvin, who was greatly influenced by the O.T., tended to make it appear that the Christian citizen, sturdy and reliant, would be more evidently a man of God if he was a success in business. It is true that there are qualities inspired by religionintegrity, diligence, faithfulness in familiar dutieswhich may bring this worlds goods as their result. But to look toward these as a necessary reward of religion is to dishonor the love of God, which must be sought for itself, by trying to make it an instrument of our selfishness. It is not in Jacobs outwitting Laban that we see the true end of worship, It is rather in Jesus, who, though he was rich, yet for your sakes . . . became poor (2Co. 8:9) (IBG, 707710). (We must agree wholeheartedly with this expositors thesis that an abundance of material goods is not a necessary reward of religion, least of all of the Christian religion. We know of no Scriptures, either in the Old Testament or in the New, that would ascribe either unusual material wealth or poverty to Gods special providence, i.e., outside the general operation of economic cause-and-effect relationships, and these in relation to individual human character and effort. The divine ordinance that man shall earn his livelihood by honest labor, mental or physical or both (Gen. 3:19) has never been rescinded. Why, then, ascribe the notion of this correlation of material goods with religious commitment to the chroniclers attitude in the case before us, when as a matter of fact the whole affair is presented as a series of Jacobs own assumptions (or presumptions). As a matter of fact, all that is implicit in the account given in ch. Gen. 28:20-22, in the matter of material possessions, is simply bread to eat and raiment to put on. These simple needs of everyday life are certainly a far cry from the contest waged between Jacob and Laban for this worlds goods. Cf. Joh. 5:40; Joh. 10:10; Mat. 6:19-34; Luk. 8:14; Luk. 18:24; Mar. 14:7; Joh. 16:33; Col. 3:5; 1Ti. 6:10; Jas. 5:1-6, etc.).
The following evaluation of Jacobs conduct seems to be unbiased and just: The deceit which Jacob practiced on Esau was returned to him by Laban, who practiced the same kind of deceit, For all of that, however, Jacob was under the covenant care of God and did not come out a loser in the end. Yet in later years Jacobs own sons practiced on him a similar form of deceit in connection with Josephs abduction (Gen. 37:32-36) (HSB, 48, n.).
(2) The Teraphim (Gen. 31:19).
Jacobs flight with all his substance occurred at a time when the important task of sheep-shearing was engrossing Labans attention. This means that the latter was at some distance from Jacobs flocks (Gen. 30:36), and since all hands would be kept quite busy for a few days, no time could have been more opportune. Moreover, because her father was away from home, Rachel had a chance to carry out a special project of her own: she stole the teraphim that were her fathers. Evidently these were her household gods. The plural may be a plural of excellence after the pattern of the name Elohim, and so only one image may have been involved. Whether these were larger, almost man-sized as 1Sa. 19:13; 1Sa. 19:16 seems to suggest, or actually were only the small figurines yielded by excavations in Palestine matters little, as both types may have been in use. Apparently they were regarded as promoting domestic prosperity, and thus were a kind of gods of the hearth like the Roman Penates, The teraphim was a god (Gen. 31:30); its form and size were those of a man (1Sa. 19:13; 1Sa. 19:16); it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Jdg. 17:5; Jdg. 18:14 ff., Hos. 3:4), and was an implement of divination (Ezek. 2:21, Zec. 10:2). The indications point to its being an emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the nation (Gen. 35:2, 1Sa. 15:23, 2Ki. 23:24). It seems implied by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the Arameans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the separation of Hebrews and Arameans (ICCG, 396). These were household gods, idols of clay or metal (HSB, 51, n.). It will be noted that in the narrative before us, Laban calls these objects gods; when Jacob does the same, he is probably only quoting Laban, Gen. 31:30; Gen. 31:32). The teraphim were the family or household gods represented in the form of idols. They varied in size. Those of Laban were small enough to be put in the pack-saddle of a camel upon which Rachel sat. 1Sa. 19:13 speaks of such an image in the house of David, approximately of human size and shape. In ancient Israel the use of the teraphim seems to have been common, and not at all inconsistent with the pure worship of Israels God: Judg. ch. 17, Gen. 18:14; Gen. 18:17-18; Gen. 18:20; 1Sa. 19:13; Hos. 3:4 (Morganstern, JIBG, in loco). It seems hardly fair to assume that the Israelites carelessly carried these household divinities over from the time of these early Mesopotamian contacts and continued to use them almost uninterruptedly. When Michal happens to have such a figure handy (1 Samuel 19), that is not as yet proof that from Rachels day to Michals Israel had quite carelessly tolerated them. We should rather say that whenever Israel lapsed into idolatry, especially in Canaan, then the backsliders would also adapt themselves to the teraphim cult. Hos. 3:4 by no means lists them as legitimate objects of worship (EG, 840).
Of greater significance to us, however, is the question, Why did Rachel steal this teraphim? To be rejected are such conjectures as merely to play her father a prank; or to take them for their intrinsic worth, supposing that they were gold or silver figurines; or to employ a drastic or almost fanatical mode of seeking to break her fathers idolatryviews current among Jewish commentators and early church fathers and to some extent to this day. More nearly correct might seem to be the opinion which suggests that she aimed to deprive her father of the blessings which might have been conferred by them, Most reasonable of all, though it does not exclude the last-mentioned view, is the supposition that Rachel took them along for her own use, being herself somewhat given to superstitious or idolatrous practices. For though Gen. 30:23-24 suggest a measure of faith and of knowledge of the true God, even as Jehovah, yet it would seem that as a true daughter of her father she had been addicted to his religion and now had a kind of divided allegiance, trusting in Jehovah and not wanting to be deprived of the good luck teraphim might confer. In any case, since she took what did not belong to her, she is guilty of theftshe stole (EG, 840). The rabbis sought to excuse Rachels theft by saying she took the teraphim because she feared they might disclose Jacobs whereabouts to Laban. Actually, the story gives no motive for her theft, unless it be that suggested, in the lesson, to prove the superiority of Jacobs God over the gods of Laban. For this reason probably the story told with considerable gusto not only that Rachel stole these gods, which were powerless to defend themselves, but also that she subjected them to greater indignity by sitting on them (Gen. 31:34). Use of teraphim became regarded as inconsistent with the pure worship of God and was prohibited: 2Ki. 23:24; cf. 1Sa. 15:23 (Morganstern, ibid.). They were used for divination; hence she stole them that they should not reveal to Laban that Jacob had fled [Rashbam]. They were idols, and she stole them in order to keep Laban from idolatry [Rashi]. E [Abraham Ibn Ezra] inclines to the former reason, for if the latter were her purpose, she should have hidden them and not taken them with her. As for the teraphim, E mentions two views: that it was a kind of clock, or an image which was so made that at certain times it spoke. His own opinion is that it was a kind of dummy which could be mistaken for a human being, the proof being that Michal deceived Davids pursuers by putting teraphim in the bed, which they mistook for David (1Sa. 19:13 ff.). N [Nachmanides] also quotes the story of Michal, from which he deduced that not all teraphim were worshipped as idols, for in that case David would certainly not have possessed them. He conjectures that it was an object used to foretell the future (apparently a kind of fortune-telling clock). Men of little faith therefore worshipped it as an idol (SC, 182). Probably it is true . . . that the main purpose for the mention of the images is to disparage Laban for the superstitious value he put on them, and by contrast to indicate that Jacob was superior to such things. In that case, Rachels sitting upon them would be only another stroke in the picture of the idols degradation. But there is another road on which imagination travels. Suppose that Rachel sat upon the images not to make her fathers search for them ridiculous, but because she craved to keep them for herself. Then that might be taken as evidence simply of pathetic superstition on her part; but it is possible to see in it something more than that. Suppose that on her way to an unfamiliar country and to a strange new relationship, Rachel wanted to carry with her what had been significant at home. That can be a wholesome human instinct. None of us is isolated and self-sufficient. The meaning of life is bound up with the complex of associations of the family or the group. If these are altogether left behind, the human being will be lonely and lost (IBG, 713).
Lange: Literally, Teraphim, Penates, small figures, probably resembling the human form, which were honored as guardians of the household property, and as oracles. But as we must distinguish the symbolic adoration of religious images (statuettes) among ancients, from the true and proper mythological worship, so we must distinguish between a gentler and severe censure of the use of such images upon Shemitic ground. Doubtless the symbolic usage prevailed in the house of Laban and Nahor. It is hardly probable that Rachel intended, by a pious and fanatical theft, to free her father from idolatry (Gregory Nazianzen, Basil), for then she would have thrown the images away, She appears to have stolen them with the superstitious idea that she would prevent her father from consulting them as oracles, and under their guidance, as the pursuer of Jacob, from overtaking him and destroying him (Ibn Ezra). The supposition of a condition of war, with its necessity and strategy, enters here with apologetic force. This, however, does not exclude the idea, that she attributed to the images a certain magical, though not religious, power (perhaps, as oracles. Chrysostom). The very lowest and most degrading supposition, is that she took the images, often overlaid with silver, or precious metals, from mercenary motives (Peirerius). Jacob himself had at first a lax rather than a strict conscience in regard to these images (see ch. Gen. 35:2), but the stricter view prevails since the time of Moses (Exodus 20, Jos. 24:2; Jos. 24:14 f.) The derivation of the Hebrew word teraphim, always used in the plural, is doubtful. Some derive it from taraph, to rejoicethus dispensers of good; others, from a like root, to inquirethus they are oracles; and others, like Kurtz and Hofmann, make it another form of Seraphim. They were regarded and used as oracles (Jdg. 17:5-6, Eze. 21:21, Zec. 10:2). They were not idols in the worst sense of the word, and were sometimes used by those who professed the worship of the true god (1Sa. 19:13). The tendency was always hurtful, and they were ultimately rooted out from Israel. Laban had lapsed into a more corrupt form of religion, and his daughters had not escaped the infection. We may modify our views of Rachels sin, but it cannot be excused or justified (CDHCG, 542). With the last statement in the foregoing we must agree. However, Rachels theft of Labans teraphim (which undoubtedly were figurines or images in human form) is much better understood today, in the light of the documents from Nuzi, not far from modern Kirkuk, excavated 19251934. In Hebrew teraphim, small domestic idols; possession of these could constitute a claim to inheritance (JB, 51, n.). The teraphim, which Rachel successfully hid while Laban searched all of Jacobs possessions, may have had more legal than religious significance for Laban. According to Nuzu law, a son-in-law who possessed the household idols might claim the family inheritance in court. Thus Rachel was trying to obtain some advantage for her husband by stealing the idols. But Laban nullified any such benefit by a covenant with Jacob before they separated (Schultz, OTS, 36). Then Rachel did an extraordinary thing without Jacobs knowledge. She stole the teraphim, Labans family gods, or household idols. The custom was that Labans true son would share inheritance, and receive the teraphim, symbol of his rights. Only if there were no son would Jacob possess them. Rachels act was therefore designed to secure an advantage for her husband and children. It is not likely in this case that the teraphim conveyed ownership of valuable property as Rachel was leaving the territory of her father. They may have betokened clan-leadership in the land of the people of the east, or spiritual power, so that possessing them was of paramount importance (Cornfeld, AtD, 87). Gen. 31:19Rachel stole the teraphim. Appropriated, also Gen. 31:32. Heb. stem gnb, which usually means to steal. But it also has other shadings in idiomatic usage. Thus the very next clause employs the same verb, no doubt deliberately and with telling effect, in the phrase lulling the mind, i.e., stealing the heart; the phrase is repeated in 26; in 27, with Laban speaking, the verb is used by itself in the sense of to dupe. Finally, in Gen. 31:29, the passive participle occurs (twice) to designate animals snatched by wild beasts. The range of gnb is thus much broader, in Heb. in general, and in the present narrative in particular, than our to steal would indicate. A reasonably precise translation is especially important in this instance, The issue is bound up with the purpose of Rachels act. If it was inspired by no more than a whim, or resentment, or greed, then Rachel stole the images. But if she meant thereby to undo what she regarded as a wrong, and thus took the law, as she saw it, into her own hands, the translation stole would be not only inadequate but misleading. On the other hand, when Laban refers to the same act further down (Gen. 31:30), he clearly meant steal (Speiser, ABG, 245).
Whitelaw summarizes fully, as follows: The teraphim, from an unused root, taraph, signifying to live comfortably, like the Sanscrit trip, Greek trephein, Arabic tarafa (Gesenius, Furst) appear to have been small human figures (cf. Gen. 31:34), though the image in 1Sa. 19:13 must have been nearly life-sized, or a full-sized bust, sometimes made of silver (Jdg. 17:4), though commonly constructed of wood (1Sa. 19:13-16); they were worshipped as gods (eidola, LXX; idola, Vulgate, cf. ch. Gen. 31:30), consulted for oracles (Eze. 21:21, Zec. 10:2), and believed to be the custodians and promoters of human happiness (Jdg. 18:24). Probably derived from the Arameans (Furst, Kurtz), or the Chaldeans (Eze. 21:21, Kalisch, Wordsworth), the worship of teraphim was subsequently denounced as idolatrous (1Sa. 15:23, 2Ki. 13:24). (Compare Rachels act with that ascribed to Aeneas, in Virgil, Aeneid, III, 148150). Rachels motive for abstracting her fathers teraphim has been variously attributed to a desire to prevent her father from discovering, by inquiring at his gods, the direction of their flight (Aben Ezra, Rosenmuller), to protect herself, in case of being overtaken, by an appeal to her fathers gods (Josephus), to draw her father from the practice of idolatry (Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Theodoret), to obtain children for herself through their assistance (Lengerke, Gerlach), to preserve a memorial of her ancestors, whose pictures these teraphim were (Lightfoot); but was probably due to avarice, if the images were made of precious metals (Peirerius), or to a taint of superstition which still adhered to her otherwise religious nature (Chrysostom, Calvin), causing her to look to these idols for protection (Kalisch, Murphy) or consultation (Wordsworth) on her journey (PCG, 376).
We have presented these various theories as to the nature of the teraphim and Rachels motives in stealing them to show how great is the scope of speculation on these subjects. We terminate this study with what we consider to be the sanest and most thoroughgoing presentation of it, as follows: The teraphim were figurines or images in human form. Rachels theft of Labans teraphim (Gen. 31:34) is much better understood in the light of the documents from Nuzu, not far from modern Kirkuk, excavated 19251934. The possession of these household gods apparently implied leadership of the family and, in the case of a married daughter, assured her husband the right to the property of her father. Since Laban evidently had sons of his own when Jacob left for Canaan, they alone had the right to their fathers gods, and the theft of these household idols by Rachel was a serious offense (Gen. 31:19; Gen. 31:31; Gen. 31:35) aimed at preserving for her husband the first title to her fathers estate. Albright construes the teraphim as meaning vile things, but the images were not necessarily cultic or lewd, as frequently the depictions of Astarte were. Micahs teraphim (Jdg. 17:5) were used for purposes of securing an oracle (cf. 1Sa. 15:23, Hos. 3:4; Zec. 10:2). Babylonian kings oracularly consulted the teraphim (Eze. 21:21). Josiah abolished the teraphim (2Ki. 23:24), but these images had a strange hold on the Hebrew people even until after the Exilic. Period (Unger, UBD, 1085). The present writer finds it difficult to disassociate these objects from some aspect of the Cult of Fertilitythe worship of the Earth-mother and the Sun-fatherwhich was so widespread throughout the ancient pagan world; cf. the Apostles description, Rom. 1:18-32. Every phase of this Cult of Fertility reeked with sex perversions of every kind, including ritual prostitution and phallic worship: remains of this cult have been brought to light in recent years by the discovery of hundreds of figurines of pregnant women throughout the Mediterranean world. Crete seems to have been the center from which this cult became diffused throughout the ancient world. The Children of Israel had to battle this cult from the time of their origin as a people, and apparently were always influenced to it by some extent: cf. the moral struggle of the prophet Elijah with the wicked queen Jezebel. It is our conviction that Rachel appropriated these (surely more likely than this) teraphim with the intention of using them for whatever ends they were supposed by her paternal household to serve. That the legal aspect, as indicated by the Nuzi records, could have been a very important part of her objective seems to be both historical and reasonable. However, we cannot get away from the basic conviction that Rachel was imbued with the spirit of paganism which seems to have characterized her people generally. Even Jacob himself and his people were not immunized against this cultism (cf. Gen. 35:2-4; Jos. 24:2; Jos. 24:14 f.; Jdg. 10:16). Again quoting Lange: Laban had lapsed into a more corrupt form of religion, and his daughters had not escaped the infection. We may modify our views of Rachels sin, but it cannot be excused or justified.
(3) Laban the Syrian (Gen. 31:24), in Hebrew, Aramean. The Arameans were an important branch of the Semitic race, and closely akin to the Israelites. The kingdom of Damascus or Syria, during the ninth and eighth centuries B.C., the most powerful and dangerous rival of the northern kingdom of Israel, was the leading Aramean state. The language of the Aramean tribes and states consisted of several closely related dialects. After the Exile, Aramean gradually supplanted Hebrew as the vernacular of the Jewish people. Certain portions of the Bible (Jer. 10:11, Dan. 2:4 to Dan. 7:28, Ezr. 4:8 to Ezr. 6:18, Ezr. 7:12-26) are written in Aramaic, as are considerable portions of rabbinic literature (Morganstern, JIBG). (Our Lord Himself spoke Galilean Aramaic, cf. Mat. 27:46). The progenitor of the Aramean peoples was Aram, the son of Shem (Gen. 10:22-23). These peoples spread widely through Syria and Mesopotamia from the Lebanon Mountains on the west to the Euphrates River on the east, and from the Taurus Range on the north to Damascus and northern Palestine on the south. Contacts of the Arameans with the Hebrews began in the patriarchal age, if not earlier (cf. Paddan-aram, the plain of Aram, Gen. 24:10; Gen. 28:5; Gen. 31:47). The maternal ancestry of Jacobs children was Aramaic (Deu. 26:5). During the long period of Israels sojourn in Egypt, that of the wanderings in the Sinaitic Wilderness, and the extended period of the Judges in Canaan, the Arameans were spreading in every direction, particularly southward. By the time of the reign of Saul (c. 1000 B.C.), this expansion was beginning to clash with Israelite strength and several Aramaic districts appear prominently in the Old Testament Scriptures. (See UBG, s.v. Aram, Aramaic). The Greeks called Aram, Syria; consequently the language is called Syriac (Dan. 2:4). David conquered these Aramean kingdoms at his very back door and incorporated them into his kingdom, thus laying the foundation of Solomons empire. (Aram-Naharaim, Aram of the Two Rivers, was the name by which the territory around Haran was known; the region where the Arameans had settled in patriarchal times, where Abraham sojourned for a time, and from which Aramean power spread. Aram-Damascus was a south Syrian state which became the inveterate foe of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for more than a century and a half (1Ki. 11:23-25). Aram-Zobah, a powerful kingdom which flourished north of Hamath, was conquered by David and incorporated into his realm (2 Sam., ch. 8). Aram-Maachah was a principality east of the Jordan near Mount Hermon (Jos. 12:5; Jos. 13:11). Aram-Beth-Rehob in the general vicinity of Geshur, probably near Maacah and Dan (Num. 13:21, Jdg. 18:28). Geshur was a small principality east of the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee (Deu. 3:14, 2Sa. 15:8; 2Sa. 13:37). Tob was also a small Aramaic principality east of the Jordan, some ten miles south of Gadara, (the region from which the Ammonite king drew soldiers to war against David. A battle ensued in which the Syrians were routed (2Sa. 10:8-19). Gen. 31:20; Gen. 31:24Laban the Aramean: The reason for this apposition is puzzling. It hardly grows out of the Hebrew national consciousness which here proudly asserts itself. Perhaps the opinion advanced by Clericus still deserves most consideration. He believes Labans nationality is mentioned because the Syrians were known from of old as the trickiest people; here one of this people in a kind of just retribution meets one trickier than himself. Yet this is not written to glorify trickery (EG, 841).
Three days after Jacobs flight, the news of it reached Laban, who was already three days removed from Jacob and his retinue at the time the latter set out on his journey homeward. Laban set out after himpursued after him seven days journey (Gen. 31:23) and overtook him in the mountain of Gilead. Skinner contends that the distance of Gilead from Harran (c. 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be traversed in that time (ICCG, 397). Speiser writes: a distance of seven days. This is meant as a general figure indicating a distance of considerable length: cf. 2Ki. 3:9. Actually, Gilead could scarcely have been reached from Har (r) an in seven days, especially at the pace of Jacobs livestock (ABG, 246). Leupold suggests as follows: Some have computed that the distance involved is about 350 miles as the crow flies. This need not necessarily be assumed. We have accurate maps that represent it to be no more than about 275 miles to the fringes of Mount Gilead. Besides, in shifting his grazing ground Jacob may have so arranged things before he took his flight in hand as to gravitate some three days journey to the south of Harancertainly not an impose sibility. If only fifteen miles constituted an average days journey, the total distance would be cut down to almost 200 miles. Now, certainly, Jacob will have pressed on faster than the average days journey, perhaps at the cost of the loss of a bit of cattle. The cooler part of the day and portions of the night may have been utilized in order to spare the cattle. Then, too, the boundaries of Gilead may originally have extended nearer to Damascus. . . . K.C. (Koenigs Commentary on Genesis) shows that Gilead is used for the country east of the Jordan in general (EG, 843). We see no valid reason for the assumption that the distance specified was too great to fit the time period specified. The following quotes seem to make this clear. It was told Laban on the third day, etc., i.e., the third after Jacobs departure, the distance between the two sheep-stations being a three days journey, cf. Gen. 30:36. . . . The distance between Padan-aram and mount Gilead was a little over 300 miles, to perform which Jacob must at least have taken ten days, though Laban, who was less encumbered than his son-in-law, accomplished it in seven, which might easily be done by traveling from forty to forty-five miles a day, by no means a great feat for a camel (PCG, 379). The following seems to clarify the situation beyond any reasonable doubt: A three days distance separated them in the first place, and another three days were required for a messenger to go and inform Laban. At the time of the messengers arrival Jacob was six days journey distant. Since Laban caught up with him on the next day, he covered in one day what took Jacob seven days (Rashi). Sh (Rashbam) points out that this was natural since Jacob would be traveling slowly on account of the flocks (SC, 182). Murphy suggests the following explanation: On the third day after the arrival of the messenger, Laban might return to the spot whence Jacob had taken his flight. In this case, Jacob would have at least five days of a start; which, added to the seven days of pursuit, would give him twelve days to travel three hundred English miles. To those accustomed to the pastoral life this was a possible achievement (MG, 406). Lange writes: As Jacob, with his herds, moved slower than Laban, he lost his start of three days in the course of seven days (CDHCG, 542). At any rate, no sooner did the information reach Laban that Jacob had fled than he set out in pursuit, and, being unencumbered, he advanced rapidly; whereas Jacob, with a young family and numerous flocks, had to move rather slowly, so that Laban overtook the fugitives after seven days journey, as they lay encamped on brow of mount Gilead, an extensive range of mountains that formed the eastern boundary of Canaan. The mountains constituting the northern portion of the land of Gilead, which lay between the Yarmuk on the north and the Arnon on the south, was divided at about one-third of the distance by the deep valley of the Jabbok, which cleaves the mountains to their base. This territory, in its whole length, is often spoken of as the land of Gilead, but rarely as Mount Gilead. The portions north and south of the Jabbok are each spoken of as half Gilead (Jos. 12:2; Jos. 12:5; Jos. 13:31; Deu. 3:12). Evidently is was in this mount Gilead that Laban overtook Jacob.
(4) The Altercation, (Gen. 31:26-42). Laban evidently reached the mount of Gilead toward the end of the seventh day, and seeing Jacobs tents not too far away, he lodged over night where he had halted. It was during the night that Laban had the dream, Gen. 31:29. Evidently the idea suggested is that Jacob and Laban were encamped, each on a different foothill. In the case of Laban the specific statement that it was Mount Gilead where the tents were pitched makes it entirely plain that both had pitched on the same mountain though over against one another. The critical correction, which tries to put Jacob on Mount Mizpah, grows out of the desire to prove that two threads of narrative intertwine. Critics are continually, though often unwittingly, doctoring up the evidence (EG, 844). When the two men came face to face the next morning, Laban, blustering and simulating righteous indignation, demands to know way Jacob has so deceived him, trying to present the latters action in the most unfavorable light. Laban is as much aware of the extent of his exaggeration as are all others who hear him. At the same time he himself knows best why Jacob fled secretly and without announcement (EG, 845). Laban claims that he could do Jacob hurt, when he knows he has no intention of doing so after having received a direct warning from God against that very thing. He is merely boasting. Being accompanied by a number of his people, Laban might have used violence, had he not been Divinely warned in a dream to give no interruption to his nephews journey. Josephus says that he reached the neighborhood of mount Gilead at eventide. And having resolved not to disturb Jacobs encampment till the morning, it was during the intervening night that he had the warning dream, in which God told him, that if he (Laban) despised their small number, and attacked them in a hostile manner, He would Himself assist them (Antiquities, I, 19, 10). How striking and sudden a change! For several days he had been full of rage, and was now in eager anticipation that his vengeance would be fully wreaked, when lo! his hands are tied by invisible power (Psa. 76:10). He dared not touch Jacob, but there was a war of words (CECG, 210). Gods warning had been explicit: he was to speak to Jacob neither good or bad, that is, nothing at all (JB), not pass from peaceful greetings to acrimonious (Lange), not say anything acrimonious or violent against Jacob (Murphy). Or, perhaps the expression was simply a proverbial phrase for opposition or interference of any kind (Kalisch). At any rate, Laban plays the role of an outraged parent and grandparent. Smooth hypocrite that he is, he offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike demonstration, that is, his slighted affection for his offspring and his desire to honor a parting guest (Skinner). Incidentally, this manner of speeding a parting guest (i.e., with mirth, songs, tabret, and harp) is not mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament; in New Testament terms it would be designated revelings (Gal. 5:21). Labans recriminations are threefold: the secret flight, the carrying off of his daughters, and the theft of his gods. Obviously, the last-named charge was a very serious matter to Laban; hence it led to the chief scene of the altercation. We cannot avoid the impression that he was far more concerned about his gods than about the welfare of his daughters. The meaning is this: even if thy secret departure can be explained, the stealing of my gods cannot. To Labans hypocritical approach, Jacob replied with bluntness, specifying the hardships of his twenty years service and the attempts to defraud him of his hire. Knowing nothing of Rachels theft of the teraphim, Jacob proved to be so sure of the innocence of his household that he offered to give up the culprit to death if the theft could be proved. (As we have noted heretofore, for Laban these gods had more legal than religious import: according to Nuzi law, a son-in-law who possessed the household idols might claim the family inheritance in court. Laban intended to have nothing of that kind to happen.) Jacob admitted bluntly that he had resorted to flight because he feared that his father-in-law would take the daughters away from him by force. Whereupon, Laban, with Jacobs permission, proceeded to search the tents of his son-in-law, his two daughters, and the two maid-servants. He searched Rachels tent last. Rachel, too, resorted to a stratagem: she had taken the teraphim and concealed them in the camels litter (pack-saddle), on which she apparently was resting within her tent. When her father entered, she apologized for not rising, pleading the manner of women that was upon her, which made her ceremonially unclean (cf. Lev. 15:19-23). Of course Labans search was all in vain. Since Jacobs cause was just and since he had just been charged with theft, Jacob feels the necessity of answering the last question or charge. He is so sure that no one would have been guilty of such a deed that he boldly asserts that the thief shall die, should he be found. Such a punishment for such a crime may have been suggested by the prevalent attitude of the times reflected in the Code of Hammurabia few centuries old by this timethat they who stole the property of a god (or temple) should die. Yet, though in himself entirely certain of his ground, Jacob ought never to have made such an assertion. Seemingly Jacob feels this, for as he invites the search, he merely asks Laban to take whatever he thinks Jacob or his retinue have taken wrongfully; he does not again threaten the death of the idol thief. That nothing be covered up Jacob asks that the search be made in the presence of our kinsmen. Finally the necessary explanation that Jacob had never for a moment thought Rachel capable of such a deed (EG, 848). Laban then proceeded to search Jacobs tent, and Leahs, and the tent of the two maid-servants, but he did not find the teraphim. Again: The two maid-servants are inserted parenthetically for completeness sake. Separate tents for the husband and the wives and the handmaidens apparently were the rule in those days. Disregarding the parenthesis, the writer goes on, working up to the climax of the search: he (Laban) came out of Leahs tent and entered into Rachels. Rachel is a match for her father in craftiness. She has taken the teraphim and put them into the camels litter, a capacious saddle with wicker basket attachments on either side. Some describe it as a palanquin. Apparently it was so constructed that even when it was removed from the camel it offered a convenient seat for travelers. Laban feels over everything in the tent, The litter is all that remains. Had Rachel raised her protestation or excuse before this time she would have aroused suspicion. By waiting to the last critical moment she diverts attention from the fact that she might be sitting upon the teraphim. For who would care to trouble a menstruating woman suffering pain? Because, it may have actually been true what she was asserting. Nothing appears here of the taboo that some tribes and races associated with women in this condition, taboos which temporarily rendered such women untouchable. So Jacob appeared satisfied, for a painstaking search revealed no theft. We may well wonder what he would have done if Rachels theft had come to light (EG, 848). Jamieson disagrees to some extent: Tents are of two descriptionsthe family tent and the single tent. With the patriarchs the latter seem to have been the kind used (see Gen. 18:9-10), especially in traveling, as recommended by its convenience, and formed in the manner described in the passage just referred to. The patriarch had the principal tent, and each of his wives, even the married handmaids and concubines, had their separate tents also. A personal scrutiny was made by Laban, who examined every tent; and having entered Rachels last, would have infallibly discovered the stolen images, had not Rachel made an appeal to him which prevented further search. . . . She availed herself of a notion which seems to have obtained in patriarchal times, and which was afterwards enacted in the Mosaic Code as a law, that a woman in the alleged circumstances was unclean, and communicated a taint to everything with which she came into contact. It was a mere pretext, however, on the part of Rachel, to avoid the further researches of her father (CECG, 211). The fact that Laban passed over Rachels seat because of her pretended condition, does not presuppose the Levitical law in Lev. 15:9 ff., according to which, any one who touched the couch or seat of such a woman was rendered unclean. For, in the first place, the view which lies at the foundation of this law was much older than the laws of Moses, and is; met with among many other nations; consequently Laban might refrain from making further examinations, less from fear of defilement, than because he regarded it as impossible that any one with the custom of women upon her should sit upon his gods (BCOTP, 298. To Jacob, undoubtedly, this minute search of Rachels tent was the crowning indignity. (It should be noted, in passing that Rachel, by covering her theft by subtlety and untruth, Gen. 31:35, proved herself a true daughter of Laban, and showed with how much imperfection her religious character was tainted. I cannot rise up before thee; although Oriental politeness required children to rise up in the presence of their parents (cf. Lev. 19:32, 1Ki. 2:19), in this case the apology was unnecessary: the plea of the manner of women (Gen. 18:11) made her ceremonially unclean, and indeed separate (or untouchable, Lev. 15:19). Some hold that this was a mere pretext on Rachels part to prevent further searching by her father: she was indeed a match for her father in craftiness.)
Jacobs pent-up emotions for years now breaks forth boldly and bluntly with mounting wrath. He challenges Laban to set forth before all their kinsmen whatsoever of his own he may have found in the course of his search. The kinsmen could serve as arbiters to render a fair public verdict in the presence of representatives of both parties to the altercation. This challenge must have embarrassed even thick-skinned old Laban. Although he [Jacob] had given Laban permission to make the search, it was because he thought that one of the servants might have stolen the teraphim. Now that they were not found, he suspected that the story of the theft was merely a pretext to enable him to make a general search (SC, 184), Jacob pours out his own recriminations: (1) the hardships of his twenty years service, and (2) the attempts to defraud him of his hire. All the submerged suffering and frustration for twenty years now comes to the surface. First of all he was deceived about Leah and Rachel. He had not been in the home of his uncle Laban a month before he was put to work (Gen. 29:15). His industriousness had been unfaltering. His wages had been changed ten times, and we may be sure they were not raised each time. Jacobs twenty years with Laban had taught him that Gods man cannot live by cleverness. The children of this world are . . . wiser than the children of light (Luk. 16:8). Note especially Gen. 31:38-39 : A custom of the East provided that as long as the shepherd could lay before the owner the torn beast, that was accounted sufficient evidence that the shepherd had driven off the predatory animal. But Jacob was accorded no such consideration: he was held accountable. The particular law in the Code of Hammurabi (par. 266) reads: If there occurs in the fold an act of god, or a lion takes a life, the shepherd shall clear himself before the deity; the owner of the fold must then accept the loss incurred. Thus Laban is accused of disregarding the explicit legal provisions for such contingencies: cf. Exo. 22:13 (ABG, 247). That which was torn of wild beasts through my neglect I made good of my own accord; but even where I could not be held responsible, you still demanded restitution (SC, 185). Gen. 31:40It is well known that in the East the cold by night corresponds to the heat by day: the hotter the day, the colder the night, as a rule. Gen. 31:42 : By the warning given to Laban, God pronounced sentence upon the matter between Jacob and Laban, condemning the course which Laban had pursued, and still intended to pursue, towards Jacob; but not on that account sanctioning all that Jacob had done to increase his own possessions, still less confirming Jacobs assertion that the vision mentioned by Jacob (Gen. 31:11-12) was a revelation from God. But as Jacob had only met cunning with cunning, deceit with deceit, Laban had no right to punish him for what he had done. Some excuse may be found for Jacobs conduct in the heartless treatment he received from Laban, but the fact that God defended him from Labans revenge did not prove it to be right. He had not acted upon the rule laid down in Pro. 20:22 : cf. Rom. 12:17; 1Th. 5:15 (BCOTP, 299). The Fear of Isaac: that is, the deity feared and worshiped by Isaac (Skinner); the Awesome One of Isaac (Speiser; cf. Gen. 28:17); the God of Isaac: Jacob avoided this latter designation because Isaac was still alive, although God had referred to Himself by that name (see Gen. 28:13), as Jacob intended to say, the merit of Isaacs fear of the Lord had stood me in good stead, and He has protected me as a reward (SC, 185). The God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Dread of Isaac, proved to be mine (Rotherham, EB, 63); a term used for Israels God, object of Isaacs reverence (HSB, 52); the God whom Isaac fears (Murphy, MG, 406). If the God of my father, the God of Abraham, the Kinsman of Isaac, etc.: a name for God that appears only here and in Gen. 31:53; Arabic and Palmyrene Aramaic justify this translation; hitherto the phrase has been rendered the fear of Isaac (JB, 53, n.)
(5) Labans response (Gen. 31:43-44) has been variously interpreted, that is, as to motivation. These words of Jacobs cut Laban to the heart with their truth, so that he turned round, offered his hand, and proposed a covenant (K-D, 299). Neither receiving Jacobs torrent of invective with affected meekness, nor proving himself to be completely reformed by the angry recriminations of his callous and hardened son-in-law (Kalisch); but perhaps simply owning the truth of Jacobs words, and recognizing that he had no just ground of complaint (Calvin), as well as touched in his paternal affections by the sight of his daughters, from whom he felt he was about to part for ever . . . not as reminding Jacob that he had still a legal claim to his (Jacobs) wives and possessions, or at least possessions, though prepared to waive it, but rather as acknowledging that in doing injury to Jacob he would only be proceeding against his own flesh and blood (Whitelaw, PCG, 384). Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading to the pacific proposal of Gen. 31:44, what last kindness can I do them [his daughters] (Skinner, ICCG, 399). These two relatives, after having given utterance to their pent-up feelings, came at length to a mutual understanding. Laban was so cut by the severe and well-founded reproaches of Jacob, that he saw the necessity of an immediate surrender, or, rather, God influenced him to make reconciliation with his injured nephew, Pro. 16:7 (Jamieson, CECG, 212). Leupold has a different view: Laban skillfully avoids the issue, which centers on the question whether Jacob has ever treated him unfairly, and substitutes another, namely, whether there is any likelihood of his avenging himself on Jacob and his family. In a rather grandiose fashion he claims all that Jacob hashousehold and cattleis his own. The only use he makes of this strong claim is that, naturally, these being his own family, he would not harm them. It hardly seems that he has been cut to the quick by the justice of Jacobs defense. He is merely bluffing through a contention in which he is being worsted. But being a suspicious character, he fears that Jacob might eventually do what he apparently would have done under like circumstances, namely, after arriving home and having grown strong, he may come with an armed band to avenge all the wrongs of the past. To forestall this he suggests a covenant. This covenant might serve to deter Jacob, of whose justice and fairness he is convinced, and who, Laban trusts, will keep a covenant inviolate (EG, 852).
Again, however, we turn to the Nuzi records for what seems to be the most important aspect of this whole case, namely, the part played by the teraphim and the theft thereof. The author handles the entire episode with outstanding skill. When he speaks of the figurines on his own (19, 34f.), he uses the secular, and sometimes irreverent term (teraphim, perhaps inert things); but Laban refers to them as my gods (Gen. 31:30). The search is suspensefully depicted, as Laban combs through one tent after another until he gets to the tent of Rachel, where they have been hidden. Rachels pretense of female incapacitation is a literary gem in itself. The crowning touch of drama and irony is Jacobs total unawareness of the truththe grim danger implicit in his innocent assurance that the guilty party would be put to death. But the basic significance of the incident now transcends all such considerations of human interest or literary presentation. It derives from underlying social practices as they bear on the nature of the patriarchal narratives in general. According to the Nuzi documents, which have been found to reflect time and again the social customs of Haran, possession of the house gods could signify legal title to a given estate, particularly in cases out of the ordinary, involving daughters, sons-in-law, or adopted sons. This peculiar practice of Rachels homeland supplies at last the motive, sought so long but in vain, for her seemingly incomprehensible conduct. Rachel was in a position to know, or at least to suspect, that in conformance with local law her husband was entitled to a specified share in Labans estate. But she also had ample reason to doubt that her father would voluntarily transfer the images as formal proof of property release; the ultimate status of Labans daughters and their maidservants could well have been involved as well. In other words, tradition remembered Rachel as a resolute woman who did not shrink from taking the lawor what she believed to be the lawinto her own hands. The above technical detail would help to explain why Laban was more concerned about the disappearance of the images than about anything else (Gen. 31:30). For under Hurrian law, Jacobs status in Labans household would normally be tantamount to self-enslavement. That position, however, would be altered if Jacob was recognized as an adopted son who married the masters daughter. Possession of the house gods might well have made the difference. Laban knew that he did not have them, but chose to act as though he did, at least to save face. Thus his seeming magnanimity in the end (43f.) would no longer be out of character. He keeps up the pretense that he is the legal owner of everything in Jacobs possession; yet he must have been aware that, with the images gone, he could not press such a claim in a court of law (Speiser, ABG, 250251).
(6) The Treaty (Gen. 31:45-55). Two traditions appear to have been combined here: 1. A formal pact regulating the frontier between Laban and Jacob i.e., between Aram and Israel, Gen. 31:52, together with an explanation of the name Gilead (Galed). 2. A private agreement concerning Labans daughters, wives of Jacob, Gen. 31:50, together with an explanation of the name Mizpah, watch-post, where a stele is erected. On the other hand it is possible that we have not here two traditions but simply explanations of the traditional composite name Mizpah of Gilead, watch-post of Gilead; the place is known from Jdg. 11:29 and lies south of the Jabbok in Transjordania (JB, 53 n.). Laban proposed that they cut a covenant and let it be for a witness between them (Gen. 31:44). Jacob assented to the proposal at once, and the two proceeded to ratify the covenant. (7) The Cairn of Witness. The way in which this covenant was ratified was by a heap of stones being laid in a circular pile, to serve as seats, and in the center of this circle a large one was set up perpendicularly for an altar. It is probable that a sacrifice was first offered, and then that the feast of reconciliation was partaken of by both parties, seated on the stones around it (cf. Gen. 31:54). To this day heaps of stones, which have been used as memorials, are found abundantly in the region where this transaction took place (CECG, 212). Jacob proceeded at once to furnish a practical proof of his assent to his father-in-laws proposal, by erecting a stone as a memorial and calling on his relatives also (his brethren, as in Gen. 31:23, by whom Laban and the kinsmen who came with him are indicated, as Gen. 31:54 shows) to gather stones into a heap, thus forming a table, as is briefly related in Gen. 31:46 b, for the covenant meal (Gen. 31:54). This stone-heap (cairn) was called Jegar-Sahadutha by Laban, and Galeed by Jacob (Gen. 31:47). Jegar-sahadutha is the exact Aramaic equivalent of Galeed, cairn of witness (JB, 53, n.): this incident, of course gave occasion to the name Gilead, the name applied to the mountainous region eastward of Argob (see Josephus, Antiquities, I, 19, 11). (It should be understood that the setting up of the stone-pillar by Jacob as a witness of the covenant about to be formed (Gen. 31:52) was a different transaction from the piling up of the stone-heap next referred to: cf. Gen. 28:18, Jos. 24:26-27). Very strangely the critics, who are intent upon proving that two documents giving two recensions of the event are woven together, here hit upon the pillar or monolith, and the heap or cairn, and claim these two as one of the things that prove their point. Instead of pointing to a double recension or to two authors this merely points to the fact that Jacob was willing to go the limit to keep peace and harmony, as he had always been doing. The critics argument is a non sequitur. All the rest of their so-called proof is of the same sort and too flimsy to refute, Gen. 31:47. Here Moses inserts a notice to the effect that Laban and Jacob each gave a name to the cairn, and each man in his native tongue, that of Laban being Aramaic and that of Jacob Hebrew. Nothing indicates that this was a later insertion. Why might not Moses consider it a matter worthy of record that in Mesopotamia Aramaic prevailed, whereas in Canaan Hebrew, perhaps the ancient Canaanite language, was spoken? The exactness of his observation is established by this definite bit of historical information. The two names are not absolutely identical, as is usually claimed, though the difference is slight. Jegar-sahadhutha means heap of testimony, galed means heap of witness or witnessing heap. For testimony is an abstract noun, witness is a personal noun or name of a person. We observe, therefore, that at the beginning of their history the nation Israel came of a stock that spoke Aramaic but abandoned the Aramaic for the Hebrew. After the Captivity the nation, strange to say, veered from Hebrew back to Aramaic (EG, 853, 854).
(8) The Purport of the Covenant, Gen. 31:50-52, was twofold: (1) Jacob swears that he will not maltreat Labans daughters, nor even marry other wives besides these (i.e., Leah and Rachel). The stipulation against taking other wives is basic to many cuneiform marriage documents (ABG, 248). Leupold thinks that both these cases mentioned by Laban are in themselves harsh and unjust slanders. Jacob had never given the least indication of being inclined to treat his wives harshly. Gentleness and goodness are characteristic of Jacob. Besides, as the account reads, Jacob had more wives already than he had ever desired. He apparently recognized the evils of bigamy sufficiently in his own home (EG, 856). (2) Neither of the two was to pass the stone-heap and memorial-stone with a hostile intention towards the other. (But they may pass over it for purposes of trade (SC, 187). Note Gen. 31:52The heap was Jacobs idea, now Laban appropriates what Jacob had proposed as if the entire transaction had been his very own. Moreover, Laban bound himself never to pass over the heap which he had erected as his witness, whereas Jacob was required to swear that he would never cross the pillar and the pile, both of which were witnesses on his part. (Laban was undoubtedly even yet a very suspicious person). That I will not passover. Here this covenant thought is purely negative, growing out of a suspicious nature, and securing a safeguard against mutual injuries; properly a theocratic separation (Lange, 544). This treaty seems to have had even more extensive significance, however: as Morgenstern writes: Mizpah, a secondary name for this heap of stones, meaning watchpost, place of lookout. Actually the district was called Gilead, while Mizpah (Mizpeh) was probably the name of the particular spot where the covenant was thought to have been made. It probably lay close to the boundary line between Syria and Gilead. It was the site of the covenant between Laban the Aramean and Jacob the Israelite by which the boundary line between the two peoples was fixed. Note the compact entered into between Syria and Israel, probably in Ahabs time; the hegemony of Israel in the affairs of the several little states of Western Asia seems to have been nominally acknowledged by Syria, 1 Ki., ch. 20 (JIBG, in loco). Concerning the location of the site of Gilead and Mizpah, it seems evident that we are not to understand this to be the mountain range to the south of the Jabbok, the present Jebel Jelaad, or Jebel es Salt. The name Gilead has a much more comprehensive signification in the Old Testament; and the mountains to the south of the Jabbok are called in Deu. 3:12 the half of Mount Gilead; the mountains to the north of the Jabbok, the Jebel-Ajlun, forming the other half. In this chapter the name is used in the broader sense, and refers primarily to the northern half of the mountains (above the Jabbok); for Jacob did not cross the Jabbok till afterwards, Gen. 32:23-24 (K-D, 300). It is held by some that the words, and Mizpah, for he said, etc., are a later explanatory interpolation. But there is not sufficient ground even for this, since Galeed and Mizpah are here identical in fact, both referring to the stone heap as well as to the pillar. Laban prays specifically to Jehovah, to watch that Jacob should not afflict his daughters; especially that he should not deprive them of their acquired rights, of being the ancestress of Jehovahs covenant people. From this hour, according to the prayer, Jehovah looks down from the heights of Gilead, as the representative of his rights, and watches that Jacob should keep his word to his daughters, even when across the Jordan. But now, as the name Gilead has its origin in some old sacred tradition, so has the name Mizpah also. It is not to be identified with the later cities bearing that name, with the Mizpah of Jephthah (Jdg. 11:11; Jdg. 11:34), or the Mizpah of Gilead (Jdg. 11:29), or Ramoth-Mizpah (Jos. 13:26), but must be viewed as the family name which has spread itself through many daughters all over Canaan (Lange, CDHCG, 544). (Note disagreement with K-D quoted above). Laban, forewarned by God not to injure Jacob, made a covenant with his son-in-law; and a heap of stones was erected as a boundary between them, and called Galeed (the heap of witness) and Mizpah (watch-tower). As in later times, the fortress on these heights of Gilead became the frontier post of Israel against the Aramaic tribe that occupied Damascus, so now the same line of heights became the frontier between the nation in its youth and the older Aramaic tribe of Mesopotamia. As now, the confines of two Arab tribes are marked by the rude cairn or pile of stones erected at the boundary of their respective territories, so the pile of stones and the tower or pillar, erected by the two tribes of Jacob and Laban, marked that the natural limit of the range of Gilead should be their natural limit also (OTH, 102). (Cf. the various Mizpahs, or Mizpehs, mentioned in the O.T., e.g., Jos. 11:3; Jos. 15:38; Jdg. 10:17; Jdg. 20:1; 1Sa. 22:3 : it seems that the name might have been given to any high point.) Skinners treatment of the Gilead geographical problem is based on the presupposition that the account embodies ethnographic reminiscences in which Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and Arameans respectively. He goes on to say: The theory mostly favored by critical historians is that the Arameans are those of Damascus, and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars which raged from c. 860 to c 770 B.C. Gunkel has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record of a loose understanding between neighboring and on the whole friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly organized states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no trace of the intense national animosity which was generated during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyers hypothesis that in the original tradition Laban represented the early unsettled nomads of the eastern desert acquires a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Arameans (ICCG, 403, 404). It should be noted here that the critical tendency so prevalent soon after the turn of the present century to interpret the outstanding personal names occurring in the patriarchal narratives as tribal rather than individual names has been all but abandoned in recent years. On the whole, this supposition (largely a priori on the part of the critics) has been pretty thoroughly exploded by archaeological discoveries. There is no longer any doubt that the patriarchs were real historical personages, (The student who wishes to delve into the irreconcilable analysis of the early twentieth-century critics should make a study of the classic work on this subject, The Unity of the Book of Genesis, by William Henry Green, onetime Professor of Oriental and Old Testament Literature in Princeton Theological Seminary. This book, first published in 1895, is now out of print, of course. Hence it goes unnoticed and even unknown, either through ignorance or by design, in present-day theological seminaries. It may be procured, however, from secondhand book stores, or rescued from out-of-the-way places on the dusty shelves of these same seminary libraries.) We now close this phase of our subject with the following quotation from Leupold: We have nothing certain as to the location of the heap called Galed or Mizpah in Mount Gilead. Mizpah itself is a rather general term: there were many points of eminence in the land which could serve as watch-stations. We personally do not believe that the Mizpah located in Jebel Ajlun is far enough to the north. We can only be sure of this, that according to chapter 32 it must have lain to the north of the River Jabbok (EG, 859).
(9) The Mizpah Benediction, Gen. 31:49. Mizpah (Mizpeh), watchtower, . . . an unknown site in the N. highlands of the Jordan overlooking the Jabbok, where Jacob and Laban witnessed their covenant by erecting a cairn and pronouncing words now known as the Mizpah benediction, Gen. 31:45-52 (HBD, 450). J. Vernon McGee (Going Through Genesis , 42) has an interesting comment on this point, as follows: Verse 49 has been made into a benediction which many church groups use habitually. This is unfortunate for it does not have that sort of derivation. It actually is a truce between two crooks that each will no longer try to get the better of the other. The pile of stones at Mizpah was a boundary line between Laban and Jacob. Each promised not to cross over on the others side. In other words Jacob would work one side of the street and Laban would take the other. Each had but little confidence in the other. Surely the Mizpah benediction has been misplaced and misapplied. Certainly these statements deserve serious consideration.
(10) The Covenant Oath, Gen. 31:53. Although Laban proposed to swear by the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the latter might include idols, so Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac, viz., the true God (SC, 187). On Gen. 31:49, God is called as a witness so that if either Jacob or Laban breaks the agreement the LORD will enforce the covenant (HSB, 53). Gen. 31:50no man is with usi.e., no one but God only can be judge and witness between us, since we are to be so widely separated (Lange, 544). Of the terms of the covenant the memorial was to serve as a witness, and the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father (Terah), would be umpire between them. To this covenant, in which Laban, according to his polytheistic views, placed the God of Abraham upon the same level with the God of Nahor and Terah, Jacob swore by the Fear of Isaac (Gen. 31:42), the God who was worshipped by his father with sacred awe (K-D, 300). The verb judge, Gen. 31:53, is plural, either because Laban regarded the Elohim of Nahor as different from the Elohim of Abraham, or because, though acknowledging only one Elohim, he viewed him as maintaining several and distinct relations to the persons named. Laban here invokes his own hereditary Elohim, the Elohim of Abrahams father, to guard his rights and interests under the newly-formed covenant; while Jacob in his adjuration appeals to the Elohim of Abrahams son (PCG, 387). In conclusion Laban offers his most solemn adjuration, stronger than Gen. 31:50 b; for God is called upon not only to witness but to judge. Besides, he is called by the solemn title, God of Abraham. In fact, another god is invoked, the god of Nahor. If Gen. 31:29 and Gen. 31:42 are compared, it seems most likely that two different deities are under consideration; the true God, and Nahors, that is also Labans idol. The plural of the verb judge therefore points to two different gods, So the polytheist Laban speaks. The more gods to help bind the pact, the better it is sealed, thinks Laban. Without directly correcting Laban or his statement of the case, Jacob swears by the true God under the same as that used in Gen. 31:42, the Fear (i.e., the object of fear, or reverence) of his father Isaac. Had the renegade Laban perhaps meant to identify his own god with the true God of Abraham? And is Jacobs statement of His name an attempt to ward off such an identification? This is not impossible (Leupold, EG, 857, 858). Skinner writes: Whether a polytheistic differentiation of the two gods is attributed to Laban can hardly be determined. Gen. 31:52this heap be witness. Objects of nature were frequently thus spoken of. But over and above there was a solemn appeal to God; and it is observable that there was a marked difference in the religious sentiments of the two. Laban spake of the God of Abraham and Nahor, their common ancestors; but Jacob, knowing that idolatry had crept into that branch of the family, swore by the Fear of Isaac. It is thought by many that Laban comprehended, under the peculiar phraseology that he employed, all the objects of worship in Terahs family, in Mesopotamia; and in that view we can discern a very intelligible reason for Jacobs omission of the name of Abraham, and swearing only by the Fear of his father Isaac, who had never acknowledged any deity but the Lord. They who have one God should have one heart; they who are agreed in religion should endeavor to agree in everything else (Jamieson, CECG, 212). The monotheism of Laban seems gliding into dualism; they may judge, or judge. He corrects himself by adding the name of their common father, i.e., Terah. From his alien and wavering point of view he seeks for sacredness in the abundance of words. But Jacob swears simply and distinctly by the God whom Isaac feared, and whom even his father-in-law, Laban, should reverence and fear. Laban, indeed, also adheres to the communion with Jacob in his monotheism, and intimates that the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor designate two different religious directions from a common source or ground (Lange, 544). The erection of the pillar was a joint act of the two parties, in which Laban proposes, Jacob performs, and all take part. The God of Abraham, Nahor, and Terah. This is an interesting acknowledgement that their common ancestor Terah and his descendants down to Laban still acknowledged the true God, even in their idolatry. Jacob swears by the Fear of Isaac, perhaps to rid himself of any error that had crept into Labans notions of God and his worship (Murphy, MG, 407).
(11) The Covenant of Reconciliation, Gen. 31:54-55, was now ratified by the common sacrifice and the common meal. Jacob then offered sacrifices upon the mountain, and invited his relatives to eat, i.e., to partake of a sacrificial meal, and seal the covenant by a feast of love (K-D, 300). We view Jacobs sacrifice as one of thanksgiving that this last serious danger that threatened from Laban is removed. We cannot conceive of Jacob as joining with the idolater Laban in worship and sacrifice. Consequently, we hesitate to identify the eating of bread with the partaking of the sacrificial feast, unless the kinsmen here are to be regarded only as the men on Jacobs side. . . . In that event the kinsmen are to be thought of as having the same mind as Jacob on questions of religious practices. But the summons to eat bread might also signalize that the transactions between Jacob and Laban are concluded. The events may well have consumed an entire day, and so the night had to be spent in the same place (Leupold, EG, 858). According to Rashi, Jacob slaughtered animals for the feast; however, Rashi apparently insists that it was not a sacrificial meal (SC, 187). Whitelaw holds that brethren here referred to Labans followers, who may have withdrawn to a distance during the interview, and hence had to be called to eat bread (PCG, 887). The sacrificial meal later became an integral part of the Hebrew ritual (cf. Exo. 24:3-8; Exo. 29:27-28; Lev. 10:14-15). At all events, the covenant-meal forms a thorough and final conciliation. Labans reverence for the God of his fathers, and his love for his daughters and grandsons, present him once more in the most favorable aspect of his character, and thus we take our leave of him. We must notice, however, that before the entrance of Jacob he had made little progress in his business. Close, narrow-hearted views, are as really the cause of the curse, as its fruits (Lange, 545). The following morning Laban and his retinue departed and returned to his place, that is, Paddan-aram (Gen. 28:2).
The following summarization of this section, by Cornfeld (AtD, 8788), is excellent: Laban pursued Jacob for seven days and caught up with him in the highlands of Gilead, east of Jordan. What troubled him more than the loss of his daughters, their husband and livestock, was the loss of the teraphim. He demanded indignantly, But why did you steal my gods? As Rachel was unwell, religious custom prevented her father from forcing her off the saddle, and the theft remained unexposed. Laban and Jacob apparently agreed to maintain an amicable relationship on the basis of a new covenant. They exchanged blessings, made the covenant and set up a cairn and pillar (matzeba) as a witness to their sincerity; the inanimate object was naively thought to oversee the covenant. They swore that neither would transgress the boundary to harm the other. This patriarchal clan covenant seems to reflect either a remote separation of the clans, or the story may serve to justify territorial status of later times, when the Israelite and Aramean peoples upheld a treaty of amity and marked the boundary between them. . . . They invoked their respective ancestral gods to judge between them: The God of Abraham and The God of Nahor. Jacob also swore by a special epithet of God: the Fear of his father Isaac (meaning, according to the interpretation, The Kinsman of Isaac). This devotion to the God of ones father is one of the features of patriarchal religion that stemmed from the pre-Hebraic Semitic past. . . . An especially impressive conclusion of the compact was the animal sacrifice offered, and a meal at which the solemn covenant act was performed: to cut a covenant (the rite of sacrifice) and to eat bread remained a familiar idiom of Israelite religious symbols. In eating and drinking, life is perfectly symbolized, and gains profound religious connotation. This is the root of the Jewish and Christian practice of grace before meals, for eating is the epitome of mans dependence upon God and other men. The central ceremonies of Judaism, such as the Passover, and the Eucharist of Christianity, are reminiscent of such very ancient Hebrew cultic practices. The covenant between Jacob and Laban was of course a parity treaty made between equals, unlike the covenants between God as Lord and the Patriarchs, His servants. Thus we can readily grasp the idea of the relation of the eating of the bread and the drinking of the fruit of the vine of the Lords Supper to the spiritual life of the participant. Through the ministry of thanksgiving, commemoration, meditation, and prayer, the Christian does actuallyand not in any magical way, eithereffect the deepening of his spiritual life (cf. 1Co. 10:16-21; 1Co. 11:20-30; Mat. 26:26-29).
Concerning the alleged sources of the account of the Covenant of Gilead, we suggest the following: There can be no doubt that Gen. 31:49-50 bear the marks of a subsequent insertion. But there is nothing in the nature of his interpolation to indicate a compilation of the history from different sources, That Laban, when making this covenant, should have spoken of the future treatment of his daughters, is a thing so natural, that there would have been something strange in the omission. And it is not less suitable to the circumstances, that he calls upon the God of Jacob, i.e., Jehovah, to watch in this affair [Gen. 31:49]. And apart from the use of the name Jehovah, which is perfectly suitable here, there is nothing whatever to point to a different source; to say nothing of the fact that the critics themselves cannot agree as to the nature of the source supposed (K-D, 300, n.).
Stones were used for different purposes in ancient times. (1) Large stones were set up as memorials, that is, to commemorate some especially significant event (Gen. 28:18; Gen. 31:45; Gen. 35:14; Jos. 4:9; 1Sa. 7:12). Such stones were usually consecrated by anointing with oil (Gen. 28:18). A similar practice existed in heathen countries, and by a singular coincidence these stones were described in Phoenicia by a name very similar to Beth-el, viz., baetylia. The only point of resemblance between the two consists in the custom of anointing (UBD, 1047). (2) Heaps of stones were piled up on various occasions; e.g., the making of a treaty (Gen. 31:46), or over the grave of a notorious offender (Jos. 7:26; Jos. 8:29; 2Sa. 18:17); such heaps often attained a great size from the custom of each passer-bys adding a stone. (3) That the worship of stones prevailed among the heathen nations surrounding Palestine, and was from them borrowed by apostate Israelites, appears from Isa. 57:6 (comp. Lev. 26:1). The smooth stones of the stream are those which the stream has washed smooth with time, and rounded into a pleasing shape. In Carthage such stones were called abbadires; and among the ancient Arabs the asnam, or idols, consisted for the most part of rude blocks of stone of this description. . . . Stone worship of this kind had been practiced by the Israelites before the Captivity, and their heathenish practices had been transmitted to the exiles in Babylon (Delitzsch, Com. in loc.) (UBD, 1047). The notion expressed above that the pillar (matzeba) was per se naively thought to oversee the covenant (Gen. 31:52) in Gilead is surely proved erroneous by the fact that the true God and other ancestral gods were immediately invoked to do this witnessing (Gen. 31:53). We can see no reason for assuming animism or personification in this incident.
Hurrian evidences. We have already made note of different details of the transactions between Jacob and Laban which reflect details of Hurrian law. There are many instances of such correspondences. The following is a summary of many of these. Hurrian customs are particularly in evidence in the record of Jacob.Gen. 29:18-19, gaining a wife in return for service: in Nuzu a man became a slave to gain a slave wife, though Jacob was no slave, Gen. 31:15 to Gen. 31:15, Labans daughters objected to being reckoned as foreign women, for native women had a higher standing.Gen. 31:38cf. how in Nuzu shepherds were tried for illegally slaughtering the sheep. Particularly, Jacobs whole relation to Laban suggests a Hurrian adoption contract: Gen. 29:18, Jacob got daughters in return for work, becoming a son; Gen. 31:50, he was to marry no other wives, as in Nuzu adoptions; Gen. 31:43, Laban had a claim over Jacobs children, though God intervened to abrogate the custom, Gen. 31:24; Gen. 31:1, Labans sons were worried about heirship, while Gen. 31:31, Jacob claimed his wages were changed, perhaps a problem of heirs born after Jacobs adoption, who were supposed to receive their percentage; and Gen. 31:15, Rachel stole the teraphim (household idols, Gen. 31:30, cf. 1Sa. 19:13, Zec. 10:2, though she served God too, Gen. 30:24, and Jacob knew nothing of them, Gen. 31:32, and opposed idolatry, Gen. 35:2), which in Nuzu meant a legal claim on the property and which Laban was justified in demanding back for his own sons, Gen. 31:30. Knowledge of such Hurrian parallels is valuable to explain (though not necessarily excuse) the patriarchal actions, and to confirm the accuracy of the Biblical records (OHH, 45).
Here the first phase of Jacobs return to the land of his father comes to an end. Early in the morning of the day which followed the establishing of the Covenant in Gilead, Laban, after kissing his daughters sons and the daughters themselves, and blessing them (cf. Gen. 24:60, Gen. 28:1), set out on his journey unto his place, that is, his home, Paddan-aram (cf. Gen. 18:33, Gen. 30:25), and Jacob with his household went on his way to his home, Beersheba. (It is interesting to note that apparently Laban did not kiss Jacob on taking final leave of him as he did on first meeting him, cf. Gen. 29:13).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(17, 18) Jacob rose up.This was the final result of Jacobs deliberation with his wives, but it did not take place till the time of sheep-shearing. Jacob must have prepared his plans very carefully to be able to leave none of his wealth behind; but he would be greatly helped in this by the fact that his own head-quarters were thirty or forty miles distant from Haran (Gen. 30:36).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. Upon camels Hebrews, upon the camels, that is, the camels provided for the purpose . No mention of camels as a part of Laban’s or Jacob’s possessions has as yet been made . But there has been no occasion; and even if there were no camels among Laban’s property, Jacob might readily have purchased these at the time for his purpose . Gen 32:5; Gen 32:15, shows that Jacob’s possessions of cattle included many camels, oxen, kine, bulls, and asses, of which we have no other mention . But his secret departure showed how he yet leaned more to his own devices than upon the providence of God .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jacob Flees and is Pursued by Laban
v. 17. Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels; v. 18. and he carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padanaram, for to go to Isaac, his father, in the land of Canaan. v. 19. And Laban went to shear his sheep; and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father’s. v. 20. And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban, the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled. v. 21. So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed over the river, and set his face toward the Mount Gilead. v. 22. And it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob was fled.
v. 23. And he took his brethren with him, and pursued after him seven days’ journey; and they overtook him in the Mount Gilead. v. 24. And God came to Laban, the Syrian,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 31:17. Then Jacob arose, &c. Finding his wives agreeable to his proposal, Jacob resolved to put it into execution; he accordingly seized the proper opportunity, when Laban was absent from home, employed in the fields in shearing his sheep, and consequently much engaged, as it was a time of great festivity. The 19th verse would be much better rendered, Now, or For Laban had departed, or was gone to shear his sheep, when Rachel stole the images, &c. Iverat tum Laban, is Houbigant’s version; the French is, Or, comme Laban etoit alle tondre ses brebis, Rachel deroba les marmousets, &c. What we render images, is in the Hebrew teraphim. Laban calls them his gods, elohai. They were a kind of Penates, or houshold gods, says Shuckford, to which they directed their worship as symbols of the Divinity, and which they consulted as oracles. That they were used as instruments of divination in after-times, appears from Eze 21:21. Thus they somewhat resembled the Arabian talismans, which being made under such or such constellations, were supposed to receive the influences of those constellations, and served as oracles. Some think they were of a human shape, because we read, 1Sa 19:13 that Michal put one of these teraphim into David’s bed, that it might pass for him. But Laban’s teraphim must have been of a very small size, since Rachel hid them under the camel’s furniture, and sat upon them. Some think they were representations of angelical powers, (teraphim and seraphim being the same, only with the change of a letter,) who were imagined to declare the mind of God; and that they were made in imitation of the Shechinah or Divine Presence which appeared to Abraham’s family. See Spencer, Dissert. Urim et Thummim, c. iii. sect. 7, 8. Rachel stole them either for their curiosity, or for their intrinsic worth, as being of gold or silver, or some precious material; or, which is most probable, she still retained a tincture of her father’s superstition or idolatry, and carried them with her, lest her father, inquiring after them, should know which way they were gone; or perhaps she hoped, by their means, to be prospered in her journey, and designed to make them the objects of her worship in Canaan; for it appears from ch. Gen 35:4. that soon after this, idol-worship was introduced into Jacob’s family. Her view could not be what some alledge, to reclaim her father from idolatry; for then she would hardly have exposed herself to danger by keeping them, and to the necessity of telling a lie to conceal them, but would rather have thrown them away. The learned Mede observes as above, that these teraphim were small images made under a certain constellation, and usually consulted both in things doubtful and future. Teraphim, among the idolaters, says he, answered the Urim and Thummim of the patriarchs.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Teraphim: probably images for worship. Jdg 17:5 ; 1Sa 19:13 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 31:17 Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;
Ver. 17. Then Jacob rose up. ] Taking his time, when Laban was from home, shearing his sheep.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 31:17-21
17Then Jacob arose and put his children and his wives upon camels; 18and he drove away all his livestock and all his property which he had gathered, his acquired livestock which he had gathered in Paddan-aram, to go to the land of Canaan to his father Isaac. 19When Laban had gone to shear his flock, then Rachel stole the household idols that were her father’s. 20And Jacob deceived Laban the Aramean by not telling him that he was fleeing. 21So he fled with all that he had; and he arose and crossed the Euphrates River, and set his face toward the hill country of Gilead.
Gen 31:17 “Jacob arose and put his children and his wives upon camels” The flight was going to be in haste and his family was too young to make the trip except mounted on camels.
Gen 31:18 “he drove away all his livestock” The term “drove away” (BDB 624, KB 675) denotes the haste with which the livestock were driven. Apparently, they traveled in the evening and night-time hours to avoid the heat.
Gen 31:19 “When Laban had gone to shear his flock” The shearing season was a time of great festivity and family reunion (cf. Gen 38:12; 1Sa 25:4 and 2Sa 13:23). Jacob’s absence is significant, which shows the deterioration of their relationship.
“then Rachel stole the household idols that were her father’s” The Hebrew word for “household idols” is teraphim (BDB 1076). These household idols could be very large (cf. 1Sa 19:13), or very small so as to fit in Rachel’s camel saddle (cf. Gen 31:34). We understand from the Nuzi Tablets that these household idols were a sign of inheritance rights so Rachel may have stolen them as a symbol of her understanding of Laban’s illegal acts in regard to her inheritance or to later assert the right of her son to inherit Jacob’s property. Some say that she stole them so that Laban could not divine their whereabouts (i.e., Rashi, cf. Gen 30:27). These teraphim were used for divination (cf. Zec 10:2). They often appear in association with “the ephod” (cf. Jdg 17:5; Jdg 18:14-20 and Hos 3:4). They are condemned as being idolatrous in 1Sa 15:23.
SPECIAL TOPIC: TERAPHIM
Gen 31:20
NASB, TEV,
NRSV, NIV,
PESHITTA”Jacob deceived”
NKJVstole away”
RSV, NJBoutwitted”
REB”hoodwinked”
JPSOA”kept in the dark”
LXX”hid the matter”
As Rachel “stole” the family’s teraphim, so Jacob “stole the heart” (BDB 170, KB 198, Qal IMPERFECT) of Laban, which is obviously an idiom for deception.
“Laban the Syrian” The term “Syrian” can be translated “Aramean” (BDB 74). The exact relationship between Laban being called an Aramean and Jacob being called the same in Deu 26:5 is uncertain. From the genealogies of Genesis 10 these seem to be two different ethnic lines, but inter-marriage may have caused them to be identified together or by the geographical location (i.e., Haran) in which Abraham initially sojourned.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
upon camels: Gen 24:10, Gen 24:61, 1Sa 30:17
Reciprocal: Gen 31:34 – had taken Gen 45:19 – for your Gen 46:5 – in the wagons
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
"Rachel’s theft of her father’s idols [teraphim] . . . reflects the Hurrian custom of keeping household gods. . . . Nevertheless, the real significance of what she did, and perhaps the reason for the theft, lies in the fact that according to the Nuzi tablets he who possessed the household gods was the legitimate heir." [Note: West, p. 70.]
Other writers, however, dispute this significance of the household gods at this time, as well as Rachel’s motivation.
"The supposed role of the teraphim . . . as constituting the title-deeds to inheritances . . . seems also to be fallacious; . . . . Rachel simply took them for her own protection and blessing." [Note: Kitchen, The Bible . . ., p. 70. Cf. Barker, p. 135.]
These gods were usually small figurines (two to three inches long), sometimes carried on the body as charms, many of which archaeologists have discovered. They may have represented departed ancestors or gods that their makers venerated. [Note: See Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 273.] Rachel may also have hoped they would make her a fruitful mother. [Note: See M. Greenberg, "Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim," Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):247; Harry A. Hoffner Jr., "The Linguistic Origins of Teraphim," Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1967):230-38; Gerhard Mehlman, "Genesis 31:19-39: An Interpretation," Journal of Reform Judaism 29:3 (Summer 1982):33-36; and Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 518-19.]
"It is curious that Rachel, and not Leah should have almost always turned out to be Jacob’s greatest hindrance in life." [Note: Thomas, p. 285.]
The writer identified Jacob’s deception as such when he fled from Paddan-aram (Gen 31:20).