Genesis 31

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:31:40utc

Jacob receives a divine revelation which tells him to return to Canaan, but he had already conceived this plan because of some outside pressure. Both Laban's sons and Laban himself have changed in their attitude toward Jacob. Jacob has picked up rumors. There is talk going around among Laban's children on account of Jacob's wealth. They suspect foul play. Whether they were informed about the arrangement between Jacob and their father, we do not know. But if they are chips of the old block, the agreement would not have meant much to them. Their conclusion is simply that Jacob has taken over. The atmosphere has become threatening for Jacob.

We do not know anything about Laban's sons. This is the first time they are mentioned, besides the cryptic reference in chapter 30:35. We do not how many they were and how old. They should have been involved in the marriage of their sisters, as Laban was when Rebekah was married of to Isaac. Laban must have been a very dominating character to keep everything in his own hands.

More threatening seems to be Laban's attitude. There probably was never too much love lost between Laban and Jacob. But since Jacob was a shepherd of the first rank Laban acted kindly toward him. Since Jacob was no longer working full time for Laban the incentive for kindness was gone. Laban's sons did probably most of the work in the herd. But most of all: Jacob was doing too well with Laban's cattle. Laban's multiple efforts to change the agreement turned out to be of no avail. I suppose it was true, what Jacob said, that Laban had changed the rules ten times.

Verse 2 says pointedly: "And Jacob noticed that Laban's attitude toward him was not what it had been."

Jacob was not a hero. He did not have the courage to face Laban. It could be that Laban was unscrupulous enough to use force in retaining Jacob, or in sending him back the way he came: alone with his cane. Jacob's precautions may have been a necessity. Finally he does leave because the Lord tells him to.

The fact that the Lord speaks to him about returning, could mean that Jacob had settled in Haran and put his roots so deeply, that it needed this divine reminder to make him go back home. It is easy, for us also, to come to a stage of spiritual inertia, where God has to wake us up to make us realize where we are and where we are going.

The promise of the Lord that He would be with him should have been enough for Jacob to face Laban squarely. But he seems to be so used to sly and devious behavior, that he automatically reverts to plotting. He waits for the moment when Laban is absent for an extended period to escape. He calls Rachel and Lea away from home to where he is with the flocks and tells them that he wants to leave for Canaan.

It is not clear why he has to tell them what they probably knew all along themselves. Most likely they knew what was going on better and sooner than Jacob did. The women had probably inside information through the house personnel. The recounting of the dream in which God speaks to him in vs.10-13 sets some of the rumors straight, which said that Jacob had acquired his flocks by devious means.

The question is this: if Jacob received a divine revelation regarding the role God played in the acquisition of his flocks and his return to Canaan, why does he have to be so careful to communicate this to his family? We get the impression that the worship of Yahweh was not practiced in a way the involved the whole family. Granted it is difficult to have a family altar in a family with four wives and two major competing factions. Jacob's religion must have been his private affair. Lea may have known the Lord, but she seems to have been the exception, rather than the rule.

Paul says in Rom.10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." These words seem to imply that if your religion is so private that the members of your household do not know about it, you are not participating in "saving grace." Jacob probably confesses the things God told him to overrule any potential opposition.

Jacob mentions several reasons why he feels the family should leave. First of all Laban's attitude. This should have been the least important argument, but it is mentioned first. Evidently Jacob needed the affirmation by people around him and when that was no longer there, he felt lost. Laban did not smile upon Jacob any more, so he felt he should leave.

The fact that Laban had tried to cheat Jacob "ten times," as he says, should have been a far more important reason to move. In the preceding chapter we do not read any details about Laban's deception. There is no reason to believe that Jacob was lying though. The "ten times" may have been a figure of speech, but the truth remains that Laban did not keep his word. He changed his promises as it appeared to be in his favor. People for whom promises are worthless are hard to live with.

The most important reason for Jacob's return to Canaan, the one that should have been mentioned first, was the dream God gave him. We get the impression that Jacob had two dreams, which he combines in recounting them. The vision during the mating season may have been given to him at an early stage, shortly after the initial agreement was made with Laban, when Laban tried to cheat Jacob by taking away all the partially colored animals. The second dream must have occurred shortly before Jacob called his wives to prepare for the flight. The recounting of the dream seems to have the double purpose of impressing upon Lea and Rachel that Jacob had not really been cheating their father and secondly that Jacob was bound by his vow at Bethel to return to Canaan. Whether this was the first time the ladies learned about God's revelation to Jacob at Bethel, we are not told.

It seems doubtful that Jacob had given any details to his wives about his intimate relationship with God and the various theophanies that had been imparted to him. This silence would have fit the pattern of his life, as we indicated above. It could be that Laban knew about Bethel, since we read in Ch. 29:13 that Jacob told Laban "all these things." Whether that included the divine revelations, we do not know. But even if Laban knew, that does not mean that Jacob had told his wives. Rachel may have heard, since Jacob seems to have been more intimate with her than with Lea, but as far as spiritual understanding is concerned, she seems to have been the dullest.

The ladies agree with Jacob to leave. They pledge their allegiance to Jacob for, what seems to be, rather materialistic reasons: there is no inheritance left for them at home. They also have no emotional ties with their father. They felt disgraced by the agreement Laban had made with Jacob about the bride price. It sounds like the arrangement went against the culture and customs of their days. They indicate that Laban should at least have shared some of the profit he had made of Jacob's services with them. So they tell Jacob to do whatever God told him to do.

Having received their consent Jacob prepares to leave. But the Scripture passes judgment on Jacob's departure. We read in vs.20 - "Moreover, Jacob deceived Laban the Aramean by not telling him he was running away." Since the Lord had told him to go and had promised him His protection, there would have been no reason to do things in an underhand way.

The worst part of the deception is of course the stealing of the teraphim by Rachel. We are told in vs.19 - "When Laban had gone to shear his sheep, Rachel stole her father's household gods." Obviously Jacob did not know about this, as becomes clear from his outburst to Laban in vs.32. Adam Clarke suggests that Rachel may have stolen the gods so her father would not be able to use divination to find out where they had gone. But more likely Rachel had never made a break with idolatry and she believed that she would be able to use the idols and their supernatural powers for her own benefit. The incident gives us a clear understanding about the strange mixture of believes that was present in the family. Syncretism is evidently almost as old as man himself. Ever since man fell into sin, he believes that he can manipulate supernatural powers, whether God's or Satan's. The man who thinks that he can use God for his own advancement, has no idea who he is dealing with. To think that we can make the devil do what we want, is like the fly that wants to manipulate the spider.

On the one hand we have Jacob, who always felt he had to help God to keep His promises, as if God's omnipotence would have failed Him. On the other hand we have Rachel, who thinks that God is O.K. as long as He is on her side. There is no evidence of real faith as we find it in Abraham, who, at the best moments of his life surrendered without any strings attached.

Jacob was able to put a good distance between himself and Laban by crossing the river Euphrates, before Laban even got word that Jacob had fled.

Vs.22 says that Laban heard on the third day that Jacob had fled. Supposedly this is three days after Jacob's departure. It must have taken Laban one day to get ready, since he does not catch up with Jacob until seven days later. That seems a long time if we suppose that Laban traveled faster than Jacob with his entire herd. Before Laban meets Jacob God speaks to him in a dream and tells him to let Jacob go. This is the first time we read that Laban had a divine revelation. He had probably been too deeply into idolatry to hear God's voice. But hear God shouts to him, so to speak, to protect Jacob. We can deduct from this that Laban's intentions toward Jacob were not too good. Whether Jacob's life would have been in danger we do not know; but it seems likely that Laban intended to take Jacob's family and his herd away from him.

The way vs.24 puts it sounds rather curious. God says to Laban: "Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad." This may mean that God not want Laban to make any sweet sounding promises to Jacob with the idea to woo him back. According to The Pulpit Commentary "either good or bad" is a proverbial phrase for opposition or interference. As an example is given Ch. 24:50 - "Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceedeth from the LORD: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good." (KJV)

Laban has several things to say to Jacob when he catches up with him. He reproaches Jacob that he deceived him, by leaving without saying a word. He emphasizes that he is hurt in his affection toward his daughters and grand children. This sounds like a reasonable argument until we contrast it with the words of the two daughters. In vs.14 and 15 they had said: "Do we still have any share in the inheritance of our father's estate? Does he not regard us as foreigners? Not only has he sold us, but he has used up what was paid for us." We lean more toward the girls' side of the story. Laban does not give the impression of being a person who would be deeply wounded in his affections. In the chapters we study he comes rather through as a cunning materialist.

The suggestion that Laban would have thrown a farewell party for Jacob and his children with tambourine and harp music fails to make a genuine impression. Especially if we place it next to the following remark that even now Laban has the power to harm Jacob. We are made to understand that the only thing that restrains him from doing so is his affection toward Jacob and his family, but the fear that God would not let him get away with it.

Why would Laban fear Jehovah? He was an idol worshipper. One of the main reasons why Laban had followed Jacob was because his idols had disappeared. Laban must have seen the hand of JHWH in Jacob's prosperity. Also the dream he had the night before must have made a profound impression on him. He realized that if he would use his superior force to kill Jacob and take back his daughters and Jacob's herds, it would be his undoing. It does not seem that Laban would have had any moral restraints to use his power.

In verse 30 we come to the real reason for Laban's pursuit of Jacob. Laban seems to have a real point when he says: "Now you have gone off because you longed to return to your father's house. But why did you steal my gods?" Evidently Laban supposes that Jacob took the idols himself, or at least that he was informed about it.

The description of the following events in vs.30 through the end of the chapter equals some of the best theater plays or novel plots in world literature. Shakespeare or Dostojewsky would have nothing to be ashamed of, had they written this.

Laban says: "Now you have gone off because you longed to return to your father's house. But why did you steal my gods?" Jacob knew nothing of the gods, as we read in vs.32. His answer "I was afraid, because I thought you would take your daughters away from me by force," refers to Laban's question about why Jacob did not inform him of his intentions to leave. As we mentioned above Jacob probably had every reason to believe that Laban would do so.

The word used for "gods" is "elohai," but in vs.19 they are called "teraphim." According to the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible the Hurrian law prescribed that the possession of the teraphim ensured the title to a property. So when Rachel stole her father's teraphim she acquired the right to

her father's property for her husband. The teraphim seemed to have belonged to a gray area, at least during certain periods of history. It could be that in the days of the Judges JHWH was consulted through them. But in I Sam. 15:23 Samuel classifies them with witchcraft and rebellion.

Jacob promises a death sentence upon the person who stole the teraphim. The Bible seems to indicate that he would not have done so had he known that Rachel was the culprit. Adam Clarke says about the phrase "Let him not live" - "It appears that anciently theft was punished by death; and we know that the patriarchs had the power of life and death in their hands. But previously to the law the punishment of death was scarcely ever inflicted but for murder. The rabbies consider that this was an imprecation used by Jacob, as if he had said, Let God take away the life of the person who has stolen them! And that this was answered shortly after in the death of Rachel, chap. xxxv."

Jacob calls the people Laban had brought with him, to whom we are not introduced, as a witness, not only to demonstrate that the accusation of the theft of the teraphim would be false, but also to prove that there was nothing whatsoever to be found that Laban could claim as his own. He was evidently convinced of the perfect honesty of every member of the household. Jacob's attitude shows this strange mixture of opposing characteristics that is typical for human nature. He would never have stretched out his hand to take something that belonged to another person, but he had not scruples to cheat Esau out of his birthright or to deceive his blind father. We could call him an honest thief. The problem is that none of us is worthy to throw the first stone at him.

So Laban starts his search. After all the teraphim had not walked off by themselves, they were not that divine! The search in Jacob's tent or in the tents of Lea, Bilhah and Zilpah did not bring any result. Rachel had taken recourse to extreme measures to hide the idols. She sat on them, pretending not to be able to get up because she had her monthly period. Whether this was true or not, we do not know. If what is written in the Mosaic law about a woman in her monthly period is an affirmation of earlier customs, then it would have been inconceivable in Laban's mind that Rachel would sit on his idols and he would defile himself by touching either her or the saddle she sat on. We read in Lev 15:19,20 "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean." If the above is true, what Rachel did was sacrilegious in the highest degree. We would conclude from this that she would have stolen the gods, not for her own use in worship, but to assure the title to Jacob's possessions.

It would also seem unlikely that she did in fact have her period at that time, because it seems doubtful that gods that had been defiled by menstrual blood would have been of any use in the protection of property. Most likely Rachel lied to her father.

When Laban's search does not turn up anything, Jacob flies off the handle. We can imagine the scene. The picture we get of Jacob in Genesis is that of a quiet person, probably on the shy side. But Jacob was not a man without emotions. They had built up over the years all of a sudden to come to a boiling point. Even Laban, who probably was a bully and a rough character is taken back momentarily. Both men know that Jacob is under divine protection. So Jacob can afford to blow up. Vs.36-42 are Jacob's testimony of twenty years of pent-up emotions. He has been cheated and used and treated as dirt.

Laban had been a hard taskmaster and Jacob a very conscientious servant. He had taken responsibility for any loss that had occurred, even if he could not be blamed. Any stolen animal was repaid. As in his explanation to Rachel and Lea in vs.7, so here in vs.41, he reproaches Laban of changing his wages ten times. The hardest blow he gives his father-in-law is the reference to God's protection, which Laban had admitted himself. In verse 42 he says: "If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hands, and last night he rebuked you."

Jacob refers to God as "the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac." The French modern translation, which is the equivalent of the Good News Bible, translates "the Fear of Isaac" with "the One Who made Isaac tremble."("Celui qui fait trembler Isaac"). The reference is obviously to Gen 27:33 where we read: "Isaac trembled violently..." upon learning that he blessed the wrong son. Jacob was not present when Isaac trembled, but evidently the word had gotten out. It seems of great significance to me that Isaac received his place in God's hall of fame as a hero of faith because God made him tremble. Also, the fact that Jacob uses this name for God in relation to his father indicates how deep an impression it has made on him. He recognizes that God can make a person tremble. Even Laban had trembled to some extend the night before he met Jacob, otherwise he would not have acted so meekly toward his son-in-law.

If God makes people tremble who have surrendered their lives to Him, how much more will they tremble who have resisted him all their lives. At the end of time we will see happen what John predicts in Rev 6:15-17 "Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?'" Our intimate relationship with God as Christians is always a combination of deep love and trembling.

The Apostle John says some very profound things about this subject in 1 John 4:17-18 "In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." The confidence John speaks about has nothing to do with arrogance. It is the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Jacob tells Laban that God has rebuked him in his dream and evidently Laban agrees, although he does not admit this in so many words. Yet, in spite of the fact that Laban had sold his daughters to Jacob, evidently contrary to the custom of his days, he still claims them as his own. He tells Jacob in verse 43 - "The women are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks. All you see is mine. Yet what can I do today about these daughters of mine, or about the children they have borne?" So he agrees to leave things as they are, admitting that there is nothing he can do about it and the status quo is sealed with a covenant.

As often with events that have little or no historical significance, they are accompanied by much pomp and rhetoric. Few places in the Bible have been given so many names as the place where Jacob and Laban agreed that they would never attack one another. The likelihood of an attack on either side was nil, from the side of Laban but even more so from Jacob's direction.

The place where a monument is built is given three names: Laban calls it "Jegar Sahadutha" meaning "the heap or round heap of witness" in Chaldee, according to Adam Clarke, and Jacob "Galeed" meaning the same in Hebrew, and "Mizpah," meaning "watchtower." The interesting feature of this verse is that it brings out the difference in languages used between Jacob and Laban. There may have been an initial language barrier between the two.

The heap of stones takes the place of a written document. Monuments are less precise in the rendering of the terms, but written documents were probably scarce and we may presume that people were mostly illiterate at that time. This would mean that their memory was keener than ours. The amount of reading we do daily has a tendency to clutter our mind. It makes us forget more easily. We do not have to remember what is written down, as long as we know where we can find it. Literacy is a mixed blessing. For Jacob and Laban it was enough to see the heap of stones to remember. Yet each one gives his own interpretation to the meaning of the monument. But diplomats do this in modern times also with the documents.

We get the impression that Laban was the kind of person who made the center of gravity tilt toward the place was he was staying. We read in vs. 45 that Jacob took up a stone and made it into a monument. Vs.46 could indicate that Laban took over at this point. We read: "He said to his relatives, 'Gather some stones.' So they took stones and piled them in a heap, and they ate there by the heap." Earlier Laban's group is indicated with the word "relatives," so that is probably the designation here also.

Laban warns Jacob not to mistreat his wives or to marry other wives. There is no indication that Jacob every mistreated Lea or Rachel or physically abused them. The harm he did to them was emotional, but it seems doubtful that Laban would have been concerned about that. If Jacob would marry other wives he would rob his sons of their heritage, or at least diminish their share. Since Laban was the one who pushed Jacob into plural marriage to start with the thrust of this advice was probably not a moral one. Most of what Laban says seems to be based on the fact that he still considers Jacob's family and his herds to be his by right. The suggestion that Jacob would pass the monument into Laban's direction with the purpose of attacking his father-in-law sounds preposterous. The remark is probably made to give some counter balance to the promise that Laban will not cross it in Jacob's direction with evil intent. Most of Laban's pronouncements sound rhetorical.

Both Laban and Jacob call upon the Name of God as an affirmation of their non-aggression pact. Laban calls Him "the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father," which would have been Terah. This appeal shows something of the shallowness of Laban's faith. He recognized the existence of YWHW, because his family used to believe in Him. The reference to Abraham is not necessarily an allusion to God's call upon his life; otherwise Laban would not have put him together with Terah and Nahor. When So Jacob takes "an oath in the name of the Fear of his father Isaac," he refers to Isaac's faith and the way he was personally implicated in stealing his father's blessing.

There is something awesome in the realization the God uses our dirty dealings for His own glory. Jacob can hardly have mentioned Isaac's trembling before the Lord without trembling himself. If our eyes are opened for the reality of God's dealing with us, we get goose bumps. Jacob was not that far from the Jabbok where he would meet the Lord in a life changing fashion, where he would humble himself. In chapter 32:10 he will say: "I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two groups." Some of this reality has started to dawn upon him already here.

The context suggests that it is Jacob he made the sacrifice and invites Laban to eat of the animal, after certain parts were burnt upon the altar. The animal must have been taken from the herd, of which Laban had said that they were all his. We should appreciate the irony of the situation. In taking an animal and sacrificing it to the Lord, Jacob makes the statement to Laban that the herd is his. You can't very well take someone else's animal and give it away; not when the owner is present.

There is something very moving for me, who has been saying good bye's all my life, in Laban's kissing of his grand children and daughters. He knew he would never see them again. Blessing them may have been the most sincere thing he ever did in his life.