A Journey Thru The Bible's First Book

[Beetow]

• Gen 29:21 . .Then Jacob said to Laban; Give me my wife, for my time is fulfilled,
that I may cohabit with her.

The word "cohabit" is not actually in the Hebrew. It should read "go near". What
Jacob said, in the common colloquialism of our day, is what men sometimes say
when they want to sleep with a particular girl. They sometimes say: Wow! I'd sure
like to get next to that! (chuckle) Very expressive.

• Gen 29:22-23 . . And Laban gathered all the people of the place and made a
feast. When evening came, he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him; and
he cohabited with her.

Jacob has got to rank as just about the dumbest groom in history. He knew both of
those girls like the back of his hand. For seven years he lived right next door and
saw them both every day. Leah and Rachel didn't even resemble each other. The
one was shapely and beautiful. The other was not. Even if he couldn't see well
enough in the dark to tell the difference, he certainly should have been able to feel
the difference; and to recognize the difference in their voices.

Was that man so totally plastered with booze from the reception that he couldn't
even tell who, or what, he slept with that night? Haw-Haw-Haw-Haw-Hawwww!!!

But the real mystery was Leah. Wouldn't you think that she would have spoken up
and said something before things got out of hand? That sly girl. (chuckle)
Personally I think she had a big crush on Jacob. Later on Leah will try very hard to
get Jacob to transfer his affections to her and forget about Rachel.

This so reminds me of Sadie Hawkins' day in the Little Abner comics of the old
days. In the town of Dog Patch, men didn't grow on trees; there just wasn't enough
to go around; and on top of that, some of the hillbilly girls weren't much to look at
either. Subsequently, some of the local gals had a tough time getting husbands.

So, in memorial of an old spinster lady named Sadie Hawkins, a special day was set
aside each year wherein the bachelorettes had a chance to get hitched. All they had
to do was run down one of the unattached men; and whoever they caught,
absolutely had to marry them; no exchanges and no returns.

But hey! Where was Rachel!?! Was she tied up out in the barn or something? Well;
I hate to say it, but I really don't think she ever did want to marry Mr. Jacob. I
really think she was in on the whole scam all along and I think Rachel was seriously
hoping Jacob would settle for Leah and forget all about herself. But alas; such was
not to happen. Jacob was very determined. He accepted his fate with Leah, but
went after Rachel anyway.

NOTE: The covenant that Moses' people eventually agreed upon with God per
Lev 18:18 protects sisters like Rachel and Leah so that men are not permitted to
cohabit with both girls at the same time. But seeing as how that law had not yet
been codified in Jacob's day, then he couldn't be indicted for breaking it because
the laws of God aren't retroactive. (Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17)

• Gen 29:24 . . Laban had given his maidservant Zilpah to his daughter Leah as her
maid.

Zilpah didn't say anything either. In fact she very likely assisted Leah to bathe and
prepare for her wedding night. Poor Jacob. He was so defeated. It was like the
whole world, and even the stars above in their courses, were in a grand conspiracy
to dupe the old boy that night.

• Gen 29:25 . .When morning came, there was Leah! So he said to Laban: What is
this you have done to me? I was in your service for Rachel! Why did you deceive
me?

There is really no one to blame for this situation but Jacob himself. They say to
never look a gift horse in the mouth. But I think your wedding night has to be the
exception. For crying out loud, you'd think the man would have enough sense to
make sure the woman in his bed was the one who was supposed to be there. Yes,
Laban was a rascal. But then so was Leah, and so was Zilpah; and Rachel too. And
maybe this gave Jacob cause to remember how he tricked his own dad back home
into giving him Esau's blessing. (chuckle) There's an old saying: What goes around,
comes around.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 29:26 . . Laban said; It is not the practice in our place to marry off the
younger before the older.

Jacob lived in "our place" for seven years. I tend to think he knew full well their
customs.

Perhaps Jacob expected the locals would make an exception for him because he
was a rich boy from down south. But no; local custom was local custom, and even
Mr. Silver Spoon In His Mouth was going to have to accept it.

NOTE: I suspect the guests all knew that Jacob was being tricked on his wedding
night, but I also suspect that they never forgot his lack of fair play back at the well
when he first blew into town. You know, when you're unfair with people, you have
to expect that they will be unsympathetic when unfairness comes your way.

• Gen 29:27 . .Wait until the bridal week of this one is over and we will give you
that one too, provided you serve me another seven years.

Serving Laban the first seven years for Rachel was Jacob's idea; except that instead
of getting Rachel; he got Leah. Now Laban's proviso is that Jacob serve yet another
seven years for Rachel; which will total fourteen for a girl he was supposed to get in
seven. I think most any normal red-blooded man would have refused.

But Jacob was an Ethan Frome kind of guy. I don't think he wanted to hurt Leah,
and maybe even felt partially responsible for her predicament.

That's a crummy reason to marry a girl, but I don't think Jacob could have lived
with himself if he threw Leah back now. After all, Jacob was her first love, and it's
not like she was used goods or anything.

It's true that Jacob was not above fraud; but basically, he was a fairly honorable
man.

• Gen 29:28-29 . . Jacob did so; he waited out the bridal week of the one, and then
he gave him his daughter Rachel as wife. Laban had given his maidservant Bilhah
to his daughter Rachel as her maid.

Maidservants weren't just female commodities. They were actually a part of the
household, and often treated with a pretty fair degree of respect.

• Gen 29:30 . . And Jacob cohabited with Rachel also; indeed, he loved Rachel
more than Leah. And he served him another seven years.

I'm sure Jacob never mistreated Leah. But he wasn't crazy about her in a romantic
way. It's like the relationship between Robert Philip and his fiancé Nancy Tremaine
in the Disney movie Enchanted. Nancy is neither a bad girl nor a bad choice-- the
chemistry just isn't there.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, Jacob's situation probably led to
some favoritism. And in this case, I think Jacob began spending most of his time
with Rachel and leaving Leah out in the cold; so to speak; viz: she was in the
unenviable limbo of a burden to her husband. However, since Jacob chose to keep
Leah, he was morally obligated to treat her as if he was infatuated with her, even if
he really wasn't.

When you get right down to it; Leah didn't do any more to Jacob than what he did
to his dad; so all in all: what right had Jacob to complain? I've a pretty strong
feeling that after Leah's week was fulfilled, no more was said about this incident.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 29:31 . .The Lord saw that Leah was unloved and he opened her womb; but
Rachel was barren.

God didn't make Rachel barren. She was already that way. And Leah was too. In
fact, every one of the matriarchs were barren women. It must have been in their
genes. But the Lord elected to repair Leah and leave Rachel out of whack for a
while longer.

I really don't think what the Lord did was punishment against Jacob and Rachel. I
think it was a countermeasure to get Jacob to pay a little more attention to Leah.
It's very important for spouses to bond. Allowing Jacob to focus too much of his
attention on Rachel would soon make Leah the odd man out; and a very lonely
woman.

But why would God do that-- take an interest in Leah's problems? Because, as
Hagar discovered, Abraham's god is a sensitive god who sees people (Gen 16:13
14). And it seems very obvious to me that He was sympathetic to Leah's
circumstances.

And that tells me something. It's true that Leah was in on the scheme to trick
Jacob. But God didn't get upset with her for that. In fact, it looks to me like He was
actually very pleased that she married Jacob. After all, it was through Leah that the
man predicted in Dan 7:13-14 would come, not Rachel. I believe that is very
significant.

I would even go so far as to say that Leah was the one God Himself would have
picked for Jacob if he had only sought a wife in the very same manner that
Abraham had sought one for Isaac. But no. Jacob took matters into his own hands,
came to Haran in person, and fell in love with the wrong girl. Well; he ended up
marrying Leah anyway in spite of his feelings for Rachel; just like his dad ended up
blessing Jacob in spite of his feelings for Esau.

Most guys have visions of the girl they would like to marry. She's young, gorgeous,
shapely, and congenial. But the reality is: most will never find a girl like that. So
they settle for what they can get and become resigned to missing out on life. Big
mistake. Leah was no less a woman just because she wasn't Miss Haran circa 1770
bc. And when the chips are down in life, your very best friend had better be your
wife. Beauty means nothing when a man is out of work, or coming down with
cancer. That's when guys need a faithful friend, not a love pet.

Unbeknownst to Jacob, he was destined to father the twelve tribes of Israel. Up to
now, It had been one patriarch fathering just one descendant. But that all changed
with Jacob. The nation of Israel quite literally started with him.

(chuckle) That guy lived solo for better than eighty years of his life and then all of a
sudden, WHAM, in just one week's time, four women moved in with him. Then, in
just seven years time, he had a posse of juveniles running around the house.
Awww-Haw-Haw-Haw-Hawww!!!

The scheme God implemented to bond Jacob to Leah probably wouldn't work with
men like Esau. Not all guys are cut out to be family men. Adventurers, explorers,
scientists and the like; typically aren't all that well suited for marriage and
parenthood.

But Jacob was a man who'd rather be home than away for five months on a long
hiking trail, or risking his life to free climb rocks and/or summit difficult mountains,
or squandering untold hours operating a particle collider searching for an elusive
boson. Married guys with kids at home should not be doing things like that;
especially dangerous things that could easily, and quite suddenly, rob their family
of its daddy.

"Nobody should seek only his own good, but also the good of others." (1Cor 10:24)

• Gen 29:32 . . Leah conceived and bore a son, and named him Reuben; for she
declared: The Lord has seen my affliction. Now my husband will love me.

Reuben's name is from re'uwben (reh-oo-bane') which means: Look; a son!

• Gen 29:33 . . She conceived again and bore a son, and declared; This is because
The Lord heard that I was unloved and has given me this one also. So she named
him Simeon.

Simeon's name is shim'own (shim-one') which means: hearing. Leah was obviously
a woman of prayer and had no reservations about sharing her personal problems
with the god of her choice. (cf. Phil 4:6-7)

• Gen 29:34 . . Again she conceived and bore a son and declared; This time my
husband will become attached to me, for I have borne him three sons. Therefore he
was named Levi.

Children do have a way of bonding a (normal) man to their mother. It doesn't
always work, but often does.

Levi's name is leviy (lay-vee') which means: attached; viz: bonded.

Jacob was indeed a family man now. In spite of his romantic passions for Rachel, he
would never again feel the same way about Leah. She could never be just another
woman in the house now that she was the mother of his children. Jacob couldn't
help but feel bonded to her. God's idea worked. You say: how do I know it worked?
Because the next boy was named in gratitude to God for saving the marriage.

• Gen 29:35 . . She conceived again and bore a son, and declared; This time I will
praise The Lord. Therefore she named him Judah. Then she stopped bearing.

Well done! And Judah was a real honor too. He became the tribe of Israel's kings;
and from them descended David, and Christ.

The Hebrew word for "Judah" is yehuwdah (yeh-hoo-daw') which means celebrated;
i.e. famous.

The scheme God implemented to bond Jacob to Leah probably wouldn't work with
men like Esau. Not all guys are cut out to be family men. Adventurers, explorers,
scientists and the like; typically aren't all that well suited for marriage and
parenthood.

But Jacob was a man who'd rather be home than away for five months on a long
hiking trail, or risking his life to summit a difficult mountain, or untold hours
operating a particle collider searching for an elusive boson. Married guys with kids
at home should not be doing things like that; especially dangerous things that could
easily, and quite suddenly, rob his family of its daddy.

"Nobody should seek only his own good, but also the good of others." (1Cor 10:24)
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 30:1a . .When Rachel saw that she had borne Jacob no children, she became
envious of her sister;

Sibling rivalry is bad enough. But when siblings compete for the affections of the
same love object, it's all the worse. I don't know what it is about kin, but it's much
easier to compete with someone outside the family than those within. Rivalry within
family is not just a competition; it is more like the passions of a blood feud. The
feelings run deep, and hot, and painful. People who never had a brother or sister
cannot understand this. You just have to live it to know what it's like.

• Gen 30:1b . . and Rachel said to Jacob: Give me children, or I shall die.

Somehow Rachel felt the fault was Jacob's as if he were doing something to
deliberately prevent conception. According to Jewish folklore, it was a common
practice in that day for a man with two wives to give the prettier one some sort of
birth control herb to prevent her from getting pregnant and losing her figure. Thus
the prettier of the two was reserved for pleasure; and the other for bearing
children. Genetically, that was a pretty dumb idea since the practice results in the
perpetuation of inferior stock. I seriously doubt you'll ever see breeders of dogs,
cats, livestock and/or race horses conducting their business like that.

Jacob wasn't doing anything to Rachel. She was just simply unable to have
children. If only she had followed her sister Leah's example in prayer instead of
getting in one of those moods, then she wouldn't have been so ready to rag on
Jacob for something over which he had no control.

• Gen 30:2a . . Jacob was incensed at Rachel

Jacob's anger was no doubt an unpleasant mixture of hurt and indignation. He
really did love Rachel. She wasn't just a girl toy. For her to insinuate that he was
keeping her around just for pleasure must have bitten deeply into his soul.
Romantic love can easily turn into hate-- very suddenly and very quickly; like
turning a page in a book.

Romantic love is very different than the love of a loyal friend. Romantic love seeks
its own best interests and is very fragile and easily wounded. Fraternal love is much
better. It's like a strong anchor. The more a storm buffets the ship, the deeper the
anchor digs into its moorage.

• Gen 30:2b . . and said: Can I take the place of God, who has denied you fruit of
the womb?

I'm sure that just as soon as Jacob lashed out at Rachel he regretted it. His retort
implied that she was a sinner who didn't deserve children. What an ugly thing to
say. But he was upset and felt betrayed by his best girl. So his reaction is
understandable. But isn't there a better way? Yes.

Instead of attacking her husband in an attempt to put blame, Rachel would have
been much better off just finding a nice quiet spot and telling God how she was
feeling about her sterility-- how it was hurting her and making her feel inferior to
her sister: and threatening her marriage. Would God respond to that? Yes. Because
that is exactly what Rachel did do eventually. It's just too bad she didn't think of it
sooner.

If Rachel felt that God cared about her at all, then she would have recognized that
barrenness was serving some sort of Divine purpose; even if she couldn't think of
one at the time. But Rachel's circumstances were causing her feelings to override
her thinking; and making her emotional and reactive instead of objective and
rational.

• Gen 30:3-5 . . She said: Here is my maid Bilhah. Consort with her, that she may
bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children. So she gave him
her maid Bilhah as concubine, and Jacob cohabited with her. Bilhah conceived and
bore Jacob a son.

That was indeed a strange custom, and a cruel one at that. Why is it nobody ever
thought to ask the maids how they felt about it? I just don't think it's ethical to
subjugate women to the status of mere breeder stock.

Those who give their babies away in adoption, often don't want to see them when
they're born-- not even a glimpse; they don't even want to know their gender.
They want their baby delivered and whisked out of the room immediately with no
more feeling than doing their business in the lou. Women who get abortions
typically do not want to see a sonogram of their babies nor listen to its heartbeat
because that's just too bonding and sensitive. Pharaoh's daughter (Ex 2:6) fell
apart when she gazed upon baby Moses weeping. What normal woman can resist
something like that?

The maid's baby would be legally Rachel's, but she would never be the biological
mother. Nothing can ever change a thing like that.

• Gen 30:6 . . And Rachel said: God has vindicated me; indeed, He has heeded my
plea and given me a son. Therefore she named him Dan.

Dan's name means judge, and/or the past tense: judged. (or possibly: a judgment)

In Rachel's mind, Bilhah's success proved that God wasn't withholding children from
her for being a sinner, as Jacob had insinuated. But Dan wasn't really Rachel's
child. He was only hers by adoption.

But who was going to nurse Dan? There was no such thing as formula in those
days. Somebody had to be his wet nurse. Well . . what about Dan's biological mom?
Didn't she just go through a pregnancy? So Dan remained with his biological
mother at least until he was weaned; and probably longer too. It wasn't like they all
lived miles apart. All four women were practically living under the same roof.

So although Dan was reckoned legally Rachel's child, he wasn't taken away from
home. Trouble is; Bilhah became a single mom with no husband. But she wasn't
really alone. At least she had Dan; and her boy had Jacob; and everyone was
together, in one way or another.

I am he,
As you are he,
As you are me,
And we are all together.
(The Beetles; I Am The Walrus, 1967)
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 30:7-8 . . Rachel's maid Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second
son. And Rachel said; A fateful contest I waged with my sister; yes, and I have
prevailed. So she named him Naphtali.

rayyyrrr! scratch! Man that woman was scrappy! No second place winner; Rachel
would keep kicking at you even if her arms were pinned down on the mat. Move
over Chyna! (Chyna used to be a WWF professional female wrestler)

"Naphtali" is from naphtaliy (naf-taw-lee') which means: my wrestling. Not just any
wrestling, but "my" wrestling. Apparently Rachel took things very personal. The
bitter rivalry between her and Leah had become the total focus of Rachel's life.

NOTE: Jacob could've easily disowned Naphtali by simply emancipating Bilhah;
same as his grandpa Abraham broke with Ishmael by emancipating Hagar.

• Gen 30:9 . .When Leah saw that she had stopped bearing, she took her maid
Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as concubine.

Since Jacob favored Rachel, when did he find time for Leah and Zilpah? Well; don't
women have a certain time of the month? It was very unsanitary in those days to
sleep with women during their period and, in fact, was later forbidden by the laws
of the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God. (Lev 15:19-24, 18:19)

So every month, like clockwork, Jacob was forced to sleep with Leah whether he
liked it or not. I guess he could have slept on the couch, but that would look stupid.
So Leah got a shot at him at least one week a month. And she made the most of it,
you can be sure of that! So now she farmed him out to Zilpah's bed for that week
to see what would happen. If Rachel could have children by her maid, then by golly
Leah was going to do it too. Boy, those sisters were really at war!

• Gen 30:10-11 . . And when Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son, Leah said: What
luck! So she named him Gad.

"Gad" is from gad (gawd) which means: a troop. (chuckle) Leah was having enough
boys to field a recon squad.

• Gen 30:12-13 . .When Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a second son, Leah
declared: What fortune! meaning, Women will deem me fortunate. So she named
him Asher.

Well; what had the local women been deeming her up till then? Women can be so
cruel to each other. Leah wasn't attractive, and she was getting up in years before
she met Jacob. Women in Leah's neighborhood very likely made her the object of
sneering gossip: "Oh, here comes that old maid. Hasn't she found a husband yet?
Poooooor thing; tsk." And they would put on their best pity faces for Leah as she
walked by.

"Asher" is from 'asher (aw-share') which means: happy.

• Gen 30:14 . . Once, at the time of the wheat harvest, Reuben came upon some
mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah:
Please give me some of your son's mandrakes.

Mandrake is the common name for any of a genus of herbs. The species to which
the name is particularly applied has two varieties, vernal and autumnal, both native
to the Mediterranean and Himalayan regions and especially to Greece. The whole
plant has a fetid odor. As late as the Middle Ages, a dose of the oddly shaped root
was sometimes given to patients as a narcotic before surgical operations. In the
United States, mayapple is often called mandrake.

The mandrake has traditionally been an object of superstition, largely because of
the resemblance of its forked root to the human figure. Used as an aphrodisiac, the
mandrake was also variously regarded as a charm for pregnancy-- a sort of fertility
drug --also for invulnerability, and for discovering treasure.

Leah certainly didn't need mandrakes to have children. She was doing just fine
without a charm or a fertility drug. But she may have wanted them around the
house for medicinal purposes and home remedies. Rueben was trained to recognize
mandrakes and he brought them home because he knew his mom would want
them: and of course Rachel would want them too because she was infertile.

• Gen 30:15a . . But she said to her: Was it not enough for you to take away my
husband, that you would also take my son's mandrakes?

Of the two sisters, Leah is the only one to label Jacob "my" husband. Personally, I
don't think Rachel ever really thought too much of Jacob.

One of the very first social skills children learn from their parents is sharing. Jacob's
family was so bitterly divided that his wives, two blood kin sisters, were not even
disposed to display even the simplest of graces towards each other. In other words,
Leah was saying: if you want some mandrakes, go out and find your own!

• Gen 30:15b-16 . . Rachel replied: I promise, he shall sleep with you tonight, in
return for your son's mandrakes. When Jacob came home from the field in the
evening, Leah went out to meet him and said: You are to sleep with me, for I have
hired you with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.

Haw! Jacob became a gigolo in his own home. His wives were not only fighting
amongst themselves because of him, but they were bartering for him like a
commodity too. Jacob was sure in a pickle. He was probably like most men; just
wanting peace and quiet in his own home. If that's what the women arranged for
him that night, well alright; if it made them happy and kept the noise down then
what the hey.

You would think the home life of the patriarchs would be the most sterling role
models you could ever want. But no. They were actually pretty disappointing. And
why was that? Becuz they were people. They weren't a celestial breed of
supernatural beings whose home planet was located out in space somewhere
between the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud.

No, the patriarchs didn't fall down from Jupiter as a superior race of extragalactic
agents, nor did they draft in on the tail of a comet and drop off in the land of
Palestine. None of that. They were just as human as anybody else and they were all
slaves to human proclivities and predilections right along with the rest of the
Adams' family.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 30:17 . . God heeded Leah, and she conceived and bore him a fifth son.

God was favorably inclined to grant Leah's wishes. But why doesn't God grant the
wishes of all barren women? Is that fair? Why is God sensitive to some while
ignoring the feelings of others? I wish I could answer that. The brutal fact is: God is
merciful to whom He wishes to be merciful. Love it or leave it; we're stuck with a
God who has a mind of His own and does as He pleases. (cf. Matt 20:1-15)

• Gen 30:18 . . And Leah said: God has given me my reward for having given my
maid to my husband. So she named him Issachar.

Issachar's name is yissaskar (yis-saw-kawr') which means: he will bring a reward
(or possibly; he is a reward). To Leah, Issachar really was worth his weight in gold
to her as a mother.

I really don't understand Leah's reasoning. Why would God approve of putting her
husband in bed with the maid? Sounds like a plot for a soap opera to me. But
nevertheless, Leah was happy with the way things turned out.

You know, that really shows the importance that women in that day put upon
children. Leah was willing to share her husband with another woman as long as it
meant more babies for herself. Isn't that something? How many women would feel
that way today-- especially here in abortion-prone, career-minded, day-care
dependent, glass-ceiling, women's-lib, feminist-active America?

I would like to point something else out too. Leah was crazy about kids and she was
crazy about her husband. That is not so apparent with Rachel. She only wanted kids
out of envy for her sister's fertility. And she even sold Jacob's affections for nothing
more than some wild herbs. A lordly price.

I really shouldn't be too harsh with Rachel. I truly believe she was stuck in an
arranged marriage against her will. After all, it wasn't her idea to marry Jacob. Her
dad engineered the whole thing. And Leah had already worn the shine off Jacob by
the time Rachel got a shot at him so that was no big treat. I just don't think
Rachel's heart was really in it.

I feel sorry for her. She really should have been given a home of her very own; not
thrown into someone else's marriage to wreck it with strife and rivalry-- most
especially not her own sister's. Rachel deserved better than that. She really got a
raw deal in life, that's for sure.

• Gen 30:19-20a . .When Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son, Leah
said: God has given me a choice gift; this time my husband will exalt me, for I have
borne him six sons.

So far, Leah is the only woman in the house calling Jacob "my" husband; and from
one night to the other, she never really knew where he'd be-- with her, one of the
maids, or with Rachel. Jacob probably had a toothbrush and shaving gear in every
one of their bathrooms.

Well . . Leah wanted her husband to live at home with her, not with one of the
other women. Sleeping with the others was just a fact of life around there and she
was getting used to it. Leah could deal with that. But when he was done fooling
around with the others, she wanted him to come home to her, not stay overnight
with one of them. Since God had blessed her with the most boys, and the most
children, it only seemed right in Leah's mind that she had more claim on Jacob than
anybody else and he really should be bonded to her more than the others.

• Gen 30:20b . . So she named him Zebulun.

Zebulin's name is from zebuwluwn (zeb-oo-loon') or zebuluwn (zeb-oo-loon'); or
zebuwlun (zeb-oo-loon') which mean: habitation. Synonyms for habitation are:
occupancy, residence, domicile, and home. In other words, Zebulin is where a man
hangs his hat.

• Gen 30:21 . . Last, she bore him a daughter, and named her Dinah.

Dinah's name is from diynah (dee-naw'). That word is the feminine of duwn (doon)
which means: judgment, justice. and/or fair play.

You can bet Dinah was an instant hit with the women. Now they had someone to
make dolls for, and cute little dresses, and tiny little knickers. And they could show
her how to paint her fingernails, perm her hair, and put on make-up and eye
shadow. I would guess that Dinah did more to help the women forget their
differences and become friends than anything else around there.

And Jacob no doubt liked her immensely. It is just about impossible for a normal
man to resist the charms of a bouncy little cherub. I've seen the toughest blue
collar beasts you can imagine become mushy morons around little girls. When one
of those teensy sweethearts puts her chubby little arms around a man's neck and
says "Daddy, I love you" it's all over but the burial. If sons were indeed prized in
those days, then the daughters were icing on the cake.

NOTE: Dinah is the very first girl on record born to the people of Israel.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 30:22a . . Now God remembered Rachel;

Does that mean the omniscient Almighty had somehow forgotten all about her?
(chuckle) No. God's memory works just fine. I think the best way to treat this is
simply to say that God now turned His full attention to Rachel whereas before He
was totally devoted to Leah's concerns.

• Gen 30:22b . . God heeded her and opened her womb.

Does the word "heeded" mean Rachel finally decided to pray for a baby? I think so.
Some people are driven to drink by the problems of everyday life. God's people are
often driven to their knees.

• Gen 30:23 . . She conceived and bore a son, and said: God has taken away my
disgrace.

It's one thing to adopt children, or take in foster kids, or become a step-parent. But
nothing can take the place of having your very own. Rachel possessed two legal
children by her maid Bilhah. But those were really and truly Bilhah's babies, not
Rachel's. Until she had her very own, Rachel remained low on the totem pole of
feminine esteem.

Men just can't appreciate how important babies are to (normal) women. Even tough
women don't really feel like real women until they have a child. I worked as a
vacuum cleaner salesman many years ago when I was very young. The owner of
the business was married to a successful woman in her mid forties who had no
children of her own; and actually, never wanted any.

But whenever she was in the presence of moms, they made her feel like a loser
because in her mind, moms were the real women. In other words: she was a freak
of nature born without a mother's heart; and that is a fatal flaw in any woman's
character: business or otherwise.

That woman's confession amazed me because hers was a strong, assertive, self
confident kind of personality with scratch-proof, dent-proof hide like depleted
uranium armor plating. But every suit of armor has a chink in it somewhere and
that was hers.

"Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like
arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth." (Ps 127:3-4)

Arrows are not only weapons of war, but also tools of readiness, strength, and
defense. In Rachel's day, children were old age security. They still are for many
people in third world countries; and for those of us who face retirement on fixed
incomes. When my wife and I finally wax old and feeble, we hope our son will care
enough about us to make sure we don't die hungry and poverty-stricken.

• Gen 30:24 . . So she named him Joseph, which is to say: May The Lord add
another son for me.

Joseph's name is from yowceph (yo-safe') which means: let him add (or perhaps
simply the active participle: adding)

Yowceph is the future tense of yacaph (yaw-saf') which means: to add or augment
(often adverbial, to continue to do a thing) So in colloquialism, maybe Rachel was
really saying: Yeah! Keep 'em comin'.

• Gen 30:25-26 . . After Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said to Laban: Give me
leave to go back to my own homeland. Give me my wives and my children, for
whom I have served you, that I may go; for well you know what services I have
rendered you.

Jacob had agreed to remain with Laban for fourteen years. Well, time's up, and
Laban had no further moral or legal claim either upon Jacob or upon his family.

• Gen 30:27 . . But Laban said to him: If you will indulge me, I have learned by
divination that The Lord has blessed me on your account.

The divination that Laban was talking about was a dark art. The word for
"divination" is from nachash (naw-khash') which means: to hiss, i.e. whisper a
(magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate.

Nachash was one of the sinful practices that God condemned in the Canaanite
peoples. (Deut 18:9-14)

Apparently, somewhere along the line, Laban became very puzzled how Jacob was
doing so well in animal husbandry. In the fourteen years that Jacob worked for him,
his flocks not only increased; but they increased beyond reason.

So he consulted with a mystic, seeking to find out the secret of Jacob's success. Lo
and behold, the diviner discovered Jacob really had no trade secrets to hide at all.
He was actually under Yhvh's auspices-- Abraham's god --whom Laban didn't
worship himself but at least recognized as an option.

Laban was justifiably reluctant to let Jacob go. He prospered greatly because of
Jacob's abilities and because of his faithfulness; and especially because of his
connection to Abraham's god. He was willing to strike almost any bargain that
would keep Jacob on the job working for him. Once before he had gotten the better
part of the bargain by letting Jacob name his price; so now he made the same
proposition again.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 30:28 . . And he said: Specify your wage to me and I will give it.

The wage Laban had in mind wasn't an hourly rate or monthly salary like we
typically think of wages. Pay was a separate matter to be negotiated later. The deal
they would make concerned what it would cost Laban to keep Jacob working for
him. In other words; a signing incentive.

• Gen 30:29-30a . . But he said: You know well how I have served you and how
your livestock has fared with me. For the little you had before I came has grown to
much, since the Lord has blessed you wherever I turned.

Yes, Laban knew very well how fortunate he was to have Jacob working on his
ranch. But Jacob just wanted to be sure his uncle Laban didn't think Jacob was too
stupid to know it. Jacob rarely stood up for himself. But this time the circumstances
required him to be firm.

• Gen 30:30b . . And now, when shall I make provision for my own household?

Jacob spent fourteen years of his life making another man rich. Well, it was high
time he did himself some good for a change.

• Gen 30:31-34 . . He said: What shall I pay you? And Jacob said: Pay me nothing!
If you will do this thing for me, I will again pasture and keep your flocks: let me
pass through your whole flock today, removing from there every speckled and
spotted animal-- every dark-colored sheep and every spotted and speckled goat.
Such shall be my wages.

. . . In the future when you go over my wages, let my honesty toward you testify
for me: if there are among my goats any that are not speckled or spotted or any
sheep that are not dark-colored, they got there by theft. And Laban said: Very well,
let it be as you say.

Jacob was supposed to do the culling. But Laban apparently didn't trust him so took
it upon himself to cull out all the mixed breeds and then hide them three days
distance in who knows what direction. So if Jacob was going to acquire any sheep
and cattle, he was going to have to get them from the flocks of pure breeds;
making it even more difficult for him to build a herd of his own. I'm sure Laban
figured that he would be able to hang on to Jacob many, many years while the poor
slob languished away waiting for the blue ribbon flocks to produce mixed breed
animals.

Laban really did have a criminal mind. He was incredibly unscrupulous, greedy,
selfish, and dishonest; and a very heartless man to boot. It's difficult to digest he
was really related to Abraham.

• Gen 30:35-36 . . But that same day he removed the streaked and spotted he
goats and all the speckled and spotted she-goats-- every one that had white on it
--and all the dark-colored sheep, and left them in the charge of his sons. And he
put a distance of three days' journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob was
pasturing the rest of Laban's flock.

By keeping the mixed breeds so far away from the blue ribbon flocks, there was no
chance Jacob might sneak around and put them together for mating when Laban
wasn't looking. Although there is no record of Jacob ever cheating Laban, the old
man surely remembered that Jacob wasn't totally honest. He stole his brother's
blessing, and tricked his dad. If Jacob would scam his own close family, then he
could sure do the same thing to outsiders. You can hardly blame Laban for not
trusting Jacob when the chips were down.

• Gen 30:37-39 . .Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane
trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods.
And he set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even
in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they became hot
when they came to drink. So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought
forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

To the modern mind, what Jacob did was purely superstition; but in that day, it
wasn't. Jacob was experienced at animal husbandry. He had tended flocks for
several decades; beginning with his dad Isaac's, and then with his uncle Laban's.
Jacob wouldn't have tried the striped-rods trick if he hadn't seen it work already
before.

Who really knows what goes on in the minds of goats and sheep? There's a patch of
color down in the throats of young Great Blue Herons that when the parents see it,
the color makes them gag and vomit up the contents of their stomachs into the
craws of the growing youngsters. Even human beings are stimulated by sight. Food
we are about to eat stimulates the saliva glands, plus there's the phenomenon of
blushing, and nauseous reactions produced by gruesome sights, and the effects of
pornographic pictures stimulating the reproductive apparatus are cases in point.

Jacob didn't use the striped-rods trick to produce multicolored animals, but rather
as a visual aphrodisiac to stimulate the parents to mate more often than usual;
thus increasing his chances of producing the kind of animals he wanted for himself.
When Laban's flocks saw the stripes on the sticks, they went into what animal
husbandry calls heat. From thence, Jacob counted on recessive genes to do their
work. Even though he never studied Mendelian genetics, Jacob knew from
experience that even blue-blooded animals produce "black sheep" once in a while.

Leaving nature to its course, it could have been many years before Laban's flock of
blue-bloods produced enough hybrids for Jacob to move away anytime soon. But up
ahead we'll see that he had the advantage of a higher power.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 30:40a . . And Jacob culled the lambs, and made the flocks face toward the
striped and all the black in the flock of Laban;

That trick was expected to have the same effect as looking at striped rods.

• Gen 30:40b-43 . . and he put his own herds apart, and did not put them with
Laban's flock. Moreover, it came about whenever the stronger of the flock were
mating, that Jacob would place the rods in the sight of the flock in the water
troughs, so that they might mate by the rods; but when the flock was feeble, he did
not put them in; so the feebler were Laban's and the stronger Jacob's. So the man
became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks and female and male servants
and camels and donkeys.

Jacob's second strategy was to divide Laban's herd into two groups: the best ones
by themselves, and the inferior ones by themselves, so that he had better control
over the breeding process to his own advantage. Normally, Jacob's husbandry tricks
would have worked more to Laban's advantage than Jacob's because statistically,
the majority of the lambs born would have been Laban's had not God intervened.

Apparently Jacob's strategy was so successful that he was able to invest in other
kinds of capital too; viz: slaves, camels, and donkeys. You know what? Jacob's
troupe was beginning to look like that of a sheik; and before long; he's going to
start acting like one too. The worm is beginning to turn.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 31:1 . . Now he heard the things that Laban's sons were saying: Jacob has
taken all that was our father's, and from that which was our father's he has built up
all this wealth.

People have a habit of using the "all" word just a little to the extreme. Jacob
certainly didn't take all of Laban's flock; only the lambs that were born
multicolored. However, what had seemed like a good bargain at the time their dad
made it, took a most unexpected, and distressing downturn.

Somehow Jacob's flock of cross-breeds was increasing at an alarming rate and
Laban's boys were seeing money on the hoof going to an outsider that should have
been theirs. Laban, who before was pleased as punch when Jacob agreed to stay
on, must now be wishing with all his heart that he would leave. But the old boy
couldn't get out of the contract without losing face.

• Gen 31:2 . . Jacob also saw that Laban's manner toward him was not as it had
been in the past.

You can usually tell when people hate your guts. Often they speak away, in another
direction, while you stand there talking to the side of their face, and sometimes
even to the back of their head. They are so overcome with malice that they cannot
even stand to look directly at you. And when they do look, it's with narrowed,
beady eyes; squinting, as if into the sun.

• Gen 31:3 . .Then the Lord said to Jacob: Return to the land of your fathers where
you were born, and I will be with you.

Some people interpret that to read: And I will be waiting for you. They see it that
way because they insist that Jews can't be blessed when they're out of the place of
blessing; viz: out of Eretz Israel. But that's nonsense in Jacob's case. God promised
He to be with him and protect him wherever he went. (Gen 28:15)

Time to go; and the timing couldn't be better. Laban really loathed Jacob by now
and I'm sure he didn't want his nephew working on the ranch any longer. A falling
out isn't necessarily a bad thing. I often take one as a nudge that God wants me
elsewhere. Sometimes you have to burn one bridge before crossing another.

• Gen 31:4 . . Jacob had Rachel and Leah called to the field, where his flock was,

This next conversation was for the sisters' ears only so Jacob sprung an
unannounced briefing out in the pastures where no one would overhear and go
tattle to Laban. Jacob wants his wives' support for his next move; and he needs to
find out how they feel about their dad and if they are ready to leave home and go
out on their own. Rachel and Leah had never been away from Haran, nor away
from their dad's influence before now; nor has anyone till now given them a say in
their destiny.

• Gen 31:5-7 . . and said to them: I see that your father's manner toward me is
not as it has been in the past. But the God of my father has been with me. As you
know, I have served your father with all my might; but your father has cheated me,
changing my wages time and again. God, however, would not let him do me harm.

No matter what Laban did in his nefarious efforts to thwart Jacob's prosperity, God
would turn it to Jacob's advantage. He was indeed bullet proof and it must have
frustrated his father-in-law to no end.

• Gen 31:8-9 . . If he said thus "The speckled shall be your wages" then all the
flocks would drop speckled young. And if he said thus: "The streaked shall be your
wages" then all the flocks would drop streaked young. God has taken away your
father's livestock and given it to me.

Laban's blatant lack of scruples is beyond belief. He and Jacob had agreed that all
the multicolored animals would be Jacob's. But whenever the purebred flock began
producing too much of a certain strain-- say, the streaked ones --then Laban would
change his mind and say that Jacob could only keep the spotted ones.

Well, then God made the herd produce more spotted ones. And when Laban would
change the arrangement yet again and say that Jacob couldn't have any more
spotted ones and could only have the ones that were striped; then God would see
to it that striped babies were born. So, no matter which way Laban went, Jacob
always won.

• Gen 31:10-12 . . Once, at the mating time of the flocks, I had a dream in which I
saw that the he-goats mating with the flock were streaked, speckled, and mottled.
And in the dream an angel of God said to me: Jacob! Here; I answered. And he
said: Note well that all the he-goats which are mating with the flock are streaked,
speckled, and mottled; for I have noted all that Laban has been doing to you.

There weren't really any streaked or speckled or mottled rams mating with the
ewes because Laban's animals were all blue ribbon. But people in those days didn't
know about recessive genes like we know about them today. So God showed Jacob,
in a way that he could understand, that the animals doing the mating were the
heterozygous ones. God, who can see past outside colors, and deep into genetic
code, made sure the right ones were mating so Jacob's herd would increase to his
advantage in spite of Laban's interference. (chuckle) Talk about a stacked deck!

• Gen 31:13 . . I am the God of Beth-el, where you anointed a pillar and where you
made a vow to me. Now, arise and leave this land and return to your native land.

I wonder if Jacob could have used that as an excuse to depart; viz: tell Laban that
God appeared and ordered him to return to Canaan and make good on his vow?
Moses tried something like that with Pharaoh (Ex 3:18). But Pharaoh still wouldn't
let them go, so God had to destroy Egypt to make him comply.

I seriously doubt that Laban would've ever let Jacob go on religious grounds. It's
possible that's why Jacob sneaked away: to avoid a violent confrontation with his
father-in-law that could lead to Laban's death. Leah and Rachel might have
difficulty with that. Though the man was a weasel, he was still their dad.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 31:14-15 . .Then Rachel and Leah replied and said to him: Have we then still
a share and an inheritance in our father's house? Are we not considered by him as
strangers? For he has sold us and even totally consumed our money!

Now the truth comes out. All along the girls had resented the calculating, business
like way that their dad sold them into marriage; like they were commodities: not
even caring how they might feel about living with Jacob; and especially how the
sisters might feel about sharing the same husband.

And what an incredible louse! The girls were each supposed to get a dowry, but
Laban kept it back and then, of all things, spent their dowries on himself; or, worse
yet, on himself and on the girls' brothers. Weasel! That reminds me of one of my
favorite bumper stickers:

MEN ARE NOT PIGS!
Pigs are gentle, sensitive, intelligent animals.

Laban was obviously some sort of maladjusted sociopath with one of those
"borderline" personality disorders. I don't know what happened to him in life to
make him that way, but something was very wrong with that man. The attitude he
displayed toward his little girls was absolutely abnormal. It was just as abnormal as
any of the psycho dads in the news from time to time who get prosecuted for
abusing their own little flesh and blood daughters.

• Gen 31:16 . .Truly, all the wealth that God has taken away from our father
belongs to us and to our children. Now then, do just as God has told you.

Yaaaaaay! (cheering section activity) That's it! We're out of here. The girls are
grown women with kids now and have to be thinking about their future. Leah and
Rachel are ready to leave home and kiss Haran good-bye forever.

Thank God that Rachel, Leah, and Dinah knew a man like Jacob or they might have
been poisoned on men all their lives. He wasn't perfect, yes that is true. But Jacob
was an excellent family man. For twenty years Rachel and Leah observed and
compared their brothers and their dad to Jacob. And guess what. They much
preferred to live with Jacob. He was fair, sensitive, caring, accommodating, and
always looking out for their best interests and letting them have their own way
whenever possible.

You know, Jacob didn't have to sleep with the maids. He could have put his foot
down and refused. But he did it to soothe his wives. I'm sure he was aware of their
rivalry amongst themselves and tried to help keep the peace as best as he could.
Life wasn't easy for Jacob; having to live with two miserable women.

But he was willing to go the extra mile; and even let the girls have a say in big
decisions effecting the family's future. In the culture of that day, he really didn't
have to. Do you think Laban or his boys would have been concerned about how the
girls might feel about moving away to a new land? No way. Their dad and brothers
were nothing like that. They would have just simply marched in and barked an
announcement: Okay everybody; start packing! We leave for California in two days!

• Gen 31:17-18 . .Thereupon Jacob put his children and wives on camels; and he
drove off all his livestock and all the wealth that he had amassed, the livestock in
his possession that he had acquired in Paddan-aram, to go to his father Isaac in the
land of Canaan.

That must have been quite a sight. Camels and people and supplies, dust billowing
everywhere, with Jacob's drovers moving the herds, followed by a remuda of burros
bringing up the rear. It was a real old fashion trail drive, kind of like an 1840's
wagon train. The girls must have been very excited to be making their very first
long-distance trek away from home. Rueben and his brothers of course saw it as
one big adventure. Yahoooooo! Move 'em out! Beer-sheba or bust!

• Gen 31:19 . . Meanwhile Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole her
father's household idols.

Labans's household gods may have corresponded to ilani-- family gods of the Nuzi
household, and to the Roman's penates --household gods who were thought to
protect food supplies and assure the general well-being of the family.

Since Laban was known for divination, some have suggested that Rachel may have
stolen his gods in order to prevent him from discovering Jacob's whereabouts.
However, I think Rachel just wanted those gods for their potential access to
providence.

• Gen 31:20-21 . . Jacob kept Laban the Aramean in the dark, not telling him that
he was fleeing, and fled with all that he had. Soon he was across the Euphrates and
heading toward the hill country of Gilead.

There's a note in the JPS Tanakh concerning the phrase: "Jacob kept Laban the
Aramean in the dark". The actual Hebrew says: he stole Laban's mind. So Rachel
ripped off Laban's religion, and Jacob took his brains.

The precise route Jacob took to go home is uncertain. It's hard to believe that he
came directly south through the Syrian Desert on the back side of Mt. Hermon.
Maybe he did, I don't really know; but it sure looks that way

The region of Gilead is on the east side of the Jordan Valley in between Yam
Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee) and the Dead Sea. Why Jacob didn't proceed down
through Lebanon and the West Bank I'm not sure; except maybe he was in a very
big hurry to get away from Laban and back on relatively safer home turf. The
Gilead route would eventually take him into the Jordan Valley, one of the best
sources of water and pasture for his animals. In Abraham's day, the Jordan Valley
was well watered everywhere, like the garden of God. It was probably still in pretty
good shape yet in Jacob's.

Nowadays, usually all that travelers really need are gas stations and motels. But in
that day, the selection of a route was always dictated by the need of water and
pasture for the animals; not only the herds, but also the ones people rode upon.
The Jordan Valley was a relatively hazardous route because lions lived in that area
back in Jacob's day; so his drovers would have to guard the livestock day and night
to protect them from predators.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 31:22 . . On the third day, Laban was told that Jacob had fled.

Laban was off some distance from home shearing his sheep, which usually included
a festival of some sort. The messengers probably waited till the shearing was done,
and the party was over, before laying the bad news on ol' Laban.

I'd imagine he must have been absolutely livid with rage; and probably got so
worked up he actually turned red and began perspiring. Defeat is one thing. But to
be beaten by kin, by a nephew no less, was unbearable.

• Gen 31:23 . . So he took his kinsmen with him and pursued him a distance of
seven days, catching up with him in the hill country of Gilead.

It took Jacob ten days to go the same distance Laban covered in seven-- that is if
Laban departed right away without delay; which he probably didn't. It would take at
least a day or two to round up all his relatives and prepare for the journey. Laban's
contingent had an advantage though. They weren't encumbered by herds and
women and children, so they could cover a whole lot more ground in one day than
Jacob's troupe.

• Gen 31:24 . . But God appeared to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night and
said to him: Beware of attempting anything with Jacob, good or bad.

The Stone Tanach reads: Beware lest you speak with Jacob either good or bad.

But if God meant for Laban to stay completely away from Jacob and not say a
single word to him, Laban would have gone home right then and there because he
knew better than to mess with Jacob's god. Maybe Laban didn't worship Yhvh, but
did at least fear Him. The book of Revelation tells of people who are absolutely
terrified of God, but yet still refuse to submit. (Rev 6:12-17, Rev 16:10-11)

• Gen 31:25 . . Laban overtook Jacob. Jacob had pitched his tent on the Height,
and Laban with his kinsmen encamped in the hill country of Gilead.

Once Laban's scouts located Jacob's troupe, his contingent made camp for the night
and moved on up the next day; probably very early before Jacob's caravan could
get up and moving again.

What a chore that must have been. First everyone had to be fed breakfast, which
meant a whole lot of cooking. Somebody had to round up firewood for the portable
ovens. Then the women prepared the meals, which must have been work itself
since no one had packaged foods in those days. Then they had to do the dishes,
repack, dismantle the tents, and load everything back on to the camels and
donkeys. Meanwhile the drovers were out tightening up the herds and rounding up
strays.

Into this busy scene rode MadDog Laban and his trigger-happy posse.

• Gen 31:26-27a . . And Laban said to Jacob: What did you mean by keeping me in
the dark and carrying off my daughters like captives of the sword? Why did you flee
in secrecy and mislead me and not tell me?

Duh. Like he really didn't know? Laban's kind are all alike. In my 70+ years, I've
seen enough of them to know. Jerks like him are never in the wrong about
anything; ever. And they always attempt to throw suspicion off themselves by
trumping up a hollow charge against the very people they wronged. One of their
favorite demands is: What's the matter with you; why are you acting like that?
They are so aggravating with their perpetual habit of feigning a pious ignorance of
their own self-generated bad circumstances.

Like captives of the sword? What does that imply-- that Jacob kidnapped Rachel
and Leah and made slaves out of them? What utter nonsense! They were his wives
as Laban very well knew!

And did he insinuate that Jacob dragged the girls (excuse me; the full-grown
married women) away from Haran against their will? Laban himself was likely wont
to drag a spouse around the whole world regardless of how she might feel about it.
Why would it be wrong for Jacob to do it but not wrong for Laban? And that is
another of his kind's traits. They are so quick to take the high moral ground and
make the rules for everyone else to follow while at the same time fully exempting
themselves from the very same standards.

NOTE: It's very interesting that Laban never even dreamed that Jacob consulted
with Rachel and Leah first prior to departing for Isaac's turf. No doubt because that
was something he would never do himself.

• Gen 31:27b . . I would have sent you off with festive music, with timbrel and lyre.

What a bare-faced lie. The only music Laban would have arranged for is some to
accompany himself while he danced on Jacob's grave.

• Gen 31:28a . .You did not even let me kiss my sons and daughters good-bye!

The word for "sons" is ben (bane) which means a son (as a builder of the family
name), in literal and figurative relationships, including grandson, subject, nation,
quality or condition. Ben isn't always used to denote a specific gender, nor always
used in genetic applications. In Gen 6:2 it simply refers to pious men rather than
God's biological progeny. The New Testament equivalent of ben is huios (hwee-os')
which means a child of either gender; e.g. Gal 4:6, 1John 3:1-2

Laban probably never kissed them before anyway, so why should Jacob think he
would want to do it now? Didn't it ever occur to Laban's enormous conceit that
maybe his offspring might all be glad to be rid of him?

• Gen 31:28b-29a . . It was a foolish thing for you to do. I have it in my power to
do you harm;

Jacob's uncle is the king of meddlers. In Laban's imperialistic mind, Jacob deserved
punishment for failing to consult with His Lordship before pulling up stakes and
heading south. But Jacob has done nothing truly reprehensible. He's a grown man
with a right to his own destiny. Jacob owes his uncle nothing; not even an
explanation because the man is nothing less than a demon's seed; and on top of
that a thoughtless bully and a stupendous bigot.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 31:29b . . but the God of your father

The "god of your father" is all the same as saying your family's god. There a
humorous difference between Jacob's family god and Laban's family gods. Jacob's
family god can't be kidnapped and carried around in a saddle bag.

• Gen 31:29c . . said to me last night: Beware of attempting anything with Jacob,
good or bad.

That was a no idle threat and I think the man knew it. If Laban tried to persuade
Jacob to return to Paddan-aram; he would die. If he harmed Jacob; he would die. If
he attempted to take the girls, the grandkids, and all the flocks; he would die.

In other words, God told that man not to interfere with Jacob's life in any way at all
or He would give him good reason to regret it. From now on, Jacob, and all that
pertained to him, was off limits-- including Laban's ex-daughters, who were both
married women; old enough to be on their own, and completely out their dad's
jurisdiction. When they were girls living at home under their father's roof; then
their dad could rule them. But married women are ruled by their husbands.

"your husband . . . he will rule over you." (Gen 3:16)

• Gen 31:30a . .Very well, you had to leave because you were longing for your
father's house.

Jacob had to leave because God issued him marching orders. And Jacob really
needed to go anyway. Life with uncle Laban had become unbearable. It was
humiliating, and it was suffocating. Jacob could never achieve his greatest potential
with a man like that always interfering and controlling his destiny.

Leaving Laban's ranch was in truth, an act of self defense; not just for Jacob, but
for Leah and Rachel too. Their dad ruled them from the day they were born. That's
okay for minor children, but it is not an okay thing for married women. Married
women need to be royalty in a home of their own, and be allowed to do their own
thinking and to make their own decisions-- Princesses Of Quite A Lot, and Queens
Of Everything.

I've heard it said that no one is truly a failure when they can always serve as a bad
example. (chuckle) Sort of like ex drunks, smokers, and drug addicts. Well . . a
man like Laban is a perfect example of a parent from hell. He's probably the worst
case scenario there is. Hopefully most of us will never have to deal with an in-law
like him.

But there are only two ways to deal with parents and in-laws from hell: 1) stand up
for your rights, and 2) get as far away as possible where their meddling tendrils
can't mess up your life. Jacob and the girls did both; and Yhvh's providence was
right there on hand to make sure they succeeded.

• Gen 31:30b . . but why did you steal my gods?

Laban accused Jacob of taking the gods without even first inquiring if he actually
did. In the American system of criminal justice, a person is assumed innocent until
proven guilty; and the burden of proof is upon the accuser. Not only is that a very
good principle of civic government, but it is also an excellent social skill and will go
a long way towards nurturing friendships.

• Gen 31:31 . . Jacob answered Laban, saying: I was afraid because I thought you
would take your daughters from me by force.

Jacob was probably right about that. He worked for Laban twenty years and
suspected the old boy would never let Jacob take the girls away from Paddan-aram.
Laban was definitely one of those over-my-dead-body kinds of people. With them;
it's not a matter of doing what's right and fair all around; it's always a matter of
who's going to win. But it's doubtful Laban would've traveled all that way just to
retrieve his daughters or his gods: I've no doubt that what he really wanted was
Jacob's livestock.

• Gen 31:32 . . But anyone with whom you find your gods shall not remain alive! In
the presence of our kinsmen, point out what I have of yours and take it. Jacob, of
course, did not know that Rachel had stolen them.

It might appear that Jacob spoke rashly. But in that day, the code of Hammurabi
stipulated that the theft of temple gods was a death offense. Apparently, it was
truly a very serious crime in the culture of that day to steal household gods as well.

NOTE: The Code of Hammurabi dates back to about 1772 BC. Precisely when Jacob
was born has not yet been accurately established. Some feel his birth took place
sometime between 2000 and 1700 BC.

Anyway; if Laban had been disposed to honor Hammurabi's code, then he wouldn't
have been so quick to condemn Jacob. But the man was a code unto himself; which
has been pretty obvious all along.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 31:33-35 . . So Laban went into Jacob's tent and Leah's tent and the tents of
the two maidservants; but he did not find them. Leaving Leah's tent, he entered
Rachel's tent.

. . . Rachel, meanwhile, had taken the idols and placed them in the camel cushion
and sat on them; and Laban rummaged through the tent without finding them. For
she said to her father: Let not my lord take it amiss that I cannot rise before you,
for the custom of women is upon me. Thus he searched, but could not find the
household idols.

I tend to think that if Rachel was strong enough to travel across country on the
back of a jostling camel, then she was certainly strong enough to stand for a
moment or two.

It's likely that Rachel's choice of words was a subtle indication to her dad that she
had better sense than to plunk her derriere down on something as sacred as the
household gods where there would be a chance of desecrating them by contact with
something yucky; especially in a day when the sciences of feminine hygiene and
sanitation weren't all that advanced.

She may indeed have actually been in her period at the time. If not, then Jacob
himself would have suspected she was concealing something. You've got to hand it
to Rachel. Considering the stakes, she was one cool lady under fire. Well; that was
indeed one time that what some women deem "the curse" came in very handy.

• Gen 31:36-37 . . Now Jacob became incensed and took up his grievance with
Laban. Jacob spoke up and said to Laban: What is my crime, what is my guilt that
you should pursue me? You rummaged through all my things; what have you found
of all your household objects? Set it here, before my kin and yours, and let them
decide between us two.

It's a pity Jacob didn't have a force of armed men at his disposal like grandpa
Abraham did at one time. Jacob and his ranch hands were pastoral men, totally
untrained for war, and certainly not prepared to deal with a bully like Laban. When
people are unarmed, and unskilled in warfare, they are easy prey, and might just
as well kiss their human rights good-bye. There are those who yearn for peace at
any price. But freedom is not free. In this evil world; freedom is a priceless treasure
retained only by those with enough mettle to defend for it.

Jacob endured countless indignities at the hands of his father-in-law, which he
suffered in silence for many years. All the pent up emotion which he restrained for
so long finally poured out in an unfettered tirade. Jacob demanded, in the witness
of the kin they both had in common, to justify such a hot pursuit to catch him
before he reached home with what was, in every way, rightfully his own private
property. Laban could only maintain an embarrassed silence as Jacob spoke.

• Gen 31:38a . .These twenty years I have spent in your service, your ewes and
she-goats never miscarried,

That is an incredible record. A certain number of still births are to be expected in
any herd. But they never occurred because Jacob was gentle: he never whipped the
animals, nor drove and fatigued Laban's herds like some overly zealous, insensitive
shepherds might do; especially with flocks that belong to someone else and are not
their own. And plus, Laban knew very well himself from divination, that Jacob's god
ever watched over the pregnant animals so Laban could prosper under Jacob's care.

• Gen 31:38b . . nor did I feast on rams from your flock.

It was a shepherd's right to feed himself with meat from a flock he was hired to
tend. But Jacob never exercised that right.

• Gen 31:39 . .That which was torn by beasts I never brought to you; I myself
made good the loss; you exacted it of me, whether snatched by day or snatched by
night.

If Jacob had but brought the remains in to show Laban, it would have would cleared
him of any suspicion of negligence in guarding the herds from predators. But by not
bringing them in, he automatically took the blame for their loss and paid for them
out of his own pocket rather than make Laban absorb the loss. Why Jacob did that I
don't know because he sure didn't have to. All he had to do to prove to Laban that
he was there on the job guarding the herd from predators, was to demonstrate that
he drove them away before they could finish eating their prey. Only a man truly
looking out for the best interests of his master would ever do what Jacob did.

• Gen 31:40 . . Often, scorching heat ravaged me by day and frost by night; and
sleep fled from my eyes.

Pastoral life takes its toll on men. Just look at some who have been ranching and
farming for a number of years. They are old way before their time. The sun and the
elements give them shoe leather faces lined with deep creases. Jacob, by the way,
was at least 95 at this time and probably looked 150 after all those years out on
the range with his father Isaac's herds, and later; his uncle Laban's.

• Gen 31:41 . . Of the twenty years that I spent in your household, I served you
fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flocks; and you
changed my wages time and again.

Jacob reminded Laban of his service of twenty years, fourteen of which had been
simply for the privilege of marrying his daughters. He didn't mention Laban's
deception (probably for Leah's sake), which had doubled the length of his service in
return for a woman he didn't want in the first place.

In spite of all the good, of all his conscientious service, and of all the charity that
Jacob had lavished undeserving upon Laban, the man revised his agreement with
Jacob ten times in an evil-minded attempt to garner all the gains for himself and to
prevent his own nephew from prospering. The man sure knew how to repay loyalty.
Yeah-- right in the teeth. And in the end, he fully intended to send his nephew
away totally empty handed-- if indeed he would even spare Jacob's life.

It would require a college degree in criminal psychology to understand what makes
a man like Laban tick. He was really too messed up to comprehend. But it's obvious
that Laban so hated Jacob that he couldn't stand letting him keep a single thing
that once belonged to himself. You know, even if there were no hell, one would
have to be constructed to quarantine people like Laban because there is nowhere
else for them to go. The kingdom of God is a place of peace and kindness. If certain
undesirables like Laban were allowed in the kingdom of God; in short order they'd
turn it into another kingdom of men.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 31:42 . . Had not the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of
Isaac, been with me, you would have sent me away empty-handed. But God took
notice of my plight and the toil of my hands, and He gave judgment last night.

Anyone there that day, who had the slightest conscience at all, must have looked
upon Laban as one would look upon the most crooked, and upon the most
dishonest, unscrupulous, and unthankful of men with utter disgust. Jacob told it like
it was, and no one objected; and no one stood up to speak in Laban's defense.

• Gen 31:43a . .Then Laban spoke up and said to Jacob: The daughters are my
daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks; all that you
see is mine.

Oh, give it up already!! Someone really needed to teach that communistic crumb
some principles related to the transfer of property. The girls were no longer his
daughters. They were married women: one flesh with a man who worked very hard
to both earn them and deserve them. The children were fathered by Jacob, not by
Laban. And the flocks were Jacob's by right, not by loan nor by theft, nor by gift,
nor by fraud. They were his honest compensation; the very wages that Laban
himself had agreed upon.

Everything on that mountain pertaining to Jacob was personal property and Laban
had no right to lay claim to any of it. He was just very lucky that Jacob was not of
the kind to show him the business end of a shotgun and point him north, back the
way he came.

When Laban finally had an opportunity to respond to Jacob's outburst, he couldn't
say anything at all by way of denial to Jacob's claims and charges. Instead; he tried
to divert attention away from the embarrassing facts by changing the subject.
Though even himself knew very well he was in the wrong; a conceited man like
Laban just can't bring himself to make public acknowledgement of his guilt.

People like him typically try whatever means they can muster to shift the blame
away from themselves; or at least shift the attention away from their own
culpability to whatever real or imagined grievances they can find in others.

• Gen 31:43b . .Yet what can I do now about my daughters or the children they
have borne?

His question was just a smoke screen. Laban as much as said: It would be contrary
to all human sensibilities to do anything to bring grief to my own flesh and blood.
How could you possibly think I am capable of such a thing?

Laban's lack of integrity is almost beyond belief. He followed Jacob for seven days
and at least three hundred miles for the specific purpose of murdering him and
taking all the herds and all the people back to Paddan-aram. That wouldn't have
caused his kin grief? --to murder his grandkids' dad, and to murder Leah's and
Rachel's husband?

• Gen 31:44 . . Come, then, let us make a pact, you and I, that there may be a
witness between you and me.

Instead of ending Jacob's life, which was no doubt his original intent, Laban now
proposes a very noble settlement-- a gentleman's non-aggression pact between
himself and Jacob.

• Gen 31:45-46 . .Thereupon Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. And Jacob
said to his kinsmen: Gather stones. So they took stones and made a mound; and
they partook of a meal there by the mound.

Pillars were common in those days as watchers-- gods who intervene in the affairs
of men. (cf. Gen 28:22, Dan 4:17)

• Gen 31:47a . . Laban named it Yegar-sahadutha,

Yegar-sahadutha is Aramaic, Laban's tongue, and means: heap of the testimony, or
cairn of witness.

• Gen 31:47b . . but Jacob named it Gal-ed.

Gal-ed is Hebrew and means pretty much the same thing.

• Gen 31:48-49 . . And Laban declared: This mound is a witness between you and
me this day. That is why it was named Gal-ed; And [it was called] Mizpah, because
he said: May the Lord watch between you and me, when we are out of sight of each
other.

Mizpah means watchtower. Laban wasn't the one who called it Mizpah. It went on
to become known as that because of his pronouncement.

Did Laban mean to imply that Jacob needed watching? During those twenty years in
Laban's employ, what had Jacob ever done on the sly to harm his uncle? Jacob's
sterling employment record was certainly sufficient to recommend him to any
normal person; but his uncle just can't stop himself from denigrating Jacob right up
to the bitter end of their association.

NOTE: All those years working on Laban's ranch, and all the time living with with
four women and a posse of kids, had made Jacob a better man; while the same
time forged his uncle into something worse than he was to begin with.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 31:50 . . If you ill-treat my daughters or take other wives besides my
daughters-- though no one else be about, remember, God Himself will be witness
between you and me.

That was just paternal bombast. Had Jacob ever ill treated Rachel and Leah all
those years in Laban's employ? When had the girls ever complained to their dad
about Jacob's behavior? Was it really reasonable to assume he would ever abuse.
them some day? No it wasn't. Jacob had always treated the girls with kindness and
consideration, and Laban had neither cause nor reason to think Jacob would ever
do otherwise. And since when did Laban really care about Rachel and Leah anyway?
He sold them like livestock, and spent their dowry on himself.

Marry other women? Jacob wasn't a womanizer; nor had he ever been a
womanizer. He had only wanted just one in the first place; but was tricked by
Laban himself into a bigamous marriage with two sisters that Israel's covenanted
law would later forbid. But still, as a grown man, in the culture of that day, Jacob
had every right to a harem while Laban had no right whatsoever to impose limits on
the size and/or the nature of Jacob's family relations.

Laban intended for the stone pile to be a boundary between himself and Jacob so
that Jacob would not come past it later on for revenge after God made him strong
enough to whup Laban. But that was another evidence of his poor judgment of
Jacob's character.

Jacob was definitely not a war-faring man; anybody could see that. He was just like
his dad Isaac; who was also a peaceable man, satisfied to simply stop the strife
between himself and his enemies. No way would Jacob ever seek revenge. It just
wasn't in his nature to do that. But Laban had a wicked conscience. It wasn't
beyond him to project his own base motives upon others and assume they would do
the very same things he himself would do in their place.

NOTE: There are people in politics that are so Machiavellian that if they can't find
any dirt on you, they'll contrive some and throw it at their opponent in hopes it
sticks in the public's thinking; which it often does.

In return, Laban would promise to not come past the monument to cause Jacob any
harm; which he no doubt would if God hadn't intervened to prevent it. What a
hollow covenant. All Laban did that day was put up an appearance of nobility and
try his best to save face in an otherwise very embarrassing situation. And the
meanwhile heaping additional indignities upon Jacob, and slurring the reputation of
a very decent man.

NOTE: Bethuel's blood produced three really good women: Rebecca, Leah, and
Rachel. You gotta wonder what happened to the men. Why were they all such
misfires? Families like that are a genetic mystery. Just look at Cain and Abel-- two
brothers from the very same parents; yet one was a good man and the other not.
Go figure.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 31:51 . . And Laban said to Jacob: Here is this mound and here the pillar
which I have set up between you and me:

Laban didn't set up anything. He only participated in dedicating the pillar. Jacob and
his sons set it up with their own hands. And it was all their own idea, not Laban's.

Laban likely reasoned that seeing as how he outranked his son-in-law in the social
order, then whatever they did together should be reckoned to Laban's credit; sort
of like the Pharaohs taking credit for their pyramids when it was others who did the
actual construction. (cf. Dan 4:30)

• Gen 31:52 . . this mound shall be witness and this pillar shall be witness that I
am not to cross to you past this mound, and that you are not to cross to me past
this mound and this pillar, with hostile intent.

I think Laban was beginning to become just a little bit nervous because there was
something different about Jacob. He wasn't acting like the quiet, humble, hard
working hired hand Laban knew up in Paddan-aram. Jacob was acting more like a
sheik. And I think Laban was just a little unraveled by that. He wasn't accustomed
to that kind of a Jacob. And he knew it would be impossible to defeat Jacob while
Jacob's god watched over him. And I think he was afraid that if Jacob ever did come
up against him, Yhvh would make sure he won.

• Gen 31:53a . . May the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor-- their ancestral
deities --judge between us.

Laban equated Abraham's God with Nahor's gods. Big mistake. Not all gods are
equal. But to a man like Laban, one is as good as another.

• Gen 31:53b . . And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.

No way was Jacob going to honor Nahor's gods with an oath. And speaking of that:

Here in America, the US Constitution protects religious liberty. However, the
Constitution does not require American citizens to respect all religions equally. In
our mind's eye, burning a holy book such as the Koran is no more destructive than
burning yesterday's newspaper; and the First Amendment grants us the right to say
so.

The US Government accommodates Arab feelings about Islam and the Koran
because it is in the USA's national interests to do so. But I'm not a politician, nor do
I desire to be one if it means compromising Christ's feelings about religions that
propagate teachings different than his. (cf. 1Cor 10:25-31, 1Cor 16:22, and Gal
1:8-9)

Anyway, that ended the meeting and Laban went back to his own camp for the
night.

• Gen 31:54 . . Jacob then offered up a sacrifice on the Height, and invited his
kinsmen to partake of the meal. After the meal, they spent the night on the Height.

Jacob's sacrifice wasn't an 'olah (o-law') which is incinerated to ashes. It was a
zebach (zeh'-bakh); which more resembles Passover, where the lamb is both an
offering and a meal. So then, a biblical sacrifice isn't eo ipso something given up or
destroyed, but essentially pertains to something dedicated; in this case: a festive
dinner in Yhvh's honor.

You can bet that was a very happy occasion. Jacob's family was finally going to be
rid of ol' MadDog Laban once and for all; and without violence too. Since a good
part of the day was wrecked already, they stayed and planned on leaving the next
day after an impromptu Thanksgiving dinner. Next hurtle: Big Red, a.k.a. Mr. Esau
ben Isaac.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 32:1 . . Early in the morning, Laban kissed his sons and daughters and bade
them good-bye; then Laban left on his journey homeward.

Apparently nobody wanted to kiss Laban back, nor bid him a good-bye.

The old boy didn't altogether lack at least some affection for his family. But he
surely realized they must have come to deeply resent him by now; and he was
probably beginning to regret some of his actions. But Laban still couldn't bring
himself to apologize to Jacob. That would have been just too humiliating, especially
in front of all his kin; him being their paterfamilias and all.

No further mention is made of Laban nor his sons in the Bible. He has the
distinction of being one of Scripture's most outstanding examples of a worldly,
covetous man; grossly infected with an acute case of unbridled avarice, and
completely void of genuine faith in the one true god.

He knew about Yhvh, and he was certainly given a thorough enough witness up at
his ranch, and in his dreams. He had seen the reality of Yhvh in Jacob's life, along
with the power of Yhvh in His blessings and protections of Jacob all those years.
Laban himself had, as a consequence of associating with Jacob, enjoyed Yhvh's
providence, and became wealthy on account of having Yhvh's man working for him
on his ranch.

Nevertheless, Rebecca's brother remained a hard-core idolater/capitalist; seeking
material gain for himself to the exclusion of all other considerations. Rather than
seeking to follow only Yhvh, and gain the light of life, he merely envied, and
resented, the blessings that God bestowed upon his son-in-law. Laban finally ended
up with neither light nor blessings. Thus, Jacob and his community remained in
association with The Light, while Laban and his clan melted into the darkness.

• Gen 32:2 . . Jacob went on his way, and angels of God encountered him.

Since the angels had nothing to say to Jacob, they obviously weren't there as
messengers. I believe the angels came for an "effect". Here's what I mean.

Jacob's primary concern during his trip back to Canaan wasn't really his father-in
law's pursuit. His real concern was the inevitable confrontation with his brother
Esau. The appearance of those angels very likely boosted Jacob's courage, and
assured him God was still in the area and still looking out for his safety and making
good on the promise at Gen 28:15.

Today, in our time, it's very unlikely to encounter celestial beings. But the
messages we hear in church or in synagogue can do the job of boosting courage
just the same if we but hear those messages through an ear of faith. Here's a good
example.

In the third chapter of Isaiah, God predicted, through preaching, that terrible things
were in store for Jerusalem. I mean really terrible things that would give you a bad
case of butterflies in your stomach. You can imagine the effect that had on those
who heeded what the prophet was saying. Well, God didn't want His believing
followers worrying themselves that the impending doom was evident that God had
tossed them aside, so this is what He said to them; through the preacher:

"Hail the just man, for he shall fare well; he shall eat the fruit of his works." (Isa
3:10)

God wanted His believing followers to know that although they would have to live
through all those horrible judgments, it didn't mean they had lost His favor; they
would just be collateral damage, so to speak. Well, Jacob can't escape his brother,
but regardless of how it turned out; God would still be on his side.

Webster's defines "courage" as: mental or moral strength to venture, persevere,
and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty. Courage is an excellent virtue; and it's
interesting who has it and who doesn't.

Fearless people aren't courageous. Scaredy cats facing their fears are the ones with
courage. Fearless people are too often reckless and take foolish chances; whereas
scaredy cats tread lightly. They're the ones with true valor; which Webster's defines
as strength of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with
firmness; viz: personal bravery.

Fearless people haven't a clue what bravery is. They wade into life afraid of
nothing. Fearless people have nerves of steel; whereas those who face life with
bravery, courage, and valor possess a different kind of mettle. They don't have
nerves of steel; instead: they have resolve.

Well, Jacob was very nervous about meeting with his brother. His next adventure
would take all the courage, and the valor, and the bravery he could muster. The
appearance of those angels must have gone a long way towards beefing up his
resolve to see it through.

• Gen 32:3 . .When he saw them, Jacob said: This is God's camp. So he named
that place Mahanaim.

The word "Mahanaim" is from machanayim (makh-an-ah'-yim) which means:
double camp and/or two camps. One camp was Jacob's and the other was God's.
Man and God, in friendly proximity, united in a common purpose. Too cool.
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 32:4 . . Jacob sent messengers ahead to his brother Esau in the land of Seir,
the country of Edom,

The Hebrew word for "messengers" is the same word often translated angels. Since
that word has such wide application, some have proposed that Jacob dispatched the
holy angels on ahead to meet with Esau for him. Well, I think that might be
stretching the imagination just a little too far. Jacob was in charge of his own camp,
not God's, and there's no textual evidence to suggest otherwise.

Jacob had learned where Esau lived, and could have avoided contact with him if he
wanted to. Esau's land was pretty far out of the way. His haunts were way down in
Seir, a mountainous tract which runs along the eastern side of the Araba, once
occupied by the ancient cave dwelling Horites.

If you have a map handy, it's in between the southern end of the Dead Sea and the
northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. Jacob's destination was Shechem, in the vicinity
of modern day Nabulus, up in the West Bank about 80 miles northwest of the tip of
the Red Sea; as the crow flies.

• Gen 32:5a . . and instructed them as follows: Thus shall you say to my lord Esau:
Thus says your servant Jacob:

Jacob instructed his servants to acknowledge Esau as Jacob's superior. It's true the
patriarchy passed to Jacob, but he must have felt it was expedient to set that aside
for now and approach his brother from the standpoint of their natural birth rank.
Jacob never really desired to lord it over his brother, and there was certainly no
reason to assert his patriarchal rank at this time[ most especially for the purpose of
this particular reunion; which was to make amends for past grievances and to set
the stage for Jacob's peaceable return to the neighborhood.

This show-down was a necessity. Jacob couldn't very well be looking over his
shoulder all the time, wondering if Esau was around somewhere nearby drawing a
bead on him. They had to get their differences smoothed out now before Jacob
settled his family in Canaan. And this meeting was going to be difficult enough
without invoking the prerogatives of royalty. No; it was better that Jacob met with
Esau as his younger brother, and then go from there and see what happens.

• Gen 32:5b-6 . . I stayed with Laban and remained until now; I have acquired
cattle, donkeys, sheep, and male and female slaves; and I send this message to my
lord in the hope of gaining your favor.

The delegation's mission was merely to inform Esau that Jacob was back in town;
and to make sure Esau knew that Jacob was not here for a fight. He was in fact
inclined to seek Esau's good graces. Esau's initial reaction was probably an
instinctive posture of self defense. Since it was predicted that the younger would
rule the older, it may have appeared to Esau that Jacob was returning from
Paddan-aram with a large body of fighting men to claim the covenanted
boundaries, and to subjugate Esau under patriarchal rule as predicted in Gen
25:23.

• Gen 32:7-9 . .The messengers returned to Jacob, saying: We came to your
brother Esau; he himself is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men
with him. Jacob was greatly frightened; in his anxiety, he divided the people with
him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, thinking: If Esau comes
to the one camp and attacks it, the other camp may yet escape.

Jacob quite naturally jumped to the conclusion that Esau still sought his death.
From all appearances, it sure looked that way. So he followed a typical caravan
tactic of dividing his troupe so that if Esau should attack the lead group, the one
following would have a chance to escape while Esau was busy with the first. It
would have been wiser to take up positions and wait for Esau to come to Jacob. But
apparently, the local terrain wouldn't permit Jacob's assembly to scatter all over the
place and thereby make it difficult for Esau to attack everyone at once.

• Gen 32:10 . .Then Jacob said: O God of my father Abraham and God of my father
Isaac, O Lord, who said to me; Return to your native land and I will deal bountifully
with you!

One can't help but admire Jacob's praying style. It's so practical-- no bombast, no
pious rhetoric, no platitudes, no rote, and no siddur --just down to business, and
right from the heart.

But what I really love most about his style is the appeal he makes to certain
promises that God made to him. Jacob came to the point in his walk of faith where
he realized that if God planned to make good on those promises, then He has to
keep Jacob alive to do it; just like Abraham reasoned that God had to raise Isaac
from the dead in order to keep the promises he made concerning him (cf. Heb
11:17-19) promises which, in reality, made Jacob just as bullet proof as they had
made Abraham and Isaac.

• Gen 32:11-13 . . I am unworthy of all the kindness that You have so steadfastly
shown Your servant: with my staff alone I crossed this Jordan, and now I have
become two camps. Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the
hand of Esau; else, I fear, he may come and strike me down, mothers and children
alike. Yet You have said; I will deal bountifully with you and make your offspring as
the sands of the sea, which are too numerous to count.

Jacob was given a promise, and he held God to it. It takes real spiritual fortitude to
do that. In court, we commonly make people take an oath to tell the truth and then
hold them to their word. And we notarize our legal documents so they become
binding and carry some weight. So why don't we do the very same thing with God?
Would He be insulted? No way! If only more people would hold God to his word like
Jacob did. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. As the writer of the book of
Hebrews said; reliance upon God's testimony provides one with encouragement,
and an anchor for the soul. (Heb 6:16-19)
_

 

[Beetow]

• Gen 32:14a . . After spending the night there,

No one knows yet just exactly where Mahanaim was located. According to a
Jordanian tourism web site, it was north of the river W. Zarqa (N. Yaboq) up in
some elevated ground a few miles east of Deir Alla. If your map doesn't show Deir
Alla; then from 'Amman Jordan look northward to the W. Zarqa river and follow it
west to its junction with the Jordan River. Deir 'Alla is about 3 or 4 miles northwest
of the point where the W. Zarqa river meets the Jordan.

• Gen 32:14b-16 . . he selected from what was at hand these presents for his
brother Esau: 200 she-goats and 20 he-goats; 200 ewes and 20 rams; 30 milch
camels with their colts; 40 cows and 10 bulls; 20 jenny donkeys and 10 jack
donkeys.

That's a total of 580 animals altogether. I don't know what each of those species
are worth on the hoof at today's prices, but all combined; it has to be a heck of a
lot of money. Especially for the camels. In Birqash Egypt, prices for camels vary
from 100 to 1,200 US dollars. Jacob sent Esau 30 females with their calves. Even in
the median price range, that's about 16,500 US dollars worth of dromedaries.

NOTE: Milch camels are the equivalent of dairy cows. Camel's milk is much more
nutritious than that from a cow. It's lower in fat and lactose, and higher in
potassium, iron and Vitamin C. It's normally drunk fresh, and the warm frothy
liquid, heavy and sweet, is usually an acquired taste for the Western palate. Most
Saudi Arabian camels are females reared for their milk in dairy herds.

• Gen 32:17-21a . .These he put in the charge of his servants, drove by drove,
and he told his servants: Go on ahead, and keep a distance between droves. He
instructed the one in front as follows: When my brother Esau meets you and asks
"Whose man are you? Where are you going? And whose [animals] are these ahead
of you?" you shall answer: Your servant Jacob's; they are a gift sent to my lord
Esau; and [Jacob] himself is right behind us.

. . . He gave similar instructions to the second one, and the third, and all the others
who followed the droves, namely: Thus and so shall you say to Esau when you
reach him. And you shall add: And your servant Jacob himself is right behind us.

Some people have proposed that Jacob's tactic was an evidence of a lack of faith in
God's providence. I don't accept that theory for one second! Here's a better way to
look at it.

Supposing you were a university student with poor grades. So one night, in
desperation, you pray and ask God to help you pass the finals. After prayers, you
go to bed with all the confidence in the world that God will somehow pack all the
information you need to pass the test into your brain cells while you're asleep. Next
day you fail the test. You know why? Duh! You didn't prepare for it.

When men praise the Lord in battle, they should also pass the ammunition; and
when a farmer prays for a good crop, he should say amen with a hoe; and when
people pray for a safe trip to grandma's house, they should put gas in the tank and
check the oil, the water, and the tires, and fasten all the seat belts.

Never pray for success without taking some initiative to make all the sensible
preparations in your power that are necessary to get it. If you do your part to the
best of your ability; the odds are in your favor that God will do His part too; i.e. if
He feels like it. Please don't ever take God for granted; that's just plain bad
manners.

• Gen 32:21b . . For he reasoned: If I propitiate him with presents in advance, and
then face him, perhaps he will show me favor. And so the gift went on ahead, while
he remained in camp that night.

The phrase "propitiate him" is from kaphar (kaw-far') which means: to cover
(specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel.
That is a very common word for atonement, and that is exactly what Jacob had in
mind: to show his brother that he wished to reconcile their differences. (cf. 1John
2:2)

• Gen 32:22 . .That same night he arose, and taking his two wives, his two
maidservants, and his eleven children, he crossed the ford of the Jabbok.

The Jabbok is in the country of Jordan and is a very loopy stream. It's path traces
out a huge fish hook beginning in the hills near Amman; then goes about 7½ miles
northeast to Az Zarqa. From there it goes about 6½ miles north to As Sukhnah,
then about 7¼ miles northwest; passing by Al Qunayyah. From there it goes sort of
west, drawing a pair of camel humps for about 10½ miles to a lake near Jarash.
From there it goes dead west for about 11 miles before turning southwest for ten
miles to its junction with the Jordan River.

I'm sure Jacob's decision was mostly a security measure. If he waited till daylight to
get his family across, Esau might show up unexpected while they were crossing and
have the camp at a disadvantage. It was to Jacob's credit that he distanced himself
from the women and children. If Esau and his men were coming for Jacob's blood,
the mothers and their children would very likely get hurt in the fracas if Jacob were
among them.

• Gen 32:23-24a . . After taking them across the stream, he sent across all his
possessions. Jacob was left alone.

After helping his family to cross over, Jacob took some help and returned to the
other side to gather up all their stuff. He stayed while they went on back over with
everything and underwent a very strange close encounter of a third kind.
_