Genesis 31:17-55

PART FORTY-TWO

THE STORY OF JACOB: HIS RETURN TO CANAAN

(Genesis 31:17 to Genesis 33:20)

1. The Covenant in Gilead: The Biblical Account (Genesis 31:17-55).

17 Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon the camels; 18 and he carried away all his cattle, and all his substance which he had gathered, the cattle of his getting, which he had gathered in Paddan-aram, to go to Isaac his father unto the land of Canaan. 19 Now Laban was gone to shear his sheep: and Rachel stole the teraphim that were her father'S. 20 And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled. 21 So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed over the River, and set his face toward the mountain of Gilead.

22 And it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob was fled. 23 And he took his brethren with him, and pursued after him seven days-' journey; and he overtook him in the mountain of Gilead. 24 And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream of the night, and said unto him, Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad. 25 And Laban came up with Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mountain: and Laban with his brethren encamped in the mountain of Gilead. 26 And Laban said to Jacob, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters as captives of the sword? 27 Wherefore didst thou flee secretly, and steal away from me, and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth and with songs, with tabret and with harp; 28 and didst not suffer me to kiss my sons and my daughters? now hast thou done foolishly. 29 It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad. 30 And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because. thou sore longest after thy father's house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods? 31 And Jacob answered and said to Laban, Because I was afraid: for I said, Lest thou shouldest take thy daughters from me by force. 32 With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, he shall not live: before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.

33 And Laban went into Jacob's tent, and into Leah's tent, and into the tent of the two maid-servants; but he found them not. And he went out of Leah's tent, and entered into Rachel's tent. 34 Now Rachel had taken the teraphim, and put them in the camel's saddle, and sat upon them. And Laban felt about all the tent, but found them not. 35 And she said to her father, Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise up before thee; for the manner of women is upon me. And he searched, but found not the teraphim.
36 And Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban: and Jacob answered and said to Laban, What is my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast hotly pursued after me? 37 Whereas thou hast felt about all my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us two. 38 These twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she-goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flocks have I not eaten. 39 That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night. 40 Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep fled from mine eyes. 41 These twenty years have I been in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy flock: and thou hast changed my wages ten times. 42 Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now hadst thou sent me away empty, God hath seen mine affliction and the labor of my hands, and rebuked thee yesternight.
43 And Laban answered and said unto Jacob, The daughters are my daughters, and the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks, and all that thou seest is mine: and what can I do this day unto these daughters, or unto their children whom they have borne? 44 And now come, let us make a covenant, I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and thee, 45 And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. 46 And Jacob said unto his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a heap: and they did eat there by the heap. 47 And Laban called it Jegar-saha-dutha: but Jacob called it Galeed. 48 And Laban said, This heap is witness between me and thee this day. Therefore was the name of it called Galeed: 49 and Mizpah, for he said, Jehovah watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another. 50 If thou shalt afflict my daughters, and if thou shalt take wives besides my daughters, no man is with us; see, God is witness betwixt me and thee. 51 And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this heap, and behold the pillar, which I have set betwixt me and thee. 52 This heap be witness, and the pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm. 53 The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge betwixt us. And Jacob sware by the Fear of his father Isaac. 54 And Jacob offered a sacrifice in the mountain, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mountain. 55 And early in the morning Laban rose up, and kissed his sons and his daughters, and blessed them: and Laban departed and returned unto his place.

(1) Flight and Pursuit (Genesis 31:17-25). It seems to have become obvious to Jacob that flight was his only way of extricating himself and his household from Laban's shiftiness. Jacob's words to his wives will be recalled here: Your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times, Genesis 31:7; that is, a round number signifying just as often as he could (Leupold, EG, 832). The daughters themselves joined in affirming their father's acts of exploitationhis efforts to fleece their husbandand even his avarice in his dealings with them (as if they were as of little concern to him as foreigners to be bought and sold at his will), Genesis 31:14-16: It was considered miserly if a father-in-law did not return to his daughter a part of the sum paid over by the husband at the time of marriage (JB, 51, n.). The point in this instance, is elucidated by tablets from Hurrian centers, is that part of the bride payment was normally reserved for the woman as her inalienable dowry. Rachel and Leah accuse their father of violating the family laws of their country. Significantly enough, the pertinent records antedate Moses by centuries (Speiser, ABG, 245). Rachel and Leah mean to say that what Jacob had acquired by his six years of service with their father was no more than would naturally have belonged to him had they obtained their portions at the first (PCG, 376). The wives were already alienated from their father and willingly espoused their husband's cause. Encouraged, in addition, by the assurance of the God of Bethel that his vow had been accepted (Genesis 28:20-22) and the accompanying Divine authorization to get out of the land where he was and return to the land of his nativity, Jacob gathered all his possessions and departed at a most opportune time, namely, when Laban was away on a sheep-shearing mission, (Sheep-shearing, we are told, was the occasion of an important festival in ancient Israel [cf, Genesis 38:12 ff., 1 Samuel 25:2 ff., 2 Samuel 13:23]). Jacob with his retinue (all he hadcf. Genesis 30:43, sheep, goats, camels, asses, maidservants, men-servants, wives, and offspring) rose up and drove away, not leisurely, but with all possible haste; flocks, of course, had to be driven carefully lest they perish from over-exertion. (Note that he set the members of his family upon camels, Genesis 31:17). Crossing the River (the Euphrates, cf. 1 Kings 4:21, Ezra 4:10; Ezra 4:16), probably at the ancient ford at Thapsacus, the procession (one might well call it that) struck across the Damascus plain, and then the plateau of Bashan, thus finally entering the region known as Gilead, the area east of the Jordan that formed the frontier between Palestine and the Syrian desert. Gilead was a mountainous region, some sixty miles long and twenty miles wide, bounded on the north by Bashan and on the south by Moab and Ammon (Genesis 31:21, Deuteronomy 3:12-17). (Cf. the cities of refuge, Deuteronomy 4:41-43, namely, Bezer in the table-land, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan). From the crossing of the Euphrates at Thapsacus, the next objective naturally had to be the mountain of Gilead or Mount Gilead.

Jacob had not been, and was not intending to be after his return, a nomad. Genesis 31:18In addition to the cattle there were other possessions of Jacob that he had acquired in Paddan-aram or Mesopotamia.. By a repetition of miqneh, cattle, this part of his possessions is reverted to as -constituting-' the major part of his -property,-' quinyano, as K.W. well translates: der Viehbesitz, der sein Vermoegen bildete. The statement is rounded out by a double statement of the objective of his journey: on the one hand, he was going back -to Isaac, his father,-' under whose authority he felt he still belonged, and -to the land of Canaan,-' which according to divine decree was ultimately destined to be the possession of his posterity. Such precise formal statements including all the major facts are wont to be made by Moses when he records a particularly momentous act. The very circumstantiality of its form makes one feel its importancea device, by the way, quite naturally employed for similar purposes to this day. Critics miss all these finer points of style, for the supposed authors that the critics imagine have wrought out parts of Genesis (E, J, P, D) are poor fellows with one-track minds, not one of whom has the least adaptability of style, but all of whom write in a stiff, stilted fashion after one pattern only (EG, 838-839).

Perhaps we should give more careful attention here, in passing, to Jacob's conversation with his wives prior to the flight, Genesis 31:7-13. This section is clarified greatly by Keil and Delitzsch as follows: From the statement that Laban had changed his wages ten times, it is evident that when Laban observed, that among his sheep and goats, of one color only, a large number of mottled young were born, he made repeated attempts to limit the original stipulation by changing the rule as to the colors of the young, and so diminishing Jacob's wages. But when Jacob passes over his own stratagem in silence, and represents all that he aimed at and secured by crafty means as the fruit of God's blessing, this differs no doubt from the account in chapter 30. It is not a contradiction, however, pointing to a difference in the sources of the two Chapter s, but merely a difference founded on actual fact, viz., that Jacob did not tell the whole truth to his wives. Moreover, self-help and divine help do not exclude one another. Hence, his account of the dream, in which he saw that the rams that leaped upon the cattle were all of various colors, and heard the voice of the angel of God calling his attention to what had been seen, in the words, -I have seen all that Laban hath done to thee,-' may contain actual truth; and the dream may be regarded as a divine revelation, which was either sent to explain to him now, at the end of the sixth year, -that it was not his stratagem, but the providence of God which had prevented him from falling a victim to Laban's avarice, and had brought him such wealth-' (Delitzsch); or, if the dream occurred at an earlier period, was meant to teach him, that -the help of God, without any such self-help, could procure him justice and safety in spite of Laban's covetousness-' (Kurtz).It is very difficult to decide between these two interpretations. As Jehovah's instructions to him to return were not given till the end of his period of service, and Jacob connects them so closely with the vision of the rams that they seem contemporaneous, Delitzsch's view appears to deserve the preference. But the participial form in Genesis 31:12, all that Laban is doing to thee-' does not exactly suit this meaning.. The participle rather favors Kurtz's view, that Jacob had the vision of the rams and the explanation from the angel at the beginning of the last six years of service, but that in his communication to his wives, in which there was no necessity to preserve a strict continuity or distinction of time, he connected it with the divine instructions to return to his home, which he received at the end of his time of service. But if we decide in favor of this view, we have no further guarantee for the objective reality of the vision of the rams, since nothing is said about it in the historical account, and it is nowhere stated that the wealth obtained by Jacob's craftiness was the result of the divine blessing. The attempt so unmistakably apparent in Jacob's whole conversation with his wives, to place his dealings with Laban in the most favorable light for himself, excites the suspicion, that the vision of which he spoke was nothing more than a natural dream, the materials being supplied by the three thoughts that were most frequently in his mind, by night as well as by day, viz., (1) his own schemes and their success; (2) the promise received at Bethel; (3) the wish to justify his actions to his own conscience; and that these were wrought up by an excited imagination into a visionary dream, of the divine origin of which Jacob himself may not have had the slightest doubt (BCOTP, 295, 296).

We pause to say here, that Jacob did outwit Laban. Moreover, it is expressly emphasized that he outwitted Laban the Syrian (Hebrew, Aramean: Genesis 31:20; Genesis 31:24). We are compelled to wonder whether this specific designation is designed to point up the fact of Laban's ingrained trickery, an art which he practised on Jacob at every turn. History seems to show that from most ancient times to the present the Syrians were, and are, the prime trouble-makers in the Near East. Bowie rightly suggests that the chronicler must have set down this account with a very human and perhaps unregenerate pleasure. Here was Jacob, the progenitor of Israel, outsmarting the uncovenanted Laban. From a natural point of view that seemed eminently appropriate. More than once Laban had deliberately cheated Jacob. He had promised him Rachel to wife, and after Jacob had served seven years for her he withheld Rachel and gave him Leah instead. According to Jacob, Laban had also changed his wages ten times (Genesis 31:7). Jacob had good reason therefore to be suspicious when Laban tried to persuade him to stay and work for him further (Genesis 31:27), and all the more so when Laban had added unctuously, for I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake. Anybody would have said that if Laban could now be cheated in his turn, it would be what he thoroughly deserved. As a matter of fact, Jacob does not cheat him. He carries through exactly the terms of an agreement which he had proposed to Laban, and which Laban explicitly accepted. He was not false like Laban: he was more inventive and adroit. When he had proposed to Laban that all he asked in the way of wages was that little fraction of the flock which might be odd in color, that seemed to Laban a highly desirable bargain, especially since he, Laban, took the opportunity then and there to remove from the flock all the sheep and goats that might breed the type that would belong to Jacob, The trouble was that he did not foresee the extraordinary device by which Jacob would be able to make the flock breed according to his interesta device not ruled out by the bargain. So by every secular standard Jacob was entitled to his triumph. However, Dr. Bowie goes on to say, the interest of the story lies in the fact that the narrator was not judging by secular standards, He believed that Jacob's triumph was directly linked to his religion, He describes Jacob as saying to Rachel and Leah, -God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me-' (Genesis 31:9). Moreover, an angel appears to Jacob and gives him God's message thus: -I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God of Bethel. where thou vowedst a vow unto me-' (Genesis 31:12-13). In other words, Jacob's clever stratagem and the success it brought him are the result of the commitment which he believed God had given to him at Bethel to make him prosperous. A curious blending of the earthy and the heavenlya blending which one must recognize to exist in part of the O.T. and in influences which have flowed from it! The people of Israel were convinced that there is an intimate relationship between favor with heaven and material well-being in this world. The positive aspect of that was to give powerful sanction to keen-wittedness and commercial sagacity, so that the Jew in many practical matters has exhibited an intelligence greater than that of his non-Jewish rival. As with Jacob in his contest with Laban, he can show that he deserves to win. The negative aspect is of course the implication that prosperity ought to be the concomitant of religion. That is not confined to Judaism: John Calvin, who was greatly influenced by the O.T., tended to make it appear that the Christian citizen, sturdy and reliant, would be more evidently a man of God if he was a success in business. It is true that there are qualities inspired by religionintegrity, diligence, faithfulness in familiar dutieswhich may bring this world's goods as their result. But to look toward these as a necessary reward of religion is to dishonor the love of God, which must be sought for itself, by trying to make it an instrument of our selfishness. It is not in Jacob's outwitting Laban that we see the true end of worship, It is rather in Jesus, who, -though he was rich, yet for your sakes. became poor-' (2 Corinthians 8:9) (IBG, 707-710). (We must agree wholeheartedly with this expositor's thesis that an abundance of material goods is not a necessary reward of religion, least of all of the Christian religion. We know of no Scriptures, either in the Old Testament or in the New, that would ascribe either unusual material wealth or poverty to God's special providence, i.e., outside the general operation of economic cause-and-effect relationships, and these in relation to individual human character and effort. The divine ordinance that man shall earn his livelihood by honest labor, mental or physical or both (Genesis 3:19) has never been rescinded. Why, then, ascribe the notion of this correlation of material goods with religious commitment to the chronicler's attitude in the case before us, when as a matter of fact the whole affair is presented as a series of Jacob's own assumptions (or presumptions). As a matter of fact, all that is implicit in the account given in ch. Genesis 28:20-22, in the matter of material possessions, is simply bread to eat and raiment to put on. These simple needs of everyday life are certainly a far cry from the contest waged between Jacob and Laban for this world's goods. Cf. John 5:40; John 10:10; Matthew 6:19-34; Luke 8:14; Luke 18:24; Mark 14:7; John 16:33; Colossians 3:5; 1 Timothy 6:10; James 5:1-6, etc.).

The following evaluation of Jacob's conduct seems to be unbiased and just: The deceit which Jacob practiced on Esau was returned to him by Laban, who practiced the same kind of deceit, For all of that, however, Jacob was under the covenant care of God and did not come out a loser in the end. Yet in later years Jacob's own sons practiced on him a similar form of deceit in connection with Joseph's abduction (Genesis 37:32-36) (HSB, 48, n.).

(2) The Teraphim (Genesis 31:19).

Jacob's flight with all his substance occurred at a time when the important task of sheep-shearing was engrossing Laban's attention. This means that the latter was at some distance from Jacob's flocks (Genesis 30:36), and since all hands would be kept quite busy for a few days, no time could have been more opportune. Moreover, because her father was away from home, Rachel had a chance to carry out a special project of her own: she stole the teraphim that were her father'S. Evidently these were her household gods. The plural may be a plural of excellence after the pattern of the name Elohim, and so only one image may have been involved. Whether these were larger, almost man-sized as 1 Samuel 19:13; 1 Samuel 19:16 seems to suggest, or actually were only the small figurines yielded by excavations in Palestine matters little, as both types may have been in use. Apparently they were regarded as promoting domestic prosperity, and thus were a kind of gods of the hearth like the Roman Penates, The teraphim was a god (Genesis 31:30); its form and size were those of a man (1 Samuel 19:13; 1 Samuel 19:16); it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Judges 17:5; Judges 18:14 ff., Hosea 3:4), and was an implement of divination (Ezek. 2:21, Zechariah 10:2). The indications point to its being an emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the nation (Genesis 35:2, 1 Samuel 15:23, 2 Kings 23:24). It seems implied by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the Arameans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the separation of Hebrews and Arameans (ICCG, 396). These were household gods, idols of clay or metal (HSB, 51, n.). It will be noted that in the narrative before us, Laban calls these objects gods; when Jacob does the same, he is probably only quoting Laban, Genesis 31:30; Genesis 31:32). The teraphim were the family or household gods represented in the form of idols. They varied in size. Those of Laban were small enough to be put in the pack-saddle of a camel upon which Rachel sat. 1 Samuel 19:13 speaks of such an image in the house of David, approximately of human size and shape. In ancient Israel the use of the teraphim seems to have been common, and not at all inconsistent with the pure worship of Israel's God: Judg. ch. 17, Genesis 18:14; Genesis 18:17-18; Genesis 18:20; 1 Samuel 19:13; Hosea 3:4 (Morganstern, JIBG, in loco). It seems hardly fair to assume that the Israelites carelessly carried these household divinities over from the time of these early Mesopotamian contacts and continued to use them almost uninterruptedly. When Michal happens to have such a figure handy (1 Samuel 19), that is not as yet proof that from Rachel's day to Michal's Israel had quite carelessly tolerated them. We should rather say that whenever Israel lapsed into idolatry, especially in Canaan, then the backsliders would also adapt themselves to the teraphim cult. Hosea 3:4 by no means lists them as legitimate objects of worship (EG, 840).

Of greater significance to us, however, is the question, Why did Rachel steal this teraphim? To be rejected are such conjectures as merely to play her father a prank; or to take them for their intrinsic worth, supposing that they were gold or silver figurines; or to employ a drastic or almost fanatical mode of seeking to break her father's idolatryviews current among Jewish commentators and early church fathers and to some extent to this day. More nearly correct might seem to be the opinion which suggests that she aimed to deprive her father of the blessings which might have been conferred by them, Most reasonable of all, though it does not exclude the last-mentioned view, is the supposition that Rachel took them along for her own use, being herself somewhat given to superstitious or idolatrous practices. For though Genesis 30:23-24 suggest a measure of faith and of knowledge of the true God, even as Jehovah, yet it would seem that as a true daughter of her father she had been addicted to his religion and now had a kind of divided allegiance, trusting in Jehovah and not wanting to be deprived of the good luck teraphim might confer. In any case, since she took what did not belong to her, she is guilty of theftshe -stole-' (EG, 840). The rabbis sought to excuse Rachel's theft by saying she took the teraphim because she feared they might disclose Jacob's whereabouts to Laban. Actually, the story gives no motive for her theft, unless it be that suggested, in the lesson, to prove the superiority of Jacob's God over the gods of Laban. For this reason probably the story told with considerable gusto not only that Rachel stole these gods, which were powerless to defend themselves, but also that she subjected them to greater indignity by sitting on them (Genesis 31:34). Use of teraphim became regarded as inconsistent with the pure worship of God and was prohibited: 2 Kings 23:24; cf. 1 Samuel 15:23 (Morganstern, ibid.). They were used for divination; hence she stole them that they should not reveal to Laban that Jacob had fled [Rashbam]. They were idols, and she stole them in order to keep Laban from idolatry [Rashi]. E [Abraham Ibn Ezra] inclines to the former reason, for if the latter were her purpose, she should have hidden them and not taken them with her. As for the teraphim, E mentions two views: that it was a kind of clock, or an image which was so made that at certain times it spoke. His own opinion is that it was a kind of dummy which could be mistaken for a human being, the proof being that Michal deceived David's pursuers by putting teraphim in the bed, which they mistook for David (1 Samuel 19:13 ff.). N [Nachmanides] also quotes the story of Michal, from which he deduced that not all teraphim were worshipped as idols, for in that case David would certainly not have possessed them. He conjectures that it was an object used to foretell the future (apparently a kind of fortune-telling clock). Men of little faith therefore worshipped it as an idol (SC, 182). Probably it is true. that the main purpose for the mention of the images is to disparage Laban for the superstitious value he put on them, and by contrast to indicate that Jacob was superior to such things. In that case, Rachel's sitting upon them would be only another stroke in the picture of the idols-' degradation. But there is another road on which imagination travels. Suppose that Rachel sat upon the images not to make her father's search for them ridiculous, but because she craved to keep them for herself. Then that might be taken as evidence simply of pathetic superstition on her part; but it is possible to see in it something more than that. Suppose that on her way to an unfamiliar country and to a strange new relationship, Rachel wanted to carry with her what had been significant at home. That can be a wholesome human instinct. None of us is isolated and self-sufficient. The meaning of life is bound up with the complex of associations of the family or the group. If these are altogether left behind, the human being will be lonely and lost (IBG, 713).

Lange: Literally, Teraphim, Penates, small figures, probably resembling the human form, which were honored as guardians of the household property, and as oracles. But as we must distinguish the symbolic adoration of religious images (statuettes) among ancients, from the true and proper mythological worship, so we must distinguish between a gentler and severe censure of the use of such images upon Shemitic ground. Doubtless the symbolic usage prevailed in the house of Laban and Nahor. It is hardly probable that Rachel intended, by a pious and fanatical theft, to free her father from idolatry (Gregory Nazianzen, Basil), for then she would have thrown the images away, She appears to have stolen them with the superstitious idea that she would prevent her father from consulting them as oracles, and under their guidance, as the pursuer of Jacob, from overtaking him and destroying him (Ibn Ezra). The supposition of a condition of war, with its necessity and strategy, enters here with apologetic force. This, however, does not exclude the idea, that she attributed to the images a certain magical, though not religious, power (perhaps, as oracles. Chrysostom). The very lowest and most degrading supposition, is that she took the images, often overlaid with silver, or precious metals, from mercenary motives (Peirerius). Jacob himself had at first a lax rather than a strict conscience in regard to these images (see ch. Genesis 35:2), but the stricter view prevails since the time of Moses (Exodus 20, Joshua 24:2; Joshua 24:14 f.) The derivation of the Hebrew word teraphim, always used in the plural, is doubtful. Some derive it from taraph, to rejoicethus dispensers of good; others, from a like root, to inquirethus they are oracles; and others, like Kurtz and Hofmann, make it another form of Seraphim. They were regarded and used as oracles (Judges 17:5-6, Ezekiel 21:21, Zechariah 10:2). They were not idols in the worst sense of the word, and were sometimes used by those who professed the worship of the true god (1 Samuel 19:13). The tendency was always hurtful, and they were ultimately rooted out from Israel. Laban had lapsed into a more corrupt form of religion, and his daughters had not escaped the infection. We may modify our views of Rachel's sin, but it cannot be excused or justified (CDHCG, 542). With the last statement in the foregoing we must agree. However, Rachel's theft of Laban's teraphim (which undoubtedly were figurines or images in human form) is much better understood today, in the light of the documents from Nuzi, not far from modern Kirkuk, excavated 1925-1934. In Hebrew teraphim, small domestic idols; possession of these could constitute a claim to inheritance (JB, 51, n.). The teraphim, which Rachel successfully hid while Laban searched all of Jacob's possessions, may have had more legal than religious significance for Laban. According to Nuzu law, a son-in-law who possessed the household idols might claim the family inheritance in court. Thus Rachel was trying to obtain some advantage for her husband by stealing the idols. But Laban nullified any such benefit by a covenant with Jacob before they separated (Schultz, OTS, 36). Then Rachel did an extraordinary thing without Jacob's knowledge. She stole the -teraphim,-' Laban's family gods, or household idols. The custom was that Laban's true son would share inheritance, and receive the teraphim, symbol of his rights. Only if there were no son would Jacob possess them. Rachel's act was therefore designed to secure an advantage for her husband and children. It is not likely in this case that the teraphim conveyed ownership of valuable property as Rachel was leaving the territory of her father. They may have betokened clan-leadership in the -land of the people of the east,-' or spiritual power, so that possessing them was of paramount importance (Cornfeld, AtD, 87). Genesis 31:19Rachel stole the teraphim. Appropriated, also Genesis 31:32. Heb. stem gnb, which usually means -to steal.-' But it also has other shadings in idiomatic usage. Thus the very next clause employs the same verb, no doubt deliberately and with telling effect, in the phrase -lulling the mind,-' i.e., stealing the heart; the phrase is repeated in 26; in 27, with Laban speaking, the verb is used by itself in the sense of -to dupe.-' Finally, in Genesis 31:29, the passive participle occurs (twice) to designate animals snatched by wild beasts. The range of gnb is thus much broader, in Heb. in general, and in the present narrative in particular, than our -to steal-' would indicate. A reasonably precise translation is especially important in this instance, The issue is bound up with the purpose of Rachel's act. If it was inspired by no more than a whim, or resentment, or greed, then Rachel stole the images. But if she meant thereby to undo what she regarded as a wrong, and thus took the law, as she saw it, into her own hands, the translation -stole-' would be not only inadequate but misleading. On the other hand, when Laban refers to the same act further down (Genesis 31:30), he clearly meant -steal-' (Speiser, ABG, 245).

Whitelaw summarizes fully, as follows: The teraphim, from an unused root, taraph, signifying to live comfortably, like the Sanscrit trip, Greek trephein, Arabic tarafa (Gesenius, Furst) appear to have been small human figures (cf. Genesis 31:34), though the image in 1 Samuel 19:13 must have been nearly life-sized, or a full-sized bust, sometimes made of silver (Judges 17:4), though commonly constructed of wood (1 Samuel 19:13-16); they were worshipped as gods (eidola, LXX; idola, Vulgate, cf. ch. Genesis 31:30), consulted for oracles (Ezekiel 21:21, Zechariah 10:2), and believed to be the custodians and promoters of human happiness (Judges 18:24). Probably derived from the Arameans (Furst, Kurtz), or the Chaldeans (Ezekiel 21:21, Kalisch, Wordsworth), the worship of teraphim was subsequently denounced as idolatrous (1 Samuel 15:23, 2 Kings 13:24). (Compare Rachel's act with that ascribed to Aeneas, in Virgil, Aeneid, III, 148-150). Rachel's motive for abstracting her father's teraphim has been variously attributed to a desire to prevent her father from discovering, by inquiring at his gods, the direction of their flight (Aben Ezra, Rosenmuller), to protect herself, in case of being overtaken, by an appeal to her father's gods (Josephus), to draw her father from the practice of idolatry (Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Theodoret), to obtain children for herself through their assistance (Lengerke, Gerlach), to preserve a memorial of her ancestors, whose pictures these teraphim were (Lightfoot); but was probably due to avarice, if the images were made of precious metals (Peirerius), or to a taint of superstition which still adhered to her otherwise religious nature (Chrysostom, Calvin), causing her to look to these idols for protection (Kalisch, Murphy) or consultation (Wordsworth) on her journey (PCG, 376).

We have presented these various theories as to the nature of the teraphim and Rachel's motives in stealing them to show how great is the scope of speculation on these subjects. We terminate this study with what we consider to be the sanest and most thoroughgoing presentation of it, as follows: The teraphim were figurines or images in human form. Rachel's theft of Laban's teraphim (Genesis 31:34) is much better understood in the light of the documents from Nuzu, not far from modern Kirkuk, excavated 1925-1934. The possession of these household gods apparently implied leadership of the family and, in the case of a married daughter, assured her husband the right to the property of her father. Since Laban evidently had sons of his own when Jacob left for Canaan, they alone had the right to their father's gods, and the theft of these household idols by Rachel was a serious offense (Genesis 31:19; Genesis 31:31; Genesis 31:35) aimed at preserving for her husband the first title to her father's estate. Albright construes the teraphim as meaning -vile things,-' but the images were not necessarily cultic or lewd, as frequently the depictions of Astarte were. Micah's teraphim (Judges 17:5) were used for purposes of securing an oracle (cf. 1 Samuel 15:23, Hosea 3:4; Zechariah 10:2). Babylonian kings oracularly consulted the teraphim (Ezekiel 21:21). Josiah abolished the teraphim (2 Kings 23:24), but these images had a strange hold on the Hebrew people even until after the Exilic. Period (Unger, UBD, 1085). The present writer finds it difficult to disassociate these objects from some aspect of the Cult of Fertilitythe worship of the Earth-mother and the Sun-fatherwhich was so widespread throughout the ancient pagan world; cf. the Apostle's description, Romans 1:18-32. Every phase of this Cult of Fertility reeked with sex perversions of every kind, including ritual prostitution and phallic worship: remains of this cult have been brought to light in recent years by the discovery of hundreds of figurines of pregnant women throughout the Mediterranean world. Crete seems to have been the center from which this cult became diffused throughout the ancient world. The Children of Israel had to battle this cult from the time of their origin as a people, and apparently were always influenced to it by some extent: cf. the moral struggle of the prophet Elijah with the wicked queen Jezebel. It is our conviction that Rachel appropriated these (surely more likely than this) teraphim with the intention of using them for whatever ends they were supposed by her paternal household to serve. That the legal aspect, as indicated by the Nuzi records, could have been a very important part of her objective seems to be both historical and reasonable. However, we cannot get away from the basic conviction that Rachel was imbued with the spirit of paganism which seems to have characterized her people generally. Even Jacob himself and his people were not immunized against this cultism (cf. Genesis 35:2-4; Joshua 24:2; Joshua 24:14 f.; Judges 10:16). Again quoting Lange: Laban had lapsed into a more corrupt form of religion, and his daughters had not escaped the infection. We may modify our views of Rachel's sin, but it cannot be excused or justified.

(3) Laban the Syrian (Genesis 31:24), in Hebrew, Aramean. The Arameans were an important branch of the Semitic race, and closely akin to the Israelites. The kingdom of Damascus or Syria, during the ninth and eighth centuries B.C., the most powerful and dangerous rival of the northern kingdom of Israel, was the leading Aramean state. The language of the Aramean tribes and states consisted of several closely related dialects. After the Exile, Aramean gradually supplanted Hebrew as the vernacular of the Jewish people. Certain portions of the Bible (Jeremiah 10:11, Daniel 2:4 to Daniel 7:28, Ezra 4:8 to Ezra 6:18, Ezra 7:12-26) are written in Aramaic, as are considerable portions of rabbinic literature (Morganstern, JIBG). (Our Lord Himself spoke Galilean Aramaic, cf. Matthew 27:46). The progenitor of the Aramean peoples was Aram, the son of Shem (Genesis 10:22-23). These peoples spread widely through Syria and Mesopotamia from the Lebanon Mountains on the west to the Euphrates River on the east, and from the Taurus Range on the north to Damascus and northern Palestine on the south. Contacts of the Arameans with the Hebrews began in the patriarchal age, if not earlier (cf. Paddan-aram, the plain of Aram, Genesis 24:10; Genesis 28:5; Genesis 31:47). The maternal ancestry of Jacob's children was Aramaic (Deuteronomy 26:5). During the long period of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, that of the wanderings in the Sinaitic Wilderness, and the extended period of the Judges in Canaan, the Arameans were spreading in every direction, particularly southward. By the time of the reign of Saul (c. 1000 B.C.), this expansion was beginning to clash with Israelite strength and several Aramaic districts appear prominently in the Old Testament Scriptures. (See UBG, s.v. Aram, Aramaic). The Greeks called Aram, Syria; consequently the language is called Syriac (Daniel 2:4). David conquered these Aramean kingdoms at his very back door and incorporated them into his kingdom, thus laying the foundation of Solomon's empire. (Aram-Naharaim, Aram of the Two Rivers, was the name by which the territory around Haran was known; the region where the Arameans had settled in patriarchal times, where Abraham sojourned for a time, and from which Aramean power spread. Aram-Damascus was a south Syrian state which became the inveterate foe of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for more than a century and a half (1 Kings 11:23-25). Aram-Zobah, a powerful kingdom which flourished north of Hamath, was conquered by David and incorporated into his realm (2 Sam., ch. 8). Aram-Maachah was a principality east of the Jordan near Mount Hermon (Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:11). Aram-Beth-Rehob in the general vicinity of Geshur, probably near Maacah and Dan (Numbers 13:21, Judges 18:28). Geshur was a small principality east of the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee (Deuteronomy 3:14, 2 Samuel 15:8; 2 Samuel 13:37). Tob was also a small Aramaic principality east of the Jordan, some ten miles south of Gadara, (the region from which the Ammonite king drew soldiers to war against David. A battle ensued in which the Syrians were routed (2 Samuel 10:8-19). Genesis 31:20; Genesis 31:24Laban the Aramean: The reason for this apposition is puzzling. It hardly grows out of the Hebrew national consciousness which here proudly asserts itself. Perhaps the opinion advanced by Clericus still deserves most consideration. He believes Laban's nationality is mentioned because the Syrians were known from of old as the trickiest people; here one of this people in a kind of just retribution meets one trickier than himself. Yet this is not written to glorify trickery (EG, 841).

Three days after Jacob's flight, the news of it reached Laban, who was already three days removed from Jacob and his retinue at the time the latter set out on his journey homeward. Laban set out after himpursued after him seven days-' journey (Genesis 31:23) and overtook him in the mountain of Gilead. Skinner contends that the distance of Gilead from Harran (c. 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be traversed in that time (ICCG, 397). Speiser writes: -a distance of seven days.-' This is meant as a general figure indicating a distance of considerable length: cf. 2 Kings 3:9. Actually, Gilead could scarcely have been reached from Har (r) an in seven days, especially at the pace of Jacob's livestock (ABG, 246). Leupold suggests as follows: Some have computed that the distance involved is about 350 miles as the crow flies. This need not necessarily be assumed. We have accurate maps that represent it to be no more than about 275 miles to the fringes of Mount Gilead. Besides, in shifting his grazing ground Jacob may have so arranged things before he took his flight in hand as to gravitate some three day's journey to the south of Harancertainly not an impose sibility. If only fifteen miles constituted an average day's journey, the total distance would be cut down to almost 200 miles. Now, certainly, Jacob will have pressed on faster than the average day's journey, perhaps at the cost of the loss of a bit of cattle. The cooler part of the day and portions of the night may have been utilized in order to spare the cattle. Then, too, the boundaries of Gilead may originally have extended nearer to Damascus.. K.C. (Koenig's Commentary on Genesis) shows that -Gilead-' is used for the country east of the Jordan in general (EG, 843). We see no valid reason for the assumption that the distance specified was too great to fit the time period specified. The following quotes seem to make this clear. -It was told Laban on the third day,-' etc., i.e., the third after Jacob's departure, the distance between the two sheep-stations being a three days-' journey, cf. Genesis 30:36.. The distance between Padan-aram and mount Gilead was a little over 300 miles, to perform which Jacob must at least have taken ten days, though Laban, who was less encumbered than his son-in-law, accomplished it in seven, which might easily be done by traveling from forty to forty-five miles a day, by no means a great feat for a camel (PCG, 379). The following seems to clarify the situation beyond any reasonable doubt: A three days-' distance separated them in the first place, and another three days were required for a messenger to go and inform Laban. At the time of the messenger's arrival Jacob was six days-' journey distant. Since Laban caught up with him on the next day, he covered in one day what took Jacob seven days (Rashi). Sh (Rashbam) points out that this was natural since Jacob would be traveling slowly on account of the flocks (SC, 182). Murphy suggests the following explanation: On the third day after the arrival of the messenger, Laban might return to the spot whence Jacob had taken his flight. In this case, Jacob would have at least five days of a start; which, added to the seven days of pursuit, would give him twelve days to travel three hundred English miles. To those accustomed to the pastoral life this was a possible achievement (MG, 406). Lange writes: As Jacob, with his herds, moved slower than Laban, he lost his start of three days in the course of seven days (CDHCG, 542). At any rate, no sooner did the information reach Laban that Jacob had fled than he set out in pursuit, and, being unencumbered, he advanced rapidly; whereas Jacob, with a young family and numerous flocks, had to move rather slowly, so that Laban overtook the fugitives after seven days-' journey, as they lay encamped on brow of mount Gilead, an extensive range of mountains that formed the eastern boundary of Canaan. The mountains constituting the northern portion of the land of Gilead, which lay between the Yarmuk on the north and the Arnon on the south, was divided at about one-third of the distance by the deep valley of the Jabbok, which cleaves the mountains to their base. This territory, in its whole length, is often spoken of as the land of Gilead, but rarely as Mount Gilead. The portions north and south of the Jabbok are each spoken of as half Gilead (Joshua 12:2; Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:31; Deuteronomy 3:12). Evidently is was in this mount Gilead that Laban overtook Jacob.

(4) The Altercation, (Genesis 31:26-42). Laban evidently reached the mount of Gilead toward the end of the seventh day, and seeing Jacob's tents not too far away, he lodged over night where he had halted. It was during the night that Laban had the dream, Genesis 31:29. Evidently the idea suggested is that Jacob and Laban were encamped, each on a different foothill. In the case of Laban the specific statement that it was -Mount Gilead-' where the tents were pitched makes it entirely plain that both had pitched on the same mountain though over against one another. The critical correction, which tries to put Jacob on Mount Mizpah, grows out of the desire to prove that two threads of narrative intertwine. Critics are continually, though often unwittingly, -doctoring up-' the evidence (EG, 844). When the two men came face to face the next morning, Laban, blustering and simulating righteous indignation, demands to know way Jacob has so deceived him, trying to present the latter's action in the most unfavorable light. Laban is as much aware of the extent of his exaggeration as are all others who hear him. At the same time he himself knows best why Jacob fled secretly and without announcement (EG, 845). Laban claims that he could do Jacob hurt, when he knows he has no intention of doing so after having received a direct warning from God against that very thing. He is merely boasting. Being accompanied by a number of his people, Laban might have used violence, had he not been Divinely warned in a dream to give no interruption to his nephew's journey. Josephus says that he reached the neighborhood of mount Gilead -at eventide.-' And having resolved not to disturb Jacob's encampment till the morning, it was during the intervening night that he had the warning dream, in which God told him, that if he (Laban) despised their small number, and attacked them in a hostile manner, He would Himself assist them (Antiquities, I, 19, 10). How striking and sudden a change! For several days he had been full of rage, and was now in eager anticipation that his vengeance would be fully wreaked, when lo! his hands are tied by invisible power (Psalms 76:10). He dared not touch Jacob, but there was a war of words (CECG, 210). God's warning had been explicit: he was to speak to Jacob neither good or bad, that is, nothing at all (JB), not pass from peaceful greetings to acrimonious (Lange), not say anything acrimonious or violent against Jacob (Murphy). Or, perhaps the expression was simply a proverbial phrase for opposition or interference of any kind (Kalisch). At any rate, Laban plays the role of an outraged parent and grandparent. Smooth hypocrite that he is, he offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike demonstration, that is, his slighted affection for his offspring and his desire to honor a parting guest (Skinner). Incidentally, this manner of speeding a parting guest (i.e., with mirth, songs, tabret, and harp) is not mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament; in New Testament terms it would be designated revelings (Galatians 5:21). Laban's recriminations are threefold: the secret flight, the carrying off of his daughters, and the theft of his gods. Obviously, the last-named charge was a very serious matter to Laban; hence it led to the chief scene of the altercation. We cannot avoid the impression that he was far more concerned about his gods than about the welfare of his daughters. The meaning is this: even if thy secret departure can be explained, the stealing of my gods cannot. To Laban's hypocritical approach, Jacob replied with bluntness, specifying the hardships of his twenty years-' service and the attempts to defraud him of his hire. Knowing nothing of Rachel's theft of the teraphim, Jacob proved to be so sure of the innocence of his household that he offered to give up the culprit to death if the theft could be proved. (As we have noted heretofore, for Laban these gods had more legal than religious import: according to Nuzi law, a son-in-law who possessed the household idols might claim the family inheritance in court. Laban intended to have nothing of that kind to happen.) Jacob admitted bluntly that he had resorted to flight because he feared that his father-in-law would take the daughters away from him by force. Whereupon, Laban, with Jacob's permission, proceeded to search the tents of his son-in-law, his two daughters, and the two maid-servants. He searched Rachel's tent last. Rachel, too, resorted to a stratagem: she had taken the teraphim and concealed them in the camel's litter (pack-saddle), on which she apparently was resting within her tent. When her father entered, she apologized for not rising, pleading the manner of women that was upon her, which made her ceremonially unclean (cf. Leviticus 15:19-23). Of course Laban's search was all in vain. Since Jacob's cause was just and since he had just been charged with theft, Jacob feels the necessity of answering the last question or charge. He is so sure that no one would have been guilty of such a deed that he boldly asserts that the thief shall die, should he be found. Such a punishment for such a crime may have been suggested by the prevalent attitude of the times reflected in the Code of Hammurabia few centuries old by this timethat they who stole the property of a god (or temple) should die. Yet, though in himself entirely certain of his ground, Jacob ought never to have made such an assertion. Seemingly Jacob feels this, for as he invites the search, he merely asks Laban to take whatever he thinks Jacob or his retinue have taken wrongfully; he does not again threaten the death of the idol thief. That nothing be covered up Jacob asks that the search be made -in the presence of our kinsmen.-' Finally the necessary explanation that Jacob had never for a moment thought Rachel capable of such a deed (EG, 848). Laban then proceeded to search Jacob's tent, and Leah'S, and the tent of the two maid-servants, but he did not find the teraphim. Again: The two maid-servants are inserted parenthetically for completeness-' sake. Separate tents for the husband and the wives and the handmaidens apparently were the rule in those days. Disregarding the parenthesis, the writer goes on, working up to the climax of the search: he (Laban) came out of Leah's tent and entered into Rachel'S. Rachel is a match for her father in craftiness. She has taken the teraphim and put them into the -camel's litter,-' a capacious saddle with wicker basket attachments on either side. Some describe it as a palanquin. Apparently it was so constructed that even when it was removed from the camel it offered a convenient seat for travelers. Laban feels over everything in the tent, The litter is all that remains. Had Rachel raised her protestation or excuse before this time she would have aroused suspicion. By waiting to the last critical moment she diverts attention from the fact that she might be sitting upon the teraphim. For who would care to trouble a menstruating woman suffering pain? Because, it may have actually been true what she was asserting. Nothing appears here of the taboo that some tribes and races associated with women in this condition, taboos which temporarily rendered such women untouchable. So Jacob appeared satisfied, for a painstaking search revealed no theft. We may well wonder what he would have done if Rachel's theft had come to light (EG, 848). Jamieson disagrees to some extent: Tents are of two descriptionsthe family tent and the single tent. With the patriarchs the latter seem to have been the kind used (see Genesis 18:9-10), especially in traveling, as recommended by its convenience, and formed in the manner described in the passage just referred to. The patriarch had the principal tent, and each of his wives, even the married handmaids and concubines, had their separate tents also. A personal scrutiny was made by Laban, who examined every tent; and having entered Rachel's last, would have infallibly discovered the stolen images, had not Rachel made an appeal to him which prevented further search.. She availed herself of a notion which seems to have obtained in patriarchal times, and which was afterwards enacted in the Mosaic Code as a law, that a woman in the alleged circumstances was unclean, and communicated a taint to everything with which she came into contact. It was a mere pretext, however, on the part of Rachel, to avoid the further researches of her father (CECG, 211). The fact that Laban passed over Rachel's seat because of her pretended condition, does not presuppose the Levitical law in Leviticus 15:9 ff., according to which, any one who touched the couch or seat of such a woman was rendered unclean. For, in the first place, the view which lies at the foundation of this law was much older than the laws of Moses, and is; met with among many other nations; consequently Laban might refrain from making further examinations, less from fear of defilement, than because he regarded it as impossible that any one with the custom of women upon her should sit upon his gods (BCOTP, 298. To Jacob, undoubtedly, this minute search of Rachel's tent was the crowning indignity. (It should be noted, in passing that Rachel, by covering her theft by subtlety and untruth, Genesis 31:35, proved herself a true daughter of Laban, and showed with how much imperfection her religious character was tainted. I cannot rise up before thee; although Oriental politeness required children to rise up in the presence of their parents (cf. Leviticus 19:32, 1 Kings 2:19), in this case the apology was unnecessary: the plea of the manner of women (Genesis 18:11) made her ceremonially unclean, and indeed separate (or untouchable, Leviticus 15:19). Some hold that this was a mere pretext on Rachel's part to prevent further searching by her father: she was indeed a match for her father in craftiness.)

Jacob's pent-up emotions for years now breaks forth boldly and bluntly with mounting wrath. He challenges Laban to set forth before all their kinsmen whatsoever of his own he may have found in the course of his search. The kinsmen could serve as arbiters to render a fair public verdict in the presence of representatives of both parties to the altercation. This challenge must have embarrassed even thick-skinned old Laban. Although he [Jacob] had given Laban permission to make the search, it was because he thought that one of the servants might have stolen the teraphim. Now that they were not found, he suspected that the story of the theft was merely a pretext to enable him to make a general search (SC, 184), Jacob pours out his own recriminations: (1) the hardships of his twenty years-' service, and (2) the attempts to defraud him of his hire. All the submerged suffering and frustration for twenty years now comes to the surface. First of all he was deceived about Leah and Rachel. He had not been in the home of his uncle Laban a month before he was put to work (Genesis 29:15). His industriousness had been unfaltering. His wages had been changed ten times, and we may be sure they were not raised each time. Jacob's twenty years with Laban had taught him that God's man cannot live by cleverness. The children of this world are. wiser than the children of light (Luke 16:8). Note especially Genesis 31:38-39: A custom of the East provided that as long as the shepherd could lay before the owner the torn beast, that was accounted sufficient evidence that the shepherd had driven off the predatory animal. But Jacob was accorded no such consideration: he was held accountable. The particular law in the Code of Hammurabi (par. 266) reads: If there occurs in the fold an act of god, or a lion takes a life, the shepherd shall clear himself before the deity; the owner of the fold must then accept the loss incurred. Thus Laban is accused of disregarding the explicit legal provisions for such contingencies: cf. Exodus 22:13 (ABG, 247). That which was torn of wild beasts through my neglect I made good of my own accord; but even where I could not be held responsible, you still demanded restitution (SC, 185). Genesis 31:40It is well known that in the East the cold by night corresponds to the heat by day: the hotter the day, the colder the night, as a rule. Genesis 31:42: By the warning given to Laban, God pronounced sentence upon the matter between Jacob and Laban, condemning the course which Laban had pursued, and still intended to pursue, towards Jacob; but not on that account sanctioning all that Jacob had done to increase his own possessions, still less confirming Jacob's assertion that the vision mentioned by Jacob (Genesis 31:11-12) was a revelation from God. But as Jacob had only met cunning with cunning, deceit with deceit, Laban had no right to punish him for what he had done. Some excuse may be found for Jacob's conduct in the heartless treatment he received from Laban, but the fact that God defended him from Laban's revenge did not prove it to be right. He had not acted upon the rule laid down in Proverbs 20:22: cf. Romans 12:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:15 (BCOTP, 299). The Fear of Isaac: that is, the deity feared and worshiped by Isaac (Skinner); the Awesome One of Isaac (Speiser; cf. Genesis 28:17); the God of Isaac: Jacob avoided this latter designation because Isaac was still alive, although God had referred to Himself by that name (see Genesis 28:13), as Jacob intended to say, the merit of Isaac's fear of the Lord had stood me in good stead, and He has protected me as a reward (SC, 185). The God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Dread of Isaac, proved to be mine (Rotherham, EB, 63); a term used for Israel's God, object of Isaac's reverence (HSB, 52); the God whom Isaac fears (Murphy, MG, 406). If the God of my father, the God of Abraham, the Kinsman of Isaac, etc.: a name for God that appears only here and in Genesis 31:53; Arabic and Palmyrene Aramaic justify this translation; hitherto the phrase has been rendered -the fear of Isaac-' (JB, 53, n.)

(5) Laban's response (Genesis 31:43-44) has been variously interpreted, that is, as to motivation. These words of Jacob's -cut Laban to the heart with their truth, so that he turned round, offered his hand, and proposed a covenant-' (K-D, 299). Neither receiving Jacob's torrent of invective with affected meekness, nor proving himself to be completely reformed by the angry recriminations of his -callous and hardened-' son-in-law (Kalisch); but perhaps simply owning the truth of Jacob's words, and recognizing that he had no just ground of complaint (Calvin), as well as touched in his paternal affections by the sight of his daughters, from whom he felt he was about to part for ever. not as reminding Jacob that he had still a legal claim to his (Jacob'S) wives and possessions, or at least possessions, though prepared to waive it, but rather as acknowledging that in doing injury to Jacob he would only be proceeding against his own flesh and blood (Whitelaw, PCG, 384). Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading to the pacific proposal of Genesis 31:44, what last kindness can I do them [his daughters] (Skinner, ICCG, 399). These two relatives, after having given utterance to their pent-up feelings, came at length to a mutual understanding. Laban was so cut by the severe and well-founded reproaches of Jacob, that he saw the necessity of an immediate surrender, or, rather, God influenced him to make reconciliation with his injured nephew, Proverbs 16:7 (Jamieson, CECG, 212). Leupold has a different view: Laban skillfully avoids the issue, which centers on the question whether Jacob has ever treated him unfairly, and substitutes another, namely, whether there is any likelihood of his avenging himself on Jacob and his family. In a rather grandiose fashion he claims all that Jacob hashousehold and cattleis his own. The only use he makes of this strong claim is that, naturally, these being his own family, he would not harm them. It hardly seems that he has been -cut to the quick-' by the justice of Jacob's defense. He is merely bluffing through a contention in which he is being worsted. But being a suspicious character, he fears that Jacob might eventually do what he apparently would have done under like circumstances, namely, after arriving home and having grown strong, he may come with an armed band to avenge all the wrongs of the past. To forestall this he suggests a -covenant.-' This covenant might serve to deter Jacob, of-' whose justice and fairness he is convinced, and who, Laban trusts, will keep a covenant inviolate (EG, 852).

Again, however, we turn to the Nuzi records for what seems to be the most important aspect of this whole case, namely, the part played by the teraphim and the theft thereof. The author handles the entire episode with outstanding skill. When he speaks of the figurines on his own (19, 34f.), he uses the secular, and sometimes irreverent term (teraphim, perhaps -inert things-'); but Laban refers to them as -my gods-' (Genesis 31:30). The search is suspensefully depicted, as Laban combs through one tent after another until he gets to the tent of Rachel, where they have been hidden. Rachel's pretense of female incapacitation is a literary gem in itself. The crowning touch of drama and irony is Jacob's total unawareness of the truththe grim danger implicit in his innocent assurance that the guilty party would be put to death. But the basic significance of the incident now transcends all such considerations of human interest or literary presentation. It derives from underlying social practices as they bear on the nature of the patriarchal narratives in general. According to the Nuzi documents, which have been found to reflect time and again the social customs of Haran, possession of the house gods could signify legal title to a given estate, particularly in cases out of the ordinary, involving daughters, sons-in-law, or adopted sons. This peculiar practice of Rachel's homeland supplies at last the motive, sought so long but in vain, for her seemingly incomprehensible conduct. Rachel was in a position to know, or at least to suspect, that in conformance with local law her husband was entitled to a specified share in Laban's estate. But she also had ample reason to doubt that her father would voluntarily transfer the images as formal proof of property release; the ultimate status of Laban's daughters and their maidservants could well have been involved as well. In other words, tradition remembered Rachel as a resolute woman who did not shrink from taking the lawor what she believed to be the lawinto her own hands. The above technical detail would help to explain why Laban was more concerned about the disappearance of the images than about anything else (Genesis 31:30). For under Hurrian law, Jacob's status in Laban's household would normally be tantamount to self-enslavement. That position, however, would be altered if Jacob was recognized as an adopted son who married the master's daughter. Possession of the house gods might well have made the difference. Laban knew that he did not have them, but chose to act as though he did, at least to save face. Thus his seeming magnanimity in the end (43f.) would no longer be out of character. He keeps up the pretense that he is the legal owner of everything in Jacob's possession; yet he must have been aware that, with the images gone, he could not press such a claim in a court of law (Speiser, ABG, 250-251).

(6) The Treaty (Genesis 31:45-55). Two traditions appear to have been combined here: 1. A formal pact regulating the frontier between Laban and Jacob i.e., between Aram and Israel, Genesis 31:52, together with an explanation of the name Gilead (Galed). 2. A private agreement concerning Laban's daughters, wives of Jacob, Genesis 31:50, together with an explanation of the name Mizpah, -watch-post,-' where a stele is erected. On the other hand it is possible that we have not here two traditions but simply explanations of the traditional composite name Mizpah of Gilead, -watch-post of Gilead-'; the place is known from Judges 11:29 and lies south of the Jabbok in Transjordania (JB, 53 n.). Laban proposed that they cut a covenant and let it be for a witness between them (Genesis 31:44). Jacob assented to the proposal at once, and the two proceeded to ratify the covenant. (7) The Cairn of Witness. The way in which this covenant was ratified was by a heap of stones being laid in a circular pile, to serve as seats, and in the center of this circle a large one was set up perpendicularly for an altar. It is probable that a sacrifice was first offered, and then that the feast of reconciliation was partaken of by both parties, seated on the stones around it (cf. Genesis 31:54). To this day heaps of stones, which have been used as memorials, are found abundantly in the region where this transaction took place (CECG, 212). Jacob proceeded at once to furnish a practical proof of his assent to his father-in-law's proposal, by erecting a stone as a memorial and calling on his relatives also (-his brethren,-' as in Genesis 31:23, by whom Laban and the kinsmen who came with him are indicated, as Genesis 31:54 shows) to gather stones into a heap, thus forming a table, as is briefly related in Genesis 31:46 b, for the covenant meal (Genesis 31:54). This stone-heap (cairn) was called Jegar-Sahadutha by Laban, and Galeed by Jacob (Genesis 31:47). Jegar-sahadutha is the exact Aramaic equivalent of Galeed, -cairn of witness-' (JB, 53, n.): this incident, of course gave occasion to the name Gilead, the name applied to the mountainous region eastward of Argob (see Josephus, Antiquities, I, 19, 11). (It should be understood that the setting up of the stone-pillar by Jacob as a witness of the covenant about to be formed (Genesis 31:52) was a different transaction from the piling up of the stone-heap next referred to: cf. Genesis 28:18, Joshua 24:26-27). Very strangely the critics, who are intent upon proving that two documents giving two recensions of the event are woven together, here hit upon the pillar or monolith, and the heap or cairn, and claim these two as one of the things that prove their point. Instead of pointing to a double recension or to two authors this merely points to the fact that Jacob was willing to go the limit to keep peace and harmony, as he had always been doing. The critics-' argument is a non sequitur. All the rest of their so-called proof is of the same sort and too flimsy to refute, Genesis 31:47. Here Moses inserts a notice to the effect that Laban and Jacob each gave a name to the cairn, and each man in his native tongue, that of Laban being Aramaic and that of Jacob Hebrew. Nothing indicates that this was a later insertion. Why might not Moses consider it a matter worthy of record that in Mesopotamia Aramaic prevailed, whereas in Canaan Hebrew, perhaps the ancient Canaanite language, was spoken? The exactness of his observation is established by this definite bit of historical information. The two names are not absolutely identical, as is usually claimed, though the difference is slight. Jegar-sahadhutha means -heap of testimony,-' gal-'ed means -heap of witness-' or witnessing heap. For -testimony-' is an abstract noun, -witness-' is a personal noun or name of a person. We observe, therefore, that at the beginning of their history the nation Israel came of a stock that spoke Aramaic but abandoned the Aramaic for the Hebrew. After the Captivity the nation, strange to say, veered from Hebrew back to Aramaic (EG, 853, 854).

(8) The Purport of the Covenant, Genesis 31:50-52, was twofold: (1) Jacob swears that he will not maltreat Laban's daughters, nor even marry other wives besides these (i.e., Leah and Rachel). The stipulation against taking other wives is basic to many cuneiform marriage documents (ABG, 248). Leupold thinks that both these cases mentioned by Laban are in themselves harsh and unjust slanders. Jacob had never given the least indication of being inclined to treat his wives harshly. Gentleness and goodness are characteristic of Jacob. Besides, as the account reads, Jacob had more wives already than he had ever desired. He apparently recognized the evils of bigamy sufficiently in his own home (EG, 856). (2) Neither of the two was to pass the stone-heap and memorial-stone with a hostile intention towards the other. (But they may pass over it for purposes of trade (SC, 187). Note Genesis 31:52The heap was Jacob's idea, now Laban appropriates what Jacob had proposed as if the entire transaction had been his very own. Moreover, Laban bound himself never to pass over the heap which he had erected as his witness, whereas Jacob was required to swear that he would never cross the pillar and the pile, both of which were witnesses on his part. (Laban was undoubtedly even yet a very suspicious person). That I will not passover. Here this covenant thought is purely negative, growing out of a suspicious nature, and securing a safeguard against mutual injuries; properly a theocratic separation (Lange, 544). This treaty seems to have had even more extensive significance, however: as Morgenstern writes: Mizpah, a secondary name for this heap of stones, meaning -watchpost,-' -place of lookout.-' Actually the district was called Gilead, while Mizpah (Mizpeh) was probably the name of the particular spot where the covenant was thought to have been made. It probably lay close to the boundary line between Syria and Gilead. It was the site of the covenant between Laban the Aramean and Jacob the Israelite by which the boundary line between the two peoples was fixed. Note the compact entered into between Syria and Israel, probably in Ahab's time; the hegemony of Israel in the affairs of the several little states of Western Asia seems to have been nominally acknowledged by Syria, 1 Ki., ch. 20 (JIBG, in loco). Concerning the location of the site of Gilead and Mizpah, it seems evident that we are not to understand this to be the mountain range to the south of the Jabbok, the present Jebel Jelaad, or Jebel es Salt. The name Gilead has a much more comprehensive signification in the Old Testament; and the mountains to the south of the Jabbok are called in Deuteronomy 3:12 the half of Mount Gilead; the mountains to the north of the Jabbok, the Jebel-Ajlun, forming the other half. In this chapter the name is used in the broader sense, and refers primarily to the northern half of the mountains (above the Jabbok); for Jacob did not cross the Jabbok till afterwards, Genesis 32:23-24 (K-D, 300). It is held by some that the words, and Mizpah, for he said, etc., are a later explanatory interpolation. But there is not sufficient ground even for this, since Galeed and Mizpah are here identical in fact, both referring to the stone heap as well as to the pillar. Laban prays specifically to Jehovah, to watch that Jacob should not afflict his daughters; especially that he should not deprive them of their acquired rights, of being the ancestress of Jehovah's covenant people. From this hour, according to the prayer, Jehovah looks down from the heights of Gilead, as the representative of his rights, and watches that Jacob should keep his word to his daughters, even when across the Jordan. But now, as the name Gilead has its origin in some old sacred tradition, so has the name Mizpah also. It is not to be identified with the later cities bearing that name, with the Mizpah of Jephthah (Judges 11:11; Judges 11:34), or the Mizpah of Gilead (Judges 11:29), or Ramoth-Mizpah (Joshua 13:26), but must be viewed as the family name which has spread itself through many daughters all over Canaan (Lange, CDHCG, 544). (Note disagreement with K-D quoted above). Laban, forewarned by God not to injure Jacob, made a covenant with his son-in-law; and a heap of stones was erected as a boundary between them, and called Galeed (the heap of witness) and Mizpah (watch-tower). As in later times, the fortress on these heights of Gilead became the frontier post of Israel against the Aramaic tribe that occupied Damascus, so now the same line of heights became the frontier between the nation in its youth and the older Aramaic tribe of Mesopotamia. As now, the confines of two Arab tribes are marked by the rude cairn or pile of stones erected at the boundary of their respective territories, so the pile of stones and the tower or pillar, erected by the two tribes of Jacob and Laban, marked that the natural limit of the range of Gilead should be their natural limit also (OTH, 102). (Cf. the various Mizpahs, or Mizpehs, mentioned in the O.T., e.g., Joshua 11:3; Joshua 15:38; Judges 10:17; Judges 20:1; 1 Samuel 22:3: it seems that the name might have been given to any high point.) Skinner's treatment of the Gilead geographical problem is based on the presupposition that the account embodies ethnographic reminiscences in which Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and Arameans respectively. He goes on to say: The theory mostly favored by critical historians is that the Arameans are those of Damascus, and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars which raged from c. 860 to c 770 B.C. Gunkel has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record of a loose understanding between neighboring and on the whole friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly organized states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no trace of the intense national animosity which was generated during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyer's hypothesis that in the original tradition Laban represented the early unsettled nomads of the eastern desert acquires a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Arameans (ICCG, 403, 404). It should be noted here that the critical tendency so prevalent soon after the turn of the present century to interpret the outstanding personal names occurring in the patriarchal narratives as tribal rather than individual names has been all but abandoned in recent years. On the whole, this supposition (largely a priori on the part of the critics) has been pretty thoroughly exploded by archaeological discoveries. There is no longer any doubt that the patriarchs were real historical personages, (The student who wishes to delve into the irreconcilable analysis of the early twentieth-century critics should make a study of the classic work on this subject, The Unity of the Book of Genesis, by William Henry Green, onetime Professor of Oriental and Old Testament Literature in Princeton Theological Seminary. This book, first published in 1895, is now out of print, of course. Hence it goes unnoticed and even unknown, either through ignorance or by design, in present-day theological seminaries. It may be procured, however, from secondhand book stores, or rescued from out-of-the-way places on the dusty shelves of these same seminary libraries.) We now close this phase of our subject with the following quotation from Leupold: We have nothing certain as to the location of the heap called -Galed-' or -Mizpah-' in Mount Gilead. -Mizpah-' itself is a rather general term: there were many points of eminence in the land which could serve as -watch-stations.-' We personally do not believe that the Mizpah located in Jebel Ajlun is far enough to the north. We can only be sure of this, that according to chapter 32 it must have lain to the north of the River Jabbok (EG, 859).

(9) The Mizpah Benediction, Genesis 31:49. Mizpah (Mizpeh), watchtower,-'. an unknown site in the N. highlands of the Jordan overlooking the Jabbok, where Jacob and Laban witnessed their covenant by erecting a cairn and pronouncing words now known as -the Mizpah benediction,-' Genesis 31:45-52 (HBD, 450). J. Vernon McGee (Going Through Genesis, 42) has an interesting comment on this point, as follows: Verse 49 has been made into a benediction which many church groups use habitually. This is unfortunate for it does not have that sort of derivation. It actually is a truce between two crooks that each will no longer try to get the better of the other. The pile of stones at Mizpah was a boundary line between Laban and Jacob. Each promised not to cross over on the other's side. In other words Jacob would work one side of the street and Laban would take the other. Each had but little confidence in the other. Surely the Mizpah benediction has been misplaced and misapplied. Certainly these statements deserve serious consideration.

(10) The Covenant Oath, Genesis 31:53. Although Laban proposed to swear by the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the latter might include idols, so Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac, viz., the true God (SC, 187). On Genesis 31:49, God is called as a witness so that if either Jacob or Laban breaks the agreement the LORD will enforce the covenant (HSB, 53). Genesis 31:50no man is with usi.e., no one but God only can be judge and witness between us, since we are to be so widely separated (Lange, 544). Of the terms of the covenant the memorial was to serve as a witness, and the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father (Terah), would be umpire between them. To this covenant, in which Laban, according to his polytheistic views, placed the God of Abraham upon the same level with the God of Nahor and Terah, Jacob swore by -the Fear of Isaac-' (Genesis 31:42), the God who was worshipped by his father with sacred awe (K-D, 300). The verb judge, Genesis 31:53, is plural, either because Laban regarded the Elohim of Nahor as different from the Elohim of Abraham, or because, though acknowledging only one Elohim, he viewed him as maintaining several and distinct relations to the persons named. Laban here invokes his own hereditary Elohim, the Elohim of Abraham's father, to guard his rights and interests under the newly-formed covenant; while Jacob in his adjuration appeals to the Elohim of Abraham's son (PCG, 387). In conclusion Laban offers his most solemn adjuration, stronger than Genesis 31:50 b; for God is called upon not only to -witness-' but to -judge.-' Besides, he is called by the solemn title, -God of Abraham.-' In fact, another god is invoked, -the god of Nahor.-' If Genesis 31:29 and Genesis 31:42 are compared, it seems most likely that two different deities are under consideration; the true God, and Nahor'S, that is also Laban's idol. The plural of the verb -judge-' therefore points to two different gods, So the polytheist Laban speaks. The more gods to help bind the pact, the better it is sealed, thinks Laban. Without directly correcting Laban or his statement of the case, Jacob swears by the true God under the same as that used in Genesis 31:42, the Fear (i.e., the object of fear, or reverence) of his father Isaac. Had the renegade Laban perhaps meant to identify his own god with the true God of Abraham? And is Jacob's statement of His name an attempt to ward off such an identification? This is not impossible (Leupold, EG, 857, 858). Skinner writes: Whether a polytheistic differentiation of the two gods is attributed to Laban can hardly be determined. Genesis 31:52this heap be witness. Objects of nature were frequently thus spoken of. But over and above there was a solemn appeal to God; and it is observable that there was a marked difference in the religious sentiments of the two. Laban spake of the God of Abraham and Nahor, their common ancestors; but Jacob, knowing that idolatry had crept into that branch of the family, swore by the Fear of Isaac. It is thought by many that Laban comprehended, under the peculiar phraseology that he employed, all the objects of worship in Terah's family, in Mesopotamia; and in that view we can discern a very intelligible reason for Jacob's omission of the name of Abraham, and swearing only by -the Fear of his father Isaac,-' who had never acknowledged any deity but -the Lord.-' They who have one God should have one heart; they who are agreed in religion should endeavor to agree in everything else (Jamieson, CECG, 212). The monotheism of Laban seems gliding into dualism; they may judge, or -judge.-' He corrects himself by adding the name of their common father, i.e., Terah. From his alien and wavering point of view he seeks for sacredness in the abundance of words. But Jacob swears simply and distinctly by the God whom Isaac feared, and whom even his father-in-law, Laban, should reverence and fear. Laban, indeed, also adheres to the communion with Jacob in his monotheism, and intimates that the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor designate two different religious directions from a common source or ground (Lange, 544). The erection of the pillar was a joint act of the two parties, in which Laban proposes, Jacob performs, and all take part. The God of Abraham, Nahor, and Terah. This is an interesting acknowledgement that their common ancestor Terah and his descendants down to Laban still acknowledged the true God, even in their idolatry. Jacob swears by the Fear of Isaac, perhaps to rid himself of any error that had crept into Laban's notions of God and his worship (Murphy, MG, 407).

(11) The Covenant of Reconciliation, Genesis 31:54-55, was now ratified by the common sacrifice and the common meal. Jacob then offered sacrifices upon the mountain, and invited his relatives to eat, i.e., to partake of a sacrificial meal, and seal the covenant by a feast of love (K-D, 300). We view Jacob's sacrifice as one of thanksgiving that this last serious danger that threatened from Laban is removed. We cannot conceive of Jacob as joining with the idolater Laban in worship and sacrifice. Consequently, we hesitate to identify -the eating of bread-' with the partaking of the sacrificial feast, unless the -kinsmen-' here are to be regarded only as the men on Jacob's side.. In that event the kinsmen are to be thought of as having the same mind as Jacob on questions of religious practices. But the summons to eat bread might also signalize that the transactions between Jacob and Laban are concluded. The events may well have consumed an entire day, and so the night had to be spent in the same place (Leupold, EG, 858). According to Rashi, Jacob slaughtered animals for the feast; however, Rashi apparently insists that it was not a sacrificial meal (SC, 187). Whitelaw holds that brethren here referred to Laban's followers, who may have withdrawn to a distance during the interview, and hence had to be called to eat bread (PCG, 887). The sacrificial meal later became an integral part of the Hebrew ritual (cf. Exodus 24:3-8; Exodus 29:27-28; Leviticus 10:14-15). At all events, the covenant-meal forms a thorough and final conciliation. Laban's reverence for the God of his fathers, and his love for his daughters and grandsons, present him once more in the most favorable aspect of his character, and thus we take our leave of him. We must notice, however, that before the entrance of Jacob he had made little progress in his business. Close, narrow-hearted views, are as really the cause of the curse, as its fruits (Lange, 545). The following morning Laban and his retinue departed and returned to his place, that is, Paddan-aram (Genesis 28:2).

The following summarization of this section, by Cornfeld (AtD, 87-88), is excellent: Laban pursued Jacob for seven days and caught up with him in the highlands of Gilead, east of Jordan. What troubled him more than the loss of his daughters, their husband and livestock, was the loss of the teraphim. He demanded indignantly, -But why did you steal my gods?-' As Rachel was unwell, religious custom prevented her father from forcing her off the saddle, and the theft remained unexposed. Laban and Jacob apparently agreed to maintain an amicable relationship on the basis of a new covenant. They exchanged blessings, made the covenant and set up a cairn and pillar (-matzeba-') as a witness to their sincerity; the inanimate object was naively thought to -oversee-' the covenant. They swore that neither would transgress the boundary to harm the other. This patriarchal clan covenant seems to reflect either a remote separation ofthe clans, or the story may serve to justify territorial status of later times, when the Israelite and Aramean peoples upheld a treaty of amity and marked the boundary between them.. They invoked their respective ancestral gods to judge between them: -The God of Abraham-' and -The God of Nahor.-' Jacob also swore by a special epithet of God: the -Fear of his father Isaac-' (meaning, according to the interpretation, -The Kinsman of Isaac-'). This devotion to the God of one's father is one of the features of patriarchal religion that stemmed from the pre-Hebraic Semitic past.. An especially impressive conclusion of the compact was the animal sacrifice offered, and a meal at which the solemn covenant act was performed: to -cut a covenant-' (the rite of sacrifice) and to -eat bread-' remained a familiar idiom of Israelite religious symbols. In eating and drinking, life is perfectly symbolized, and gains profound religious connotation. This is the root of the Jewish and Christian practice of grace before meals, for eating is the epitome of man's dependence upon God and other men. The central ceremonies of Judaism, such as the Passover, and the Eucharist of Christianity, are reminiscent of such very ancient Hebrew cultic practices. The covenant between Jacob and Laban was of course a parity treaty made between equals, unlike the covenants between God as Lord and the Patriarchs, His servants. Thus we can readily grasp the idea of the relation of the eating of the bread and the drinking of the fruit of the vine of the Lord's Supper to the spiritual life of the participant. Through the ministry of thanksgiving, commemoration, meditation, and prayer, the Christian does actuallyand not in any magical way, eithereffect the deepening of his spiritual life (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-21; 1 Corinthians 11:20-30; Matthew 26:26-29).

Concerning the alleged sources of the account of the Covenant of Gilead, we suggest the following: There can be no doubt that Genesis 31:49-50 bear the marks of a subsequent insertion. But there is nothing in the nature of his interpolation to indicate a compilation of the history from different sources, That Laban, when making this covenant, should have spoken of the future treatment of his daughters, is a thing so natural, that there would have been something strange in the omission. And it is not less suitable to the circumstances, that he calls upon the God of Jacob, i.e., Jehovah, to watch in this affair [Genesis 31:49]. And apart from the use of the name Jehovah, which is perfectly suitable here, there is nothing whatever to point to a different source; to say nothing of the fact that the critics themselves cannot agree as to the nature of the source supposed (K-D, 300, n.).

Stones were used for different purposes in ancient times. (1) Large stones were set up as memorials, that is, to commemorate some especially significant event (Genesis 28:18; Genesis 31:45; Genesis 35:14; Joshua 4:9; 1 Samuel 7:12). Such stones were usually consecrated by anointing with-' oil (Genesis 28:18). A similar practice existed in heathen countries, and by a singular coincidence these stones were described in Phoenicia by a name very similar to Beth-el, viz., baetylia. The only point of resemblance between the two consists in the custom of anointing (UBD, 1047). (2) Heaps of stones were piled up on various occasions; e.g., the making of a treaty (Genesis 31:46), or over the grave of a notorious offender (Joshua 7:26; Joshua 8:29; 2 Samuel 18:17); such heaps often attained a great size from the custom of each passer-by's adding a stone. (3) That the worship of stones prevailed among the heathen nations surrounding Palestine, and was from them borrowed by apostate Israelites, appears from Isaiah 57:6(comp. Leviticus 26:1). -The smooth stones of the stream-' are those which the stream has washed smooth with time, and rounded into a pleasing shape. -In Carthage such stones were called abbadires; and among the ancient Arabs the asnam, or idols, consisted for the most part of rude blocks of stone of this description.. Stone worship of this kind had been practiced by the Israelites before the Captivity, and their heathenish practices had been transmitted to the exiles in Babylon-' (Delitzsch, Com. in loc.)-' (UBD, 1047). The notion expressed above that the pillar (matzeba) was per se naively thought to oversee the covenant (Genesis 31:52) in Gilead is surely proved erroneous by the fact that the true God and other ancestral gods were immediately invoked to do this witnessing (Genesis 31:53). We can see no reason for assuming animism or personification in this incident.

Hurrian evidences. We have already made note of different details of the transactions between Jacob and Laban which reflect details of Hurrian law. There are many instances of such correspondences. The following is a summary of many of these. Hurrian customs are particularly in evidence in the record of Jacob.Genesis 29:18-19, gaining a wife in return for service: in Nuzu a man became a slave to gain a slave wife, though Jacob was no slave, Genesis 31:15 to Genesis 31:15, Laban's daughters objected to being -reckoned as foreign women,-' for native women had a higher standing.Genesis 31:38cf. how in Nuzu shepherds were tried for illegally slaughtering the sheep. Particularly, Jacob's whole relation to Laban suggests a Hurrian -adoption-' contract: Genesis 29:18, Jacob got daughters in return for work, becoming a -son-'; Genesis 31:50, he was to marry no other wives, as in Nuzu adoptions; Genesis 31:43, Laban had a claim over Jacob's children, though God intervened to abrogate the custom, Genesis 31:24; Genesis 31:1, Laban's sons were worried about heirship, while Genesis 31:31, Jacob claimed his wages were changed, perhaps a problem of heirs born after Jacob's adoption, who were supposed to receive their percentage; and Genesis 31:15, Rachel stole the teraphim (household idols, Genesis 31:30, cf. 1 Samuel 19:13, Zechariah 10:2, though she served God too, Genesis 30:24, and Jacob knew nothing of them, Genesis 31:32, and opposed idolatry, Genesis 35:2), which in Nuzu meant a legal claim on the property and which Laban was justified in demanding back for his own sons, Genesis 31:30. Knowledge of such Hurrian parallels is valuable to explain (though not necessarily excuse) the patriarchal actions, and to confirm the accuracy of the Biblical records (OHH, 45).

Here the first phase of Jacob's return to the land of his father comes to an end. Early in the morning of the day which followed the establishing of the Covenant in Gilead, Laban, after kissing his daughters-' sons and the daughters themselves, and blessing them (cf. Genesis 24:60, Genesis 28:1), set out on his journey unto his place, that is, his home, Paddan-aram (cf. Genesis 18:33, Genesis 30:25), and Jacob with his household went on his way to his home, Beersheba. (It is interesting to note that apparently Laban did not kiss Jacob on taking final leave of him as he did on first meeting him, cf. Genesis 29:13).