Genesis 30:31-36

2009.Jan.23 17:00

What Jacob Wants

Read Genesis 30:31-36 | Full Chapter

[Laban] said, What shall I give you? And Jacob said, You shall not give me anything, if you will do this one thing for me [of which I am about to tell you], and I will again feed and take care of your flock. Let me pass through all your flock today, removing from it every speckled and spotted animal and every black one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and such shall be my wages. So later when the matter of my wages is brought before you, my fair dealing will be evident and answer for me. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the sheep, if found with me, shall be counted as stolen. And Laban said, Good; let it be done as you say. But that same day [Laban] removed the he-goats that were streaked and spotted and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white on it, and every black lamb, and put them in charge of his sons. And he set [a distance of] three days' journey between himself and Jacob; and Jacob was then left in care of the rest of Laban's flock.
(Genesis 30:31-36, AMP)

Jacob’s request is in some ways an acknowledgement that both he and Laban play the game of deceit. The idea is that as long as Jacob is caring for Laban’s flocks, if Jacob has any animals of his own, it would be easy for either party to make conflicting claims. Since Jacob is asking for a portion of Laban’s flock in payment for his continued service, this issue must be addressed. Jacob’s proposal is that they be divided by color.

How much does Jacob understand about heredity? And how much does Laban? Those could be particularly relevant questions if one were trying to decide who is practicing the most deceit. Fortunately, I consider that a moot point, instead caring more about this issue of mutual faithlessness. In either case, the idea is probably that sheep and goats with a particular type of goat will tend to have offspring of the same; in addition, coloration is something easy to distinguish. Laban agrees to the wages and to the policy of determining which animal belongs to which owner.

That is, he agrees in theory. Laban, in order to minimize his loss, sends the speckled and spotted and so forth and has his sons take care of them. That is, he removes them from the flock under Jacob’s care so that Jacob cannot take them as his wages. Jerk. But then, it is probably Jacob anticipates his uncle’s action; he’d be rather a fool not to expect something of the kind.

So, where are we? There’s a lot of ugly crap between Jacob and Laban. Neither is innocent, although in their relationship, Laban seems to be the more willing to take advantage of his relative. The tables will, of course, turn, for better or worse. For the whole family, it’s for worse. Laban will ultimately be hurt by his deceptive acts, just a Jacob will feel the pain of the lies practiced by his sons. In fact, from the birth of Jacob through his arrival in Egypt, there’s a ton of lying going on. And the running thread through all those lies is that someone always gets hurt. Not a surprise, mind you, but worth the notice.

And, of course, a lot of it has to do with money. Although some is plain old jealousy.

Genesis 31:22-31

2009.Mar.06 17:00

Politics

Read Genesis 31:22-31 | Full Chapter

When it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob had fled, then he took his kinsmen with him and pursued him a distance of seven days' journey, and he overtook him in the hill country of Gilead. God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night and said to him, "Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad."
(Genesis 31:22-24, NASB)

So, Laban realizes Jacob is headed out–without so much as a good-bye–and follows him. But before Laban reaches his son-in-law, Yahweh gives him a rather odd message in a dream: “Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad.” Looking through various other versions gives no particular insight. So, I would take this to mean that Laban should not try to talk with Jacob, period, and should in fact head on back. Obviously, this is not how Laban takes it. Whether that is indicative that Laban is unwilling to take sound advice, or that something has just been lost in translation, I couldn’t say.

Laban caught up with Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the hill country, and Laban with his kinsmen camped in the hill country of Gilead. Then Laban said to Jacob, "What have you done by deceiving me and carrying away my daughters like captives of the sword? "Why did you flee secretly and deceive me, and did not tell me so that I might have sent you away with joy and with songs, with timbrel and with lyre; and did not allow me to kiss my sons and my daughters? Now you have done foolishly. "It is in my power to do you harm, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, 'Be careful not to speak either good or bad to Jacob.' "Now you have indeed gone away because you longed greatly for your father's house; but why did you steal my gods?" Then Jacob replied to Laban, "Because I was afraid, for I thought that you would take your daughters from me by force.
(Genesis 31:25-31, NASB)

Let’s play a bit of politics here, by which I mean, have two people not really saying what they’re probably thinking. Laban claims that he is mainly upset for two reasons:

1. He did not get to say a proper goodbye.
2. He believes Jacob stole the idol.

Jacob’s reason for hitting the road without telling his father-in-law seems a bit more sincere: he was afraid Laban would not allow Rachel and Leah to go with him. More sincere, but probably not the full reason either.

God’s message to Laban, however strangely interpretted–in my opinion–seems to be the saving grace here. Laban uses it to save face. “I was going to kick your bleep, but I’m going to be the better man, thanks to a timely message from your god.” Jacob is able to give a reasonable if incomplete answer, and thus Rachel’s thieving of Laban’s idols is the only standing issue.

I don’t see any particular lesson in all this, outside of reiterating my theme of relationship quality from the past many articles: “When you’re reduced to politics with your family to avoid actual killing, something’s, um, wrong.” I know that political phrases/tact/diplomacy is sometimes necessary even with family, but when dinner starts to feel like a presidential debate, only less civil, something needs to be done, if just asking Yahweh to intervene. That’s easy to write in a blog, difficult to follow.

Genesis 31:1-9

2009.Feb.06 17:00

Jacob Notices the Obvious

Read Genesis 31:01-09 | Full Chapter

Now Jacob heard that the sons of Laban were saying, "Jacob has taken all that was our father’s, and from what was our father’s he has gained all this wealth." And Jacob saw that Laban did not regard him with favor as before. Then the LORD said to Jacob, "Return to the land of your fathers and to your kindred, and I will be with you." So Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah into the field where his flock was and said to them, "I see that your father does not regard me with favor as he did before. But the God of my father has been with me. You know that I have served your father with all my strength, yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times. But God did not permit him to harm me. If he said, 'The spotted shall be your wages,' then all the flock bore spotted; and if he said, 'The striped shall be your wages,' then all the flock bore striped. Thus God has taken away the livestock of your father and given them to me.
(Genesis 31:01-09, ESV)

Jacob hasn’t been ignorant of his father-in-law’s machinations, but he’s been largely going along with him. If he had expected it to turn too bad to bare, then he had chosen to stick around for as long as possible. But now he becomes aware that Laban and Laban’s sons are not kindly disposed to him. In the case of Laban’s sons, the grumbling is sensible: their father’s wealth is declining and their cousin / brother-in-law is the one doing well. For Laban, it’s a bit more complex, because he had wanted Jacob to stay around; he knew that for whatever reason, Jacob’s presence contributed to his material success. However, now that they’ve engaged in these strange doings over the coloration of the flocks, Jacob is benefitting at Laban’s expense, instead of the lots of both improving.

So, Yahweh goes ahead and intervenes, telling Jacob that the time to return to Palestine has come. This is probably the first time Jacob would be receptive to this idea. After all, the injustices he’s so far suffered have been minimal in comparison to what he fears Esau would like to do to him. Now, with Laban’s sons being potential mortal enemies, it’s the choice between being killed by one person or multiple. Add in God’s suggestion, and Jacob’s choice is made.

Jacob calls Leah and Rachel, his wives, to tell them of his intent to hit the road. But he initially focuses on Laban’s treatment of him. Jacob fails to mention his own actions with the various sticks, which might show some culpability on his part for Laban’s treatment. Instead, he’s now happy to give Yahweh, and not his cunning, all the credit for his increased wealth. How often do we play these sort of games? Anyway, it still bugs me that Jacob has not taken up responsibility for the quality of his relationships.

On the Leah / Rachel drama, it’s interesting that Jacob actually speaks with both of them, and together. It’s also interesting that Rachel is listed first. But maybe there’s an indication that Rachel and Leah at least have put some of their bickering behind them.

Genesis 34:13-17

2009.May.29 10:00

Deception

Read Genesis 34:13-17 | Full Chapter

But Jacob's sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor with deceit, because he had defiled Dinah their sister.
(Genesis 34:13, NASB)

Fabulous question: Are lies ever not sin? Commandment no. 9 is, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:16, NASB) , not explicitly a prohibition on all lying (I’m sure there are other relevant passages here, which might clarify my forthcoming rambling). So what of lying in a defensive situation? It’s probably not really applicable here anyway, as, other than getting Dinah away from Shechem’s home, the brothers’ intentions are principally murderous. But it remains a valid question. On the other hand, how much does that answer matter to me? Because the number of situation I am likely to be in where it’s even a useful question are minimal. Hopefully, zero. And what of just plain diplomacy? Talking nice while looking for a stick and all that?

If I’m trying to make a point here, it’s twofold. First, it’s worth remembering that a black/white approach to considering every issue is woefully inadequate; even where I am certain of the righteousness or sinfulness of an action, I must remember that there may be additional elements to the story that need to be also considered when viewing the actions of others. This doesn’t change the nature of the action, but can affect how I react.

Second is that most of the time these edge case questions, while interesting, don’t matter that much. If I am consistently obedient in the clear cases, I will have an easier time being and seeking to be obedient in instances with more gray. In the narrative of Genesis, there’s not much evidence that Jacob made a significant effort to teach his sons to live consistently obedient to Yahweh.

They said to them, "We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us. "Only on this condition will we consent to you: if you will become like us, in that every male of you be circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters for ourselves, and we will live with you and become one people. "But if you will not listen to us to be circumcised, then we will take our daughter and go."
(Genesis 34:14-17, NASB)

The strategy of Dinah’s brothers is clever. They take advantage of Yahweh’s commandment that all males of their family be circumcised. They’re betting on the painful recovery to allow them an offensive advantage. Without making any theological judgement, I personally disapprove of this strategy, and in general of using my religious obligations to hurt another.

Genesis 34:18-23

2009.Jun.05 09:30

Speaking Power to Fools

Read Genesis 34:18-23 | Full Chapter

Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem. And the young man did not delay to do the thing, because he delighted in Jacob’s daughter. Now he was the most honored of all his father’s house.
(Genesis 34:18-19, ESV)

In last week’s episode, Dinah’s brother had just pulled off a bit of deception, convincing Hamor and Shechem to make not just themselves but their whole city vulnerable, having all the males trained in fighting being down and out recovering from circumcision. Hamor falls for it hook, line and sinker, even to the point that he’s feeling his people are getting the best deal. At the cost of short-term pain, he reasons (as seen in verse 23, below), Jacob’s family will be assimilitated into the group Hamor rules. His power will increase.

Shechem’s reasons seem to have little to do with political or economic power, but power none the less. His gain for circumcision will be over Dinah. He has already raped her, but his lustful appetite has only grown with that act. Now he wants her to be his wife, and I don’t think in the way, say, that I am delighted that my wife is married to me. I can’t say for sure, but I don’t believe Shechem is seeking a relationship, a partnership, a family. Rather, he is seeking the sort of power and fame that high school boys think they are to gain by having sex with the hot virgin. Shechem–I am inclined to assume–wants to possess Dinah and thereby to proclaim himself as her master and a man of power. Even though he already is the most honored in the household of a local ruler.

So Hamor and his son Shechem came to the gate of their city and spoke to the men of their city, saying, "These men are at peace with us; let them dwell in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters as wives, and let us give them our daughters. Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us to become one people–when every male among us is circumcised as they are circumcised. Will not their livestock, their property and all their beasts be ours? Only let us agree with them, and they will dwell with us."
(Genesis 34:20-23, ESV)

We now watch their plea to the people, and the reasoning is much the same: more for us (Note they fail to mention the reason why this has all come up). We will suffer a little to gain. Actually, that’s not an inherently bad thing if you leave it general like that. After all, we followers of Jesus are called to accept suffering for his sake, knowing that our reward is beyond anything this world can offer. It’s the details that are the problem. The gain here is \ just worldly power, and that hope blinds the people to wisdom.

In their rush to gain, the men of this town make themselves vulnerable, and die for their foolishness. The sons of Jacob acted deceptively, but the men (and perhaps women) of Succoth are really deceived by the promise of wealth and power. Again, these things are not inherently evil. But the love of them, the lust for them and pursuit of them at the expense of greater things–love, faith, obedience, wisdom–is truly destructive.