Genesis 30:22-24

2009.Jan.09 14:30

A Son for Rachel

Finally, God remembered Rachel–he answered her prayer by giving her a son. "God has taken away my disgrace," she said. "I'll name the boy Joseph, and I'll pray that the LORD will give me another son."
(Genesis 30:22-24, CEV)

Near the bottom of Wikipedia page on Jacob there’s a handy chart of his children mentioned in Biblical account.

Rachel has had two surrogate sons by Bilhah, Dan and Naphtali. But in her race against her older sister, Leah is clearly winning. Or whatever. I know I’ve said it before about this story, but how do we humansget so messed up? Finding value in number of sons? WTF is up with that? And it’s clearly not just these two who have in history been wrapped up in that particular absurdity.

Sigh.

Anyway, Rachel finally gets her son, whom she names Joseph. He’s number eleven in the cycle (Rachel will also bear the twelveth (sp?), Benjamin). Joseph will be the son to take up the central thread of the story, although all of Jacob’s sons get included in Israel, unlike Isaac/Ishmael, and Jacob/Esau in which the recipient of the promise is designated to be only one son (the other sons do get consolation prizes). So Joseph’s importance will not be in being the sole heir, but in bringing all the heirs into Egypt.

So, anyway, back to Rachel. She feels that Joseph’s birth takes away her disgrace of barreness. But as with her mother-in-law and grandmother-in-law, the barrenness ended with the birth of a chief son. Patience, patience, eh?

Genesis 30:25-30

2009.Jan.16 17:00

Contract Negotiations?

Read Genesis 30:25-30 | Full Chapter

Now it came about when Rachel had borne Joseph, that Jacob said to Laban, "Send me away, that I may go to my own place and to my own country. Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let me depart; for you yourself know my service which I have rendered you." But Laban said to him, "If now it pleases you, stay with me; I have divined that the LORD has blessed me on your account." He continued, "Name me your wages, and I will give it." But he said to him, "You yourself know how I have served you and how your cattle have fared with me. "For you had little before I came and it has increased to a multitude, and the LORD has blessed you wherever I turned. But now, when shall I provide for my own household also?"
(Genesis 30:25-30, NASB)

I think we’re probably just negotiating here about future wages. That is to say, Jacob has now fulfilled his seven years of work for Laban in exchange for marrying Leah–although unintentional on his part–and his additional seven years for Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel. Both Jacob and Laban consider that Jacob’s has been a good and effective laborer for his uncle (maybe laborer is not the right work; he seems closer to a steward). It’s possible that Jacob is really ready to head home, but I don’t see any reason to be convinced of that.

Remember, then, that if Jacob heads back to Canaan, he’s got to deal with his older brother Esau. It appears they’re both young(-ish) still, in good health and both moving towards clan headship if not already there. Not perhaps a meeting to which Jacob is looking forward. Aside from the chance to see his mother again, there’s not a huge draw for Jacob to head back. But it is a great negotiation point. “I don’t rely on you, Laban.” Add to that the recitation of his resume, and Jacob’s got a good angle for bargaining.

Laban does not hide his desire to keep Jacob on. Granting that I have no idea about negotiation techniques, or really business in general, of this time and place, I’m wary of making too many guesses. But, because of what else has been presented about Laban (and due to having read this account before), I’m inclined to think Jacob ought to be suspicious of Laban’s willingness to acknowledge the value of keeping Jacob on. And he probably is. After all, these are two skilled and experienced deceivers.

I spend time wondering about the Genesis accounts. As an aside ,I suppose I should mention that I do not assume that these particular individuals must have historically existed, and particularly I assume that at least some details are not historically accurate. That is to say, I don’t see any reason for God to have made this part of the Bible an accurate history. If the intention is to illustrate his workings in humanity, his revelations to humanity focused through his workings in the people of Israel, then ensuring historical accuracy of each event is probably a detriment to the effectiveness of understanding the Bible. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the narrative is essentially historically accurate. My point, then, is that I am willing in my studies to accept these narratives as biographical because I believe that the Bible is inspired by Yahweh in order to instruct, whether or not they are historical fact.

Anyway, like I was about to say…

I wonder about the things in Genesis, as the preamble to the introduction of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel through Moses, which presents the patriarchs in often unflattering light. Yes, Jacob and (largely because of him) Laban are very successful, and that’s made pointedly by both of them in this section. But just is clear is that they are both willing to lie to meet their goals. I think it’s appropriate (as well as accurate) to reveal these national founders as imperfect, but I still find it surprising. Or, I suppose, it’s interesting how we as Christians often divide Biblical characters between those who are good but human–and thus commit some sin–and those who are bad but whom “God uses”.

Actually reading through the Bible, I’m not sure its writers made that distinction.