Genesis 30:37-43

2009.Jan.30 17:00

The Wealth of Jacob

But Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white in the rods. Then he set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred and conceived when they came to drink, The flocks bred and conceived in sight of the rods and brought forth lambs and kids streaked, speckled, and spotted. Jacob separated the lambs, and [as he had done with the peeled rods] he also set the faces of the flocks toward the streaked and all the dark in the [new] flock of Laban; and he put his own droves by themselves and did not let them breed with Laban's flock. And whenever the stronger animals were breeding, Jacob laid the rods in the watering troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed and conceive among the rods. But when the sheep and goats were feeble, he omitted putting the rods there; so the feebler animals were Laban's and the stronger Jacob's. Thus the man increased and became exceedingly rich, and had many sheep and goats, and maidservants, menservants, camels, and donkeys.
(Genesis 30:37-43, AMP)

So, let’s consider Jacob’s wealth. Because, it’s not clear whether he’s wealthy at the beginning of this passage, but he clearly becomes so. Certainly, from what I know about the sociology of polygamy (admittedly not a lot), having four wives is a sign of at least a high status within such societies. And by the end of the passage, we see him “[becoming] exceedingly rich,” with servants and a great deal of livestock, which I imagine are the main things one can measure wealth by in what appears to be a still largely nomadic society. (Incidentally, I’ve been reading a book on the history of Israel lately, and the author notes that camels probably weren’t in use during this time; maybe later I’ll update this with an actual quote).

The Biblical description of how he achieves this wealth, despite Laban’s schemes, is to me one of the weirder passages in the Bible. It’s also one of those passages that I think demonstrates that Yahweh’s intent with scriptute was not to present a scientific treatise, something which a surprising number of my fellow Christians seem to claim. But I digress.

The narrative indicates the Jacob used branches to influence the coloration of the offspring during breeding season. Since the contract specifies that Jacob’s and Laban’s flocks be distinguished by coloration, and since Laban has previously removed those of Jacob’s group prior to that agreement going into effect, and given a lack of specific knowledge of heredity and genetics, well, I guess I can’t blame Jacob for trying. And it works. This could be a miracle; it could be the author’s way of shortening a more drawn out and complex circumstance. Regardless, it presents some interesting food for thought.

A possible lesson from this, and one which I’m believe is wrong, is the idea that it’s okay to cheat when you’ve been cheated. But, then, is Jacob cheating? It’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t. Is this deception or cunning? Or is cunning just a word for deception we like? Etc. One of the difficulties with reading the pre-Mosaic accounts is that morality is at times unclear. Particularly as regards Jacob.

But he does build wealth, fat lot of good it will do him in time (as a forthcoming famine will render it largely irrelevant). And yet his relationship with his father-in-law/uncle is not getting any better. So, then, is this a story of greed, its destructive effect on relationships and ultimate insufficiency? Yes, Jacob counters a bad circumstance through an amazing plan, one which not only is unexpected but also rather stupid, at least given modern science (which is capable of stupid on its own, admittedly). But it’s perhaps more interesting that his acknowledgment of Yahweh, God of his fathers, has become pretty much exclusively lip service at this point. It is on his own cunning that Jacob relies.

So, what else? Not only does Jacob’s messing with the sticks benefit him, it directly hurts Laban, for whom Jacob designates the weaker animals. Maybe it’s illustrative of the need to consider the small print. Given the importance of Covenant in later Israel, it’s not surprising to find a contract and how both parties try to mold it to their own advantage. Israel’s history (like that of humanity in general) has abundant instances of that nation trying to sidestep her agreements with Yahweh. And, as for both Jacob and Laban, the immediate results seem beneficial.

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 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.

Genesis 30:22-24

2009.Jan.09 14:30

A Son for Rachel

Read Genesis 30:22-24 | Full Chapter

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 30:14-21

2009.Jan.02 11:00

#

Read Genesis 30:14-21 | Full Chapter

Now in the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes." But she said to her, "Is it a small matter for you to take my husband? And would you take my son's mandrakes also?" So Rachel said, "Therefore he may lie with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes." When Jacob came in from the field in the evening, then Leah went out to meet him and said, "You must come in to me, for I have surely hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he lay with her that night. God gave heed to Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son. Then Leah said, "God has given me my wages because I gave my maid to my husband." So she named him Issachar. Leah conceived again and bore a sixth son to Jacob. Then Leah said, "God has endowed me with a good gift; now my husband will dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons." So she named him Zebulun. Afterward she bore a daughter and named her Dinah.
(Genesis 30:14-21, NASB)

I tried to read up on Mandrakes), but I’m mostly just confused now. It doesn’t sound like something one would particularly want, but hey, Rachel wants these bloody mandrakes. More than sex, or possibly, more than the hope of having children. Or both, I suppose. So she and Leah arrange a deal that Leah gets to sleep that night with Jacob. One implication here is that Jacob regularly spends the night with his younger wife, not surprising considering he is apparently much more attracted to Rachel. Leah takes the bargain.

For Leah, this pays off, in that she conceives and has another son, then has her sixth son sometime thereafter. She’s gone back to thinking this will make Jacob particularly love her. That Jacob does not seem to love his first wife for any reason is a sad testament. Yes, his marriage to her was based in deception, but he could have chosen to show her love regardless. This could have been at least a happier situation, I think, if Jacob had made more effort to bless his first wife.

Anyway, Leah’s happy(-ish) because she has more sons, Rachel’s happy(-ish) because she has mandrakes, although I don’t venture to know why. Actually, it’s interesting that Rachel seems to find happiness quicker than her older sister, perhaps because Rachel does have a husband that loves her.

Then, a strange thing happens in this narrative: a daughter is born! Although I imagine it’s mostly just mentioned because Dinah does play a role in a later chapter.

« 1 2 »