There’s a treasure of a story buried beneath the topsoil of Genesis 31-35. The characters in focus are Jacob, Rachel, and Laban. We join the plot as Jacob prepares to flee his father-in-law, Laban, without telling him. Jacob will take with him a caravan of family members, servants, animals and possessions. Little does he realize, his beloved wife Rachel is about to steal her father’s idols.
Alone in Laban’s dwelling, a question crosses Rachel’s mind as she pockets the idols. “How am I going to get away with this?” Rachel realizes that Laban will soon discover that his idols are gone, and he will link their disappearance to Jacob. But Rachel reasons with herself: no, Laban won’t go so far as to pursue Jacob into the hills. Laban is more likely to replace the idols and leave the matter alone.
Why does Rachel take her father’s idols?
Here are five potential motives.
1. A noble act: She takes them from Laban as a kind of rescue, to wean her father away from idol worship. “If the idols can’t save themselves, then they can’t save you, Laban. You need to wake up to the truth.”
2. A prudent action: Laban’s idols are “oracles” according to Rabbi Hirsch. With this reading, Rachel recognizes that behind these idols are real and dark supernatural forces. She doesn’t want these forces to tell Laban the whereabouts of Jacob’s location. So, by taking the oracles, she is buying time. “I’ll steal the idols so Laban can’t consult them and learn our location.”
3. A sentimental attachment: She grew up with these idols and now she simply can’t let them go. Almost like a teenage girl packing her time-raggled stuffed animal as she travels off to college. Or maybe like a Christmas nativity set from your childhood that you can’t seem to part with. “I’m taking these because I want something that reminds me of home.”
4. A business move: It’s been pointed out that there was a tradition in ancient Mesopotamia that he who possessed the family gods possessed certain rights over the household. As revealed in Genesis 31:14, Rachel knew that her father had no intention of passing a share of his estate to her and her sister, Leah. So Rachel thinks, “I’ll take these idols so we can return after my father’s death and lay a claim to our inheritance.” (Proponents of this explanation reference the fact that Laban accepts the theft of his idols only after he receives a guarantee that Jacob will not cross a particular boundary line between them. Laban knows then that his sons’ inheritance will be protected; Jacob will not return and lay claim to any piece of Laban’s estate.)
5. An act of spite: Rachel is so fed up with Laban that she wants to hit him where it hurts the most. “I’m going to steal these idols because I know how much they mean to my father, and he deserves to hurt after the way he’s treated me, after the way he ruined what should have been my wedding night.”
These potential motives deserve consideration, and perhaps all factor in to some extent. The narrative provides two clues which may help us clarify the matter some.
Clue #1: she doesn’t tell Jacob about the theft.
Clue #2: she still possesses the idols after 10 days!
Clue #1 leads me to believe that a guilty conscience is involved, thereby ruling out “the noble act” idea. Had it been a noble act, she would’ve told Jacob.
Clue #2 leads me to believe that “the prudent move” isn’t the answer either. Had she just been trying to prevent Laban from consulting his oracles, she could’ve buried the idols at the first opportunity, her goal having been accomplished. Clue #2 also leads me to believe that “the act of spite” isn’t her primary motivation either. Had it been a simple act of spite, she would’ve discarded or destroyed them soon after their departure. There’s no need to keep incriminating evidence any longer than necessary. But as we know, Rachel was still holding on to them after 10 days!
“The business move” isn’t compelling because she already knows that Jacob is a wealthy man returning to a wealthy family. Rachel doesn’t need to claim additional riches from her father Laban. Besides that, this motivation doesn’t seem true to her character in my opinion.
Does she take the idols due to sentimental attachment? Possibly. The tokens of our childhood can be difficult to let go of, especially if we derive a level of emotional security from them. Still, I don’t find this reason compelling in and of itself.
There is another explanation, a sixth possibility. Dennis Prager puts it well: “Rachel surely believed in the God of Jacob, but she might well have still believed in the power of idols with which she grew up. When people believe in many visible gods, it takes a very long time to get them to believe in one invisible God. Rachel’s behavior may have been similar to that of Neils Bohr, the Nobel-prize winning physicist who was said to keep a rabbit’s foot in his laboratory. When an astonished visitor asked, ‘But surely, professor, you don’t believe in a rabbit’s foot?’ Bohr responded, ‘Of course not. But they say a rabbit’s foot brings you luck whether you believe in it or not.’”
Rachel was desperately anxious to have a child (Gen. 30:1) and then, later on, desperately anxious to have a second child. Prager points out that Rachel may have taken the idols because she was open to utilizing all means necessary toward procuring her goal, including mandrakes, Jacob’s God, and perhaps also the gods from her father’s household. This point, I believe, explains Rachel’s motivation in the most satisfying way. 1) She’s an anxious person by nature, 2) she is desperate to have children, and 3) she’s hedging her bets.
Ten days after leaving, the unexpected happens. Laban catches up to them and confronts Jacob about the disappearance of the idols.
Jacob is flabbergasted by the accusation. Even still, a simple assurance from Jacob that he did not steal the idols would suffice at this point. Instead, Jacob makes an audacious declaration to Laban. “Anyone with whom you find your gods shall not remain alive!” (31:32).
Remember now: Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, has inherited the power to bless and to curse. His words carry weight. They have an effect. Furthermore, how do you think his words washed over Rachel who was also present at the scene?
Dennis Prager comments, “We are all occasionally tempted to make these types of grandiose avowals, but they are risky and rarely necessary. Jacob’s statement turns out to be highly risky—and unnecessary, as it does not deter Laban from searching the tents in Jacob’s camp.” Even more than risky and unnecessary, it is harmful because, in this moment, Rachel cements the secrecy of her sin. Suddenly the theft threatens her future, her very life. Her husband’s condemnation is so strong that the possibility of her ever admitting the truth to him is here and now smothered.
Laban resorts to searching the tents. But why? Why doesn’t he believe Jacob’s denial of guilt? “Because Laban regularly deceived people. People who lie assume everyone else does, too. This is the built-in punishment of the dishonest: they go through life convinced they are constantly being deceived” (Prager).
Laban starts his search beginning with his top suspects: Jacob, then Leah, then the two maidservants. His youngest daughter Rachel is the least suspected of all, evidenced by the fact that Laban visits her tent last. As he closes in on her tent, I am reminded of Achan in Joshua 7.
- Just as Achan took from Jericho “some of the devoted things,” Rachel had taken from Laban some of his devoted things.
- Just as Achan endured an agonizing countdown before being singled out from his family, so too Rachel endures an agonizing countdown as Laban closes in on her and her secret.
- Just as Achan hid the stolen gold and silver in the ground beneath his tent, now Rachel hides the stolen idols in a saddle beneath her in a tent.
Of course, death was Achan’s sentence. If discovered, what will come of Rachel?
As Laban enters her tent, Rachel tells him, “Let not my lord take it amiss that I cannot rise before you, for the period of women is upon me.” Laban takes Rachel at her word. He does not look under the cushion because it would have been inconceivable to him that Rachel would run the risk of menstruating on his gods. Moments later he exits the tent empty-handed, and Rachel breathes a sigh of relief believing that she is off the hook. But is she really?
We read that after Jacob and Laban part ways, Jacob arrives safely at the city of Shechem and buys some adjacent land (33:18-19). Not long after, something crazy takes place (Genesis 34). As a result, the women and children of Shechem fall under Jacob’s authority (34:27-29). Jacob wants to leave the area because he is worried about the neighboring Canaanites (34:30). God gives him directions to go to Bethel. Jacob obeys, but before leaving Jacob commands all who are with him to bury their idols under an old oak tree. He does not want any foreign deities to join them on their journey to Bethel.
The widows of Shechem approach the old oak tree as commanded and discard their idols, one by one, into a pit. The question is – is Rachel still harboring Laban’s idols? And if so, does she bring them forward in this moment? Because this (we can agree) is her opportunity to do it! In fact, it may well be her last call for confession, because the Bible tells us that her untimely death is just around the corner. The Bible doesn’t specify what Rachel does with the idols. We as readers are given no closure in this regard. Laban’s idols are last seen with Rachel sitting on them as she guards her sin from everyone who is important in her life. What happens to the idols after that moment remains a mystery to this day.
Nevertheless, here is a way to demystify the story with a measure of plausibility. We teleport ourselves to that afternoon underneath the old oak at Shechem. There, with Jacob and pregnant Rachel standing next to us, we watch the Shechemite women – widow after widow after widow – step forward to deposit a household idol into this pit under the oak tree. What is not so obvious is that Rachel envies their ability to surrender their idols. She thinks of the idols that secretly remain in her possession. They are stowed away among her belongings. She has come to resent them in a way, but she is extremely protective of the saddle that they stay inside. She is pregnant, after all, and miscarriages are common.
Believing all idols to have been discarded, Jacob leaves Shechem and travels southward with the rest of his caravan. The caravan makes a stop in Bethel and then travels onward to Bethlehem. Along the way Rachel goes into labor and gives birth to a son. She names the baby Benoni, “son of my sorrow.” She then dies unexpectedly during childbirth.
Okay y’all – here is the question I have been building up to, a question that can’t be answered with certainty but a question that still merits some consideration. Is Rachel’s premature passing a result of the curse that Jacob pronounced over her life without realizing it? Recall, Jacob had declared death to the person who stole Laban’s idols. He did not know who the curse would fall upon. Still his words carry the weight of God’s promise to Abraham, that “whoever dishonors you I will curse” (Gen. 12:3). And then, given Rachel’s failure to confess and seek correction, had Rachel unknowingly sealed up its lethal affect?
Her departing words express sadness as she names her son Benoni. We might wonder: what if her sorrow was made worse by unresolved guilt? She knows that Laban’s idols still hide in a pouch inside her tent. She knows that Jacob will discover them over the course of time. But perhaps she takes this knowledge with her to the grave.
We know that Jacob struggles in the wake of Rachel’s death. He withdraws from the rest of his family. Genesis 35:21-22 describes that dark period. Rabbi Hirsch translates the original Hebrew in a way that renders a unique insight. We key in on one specific detail: “[Jacob] journeyed on [from the place that Rachel was buried] and pitched his tent at some distance from the herd tower. When [Jacob] was residing in that land, Rueben . . . placed his couch beside his father’s concubine so that [Jacob] heard of it.” What is the meaning of this detail: at some distance from the herd tower? Hirsch writes, “It is possible that the tent pitched by Jacob is the tent that Jacob formerly shared with Rachel. Thus, the meaning would be: Jacob pitched [the tent that he and Rachel used to share] at some distance from the herd tower around which the rest of his family had encamped.”
So to say, Jacob withdraws from the rest of the family due to his grieving Rachel. Whereas Jacob resided among them when Rachel was alive, he isolates himself in the days or weeks following her death. And it is during this absence that Jacob’s oldest son makes a salacious move and sleeps with his concubine.
We can imagine a moment during this timeframe. It might have gone like this: A servant breaks off from the camp and travels over to Jacob’s tent, distant and isolated. The servant goes in to tell Jacob about the outrageous act committed by his oldest son Rueben. But Jacob, for the time being, is too detached to be outraged, too exhausted to seek action. At first the servant cannot understand why. But then Jacob gestures toward a pouch that is folded up in the corner of the tent. Out of the bag, the servant pulls a number of carved objects into the firelight. The objects are unmistakable. The objects are Laban’s idols.
This telling sure seems plausible to me! I mean what if something like this happened? What if, following the burial of Rachel, Jacob stumbled upon her long-held secret? And perhaps Jacob, wide-eyed and white-faced, couldn’t help but remember the words he so rashly blurted out over the thief’s life.
