Genesis 24:50–54

Genesis 24:50–54

In addition to the nose ring and bracelets initially presented in , the remainder of the bride price is summarized here. Marriage customs included an exchange of wealth between the families with several purposes. The marriage price indicated here is given from the groom’s family to the bride’s family. This transfer is part of the socioeconomic system of provision and should not be thought of as purchase of chattel. In Sumerian sources, one form of bride wealth (nigmussa) is made up primarily of foodstuffs presented just before the wedding feast. This type of gift would have been an impractical option for Abraham’s servant because of the long trip. Provision of foodstuff by the family brings to mind our modern practice of the groom’s parents bearing the responsibility for the rehearsal dinner and the bride’s family bearing the responsibility for the reception. A less common form (nigdea) sometimes includes precious objects and is presented when the agreement is made between the families. The latter is more likely represented here.

The transfer often took place in two parts: a small “down payment” offered as surety that the wedding would take place, with the remainder changing hands shortly before the wedding. These two stages are approximated in , . In the Nuzi texts of the mid-second millennium BC, bride prices averaged 30 to 40 shekels of silver, or three to four years of average income.

The dowry was given by the bride’s family to the bride (a transaction from father to daughter, not between families per se) and represented her inheritance from the family since she typically did not inherit land. Movable property and valuables were common dowry items. Its function was to provide for the support of the woman should the husband die, desert or divorce her. At times, part of the dowry remained the personal property of the wife, but whatever its disposition, it could not be sold without her consent. In like manner, however, she was not free to dispose of it. If it were not used to support her at some stage in life, it would become part of the inheritance of her children. The dowry of Rebekah is not detailed, though her nurse may have been part of it ().

It is neither typical nor necessary for the woman to be consulted with regard to marriage arrangements by the family (), though certainly the ones to be married were known to express their opinions or even exercise choice through various legitimate and less-than-legitimate options. It should be noted here, however, that it is possible that Rebekah’s opinion is only asked when the question concerns the unusual circumstance of her being so quickly and completely removed from the potential protection provided by her family. Until a woman conceived and bore a child to her new family, her status within the family was tenuous, and the proximity of her father’s family would have been a strong motivator for her husband not to mistreat her or discard her. ◆

Go to

veil. Veils were used in a variety of ways in different cultures and different times, but they always signified something of the woman’s status. Some veils might cover only the hair (a scarf or turban), while others covered the lower part of the face. More common, the veil in the ancient Near East covered both hair and lower face. These were not sheer or gauzy. In the Middle Assyrian laws, married women or concubines were not to appear in public without face and head veiled, whereas veils were prohibited to prostitutes and slave girls. In the Code of Hammurapi, the betrothed wears a veil. In texts from the ancient Near East, veils are most often mentioned in connection with marriage, as here. It is more usual, however, that the husband veils the wife-to-be in a legal act. In a Mari text from about the time of the patriarchs, when the king’s legal emissaries bring a bride from her country to be presented to the king, her future husband, it is the emissaries who cover her with a particular garment.

tent of his mother. Sarah’s status was mistress of the household, and her tent would have been empty since her death (). By taking Rebekah into his mother’s tent, Isaac demonstrates that she is now the mistress of the household.

sons of his concubines. The children of concubines did not have the status of legitimate heirs. A concubine typically brought no dowry and her children had the status of servants or slaves in the household. They were part of the inheritance rather than recipients of it. sent them away. Thus removing them from any presumed position of privilege; yet at the same time he gives them freedom and gifts. Gifts of movable property (rather than land) would be a typical procedure used to consolidate the chief heir’s inheritance. For Abraham to provide this for these sons is unusual generosity.

gathered to his people. This expression finds its roots in ancient views about burial and afterlife. Both the practice of burials in family tombs and the view of continuing social relationships in the afterlife retain the concept of the ancestors as a distinguishable group. One’s place in the family of deceased ancestors was just as central to one’s identity as one’s place in the family in the land of the living. The living family honored the deceased both individually and corporately through a variety of practices that did not stop after burial.

sons of Ishmael. The Ishmaelites—i.e., the peoples descended from Ishmael—are mentioned infrequently in Scripture and are absent entirely from the ancient Near Eastern literature. Besides the genealogical listing (here; ) and the reference to groups associated with the Midianites (; ; ) and with a wide array of Israel’s enemies (), individual Ishmaelites are only mentioned in connection with Esau’s wives (; ) and David’s administration (; ). The Ishmaelites are never identified with a group designated in the OT as “Arabs”—a term that refers to various tribes who inhabit the area of the Arabian peninsula. The term “Arab” is not a tribal term. “Arab” takes on its modern sense only after the rise of Islam in the seventh century AD, at which point it is still not a tribal reference, but a combination of geographic, linguistic and religious identity. Modern Muslims are not descended from Ishmael, nor do they share common biological descent from Muhammad. Moreover, even the prophet of Islam himself did not claim descent from Ishmael. We have no record of what became of the Ishmaelites after the time of David and have no basis for seeing their survival in any known group in the later OT period, and certainly not today.

inquire of the LORD. At times this phrase can refer to dependence upon the Lord rather than on other entities for aid (e.g., gods, foreign nations, as in ; ). At other times it refers to the formal act of asking for an oracle from Yahweh through an official prophet (e.g., ; , ). The latter must be the preferred option here because the result of her inquiry is an oracle (v. ). Usually an oracle is delivered by a prophet or priest, and in the ancient world at large is mediated by a diviner. The statement that “she went” suggests travel to a sanctuary, though if she visited a prophet, they are not always associated with a sanctuary. Whatever the source of the oracle, this statement features the same laconic silence about the details as Laban’s divination () and the role of the household gods (). All of these derive from Laban’s family and indicate the continuation of standard ancient Near Eastern religious practices that are preserved by that side of the family. Yet Yahweh showed some level of tolerance for the slow progress and here was willing to communicate through whatever specialist Rebekah consulted. During the time of Moses, God likewise communicated through the foreign prophet Balaam.

Jacob was cooking some stew. In a large household such as Isaac’s, one would expect servants to do such work. Most likely this exchange takes place at a shepherd camp, where Jacob has traveled to graze the flocks (cf. , ). We need not picture Jacob out on his own camping or at home doing kitchen detail. Most realistic is a setting in which Jacob is in charge of a group of herders at a grazing site. When Esau stumbles into the camp, there may have been many servants and hired help around, but Jacob is the one who sees the opportunity and takes charge.

The privilege of the firstborn in inheritance is referred to as “primogeniture.” Primogeniture was not universally practiced in the ancient world, but it was a sort of default position. Sufficient numbers of examples exist of either a younger son having the privileges or of the estate being equally divided to demonstrate that a variety of arrangements was possible. Primogeniture functioned in the ancient Near East, but not everywhere, nor was it, if present, always observed. In the Code of Hammurapi (section 165) other divisions of property are allowed. In Lipit Ishtar’s laws the inheritance goes equally to the children of two wives; in the Code of Hammurapi the first wife’s firstborn receives a preferential share. Thus the ancient provenance and some shared features of Israel’s law are evident.

At Mari a legal decision granted a double portion to the natural firstborn son; at Nuzi (fifteenth century BC) the same provision was followed. At Alalakh on the Orontes a father was aware of but did not have to recognize the law of primogeniture in his will. He could designate a first son for inheritance purposes. Primogeniture was recognized at Emar, where the son received an “extra share.” Each son first claimed a bride price from the inheritance. A daughter could rarely be an equal heir with the sons in Mesopotamia.

In Egypt by the Middle Kingdom the law of primogeniture could be disregarded by the dying person; property could be willed to a brother. In the New Kingdom era the oldest son was the expected heir, but the entire family or an appointed trustee could become the heir. In the Tale of Sinuhe, a fugitive Egyptian in Canaan, upon departing from Egypt, turned over all of his possessions to his family, both men and property to be given to his firstborn son.

In Neo-Babylonian laws the sons of a first wife received two-thirds of the inheritance, while the sons of the second wife received one-third. Sons who were different in status might fare differently, since sons of the first and main wife could receive the major inheritance. Among sons, in a Middle Assyrian law the oldest son inherited the largest portion; the rest of the inheritance was divided according to set instructions. In some cases the kind of property to be divided up determined how it could be distributed.

The birthright consists of the material inheritance. The firstborn usually received a greater share from the father because he was expected to become the paterfamilias, having ultimate responsibility for all members of the extended family (e.g., mother, unwed sisters) as well as for the continuing care of the deceased. With this greater responsibility came greater resources. When Jacob negotiates to purchase the birthright in , it is not clear whether the additional responsibilities come along with that or not. It is likely that this incident involves only the extra share of the inheritance, while leadership in the clan is given in . ◆

Go to

I am about to die. Esau is a skilled hunter (v. ). Is he truly on the brink of starvation, or is he simply using careless hyperbole? The Hebrew word translated “die” can be used either to describe being famished or experiencing life-endangering hunger. Giving Esau the benefit of the doubt, we may accept that he believes that hunger threatens his life. Nevertheless, the original reading audience would react to Esau’s blunt statement with horror, regardless of how extreme his circumstances.

Abimelek king of the Philistines. In Abimelek is referred to only as the “king of Gerar,” but he is located in “the land of the Philistines” (). king. This is not as lofty a title as may be assumed since even the rulers of small cities in a city-state system (as this is) are referred to in that way. Philistines. See note on .

Although similar to the incidents in ; , the differences between those passages and this one is how the scene unfolds. Isaac’s rationale for the ruse is the same as Abraham’s, but Rebekah is not actually taken by the ruler as Sarah had been on both occasions. Discovery of the ruse does not occur through divine revelation or because of plagues, but through a chance glimpse of Isaac’s intimate interaction with Rebekah. We can note, therefore, a decreasing danger in the three accounts. Pharaoh actually took Sarah into his palace (), which probably implies that he had relations with her. Abimelek sent for Sarah but did not have relations with her (, ). In the case of Rebekah, Abimelek never even sent for her. Also, as a result of the incident, Pharaoh sends Abraham away (); Abimelek gives gifts and freedom in the land to Abraham (); and Abimelek gives protection to Isaac ().

give you my blessing. This blessing is one that transfers the leadership of the clan to the next generation. If the inheritance remained undivided for some time (which was common), the privileged son (usually the firstborn) was designated the administrator of the estate. The administrator had significant control of the estate. His roles included presiding at sacrificial meals celebrated by the family, supervising burials and funerary rites, and serving as guardian-redeemer. Jacob (and Rebekah on his behalf) would desire this because it was also in the administrator’s hands to approve the timing for the division of the inheritance. If Esau were the administrator, he could presumably delay the division indefinitely and thus deprive Jacob of the advantage of the double share of the inheritance. The blessing also served as a proclamation of the destiny of the sons. It was not accorded the same status as a prophecy from God (note Isaac’s use of the first person in v. : “I have made him”), but it still was an exercise of authority believed to be binding through the very speaking of the words. This is why Isaac could not take it back even though it became clear that he had been tricked. It was clearly a celebratory occasion since Isaac asks for the preparation of a special meal, but as such it is odd that the whole household was not asked to be present, both as co-celebrants and as witnesses to the legal transaction. It is not hard to imagine, however, that when political issues of favoritism are involved, there is an inclination to be secretive.

Rebekah responded to Jacob’s fear of a curse by appropriating any curse that may have resulted onto herself. Can she do that? Blessings are nontransferable, so curses would be the same. In this case, Rebekah was likely referring to the consequence of the curse rather than the curse itself. Since deity was the enforcer of the curse, she was acknowledging that she has forced Jacob to deceive his father and ensured that the deity will target her instead.

Go . . . Take a wife . . . from among the daughters of . . . your mother’s brother. Just as Abraham insisted that Isaac marry someone from outside the land (), Isaac expresses the same desire for Jacob. In addition to echoing the past generation, this served as a tacit condemnation of Esau’s marriage (). Why was Isaac prohibited from leaving the land, yet Jacob was encouraged to do so? The difference lies in the fact that if Isaac left and Abraham subsequently died, no heir of the family would be left to safeguard the land by their presence. But when Jacob left, Isaac and Esau were still there to maintain the claim. Abraham and Sarah’s graves were also there. The jeopardy that Isaac and Jacob face has to do with the survival of the family. Jacob is therefore sent from the land to save his life (v. ).

From the fact that the messengers of God appeared passing between the realms in Jacob’s dream, it is clear that he was viewing a portal to heaven. Such portals are envisioned as stairways (as opposed to ladders) in ancient mythology (see the article “

When kings sought to build temples to particular deities, they sought the deity’s direction to identify such a sacred place. Thus, the “house of God” ()—usually referring to a temple (in v.  Jacob identified a sacred space but there was no temple yet built to mark the spot)—is linked along with the “gate of heaven” (v. ) to the entry to the heavenly abode of deity.

There is a continuum in space between the heavenly dwelling and the earthly one such that they are not simply considered mirror images or paired structures, but in the sense that they are more like the upstairs and downstairs of the same building. Yet it is even more than that as the earthly temple can be thought of as actually existing in the heavenly realm. The temple is a place in both worlds, just as the grave is a place both on earth and in the netherworld.

Some temples featured a stairway from the antechamber up to the central cella (the temple’s inner sanctum) where the deity dwelt, indicating perhaps that the deity’s heavenly dwelling was there in the middle of the earthly temple. If this is so, the “gate of heaven” could be considered the entryway to the temple’s inner sanctum (whether at the bottom of the stairway or at the top).

We should not imagine that the angels Jacob saw were marching in procession down and up the stairway as often pictured in art. Rather he saw messengers (= angels) going off on missions and returning from delivering their messages. ◆

Go to

set it up as a pillar. In the ancient world, cult symbols (such as the pillar set up here) are abundantly observable. These standing stones could at times be deified (i.e., considered to contain the essence of a deity). Others were believed to represent ancestral spirits, whereas others could simply stand as memorials of treaties or special events (notice the 12 stone pillars set up by Moses in ). In the context here the standing stone may well have been intended to mark where the presence of God was manifest in Jacob’s vision. Jacob had slept in what is in effect the antechamber of a temple and had seen the stairway leading to the gate of heaven (the inner chamber) with the messengers coming and going from the Lord’s presence; therefore, he set up a standing stone either to mark the “Most Holy Place” (at the top of the stairway) or the place where Yahweh stood (“above” or “beside” the stairway, see v.  and there). Alternatively, the standing stone could have functioned as a commemoration of the covenant agreement and Jacob’s response in a vow.

made a vow. Vows in the ancient world generally involved a request made of deity with a promise of a gift in return when the request is fulfilled. The request often concerned protection or provision, and the gift was typically a sacrifice or a donation to the sanctuary of the deity. The details in this chapter conform to that pattern. God has promised protection, provision and return to the land, so Jacob made those the condition of his proffered gift—a tithe (“a tenth,” v. ) of all that he acquires during his absence.

a tenth. Wealth and possession in the ancient world were not based on money, so Jacob expected to gain flocks and herds. Though tithes could at times be a form of taxation, this tithe was not imposed on Jacob. Gifts related to vows were usually given to the temple (whether by means of sacrifice or donation), but in this case it would have had to be by sacrifice because donations were to be handed over to temple administrators, and there is no formal temple here. Jacob returned to Bethel to fulfill his vow in ch. , and presumably animals were sacrificed at that time (though the text does not say so). Jacob built an altar (), but no further information is given.

We can’t . . . until all the flocks are gathered . . . Then we will water the sheep. Herding contracts in the ancient world were critical to assure the fair distribution of resources that were the foundation for survival. Grazing land and water were often in limited supply. Legal agreements existed between herdsmen and the livestock owners whose animals they cared for since they all shared responsibility for the welfare of the herds and flocks. Legal agreements also presumably existed among livestock owners who shared resources. The latter sort of contract is not well represented in the extant literature, and it is that sort that is probably the basis for this scene at the well, though there may have been more of an informal agreement here. Herdsmen typically operated outside of urban areas, but often in symbiosis with the sedentary population. It is not unusual to find groups that are part-time farmers and part-time herdsmen. In this passage the herds are being kept in close proximity to the settlement. These groups are not nomadic in lifestyle, but do their herding in an orbit around the settled areas.

You are my own flesh and blood. This initial statement by Laban shows some similarity to terminology used in adoption literature. It is possible that Laban is proposing taking Jacob into partnership, which suggests that Jacob will have some prospects for inheritance. A month later, however, Laban acts as if no such deal has ever been made—or he legally repudiates the arrangement, which he can do (see v.  and note).

Just because you are a relative of mine, should you work for me for nothing? In this proposal the entire relationship is restructured (see note on v. ) in that Jacob is considered as doing “work-for-hire” as an employee rather than enjoying a share in the property as a family partner.

seven years. The groom and his family traditionally provided a contribution to the bride wealth often referred to as the bride price (see the article “Marriage Contracts”). Jacob has brought no wealth with him (the inheritance he will eventually gain as heir to Isaac has not yet been divided), so the agreement is reached that his seven years’ labor will serve in lieu of a bride price. Since bride prices averaged around 30 to 40 shekels of silver in the mid-second millennium BC Nuzi, and since Jacob’s work would normally pay about a shekel per month, the substitution of seven years of Jacob’s labor for the bride price results in about twice the normal going rate for brides. Perhaps Laban can take advantage of Jacob because Jacob, being penniless and moonstruck, is in a poor bargaining position.

gave a feast. According to ancient customs marriage was celebrated as a joyful business transaction between families rather than as a civil or sacred ceremony. Though the personal feelings of the couple were not immaterial, legal, economic and social issues were predominant in the institution. The marriage did not take place in the vicinity of sacred space, nor did religious personnel officiate. No vows were made in the name of deity and there was certainly no sacramental aspect to the institution. The agreement was often struck years before the marriage took place and initiated a period termed “inchoate marriage.” When the agreed time came, a feast marked the culmination of the agreement after which the marriage was consummated (often within the family compound of the bride’s parents). It was not unusual for the wife to continue living with her family as the husband made conjugal visits for several months until the woman conceived. Her pregnancy was the signal that the time was right for her to move into the household of her new husband.

It is not our custom. The Code of Hammurapi (section 160) stipulates a penalty for failing to deliver the bride for whom the bride-price has been received. The very existence of the law indicates that this breach sometimes occurred, though there it specifies that the woman had been given to another man. Laban deflects any accusation of breach of contract by claiming custom as support for his action. Little evidence can substantiate Laban’s claim of custom on the basis of ancient Near Eastern documents.

mandrake plants. The usual identification of this plant is Mandragora, frequently believed in the ancient and classical world to possess magical properties, primarily as an aphrodisiac (see ) with the power to make a barren woman conceive. In Egypt it appears to be the aroma that had the erotic powers. Modern study has confirmed that the fruit is a sedative, narcotic and purgative. Unusual characteristics include that the shape of the roots is often reminiscent of the human form and that the plant shines in the dark. Yet there remains some question whether the identification with the fruit in this passage as Mandragora is correct since that plant is not known to grow in Mesopotamia.

After Rachel gave birth. A woman’s status in the marriage is not fully attained until she bears a son. In some contracts from the second millennium BC, a time limit is set after which she can be divorced should an heir not be provided. Prior to Joseph’s birth, it would have been inappropriate for Jacob to leave with Rachel since her status would be more secure with family in the area.

learned by divination. The details of the divination are not given here, so we do not know what sort of specialist Laban consulted (if any) or what class of divination was used. Divination is divided into categories labeled “inspired” (divine communication using a human intermediary, e.g., prophecy, dreams) or “deductive” (divine communication through events and phenomena, either provoked situations, such as lots or extispicy using animal entrails, or passive, such as celestial observation). Given Laban’s report of the result of the divination, it is most likely that he consulted an expert in extispicy. In this procedure, a binary (yes/no) question is posed and then the specialist slaughters an animal and examines the entrails (usually the liver) for indications that their experience dictates as being positive or negative. To get the information Laban conveys, he must have asked whether Jacob’s God was the one bringing prosperity.

They will be my wages. Shepherds’ wages in the ancient Near East were usually the by-products of the herd (mostly a percentage of the wool and milk). Sometimes the shepherd would also get to keep a percentage of the new births. The percentage is not often stated in the texts, but one text from Ischali indicates that the shepherd was allowed to keep 20 percent. Rather than using a percentage, Jacob requests that his share be those that are marked in their coloring. The Awassi fat-tailed sheep was most common in the region and was usually white. Goats were typically black. Deviations from these norms were relatively uncommon and would certainly have been less than 20 percent in normal circumstances.

placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs. In vv.  Jacob shows some knowledge of breeding by favoring the stronger animals. The principle of “like breeds like” is common in pastoral societies worldwide. But his use of the visual aids in the water troughs indicates, unsurprisingly, that he also is bound to the superstitions of the day. No evidences have yet been found in the ancient Near East of the procedure used by Jacob, or of similar ones, based on the premise that what the animal sees will influence the lambs.

Does he not regard us as foreigners? The bride price paid by the groom was often transferred to the bride as an indirect dowry. As such it became part of a financial reserve for her that served as an insurance policy of sorts. This claim of Leah and Rachel suggests that they had neither direct nor indirect dowry (their share of the inheritance); therefore, no financial security would have been provided by staying in the region of their family. The value of Jacob’s 14 years of labor had apparently never been assigned to their present or future holdings. Laban alone profited from Jacob’s labor, meaning that he had, in effect, simply sold his daughters.

Household gods (teraphim) were images that represented deceased ancestors in order to venerate them. There are a variety of opinions about the teraphim, and there probably were various practices with regard to whether these ancestors were worshiped or considered to even have quasi-divine status. Minimally, ancestor images provided a focus for rites related to the care of the dead and also were at times used in divination.

In some of the archives from the mid-second millennium BC, legal documents allow us to see how the family gods figured in the inheritance. At Nuzi, several texts indicate that the principal heir received the family gods. In texts from Emar one document suggests that the household gods were not to be given to a man outside the family. In , Rachel would have no right to this portion of the inheritance, nor would Jacob. Laban is logically distressed over this breach of inheritance practices as well as concerned that the care of the ancestors will be jeopardized by the loss of the images. We can therefore conclude that Rachel’s interest in the teraphim has more to do with family and inheritance than with the issue of worshiping other gods. The spirits of the ancestors were not substitute deities, though some uses of them were certainly proscribed in ideal Yahwism as it eventually took shape.

When women married, it was customary for them to transfer their loyalty to the gods of their husband rather than exercise any individual freedom to choose their own God. Wives were automatically by marriage bound to the god of the husband. In most cases, because of endogamy, the god of her fathers would be the same as the god of her husband, because people in the same geographic location, and especially people in the same clan, tended to worship the same deities. ◆

Protective figurine, Iraq, 900–612 BC.

Kim Walton. The Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago.

Go to

pursued Jacob for seven days. The site of Mizpah (where Laban caught up to Jacob) is not known, but from Harran to the northern end of the hill country of Gilead is approximately 350 miles (565 kilometers). To reach there in ten days (a three-day head start plus seven days for Laban’s travel, vv. ), Jacob must travel 35 miles (55 kilometers) a day, an incredible rate; caravans usually managed 23 miles (37 kilometers) at most. Sheep and goats could neither achieve nor maintain that pace (see ), and women and children would likewise slow down the speed of travel. Given the circumstances, Jacob could not expect to make more than ten miles (16 kilometers) per day. This has led even conservative commentators to suspect that we are reading something wrong. Whenever the Biblical text refers to a journey (Hebrew derek) of a particular number of days, the number is one, three or seven, suggesting the possibility that the expression is idiomatic rather than precise. Yet that does not solve all the problems, because if Jacob travels at a rate of only ten miles (16 kilometers) per day, one would expect Laban to catch him long before he arrives at the hill country of Gilead. Laban can perhaps travel 20 miles (32 kilometers) per day, in which case he could have caught Jacob after only three days, about 65 miles (100 kilometers) from Harran, soon after he crossed the Euphrates at Til-Barsib. Certainly the results will be different if one assumes that Jacob is traveling faster or Laban slower, but the numbers we have used (10 and 20 miles [16 kilometers and 32 kilometers], respectively) are the most defensible. If Jacob is traveling 12 or 13 miles (20 or 21 kilometers) per day, and Laban is traveling 17 miles (27 kilometers), Laban would catch Jacob after about seven days (as the text seems to suggest), but they would only be about 110 miles (175 kilometers) from Harran. That would put them somewhere near Ebla, still only one-third of the way to the hill country of Gilead. The only conceivable solution at the moment that explains Laban’s not catching up to Jacob before the hill country of Gilead is to assume that it takes Laban a week or ten days to prepare for the trip before he can set out and that he cannot travel very fast (after all, he is over 150 years old at this point).

having my period. In the ancient world menstruation was a mysterious thing. Blood was often connected to impurity, and since impurity was contagious, menstruating women were typically isolated, and there was some reluctance to touch them or even be near them. In some cultures, the monthly bleeding made one vulnerable to demonic attack—she was considered a woman under taboo (see note on ). Any of these aspects of belief would have made Laban reticent to search Rachel’s tent too carefully.

This heap is a witness. In v.  Jacob responds to the suggestion of a covenant by setting up a pillar, after which a heap of stones is gathered. The agreement is then marked ceremonially by a communal meal and the formal proclamation of stipulations and an oath. The pillar (see note on ) serves two purposes here: to commemorate the covenant and to mark a territorial boundary (v. ). Jacob’s obligation concerns the treatment of his wives, Laban’s daughters. He agrees not to take other wives (vv. ), an act that would potentially lower the status of Leah and Rachel in Jacob’s family. This sort of clause is also found in marriage contracts from the town of Nuzi in the mid-second millennium. There it appears that marriage contracts were typically drawn up only when there were unusual circumstances that called for a document to protect the rights of the groom, the legal status of the wife, or the property rights of children.

May the LORD keep watch. It is not unusual today to hear this intoned by a minister as the benediction to the congregation at the end of a service or even to find it inscribed on wedding rings. In using it this way, we show our misunderstanding of the words. Here in Genesis they express suspicion. Laban does not trust Jacob, and Jacob does not trust Laban. They both regret that they will have no means to keep an eye on one another and prevent mischief-making, so they commend one another to the watchful eye of deity. A paraphrase is “I don’t trust you out of my sight, but since I can no longer personally hold you accountable, may God do so.” It is hardly a sentiment that one would want on a wedding ring, and although a minister may feel that way about a congregation, it is not in good taste to express it so unequivocally.

take any wives besides my daughters. Jacob’s taking of other wives would potentially lower the status of Leah and Rachel in Jacob’s family. Hence he promises their father (in v. ) that he will not do so.

➊ The Euphrates-Balikh River basin was Jacob’s destination as he fled from Esau, ultimately reaching the home of his maternal uncle (Laban) near Harran.

➋ Jacob’s lengthy sojourn ended in a dispute with Laban and another flight—this time back to Canaan. His route likely took him toward Aleppo, then to Damascus and Edrei before reaching Peniel on the Jabbok River.

➌ He and his dependents reached the hill country of Gilead before their caravan was overtaken by Laban. The covenant at Mizpah was celebrated on one of the hills later used as a border station between Aramean and Israelite territories.

➍ Jacob lingered at Sukkoth, entered Canaan and proceeded to Shechem, where he erected an altar to the Lord.

Go to

Jacob decided that it was best to inform Esau of his return. He probably assumed that his father had died by now, whereupon Esau had come into the entire inheritance, Jacob’s status or whereabouts having been undetermined. In Jacob’s initial communication, he made three basic points.

1. “I have been staying with Laban and have remained there till now” (). This implied that he had not been hiding, avoiding Esau, or sneaking around behind his back.

2. “I have cattle and donkeys, sheep and goats, male and female servants” (). This implied that Jacob was not coming to take anything of Esau’s or trick him out of anything he had acquired.

3. “I am sending this message . . . that I may find favor in your eyes” (). This implied that Jacob was hoping they could put their past behind them.

This was a good start and a worthy gesture that Jacob reasonably expected would succeed. But the answer he received made him ill at ease in its ambiguity, for Esau was coming to meet him with 400 men, and it was unclear whether or not his intentions were friendly.

Jacob’s gift was sufficient for Esau to get a good start on a herding operation of his own or, probably more to the point, to reward any mercenaries in his employ who may have been anticipating plunder. In addition to seeking Esau’s favor as a response to his generosity, Jacob planned three strategic advantages.

1. The five distinct groups of animals arriving in succession would wear down the military readiness of Esau’s band. If they were planning an ambush, they would have to set it up each time a group arrived. When they discovered that Jacob was not in the group, they would all have gathered again and proceeded on their way. After five times it was unlikely that they would be as alert for combat as they might have been at first. By that time Esau and his men would probably have given up the idea of an ambush altogether.

2. As the gifts arrived, Esau became more and more encumbered in his travel. The animals would have forced him to move more slowly and would have made his band much noisier. It would be difficult to take Jacob by surprise given the unavoidable cacophony of the livestock.

3. As Jacob’s servants brought gifts, they joined the march of Esau’s band. Esau’s military tactics would have been less effective if he had to cope with members of Jacob’s household mixed in among his own retinue of soldiers. ◆

Go to

a gift. It serves several functions, but above all it indicates to Esau that Jacob is not interested in taking anything that Esau may have inherited.

This gift is generous. It is larger than many towns would have been able to pay in tribute to conquering kings even at later dates. If Esau or his men had plunder on their mind, it saves them the trouble and makes the trip worth their time and effort. Assyrian sources contain numerous lists of plunder collected in their conquests.

wrestled with him till daybreak. Jacob was 97 years old at this point, so he could hardly be considered a challenge to an angel in physical terms. When the text tells us that Jacob’s opponent could not overcome him (v. ), it is not suggesting that Jacob was physically besting the man. The ease with which he inflicted physical damage on Jacob indicates that any ability must have been in the spiritual arena, not the physical one.

One tale from Hittite literature has some intriguing features in the context of a ritual to honor the gods Teshub and Hebat. The goddess speaks something to the king and begins to depart or at least states an intention to do so. The next section has some familiarity:

The king (answers), “Come back!”

The goddess (says) as follows: “If I come back, will you in whatever manner—(such as) with horses and chariots—(strive to) prevail over me?

The king (says) as follows, “I shall (strive to) prevail over you.”

The goddess (says) as follows, [“Make (then) a wish.”]

The king (says) as follows, “Give me life, health, sons (and) daughters in the future, [(strong weapons)], and put my enemies under my feet.”

Clearly, there is no actual combat here. Common features include only that the human being detains the deity, conveys his intention to prevail, and requests a blessing. The most important common motif to be recognized here is in the human risk in initiating a confrontation (though it never becomes physical) with a divine representative in order to gain audience and receive a blessing. Jacob and the Hittite king were both pursuing the same sort of goal. The Hittite text has been identified as a rite designed to ensure that the gods give powers to the king.

The “socket” of Jacob’s “hip” is “touched” and as a result is “wrenched” or, more likely, torn or ruptured. Consequently, Jacob limps (v. ). The Hebrew word for “hip” is the same word translated “thigh” in , . In that context there is no mention of the “socket”; instead, Abraham’s servant places his hand “under” the thigh. The Hebrew word translated “thigh/hip” usually refers to flesh or muscle rather than the pelvic bone. It is possible that the Hebrew word refers to the groin area. Verse says that in the morning Jacob is limping—it does not say that he has a limp for the rest of his life. If there were only the description of the injury, a blow to the groin area causing a rupture of the testicles would make the most sense of the language used here, as opposed to a dislocation of the hip joint. Until more linguistic information comes to light, the precise interpretation must remain obscure.

Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” Three factors to observe—this encounter took place by a river (v. ), the stranger could be interpreted as fearing daylight, and Jacob clearly believed the wrestler was a supernatural being—together led to a multitude of ingenious mythological explanations about the stranger’s concerns and his nature based on literature from much later times. On the basis of anthropological folklore and Greco-Roman literature, it has been proposed that it was a river demon or a guardian of the fords, a creature of the night who attacked Jacob. The data relevant to comparative studies, however, should not be sought in such literature. It is much more difficult to find in the literature of the ancient Near East examples of river-gods and supernatural beings who cannot be seen in the light of day. There is no shortage of river-gods in the literature of ancient Mesopotamia and Syria and they can be antagonistic, but the idea of these gods attacking humans to prevent their crossing is not attested in the ancient Near East.

At the end of the episode, Jacob designates the individual as elohim. This word usually is a designation for deity but can be used for any supernatural being. The clearest statement comes from , where the prophet indicates that Jacob struggled with an angel. Since an angel can legitimately be referred to either as a “man” [v. ; cf. ] or as elohim [cf. , see ], Hosea does not contradict either of the statements in Genesis, so it offers the most acceptable solution.

bowed down to the ground seven times. This practice is attested protocol used when a vassal has an audience with his superior. Most notably, the petty city-state kings of Canaan speak of themselves acting this way toward the Egyptian pharaoh in the Amarna letters (mid-second millennium BC).

pieces of silver. The monetary unit referred to here (qesitah) has not been identified. It occurs elsewhere only in (a reference back to this passage) and . Neither archaeology nor extra-Biblical literature provides further information. One possibility is that these pieces are not shaped like coins but take some other form. In Egypt at this time rings of silver (known as shat) were used for exchange.

took her and raped her. In societies in which marriages were arranged with economic and sociological goals in mind, the couple did not always have an opportunity to pursue their love interests. One way around the problem of parents’ unwillingness to accept their children’s preference for a spouse was to bypass the process and engage in consensual intercourse. Whether this expression of interest was only on the part of the would-be husband, in which case it would be termed “rape,” or involved a mutual decision of engaging in consensual sex, the result is similar: the parents would generally have to go ahead with allowing the marriage. Both and include regulations to address this situation. It was also regulated in ancient Near Eastern law. Whether Dinah had been raped or virtually “eloped,” the family was undeniably shamed by the incident. A rape would certainly be tragic and devastating to Dinah and the family. But if Dinah were in any way involved in the decision, the family would be shamed not only by Shechem’s act, but also by Dinah’s lack of respect for the family.

plunder. Beyond the slaughter of the entire male population, the brothers took all the women and children as well as all the goods in the city as plunder. Presumably the brothers rationalized their conduct by insisting that such is the mandated bride price for the violation of their sister. Nevertheless, the level of brutality is incomprehensible and far exceeds the justifiable retribution for the crime of the city’s prince.

Get rid of the foreign gods. In order to fulfill the vow made to Yahweh in , Jacob commanded several activities, each with ritual significance. Jacob’s vow had included not only the payment of a tithe, but the promise that Yahweh would be his God. Consequently, he instructed his household to bury all the foreign gods (v. ), the presence of which was indicative of divided loyalty. Burial was one of the approved methods of discarding images. These were not the household gods Rachel brought with her, for those were not strictly divine images but images of the ancestors (see the article “Household Gods”). Instead, the buried images were most likely ones plundered from the town of Shechem. This is the first instance in Genesis of disposing of other gods. There has been little discussion thus far in Genesis about the issue of other gods and no clear call to monotheistic belief or practice. But here Jacob makes a statement by his actions. purify yourselves and change your clothes. Purification was a normal preparation for ritual activity. Those officiating in rituals often had outfits befitting their position, from the elaborate garments of priests and kings to the linen of assistants. But here the celebrants were directed to change clothes. Some ritual texts, especially those involving the king, portray him putting on clean garments for a ritual. For many celebrants, however, the issue may not be what they are changing into, but what they are changing out of. When work or other activity has sullied one’s clothing, it is appropriate to change clothes in order to avoid ritual impurity. For Jacob’s entourage, this may have been necessitated simply to eliminate the dirt and grime of travel with all the animals, but it could also refer to the residue of the recent massacre at Shechem.

the rings in their ears. The earrings referred to were closely related to the images. Commentators commonly suggest, though tentatively, that earrings in their shape or symbolism may have been quasi-representations of deity themselves. However, archaeology thus far attests no earrings in the shape of deity, but it is speculated that crescent-shaped earrings may have been symbolic representations of the moon-god. Many images in the ancient Near East were adorned with earrings, so in this phrase the pronoun “their” could point to the gods, not to Jacob’s household; i.e., as they disposed of the images, they should not hold back the earrings from the images for themselves.

, Ephrath. See note on v. .

Rachel’s tomb. The text, geography and traditions all complicate its precise location. Jacob was traveling south from Bethel (v. ) to arrive eventually in Hebron (v. ). Specifically they were on the way to Ephrath/Bethlehem (cf. ) and had not yet arrived at Migdal Eder (). They were therefore following the main north-south road through the central hill country. From Bethel to Bethlehem is just under 20 miles (32 kilometers) (going through Jerusalem). In Rachel’s tomb is identified as being at Zelzah on the border of Benjamin (cf. , which has been interpreted to suggest it was near Ramah, just east of Gibeon, more in the middle of Benjamite territory). Jerusalem is on Benjamin’s southern border with Judah. Zelzah is unknown other than this reference.

Part of the confusion occurs because the term “Ephrath” (vv. , ) has multiple references (cf. ). Besides its association with Bethlehem (see ), it can refer to people from the tribe of Ephraim. The traditional tomb of Rachel today, located outside Bethlehem, does not fit these details. One last wild card is the location of Migdal Eder (v. ), which unfortunately is unknown, but it may not have helped since it could have been some distance from Rachel’s tomb, just not as far as Hebron. Given all of this information, it is most logical to locate Rachel’s tomb somewhere along the road from Bethel to Jerusalem, but it is difficult to be more precise.

slept with his father’s concubine. Though this is technically an incestuous act, the offense here was treated more as social usurpation than as sexual immorality. Possession of the concubines that belonged to the head of the clan was presumably a sign of leadership in the clan. When the father died, the care and ownership of the concubines (as part of his property) passed to the next head of the clan. To seize ownership of the concubines prior to the father’s death would be then seen as an act of subversion and disrespect (comparable to seizing land or herds), but would not be unusual if succession to clan leadership were contested. In this context, Reuben’s offense against his father circumvented proper succession procedures and implies that his father was powerless. Beyond clan leadership, Reuben’s act was not necessarily to secure his own position in the clan, but by treating Bilhah (Rachel’s servant) this way, it assured that Leah would assume the place of principal wife (since Rachel had just died). In this sense it was an offense against Bilhah, but again, not just in a sexual sense, but by an act intended to undermine her status in the clan.

Esau the father of the Edomites. Esau’s descendants lived in Seir (a region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba) and formed, with other elements, the tiny tribal kingdom of Edom. Edom was sparsely settled and virtually no Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 BC) settlements are present. However, people did inhabit the region during the Late Bronze Age, for Egyptian records from about the thirteenth to the tenth centuries BC (Rameses I–III; Merneptah) first mention this territory/people and groups of Shasu (nomads) from Edom/Seir. Shasu parallels Seir in these texts; these nomads are a major part of Edom’s population.

Travel and commerce existed between Egypt and Edom very early. Inhabitants of Edom were probably tent dwellers as well as pastoralists in some sense. Later references to them come from Assyrians and Babylonians. Adadnirari III of Assyria (810–783 BC) was the first one to deal with Edom as a vassal state. Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC) subjugated Edom. Nabonidus nearly destroyed Edom in about 550 BC (), but it grew healthy under Persian rule.

ornate robe. An Egyptian tomb painting from the nineteenth century BC depicts a troupe of Semitic merchants coming down to Egypt. Some of the men are wearing colorful knee-length, sleeveless garments. We do not know whether this was the type of garment Jacob gave Joseph, but it gives an idea of the fashions of the general period. A fresco from Mari (eighteenth century BC) portrays priests dressed in garments made of rectangular pieces of cloth of various colors sewn together into a long strip that is then wrapped around the body seven or eight turns from the ankles up to the chest and then draped over one shoulder.

Various types of clothing communicated rank and status in society. In the ancient world the fabrics, ornamentation, colors, length and hem all played a role in indicating the position of the wearer. Undoubtedly Joseph’s coat designated authority as well as favor, but little more can be said because the Hebrew word for “ornate” occurs only here (also in vv. , ) and in the passage describing Tamar’s cloak (, ). No cognates from comparative Semitic languages offer any confident clarification. The traditional interpretation of a coat of many colors goes back to the Greek and Latin translations of the OT (though now abandoned in many scholarly circles). Most commentators favor something more along the line of a full-length coat or a long-sleeved coat, reflected in Aquila’s Greek translation in the second century AD.

Joseph had a dream. The ancients believed dreams derived from the divine realm and were therefore taken seriously. Dreams of a rise to power, like the ones Joseph had, are known in the ancient Near East, notably one by Sargon, king of Akkad, half a millennium earlier than Joseph. Sargon, cupbearer to King Ur-Zababa, recounts to the king his dream in which the king was drowned in a river of blood unleashed by a gigantic vision of Inanna:

There was a single young woman [the goddess Inanna],

she was high as the heavens, she was broad as the earth,

She was firmly set as the base of a wall.

For me, she drowned you in a great [river] of blood.

Ur-Zababa’s advisors reinterpreted the dream to suggest that it was Sargon who was going to die rather than the king. This demonstrates how even fairly transparent dreams could be reinterpreted to suit the desires of one party or another. Joseph’s dream indicated not the death of his brothers, but simply their subordination to him. There was nothing in the dream that led them to consider that Joseph’s eventual prominence would extend beyond the confines of the family, for only his family members bowed down to him in the dream. It would not have occurred to any of them that Joseph would rise to the position of second-in-command of a dominant world power.

Both in Sargon’s and Joseph’s dreams the dreamer’s life was put in jeopardy as those who would have been supplanted in his rise to authority sought to prevent the fulfillment of that dream by eliminating the one marked for ascendancy. Of course, there is no reason to think of literary dependence here, only to observe the common motifs that reflect widespread human experience.

A curious feature of the second dream (vv. ) is the symbolic presence of Joseph’s mother and all 11 brothers. This is odd in that his mother had previously died giving birth to her second son. The inclusion of Joseph’s parents is of significance here, because it indicates that the message of the dream did not just suggest that Joseph would be first among his brothers (in which case it would be similar to the patriarchal blessings found in ; ), but that Joseph would rise to prominence in the entire ancestral line, superseding his parents in significance. This justifies the inclusion of family members living or dead. Another option is that—since Joseph was still less than ten years old when his mother died, and therefore Rachel’s handmaid, Bilhah, had been a surrogate mother to Joseph and Benjamin—the dream perhaps referred to Bilhah.

cisterns. Where wells could not be dug and precipitation was sufficient, cisterns were constructed to catch rain and runoff during the wet season to provide some supply for the dry season. The area of Dothan averages 24–28 inches (60–70 centimeters) of rainfall annually; thus, if 20 percent of the runoff from a half-acre (one-hectare) field could be caught and stored, about 5,000 sheep could be supplied with water for the year. As one can imagine, water collected in cisterns easily became stagnant. It was not unusual for dry cisterns to be miry at the bottom, because the runoff would carry sediment. But if it were maintained for constant use, it would have been cleaned out regularly. The region of Dothan features limestone, which is porous, and thus cisterns were coated on the inside with plaster (a procedure documented in the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze periods [e.g., at Taanach and Megiddo, respectively]) to prevent absorption of the water.

caravan of Ishmaelites. The text refers to both Ishmaelites and Midianites, kinfolk both descended from Abraham (Midianites through Keturah, ; Ishmaelites through Hagar, ). The forebears of these two peoples were half brothers to one another (and to Isaac), and uncles to Jacob; thus, these traders are second or third cousins to Joseph and his brothers. Both clans occupied the Arabian Desert region. spices, balm and myrrh. The goods that the caravan was transporting were common commodities for trade. Myrrh was imported from southern Arabia and must have come by caravan up the Incense Road, which traversed the west coast of Arabia to the King’s Highway, which led north-south through Transjordan (east of the Jordan Valley) to Damascus. Perhaps the Ishmaelites purchased this myrrh and other spices from the Arabian caravans passing through Gilead on the King’s Highway and then added to their shipment some of the balm that was native to that region to make their trip down to Egypt.

twenty shekels of silver. The going rate for a slave in the mid-second millennium BC. Examples from Hammurapi, Mari, and a variety of Old Babylonian documents support this. In contrast, prices in southern Mesopotamia about 2000 BC were 10 shekels and by the time of Nuzi and Ugarit (fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BC) the price was more like 30 shekels. By the time we get into the first millennium BC, the going rate was 50 shekels, and by the Persian period, 80 to 100 shekels was common.

A number of possible motives or anticipated results may underlie this custom, and the issue is still disputed. Alternative and not unrelated possibilities include provision of an heir, protection of the family holdings and/or dowry, or caring for the widow. Information from the ancient Near East comes from family documents from Emar as well as Hittite laws and Middle Assyrian laws.

Care for the widow cannot be seen as the sole motive, for then the legislation would simply mandate that the dead husband’s family care for her. It is also unlikely that the retention and benefit of the dowry was the sole motivation, for then the new husband (the brother) would have much to gain and would hardly view the task as an unpleasant duty. The primary beneficiary of the practice must therefore be considered to be the dead husband rather than the surviving family. However, it is not simply for the memory of the dead husband that an heir must be born, but so that the deceased might be provided with an heir to his estate. If the land has been forfeited, the relative must redeem it for the widow and then produce an heir to whom to pass it.

It should be pointed out that the law pertains when brothers are living together (cf. ). This refers to a situation in which the inheritance has not yet been divided. In such a case, if one brother dies, each of the others would receive a larger share. Three circumstances call for the invoking of the levirate rule: (1) the father is alive and the brothers are still living in his house; (2) the father is dead but the inheritance has not yet been divided; (3) the land has been alienated and the levir must redeem it.

None of the ancient Near Eastern material reflects identical circumstances, but shows that concern for the central issues was shared across the ancient world.

Levirate marriage was practiced at Ugarit, at least at the royal level of society (c. 1345–1336 BC), with reference to the childless Arhalba and his brother Niqmepa. Hittite laws and possibly laws at Nuzi recognized this marriage practice. In Hittite law a widowed wife could, if necessary, marry her brother-in-law, her father-in-law, or the son of her brother-in-law.

In some Hittite and Assyrian laws the issue is not whether the deceased had sons, but rather the need to support the widow in whom the father had a large investment through the bride price. More recent textual finds from Emar emphasize the desire of legislation like this to keep property within the family. Concern for the preservation of seed and inheritance is found late into the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (273/272 BC).

In the more ancient Middle Assyrian laws the wife of a son who died could be given by the son’s father to another of his sons, even if the other son were betrothed to someone else but not yet married. But if the father of that betrothed daughter did not agree to this, the father of the deceased son could still proceed as planned and give the betrothed bride to his son. Or he could withdraw from the entire process. If a betrothed daughter died before the marriage, her father could give his prospective son-in-law another daughter, or the betrothed groom could withdraw.

If a wife’s husband died while they were living in her father’s house, if she had borne no children, her father-in-law could marry her to the son of his choice, or she could be given in marriage by her father to her father-in-law. This option was not permitted in Israel (cf. ). If her husband and father-in-law both died, she became a widow and was free to do as she pleased. If the wife had borne children, she was free to live in a house for her and her son in her father’s household. ◆

Go to

fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law. The custom of levirate marriage mandated that if a man died without a male heir, a relative was to sire a son with the widow on his behalf. See the article “Levirate Marriage.”

spilled his semen on the ground. This does not refer to masturbation, as is occasionally suggested. It rather refers to the practice of ejaculating outside the woman’s body (“withdrawal”) as a means to avoid impregnation. Interestingly, while masturbation is not forbidden in the Bible, a negative confession in the Egyptian “Book of the Dead” proclaims, “I have not masturbated.”

Live as a widow. A widow without children was a woman without legal, economic or social status—a woman without a household. Judah here relegates Tamar (through his continuing authority over her) to the protection of her father’s household. This is unusual in that a dowry would have been initially paid by her father precisely for the purpose of supporting her in a situation such as this. It is unlikely that her father would have had any legal obligation to support her.

widow’s clothes. Would be sufficiently distinctive to mark Tamar’s station, but our sources are inadequate for determining what these clothes looked like.

prostitute. Sheep-shearing time was payday, and the income windfall, the celebratory atmosphere, and the isolation of the men from the family compound all were conducive to the activity of prostitutes. Prostitution in the ancient world can be divided into a number of different categories, and there is some dispute concerning the labels and descriptions.

Particularly debatable is what is called “sacred prostitution” (in which the proceeds go the temple) and “cultic prostitution” (which is performed as a rite of fertility). The latter is only attested in relation to the tightly regulated sacred marriage rites and was not engaged in by the public at large. It is not legitimately labeled “prostitution.” With regard to the former, though undoubtedly secular prostitutes might congregate around the temple (especially at festival times), evidence is lacking for the temples profiting from or organizing prostitution (though makes it clear that such a practice did exist).

Some groups of women in the Old Babylonian period (1800–1600) e.g., the naditu and qadishtu, were regulated by codes and identified with male deities; their sexuality was controlled by either celibacy or marriage. These were often associated with temples. Other groups (e.g., the harimtu) were associated with female deities, had no regulating codes, and were uncontrolled sexually. The latter typically operated from the tavern and acted for pay.

Tamar is referred to by two separate terms in this chapter. In v.  Judah considered her a zonah, the normal Hebrew word for “prostitute” (used also in v. ). He reached this conclusion not because her face was veiled (that detail is given to explain why he did not recognize her—usually prostitutes were unveiled), but because she had stationed herself by the road as a prostitute would. But when Judah sent his friend to look for her, the friend inquired concerning the qedeshah (vv. , NIV “shrine prostitute”).

This latter term is used only two other times in the OT (; ). Ugaritic texts list women similarly labeled (qdsh) among the temple personnel, and Akkadian literature attests those who were dedicated for life to serve the temple with a cognate term (qadishtu). These shrine functionaries were not by definition prostitutes—they had other, legitimate roles. But in practice, it may not have been uncommon for them to engage in prostitution. By inquiring after the qedeshah Judah’s friend concealed the specifics in ambiguity—there may have been a number of reasons a gift would be brought to a shrine functionary.

seal . . . cord . . . staff. In the ancient world legal identification was not by signature or specially assigned numbers as today. The seal was the most common form of identification. In Mesopotamia inscribed cylinders were used (and often worn around the neck), whereas in the rest of the ancient world scarab or stamp seals were carved in intaglio on disk-shaped bits of stone (the size of a small coin), usually decorated with some sort of simple picture and occasionally with the individual’s name and/or position. These were often pierced so as to be worn somewhere on the body, often around the neck on a cord, probably referred to in this verse. Stamp seals are attested as early as the seventh-millennium BC Neolithic period. Cylinder seals made their appearance in the early fourth millennium BC. The staff that Judah left with Tamar must have also been distinctive and capable of identifying the owner. One possibility is that it was a staff that designated the head of the family (cf. ). Akkadian hattu is used for the scepter of a king, but also for the shepherd’s staff and the staff that serves as the insignia of office for important people. It seems that the top of the staff was often engraved.

have her burned to death! It was a fact of life and society that sometimes widows were forced into (either regular or occasional) prostitution in order to live. Yet it was still unacceptable behavior and was punished severely. The punishment of burning is rare and reserved for the most serious of sexual crimes (cf. ; for the only other Biblical occurrences). In ancient Near Eastern legal texts, burning is likewise a rare punishment, but used in similar circumstances: for a naditu (see note on v. ) who opens a tavern or enters a tavern to drink beer, and for incest with one’s mother. This was a most serious punishment since it probably precluded proper burial.

where the king’s prisoners were confined. Jails were not common in the ancient world since imprisonment was not a standard punishment for crimes. If Potiphar truly believed that Joseph, his slave, was guilty of sexually assaulting his wife, execution would have been the swift and normal response. Instead, Joseph was confined where political prisoners were kept to await trial, judgment or execution. Since Potiphar was referred to as the “captain of the guard” (v. ) and later Joseph met Pharaoh’s other officials in the house of the captain of the guard (), it appears that Joseph was detained under Potiphar’s supervision and was there again given authority. In other words, Joseph was transferred to another part of Potiphar’s house. That does not mean that his imprisonment was a farce, but it suggests that Potiphar’s anger may well have been directed toward his wife and that after an adequate show of indignation, Joseph was gradually moved into a position of authority once again.

Painting in the tomb of Qenamun, West Thebes, depicts bakers mixing, kneading dough and filling bread molds. The chief baker () would have overseen these types of activities.

Werner Forman Archive/E. Strouhal/Glow Images

Return to

the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. Though these titles may in part be ceremonial, these two men had overall responsibility for what was served to the king. The potential for assassination attempts through the king’s food and drink was real and constant, so these officials not only needed to be incorruptible themselves, but also had to be able to hire people above reproach and identify attempts at infiltration of the staff by enemies of the king. The text is silent concerning their offense, but since both were responsible for meals it seems logical to speculate that the king may have gotten sick from a meal.

each dream had a meaning of its own. Dreams were considered important vehicles of divine communication in the ancient world (see note on ). Trained specialists interpreted the dreams of important people and paying customers using “dream books,” compiled both in Egypt and Mesopotamia. These books were consulted for the meaning of symbols in dreams. The Egyptian books typically indicate that a particular element in the dream is good or bad. Mesopotamian dream books offer ritual remedies. The specialists depended on this literature because the gods did not reveal the interpretation of the dreams. Joseph, however, has no knowledge of the “science” and no access to the literature; he relies on God for the interpretation of the dream. The interpretation he offers nevertheless uses principles well known from the literature. For instance, the idea that the number of items indicates the number of days/years (vv. , ) has precedent in the literature. The symbols in these dreams are similar to some of those found in the dream books. A full goblet (v. ), e.g., is indicative of having a name and offspring. Carrying fruit on one’s head (cf. v. ) is indicative of sorrow.

Pharaoh’s birthday. No evidence for celebrations surrounding the birthday of a pharaoh is known until the first millennium BC. The day of birth may refer to the anniversary of his accession or coronation as king (cf. ), for which there is evidence as early as the Sixth Dynasty (second half of the third millennium).

impaled the chief baker. The Hebrew verb used here refers to being hanged. Hanging in the ancient world was generally not a means of execution, but an additional indignity in the treatment of a corpse. The corpse would be hung in some way (often impaled on a stick) to be devoured by insects, birds, and animals of prey. Here the execution was carried out by beheading (v. ; cf. ) and then the body was hung out to be devoured.

Pharaoh. It is impossible (given the insufficient data) to identify the pharaoh of the Joseph story, who throughout is simply called “Pharaoh.” The term “Pharaoh” (= “great house”) originally referred to the palace and is not attested as a designation for the king of Egypt until the fifteenth century BC. Even then, for the next 500 years or so it was not used with the name of the king, but stood alone as here and in Exodus. It is not until the tenth century BC that it is used in combination with a personal name. The general chronology locates Joseph in the period known as the Middle Kingdom (first quarter of second millennium BC) or the Second Intermediate Period (second quarter of the second millennium BC). Those who feel that a precise chronology can be derived from the Biblical record place Joseph in the reign of Amenemhet II or Senusret (Sesostris) II or III. a dream. A king’s dream is always of special import, and he customarily employed dream specialists to interpret the dream and offer advice as to how to proceed. It was of particular importance if a dream were repeated, and a number of examples are known from the literature. Just as Pharaoh had a double dream here, Gudea, king of Lagash (around 2000 BC), had a double dream concerning the building of a temple. In a Mari letter, the king is warned twice (given to someone else on consecutive nights) that he should not rebuild a temple in Terqa. In the Gilgamesh Epic at the end of tablet 1, Gilgamesh has a double dream about his upcoming encounter with Enkidu. In tablet 4 he has a sequence of five dreams concerning the upcoming encounter with the guardian, Huwawa. In the Babylonian “Poem of the Righteous Sufferer” (Ludlul bel Nemeqi), the sufferer receives three dreams informing him that he has been cleansed from his offense. In these examples multiple dreams give warning (Mari), inform concerning the future (Gilgamesh), and offer absolution (“Righteous Sufferer”). Pharaoh’s dreams contain the first two of these.

magicians and wise men. “Magicians” (hartummim) is a technical term that refers to the specialists centered in the “House of Life,” where the dream interpretation manuals were stored and studied. This term is constructed from an Egyptian title referring to a chief lector priest (hry-tp hry-hb). This same term is used in late (Ptolemaic) literature to describe Imhotep, the famous Egyptian architect from the Third Dynasty (middle of the third millennium BC) who was also the high priest of Heliopolis. Another famous Egyptian lector priest was the prophet Neferti, who rehearses the troubled times of the First Intermediate Period at the end of the third millennium BC.

Egyptians, like the Mesopotamians and Hittites, had guilds of magicians whose tasks included both medicinal procedures and oneiromancy (divination based upon dreams). They used exorcism to frighten away gods and demons, and used incantations and curses to transfer evil to or from someone or somewhere. Thousands of texts have been discovered containing protection spells, as well as objects such as amulets, dolls, incantation bowls and figurines (and the recipes to create them), which were used in magical rituals. Mesopotamians distinguished between “black” (harmful) and “white” (helpful) magic, and thus practitioners were divided into “sorcerers” and “magicians”/“wise men,” respectively, but Egyptians did not draw this distinction. Although their primary task was medical, Egyptian magicians sometimes employed a less respectful manner toward the gods, including spells to help a soul escape the underworld as seen in the “Book of the Dead.”

It is unusual in Egypt for Pharaoh to be in need of a dream interpreter. Pharaoh was considered divine, so when the gods communicated with him through dreams, the meaning should have been obvious.

shaved. As Egyptian monuments certify, male Egyptians were characteristically clean-shaven and at times shaved their heads as well (bald or close-cropped), though they would then at times wear wigs made of human hair. The text here is unclear concerning the extent to which Joseph was shaved.

seven years of famine. Extended famines were known in Egypt. If the nineteenth century BC is the time period of Joseph, it may be of interest that there is evidence of massive irrigation projects in the Faiyum area designed to reclaim additional land for farming (probably during the reign of Senusret II). It might also be noted that during the reign of Amenemhet III around 1800 BC, a number of years show record high levels of the Nile during the inundation (reaching as high as 16 feet [5 meters]), but in succeeding years it declined markedly so that ten years later it was only 1.5 feet (0.5 meters). Either of these events could conceivably be related to the system suggested and administered by Joseph, though there is no conclusive evidence to support such a connection.

appoint commissioners. In Egypt as well as in the rest of the ancient Near East, incantations were generally used to avoid the negative consequences portended by dreams. Here, in contrast, Joseph offers a strategy to counteract the effect of the dream. In the nineteenth century BC, Senusret III is known for reducing the power of the nomarchs (provincial governors) to restore a more centralized government. In the process a new “bureau of the vizier” and a new bureaucracy were established involving new commissioners. Again, there is no evidence to associate this with Joseph, but it demonstrates that periodic modifications in the bureaucracy were not uncommon.

in charge of my palace. Pharaoh’s initial appointment gives Joseph authority in the palace based on the recognition of the Spirit of God in Joseph (v. ). The combination of insight (indicated by the dream interpretation) and wisdom (indicated by the proposed strategy) were sufficient to conclude that Joseph enjoyed divine favor—a good reason to keep him close to the throne.

In Egyptian documents, the administrative second-in-command over Egypt is the vizier, known as the “Overseer of the Royal Estates.” Joseph’s new role, however, may not be quite as lofty as that. There are other posts that could make the claim of being second-in-command in the area of their responsibility. This is similar to a company today that has a President and CEO, and a staff of vice presidents: Vice President of Production, Vice President of Marketing, Vice President of Legal, etc. Each of these individuals could legitimately claim to be second-in-command in his or her particular area and to be set in charge of the entire company in the area of his or her jurisdiction. Similarly, numerous Egyptian nobles could serve in offices and bear titles that identified them as second only to Pharaoh. Such titles include “Great Favorite of the Lord of the Two Lands” and “Foremost Among His Courtiers.”

One of the most appropriate known titles that describes Joseph’s duties is “Overseer of the Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt.” It is not unusual to find accounts of officials who were elevated from lowly status to high positions of authority.

in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Joseph is given authority that is neither municipal nor regional.

The signet ring allows Joseph to make decisions and authorize them in the name of Pharaoh. The clothing, jewelry and transportation all designate his high station.

Joseph’s renaming and his marriage into a priestly family give him a new identity as an Egyptian noble. On. This city (reflecting Egyptian Iunu) is later known as Heliopolis and is one of the most revered of Egypt’s ancient cities (along with Memphis and Thebes). It is located just north of modern Cairo at the base of the Nile delta.

You are spies! Semites/Asiatics were often distrusted by the Egyptians, so this is not an unusual charge. The Egyptians referred to them by various epithets such as “sand dwellers” and “throat slitters” and considered them wild and uncivilized.

But for what purpose would they be spying on Egypt? It is not likely that the Egyptians feared invasion from Canaan, though they may have been wary of limited raids. Since we use the word “spy” mostly for military intelligence, an alternate translation here might be “scouts.” Economic motives would be more logical than military ones. Fields and storehouses could be plundered. What might ostensibly be a request for grain could serve as a guise for discovering what supplies of grain existed and how they might be ransacked. Reflections on the First Intermediate Period (last century and a half of the third millennium BC) in works such as the Instructions of Merikare and the Prophecy of Neferti reveal the social unrest caused by unruly foreign elements infiltrating Egyptian society. The result was increased attention to fortification of the Nile delta during the Middle Kingdom period (2100–1800 BC).

each man’s silver. In supplying each of the brothers with both the grain and their silver, Joseph confirmed the accusation that they were scouts, intent on stealing grain (see previous note). Frequently we might see trade in grain or herds (rather than silver), but Jacob’s family had no grain, and the herds were difficult to transport. It is no surprise, then, that they brought silver with which to trade.

cup . . . for divination. The idea that a cup was used for divination suggests that divination took place by observing liquids poured into the cup (either the shapes of oil on water or the ripples of the water, to name a few techniques known from Mesopotamia). Little is known of these techniques in Egyptian practice. Divination was a means of acquiring information. It is of interest that Joseph acquired information by means of the cup, not by pouring liquid into it, but by using it to test his brothers, thus using observation at a different level.

father to Pharaoh. The Egyptian title it-ntr (“father of the god”) refers to a variety of officials and priests. Since Pharaoh was considered divine, it is likely that “father to Pharaoh” carries a similar connotation of advisor.

region of Goshen. In Egyptian texts the heaviest concentrations of Semites occur in the eastern delta region closest to Canaan. This corresponds to the Biblical texts in which the region of Goshen is equated to the “district of Rameses” (), which is certainly in the delta region. In the early chapters of Exodus, this is the location of the Israelite labors in towns such as Pithom and Rameses. The region is bounded by the branches of the Nile delta on the west and the series of lakes from the Mediterranean down to the Red Sea on the east. Crossing east to west through the center of it is the Wadi Tumilat.

Egyptian painting at Beni Hasan of man with goats. Many depictions of flocks and herds have been discovered, demonstrating the pervasive penetration of these animals into Egyptian culture. It is difficult to ascertain whether shepherds were detested () because of their associations with foreigners, with a low status in society, or with sheep and goats as inferior animals that threatened farm land.

© Baker Publishing Group and Dr. James C. Martin

Return to

all shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians. By identifying themselves as shepherds, Jacob’s clan offers assurance that they are not coming to take Egyptian farmland or get involved in politics. Flocks and herds were kept by Egyptians during all periods and were used for meat, milk, and wool or hides, as well as for some sacrifices (more cattle than sheep and goats). They are depicted in reliefs, models and tomb paintings, remains are found in excavation, and deities were associated with the ram and the cow (but not sheep or goats)—all demonstrating the pervasive penetration of these animals into Egyptian culture. In contrast, sheep and goats do not figure prominently in fables, metaphors or personal names, which indicates that they were considered rather common.

It is difficult to ascertain whether shepherds were detested because of their associations with foreigners, with a low status in society, or with sheep and goats as inferior animals that threatened farm land. Extant Egyptian records offer no insight on this.

district of Rameses. At this period Rameses was not a common name and no city was yet so named. The pharaohs with the names Rameses do not come along until the thirteenth century BC. It is logical to conclude that this geographic name is supplied at a later period. The city of Rameses, Pi-Ramesse, is eventually going to be located at Qantir/Avaris (Tell ed-Dab’a, which has been extensively excavated and provides much evidence of a Semitic population that lived there). The site was founded in the Twelfth Dynasty (1963–1786 BC), the most likely setting for Joseph. Despite the growing Syro-Palestinian population of this town over the next several centuries, no remains permit the identification of descendants of Abraham. The material culture is Canaanite and the religious practices show a syncretism of Canaanite and Egyptian elements.

Buy us and our land. Joseph’s policy suggests a shift from privately owned property to centralized ownership of property worked by tenant farmers. The Middle Kingdom and Early New Kingdom (2100–1500 BC) evidence large tracts of crown property administered by government officials. In this way centralization is in evidence as is the state-run redistributive economy. In the New Kingdom, much land gradually came under control of the temples. In that period, there was no longer any private property, but only personal rights to the use of property granted in trust for a land-owning institution such as the crown or temple.

Though it may appear as if Joseph’s policies were economically repressive, hard times require hard solutions. The text documents the sequence of how the people were impoverished by the famine (not by the government). First they spent all their money buying food, then they traded away their livestock, and finally they gave up their land and worked as tenant farmers. Their rent for the land was 20 percent of the produce—a lower than normal percentage in the ancient world. This was a progressive tax in that it was proportioned according to income. Theoretically, then, a prosperous farmer could have rebuilt his wealth when the famine ended, though it is not clear whether he would have been allowed to buy back the land. This turned Egypt into a state in which all the wealth was centralized in the government. Despite the personal hardship and servitude that resulted, the people were grateful for their lives.

priests . . . received a regular allotment from Pharaoh. Priests did not need to grow their own food, and therefore shortages did not drive them to sell their land. Instead, temples, like the kings, were owners of land and benefited from renting out the land to be farmed by laborers. Temple ownership of land is well documented in Egypt of all periods, but became extensive by the mid-second millennium BC.

Do not bury me in Egypt. Jacob’s sentiment reflects the extent to which he is tied to the land of Canaan, as it looks to both past and future. Since the ancestral burial ground is in Canaan, he will “rest with [his] fathers” (v. ) by being buried with them, thus actualizing his solidarity with them. One’s burial place also serves as the focus for any ongoing care and remembrance after death. The request to be buried in Canaan thus serves as an indication that he sees the future of his descendants as connected to the covenant land—a statement of faith in God’s promise to bring his family back there.

ridge of land . . . I took from the Amorites with my sword and my bow. The Hebrew word shekam (NIV “ridge of land”; NIV text note, Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT) refers to the conquest of Shechem by Simeon and Levi (). Jacob did not approve of this act and was not proud of it, but it was irreversible and undeniable. The land was therefore his to give, since it was taken in his name and by his clan. This justifies Jacob’s use of the first person (“I took”).

what will happen to you in days to come. As was typical of patriarchal pronouncements, Jacob made statements concerning the future destiny of his sons. These were not prophecy, for they were not given in the name of deity. They forecasted the future. Like a weather forecaster or an economic forecaster, Jacob identified his expectations derived from observed indicators that were considered reliable and thus could be interpreted with a high level of probability. Words had power in the ancient world, and the very speaking of them, especially by someone in authority, was taken seriously.

I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel. The tribes of Simeon and Levi were to be dispersed (not the individuals, of course), deprived of clearly identified land as a consequence of their violence in Shechem (ch. ). This represents virtual disinheritance. Simeon is eventually assigned villages scattered in Judah’s territory () and Levi, though having no claim to land, serves its priestly function from the bases known as the Levitical cities, which were distributed among the tribal territories ().

your father’s sons will bow down to you. This is the legal transfer of clan leadership to Judah. Though Joseph received the double portion of the inheritance (since Ephraim and Manasseh both inherited shares among Jacob’s sons; see ch. ), Judah would be the administrator of the undivided inheritance.

Like a lion. Lion imagery is common in the ancient Near East. There are lion/lioness cults in Egypt, particularly associated with On, where Joseph’s in-laws were from. More important, the lion is used in Egypt as the symbol of the king. In Mesopotamia the lion is most often associated with the goddess Ishtar. The god Nergal carries a lion scepter, and numerous other gods are described using lion metaphors. The lion as a royal metaphor as well as an animal for the royal hunt is more familiar in Mesopotamia from the later Neo-Assyrian period, though it is not absent from the earlier periods. In these contexts, the image that the metaphor presents is one of fierceness, cruelty and power. This imagery has its focus on the male lion, which is prevalent in the art of the Levant. In contrast, rather than representing an immediate threat, the imagery associated with Judah invokes quiet power at rest, but a power that’s not to be trifled with as both the cub and lioness are included.

wash his garments in wine. This imagery is suggestive of Judah’s descendants having the blue/purple/red clothing often associated with royalty, though that coloring is usually achieved through the processing of murex snails (an expensive process because of the large number of snails needed to produce the dye).

The earliest written records concerning dyeing are from Nuzi in the mid-second millennium BC. The earliest evidence of the use of the snail for purple dye comes from seventeenth-century BC Crete. That suggests that at the time of the patriarchs, that technology for dyeing was unknown, yet dyeing itself was known because Egyptian tomb paintings show clothing with color patterns.

Prior to the discovery of murex-snail purple, might wine have been used for dyeing? Would red/purple have been associated with royalty? Royal women in the tomb of Ur from the end of the third millennium BC wore red-colored clothing, but no evidence suggests that wine was used for dyeing, though its staining effect would have been well recognized since wine was filtered through linen cloth.

haven for ships. Seafaring took place primarily from the north, where there were natural harbors. The difficulty with this verse is that Zebulun, to our knowledge, never had territory adjacent to the sea. The tribal allotment given him was in western lower Galilee, entirely landlocked, and 65 miles (100 kilometers) from Sidon. This would actually be a more appropriate description of the territory allotted to Asher, which stretched along the coast from Akko to Tyre. These apparent discrepancies suggest that this blessing does not reflect a later description of the territories as they existed after the conquest. There is no known period when Zebulun controlled the coastal regions.

Embalming served to preserve the body of the deceased, but in Egypt the reason for doing so involved significant theology. They preserved the body so that it could be reinhabited by the spirit (ka) in the afterlife. Nothing in the text suggests that Joseph or his family had adopted the complex afterlife theology of ancient Egypt with its emphasis on rituals, spells and other sorts of magic.

The physicians referred to () are probably mortuary priests, who were the experts in the techniques of embalming as they prepared the body not only physically for the grave, but also spiritually for the afterlife. Evidence of embalming goes back to about 2600 BC. The principal agent used in the embalming process is natron, which served to dry out the body after the important viscera (internal organs) were removed. This dehydration process took about 40 days. The viscera were packed in natron individually and eventually replaced in the body.

Meanwhile the body was washed out with spiced wine, and after the process was over, it was anointed with oils and gum resins. As the body was wrapped in linen, protective amulets were included at various places. As a final step a liquid resin was poured over the whole body.

Although it was common practice in Egypt (for any who could afford it), embalming of Israelites is found only in this chapter. The fact that the bodies of Jacob and Joseph are embalmed (, ) may suggest the desire of the Israelites to soothe the feelings of the Egyptians, but it also serves the purpose of preserving their bodies for later burial in Canaan. ◆

Funerary stele of the “servant of Osiris.” Ankh-Hapy depicts Anubis preparing a mummy for burial, Memphis, 525–500 BC.

Kim Walton. The Vatican Museum.

Go to

directed the physicians . . . to embalm his father. Jacob’s embalming took 40 days (see the article “Embalming”), and he was mourned for 70 days (v. ).

Abel Mizraim. Its location is unknown, and it is difficult to understand why a procession from Egypt to Hebron should bring them anywhere near the Jordan.

Go to

a hundred and ten years. This was considered the ideal life span for an Egyptian, despite the fact that examination of mummies has demonstrated that the average life expectancy in Egypt was between 40 and 50.

↑ Back to top