The Teraphim

The word “teraphim” occurs 16 times in the Bible. The very first time it’s mentioned, it’s in Genesis 31, where Rachel steals them from her father’s house.

Some translations say “household idols” or “images.” In the Genesis account, they’re small enough to hide in a saddle bag and sit on them. But in 1 Samuel 19:13, King David’s wife Michal put one in her bed and pretended it was David when guards came to kill him. So… person-sized.

So the size isn’t a critical part of the definition of a teraphim. But there is some agreement in the Jewish studies and extra-biblical sources that suggest they are human-shaped. Or part of a human. And this is where it gets very, very strange.

Several rabbinical sources suggest that it’s really just the head. But like… an actual embalmed human head, and in some cases, the head of a child. Always the first-born. The head would be severed, and then salted to prevent spoiling, and then a small golden tablet with a “divine name” carved into it would be placed under the tongue, and then the head would be mounted somewhere in the house.

It was believed that the disembodied head was imbued with magic or perhaps tied to some spirit (the name of which was on the golden tablet), and the head… would speak. It could tell you things otherwise impossible to know. Zecharaiah 10:2 mentions the teraphim that “spoke deceitfully.” They were useful for diviners, and Laban claims divination back in Gen 30:27. He would have used the teraphim for this.

All quite strange. Why would Rachel steal something like this from her father? Is this a righteous act or an idolatrous act?
The rabbis seem to agree that this is not about Rachel’s desire to posses the teraphim for herself. There are several reasons for this belief.

1. The first suggestion is that Rachel, being righteous, is attempting to remove idolatry from her father. Like, take away his gods, and he can’t worship them, and maybe he’ll realize how silly it is that his gods could possibly be stolen. That would make the gods rather powerless and worthless.

2. The second suggestion is that Rachel believes the teraphim work, and she takes them from her father to prevent him from discovering where they’re going. Rachel is Laban’s daughter, after all, and likely grew up with such beliefs.

3. And perhaps most compelling: according to extra-biblical sources, the teraphim were considered “household” gods, and therefore were associated with the rights of *inheritance.* Rachel & Leah already complained about their father giving them nothing in Gen 31:14, so this is Rachel’s way of wrestling for an inheritance of some kind.

But given the teraphim status of “idols” and the incompatabilty of idol worship/ownership with the God of Israel, the pattern of how to deal with idols is officially established in Genesis 35:2-4:

So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your clothes. Then come, let us go up to Bethel, where I will build an altar to God, who answered me in the day of my distress and who has been with me wherever I have gone.” So they gave Jacob all the foreign gods they had and the rings in their ears, and Jacob buried them under the oak at Shechem.
Genesis 35:2-4 (NIV)

It’s assumed (but not stated) that this is the resting place of Laban’s teraphim.

Note where the idols are buried: under the oak at Shechem. If you’ve followed along my Genesis posts, this should sound familiar. The oak at Shechem is where Abram first builds an altar to God.

Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the Lord, who had appeared to him.
Genesis 12:6-7 (NIV)

So the text appears to teach us: your idols, the idols of your father, or your grasping at an earthly inheritance… those must all be buried at the place where you worship the God of the Promises.

It is the only way.

Daughters’ Inheritance

Then Rachel and Leah replied, “Do we still have any share in the inheritance of our father’s estate? Does he not regard us as foreigners? Not only has he sold us, but he has used up what was paid for us.
Genesis 31:14-15 (NIV)

Genesis 31:14-15 is a veiled rebuke of a system that reduces women to property – a way of life associated with the wickedness of Laban.
Their statement paints a picture of how it should have been. Daughters should have a share in the inheritance.

Who is Your Father?

Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking Isaac. Therefore she said to Abraham, “Drive out this slave woman and her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be an heir with my son Isaac!”
Genesis 21:9-10 (NASB)

There is a story in the Midrash that paints a sweeping narrative that creates context for these two verses. It starts back in the previous chapter, when Sarah is taken by Abimelech.

So Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech, his wife, and his female servants. Then they bore children; for the Lord had closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.
Genesis 20:17-18 (NKJV)

Remember: the healing that happens in that chapter is related to childbirth.

Based on this childbirth-related healing, and then the birth of Isaac in chapter 21, the rabbis suggest that rumors began to spread. Perhaps this son of Sarah is no son of Abraham, but instead is a son of Abimelech. The timing is right, and clearly, Abimelech’s wife and “female servants” are all pregnant.

While we, the readers, are told that God prevented Abimelech from touching Sarah, who knows if the people in the story, to include Abraham’s whole entourage, believe it?

And most importantly, does Hagar believe it? She has witnessed Abraham and Sarah’s frequent deception first-hand.

So the rabbis say this: “the prattle of children reflects what they picked up from their father or what they picked up from their mother.” If Ishmael is “mocking” Isaac (and not abusing, per another interpretation of the story), perhaps the mockery is this: “Everyone knows Abraham is my father. Who is your father?

And Sarah, hearing this, would know that these are Hagar’s words, and that Hagar would be making a clear statement about inheritance: Only the son of Abraham should receive any portion of Abraham’s blessing and wealth.

Perhaps this is why Sarah declares, “the son of this slave woman shall not be an heir with my son Isaac!”

Lot’s Righteousness

Why was Lot spared? Why did God preserve him in Genesis 19, other than for Abraham’s benefit? What’s so good about him?

The Midrash has a story that many of the commentaries use as their answer, and it’s interesting. It has to do with Lot’s position in the family.

When Lot joins Abram out of Haran, one of the first adventures is the ordeal in Egypt. Abram tells Sarai to lie about their relationship to avoid being killed by Pharaoh.

Suppose Abram was killed. Who would have benefited in that situation? Who would be the heir to the Promised Land? The rabbis say it was Lot.

The opportunity for Lot to demonstrate his character is there in Genesis 12. If Lot speaks up and says “no, they’re married,” Abram would die and Lot would gain everything.

Therefore, Lot’s righteousness is demonstrated by his silence. He chose to protect his uncle and forgo the financial benefit.