Tag: Rachel

The Way of Women

Posted on by jovial_cynic

וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־אָבִ֗יהָ אַל־יִ֙חַר֙ בְּעֵינֵ֣י אֲדֹנִ֔י כִּ֣י ל֤וֹא אוּכַל֙ לָק֣וּם מִפָּנֶ֔יךָ כִּי־דֶ֥רֶךְ נָשִׁ֖ים לִ֑י וַיְחַפֵּ֕שׂ וְלֹ֥א מָצָ֖א אֶת־הַתְּרָפִֽים׃
For she said to her father, “Let not my lord take it amiss that I cannot rise before you, for I am in a womanly way.” Thus he searched, but could not find the household idols.
Genesis 31:35 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS 2006)

When Rachel prevents Laban from finding her hidden transgression, she says that she’s on her period.

In Hebrew, the phrase she uses is interesting: “for the Way of Women is upon me.”

If Laban is a precursor to the Destroying Angel of Exodus, and this mentrual blood is a precursor to the blood over the doorposts in Egypt which prevented the Angel from claiming the firstborn, then perhaps there is something about the “Way of Women” that needs to be studied.

The rabbinical teachings explain that a woman on her period was “unclean.” The tradition held that she was SO unclean that even following a menstruating woman and walking in her footsteps could make you unclean. Talking to a menstrating woman would make you unclean (hence Laban saying nothing to Rachel in this story segment).

Later, Leviticus will echo this language of “unclean,” (Lev 15:19-20), and it seems shameful. Isolating. And then consider the woman who bled for 12 years. But Jesus talking to her and touching her and saying “your faith has saved you” is a jarring contrast.

Does this contradict Leviticus, or does it tell us something powerful about the “Way of Women?”

This is definitely something to chew on.

The Blood of the Passover

Posted on by jovial_cynic

וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־אָבִ֗יהָ אַל־יִ֙חַר֙ בְּעֵינֵ֣י אֲדֹנִ֔י כִּ֣י ל֤וֹא אוּכַל֙ לָק֣וּם מִפָּנֶ֔יךָ כִּי־דֶ֥רֶךְ נָשִׁ֖ים לִ֑י וַיְחַפֵּ֕שׂ וְלֹ֥א מָצָ֖א אֶת־הַתְּרָפִֽים׃
For she said to her father, “Let not my lord take it amiss that I cannot rise before you, for I am in a womanly way.” Thus he searched, but could not find the household idols.
Genesis 31:35 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS 2006)

Perhaps this is a precursor to the destroying angel who passed over the homes in the Israelites in Egypt.

Maybe Rachel’s blood points to the blood on the door posts that covered the presence of sin.

An Arrangement of Tents

Posted on by jovial_cynic

וַיָּבֹ֨א לָבָ֜ן בְּאֹ֥הֶל יַעֲקֹ֣ב ׀ וּבְאֹ֣הֶל לֵאָ֗ה וּבְאֹ֛הֶל שְׁתֵּ֥י הָאֲמָהֹ֖ת וְלֹ֣א מָצָ֑א וַיֵּצֵא֙ מֵאֹ֣הֶל לֵאָ֔ה וַיָּבֹ֖א בְּאֹ֥הֶל רָחֵֽל׃
So Laban went into Jacob’s tent and Leah’s tent and the tents of the two maidservants; but he did not find them. Leaving Leah’s tent, he entered Rachel’s tent.
Genesis 31:33 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS 2006)

Using Genesis 31:33, try to diagram the arrangement of the tents, or parse out the order of events and see if you can make sense of it.

How are the tents arranged? It is a mystery.

Rachel’s Curse

Posted on by jovial_cynic

עִ֠ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּמְצָ֣א אֶת־אֱלֹהֶ֘יךָ֮ לֹ֣א יִֽחְיֶה֒ נֶ֣גֶד אַחֵ֧ינוּ הַֽכֶּר־לְךָ֛ מָ֥ה עִמָּדִ֖י וְקַֽח־לָ֑ךְ וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֣ע יַעֲקֹ֔ב כִּ֥י רָחֵ֖ל גְּנָבָֽתַם׃
But anyone with whom you find your gods shall not remain alive! In the presence of our kin, point out what I have of yours and take it.” Jacob, of course, did not know that Rachel had stolen them.
Genesis 31:32 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS 2006)

There is a view among the Rabbis that Genesis 31:32 is the cause of Rachel’s death in chapter 35. Because she did possess the idols/teraphim in question, she fell under Jacob’s curse and was doomed to die.

I disagree.

I think we are meant to understand that Jacob believed this to be true, but the astute reader should recognize the careful wording.

Look at the condition of Jacob’s curse: “anyone WITH WHOM YOU FIND your gods…”

Was Rachel FOUND with the idols? Did Laben recover them? The answer is no, and therefore, the curse is not triggered.

The Teraphim

Posted on by jovial_cynic
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.

Elohim as Verb

Posted on by jovial_cynic

וַתֹּ֣אמֶר רָחֵ֗ל נַפְתּוּלֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים ׀ נִפְתַּ֛לְתִּי עִם־אֲחֹתִ֖י גַּם־יָכֹ֑לְתִּי וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ נַפְתָּלִֽי׃

And Rachel said, “A fateful contest I waged with my sister; yes, and I have prevailed.” So she named him Naphtali.
Genesis 30:8 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS 2006)

Genesis 30:8 introduces us to a Hebrew idiom that hasn’t been used before in the text.

The highlighted word here is “Elohim,” which has been consistently used to describe God. But God isn’t mentioned in the verse.

Here, “Elohim” is used as a verb intensifier.

Literally, the passage is “Naftulei **Elohim** niftalti im achoti.”

“With wrestlings-of God, I have wrestled with my sister.”

(Naphtali means “wrestling” or “struggling.”)

This use of “Elohim” like this happens elsewhere in scripture: Jonah 3:3. There, Nineveh is described as an “exceedingly great city.” (KJV)

It is literal a city “great to God.” It is a city that God *spares when it repents.* This seems significant.

Going back to Genesis 30:8, what can we understand from this use of “Elohim?”

Perhaps this is more than a great wrestling with her sister. Perhaps Rachel is wrestling with God here.

Isaac’s Prayer

Posted on by jovial_cynic

Then Jacob’s anger burned against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?”
Genesis 30:2 (NASB)

In the previous verse, Rachel cries out, “give me children, or I’ll die!”

This passage ties a past thread together. When Rebekah could not conceive, Isaac prayed for his wife and God answered. But in a way, Isaac was also praying for himself.

At this point in the story, Jacob has four sons, so the problem isn’t with him. God isn’t withholding children from *him.*

It is accurate, but it’s also a cruel thing for him say. Also, the text does not show that Isaac prayed for her.

We know Jacob favors Rachel, and he favors her sons when she has children later, but this callousness makes me wonder if Jacob is a bit like his father here: easily swayed.

Isaac favored Esau because he liked what Esau brought him.

Maybe Jacob favors Leah right now, and this is an unfair favoritism.

Bitterness of the Barren

Posted on by jovial_cynic

Now when Rachel saw that she had not borne Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister; and she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or else I am going to die.”
Genesis 30:1 (NASB)

The opening of Genesis 30 gives us insight into the way we are supposed to read and understand scripture.

The rabbis pose a question: “why is Rachel only jealous *now,* after Leah’s fourth son has been born? Why not earlier?”

The answer: the story is a narrative of the past that speaks into the present and future. All of it.

The readers know the story sets up the 12 tribes. Jacob has 4 women through whom the tribes will be born, so the math should be simple: 3×4. Each should have 3 children.

So when Leah’s story gives us FOUR sons, the reader should immediately see a problem: clearly God is at work in Leah, and Judah is the result. What is left for Rachel?

“Give me children, or else I am going to die!”

Rachel’s cry seems dramatic, but it’s a statement about blessing. Being fruitful and multiplying.

Her cry echoes Esau’s bitter cry about being passed over for blessing. Will she be cut off, like Esau was cut off?

The God of the Barren

Posted on by jovial_cynic

Jacob was incensed at Rachel, and said, “Can I take the place of God, who has denied you fruit of the womb?”
Genesis 30:2 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS 2006)

I think this passage is meant to help us learn how to properly frame the unfortunate circumstance of barrenness, and to understand what prayer is supposed to do. Is Jacob speaking correctly here? Has God “denied” Rachel fruit of the womb?

When we pray to have children, are we praying that God overcomes some kind of problem in the world (our barrenness), and that God may choose to heal us or not? Or are we praying that God undoes what God is also in control over? Ie., “God, you have made me barren. Please make me fruitful instead.”

The way we view “barrenness” here directly impacts how we view a God who addresses it.
In the first view (barrenness is a condition of the world, and God may/may-not heal us), the personality of God is one who sees a problem that happened to you, and in God’s infinite wisdom may choose to rescue or not. And if not, our unheard prayers might feel like God either does not care or does not exist. Or perhaps we’re not praying hard enough.

In the second view, where God has closed the womb and caused the barrenness, the view of God is different. We desire a child, and God has said no, or not-yet. And in this setting, we can get mad at God because we don’t like the answer, and this is very different than being let down because God cannot hear us, or because we need to pray more faithfully.

This is different than prayers of healing for someone who is dying, or praying for respite from crushing poverty or war. Those are “bad things” from which we cry out to be rescued. Yes, God created the darkness and the light; God created Ra (evil) and Tov (good). But “rescue” is a different topic.
Praying for release from barrenness is… something else. It’s a reflection of our desire to live into God’s promise of “be fruitful and multiply.”

So when Jacob declares that it is God who closed Rachel’s womb, I think the text is giving us a theological axiom: we can’t be fruitful on our own. A branch must be connected to the vine to bear fruit, and it will not bear fruit any earlier than that.

But also, branches will bear fruit when connected to the vine. This is a promise: we will be fruitful and multiply.

Obviously, this is spiritual talk. I’m not saying everyone who wants a baby will have a baby. We are being told a physical story to understand a spiritual principle.
Notably, this is the THIRD time we’ve been told this same story. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob each have wives who start out barren. Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel each are longing for the promise.

Perhaps closeness to God is tied to that same longing. Perhaps the “no; not-yet” is a parable of our lived experience.

Love and Hatred

Posted on by jovial_cynic

“I have loved you,” says the Lord.
But you say, “How have You loved us?”
“Was Esau not Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and given his inheritance to the jackals of the wilderness.”
Malachi 1:2-3 (NASB)

In Malachi 1, (and later in Romans), there’s this perplexing passage about God “hating” Esau, the brother of Jacob.

We wrestle with this text, because we are forced to ask: “am I Jacob in this passage? Or am I Esau? What does God think of me?”

The answer seems to matter, as the notion of being “hated by God” is heavy. It’s an impossible burden.

But perhaps we have a clue about the deeper meaning in Genesis 29.

Three times before we get to Jacob’s feelings about Leah, the text tells us that Jacob LOVED Rachel. We know he loves her.

Now the Lord saw that Leah was [a]unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was unable to have children.
Genesis 29:31 (NASB)

[a] Lit hated

But when we get to Leah, it doesn’t merely tell us that Leah was “unloved.” In Hebrew, it says she was HATED.

It’s in this place of hatred that God opened Leah’s womb so she could be… fruitful. Blessed. So she could live out her purpose of mothering of the nation of God’s people. She is the mother of Judah, from which Salvation enters the world.

So when the text tells us that Esau is hated… perhaps we are meant to remember Leah.

Though hatred brings us to a place of desolation and barrenness, perhaps God is telling us about redemption. About healing.

Perhaps God will make all things new.