These arguments were important. The remaining confederacy leaders (mainly Laban’s sons and relatives) need to be aware of the justice of his position, for the fact was that he had still absconded from the confederation of tribes with his possessions as Laban now argues.

‘The God (Elohim) of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac.’ Each patriarch had his own description of YHWH. To Abraham he was ‘the God’, the Almighty (El Shaddai), because of what he had done for him and promised to him. To Isaac he was ‘the Fear’, the One to be held in awe. Isaac never forgot his rare experiences of the manifested presence of God. (The alternative translation ‘kinsman’ has been suggested which would emphasise his close relationship with his God). To Jacob He was ‘the Mighty One’ (49.24), possibly partly because of this incident. He had protected Jacob when he was defenceless. We can compare with this how easily Abraham can see YHWH as El Elyon (14.22) which demonstrates that YHWH can be given different titles.

31.43 ‘And Laban answered and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters and the children are my children and the flocks are my flocks, and all that you see is mine. And what can I do this day to these my daughters or to their children which they have borne.” ’

Laban’s case is based on recognised tribal custom. As head over the confederacy all that is in the confederacy is ‘his’, that is, belongs to the confederacy, and he is responsible for it. This is especially true in this case when they had all been personally his. While Jacob by his service has obtained certain proprietary rights over them they are still the confederacy’s and should remain within the confederacy. Indeed Laban as the patriarch has the responsibility for their protection and must watch over them, which he cannot do if they leave the confederacy. He also has leadership rights over Jacob’s wives and children. Compare how Delilah remains in her father’s house when married to Samson (Judges 14.2 on; 15.1). But as a result of Jacob’s action he can no longer exercise those rights. But because God has spoken to him so vividly he is now prepared for these rights to be overridden.

31.44 “And now, come, let us make a covenant, I and you, and let it be for a witness between me and you.”

This change of heart of Laban, who had originally intended to drag Jacob and his household back to Paddan-aram, has already been explained as arising from his vivid experience of the awesome presence of God (verses 29, 42). Thus he does not exert his rights but ensures the safety and status of his daughters by means of covenant. Such a covenant was seen as solemnly binding in the sight of the gods of both parties (verse 53) who would exact revenge if it was broken. Its terms are found in verses 49-52.

31.45-46 ‘And Jacob took a stone and set it up for a pillar, and Jacob said to his brothers, “Gather stones.” And they took stones and made a heap, and they ate there by the heap.’

This was clearly acceded to by Laban (31.51). It is apparent that a stone was set up for each person, one for Jacob and a heap for Laban as the leader, and for the heads of sub-tribes involved in the making of the covenant. Thus Jacob first sets up his pillar to represent his side of the covenant, then the remainder set up stones together in a heap to represent their side of the covenant. We can compare the twelve stones for the twelve tribes in Joshua 4. So there are two silent witnesses to the covenant, the pillar and the heap. As we have seen the setting up of stones was a regular method of having a physical reminder of a covenant (compare Genesis 35.14; 1 Samuel 7.12; Joshua 4.3; see also 2 Samuel 18.18).

‘They ate there by the heap.’ The eating was a solemn recognition of the peaceful nature of the covenant, as necessary a part of the process as the setting up of the stones. This was probably a ceremonial eating at the setting of the stones, a preliminary to the feast, although it is possible that it simply parallels the feast described later in verse 54, mentioned here as part of the ceremony.

31.47 ‘And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha (‘heap of witness’ in Aramaic), but Jacob called it Galeed (‘heap of witness’ in Hebrew).’

This is interesting testimony to the fact that the Arameans spoke an early form of Aramaic while Abraham’s family had adopted an early form of Hebrew, which parallels Canaanite, as their mother tongue. Jacob has been using Aramaic but now resorts to Hebrew as testimony to the change that is now taking place. He is no longer an Aramean by adoption, he is an Abrahamite by birth.

31.48 ‘And Laban said, “This heap is witness between me and you this day.” That is why its name was called Galeed and Mizpah (place of watching), for he said, “YHWH watch (zapah) between me and you when we are hidden (i.e. out of sight) one from another.”

Laban, as head of the confederacy of which Jacob had been a part, takes the leading role in declaring the significance of what is happening. The heap is mentioned because that represents Laban’s part in the covenant. It is their witness to Jacob. Thus it is now given another name, ‘place of watching’, for it not just a witness to the covenant but the place from which God will observe for the fulfilment of the covenant. He will, as it were, stand on that border and guarantee the fulfilment of the covenant on both sides.

‘YHWH watch between me and you.’ Laban cites Jacob’s God for it is YHWH Who will watch for Jacob and see to the observance of the stipulations that follow.

31.50 “If you will afflict my daughters, and if you will take wives besides my daughters, no man is with us. See God is witness between me and you.”

Laban deals with his first concern, the security and protection of his daughters. He hands them over to God’s protection for their tribe can no longer protect them. They cannot be with them. Thus he calls on God to see whether Jacob treats them rightly. Note especially the provision against Jacob taking other primary wives (concubines would not matter, they are of lower status and would not affect the status of the primary wives).

This can be paralleled to some extent from Nuzi where ‘Nashwi has given his daughter Nuhuya as wife to Wullu. If Wullu takes another wife he forfeits Nashwi’s land and buildings.’ The parallel is not exact, but it examples restriction being placed on further marriage, with a cost involved if it happens. Laban clearly does not expect Jacob to marry a further primary wife and would consider it a breach of the covenant, theoretically at least nullifying the promise of non-interference.

31.51-52 ‘And Laban said to Jacob, “See this heap, and see this pillar, which I have set between me and you. This heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to you, and that you will not pass over this heap and this pillar to me, for harm.”

Previously the guarding has been against the threat from Laban if his daughters are not rightly dealt with, thus the heap was mentioned. Now the guarding is two way and so both heap and pillar are mentioned. It is significant that Laban fears Jacob. The intervention of God on Jacob’s behalf on a dream is not something he can pass over lightly, and he knows how YHWH has prospered Jacob in the past. Thus he himself wants some warranty that peace will be maintained both ways. The pillar is, as it were, Jacob’s signature to the covenant of peace.

‘Which I have set.’ This does not mean that Laban placed the pillar, only that he sees himself as having caused it to be set as part of the covenant signs. As leader of the confederation, and as releasing Jacob from it, it is he who sets the terms of the covenant and he sees himself as responsible for all connected with it.

31.53 ‘ “The God of Abraham and the god of Nahor, the gods of their father, judge between us.” And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.’

Each now swears by the God he worships. Jacob swear by YHWH, the God of Abraham, in the title ‘the Fear’ (‘the Awesome One’) given by his father Isaac, and Laban swears by the god of Nahor. Each swears by the God of his father.

31.54 ‘And Jacob offered a sacrifice in the mountain, and called his brothers to eat bread, and they ate bread and tarried all night in the mountain.’

The offering of sacrifice to seal a covenant is well known (see chapter 15). Compare the words of a government official to Zimri-Lim of Mari (18th century BC) “I have killed the ass with Qarni-Lim, and thus I spoke to Qarni-Lim under the oath of the gods. ‘If you despise Zimri-Lim and his armies I will turn to the side of your adversary’.” There too a covenant of peace was involved.

This is Jacob’s response to Laban’s offer. By offering sacrifice and eating with the confederate leaders he fully accepts his part in the covenant, while their eating with him is a sign of their peaceful acceptance of the terms. All are now agreed and the deed is done. The feast goes on through the night (compare 24.54).

31.55-32.2 ‘And early in the morning Laban rose up and kissed his sons and daughters, and blessed them. And Laban departed and returned to his own place. And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And when he saw them Jacob said, “This is God’s host.” And he called the name of that place Mahanaim (‘two hosts’).

When the feasting was over Laban said farewell to his sons and daughters giving them the patriarchal blessing. All is now at peace. ‘Sons’ probably includes Jacob his son-in-law, and also his grandsons. No doubt daughters included his granddaughter Dinah. Words depicting relationship were not as specific then as now.

‘Returned to his own place.’ There is a contrast between this normality and the supernatural experience of Jacob (‘the angels of God met him’). For Laban it was over and he returned to normal life and to the daily grind. But for Jacob there was a new beginning. He was to find that God was truly on his side.

‘The angels of God met him.’ The hearer is suddenly made aware of what would have happened to Laban if he had been belligerent. Angels of God such as Jacob had seen at Bethel had been held constantly in reserve ready to act on Jacob’s behalf. But they had not been needed and Jacob is now made aware of them. God had indeed been watching over him as He had promised (28.15; 31.3). This meeting with God’s host confirms the promises he had received at Bethel. God’s angels are still active and will bring about His purposes.

‘This is God’s host.’ In contrast the ‘host’ of Laban was paltry. But Jacob’s own meagre ‘host’ had been supported by the angelic host - there had been ‘two hosts’, an earthly and a heavenly. At this revelation he named the place Mahanaim - ‘two hosts’. We note that Jacob is still east of the Jordan.

Note. It will be noted that throughout this section the writer has in general used Elohim for God with the name YHWH being introduced only when personal covenant matters were in mind or when Laban is referring specifically to Jacob’s God. This was partly due to the fact that Jacob has been outside the covenant community, not rejoining Isaac until much later (35.27), although still very much part of the covenant. But it may also reflect writer preference at this period. This will on the whole apply, with notable exceptions, through the remainder of the records. It is the God of the whole earth Who is at work.

Events in Jacob’s Life Up To the Death of Isaac (Genesis 32.3-35.1).

Jacob Meets With His Brother Esau (Genesis 32.3-33.17).

This section is built around two covenants. The covenant made with God at Peniel and the covenant of peace made between Esau and Jacob. It is probable that the covenant with God was the central one. But Jacob being a careful man (compare 25.33 and the passage built around it) would certainly want on record the details of his covenant of peace with Esau.

Even after so long a time Jacob is wary of his brother Esau. He does not know what fate Esau plans for him nor what will be his reaction to his return. But we note that he is aware of his brother’s whereabouts. He has clearly kept in touch with his family who have kept him informed.

For Esau, recognising that he now had no part in the rulership of the family tribe (27.39-40), had aligned himself by marriage with the confederate tribes of Ishmael (28.9). He moved to the desert region and there built up his own tribe, no doubt with Ishmael’s assistance and had thus became a minor ruler over a band of warriors with whom he lived out the active life that he had always desired. With their assistance he was able to build up his wealth. Many rich caravans would pass near their territory on the King’s Highway (see Numbers 20.14-21) which by one means or another would contribute to their treasury (either by toll or by robbery) and they necessarily built up flocks and herds for their own survival.

Eventually they would gain ascendancy over neighbouring peoples until the land becomes known as the land of Edom (36.16, 17, 21, 31) i.e. of Esau (Genesis 25.30; 36.1, 19, 43), although originally called the land of Seir (here and 37.30). The latter name is connected with the Horites who originally lived there (36.20) who were clearly absorbed into the clan or confederacy.

32.3-5 ‘And Jacob sent messengers before him to his brother Esau, to the land of Seir, the part possessed by (‘the field of’) Edom. And he commanded them saying, “Thus shall you say to my lord Esau. ‘Thus says your servant Jacob, I have sojourned with Laban and stayed until now. And I have oxen and asses and flocks and menservants and maidservants, and I have sent to tell my lord that I may find grace in your sight.’ ” ’

Jacob sends to Esau offering terms of peace. He wants Esau to know where he has been and that he is now wealthy on his own account, and that he can therefore expect generous gifts. There may also be the hint that he is well able to defend himself - ‘menservants and maidservants’, those who serve in the family tribe. We may remember that from the equivalent Abraham was able to raise three hundred and eighteen trained fighting men.

‘The land of Seir, the part possessed by Edom.’ The land where Seir the Horite and his tribe and descendants dwelt, part of which was now controlled by Esau’s men. See remarks above. Esau appears to lead an itinerant life, partly at home with his father who was blind and needed his assistance, and where he had his own herds and flocks, and partly out with his men adventuring in the season of such activities when the demands of farming were less. It was only after the death of his father that he finally forsook the family tribe (36.6).

‘My lord Esau.’ A title of respect due to an important personage.

32.6 ‘And the messengers returned to Jacob saying, “We came to your brother Esau, and moreover he comes to meet you and four hundred men with him.” ’

The fact that the messengers were allowed to return without a threatening reply should have assured him that Esau’s intentions were not evil. And indeed had they been so Esau and his men would have arrived first. The only purpose then in allowing the messengers to return first would have been to tell Jacob what would happen to him. Esau necessarily comes accompanied by his men. He wants his brother to know that he is powerful and respected. But there is nothing like a guilty conscience for distorting the facts. What is natural behaviour takes on an ominous significance for Jacob.

‘Four hundred men.’ A round number meaning a goodly company. The ‘four’ may indicate that Esau’s men are seen as being outside the covenant community. (Compare on the four kings in Genesis 14). Or Esau’s force may have been divided into four military units, each with its commander.

32.7-8 ‘Then Jacob was greatly afraid and was distressed. And he divided the people that were with him, and the flocks and the herds and the camels, into two companies. And he said, “If Esau comes to the one company and smites it then the other company which is left will escape.” ’

Jacob is seized with terror and he decides on a strategy to deceive his brother. He divides his possessions into ‘two companies’. There may well be a deliberate contrast here with verse 2 where Mahanaim also meant two companies. He has forgotten that his reliance is on God and his angelic messengers. But his policy is to let Esau arrive and think he has captured all Jacob’s possessions not knowing that there is a second which hopefully survives.

32.9-12 ‘And Jacob said, “Oh God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, Oh YHWH who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred and I will do you good,’ I am not worthy of the least of all your mercies and of all the truth which you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I passed over this Jordan and now I am become two companies. Deliver me I pray you from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau. For I am afraid of him lest he come and smite me, the mother with the children. And you said, “I will surely do you good and make your seed as the sand of the sea which cannot be numbered for multitude.”

Jacob speaks to YHWH by name and as the God of his father Abraham and of his father Isaac. This immediately links with his experience at Bethel (28.13). (He does not here call God ‘the Fear of Isaac’ as in 31.53. That name must not be overemphasised. It was particular to Isaac and useful for communication to foreigners).

He now also aligns himself particularly closely with the covenant in relation to the family tribe and reminds God of the particular promise made to him on his leaving Paddan-aram (31.3). As He has watched over him with regard to Laban, let Him now watch over him in the face of the new threat.

The impact on his life of his experiences now comes out in a new humility. As he considers all he has received at God’s hand (with a little help from himself) he is profoundly grateful. He recognises that he is not worthy of it. He had started off personally owning nothing but a staff, and now he is exceedingly rich and wealthy.

But he expresses the fear of what Esau intends to do to him. He thinks that he intends to slay Jacob and all his family. (This will be necessary so that Esau can get back his inheritance). And he points out that this would be contrary to what God had promised about the multitude of his descendants.

This prayer is a pattern prayer. It begins with a sense of humility and unworthiness, it continues with a reminder of the promises and faithfulness of God and it seeks help on the basis of those promises. We too must ever remember that our prayers must be in accordance with the will and purposes of God. Then, and then only, can we confidently claim His faithfulness. The prayer is a sublimely personal and private prayer. There is nothing cultic about it. It is spontaneous and heartfelt.

‘The least of all your mercies and of all the truth ---.’ The word truth should here be rendered faithfulness. God has been merciful and faithful in what He has given Jacob.

‘With only my staff --.’ All he permanently possessed which was his own when he left Canaan was his staff. The servants were not his. The goods and presents were not his. Only the staff he carried was his.

‘I passed over this Jordan --.’ As he speaks he is looking at the river in front of him. This river is probably the one which is later called the River Jabbok (Deuteronomy 2.37; 3.16; Joshua 12.2) but it is possible that as a tributary of the Jordan it was in Jacob’s time known only as the Jordan. Jabbok is here the name of a particular ford over the river (32.22), the name which later became attached to the river.

‘And now I am become two companies.’ Now his possessions are so large that he can divide them into two companies, each of which appears to be complete in itself.

32.13-15 ‘And he stayed there that night and took from what he had with him a present for Esau his brother. Two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats, two hundred yews and twenty rams, thirty milch camels and their colts, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty she-asses (or donkeys) and ten foals.’

The giving of a gift to honour someone important was a regular custom of the time (compare 43.11) and its acceptance would indicate a willingness to treat peacefully.

The present was munificent. Again the numbers are round numbers indicating approximate quantity, although he may have numbered them exactly. But exact counting was not a feature of the times except among learned men and men of business and is therefore unlikely. It is noteworthy that of the camels and donkeys he does not provide males (except possibly as colts and foals). This may indicate that he had but few of them, and those for breeding. This is evidence of the accuracy and genuineness of the narrative.

32.16-20a ‘And he delivered them into the hands of his servants, every drove by itself, and said to his servants, “Pass over before me and put a space between drove and drove.” And he commanded the foremost, “When Esau my brother meets you and asks you, saying, ‘To whom do you belong? And where are you going? And whose are these animals before you?’ Then you will say, ‘They are your servant Jacob’s. It is a present to my lord Esau, and behold he also is behind us.’ And he commanded also the second and third, and all that followed the droves saying, ‘in this way will you speak to Esau when you find him.’ And you will say, ‘Moreover, behold your servant Jacob is behind us.’

Jacob’s tactic was simple. A munificent present received in sections so as to build up goodwill and conciliation. First Esau would receive the goats, then the sheep, then the camels which would greatly impress him for they were comparatively rare, then the cattle and then finally the valuable donkeys. And each time when Esau questioned the servants they would inform him that the gifts were for him from Jacob and that Jacob followed after.

‘The second and third and all that followed.’ The threeness was an indication of the completeness of the gift, the remainder a sign of full measure and running over.

32.20b-21 ‘For he said, “I will make reconciliation with him (‘cover his face’) with the present that goes before me (‘goes before my face’), and afterwards I will see his face. It may be that he will accept me (‘his face will be towards me’).” So the present passed over before him and he himself stayed that night in the company.’

Jacob is quite clear that the purpose of the gifts is appeasement and reconciliation so that when they meet there will be no trouble. He hopes that they will make him acceptable to Esau. So the presents move on and he himself awaits in his camp along with one of the ‘companies’ he has set up.

Note in the Hebrew the constant reference to ‘face’. He is concerned with the face to face situation between the two. But this will pale into insignificance when he meets God face to face (32.30).

32.22-23 ‘And he rose up that night and took his two wives and his two handmaids and his eleven sons and passed over the Ford of Jabbok. And he took them and sent them over the stream and sent over what he had.’

The verse hides a more complicated manoeuvre. Jacob wants to see everyone and everything safely over the ford and he himself no doubt crossed it a number of times both ways. It was a difficult river to cross. But he himself finally remains on the side away from the others. The repetition is typical of much ancient literature where hearers rather than readers had to be kept in mind. Movement at night was commonplace for caravans and for herdsmen and shepherds. It avoided the heat of the day.

‘Eleven sons.’ Only the sons are in mind. Dinah is ignored. Daughters are regularly ignored in ancient literature as unimportant. Dinah had only been mentioned previously to make up the number ‘twelve’ as we have seen.

‘The Ford of Jabbok.’ A place where it was possible to cross the swiftly flowing river which Jacob has called the Jordan, being its tributary. This river flows through a deep gorge and is difficult to cross. This tributary flows east of the Jordan.

32.24-25 ‘And Jacob was left alone and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he did not prevail against him he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was strained as he wrestled with him.’

Jacob was left alone with his thoughts. The approach of Esau lies heavily on his mind and he feels the future is very much in doubt, the future that was linked with the covenant of YHWH. This is why he has come here alone. This is something that he must resolve.

Then he experiences a vivid and continual theophany that makes everything else relatively unimportant. Very little of the detail is actually provided. This is one of those times in Scripture when euphemisms are used to indicate something far deeper. Jacob describes it in terms of wrestling with a man all night but we are probably wrong to totally literalise the description. It signifies some awesome experience of the presence and might of God, possibly appearing, as to Abraham, in human form (see 18.2), or possibly appearing in some dream or vision of the night, an experience which we can never grasp or understand, possibly a combined physical and spiritual wrestling of awesome effect. Certainly he is aware that he is somehow wrestling with God and so powerful is the impact on his body that his thigh is put out of joint.

There can be little doubt that this wrestling is related to his seemingly doubtful future in the light of Esau’s approach. It is the depth of his uncertainly and fear about the future that brings him to this point. He had had such hopes for the future, but now he is fearful that they will all fail. It is this that results in this pneumatic experience.

To picture it in terms of some strange man who arrives and wrestles with him whom he afterwards discovers to be God is to trivialise the whole scene. It is quite clear that Jacob knows from the start that he is dealing with God Himself. Thus it may be that we are to see it as some vivid dream which portrays a spiritual reality that is unfolding. Jacob is clearly a man who receives dreams and visions (28.12; 31.3 with 10-11). Or it may be that God does appear physically in some unique way for some unique purpose. We remember how He so appeared to Abraham (18.2). We can never finally know. What we can know is that God came with an offer to Jacob that demanded extreme effort and sacrifice and that Jacob finally prevailed.

‘When He saw that he did not prevail against him.’ The first ‘He’ is God. This can hardly be in the wrestling. No one would suggest that God could not defeat Jacob. The point was that though Jacob could not defeat God he clung to Him and would not himself accept defeat. God could not, as it were, escape because Jacob was so desperate. He was clinging to God.

‘He touched the hollow of his thigh.’ That is, God touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh. The touch need not have been physical. It simply means that God disabled him to further bring home to him his weakness.

32.26 ‘And he said, “Let me go for the day is breaking.” And he said, “I will not let you go except you bless me.”

‘The day is breaking.’ The exertions that are possible at night become unbearable during the day. God is not thinking of Himself but of Jacob. But Jacob continues to hold on even though crippled and exhausted so that God finally says, ‘Let me go.’ But He says it, not because He wants to be released, but because He knows what Jacob will reply. His purpose in being here is finally to strengthen and bless Jacob.

‘I will not let you go unless you bless me.’ Jacob is clinging on because he wants with all his being the blessing of God, not just as a ‘blessing’ but as a life-changing experience. His complacency of former years has gone. He is deeply aware that he has been face to face with God in the closest of encounters, and now he wants it to impact fully on his future life. He will not rest until he is sure that his future is secure in God’s hands, until God guarantees that future. God has come to him in a deeply personal way and he does not want to rest until he has obtained the full benefit of what God has brought.

32.27-28 ‘And he said, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” And he said, “Your name will no more be called Jacob, but Israel (isra-el), for you have striven (from the verb sarah) with God and with men and have prevailed.” ’

The asking of the name in such circumstances is to seek the character of the person. Jacob meant ‘he who clutches’ and refers to the supplanting of the man Esau. Israel means ‘he who strives with God’ or ‘God strives’. This change of name marks the culmination of the change whereby ‘the grasper’ becomes the one who is determined to fulfil his purpose within the will of God. Not that he is yet perfect. But his life has taken on a new direction. He is now a man of God, ‘he who strives with God’, and his future is secure within the sovereign purposes of God, ‘God strives’. Thus is he now ‘Israel’. And this change of name is the guarantee of his future hopes.

‘With God and with men.’ ‘With men’ may refer to his previous tussles with Esau which have resulted in his seeming predicament, or to his struggles with Laban. But they also refer to his future struggles. The word is prophetic. The point is that he has been, and, what is equally important, will be, victor in all with God’s help because he has prevailed here in prayer.

Hosea describes the incident thus. ‘In the womb he took his brother by the heel. And in his manhood he strove with God. Yes he strove with the angel and prevailed. He wept and made supplication to him.’ (Hosea 12.3-4). As often ‘the angel’ is introduced to refer to the immediacy of God.

32.29a ‘And Jacob asked him and said, “Tell me, I pray you, your name.”

Jacob’s purpose in asking the name is so that he can worship and appreciate what God is doing in the correct way (compare Judges 13.17-18). He is asking, ‘what are you revealing yourself to be?’ He knows that this is YHWH, but he has never had this kind of experience before. YHWH had been the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac. He had been El Shaddai, the Almighty God in His sovereignty over the nations in the wider covenant. What is He now to be to Jacob? He is seeking an even greater special relationship with God.

(There is no suggestion here that he is trying to get power over God by knowing His name. We must not judge relationships with YHWH by primitive ideas. To know a name could signify a total relationship. Compare how often covenants were prefixed by ‘I am --’ followed by a name.).

32.29b ‘And he said, “For what reason do you ask me my name?” And he blessed him there.’

God does not want to introduce to Jacob a new conception of Himself. There is no need for a change of relationship. He wants to be known by the names by which He was known of old. He wants continuation not change. He is the God of Abraham and he wants Jacob to realise that he is to continue the old covenant and purposes, not become involved in new ones as a result of God revealing more of His inner nature. He is still the God of Bethel. Jacob knows all he needs to know about Him.

He had revealed Himself as El Shaddai, the Almighty God, to Abraham when sealing the wider covenant (17.1), for then a new covenant was involved. Not that the name was new, it was the significance that was new. He had revealed Himself as YHWH, the One Who is, and Who will be what He wants to be. He would in future reveal Himself as the ‘I am’, revealing the essential nature of the name YHWH, when He delivered Israel and established His covenant with them. Again it would not be the name that was new, but the significance of the name. But Jacob is to continue the covenants given to Abraham under the names of Abraham’s God.

‘And he blessed him there.’ Having settled the issue of His name He now ‘blesses’ Jacob. He confirms that the covenant promises will go on through him and that his future is certain. The deceitful way in which he obtained his first blessing is now forgotten. He is a new man.

32.30 ‘And Jacob called the name of the place Peni-el (‘the face of God’), for he said, “I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.”

This was a play on words. The site was called Penuel (verse 31) and was probably an important pass, for fortresses were built there (Judges 8.8 on), and eventually a city. Jacob takes the name and changes it to fit his experience. The two forms differ only in the archaic nominal ending in verse 30. Seeing the face of God did not just mean seeing God. It meant that God’s heart was right towards him. Thus did he know that he was not about to die at Esau’s hand.

‘My life is preserved.’ Esau will now not be able to harm the favoured of God. Indeed he will later be able to say to Esau, “I have seen your face as the face of God and you were pleased with me” (33.10). He believes that his acceptance by Esau is because of his acceptance by God.

Alternately the words may reflect amazement that he has seen God and lived (compare Exodus 33.20; Judges 6.22 on; 13.22). But the way God reveals Himself in Genesis never seems to cause this problem.

32.31 ‘And the sun rose on him as he passed over Penuel and he limped because of his thigh.’

‘The sun rose on him.’ This may well be intended to reflect more than the weather. He had come from night into sunrise (compare 19.23).

‘And he limped because of his thigh.’ Jacob bears a reminder of this encounter with God.

32.32 ‘That is why the children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the hollow of the thigh to this day, because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew of the hip.’

This explanatory information was a later comment probably added when the whole was brought together, either in the time of Moses or earlier.

33.1a ‘And Jacob lifted up his eyes and behold Esau came and with him four hundred men.’

The opening phrase is general. There is no necessary direct connection with a previous statement. Thus we not know how long he had to wait for the arrival of Esau. But eventually he came and with him his band of warriors. Esau has come a long way to meet his brother, seemingly out of the great love he has for his brother after twenty years of separation. But this is something Jacob cannot conceive of. He only fears his brother Esau.

Such a band of warriors would live off the land to the detriment of the inhabitants. Only the stronger groups would be safe from their depredations (compare 1 Samuel 25.15-16 which portrays what could have been the situation without David’s protection). Esau’s kindness to Jacob was probably not reflected in his behaviour towards others. He may well have seen this foray as a means of increasing his wealth as well as being as a welcome to Jacob.

33.1b-2 ‘And he divided the children to Leah, and to Rachel and to the two handmaids. And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph at the back.’

Jacob now prepares his family ready for the brotherly meeting. There can be no doubting the purpose of the arrangement. If there was trouble those at the back would have a better chance of escaping. But no one would have expected Jacob to do any other apart from his preference for Rachel.

33.3 ‘And he himself went before them and bowed himself to the ground seven times until he came near to his brother.’

Bowing seven times was reserved for extremely important people who demanded great subservience. The petty princes of Palestine ‘bowed seven times’ to Pharaoh in the Amarna letters (14th century BC). Usually a single bow would be given (18.2; 19.1). Jacob was giving Esau royal treatment.

33.4 ‘And Esau ran to meet him and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.’

Esau had dismounted which must have been a great relief to Jacob. Esau is clearly genuinely pleased to see his brother and feels very emotionally about it. But we cannot doubt that Jacob’s tears had within them something of relief.

Esau’s pleasure appears to be real. He has long forgotten any falling out and is happy to see his brother. He runs to embrace him. He is quite satisfied with his life as it is and holds no grudges. This is one of the many things in Esau we must admire. Yet the fact that he cares so little about what he has lost demonstrates how little the covenant promises meant to him. He would not really have been suitable to carry on the succession.

33.5 ‘And he lifted up his eyes and saw the women and the children and said, “Who are these with you?” And he said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.”

When Esau sees the women and children he is impressed. To have many children was a sign of someone’s importance. But even here Jacob is wary. The children are of course Esau’s nephews and nieces, blood relatives, while the wives are less meaningful for him. So it is to the children that he refers. We notice his continuing subservience. He is still being cautious.

33.6-7 ‘Then the handmaids came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves. And Leah also and her children came near and bowed themselves, and after came Joseph near, and Rachel, and they bowed themselves.’

The wives and children are now introduced, and they bow before this powerful warrior chief. The sevenfold bowing is no longer felt to be necessary.

33.8 ‘And he said, “What do you mean by all this company which I met?” And he said, “To find favour in the sight of my lord.” ’

Esau here refers to the droves which had been sent in front (32.13-21), some of which at least he had come across. Jacob makes no pretence. They were as gifts to an important person in order to ensure favourable treatment. Note the use of ‘my lord.’ The watchful subservience is still there. Outwardly all is well but Jacob is well aware that what is on the surface is not necessarily the reality. He judges the straightforward Esau by his own standards.

33.9 ‘And Esau said, “I have enough. My brother, let what you have remain yours.”

Esau does not want such favours from his brother. They are not necessary, for he is reasonably wealthy and has the means of obtaining more. This may have brought a chill to Jacob’s heart. The rejection of a gift was often followed by direct action. Notice Esau’s ‘my brother.’ He requires no formality between relatives.

33.10-11 ‘And Jacob said, “No, I beg you. If now I have found favour in your sight then receive my present at my hand, because I have seen your face as one sees the face of God and you were pleased with me. Take, I beg you, my blessing that is brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have abundance.” And he urged him, and he took it.’

Jacob continues to urge Esau to accept his gift. He knows that if the gift is accepted graciously he will be that much safer. In the light of the customs of the time even Esau would not accept a gift and then indulge in hostility. But there is in it a sense of gratitude to God who has brought about this situation. He had seen God face to face and God had blessed him. Now he sees in this friendly meeting a part of that blessing, and he desires to pass some of the blessing on. Besides, he urges, he is very wealthy. The suggestion is that such a small gift means nothing to him. To his relief Esau accepts the gift.

‘I have seen your face as one sees the face of God.’ In context this can only have in mind his struggle at Penuel. Esau, who does not know what he is referring to, probably sees it as a rather extreme compliment. He is like God to Jacob. But inwardly Jacob is full of praise to God and reflects it in these words. He remembers that significant meeting and sees it reflected here in his friendly reception. He had seen the face of God, and had been reassured of his safety, so now he can look on the face of Esau with equanimity.

‘God has dealt graciously with me.’ To Esau this indicates that his wealth has built up satisfactorily, thanks to God’s help. But Jacob is probably equally thinking of this present change in his fortunes, different from what he had expected.

33.12 ‘And he said, “Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before you.” ’

Esau is well meaning and offers his protection. He is unaware of his brother’s fears, although no doubt amused at his seeming subservience. But then, he thinks, that is Jacob. But his intentions are all good. They will go on together. He may well, however, have been secretly hoping that Jacob would not accept his offer. The laws of kinship demanded the offer. It was not necessarily intended to be accepted.

33.13-14 ‘And he said to him, “My lord knows that the children are of tender age, and that the flocks and herds with me are feeding their young, and that if they overdrive them one day all the flocks will die. Let my lord, I beg you, pass on before his servant, and I will lead on slowly according to the pace of the cattle who are before me, and according to the pace of the children, until I come to my lord, to Seir.” ’

We may gather from this that Esau has invited Jacob to join him in Seir where he is at present residing. This would simply entail continuing South along the east side of the Jordan. But Jacob has no intention of going to Seir immediately. He shudders at the thought of what might happen to him there.

However, there is possibly more to it than this. It is all very well to move around protected by four hundred men, but the four hundred men have to be fed and he could hardly refuse the wherewithal, and besides, he must be aware that they have possibly sullied their reputation before the inhabitants of the land on their journey here. He would not want to be connected in men’s eyes with their doings.

Besides such men do not like to remain idle, and Esau least of all. He might soon regret his good intentions, and what then?

So he points out how slow the journey is going to be. (He had been a bit quicker when fleeing from Laban). He will not delay Esau who must surely have something better to do than journey at the pace of shepherds. Let him go on and he will join him at some stage in Seir.

33.15 ‘And Esau said, “Let me now leave with you some of the folk who are with me.” And he said, “What is the need? Let me find grace in the sight of my lord.” So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir.’

Esau recognises the wisdom of what Jacob says, and is probably somewhat relieved. But at least he feels he can leave some of his people to help with the herding and provide further protection, although this may again have been a gesture between kinsfolk.

But Jacob certainly does not want to have Esau’s men there ensuring that they go to Seir. Nor is he certain what secret instructions they might be given. He is still all suspicion. He judges others by his own complicated make up. But the fact that he is able to make a case (‘what is the need’) demonstrates that he has a reasonably satisfactory band of men himself.

‘Let me find favour in the sight of my lord.’ A polite way of requesting that his wishes be honoured.

‘So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir.’ No doubt both were relieved. The one because he would not be tied down to a laborious and boring task and, having fulfilled his family obligations, was now free to go his way unhindered. The other because he was free from what he would have seen as a constant threat, and would not have to go to Seir after all.

Seir was a mountainous area South of the Dead Sea. It was well suited to Esau’s men who no doubt saw it as a good land. It was away from strong cities and larger groupings of peoples, provided a safe refuge when he had been on his raids, and yet provided sufficient reasonably fertile land for feeding herds and planting crops for the maintenance of the group. But this was not Jacob’s idea of the ideal land at all. He believed firmly in the promises of YHWH and they did not relate to Seir. And he preferred to be peaceable rather than belligerent. And who could tell when Esau’s attitude might change? He could always provide some excuse in the distant future as to why he had not continued his journey southward.

(As mentioned previously, Esau spent part of his time with the family tribe, assisting the blind Isaac and overseeing the tending of his own herds and flocks at crucial times, and part of the time in Seir ‘in the time when men go forth to battle’ (2 Samuel 11.1), adventuring with his men. He was connected by marriage to the Hivites who dwelt there (36.2). It is hardly conceivable that a doting son like Esau has shown himself to be would leave Isaac totally alone without assistance when Jacob was absent, and the fact that Esau’s whereabouts is known demonstrates that he keeps close connections with his family while enjoying his wilder life with his men).

33.17 ‘And Jacob journeyed to Succoth and built himself a house and made booths for his cattle. That is why the name of the place is called Succoth (booths).’

Succoth was later a city in the territory assigned to the Gaddites, east of Jordan, in the Jordan valley not far from a water crossing (Joshua 13.27; Judges 8.4-5) and not far from Penuel (Judges 8.8).

Here he sets up a permanent residence. He has been through much, as have his family and herds and flocks, and this gives him the opportunity for recovery. He builds a house for himself and provides permanent accommodation for his flocks and herds. The ‘house’, permanent living quarters, may well have been fairly extensive needing to provide accommodation for his wives and family. His men could see to their own needs and would need to protect the herds. It is clear that he was in no hurry to join his father Isaac, and spent some years here while his family grew up. The name Succoth appears to have come from this period. Thus the event that follows at Shechem occurs some time after.

The position had the added advantage that if Esau came back he could always say that his herds and flocks, which had previously been pushed hard, needed recovery time.

Jacob Moves Into the Land of Promise - Revenge for Dinah (Genesis 33.18-34.31).

Some years have passed and now Jacob feels the time has come to return to the land of the covenant. This particular record was made as a permanent record of the covenant between Hamor and Jacob which resulted in the establishment of a permanent altar to God and ownership of the land on which it was built. The episode that follows was seen as permanently connected with this arrangement. Alternately the central covenant may have been seen as the one between Hamor and Jacob in respect of Dinah (34.8-12). This may have been seen as necessary to establish Dinah’s innocence. The ancients would view the central theme of the passage as totally justified, and indeed required to purify the tribe. This was what Hamor and Shechem, as Canaanites, failed to realise to their cost.

33.18-20 ‘And Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram, and encamped by the city. And he bought the parcel of land where he had pitched his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for a hundred pieces of silver. And he erected there an altar and called it El-elohe-Israel (God the God of Israel).’

‘The city of Shechem’. This may mean the city Shechem lived in, the city remaining unnamed, but Shechem was well known as a city elsewhere and it is therefore probable that the man Shechem was named after the city in which he dwelt as its potential ruler.

The stress that Jacob came in peace is never made elsewhere. The writer is preparing for what follows and stressing that in it all Jacob was guiltless. He had no intentions of belligerence. (The translation could, however, alternatively be ‘to Salem, a city of Shechem’).

‘When he came from Paddan-aram.’ This is a general note referring to the fact that this is Jacob’s first contact with the Promised Land after leaving Paddan-aram. It does not necessarily signify immediacy.

Jacob sets up camp by the city. He is so moved by the fact that he is now back in the land of God’s covenant that he determines to set up a permanent shrine there. Thus he buys a piece of land so that he can build a permanent memorial. The fact that Hamor is willing to sell him land is a sign of the good relations between the two, although the purpose for which it was bought would influence the situation. This may well have brought Jacob into a position of indebtedness to Hamor for land did not usually pass in this way without feudal obligations.

‘A hundred pieces of silver.’ Strictly ‘money’ is not correct as payment was made in quantities of silver. The uncommon Hebrew word probably indicates a weight measure.

‘He built there an altar to El-elohe-Israel.’ From this time on Shechem is a sacred place to the family tribe and later to Israel. It was in the neighbourhood of Mount Gerizim (Judges 9.7) in the hill country of Ephraim (Joshua 20.7). It was the place where God first revealed Himself to Abraham when he initially entered the land, and where he built his first altar to YHWH (Genesis 12.6). That indeed may be why Jacob came there and why he was determined to establish a permanent altar to God. It was where Joshua would later renew the covenant and where the bones of Joseph would be buried (Joshua 24). By establishing this altar in the name of God the God of Israel Jacob is confirming his new name and applying it to the family tribe. From now on they will proudly call themselves ‘Israel’ (34.7)

In order to put the following story in context it is necessary to appreciate the strong feelings aroused by the sexual misuse of a prominent member of a tribe. Such an act was looked on as a raping of the tribe itself. Probably the people of Shechem, more used to sexual misbehaviour (the Canaanite religion was sexually debased) and to the behaviour of petty princes, did not appreciate the intense feeling that Shechem’s act would arouse in a family tribe such as Jacob’s. But to Dinah’s two blood brothers, Simeon and Levi, there could be only one reply, justice and vengeance. Blood was required. By his cavalier behaviour Shechem brought deep shame on them, indeed sacrilege had been committed, and only his death could wipe it out.

We have already seen how careful the patriarchs were in finding wives for their sons. We need not doubt that they were as careful about their daughters. Thus what happened to Dinah was a dreadful blow to the family. Had it been an ordinary member of the covenant community some lesser penalty might have been possible as long as she was not betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22.25-29). But this was a princess. They saw marriage to a Canaanite prince as out of the question. The only other possible penalty was his death.

From the point of view of the story of the covenant, however, this was a moment of crisis. Absorption into the community at Shechem would have signalled the end of the covenant. The covenant people would have been absorbed into a community whose religious practises were debased. Thus the determination of the brothers to have justice done, and sacrilege dealt with, preserved the covenant community.

34.1 ‘And Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.’

Note the stress on her pedigree. She was the chief’s daughter by his primary wife. It was not really wise for her to slip away from the camp alone to mingle with the women of Shechem, but she was young and thoughtless. The story indicates that she was now of marriageable age (twelve or thirteen) so Jacob clearly spent some years at Succoth. She was curious to meet these sophisticated town women, unaware that the morals of the tribe were very different from the morals of cities.

34.2 ‘And Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her. And he took her, and lay with her and humbled her.’

Like many petty princes Shechem was proud and arrogant and considered he did not have to behave as others did. When he saw the tribal girl who aroused his feelings more than any woman had before, he did not think twice about taking her and having his way with her. To him she was simply a ‘stranger’ in the land and therefore not very important. It may well be that he felt that by taking her he would render it impossible for her to marry anyone else.

‘Humbled her.’ That is, changed her status. There is an advancement in thought. First he took her, that is sent his men to fetch her, and then he raped her. And the final result was that she was ‘humbled’ and lost her status. She was morally and socially degraded and lost the expectancy of a fully valid marriage. No such act to a woman of Dinah’s status could have been more cruel. We must recognise this when we consider the passage.

‘Hamor the Hivite.’ He was clearly the ‘king’ of Shechem. We do not know who the Hivites were but they are regularly mentioned as one of the tribes in Canaan. They were possibly connected with the Horites (compare Zibeon in Genesis 36.2 with 36.20-21, and indeed the name may be an alternative rendering, ‘v’ instead of ‘r’, either as an error in copying or otherwise. The LXX of Genesis 34.2 here and Joshua 9.7 renders Hivite as Horite which may suggest an original different reading).

34.3 ‘And his soul was powerfully attached to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke kindly to the girl.’

The love was genuine, and his final aim was honourable. But as his actions showed it was a selfish love which had not considered the consequences of its actions, for to rape her left him without excuse. He possibly even thought that the girl should be grateful for his interest. He could probably hardly conceive that Jacob might not want his daughter married to a prince, even if he was a Canaanite and not of the tribe.

34.4-6 ‘And Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this girl for my wife.” Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah, and his sons were with his cattle in the countryside, and Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor, the father of Shechem, went out to Jacob to discuss things with him.’

‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Shechem would have done well to take this step before the other. Then the problems would not have resulted. But when the sex drive controls men it inevitably leads to evil.

‘Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah.’ When the news reached Jacob the shock would be total. Never would he have agreed to his daughter marrying a Canaanite, even a ruling prince. His daughter should marry within the family. And to have the treasure of his heart defiled in this way would be unbearable. What was acceptable to Canaanites was the most blasphemous of acts to the family tribe. To defile their princess was sacrilege.

So Jacob immediately sends messengers to his sons. Then he waits and does nothing until his sons with their men have returned from the countryside. Without them he is powerless to do anything. Meanwhile Hamor comes to see him to discuss the situation. But behind it all lies the terrible thing that has been done to Dinah.

34.7 ‘And when they heard it the sons of Jacob came in from the countryside. And the men were very grieved, and they were furiously angry because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter, which thing should not be done.’

When the news reached the sons of Jacob their anger reached fever pitch. In their eyes what had been done was unforgivable. It was a grievous sin. The whole tribe was besmirched. They came in from the countryside bent on doing something about the situation.

‘They were furiously angry because he had wrought folly in Israel.’ The phrase ‘wrought folly in Israel’ refers to what is seen as the most grievous of sins. It usually has in mind sexual sin of the worst kind but is also used of Achan’s sin in retaining what was devoted to YHWH (see Deuteronomy 22.21; Judges 20.6; Joshua 7.15). The word for folly is nebala, seemingly an expression for what is basically sacrilege.

It has been suggested that the reference to ‘Israel’ might suggest that the last part of the sentence was a note appended later to emphasise the depth of the sin in order to explain why the brothers behaved as they did, and that may be so. On the other hand the brothers had fresh in their minds the dedication of the altar to ‘God, the God of Israel’, which could explain the use here with the tribe having a new sense of their identity as ‘Israel’. In other words they saw the sacrilege committed on Dinah in the light of the recent dedication of the tribe as Israel and it made the sin even more heinous. They had become established under a new name in the eyes of their God and now almost immediately this slight on the new name had occurred. Shechem had taken that which was devoted to YHWH. Thus the phrase ‘folly in Israel’ may well have arisen from this incident.

(That the use of the name Israel is now fairly regular comes out in 35.21-22; 37.3. Thus its use here when the setting up of a permanent altar to ‘God, the God of Israel’ has recently taken place is to be expected, especially in a context referring to sacrilege).

‘Which thing should not be done.’ This re-emphasises the awfulness of the crime. It was clearly felt very bitterly.

34.8-10 ‘And Hamor entered into discussion with them , saying, “The soul of my son Shechem longs after your daughter. I beg you, give her to him to wife. And you make marriages with us. Give your daughters to us, and take our daughters to yourselves. And you will dwell with us, and the land will be before you. Dwell and trade in it, and obtain your possessions in it.” ’

Hamor now comes to ‘them’ to enter into discussion about a possible marriage. But his words (‘your daughter’) are seemingly addressed directly to Jacob (although ‘your daughter’ might mean a daughter of the tribe as with ‘your daughters’ and ‘our daughters’, compare the brothers’ use in verse 17) but intended to include all the brothers (them). He recognises that great offence has been caused and seeks to defuse the situation by offering very favourable terms. The invitation to become full members of the community might have been welcomed by many semi-nomadic tribes. It would no doubt include having land of their own and a settled future, with their family tribe being absorbed, like Lot was, into the community. On the other hand not all semi-nomads would be pleased so to lose their independence.

But from the religious point of view it would have been the end of the covenant and the destruction of what they stood for. Inter-marriage would have introduced the tribe practically to Canaanite religion of the most debased kind, and settling down and being absorbed would have cancelled the covenant.

There are interesting contrasts in the story that unfolds that are psychologically accurate. Hamor and Jacob, the wise patriarchs, concerned to put the matter right as far as possible and reduce the tension, ready to compromise and wishing to settle the matter peaceably. Shechem, still not fully aware of how deeply he has offended. After all it was only a tribal woman and he was offering her a great privilege, and so he was thinking that all could be settled by marriage and a sufficient payment. The brothers, totally unwilling to compromise, believing that a dreadful sacrilege has been committed and determined that at any cost they will have vengeance. These were the constituent members of that meeting. And it was the brothers who took over. Jacob finds himself thrust to one side, but is willing to go along with his sons, not realising their full intentions, and only too relieved that a possible solution can be found.

Meanwhile Dinah is being held in the king’s house (verse 26). This may have been for protection, or because of her distressed state, or possibly to ensure that the marriage went forward. Either way it is clear that hidden pressures are being put on Jacob.

34.11-12 ‘And Shechem said to her father and to her brothers, “Let me find favour in your eyes, and what you say to me I will give. Ask me never so much dowry and gift and I will give in accordance with what you say to me, but give me the young woman to wife.” ’

Shechem too can see that the brothers are infuriated and consider that he has offended. But he has no doubt that they can be bought over. He is ready to pay whatever they ask as long as he can have Dinah for his wife. She has inherited the beauty of Sarah and Rebekah. He is probably bewildered by all the fuss. He is after all the darling of the people.

34.13-17 ‘And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father with guile, and spoke, because he had defiled Dinah their sister, and said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a reproach to us. Only on this condition will we consent to you, if you will be as we are, that every male of you be circumcised. Then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you and we will become one people. But if you will not listen to us then we will take our daughter and we will be gone.” ’

‘With guile.’ It is unusual in Genesis for an explanation to be given for the motive of what is said. Thus the reference to guile shows that the writer wants us to know that what later happened was the brothers’ intention from the start. It is again stressed that their motive is based on what has been done to their sister Dinah. She has been defiled, both socially and religiously. All that follows is thus but preparation for their revenge. They had no intention of fulfilling what they described.

The issue that they take up is circumcision. It is probable that more explanation was actually given at the meeting but the writer is aware that such was not really in question and omits any mention of it. There was no real idea of the men of Shechem entering the covenant community. The men of Shechem would see it simply as a religious peculiarity, whilst they also knew that many Canaanites were circumcised. But the fact was that the brothers simply saw it as a means of disabling the men of Shechem. Outwardly they are agreeing to the terms outlined by Hamor, but inwardly they have only one purpose in mind, justice and revenge, for before we judge them too harshly we must recognise that this was a case where justice and revenge went hand in hand. A terrible sacrilege had been committed against the tribe and against YHWH and they required justice to take its course. They felt that they had no choice. Sacrilege must be expiated. And that involved the death of the offender. And because the offender was the king’s firstborn and the darling of the people, they knew that theking and the people too would have to be dealt with.

We rightly cringe at what follows. But we must remember that it was then a regular occurrence for cities to be invaded and taken over, and that it was necessary for semi-nomads to make clear to others that they could not be trifled with. All too often they were the sufferers. But unquestionably what happens here is exacerbated by the sense that a great sacrilege has been committed against ‘God, the God of Israel’.

‘We will take our daughter and be gone.’ Here ‘daughter’ is used to signify a daughter of the tribe. This last phrase is a deliberate attempt to accomplish what they want, the disablement of the men of Shechem. They clearly hoped that Shechem’s passion was enough for him to agree to their proposal. Had he not done so murder might have taken place on the spot regardless of the consequences. They did not really intend to ‘be gone’.

34.18-19 ‘And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem, Hamor’s son. And the young man did not seek to put off doing the thing because he had delight in Jacob’s daughter, and he was honoured above all the house of his father.’

Both Hamor and Shechem were taken in by the deception and were willing to accept the terms, Hamor as the doting father, and Shechem as the love-sick suitor. Indeed the thought of being circumcised did not daunt Shechem one bit because he was so in love. And his position would ensure acceptance by others in his household, for if he would do it why should they not? They would all do as they were told. This description has the air of being written by an eyewitness to Shechem’s enthusiasm. But it would not be so easy to persuade the men of Shechem as a whole to agree to the act. That required diplomacy.

34.20 ‘And Hamor and Shechem his son came to the gate of their city, and consulted with the men of their city, saying.’

The gate of the city was where the leading men would meet in dealing the city’s affairs. Hamor could not just dictate terms. Most petty kings were subject to the guidance of their counsellors and had to take their people along with them in major decisions. Thus although he and his son have agreed to the terms they now have to carry their counsellors along with them.

34.21-23 “These men are peaceable with us. Therefore let them dwell in the land and trade in it. For behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters. But only on this condition will the men give consent to us to live among us to become one people, and that is if every male among us be circumcised as they are circumcised. Will not their cattle and their substance and all their animals be ours? Only let us give consent to them and they will live among us.”

These words remind us once again how large a family tribe Jacob has. His wealth is clearly sufficient to impress a small city and its inhabitants and make their continued presence worthwhile. There is no suggestion of a threat (Hamor is totally taken in) it is all promise. They will be given spare land of which there is a plentiful supply and be absorbed into the community along with their wealth. And the city as a whole will gain by this increase in its wealth, for once they are an established part of the community the possessions will be looked on as in a sense the community’s as well as Jacob’s.

Thus the subtle Hamor and the influential Shechem convince the townsfolk of the benefit of the agreement without admitting the real reason. The only thing they have to do to obtain all this wealth for the tribe is to be circumcised, something which was clearly a well known practise elsewhere. Two prisoners of a Canaanite king on a 12th century BC Megiddo ivory were circumcised, as is an Egyptian boy on a sixth dynasty tomb relief which depicts his circumcision. A flint knife was used there as among the descendants of Abraham (see on chapter 17).

34.24 ‘And all who went out of the gate of the city paid heed to Hamor, and Shechem his son, and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.’

‘All who went out of the gate of the city.’ That is the freemen who were free to move as they liked. The slaves would be given no option. All were circumcised as Hamor and Shechem had suggested. It was a small price to pay in return for such an increase in riches, and their king and prince were clearly convinced that it was for their good.

34.25 ‘And it happened on the third day , when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took each man his sword and came on the city unawares and killed all the males. And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house and went out.’

The third day was when the circumcision operation laid men lowest and they were feverish with their wounds. Then it was that Dinah’s brothers Simeon and Levi moved in to exact justice and demand blood to expiate the sacrilege against Dinah. They would be accompanied by their retainers, possibly supplemented by other tribal members, but because of their status as full blood-brothers to Dinah it was seen as their right and responsibility to exact punishment.

The other sons of Leah are not mentioned. Simeon and Levi were seemingly the most warlike of them and most suitable for the enterprise, and they would appear to have been appointed by general agreement to carry out the enterprise. (Jacob will later decry the attributes that made them seem so suitable (49.5-7).)

No one in the city, which would be an open unwalled city, was prepared for the assault and inevitably the men were caught unready in no condition to put up a good fight. It is specifically stressed that Hamor and Shechem were put to death. This was necessary expiation. At the same time Dinah was released from her ‘imprisonment’.

‘They killed all the males.’ It was a bloody business, but this was necessary to prevent retaliation.

34.27 ‘The sons of Jacob came on the slain and spoiled the city because they had defiled their sister. They took their flocks and their herds and their asses, and whatever was in the city and whatever was in the surrounding country. And all their wealth and all their little ones, and their wives, they took captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.’

Once the expiation had been carried out the remainder of Jacob’s sons moved in to plunder the city. They despoiled the city and took possession of all the belongings of the inhabitants, both in the city and in the surrounding area, including their wives and children. And the reason is again made clear. It was due to their sacrilege.

34.30 ‘And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me, to make me an unpleasant odour among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites, and I being few in number, they will gather themselves together against me, and smite me, and I will be destroyed, and my household.”

Jacob is not pleased at what his sons have done and had clearly not been expecting it. They had not brought him in on their plans. But his concern is not so much over what has been done as with its consequences. If the surrounding close neighbours gather together to take revenge they are not strong enough to fight them and thus Jacob will lose all he has as well as being in danger of being killed himself. It was not for this that he had built up his wealth. So he rebukes them severely. Was the rape of Dinah worth it?

34.31 ‘And they said, “Should he deal with our sister as with a common prostitute?” ’

They are justifiably indignant. It is they who have been wronged. What else could they do and retain their honour? Their sister had been treated like a common prostitute, available for men whenever they desired. The tribe had been insulted and violated. The covenant had been besmirched. We may decry what they did, but men in their day would have fully understood its necessity.

We may pause to consider that sometimes the way of compromise is necessary, but when deep sin is involved such compromise is unacceptable. In the terms of their day Simeon and Levi were justified in what they did. And by it, although it was not their motive, they protected the ongoing of the covenant and preserved the purity of the tribe. As ever God moves in mysterious ways in the bringing about of His purposes.

(It would in fact be a mistake to assume that the patriarchs never killed anyone. It was sadly a normal part of life when people were wealthy and vulnerable. We certainly know that Abraham would have done so in rescuing Lot and all the patriarchs had riches and herds to defend and we can be sure that attacks on them were many. Their men were trained to fight for that very reason. Bloody fights would have been fairly commonplace. The difference here is that a whole town (but very small by our standards) was involved. But as we have seen the circumstances were very special.

Jacob Returns to Bethel and Erects an Altar There. God Renews His Covenant With Him. He Finally Joins With Isaac. The Death of Isaac (35.1-36.1a).

This covenant record is based around the theophany and covenant in verses 35.9-12. It is a moment of extreme sacredness on Jacob’s return to Bethel after so long an absence from the promised land and results in his finally joining his father Isaac and the main family tribe at Mamre.

The Call To Rededication At Bethel (35.1-8).

35.1 ‘And God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there, and make there an altar to God who appeared to you when you fled from Esau your brother.” ’

Jacob is still at Shechem (verse 4) but it would not have been wise to remain there in view of what had happened. It is thus timely that God appears again to Jacob with the command to move on. God’s motive is, however, slightly different. He had seen that Jacob had been ready to compromise. Now He requires him to go back to Bethel to reconsecrate himself and his tribe. A dangerous and covenant-wrecking situation has been averted.

We should note that the narrative is fully aware of Jacob’s previous visit to Bethel (verses 1, 7 and 9). It is, of course, only ‘Bethel’ at this time to Jacob because of his experience there. To the outside world it is still in the region of Luz (verse 6).

The command then is to return to where he had had his previous vision. This will take him well away from the neighbourhood of Shechem. God is calling Jacob to a new dedication of himself. And indeed Jacob is aware that he cannot approach that holy place without re-examining his life for there he had met with God in an unusually vivid way.

35.2 ‘Then Jacob said to his household, and to all who were with him, “Put away the strange gods which are among you, and purify yourselves and change your clothing. And let us rise and go to Bethel, and I will make there an altar to God who answered me in the day of my distress and was with me in the way in which I went.”

Jacob is aware of the solemnity of this moment. He is travelling back to where he had seen Heaven and earth meet, where he had made a solemn covenant with God, a place he could never forget. And this causes him to take a new look at the family tribe. The distinction between ‘his household’ and ‘those who were with him’ is interesting. His household, which would be those with whom he left Paddan-aram, would include his servants and retainers and would be quite large, but clearly others have joined up with them resulting in an even larger group, including the remnants of Shechem.

But this solemn moment must be prepared for. All is not well. Many are secretly worshipping strange gods, superstition is rife, loyalty to YHWH is in abeyance. These strange gods may indeed include the teraphim stolen by Rachel which she may have begun to worship, although she may well have been doing so only in secret without Jacob’s knowledge. But they cannot go to that sacred place with these abominations (the name later given to idols). There can be no idols in Beth-el. There must be a new dedication.

So they are to put away these gods (it is not enough to stop heeding them, they must be got rid of). Then they are to ritually purify themselves, including changing their clothes, in preparation for the journey to Bethel. We have no hint of the method of ritual purification but it may well have included ritual washing and a period of abstinence from sexual activity, removing the ‘earthiness’ so that they can be fit to approach Bethel and God. The washing is to remove ‘earthiness’. The re-clothing suggests a presentation of themselves before God having rid themselves of the past (such semi-nomadic men did not regularly wash or change their clothing. Indeed the passion for cleanliness is a modern virtue). All would be aware that this was a life-changing moment.

And as they did, so for us it is good for us too to take time to re-examine our lives and rid ourselves of those things that have begun to hinder our walk with God. Then we too may have deeper experience of God.

The final purpose is to go to Bethel, where the God Who has continually watched over him had appeared to him, as they would all know, and to build an altar where he had erected the pillar. Shechem no longer holds a welcome for them so that a new sanctuary is required. And Jacob recognises that this is a call to return back to what YHWH had intended for him from birth as previously confirmed at Bethel.

35.4 ‘And they gave to Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears, and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.’

The tribe gathered together all their ‘strange gods’. These would include small images, amulets, and other superstitious objects, which included earrings, which had idolatrous religious connections, and which would have been bought from passing merchants. These were collected together and buried under an oak in Shechem. Such trees were often connected with important events. They represented outstanding landmarks. Thus when they left Shechem they left their past behind them. It reminds us that God cannot be approached casually. If we would approach Him all hindrances must be removed.

35.5 ‘And they began their journey, and a terror from God (or ‘a great terror’) was on the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob.’

They made their escape from Shechem without interference. This was because of the fear that had spread round as a result of their activities. Stories about the raid by Jacob’s sons were probably spread from mouth to mouth, expanding as they went, so that by the time the other cities heard them a large, fierce army had been involved. And this was added to and used by God. Thus they kept away, and by the time the truth was known it was too late. Jacob’s sons had made their escape. Such a terror from God is witnessed to elsewhere in Exodus 23.27; 1 Samuel 14.15. It is implied in Joshua 10.10; Judges 4.15; 7.22. God can work in men’s minds in many ways.

35.6 ‘So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, (the same is Bethel), he and all the people who were with him.’

Luz was the name of the city in the area in which Jacob had erected the pillar on his first visit. Later it was changed to Bethel and a compiler’s note added here.

35.7 ‘And he built there an altar and called the place El-Bethel because there God was revealed to him when he fled from the face of his brother.’

Previously Jacob had erected a pillar as a personal witness to his personal covenant with God. He had named its site Bethel. Now he erects an altar as a place of worship for his family tribe. And he calls the site of the altar ‘El-Bethel’ which means ‘the God of Bethel’. This was in memory of the fact that he had named the place where the pillar was Beth-el (house of God) when God had revealed Himself to him there. This is a public naming, with full solemnities of sacrifice and worship, in contrast to the previous private naming. Now the name is generally recognised in the tribe and not just personal.

35.8 ‘And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried below Bethel under the oak, and the name of it was called Allon-Bacuth.’

The ceremony was marred by a sad event, the death of Rebekah’s nurse. It is probable that Rebekah had sent her nurse to keep a motherly eye on Jacob on his flight to Paddan-aram as she could not do so herself. Thus she had been with him many years. It was the end of an era. (Alternately Rebekah may have come with her nurse to see Jacob on his return to Canaan). She had watched over Jacob these many years and now he has returned to Bethel her work is done She has done what God required. The writer probably saw it as the final evidence of the end of the past and a new beginning.

It may be that the death of such a faithful retainer at such a time was seen as somehow a fitting offering to God for she was buried under an oak tree ‘below Bethel’. The place was thus called Allon-Bacuth - ‘the oak of weeping’, an indication of the sorrow that accompanied her departure. Possibly it became for the people a place where they could weep when they were enduring sorrow.

God Renews His Covenant With Jacob And Publicly Declares His New Name Israel (35.9-15).

The renewal of the patriarchal covenant, and the public giving to Jacob of his new name Israel, indicates a new beginning in the land. Jacob is recognised as a changed man, with a new attitude towards YHWH..

35.9 ‘And God appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him.

‘God appeared to Jacob again.’ The ‘again’ refers back to the previous theophany at Bethel before he left Canaan (28.10-22). This is now God’s renewal of that covenant on his return to the promised land at the place where he had first made His promises to him. Thus the writer is very much aware of Jacob’s experience then and what went on (compare verses 1 and 7). He is aware that part of the site has already been called Beth-el.

‘When he came from Paddan-aram.’ The writer wants us to have the whole context. This is not just another step in the journey, it is in direct relation to his leaving Paddan-aram to return to the promised land. It is the confirmation of the return of God’s chosen one from the far country.

‘And blessed him’. This sums up what follows. Thus Jacob’s obedience to God and detailed preparations for the pilgrimage to Bethel to build the altar to His name is rewarded with a vivid experience of the divine, a great theophany, accompanied by great promises. This is the definitive experience. In it is summed up all that has gone before. In it is summed up all his hopes for the future. Both the name Israel and the name Bethel are as it were reconsecrated in recognition of the uniqueness of this occasion.

35.10 ‘And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob. Your name will not any longer be called Jacob, but Israel will be your name. And he called his name Israel.” ’

A change of name for Abram occurred at God’s first revelation of Himself as El Shaddai, and here a second change of name is referred to on God’s second revelation of Himself as El Shaddai. It would appear that such revelations required the transformation of the recipients resulting in a change of name.

But as we know, Jacob had already been given this name after wrestling with God at Penuel (32.28), and he had subsequently erected an altar to ‘God, the God of Israel’ (33.20). But he had delayed in returning to the family tribe and as so often in men’s lives such life-changing events can dim with time. The idea of him as Israel has become faded. It is almost forgotten. The old Jacob has reasserted itself. Thus at this crucial renewing of the covenant at Bethel the change of name is renewed and emphasised. It is emphasising that what happened at Penuel is now to come into fruition. He is to be Israel.

A change of name in ancient days was seen as having deep significance. This is why at this crucial moment in the life of Jacob and of the tribe God emphasises his changed name. He must remember that he is no longer Jacob, but Israel. The past is behind him. The old Jacob is behind him. This is a new beginning. He is the one with whom God has striven and through whom He will carry out his purposes (Israel means ‘God strives’).

We may see here an implied rebuke against Jacob’s long stay in Succoth and Shechem. He had previously been given the new name of Israel preparatory to returning to the family tribe. But he had not done so, he had delayed. Now it is necessary for him to be renamed after the period of backsliding. It is a salutary thought that had he previously been faithful the shame of Shechem would not have occurred.

This change of name is emphasised later in the following verses. Once his twelfth son has been born and the full complement of sons made up he will journey on as Israel (35.21). This also coincides with the death of Rachel. It is as though with her death, with the great hold she had had on him, he is now free to be what God wants him to be.

35.11-12 ‘And God said to him, “I am El Shaddai (the Almighty God). Be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations (goyim) will be from you, and kings will come from your loins. And the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, to you will I give it, and to your seed after you will I give the land.” ’

The meaning of ‘El Shaddai’ is not yet apparent to us but the LXX translates it as ‘the Almighty’. God only reveals Himself under this title twice, to Abraham in connection with the greater covenant and to Jacob here, and in both cases there is stress on a change of name for the recipient. To receive a covenant from El Shaddai means a whole new direction in life.

So Jacob is confirmed as the inheritor of the greater covenant. Whenever God is mentioned under the name of El Shaddai it is in relation to many nations, not just to the family tribe. To Abraham in chapter 17 ‘you shall be the father of a multitude of nations (hamon goyim)’, and Ishmael is a part of that covenant; to Isaac as he blesses Jacob in 28.3 ‘that you may be a company of peoples’ (liqhal ‘amim); and again to Jacob in 48.4 reference is made to ‘a company of peoples’ (liqhal ‘amim). It is in recognition of this fact that Jacob speaks of El Shaddai when he sends his sons back to Egypt to obtain the release of Simeon and entrusts them with Benjamin (43.14). It is YHWH as El Shaddai, the sovereign God over the whole world, who has the power to prevail over the great governor of Egypt. This may also be why Isaac used this title of YHWH when he sent his son into a foreign land.

So Jacob is not just inheriting the promises related to the family tribe but those which relate to God’s worldwide purposes. However, as always, this includes these local promises, thus he will bear both a nation and a company of nations. His direct descendants will be kings and his seed will inherit the promised land.

These promises relate closely to those mentioned by Isaac in 28.3-4 in the context of El Shaddai. To be fruitful and multiply, to be a company of peoples, and to receive the blessing of Abraham in the inheritance of the land. Thus God confirms that he is speaking to him as the God of Isaac.

Less directly they also relate to the promises made when he first came to Bethel, for there too he was promised that he and his seed would receive the land (28.13), that he would multiply greatly and especially that through him and his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed (28.14).

‘Be fruitful and multiply.’ This has more the sons of Jacob in mind than Jacob himself. But their sons would be his sons, and their seed his seed. He would proudly look on further generations and finally they would become an innumerable multitude.

‘A nation and a company of nations.’ His family tribe would become a nation. But this would not be all, for a company of nations would also come from him. And later Israel was to be a company of nations, for it was to include not only his descendants but large numbers of peoples of other nations who joined themselves with Israel (e.g. Exodus 12.38), and even further on peoples from all nations would gladly form the true Israel, the ‘Israel of God’ (Galatians 6.16 with 3.29; Ephesians 2.11-19).

‘Kings shall be descended from you (come from your loins).’ Nationhood would result in kingship, and those kings would be his own descendants. Indeed from him would come the greatest King of all.

And he and his seed would inherit the land. We cannot fully appreciate what it meant to a sojourner (alien and non-landowner), a wanderer, a landless person who must trust to the good nature of others and whatever bargains he could arrange and pay for in one way or another, to become the possessor of land. And here the promise to Abraham and Isaac is confirmed to Jacob. He and his seed will one day possess the whole land.

We note here that the promises are unconditional. At these great moments God does not lay down any terms. He is sovereign and will bring about His purposes. The only hint that response is required comes in the reference to Jacob’s change of name to Israel and its significance. But even this was part of God’s sovereign purpose and Jacob was the recipient. And this is recognised especially in the fact that Jacob makes no response as he had done previously at Bethel (28.20-22). This is not a time for man to make his promises and bargains. This is a moment of receiving in awesome silence.

35.13 ‘And God went up from him in the place where he spoke with him.’

This is confirmation that here was a physical manifestation of God. Once God had finished re-establishing His covenant with Jacob He ‘goes up’, a recognition that He is leaving the world for His own realm. For ‘went up’ compare 17.22; Judges 13.20.

35.14 ‘And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he spoke with him, a pillar of stone. And he poured out a drink offering on it, and poured oil on it.’

This is the second pillar that Jacob has set up. The first commemorated his first vision when he saw the angels of God ascending and descending on a ramp as they went about their heavenly business in the world, and was assured of God’s presence with him and watch over him and his participation in the covenant (27.18). It was set up in the place where he slept. This one commemorates an even greater occasion, the awesome visible manifestation of God in renewal of that covenant now that he is back in the land of promise. Again the pillar is witness to the covenant that has been made. It is set up at the very site of the theophany. As we have seen earlier, Jacob was a great one for requiring evidence of covenants (26.33).

‘And he poured out a drink offering on it, and poured oil on it.’ The first pillar was set apart to God by the pouring of oil on it and it marked God’s visit and presence, but there was no thought there of an offering. It was a reminder of what had happened and of the covenant made. Here the offering comes first. Jacob pours out a drink offering to God, and only then does he sanctify it to God. It is a recognition of God’s continued presence.

35.15 ‘And Jacob called the place where God spoke to him ‘Beth-el’.’

The previous naming of the place as Beth-el had been in private (28.19) and was of the spot where he had had his vision. It was an extremely personal thing and was accompanied by a personal response. Now the naming is more public and covers a wider area where the altar has been set up. We cannot doubt that the whole tribe was involved. Thus the wider site becomes more widely recognised as ‘Beth-el’, the house of God. Later the name will be transferred to the neighbouring city of Luz as well.

The confirmation before all of the name he has previously given it establishes the new name. It is seen as sacredly connected to the important ceremony that has just taken place in the sanctifying of the altar. That had been named El-Bethel (God of the house of God) because of the previous naming. Now the vivid theophany has confirmed the whole place as Beth-el, the ‘dwelling place’ of God.

Now that he and his tribe are reconsecrated he begins the final part of his journey back to the mother tribe, to Isaac, via Ephrath (later to be Bethlehem) and the Tower of Eder.

The Birth Of Benjamin And The Death Of Rachel (35.16-20).

35. 16-19 ‘And they journeyed from Bethel, and there was still some way to come to Ephrath, and Rachel began to experience birth pains and she had hard labour. And it happened that when she was in hard labour the midwife said to her, “Don’t be afraid, for now you will have another son. And it happened that, as her life was departing, for she died, she called his name Benoni (son of my sorrow), but his father called him Benjamin (son of the right hand). And Rachel died and was buried in the way to Ephrath, the same is Bethlehem.’

The journey from Bethel to Mamre is interrupted by sad experiences of which the first is the death of Rachel in childbirth. But as she dies she is able to rejoice in the birth of a son, calling him Benoni - ‘product of my sorrow’. Understandably however Jacob does not want a continual reminder of the loss of his beloved wife, and changes the name to Benjamin. This name, ‘son of the right hand’ is probably intended to indicate good fortune. Jacob wants him to be connected with good fortune rather than with mourning. Note that it is not said the she was buried in Bethlehem itself. She was buried in ‘the way to Ephrath’, (‘there was still some way to come to Ephrath’ - Genesis 48.7), the Bethlehem Road on the way from Bethel, which goes through Benjaminite territory (1 Samuel 10.2-3; Jeremiah 31.15).

‘The same is Bethlehem.’ A later note added by a scribe to identify Ephrath.

The name Benjamin is attested elsewhere in the Mari texts (eighteenth century BC) as binu yamina which probably means ‘sons of the South’, but there is no good reason for identifying them with the later tribe of Benjamin. It is a name that could be given to many tribes for identification purposes, looking from a particular standpoint (compare ‘children of the East’).

35.20 ‘And Jacob set up a pillar on her grave. The same is the pillar of Rachel’s grave to this day.’

The loss of Rachel is a deep blow and when she is buried he sets up a memorial stone. The setting up of such stones was a custom widely practised in Canaan in those days. The significance attached to such a pillar would vary between tribes as with so many customs and we are given no hint here what is in Jacob’s mind. It may well have been just because he did not want her burial place to be forgotten. Later Israel was certainly decidedly against any funerary cult. Possibly he felt that in some way it kept her alive. Consider how even today the loss of a very dear loved one results in people praying at the grave. They cannot believe the loved one has gone.

‘The same is the pillar of Rachel’s grave to this day.’ ‘To this day’ may signify a long or a short time. It merely says that the writer is aware of the pillar and declares it is still there. We may therefore see it as the comment of the recorder of this covenant record within a relatively short time of the occurrence or as an added comment made later by the compiler.

This is the second death of someone important to him preparatory to his being restored to his family (compare 35.8). If only he had returned earlier what might have been avoided. Now he returns surrounded by grief. We must always beware of delay when dealing with God.

The Sin Of Reuben (35.21-22).

Reuben had learned from his father’s devious ways and now makes an attempt to establish his position among his brothers by sleeping with his father’s concubine, hoping that his father will not learn of it. It was a sin which was to cast a shadow on his whole future. The sojourn in Shechem, and his witnessing of the behaviour there, and his father’s complacency with it, had distorted his morals.

35.21 ‘And Israel journeyed and spread his tent beyond the Tower of Eder.’

The name Tower of Eder means ‘cattle tower.’ It is unidentified but clearly obtained its name from some well known local landmark. But what is significant is that we see Jacob’s new name applied to him in an historical record for the first time. He has come home as a new man. It is not Jacob who is coming home, but Israel. The contrast with ‘Jacob’ in the previous verse may well deliberately indicate that the death of Rachel brings in a new era. In some way he is a better man for being free from her influence. But this final step in the journey is mentioned also for another reason. A reason of shame.

35.22a ‘And it happened, while Israel dwelt in that land that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine, and Israel heard of it.’

The homecoming is marred. Israel (Jacob) may be coming home a new man but there is still sin in the camp. His children have been shaped by his past. His son Reuben commits a great sin, and the news reaches his father. It is a sin that Israel never forgets even on his deathbed (49.4) for it would bring great shame on him. It would seem that Reuben takes advantage of Bilhah’s new insecurity, for now that her mistress is dead she may well have lost status and be vulnerable and in no position to deal with the advances of her husband’s eldest son. Or it may be that by it he was seeking future status by copulating with his father’s concubine, and raped her, hoping to conceal it from his father whilst letting it be known to others. Compare how Absalom would do a similar thing with David’s concubines (2 Samuel 16.22), and Adonijah’s attempt on Abishag, also David’s ‘concubine’ (1 Kings 2.13-22).

The significant use of Jacob’s new name ‘Israel’ stresses the final success for him of his period away. He is a changed man. But the sin of Reuben warns against over exuberance. He is still the son of Jacob.

‘Israel heard of it.’ The total lack of comment or of any indication of Israel’s reaction speaks volumes. Israel ponders it and bides his time. He is weak with regard to his sons. The writer is aware of Israel’s shame and in deference to his master pulls a veil over the incident. It is enough that all will pass the same judgment and be appalled. It had to be mentioned because of the appalling nature of the sin, for it would colour the whole of Reuben’s future. But it was passed over without comment because of deep sensitivity for Israel.

The Sons Of Jacob (35.22b-26).

The record finishes with a genealogy of Jacob’s sons, followed by the final homecoming and the death of Isaac. Such genealogies were commonly included in written records at that time and here it is especially pertinent. Jacob had left as a young man with only a staff to call his own. He now returns home as the leader of a confederation of sub-tribes.

35.22b ‘Now the sons of Jacob were twelve.’

The writer reverts back to the name Jacob. Perhaps this reflects the sin of Reuben. The name Israel will be taken up again later. It was Jacob who had gone out, and now he returns a fully fledged confederation of tribes in the recognised twelve-fold pattern. His sons, apart from Benjamin, have grown up and are leaders of their own sub-groups, as what happened at Shechem (chapter 34) has demonstrated, and even Benjamin has those who watch over him. The picture is somewhat idealistic to demonstrate his outstanding success and the faithfulness of the God Who has been with him.

35.23-26 ‘The sons of Leah: Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun. The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid: Dan and Naphtali. And the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid: Gad and Asher. These were the sons of Jacob which were born to him in Paddan-aram.’

Jacob’s sons are listed indicating first his six sons directly by Leah, then his two sons directly by Rachel, and these are followed by the names of the sons of the concubines.

‘Born to him in Paddan-aram.’ That is all but Benjamin. But the idea is rather that they were all born prior to his full return to the tribe after being sent to Paddan-aram. The writer views it as seeing them all return home ‘from Paddan-aram’.

Jacob Finally Returns To The Family Tribe (35.27).

Jacob’s long absence is over and he returns to the family tribe. But he brings with him his own sub-tribes. The return may have been occasioned by news of his father’s advancing ill health.

35.27 ‘And Jacob came to Isaac his father, to Mamre, to Kiriath-arba (the same is Hebron) where Abraham and Isaac sojourned.

At last Jacob is home. He has come to take up his now rightful place as heir to the family tribe and the covenant promises, something confirmed at Beth-el (35.11-12). He is now in the line of Abraham and Isaac.

For Mamre see 13.18; 14.13; 18.1. Kiriatharba means ‘city of four’, possibly of four parts. It was, as an annotator tells us, the later city of Hebron. Compare for its use Joshua 14.15; 15.54; 20.7; Judges 1.10.

The Death Of Isaac (35.28-29).

35.28-29 ‘And the days of Isaac were one hundred and eighty years, and Isaac yielded up his breath and died, and was gathered to his people old and full of days. And Esau and Jacob his sons buried him.

Isaac lives on for many years with Esau and Jacob as his support. He was not much more than one hundred when Jacob left for Paddan-aram and he had thus many years of life ahead of him. But he was blind and old before his days and there were no special covenants to record. However, as with all the ages of the patriarchs, the number is a round number and therefore probably contains a meaning of its own. The aim is to show a long and successful life. How close he came to those exact years neither he nor we would know. It is extremely doubtful that records of age were kept over so many years. There was no long term calendar.

Meanwhile, after the return of Jacob their wealth of possessions and cattle and herds was so great that Esau eventually removes permanently, with all he possesses, to his well established base in Mount Seir (36.6). His visits to his family home will now be far fewer and less protracted. Previously he has shared his time between assisting his father in times of necessity, lambing, sheepshearing, harvest and so on, and leading his band of warriors. Now that can be left to Jacob. But he remained in touch with his family and when his father died he came to join Jacob, and they buried him together.

These words may well have been added as a postscript to the previous covenant record.

36.1 ‘Now this is the family history of Esau, the same is Edom.’

Here again we have evidence of a colophon, a heading or final phrase that indicates content and ownership of a tablet. Esau was still the eldest son and head of the family and the family records would as such be his responsibility after the death of Isaac, Thus it may be that his name is now subscribed to the previous record to indicate ownership, although the actual recording would be made by a tribal member more suited to it. (Even if he did happily hand over the task to a tribal record keeper, or even to Jacob, the colophon would be in his name).

The fact that the later compiler had these covenant records available for putting together his narrative demonstrates how carefully they were preserved, some no doubt being read out at the family festivals as they renewed their covenant with YHWH. It is significant that the last hint of a colophon and of covenant records occurs in 37.2. From then on we have a continual story. This is easily explained by the fact that that is basically the record of the life of Joseph, put together in Egypt as befitted such an important personage and written on papyrus. There were no longer then the limitations of clay and stone.

Alternately this may be a heading to define the content of the following genealogical history (compare ‘the same is Edom’ in 36.19, and ‘this is Edom, the father of the Edomites’ in 36.43). But 36.19 probably refers back to verse 8 and is therefore itself the colophon to that section. Thus we may have here the combination of a colophon and a heading, ‘this is the family history of Esau’ as the closing colophon and ‘Esau, the same is Edom’ as a heading. Either way they are evidence that we are dealing with written records.

If this latter be so then 37.1-2a may be seen as originally ending the record we have just been looking at with chapter 36 being incorporated by the compiler in order to sum up the life of Esau after his mention in 35.29. The covenant record from 35.1 then ends with ‘this is the family history of Jacob’ (37.2a). This may seem more satisfactory from a modern point of view, for we like everything to fit a pattern, but it may not accord with ancient practise.

The Descendants and Allies of Esau (36.2-43).

This chapter now deals with the history of Esau prior to putting him to one side. This fits in with the compiler’s methods all through Genesis where he deals with secondary lines first before concentrating on the main line (e.g. the Cainite line precedes the line of Seth - Genesis 4 & 5).

It is an interesting chapter and raises complex questions for the reader. We can understand why a record should be kept of the family of Esau, for he was closely connected with the family tribe at the time of the death of Isaac and was clearly on good terms with Jacob, but why should a record be kept of the genealogy of Seir the Horite (36.20-30) and of the kings of Edom (36.31-43)? For these records must finally have been in the hands of the family tribe in order to be compiled with the other records and be recorded here. The only time when these would have been of such interest was when Esau was in close contact with them and in the process of amalgamating with them (and was connected with them by marriage), or possibly if some Edomites were included among the slaves in Egypt and in the mixed multitude of Exodus 12.38.

There would appear to be a number of records utilised, all genealogical. These comprise verses 2-9, the sons of Esau; 10-19 the descendants and chiefs (or dukes) of Esau; 20-30 the sons and chiefs of Seir the Horite; 31-39, the kings who reigned in the land of Edom; 40-43, chiefs that came from Esau.

The Sons of Esau (36.2-9).

36.2 ‘Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebaioth.’

In 26.34 Esau’s Canaanite wives are named Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Ishmael’s daughter is called Mahalath, sister of Nebaioth (28.9). Thus Basemath has become Adah, Judith has become Oholibamah (Beeri the Hittite may well have been married to Anah), and Mahalath becomes Basemath.

One possibility we must consider is that on marriage Canaanite wives often took on another name indicating their change of status. Thus Judith may have become Oholibamah (‘tent of the high place’), a suitable marriage name due to its connection with the holy tent, and a name connected with her mother’s family, and Mahalath may have become Basemath (possibly ‘the fragrant one’). Basemath may have thus changed her name to Adah (meaning unknown).

As Basemath probably means ‘fragrant’ it is also very possible that this was a nickname regularly used by Esau. He may have called Adah this as a love name, and later applied it to Mahalath when his affections varied (compare our use of ‘honey’ or ‘sugar’) causing confusion to the record keepers. Or he may have liked the name and when Basemath relinquished it on marriage have suggested it to Mahalath as a married name.

As mentioned Oholibamah means ‘tent of the high place’ suggesting a tabernacle similar to some extent to that later in use in by the Israelites. It is also the name of one of the ‘dukes of Edom’ (36.41) and of one of the daughters of Anah the Horite (36.25). The dual name theory would account for why a Canaanite woman bears an Edomite name due to Esau’s early connections with Edom prior to his marriages. Consider also how Beeri the Hittite appears to have been married to an ‘Edomite’ woman, Anah daughter of Zibeon the Hivite (compare Zibeon the Horite in 36.24 who also had a son called Anah. There seems to be some parallel between Hivites and Horites).

That Anah was an important person due to her connections comes out in the constant reference to her (verses 2, 14, 18). She was the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite (verse 2) who is probably the same as Zibeon, the son of Seir the Horite (verse 20). We do not know who the Hivites were but they are regularly mentioned as one of the tribes in Canaan, and their connection with the Horites is suggested here. Indeed the name may be an alternative rendering, ‘v’ instead of ‘r’, either as an error in copying or otherwise. The LXX of Genesis 34.2 and Joshua 9.7 renders Hivite as Horite which may suggest an original different reading.

36.4-5 ‘And Adah bore to Esau Eliphaz, and Basemath bore Reuel. And Oholibamah bore Jeush, and Jalam, and Korah. These are the sons of Esau who were born to him in the land of Canaan.

The sons born to Esau by his wives in Canaan are now listed. ‘Reuel’ appears to mean ‘friend of God’.

36.6-8 ‘And Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters, and all the folk in his house, and his cattle and all his beasts and all his possessions which he had gathered in the land of Canaan and went into a land away from his brother Jacob, for their substance was too great for them to dwell together and the land of their sojournings could not bear them because of their cattle, and Esau dwelt in Mount Seir. Esau is Edom.’

This combination of genealogy and snippets of historical events is a feature of early genealogies, compare the Sumerian king lists where the same occurs.

As we have seen Esau had divided his time between his band of warriors in Mount Seir and helping his father in Canaan. But now that his father is dead, and we cannot doubt that he left a generous legacy to Esau, he removes to Mount Seir permanently. This was necessary anyway because their joint possessions were so great that there was not room for both Jacob and Esau. Once again we have brought home to us the wealth of the patriarchs and their sizeable ‘households’.

‘Esau is Edom.’ A constant refrain in this chapter. See verse 1, verse 19. Compare verse 9 and verse 43 where ‘Esau is the father of Edom’ that is of the Edomites. Esau was nicknamed Edom because of his red colouring, and this name passes on to those who are connected with him.

36.9 ‘This is the family history of Esau the father of Edom in mount Seir.’

Again we have a colophon showing to whom the tablet belongs. (Alternately it may head the following tablet, with ‘Esau of Edom’ (verse 8) being the close of the previous tablet).

The Descendants and Chieftains of Esau (36.10-19).

36.10 ‘These are the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, Reuel the son of Basemath the wife of Esau.’

For these sons of Esau compare verse 4.

36.11-12 ‘And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gattam and Kenaz. And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son, and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek. These are the sons of Adah, Esau’s wife.’

This is a list of Esau’s grandsons through Eliphaz.

36.13 ‘And these are the sons of Reuel: Nahath and Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah. These were the male descendants (sons) of Basemath, Esau’s wife.’

This is a list of Esau’s grandsons through Reuel. We note that they can be called ‘sons’ of Basemath for they are her grandsons, a regular usage of the word ‘sons’.

36.14 ‘’And these were the sons of Oholibamah, the daughter of Ana, the daughter of Zibeon, Esau’s wife. And she bore to Esau, Jeush and Jalam and Korah.’

For these sons of Esau compare verse 5.

36.15 ‘These are the chieftains of the sons of Esau, the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau. Chief Teman, Chief Omar, Chief Zepho, Chief Kenaz, Chief Korah, Chief Gatam, Chief Amalek. These are the chieftains that came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom. These are the male descendants of Adah.’

For this list of chieftains compare verse 11-12. We note that Chief Korah is not mentioned there. He is thus related in some way to Adah but not one of her grandsons (although he may have slipped in somehow due to careless copying, from verses 5 or 18). In 1 Chronicles 1.36 a Timna is mentioned as a son of Adah additionally to the six, but he may have died in childbirth. So Esau’s sons and grandsons achieve chieftainship in Edom.

36.17 ‘And these are the sons of Reuel, Esau’s son: Chief Nahath, Chief Zerah, Chief Shammah, Chief Mizzah. These are the chieftains that came of Reuel in the land of Edom. These are the male decendants of Basemath, Esau’s wife.’

Compare verse 13 for these as grandsons of Esau.

36.18 ‘And these are the sons of Oholibamah, Esau’s wife: Chief Jeush, Chief Jalam, Chief Korah. These are the chieftains that came of Oholibamah, the daughter Anah, Esau’s wife.’

For these sons of Esau compare verses 5 and 14. The constant mention of Oholibamah’s mother Anah suggests that she was very important. She was related to the Hivites/Horites and possibly Esau’s marriage connection with her was very important in amalgamating the tribes to finally form Edom. No sons of these chieftains are recorded. It may be that they were childless when slain on a raid or in battle.

36.19 ‘These are the male descendants of Esau and these are their chieftains. The same is Edom.’

Thus ends the list of male descendants and chieftains of Esau, and once more we are reminded that they compose Edom. ‘The same is Edom’ may have been a closing colophon, compare verse 8.

The Descendants and Chieftains of Seir the Horite (36.20-30).

Seir the Horite was leader of the tribe of Horites who dwelt in Seir, which was presumably named after him. His sons were their chieftains and the daughter of one of them had a daughter who became the wife of Esau. Thus Esau was connected with this powerful family. This explains his ready access to Seir and why he spent some considerable time there, while still helping his father Isaac in tribal affairs. (His connection with Ishmael was also important).

36.20-21 ‘These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah, and Dishon and Ezar and Dishan. These are the chieftains that came of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom’

We are now given the genealogy and status of the family of Seir the Horite. One of them is Zibeon, father of Anah whose daughter married Esau (verse 2). It is a very interesting fact that this genealogy is recorded in 1 Chronicles 1.38-42 even though they were not directly related to the patriarchs. They were somehow looked on as ‘family’.

36.22 ‘And the children of Lotan were Hori and Hemam, and Lotan’s sister was Timna.’

The children of the eldest son are mentioned first. The mention of his sister Timna may suggest that among the Horites women had a more prominent place than usual.

36.23 ‘And these are the children of Shobal: Alvan and Manahath and Ebal, Shepho and Onam.’

These are the children of the second son.

36.24 ‘And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah. This is the Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.’

The historical reference to the finding of an important water source is again typical of ancient genealogies.

But there is here a slight puzzle. Anah has the same name as Anah the daughter of Zibeon (verse 1). We note that the word ‘children’ is now being used and not ‘sons’ and had it not been for the masculine verbs in this verse we might have thought that this was Anah the daughter. Indeed we must ask whether this is not the case in spite of the verbal use. Perhaps in Seir among the Horites certain women were treated as men and spoken of accordingly.

In the Hebrew of 36.2 Anah is the daughter of Zibeon. However the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX and the Syriac all read ‘son’ (thus RSV). But that is the easier reading and the reason for the change is obvious. It is to remove a problem. This would equate him with Beeri the Hittite and ‘beer’ does mean ‘well’ so that Beeri may have been a name given to him on the discovery of these important springs. The idea is attractive but fails to take into account how the then very difficult rendering ‘daughter’ ever got into the text. Thus it would seem to us that a better solution lies in seeing the Horites as giving women a special prominence not accorded elsewhere.

Alternately it may be a coincidence of names. If Anah the daughter was given the same name as Anah the son, and Anah the uncle (verse 20) it is not inconceivable that Anah’s daughter might take the same name on marriage as Anah, the uncle, originally gave to his daughter. Its strangeness or its religious meaning may have appealed to her.

36.25 ‘And these are the children of Anah: Dishon and Oholibamah.’

The parallel verses show that these are the descendants of Seir’s fourth son Anah not of the Anah in the previous verse. Anah was clearly a popular name among the Horites.

36.26 ‘And these are the children of Dishon: Hemdan and Eshban and Ithran and Cheran.’

These are the children of Dishon, Seir’s fifth son, not of Anah’s son Dishon. Repetition of names was clearly popular with the Horites, as elsewhere.

36.27 ‘These are the children of Ezer: Bilhan and Zaavan and Akan.

These are the children of Seir’s sixth son.

36.28 ‘These are the children of Dishan: Uz and Aran.’

These are the children of Seir’s seventh son.

36.29-30 ‘These are the chieftains that came of the Horites: Chief Lotan, Chief Shobal, Chief Zibeon, Chief Anah, Chief Dishon, Chief Ezer, Chief Dishan. These are the chieftains who came of the Horites according to their chieftains in the land of Seir.’

This confirms verse 21. Repetition was common in narratives in the Ancient Near East. Possibly the fact that chieftainship stops with the sons suggests that authority then passed over to Esau and his descendants, but it may simply arise from the fact that the tablet was written before the chieftainship could be passed on.

Thus in these tablets we are given a full picture of the leadership of the confederate tribes in Edom over two generations. Esau was clearly proud of his sons’ achievements and of his extended family.

The Kings Who Reigned in the Land of Edom (36.31-39).

We have no means of knowing over what period these kings reigned other than that it was before a king reigned over the children of Israel. The kingship was clearly a kingship that depended on the quality of the candidates rather than on dynastic succession. It was necessary for the king to be a capable war leader for the people needed to be able to defend themselves, and they themselves probably engaged in raids. With people like Esau to contend with they had to be capable. The switch from verses 39-40 may suggest a time before the chieftainships of Esau’s sons. The section is transferred, with few changes, en bloc to 1 Chronicles 1.

36.31 ‘And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.’

This phrase does not necessarily require that at the time of writing there was now kingship in Israel. The promise to Jacob (35.11), and the promise to Abraham before him (17.6, 16), which Esau would know well, was that their descendants would be kings. Thus this boast could well have been made by Esau in the light of that fact in order to point out that while there were, and had been, kings in Edom, and thus settled statehood, none such had yet arisen among the children of Israel, thus demonstrating his own status. Indeed the very unusual phrase ‘king over the children of Israel’ (only here and 1 Chronicles 1.43 where it is copied from this verse) is a sign of the age of the narrative. We could argue that later generations would have used the regular stereotyped phrase ‘king over Israel’.

But who were these kings? We neither know that nor when they reigned. Their lives may well have been fairly brief for they were war leaders in rugged territory, and the fact that they came from so many backgrounds and reigned in different ‘cities’ suggests the nature of the people they ruled. It may well be that as Esau integrated with the tribes in Edom, eventually to become their leader, ‘the father of the Edomites’, he came across a record of these kings or heard their lineage recited at the installation of a new king, and boastfully included it here to demonstrate that his new people were more civilised than those of his family tribe.

36.32-34 ‘And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. And Bela died and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place. And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place.’

The ‘city’ of Dinhabah need only have been a group of dwellings or even a tent encampment. Bozrah similarly, although a long time later it was an established city. Whether the Temanites were named after Teman (36.11), or Teman was named after the Temanites, we do not know. Eliphaz the Temanite was one of Job’s comforters (Job 2.11). Much later on Teman was an established city (Jeremiah 49.20).

36.35 ‘And Husham died and Hadad, the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place, and the name of his city was Avith. And Hadad died and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place.’

The fact that Hadad smote Midian in the countryside of Moab dates him after the time when Midian and Moab were established as tribes. Midian was a son of Abraham by Keturah and Moab was the son of Lot, but there were tribes in Moab in settled villages before that and they probably gave their names to the tribes they eventually took leadership over. How easily a capable leader from any background could take over a tribe in the right circumstances here in Edom is demonstrated by this king list.

36.36 ‘And Hadad died and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. And Samlah died and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in his place. And Shaul died and Baalhanan, the son of Achbor reigned in his place. And Baalhanan the son of Achbor died and Hadar reigned in his place, and the name of his city was Pau, and his wife’s name was Mehetabel the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-zahab.’

If The River means the Euphrates as it usually does in Scripture then Shaul has come some distance, but it is quite possible that people would enter this warring, raiding tribe from many sources. Alternately it may refer to a local river known as The River. We note again that daughters are important in this area and may well have been influential.

The Chieftains Descended From Esau (36.40-43).

36.40-43a ‘And these are the names of the chieftains who came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names. Chief Timna, Chief Alva, Chief Jetheh, Chief Oholibamah, Chief Elah, Chief Pinon, Chief Kenaz, Chief Teman, Chief Mibzar, Chief Magdiel, Chief Iram. These are the chieftains of Edom according to their habitations in the land of their possession.’

The introduction may suggest that once there were place names present in the lists as with some of the kings previously. But it may simply be pointing out that they ruled in different places, descended from one or other of the sons, not one after the other. The placing of the names may suggest that these chieftains followed and replaced the kings. Both Timna (verse 12) and Oholibamah (verse 25) have previously been females. This may well confirm the idea that women were influential in this society. Apart from these only Kenaz is elsewhere mentioned (verses 11, 15) and he may not have been the same one. We may therefore assume that these are later descendants of Esau, possibly great-grandsons.

36.43b ‘This is Edom the father of the Edomites.’

This may well be a concluding colophon showing that the tablet belongs to Esau, possibly with 36.1 as the opening heading. ‘The father of the Edomites’ simply indicates that he became their patriarch (but see 37.1). Alternately note the unusual phrases that occur in the chapter which appear abruptly, ‘the same is Edom’ (36.1a), ‘Esau is Edom’ (36.8), ‘the same is Edom’ (36.19), ‘this is Edom the father of the Edomites’ (36.43b). These may well be remnants of headings and colophons.

37.1 ‘And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan.’

In contrast with Esau Jacob remains in the promised land. This is the crucially important statement that keeps Jacob firmly established as the inheritor of the promises. He remains where God’s purposes are being outworked.

This verse could well in the original tablet have immediately followed 35.29 with chapter 36 inserted by the compiler to explain what happened to Esau before carrying on the Jacob story. Alternately it could be the conclusion to chapter 36, for it is of similar import to 36.8. This would then make the chapter part of ‘the family history of Jacob’ (37.2a). Jacob may well have been responsible for the tablet that recorded the Esau story as the elder brother and head of the family once Esau had died, just as Esau could have been responsible for the tablet that told the Jacob story (36.1) because he was the elder brother and head of the family at the time. But the important fact as far as we are concerned is the fact that colophons to tablets are indicated.

37.2a ‘This is the family history of Jacob.’

This verse is extremely important as establishing that ‘toledoth’ means family history. It is clearly a colophon identifying the tablet to which it refers and in our view equally clearly refers backwards. The following narrative begins with ‘Joseph’ and contains his story in a continuous narrative.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?