31:1–3 It can hardly be surprising to Jacob that “Laban did not regard him with favor as before” (v. 2; Hb. “His face was not toward him”). Deceit always leaves a sour residue behind—even when someone “wins,” everyone loses. Laban had been eager to retain Jacob’s services when he observed the Lord’s blessing him on Jacob’s account (30:27), but when he and his sons see Jacob’s prospering at their expense (31:1),417 the advantages of Jacob’s continued presence suddenly become far less obvious. Family members have been murdered for far less in the pages of Genesis (cf. ch. 4), and as a sojourner (ger; 32:4) Jacob has few rights and almost no protection from wider society. A convenient “accident” could easily be arranged for him, much as Joseph’s brothers later plan for him (cf. ch. 37).

As a result, when God speaks to Jacob, calling him to return home to the “land of his fathers”418 and promising him his continued presence and protection (31:3; cf. 28:15), Jacob is ready to leave. If everything had gone well between him and Laban, Jacob might never have left Paddan-aram. But when his life circumstances become difficult, he starts to think about a different future—and through these difficulties the Lord speaks to him to redirect his steps. No matter how much Laban’s attitude toward Jacob might have changed, the Lord’s remains unchanged.

31:4–16 Jacob invites his wives, Rachel and Leah, to meet him out in the field (31:4), where they will not be overheard. Bilhah and Zilpah, the two maidservants, are not invited; as concubines, it is assumed that they will go with their mistresses. The field is where “his flock” lies, a fact that implicitly contrasts them with Laban’s flock and underlines the choice that must be made: Are Rachel and Leah with Jacob or with their father?

Jacob lays before Rachel and Leah the realities of their situation, highlighting the fact that the choice is not simply between Laban and Jacob but between Laban and Jacob and his God.419 Their father’s favor has turned away from Jacob, and his fortunes have diminished, but the favor of Jacob’s God remains upon him (v. 5). Although Jacob has served their father faithfully, their father had not dealt fairly with Jacob—on the contrary, he has repeatedly sought to cheat Jacob (v. 7). Yet Jacob’s God has been with him and protected him from harm at Laban’s hands (v. 7). However many times Laban has written and rewritten the contract, the Lord has made sure that the outcome nevertheless favors Jacob, and the part of the flock designated as Jacob’s has prospered while Laban’s share has decreased. It is not clear whether we should take this language literally, as implying that the agreement with Laban and Jacob has gone through multiple iterations over the six years it has been in force, or whether Jacob is being hyperbolic in referring to Laban’s untrustworthiness. Either way, the point is clear: the more Laban has sought to rob Jacob, the more the Lord has blessed Jacob and enhanced his wealth.

In Jacob’s description of his success there is no mention of his own strategy with the tree branches (cf. 30:37–42). It appears that the dream Jacob received has finally gotten across the fundamental point that his prosperity rests in God and God alone, not on his own clever strategies. God is the one who has given him abundant flocks, not his knowledge (real or imagined) of animal husbandry. In his dream all the breeding flock were of the multicolored variety belonging to him, and so it is no wonder that the proportion of the flock belonging to him has steadily increased. God has seen Laban’s trickery (31:12) and is vindicating Jacob’s fundamental honesty in dealing with his father-in-law (30:33). In the process God is also fulfilling the promise he had made to Jacob at Bethel to protect and provide for him (31:13; cf. 28:18–22).

Rachel and Leah, for once operating together rather than as rivals, opt to stay with Jacob, although it has to be said that their motivation for the decision seems to be based more on financial calculation than on any romantic attachment. Here there is no declaration of undying love and commitment, such as we see from Ruth to Naomi (Ruth 1:16–17). Rather, the women simply see no future for themselves with their father, who has treated them like commodities, selling them to Jacob in return for fourteen years of his labor and then consuming the proceeds, leaving nothing for them to inherit from him (Gen. 31:14–16). If God has taken their inheritance from Laban and given it to Jacob, they might as well stay with him (v. 16). Although Jacob wins their vote, they do not sound as though they think the match their father arranged for them was exactly the catch of the century—merely the lesser of two evils. However, they are willing to leave their home and family and venture out with him, wherever his God is calling him to go, which is no small act of faith on their part. They renounce their loyalty to their father in favor of loyalty to Jacob.

31:17–21 Jacob owes Laban nothing. He has faithfully fulfilled the terms of their agreement, albeit with some defensive breeding practices to counter Laban’s outright attempt to exploit him. Yet instead of going to Laban and announcing his departure publicly he tries to slip away like a fugitive while Laban is away shearing his sheep (v. 19).420 This is understandable, perhaps, given the power imbalance between the two men and the bad feeling between Jacob and Laban’s kinsmen, but it reflects a lack of trust in God’s promise of protection for him. It is a further episode of deceit in a relationship marked out by that characteristic from the beginning (v. 20).

Having arrived in Paddan-aram empty handed, Jacob leaves weighed down with offspring and possessions. The extent of his acquisitions is underlined by the fact that he can afford to mount his wives and family on camels, which were rare and exotic beasts of burden in those days.421 In addition to showcasing Jacob’s wealth, the camels’ ornate saddles later provide the opportunity for Rachel to conceal her purloined goods (cf. v. 34).

Thus far in the narrative the primary role of deceiver has been occupied by the menfolk, Jacob and Laban (though it should not be forgotten that Rebekah was the driver of Isaac’s deception by Jacob in ch. 27). Now, however, Rachel reveals herself to be her father’s daughter, stealing her “father’s household gods” (Hb. terafim; 31:19). She probably rationalizes it as recompense for the bride price her father had consumed (v. 15), but the narrator is quite clear that this constitutes theft. The terafim were small household idols representing the deities who were expected to protect and provide for matters of daily domestic importance (“my gods”; v. 30).422 These were the gods expected to “give us this day our daily bread,” as it were. The name terafim may actually be a contemptuous way of referring to them by the biblical authors, as they do elsewhere with gillulim and shikkutsim (2 Kings 23:24), perhaps calling them “impotent things” or “decaying things.”423 The Bible knows that such idols are nonentities, without power either to bless or to curse.

Rachel perhaps steals the terafim not simply because of their monetary value. Terafim are often associated with divination in the biblical text (e.g., 1 Sam. 15:23), and it is possible that Rachel thinks their loss will hamper their father’s ability to pursue them. Some commentators note the role that possession of the family terafim played in inheritance claims in the ancient world,424 but this motivation seems less likely, since Jacob’s family is comprehensively cutting ties with Laban and can hardly have imagined that they would share in his inheritance after his death. It is more likely that Rachel thinks the terafim themselves represent the inheritance that she deserves, in payment for her bride price.

Rachel is not the only person to have stolen something. The verb ganab is used no fewer than eight times in this chapter (Gen. 31:19, 20, 26, 27, 30, 32, 39 [2x]; in fact, nine times if one includes 30:33), in comparison to only two other uses in the book (40:15; 44:8). In addition to several references to literal theft, the term also occurs in an unusual idiom, in which Jacob “stole the heart of Laban the Aramean” (31:20, 26, 27 [without leb]). This is often translated contextually as something like “tricked” (ESV) or “deceived” (CSB), in light of the explanatory clause “By not telling him that he intended to flee.” Several commentators note the similarity in sounds between leb (“heart”) and Laban, as well as ramah (“deceived”; see Gen. 29:25) to Aramean.425 Apart from this chapter, the idiom occurs only at 2 Samuel 15:6, where it refers to Absalom’s stealing the affections of Israel away from David. That suggests that the choice of idiom here might refer to Jacob’s success in stealing the affections of the daughters of Laban, which is a central concern in what follows. Jacob’s method of secret flight is becoming habitual (cf. Gen. 27:43), but now Rebekah’s command “Arise, flee” has been reversed: “Jacob fled . . . and he arose” (31:21).426 Jacob is on his way back home, a journey that starts with crossing a river, the Euphrates (v. 21; hannahar, “the River”; cf. ESV mg.) and ends with crossing another river, the Jabbok, in 32:22.427

31:22–35 Jacob’s deception gives him a three-day head start over Laban (31:22) but does not prevent the kind of confrontation Jacob fears; it only delays it. Laban’s pursuit surrounded by his kinsmen has overtones of a semimilitary operation or hostage-retrieval scenario (cf. 14:14–16). Given the difference of pace of travel between Jacob, with his flocks and family, and a lightly armed military detachment, it was always inevitable that Laban would catch up with Jacob sooner or later. The numbers of days are likely representative, since the distance between Paddan-aram and Gilead is around 400 miles (650 km), far further than Jacob could cover in ten days with his flocks of sheep.428

However, before Laban overtakes Jacob, God comes to Laban in a dream to warn him to tread carefully when encountering Jacob (the Hb. could be rendered “Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, good or bad”; 31:24; cf. 24:50). Dreams play an important role in Genesis as a means of communication between God and humanity. Jacob himself experienced a pivotal dream at Bethel in chapter 28, as well as another dream confirming God’s protection of him against Laban’s schemes earlier in this chapter (31:11), while Joseph’s destiny will likewise be revealed in two dreams in chapter 37. However, the Lord can also use dreams to reveal himself to outsiders to the covenant, such as Abimelech (20:3), Pharoah’s servants (ch. 40), and Pharoah himself (ch. 41). Dreams can serve to reveal aspects of the future, but they can also function as warnings to humans against particular courses of action, and it is the latter aspect that is in view here. It suggests that Laban did in fact have harm against Jacob in mind when he set out on his pursuit, but the divine intervention prevents him from such an outcome.

Despite the divine warning regarding his speech, Laban’s tone of voice is decidedly aggrieved, suggesting that Jacob has essentially kidnapped his daughters by force (31:25). While he is undoubtedly correct that the proper protocol would have been for Jacob to be sent off by his uncle in style, with feasting and celebration, as with Abraham’s servant (24:54–61),429 there is little indication that such a departure would have been possible for Jacob. It is rather ironic for the man who has repeatedly deceived and defrauded his nephew to complain that Jacob has now done the same to him. Indeed, Laban’s language leaves the impression that only God’s warning is keeping him from harming Jacob. Even the portrayal of the two groups encamped in separate locations facing each other is more like that of warring armies than like that of a warm family reunion.430

Laban then moves on to the subject of his stolen gods (31:30). Jacob might well have responded that any gods worthy of worship would be powerful enough to prevent themselves from being misappropriated (cf. Isa. 44:9–20). Instead, however, he responds with aggrieved innocence. Unaware of Rachel’s theft of the terafim, Jacob says, “Anyone with whom you find your gods shall not live” (Gen. 31:32; see a similar self-imprecation in Isa. 44:9). This raises the narrative tension considerably for the reader as Laban and his kinsmen search Jacob’s camp, going from tent to tent until they finally close in on Rachel’s (Gen. 31:33). However, our concern is misplaced. Rachel is craftier than both Jacob and Laban. She hides the idols in a camel’s saddle, which doubles as a kind of ornate seat, and then reclines on them (v. 34).

To prevent Laban and his allies from searching in the crucial place, Rachel claims she cannot get up because the “way of women” is upon her (v. 35)—that is, that she is menstruating (cf. Gen. 18:11). This not only provides a convenient excuse for protecting the hiding place but (if true) is doubly insulting to Laban’s deities, since menstruation would render a woman temporarily unclean (cf. Lev. 15:19–24)—an impurity that would be transmitted to everything she sat on, including the terafim. Rachel’s excuse is sufficient to throw her father off the trail; the daughter who was the victim of her father’s deceit many years earlier now returns the favor. But, although the idols remain safely undiscovered, Jacob’s curse is nonetheless tragically prophetic. Within a few months Rachel will be dead, expiring in the course of giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16–19). The stolen household idols bring her nothing but trouble.

31:36–55 Now it is Jacob’s turn to speak. Since Laban has searched the entire camp and found no stolen goods—though not because nothing had been stolen!—Jacob remonstrates with him over all the ways in which Laban took advantage of him during their time together. He served Laban faithfully for twenty years, fourteen for his daughters and six for his flocks, and during that time Laban repeatedly changed the terms of his employment (31:41). Meanwhile, Jacob’s service as shepherd in Laban’s employ had been entirely exemplary.431 Normally in the ancient Near East a shepherd was not liable for incidental losses to the flock, such as by wild animals, provided he could prove the manner of the animal’s death.432 However, Laban had demanded Jacob reimburse him for any such losses, day or night, whatever the cause (v. 39). Unless his God had protected and provided for him, Jacob would have left Laban’s service empty handed.

Laban’s truculent response sounds like that of a naughty schoolboy caught in the act. He insists that Jacob’s wives and flocks are still his but acknowledges that in the face of God’s intervention on Jacob’s side there is nothing he can do about the situation (v. 43). As a result, Laban proposes a covenant between the two. So Jacob sets up a matsebah, a standing stone, as a permanent reminder of their agreement, with a larger cairn of stones beside it (vv. 45–46), and they ratify the covenant with a meal together beside the stones (v. 46). Jacob commits himself not to mistreat his wives, Laban’s daughters, nor to take other wives before them, and they both commit themselves not to pass that place in order to harm the other person. The making of this covenant marks a change in their relationship. Laban and Jacob are no longer employer and employee, patron and client, but are now two equals, almost the representatives of two nations.433

Yet there is something uneven about the way in which the covenant is formulated, a difference highlighted in the fact that they name the memorial cairn the same thing in two different languages: Laban calls it Jegar-sahadutha, while Jacob calls it Galeed, both words meaning “heap of witness” in Aramaic and Hebrew, respectively.434 Laban frames their covenant in the form of his religious understanding, swearing by the God (or gods) of Abraham and the God (or gods) of Nahor (Gen. 31:53; cf. Josh. 24:2). Laban thinks of these authorities as distinct and plural gods, as the plural verb form in the Hebrew shows.435 Jacob, however, takes his oath in the name of the Fear of his father Isaac (Gen. 31:53),436 the God of his experience at Bethel, the same God who had been watching over him throughout his time with Laban (v. 42). This God is a fear-inducing God—hence the appropriateness of the name “the Fear of Isaac.” He is a deity capable of demanding the sacrifice of a beloved only son. Jacob’s awareness of his God is a far more personal experience than that of his uncle Laban.

The peaceful separation of the two parties, despite the underlying tensions, is a mark of the Lord at work, as was the case in Genesis 21; 26. Laban arises early in the morning, kisses his daughters and grandchildren (but apparently not Jacob, in contrast to his arrival in 29:13), and departs back to his home (31:55). Jacob is now likewise headed back to his home, with his father-in-law’s blessing (v. 55), which subtly highlights the challenge that will face him on his return to a land still occupied by his brother, Esau, whose blessing and birthright he earlier stole.