하나님나라를 꿈꾸며(Kingdom of God)

17 So Jacob arose and set his sons and his wives on camels. 18 He drove away all his livestock, all his property that he had gained, the livestock in his possession that he had acquired in nPaddan-aram, to go to the land of Canaan to his father Isaac. 19 Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole her father’s ohousehold gods. 20 And Jacob tricked1 Laban the Aramean, by not telling him that he intended to flee. 21 He fled with all that he had and arose and crossed the pEuphrates,2 and qset his face toward the hill country of Gilead. 

22 When it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob had fled, 23 he took his kinsmen with him and pursued him for seven days and followed close after him into the hill country of Gilead. 24 But God came to Laban the Aramean rin a dream by night and said to him, “Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, seither good or bad.” 

25 And Laban overtook Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the hill country, and Laban with his kinsmen pitched tents in the hill country of Gilead. 26 And Laban said to Jacob, “What have you done, that you have ttricked me and driven away my daughters like captives of the sword? 27 Why did you flee secretly tand trick me, and did not tell me, so that I might have sent you away with mirth and songs, with tambourine and lyre? 28 And why did you not permit me uto kiss my sons and my daughters farewell? Now you have done foolishly. 29 It is vin my power to do you harm. But the wGod of your3 father spoke to me last night, saying, ‘Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, xeither good or bad.’ 30 And now you have gone away because you longed greatly for your father’s house, but why did you ysteal my gods?” 31 Jacob answered and said to Laban, “Because I was afraid, for I thought that you would take your daughters from me by force. 32 zAnyone with whom you find your gods shall not live. In the presence of our kinsmen point out what I have that is yours, and take it.” Now Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them. 

33 So Laban went into Jacob’s tent and into Leah’s tent and into the tent of the two female servants, but he did not find them. And he went out of Leah’s tent and entered Rachel’s. 34 Now Rachel had taken the household gods and put them in the camel’s saddle and sat on them. Laban felt all about the tent, but did not find them. 35 And she said to her father, “Let not my lord be angry that I cannot arise before you, for the way of women is upon me.” So he searched but did not find the household gods. 

n ch. 25:20; 28:2, 6, 7

o ver. 30, 34; [Judg. 17:5; 1 Sam. 15:23; 19:13; Ezek. 21:21; Hos. 3:4; Zech. 10:2]

1 Hebrew stole the heart of; also verses 26, 27

p Ex. 23:31; Ps. 72:8

2 Hebrew the River

q 2 Kgs. 12:17; Luke 9:51

r See ch. 20:3

s ch. 24:50; Num. 24:13; 2 Sam. 13:22

t ver. 20

t [See ver. 26 above]

u ver. 55; Ruth 1:9, 14; 1 Kgs. 19:20; Acts 20:37

v Deut. 28:32; Neh. 5:5 (Heb.); Prov. 3:27; Mic. 2:1

w ver. 42, 53; ch. 28:13

3 The Hebrew for your is plural here

x ver. 24

y ver. 19; Judg. 18:24

z [ch. 44:9]

a [Lev. 19:32]

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 창 31:17–35.

◎야곱이 일어나 자식들과 아내들을 낙타들에게 태우고 

18 그 모은 바 모든 가축과 모든 소유물 곧 그가 밧단아람에서 모은 가축을 이끌고 가나안 땅에 있는 그의 아버지 이삭에게로 가려 할새 

19 그 때에 라반이 양털을 깎으러 갔으므로 라헬은 그의 아버지의 드라빔을 도둑질하고 

20 야곱은 그 거취를 아람 사람 라반에게 말하지 아니하고 가만히 떠났더라 

21 그가 그의 모든 소유를 이끌고 강을 건너 길르앗 산을 향하여 도망한 지 

22 삼 일 만에 야곱이 도망한 것이 라반에게 들린지라 

23 라반이 그의 형제를 거느리고 칠 일 길을 쫓아가 길르앗 산에서 그에게 이르렀더니 

24 밤에 하나님이 아람 사람 라반에게 현몽하여 이르시되 너는 삼가 야곱에게 선악간에 말하지 말라 하셨더라 

25 라반이 야곱을 뒤쫓아 이르렀으니 야곱이 그 산에 장막을 친지라 라반이 그 형제와 더불어 길르앗 산에 장막을 치고 

26 라반이 야곱에게 이르되 네가 나를 속이고 내 딸들을 칼에 사로잡힌 자 같이 끌고 갔으니 어찌 이같이 하였느냐 

27 내가 즐거움과 노래와 북과 수금으로 너를 보내겠거늘 어찌하여 네가 나를 속이고 가만히 도망하고 내게 알리지 아니하였으며 

28 내가 내 손자들과 딸들에게 입맞추지 못하게 하였으니 네 행위가 참으로 어리석도다 

29 너를 해할 만한 능력이 내 손에 있으나 너희 아버지의 하나님이 어제 밤에 내게 말씀하시기를 너는 삼가 야곱에게 선악간에 말하지 말라 하셨느니라 

30 이제 네가 네 아버지 집을 사모하여 돌아가려는 것은 옳거니와 어찌 내 신을 도둑질하였느냐 

31 야곱이 라반에게 대답하여 이르되 내가 생각하기를 외삼촌이 외삼촌의 딸들을 내게서 억지로 빼앗으리라 하여 두려워하였음이니이다 

32 외삼촌의 신을 누구에게서 찾든지 그는 살지 못할 것이요 우리 형제들 앞에서 무엇이든지 외삼촌의 것이 발견되거든 외삼촌에게로 가져가소서 하니 야곱은 라헬이 그것을 도둑질한 줄을 알지 못함이었더라 

33 라반이 야곱의 장막에 들어가고 레아의 장막에 들어가고 두 여종의 장막에 들어갔으나 찾지 못하고 레아의 장막에서 나와 라헬의 장막에 들어가매 

34 라헬이 그 드라빔을 가져 낙타 안장 아래에 넣고 그 위에 앉은지라 라반이 그 장막에서 찾다가 찾아내지 못하매 

35 라헬이 그의 아버지에게 이르되 마침 생리가 있어 일어나서 영접할 수 없사오니 내 주는 노하지 마소서 하니라 라반이 그 드라빔을 두루 찾다가 찾아내지 못한지라 

 The Holy Bible: New Korean Revised Version, electronic ed. (South Korea, n.d.), 창 31:17–35.

17-20절) 야곱이 자식들과 아내들을 낙타들에 태우고 그의 모든 소유를 이끌고 가나안 땅, 아버지 이삭에게 가려고 출발했다. 그때 라반은 양털을 깍으러 갔으므로 라헬이 라반의 드라빔을 도둑질 하고 야곱은 자신이 떠나는 것에 대해서 라반에게 말하지 않고 가만히 떠났다.

야곱은 라반이 자신이 떠나는 것을 막을 것이라고 생각해서 아내들을 설득한 후에 몰래, 라반이 양털을 깍기 위해서 떠나 있을때를 기회로 삼아 떠났다. 메소포타미안 지역에서는 주로 봄철(4-5월)에 양털을 깍았기에 야곱은 봄에 이곳을 떠났던 것으로 보인다. 양털을 깍는데는 많은 인원과 시간이 요구되는 일로 이 일이 끝마쳐지면 큰 잔치를 벌이기도 했다. 그래서 야곱은 이 양털을 깍는 이 때를 기회로 삼았던 것이다.

그런데 라헬은 아버지가 들에 가 양털을 깍는 것을 틈 타서 아버지의 드라빔을 도둑질 했다. 본문의 드라빔은 '테라핌'으로 가정의 신들(household's gods)이다. 드라빔은 구약성경에서 15번 사용되는데 주로 우상을 지칭한다. 30절에서 라반이 어찌 내 신을 도둑질하느냐라고 말한 것으로 보아서 라반은 이를 자신을 지키는 신의 모형으로 여겼다. 그렇다면 라헬은 왜 이 드라빔을 도둑질했을까? 아마도 아마도 아버지 라반에게서 드라빔을 빼앗으면 라반이 드라빔의 힘을 이용하여 야곱을 이기는 것을 막을 수 있다고 생각했을 것이다. 또한 이 우상이 자신들에게 행운을 가져다 줄 것이라고 믿었을 수도 있고, 이 우상 자체가 값비싼 귀금속을 만들어졌을 것이기에 그것을 훔쳤을 것이다. 앞서 14-16절에서 라헬은 자신의 아버지가 자신을 팔고 자식들에게 주어야할 재물을 주지 않는다고 여겼기에 이를 보충하기 위해서 이를 훔쳤을 수도 있다. 하지만 어떤 이유에서건 야곱은 라헬이 드라빔을 훔친 사실을 알지 못했다.

본문 19-20절에서 도둑질 하고 가만히 떠났더라라는 표현에서 중요한 표현은 바로 훔치다, 도둑질하다라는 표현이다. 본문 19-32절에서 이 표현은 8번이나 등장한다.

드라빔

• תְּרָפִים (terāpîm), (a) figurines; (b) mask (like “ephod,” it appears to have different meanings in different passages; NIV household gods/idol/idols/idolatry, #9572). The word might be sing. (cf. 1 Sam 19:13, 16) with mimation.

• ANE Although uncertain, suggested etymologies include רָפָה i, be weak (#8332), or Hitt. tarpiš, spirit, demon.

• OT 1. The term functions in a worship setting. In Hos 3:4–5 as punishment Israel will be without a ruler (David their king v. 5), and without Yahweh’s cult items: sacrifice (= altar), pillars, ephod, or teraphim (תְּרָפִים). In deuteronomistic history these words, apart from the teraphim, are standard equipment for a shrine, though condemned by the Jerusalem-centric writer. Similarly the shrine of Micah in Judg 17:5; 18:17, 18 (probably additions here), and 20 has ephod, teraphim, and פֶּסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה.

• 2. In Gen 31:19, 34, 35 תְּרָפִים appear to be clan emblems, perhaps conferring legal rights of leadership to the possessor. They are small enough to be easily hidden under a person. That the woman was menstruating shows the writer’s contempt for the objects.

• 3. In contrast, in 1 Sam 19:13, 16 the object is big enough to counterfeit a male body under bed coverings. A translation of “bundle of (worn out?) rags” has been suggested here. This story also mocks the objects; what else are they good for? In neither meaning 2 or 3 are the teraphim associated with a shrine.

• 4. The object is (like the ephod, but negatively) associated with divination: 1 Sam 15:23; 2 Kgs 23:24 (or is the association here with גִּלּוּלִים?); Ezek 21:21 [26]; Zech 10:2.

• P-B The word continues to be used, albeit infrequently, in later literature.

• See Idolatry

• Bibliography C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges, 2d ed., 1920; J. L. Mays, Hosea, OTL, 1969; J. A. Motyer, “Teraphim,” NBD, 1253.

•  

• NIV New International Version

• ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

• Hitt. Hittite

• OTL Old Testament Library

• NBD The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, London, 19822

•  Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 339.

훔치다, 가만히(가납) / '가납'은 은밀한 행동이라면 '가잘'은 드러내놓고 훔치는 것, 강탈하는 것을 의미한다.

• גָּנַב (gānab), q. steal, rob, kidnap; ni. pu. be stolen; pi. hithp. steal away (#1704); גַּנָּב (gannāb), nom. thief, kidnapper (#1705); גְּנֵבָה (genēbâ), nom. stolen object (#1706).

• ANE Cognates occur in almost all Sem. languages (DISO, 51, so HALAT 190). Stealing was punished by severe penalties in all ANE codes (see TDOT 3:39–40). In the Code of Hammurabi, kidnapping or stealing from a king or temple was a capital crime, as was the inability to pay restitution (restitution was set at ten to thirty times the value of the goods). Assyrian punishments included death, mutilation, and forced labor, but after the eighth century mainly fines. In Egypt (New Kingdom) the fine was two or three times the value of the goods. Stealing temple property incurred one hundred lashes and a hundred times restitution, and the robbing of tombs led to death by impalement.

• OT 1. The OT offers, on the whole, a more lenient system of punishments than its ANE counterparts, perhaps because the origins of Israel made her more sensitive to the rigors of poverty. Nevertheless, the action of stealing, as opposed to plunder in times of war, was still considered a crime against the community and a threat to its very stability. Skillfully, the OT laws use the action of shaming one as a punishment (see Bechtel, 47–76).

• 2. Within the semantic field of stealing or robbing, גָּנַב carries the sense of secretive stealing and cheating (e.g., Gen 31:27; 2 Sam 19:3 [4]), as opposed to taking something by force (see גָּזַל [#1608]). In the Pent., גָּנַב is found 8× in Gen 31:19–32, the account of Jacob’s escape from Laban. Rachel had stolen (גָּנַב) the household gods of her father (v. 19), while Jacob had deceived Laban by leaving secretly (lit., stole away, a figurative use of גָּנַב). Jacob tried to justify his deceit (v. 31) by revealing his fear that Laban might have taken back his daughters by force (גָּזַל, #1608). The deceit implicit in גָּזַל is fully revealed here in contrast to the open violence of גָּזַל. גַּנָּב or גָּנַב is also found in legal texts, particularly within the Covenant Code (esp. Exod 22). The laws cover the stealing of livestock with a restitution of between two and five times the value, depending on the type of animal and whether it is alive or not (Exod 22:1 [21:37], 4 [3]). A thief unable to make restitution may be sold into debt slavery (22:3b [2b]). A person may take the life of a thief at night in the protection of his/her property but not in daylight hours (22:2 [1]). In contrast to the rest of the ANE, here the OT protects the life of a thief! (see further Schweinhorst-Schoenberger, 181).

• The Holiness Code (Lev 19) lays out the basic rules for consecrated living. All aspects of life are important to God and, as such, must contribute to the daily consecration of God’s people to their Lord, whether harvesting a field or showing respect for the elderly. In Lev 19:11 the eighth commandment is quoted (Exod 20:15), followed by free versions of the ninth and the fourth commandment (Exod 20:7, 16). In v. 13 there is a commandment against robbery (גָּזַל). The difference between stealing and robbery is shown in the different subcontexts as identified by G. J. Wenham (Leviticus, 1979, 267–68). The overall context is that of treatment of one’s neighbor. Stealing (v. 11) is in the subcontext of honesty, while robbery (v. 13) is in the subcontext of exploitation of the weak.

• 3. The Ten Commandments prohibit stealing with a simple apodeictic formula (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19 [17]). The command lacks an object, which led the rabbis to argue that this was a prohibition against kidnapping (see Jackson, 148–49). More likely the command is a general dictum against the taking of anything that belongs to someone else or to the community at large. We might extend this to the protection of the natural resources of this world and the dignity and reputation of people. (Decalogue (Ten Commandments))

• 4. The prophets use גָּנַב (both q. and nom.) in a literal sense (Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2, paralleled with, killing) and the pi. in a figurative sense (2 Sam 15:6, of Absalom stealing the loyalties of the people of Israel; Jer 23:30, of false prophets stealing oracles). Jer 2:26 compares the shame of a thief caught in the act with that of Israel’s shame arising from her worship of false gods. She has been caught redhanded and so deserves the sanction of shame (Bechtel, 47–76). Jeremiah wishes to shame the civil and religious leaders into a proper response of repentance (Jer 3:14).

• 5. The Wisdom literature recognizes another side to stealing. Poor people may be forced to steal just to stay alive (Prov 6:30; cf. 30:9). Stealing may also be a temptation to the rich people to satisfy their greed (Job 24:14).

• P-B 1. The LXX renders גָּנַב and its derivatives by means of κλέπτων, κλέπτης (#3095) emphasizing stealth, following the classical G. usage. In the Qumran scrolls, CD 9:11–12 speaks about the practice of pronouncing a curse on the thief when something is stolen from the community. Presumably the thief would also be a member of the community, and the threat of the curse would lead him to own up to his crime.

• 2. In the legal regulations of the Talm., גָּנַב may refer to kidnapping (Sanhedrin 86a) or normal theft of property (Baba Qamma 7:2), where the law adds that two witnesses are required. גָּנַב may also mean to create a false impression or to delude (Ḥullin, 94a). Interestingly, PTalm Sanhedrin 26b distinguishes theft from robbery. If the crime takes place in the sight of the owner it is robbery. If it takes place in the sight of other witnesses, but not the owner, then it is theft. Thus robbery is seen to include the loss of dignity inflicted on the owner, a personal sense of affront. By contrast, theft is a devious action conducted out of sight of the one robbed.

• NT Jesus cites the commands against theft (Matt 19:16–22), and Judas is perceived to be a thief (John 12:6). Jesus speaks about his second coming as a thief in night (Matt 24:42–44; cf. Rev 3:3).

•  

• q. qal

• ni. niphal

• pu. pual

• pi. piel

• ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

• Sem. Semitic

• DISO C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest, Leiden, 1965

• HALAT Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament, ed. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, 5 vols., Leiden, 1967–19953

• ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

• TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry, tr. J. T. Willis, Grand Rapids, 1974–(ET of TWAT)

• ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

• Pent. Pentateuch

• ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

• q. qal

• pi. piel

• LXX Septuagint

• Talm. Talmud (talmudic)

•  Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 878–880.

• 19  Laban’s absence from home to attend to sheepshearing (cf. 38:12ff.; 1 Sam. 25:2ff.; 2 Sam. 13:23) provides Rachel with the opportunity to abscond with her father’s household gods (terāp̄îm). It is something she does on her own initiative; she informs neither her sister nor her husband about her theft.

• The Hebrew verb for stole here is gānaḇ, which appears seven times in this narrative (vv. 19, 20, 26, 27, 30, 32, 39). Two verbs in the OT denote misappropriation of property, gānaḇ and gāzal. Scholars have suggested, as early as tannaitic sources, that gānaḇ refers to a furtive act, and gāzal to a nonfurtive act.9 Thus one might render the first as “steal,” and the second as “rob.” While gānaḇ is used seven times in ch. 31, gāzal is used only once (v. 31, by Jacob against Laban) and means “to take away by force.” But some OT texts do not observe this neat distinction between the two verbs. A key text is Lev. 6:1–5 (Eng. 6:1–7), which deals with the expiation of false oaths involving three kinds of deceit, all of which cause loss of property to another: (1) misappropriation of what was entrusted to one’s safekeeping or of a pledge; (2) robbery (?) (beḡāzēl); and (3) fraud. Does gāzēl in this case refer clearly to robbery by open force? An argument against understanding gāzēl as robbery for force or violence is that the other two illustrations used, misappropriation and fraud, are offenses of deceit, thus suggesting the same for gāzēl.

• B. S. Jackson made a different distinction to the effect that, in the earlier literature at least, gānaḇ is used primarily of the act of an individual, a member of the community. gāzal is used primarily of the act of, or action against, an outsider, and is often committed by a group.10 Thus in Judg. 9:25 the men of Shechem repudiated Abimelech’s rule by ambushing and robbing (gāzal) all who traveled in the hills. Similarly Judg. 21:23 speaks of the Benjamites who raided their neighbors to capture or steal (gāzal; RSV “carry off”) brides. This distinction explains, for Jackson, why Laban uses gānaḇ and Jacob uses gāzal. Laban, wishing to retain Jacob as part of the household, uses the term appropriate to an offense committed by a community member. Jacob, however, wishes to leave the community, become an outsider, and assert his independence.11 A problem with Jackson’s distinction between the two verbs is that in a number of texts gānaḇ is also used for theft by an outsider (Gen. 44:8, the theft of Joseph’s cup by those who are outsiders to Egyptian society; 2 Sam. 21:12, the removal of the corpses of Saul and his sons from Bethshan [controlled by the Philistines] by the men of Jabesh-gilead). A simpler explanation is that Laban accuses Jacob of gānaḇ because as a client Jacob could get the better of Laban only by stealth. Laban, as the family head, could simply exercise his power and commit gāzal.12

• Rachel’s theft of her father’s gods (and here one can have no doubt that gānaḇ means theft by stealth) is the first in a number of incidents involving the theft of sacred property. One is reminded of Benjamin who is accused of stealing Joseph’s divining cup (Gen. 44:1–13); of the Danites’ theft of Micah’s graven image and other paraphernalia (Judg. 18:18); and of Achan’s pilfering of the objects devoted for destruction (Josh. 7:1). In each of these incidents the suspect is sought and his possessions searched thoroughly.

• The story in Gen. 31 never comments on Rachel’s ability to steal her father’s household gods. From a Hebrew perspective, of course, one might ask: “Can one steal gods?” “Is the destiny of a god at the beck and whim of a mortal?” The ancient reader would not miss the sarcasm in this story, for here is a new crime—“godnapping”!

• Rachel steals her father’s household gods, or teraphim terāp̄îm, as the narrator refers to them (vv. 19, 34, 35). But Laban himself refers to them as “my gods” (v. 30), as does Jacob (v. 32). Thus they are clearly household gods, rather than temple gods, probably small and obviously portable in the Genesis narrative, for Rachel is able to conceal them inside her camel’s saddle (v. 34) and to sit on them. By contrast, the teraphim used by Michal to conceal David’s departure from Saul’s house were larger and could be made to look humanlike after they were modified (Michal put goat’s hair at the head of the teraphim; see 1 Sam. 19:13, 16). That the text says simply that Michal “took” the teraphim implies that they were readily available in and to the royal household, and no stigma was attached to having them in one’s possession. Similarly in the book of Judges we read of Micah from Ephraim who had teraphim in his house along with other iconic or religious objects (Judg. 17:5; 18:14, 17, 20), especially the ephod, both of which were used for some form of divining by the Levitical priest. Other texts, however, condemn the presence and use of the teraphim (see 1 Sam. 15:23; 2 K. 23:24; Ezek. 21:26 [Eng. 21]; Hos. 3:4; Zech. 10:2).

• The meaning and origin of the word terāp̄îm are uncertain. Modern scholars offer four possibilities. (1) “Old rags,” based on a Semitic root trp.13 But the existence of a Proto-Semitic root trp is uncertain. (2) “Interpreters,” based on a metathesized form from an original ptrym (p-t-r for t-r-p).14 In their original function they were mantic devices consulted in connection with dream interpretation. But it is highly speculative to suggest that ptrym appeared in an early text where trpym now stands, especially when no textual evidence supports that reading. (3) “Demon, spirit,” connected with Hittite tarpiš, a spirit that may be either protective or malevolent.15 But nowhere in the OT is terāp̄îm parallel to an expression designating demons. (4) “Healers, protectors,” from rāp̄āʾ, “to heal,” with a t-preformative.16 This suggestion is as old as the LXX, which connected it with the verb therapeuō, “to heal.” The teraphim are the ancestors who provide healing and well-being for their living descendants. The third and fourth options seem most likely, but none is convincing.

• Why would Rachel steal her father’s household gods? Some scholars appeal to a Nuzi document, part of which reads Tablet of adoption, whereby Nashwa, son of Arshenni, has adopted Wullu, son of Puhishenni. So long as Nashwa is alive, Wullu will give him food and clothing, and when Nashwa is dead, Wullu will give him burial. If there be a son of Nashwa, he shall divide (the estate) equally with Wullu, and the gods of Nashwa the son of Nashwa shall take. But if there be no son of Nashwa then Wullu shall take also the gods of Nushwa. Also he has given his daughter Nuhuia to Wullu to wife; if Wullu shall take another wife he shall vacate the lands and houses of Nashwa. Whoever infringes (the agreement) shall pay in full one mina of silver and one of gold.17

• Because this tablet explains that the gods constituted the title to the chief inheritance portion and headship of the family, some scholars suggest that Rachel stole the gods in order to guarantee that privilege for her husband.18 Jacob would officially be presumptive heir.

• Other scholars, notably M. Greenberg, have challenged this interpretation of Gen. 31:19.19 Greenberg suggests that the above text, and others like it, connect possession of household gods not with inheritance or entitlement to inheritance, but with the determination of who is to carry on as head of the family unit. Furthermore, possession of symbolic objects was not sufficient to establish a claim on the office that the objects symbolized. Jacob would have to substantiate that Laban had bequeathed the gods to him. Finally, if it is indeed Rachel’s intention to secure for Jacob a position of chief heir and paterfamilias, then how will this all be implemented, now that she is leaving her father’s home and moving to a foreign country, apparently for good? A simpler explanation is that Rachel possibly stole the hearth gods for protection on her journey to Canaan.20

• But Gunkel’s (and Greenberg’s) explanation of the motives for Rachel’s theft (i.e., religious reasons) does not exhaust the possibilities. For example, Rachel could have stolen her father’s teraphim for their monetary value, motivated by greed, or out of spite, motivated by vindictiveness. The latter motive would explain why Rachel, rather than Leah, stole the gods. Earlier it was Rachel, the object of Jacob’s desire, whom Laban stole from Jacob, then imposing seven additional years of service on Jacob for Rachel. Now the tables are turned: it is Rachel who steals from Laban the objects of his desire.21 But the text represses any mention or explanation of Rachel’s motives. What it does comment on is simply the circumstances that made possible her act of thievery: Laban is out shearing sheep.

• The publication of cuneiform texts (Late Bronze Age) from Emar has again opened the question about possible connections between heirship and access to the family’s gods.22 The Emar texts are legal documents, four of them wills. In the first text Unara, the daughter of Zikri-Dagan, is given permission by her father “to call upon my gods and my dead (family ancestors?).” This privilege is not extended to her three brothers (or sons?). In the second text Mazazu says of his daughter Al-ubhātī (his only child): “she may call upon my gods and my dead. Now then, I have given my estates, my possessions (and) property, everything of mine to my daughter Al-ḫātī.”

• There are, to be sure, some distinctions between the Emar documents and Gen. 31, as they are between the Nuzi texts and Gen. 31. It is unlikely that Rachel, in the heat of the moment, thought logically through the implications of her act. True, the gods of her father may not assist Jacob in Canaan when Laban dies in Mesopotamia; but did Rachel think that far ahead? Hers is a quickly hatched scheme which is not without its gaping faults and oversights.

•  

• 9 Mishnah Baba Qamma ch. 7 provides examples of gānaḇ, and chs. 9 and 10 examples of gāzal. For a modern advocate of that position, see J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 89–102. For entries in theological wordbooks and dictionaries that disagree with this position, see V. Hamp, “gānabh,” TDOT, 3:41–42; J. Schüpphaus, “gāzal,” TDOT, 2:456–58; James E. Smith, “gānab,” TWOT, 1:168. For gānaḇ as something done secretly see Josh. 7:11; 2 Sam. 19:4; 2 K. 11:2 par. 2 Chr. 22:11; Prov. 9:7.

• 10 B. S. Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), p. 6.

• RSV Revised Standard Version

• 11 Ibid., pp. 7–8.

• 12 See Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, p. 91.

• 13 An Ugaritic cognate may occur in a poem about Baal and Anat: tṯkḥ ttrp šmm, “the heavens will wear away and will sag.” See W. F. Albright, “Are the Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?” BASOR 83 (1941) 39–42.

• 14 Such metathesis was intentional and was an expression of a religious perspective that viewed such objects as obnoxious. See C. J. Labuschagne, “Teraphim—A New Proposal,” VT 16 (1966) 115–17.

• 15 See H. A. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittite Tarpiš and Hebrew Terāphîm,” JNES 27 (1968) 61–68. According to Hoffner, Hittite proper names and common nouns lose their consonantal case when they are borrowed into Ugaritic. Thus Hittite tarpiš in West Semitic becomes tarpi, the nominative sing. of which would be tarpu. In Hebrew such a form would be terep̱ (sing.) and terāp̱îm (pl.). But if, according to Hoffner, Hittite tarpiš is to be equated with Akk. šēdu, then these two words are already represented in the OT by šēḏîm, “demons” (Deut. 32:17). It is unlikely there would be two Hebrew equivalents for tarpiš and šēdu.

• 16 See W. E. Barnes, “Teraphim,” JTS 30 (1929) 177–79; S. S. Smith, “What Were the Teraphim?” JTS 33 (1932) 32; P. R. Ackroyd, “Teraphim,” ExpTim 62 (1950–51) 378–79; H. Rouillard and J. Tropper, “trpym, rituels de guérison et culte des ancêtres d’après 1 Samuel xix 11–17 et les textes parallèles d’Assur et de Nuzi,” VT 37 (1987) 340–61, esp. pp. 358–59 for an explanation of the omission of the final ʾaleph in the writing of terāpîm (from rāp̱āʾ). For an in-depth analysis of most of these proposals, see K. van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of Cuneiform Evidence,” CBQ 52 (1990) 203–22.

• LXX Septuagint

• 17 See C. J. Gadd, “Tablets from Kirkuk,” RA 23 (1926) 126–27; cf. ANET, pp. 219–20.

• 18 See C. H. Gordon, “The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets,” BASOR 66 (1937) 25–27; idem, “Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets,” BA 3 (1940) 5–6; S. Smith, “What were the Teraphim?” JTS 33 (1932) 33–36; A. E. Draffkorn, “Ilāni/Elohim,” JBL 76 (1957) 216–24, esp. pp. 219–23; Ackroyd, ExpTim 62 (1950–51) 378–80. Or possibly to guarantee that privilege for her son Joseph over any of her sister Leah’s children (K. Spanier, “Rachel’s theft of the teraphim: her struggle for family primacy,” VT 42 [1992] 404–12).

• 19 M. Greenberg, “Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim,” JBL 81 (1962) 239–48. See also Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, pp. 93–94; T. L. Thompson, Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, pp. 272–78; de Vaux, Early History of Israel, pp. 251–53; M. J. Selman, “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age,” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 103, 117–18. For a contrary view on the connection of Hittite tarpiš with Heb. terāp̱îm, see F. Josephson, “Anatolien tarpali-, etc.,” in Florilegium anatolicum: Mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1979), pp. 177–84.

• 20 N. Jay (“Sacrifice, descent and the Patriarchs,” VT 38 [1988] 65–66) traces the theft to Rachel’s claim to legimate herself to Joseph as a “mother’s son.” Jacob is not paterfamilias but a mere husband in a system of descent through women. Gunkel (Genesis, pp. 344ff.) was the first modern commentator to suggest this explanation, and he is followed by Greenberg (who appeals to a parallel in Josephus).

• 21 See E. Fuchs, “ ‘For I Have the Way of Women’: Deception, Gender, and Ideology in Biblical Narrative,” Reasoning with the Foxes: Female Wit in a World of Male Power, ed. J. C. Exum and J. W. H. Bos, Semeia 42 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), pp. 74, 77.

• 22 See J. Huehnergard, Jr., “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar,” RA 77 (1983) 11–43, esp. 28; idem, “Biblical Notes on Some New Akkadian Texts from Emar (Syria),” CBQ 47 (1985) 428–34, esp. 428–31.

•  Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 291–295.

21-24절) 야곱이 모든 소유를 이끌고 유프라테스강을 건너서 길르앗 산을 향하여 도망한지 3일 만에 라반이 야곱이 가족들을 이끌고 도망한 소식을 듣게 되었다. 이에 라반이 그의 형제를 거느리고 7일 길을 쫓아가서 길르앗 산에서 야곱에게 이르렀을 때 그 밤에 하나님이 라반에게 나타나셔서 야곱에게 선악간에 말하지 말라고 말씀하셨다.

라반은 야곱을 죽이고 딸들과 손자들, 모든 가축을 다시 빼앗아 올려고 했을 것이다. 그런데 꿈에 하나님께서 나타나셔서 야곱을 해치지 못하도록 분명히 경고하셨다. 선악간에 말하지 말라는 것은 야곱을 해하지 말라는 말씀이었다. 벧엘의 하나님께서 라반의 위협으로부터 야곱을 다시금 보호해주신 것이다. 이후에 야곱도 이 사실을 알게 된다.(29절)

25-30절) 라반이 야곱을 따라 잡아 야곱이 장막을 친 길르앗 산에 장막을 쳤다. 라반이 야곱에게 '네가 나를 속이고 내 딸들을 억지로 잡아갔으니 이는 어찌 된 일이냐? 내가 잔치를 벌이며 너를 보냈을 텐데 어찌하여 네가 나를 속이고 가만히 도망하여 나에게 알리지 않았느냐? 몰래 도망하여서 내가 내 손자들과 딸들에게 입맞추지 못하게 했으니 너의 행위가 어리석다. 내가 너를 해칠 능력이 있지만 너의 아버지, 이삭의 하나님이 어제 밤에 내게 말씀하셔서 네게 선악간에 말하지 말라고 하셨다. 네가 네 아버지 집을 사모해서 돌아가는 것은 알겠는데 왜 내 신을 도둑질했느냐?'라고 하였다.

여기 길르앗 산은 요단 동쪽에 있는 지역으로 밧단아람에서 수백km(약 600km)떨어진 곳이었다. 야곱이 라반에게서 도망한지 열흘만에 따라 잡혔다. 온 가족과 가축들을 이끌고 움직이는 행진의 속도가 느려서 라반의 추격을 뿌리칠 수 없었다.

라반은 26절에서 '네가 어찌 이같이 하였느냐?'라고 말한다. 이는 야곱이 라헬과 결혼한 다음날 아침 신부가 바뀐 것을 알고 장인에게 했던 말과 비슷하다.(29:25) 13년만에 야곱과 라반의 신세가 바뀐 것이다.

라반은 기쁘게 너를 보내주었을 것이라고 말하지만 이는 사실이 아니다. 또한 라반은 야곱이 억지로 라헬과 레아를 데리고 갔다라고 생각해지만 딸들 모두 기꺼이 야곱을 따랐다. 라반은 야곱을 죽이러 왔지만 하나님의 경고 때문에 자신의 뜻을 이루지 못하고 지금 이런 변명을 하고 있는 것이다. 라반은 하나님의 존재에 대해서 알고 있었지만 하나님을 이삭의 하나님, 야곱의 하나님으로 여겼지 자신의 하나님을 인정하지 않았다. 그러면서 그의 관심사는 드라빔에 있었다. 아마도 이렇게 맹렬히 추격한 이유중의 하나가 바로 이 드라빔 때문이었을 것이다.

31-35절) 이제 야곱이 라반에게 대답한다. "자신이 생각하기를 외삼촌 라반이 딸들을 억지로 빼앗으리라 생각하여 두려웠다. 외삼촌의 신을 누구에게서 찾든지 그는 살지 못할 것이고 무엇이든지 외삼촌의 것이 발견되면 도로 가져가소서'라고 하였다. 그가 이렇게 말한 것은 라헬이 그것을 도둑질한줄 알지 못했기 때문이다.

라반이 야곱의 장막과 레아의 장막, 두 여종의 장막에 들어가 찾았으나 찾지 못했고 이제 라헬의 장박에 들어갔다. 라헬은 그 드라빔을 낙타의 안장 밑에 두었고 그 위에 앉아 있었다. 라헬은 그의 아버지에게 생리중이라 일어나서 영접할 수 없으니 아버지는 이해해 주세요라고 하였다. 라반은 그 드라빔을 열심히 찾았으나 찾을 수 없었다.

라헬은 드라빔을 낙타의 안장 밑에 감추었다. 아마도 드라빔의 크기가 안장밑에 감추일만큼 작았던 것으로 보인다. 라반은 야곱이 자신을 속이고 이를 훔쳤다라고 생각했지만 야곱은 이를 알지 못했고 라헬이 이를 훔쳤던 것이다. 당시 생리중인 여성은 불결하게 여겨서 접촉하지 못하게 했다. 그래서 라반이 차마 라헬이 앉아있는 안장을 조사할 수 없었다. 결국 라반은 드라빔을 찾지 못했다. 이 드라빔은 안장 밑에서 거짓말을 하고 있는 라헬에 대해서 아무런 반응도 할 수 없는 무능력한 물체에 지나지 않는다. 라반과 라헬은 이 드라빔이 자신들에게 행운을 가져다주고 자신들의 가족을 지켜주는 신이라고 여겼지만 아무것도 할 수 없는 무능한 존재에 지나지 않는다. 가족들을 속이고 야곱의 노동력을 착취했던 라반이 이번에는 자신의 딸에게 속임을 당한다. 이삭이 둘째 아들 야곱에게 속았던 것처럼 라반도 둘째 딸에게 속고 있다.

우상의 존재를 믿는 이들에게 이 이야기는 자신들의 믿음을 뭉개버리는 이야기이다. 능력있는 신이 인간을 좌지우지해야 하는데 도리어 힘없는 여인이, 그것도 생리중인 여인의 안장 밑에서 그들의 집안을 보호하는 수호신이 꼼짝도 못하고 깔려 있는 것이다.