from him by force. It must be remem bered that Laban was the chief of his clan, and as such, could exercise right, because he had the might. Although his daughters had passed out of his household, it was quite within his power to take them away from their husband; and illustrations are not want ing in other portions of the Bible to show that this exercise of power by the father was not uncommon. King Saul took his daugh ter -JTway from her husband David and gave her to another; and in the same manner Samson's father-in-law took away his wife from him. As to the theft of the household gods Jacob was quite innocent, not knowing that his wife Rachel had carried them off. Laban searched for his household gods but did not find them, and then Jacob became angry. He drew up a catalogue of Laban's tres passes against him during the twenty years that he was in Laban's service; and he chal lenged Laban to point out anything that he had taken from him, and to "set it here be fore my brethren and thy brethren that they may judge betwixt us both." This was the family court which afterwards grew into the tribal council. Laban answered Jacob's angry outburst with surprising calmness, making no allusion to Jacob's charges of illtreatment, and merely pointing out the fact that he, Laban, as chief of the clan, was the master not only of his daughters (Jacob's wives) but of their children, and of the cattle and of everything that belonged to Jacob. Thus he said, "These daughters are my daughters; and these children are my children; and these cattle are my cattle; and all that thou seest is mine;" but he concluded, "What can I do this day unto these my daughters or unto their children which they have borne?" In other words, he asserted his right to do as he pleased with them, adding, however, that he felt it impossible to do anything to their harm. This assumption of the right of prop erty and control over all the family of Jacob and over his cattle is rather confusing in the
407
light of the statement of Leah and Rachel,
that they had no further share or inheritance
in the house of their father, and that they
were counted of him as strangers, because he
had sold them. It may be explained upon
the ground that Laban, having the power to
take anything from Jacob that he chose, was
simply bullying the latter. On the other
hand, it may indicate that Jacob's marriage
with Laban's daughters made him a member
of Laban's family; and m this case, we have
evidence of the survival of a matriarchal state
of society which preceded the patriarchal so
ciety that everywhere seems dominant in the
Biblical traditions.
Laban finally concluded to part in peace
with Jacob, and invited him to make a cov
enant, saying, "Let it be for a witness be
tween me and thee." This covenant was a
renewal of their brotherhood, and irrevoca
bly bound them to remain at peace with
each other, and ended all matters of dispute
that had arisen theretofore.
The record proceeds to give us the details
of the formalities constituting the covenant
between Laban and Jacob: "And Jacob took
a stone and set it up for a pillar, and Jacob
said unto his brethren, 'Gather stones', and
they took stones and made a heap, and they
did eat there on the heap; and Laban called
it Jegar Sahadutba [Chaldaic: "the heap of
witness"]; but Jacob called it Galecd [He
brew: "the heap of witness"]; and Laban
said, "This heap is a witness between me and
thee this day;' therefore, was the name of it
called Galeed and Mizpah (
Hebrew characters)(Transliteration from Hebrew: "watchtower"); for he said, 'The Lord watch be
tween me and thee when we are absent one
from another; if thou shalt afflict my daugh
ters, or if thou shalt take other wives besides
my daughters, no man is with us; behold
God is witness betwixt me and thee.' And
Laban said to Jacob, 'Behold this heap, and
behold this pillar which I have cast betwixt
me and thee: this heap be witness and this
pillar be witness that I will not pass over this
heap to thee and that thou shalt not pass
over this heap and this pillar unto me for
