Genesis 29:13-30

2. Jacob's Double Marriage (Genesis 29:13-30).

The Meeting with Laban. When Laban heard of Jacob's presence, he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. That Jacob made the whole journey on foot might have caused suspicion in the mind of Laban. But he is susceptible of nobler feelings, as is seen from the subsequent narration (Genesis 31:24), although he is generally governed by selfish motives (Lange, CDHCG, 528). Skinner is not so lenient: The effusive display of affection, perhaps not wholly disinterested, is characteristic of Laban, cf. Genesis 24:29 ff. (ICCG, 382). And Jacob told Laban all these things, that is, all the matters related in Chapter s 27 and 28: if Jacob came as a godly man and one repentant of his recent deceit, as we have every reason to believe that he was, then he could not do otherwise than relate the direct and the more remote reasons for his coming (EG, 790). At any rate, the recital conveyed to Laban full proof of the newcomer's identity, eliciting his response, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh. The relation as acknowledged by Laban here could hardly have been anything more than blood relationship (consanguinity). And so Jacob abode with Laban the space of a month. By this time, in all likelihood, Laban had discerned that in Jacob he would have a very competent shepherd. No doubt Jacob began to serve in this capacity at once. His faithfulness and industry were immediately apparent. A measure of selfishness enters into Laban's proposal without a doubt. But most likely it is a compound of honest and selfish motives. The good features in it are that he wishes to bind a relative to himself, especially as this relative is unusually competent. Besides, he wants to arrive at a definite understanding as soon as possible in order to obviate future misunderstandings. Furthermore, it behooves him as the elder to steer toward a definite agreement, Each of these good motives had an admixture of selfishness, for Laban was basically a selfish and a tricky man. No doubt, he was planning to gain this competent young man as a son-in-law. Laban must have anticipated the proposal that was actually made. Perhaps Laban had noticed that Jacob had fallen violently in love, and now Laban hoped that if he let Jacob set the terms, Jacob's newborn love would incline to make a generous proposal (EG, 791-792). It must be noted too that Jacob in explaining the cause of his journey (Genesis 29:13) must have explained how it was that his poor appearance had come about, in view of the fact that he was the son of the rich Isaac.

We now discover that Laban had two daughters, the elder named Leah, and the younger Rachel. We are told that Leah's eyes were weak, that is, lacking the lustre (fire) regarded as the height of beauty in Oriental women. Eyes which are not clear and lustrous: to the Oriental, but especially to the Arabian, black eyes, full of life and fire, clear and expressive, dark eyes, are considered the principal part of female beauty. Such eyes he loves to compare with those of the gazelle (Lange, ibid., p. 528). Leah's eyes were tender, but Rachel was beautiful and well-favored, beautiful as to her form, and beautiful as to her countenance: thus the passage indirectly says that Leah's form was beautiful. We are told now unequivocally - that Jacob loved Rachel; hence, not being in a position to pay the purchase price (the customary dowry, or presents), he offered to serve Laban seven years for her. (We must remember also that his situation with respect to Esau compelled him to remain for some time with Laban). The assent on the part of Laban cannot be accounted for from the custom of selling daughters to husbands, for it cannot be shown that the purchase of wives was a general custom at that time; but is to be explained solely on the ground of Laban's selfishness and avarice, which came out still more plainly afterwards (BCOTP, 285-286). It must be recalled, however, that the bestowing of costly presents on the prospective bride and her parents was a custom of the time (cf. Eliezer and Rebekah and her parents, Genesis 24:53). So it was that Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. The inspired writer tells us that Laban agreed to Jacob's proposal on the ground that he would rather give Rachel to him (even though this would be giving the younger first?) than to a stranger; a custom, we are told, that still prevails among the Bedouins, the Druses, and other Eastern tribes. A perfectly worthless excuse for if this had really been the custom in Haran as in ancient India and elsewhere, he ought to have told Jacob before (BCOTP, 286). As to the particular term of seven years, it seems to have been regarded in early times as a full and complete period of service (cf. Exodus 21:2). Even after betrothal, the intercourse of the parties is restricted. The Arabs will not allow them to see each other, but the Hebrews were not so stringent, nor, perhaps, the people in Mesopotamia. At all events, with Jacob the time went rapidly away; for even severe and difficult duties become light when love is the spring of action (CECG, 203).

Laban's Deceit. When the time of service was fulfilled, Jacob asked for his reward, that is, the woman he loved. Now Laban's character begins to unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most honorable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with some plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (cf. Genesis 29:19; Genesis 29:26). His apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob, whose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd kinsman.. Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated coup. He himself arranges the marriage feast (cf. Judges 14:10), inviting all the men of the place, with a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (Genesis 29:26). The substitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (Genesis 24:65). To have thus gotten rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew's services for another seven years (Genesis 29:27) was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes of a man like Laban (Skinner, ICCG, 383). (Note again Genesis 24:65. Does this mean that Rebekah set this fashion for brides in the patriarchal households? The law of proper clothing under the Mosaic Law is found in Deuteronomy 22:5). When Jacob protested indignantly this deception which his uncle had perpetrated, the latter hid behind the specious rationalization, To give the younger before the first-born is not done in our place, that is, in our society: a clear case in which that which was legally right was at the same time morally wrong: the wrong was not in the fact but in the deception. (In SC, p. 171, Genesis 29:26 here is explained thus: The people here would not let me keep my word, Rashi). It should be noted, in this connection, that Jacob had been very explicit in this matter Genesis 29:18, but to no avail, Jacob was so very explicit because he knew Laban's cunning, Therefore he did not say simply, -Rachel,-' but -Rachel thy daughter.-' Nor could Laban deceive him by changing Leah's name to Rachel: it must be -thy younger daughter.-' But it was of no avail; Laban deceived him after all (SC, 170), But Laban had no scruples about driving even a harder bargain, Genesis 29:27-28: Fulfil the seven days of the wedding festival for Leah, said he, and we will give thee (then the townspeople will agree) the other also, that is, Rachel, with the understanding that you will serve me yet another seven years. For the bridegroom to break up the festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob has no alternative but to fall in with Laban's new proposal and accept Rachel on his terms (ICCG, 384). To satisfy Jacob he promised to give him Rachel in a week if he would serve him seven years longer. To this Jacob consented, and eight days later Jacob was wedded to the woman he loved (UBG, 638). Laban may have proposed this to satisfy Jacob, but he certainly did not lose anything by the deal. Laban's success is for the moment complete; but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to Jacob at a critical time (Genesis 31:14 ff.), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights (ICCG, 384).

Vv. 21-30: Jacob is betrayed into marrying Leah, and on consenting to serve another seven years obtains Rachel also. He claims his expected reward when due. 22-24: Made a feast. The feast in the house of the bride's father seems to have lasted seven days, at the close of which the marriage was completed. But the custom seems to have varied according to the circumstances of the bridegroom. Jacob had no house of his own to which to conduct the bride. In the evening: when it was dark. The bride was also closely veiled, so that it was easy for Laban to practise this piece of deceit. A handmaid. It was customary to give the bride a handmaid, who became her confidential servant (Genesis 24:59; Genesis 24:61). 25-27: In the morning Jacob discovers that Laban has overreached him. This is the first retribution Jacob experiences for the deceitful practices of his former days. He expostulates with Laban, who pleads the custom of the country. It is still the custom not to give the younger in marriage before the older, unless the latter be deformed or in some way defective. It is also not unusual to practise the very same trick that Laban now employed, if the suitor is so simple as to be off his guard. Jacob, however, did not expect this at his relative's hands, though he had himself taken part in proceedings equally questionable. Fulfil the week of this. If this was the second day of the feast celebrating the nuptials of Leah, Laban requests him to complete the week, and then he will give him Rachel also. If, however, Leah was fraudulently put upon him at the close of the week of feasting, then Laban in these words proposes to give Rachel to Jacob on fulfilling another week of nuptial rejoicing. The latter is in the present instance more likely. In either case the marriage of Rachel is only a week after that of Leah. 28-30: Rather than lose Rachel altogether, Jacob consents to comply with Laban's terms. Rachel was the wife of Jacob's affections and intentions. The taking of a second wife in the lifetime of the first was contrary to the law of nature, which designed one man for one woman (Genesis 2:21-25). But the marrying of a sister-in-law was not yet incestuous, because no law had yet been made on the subject. Laban gives a handmaid to each of his daughters. To Rebekah his sister had been given more than one (Genesis 24:61). Bondslaves had been in existence long before Laban's time (Genesis 16:1). And loved also Rachel more than Leah. This proves that even Leah was not unloved. At the time of his marriage Jacob was eighty-four years of age; which corresponds to half that age according to the present average of human life (Murphy, MG, 393).

Was this a case of what is known as beena marriage, that is, one in which the husband becomes a member of the wife's kin? Generally speaking, the narrative as a whole does not support the view that it was. Jacob did, of course, attach himself in a way to Laban's household; however, it does not follow that the former did not set up a house of his own. His remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the bridal gift otherwise than by personal service. As soon as the contract expired (by fulfilment) Jacob pleaded his right to provide for his own house (Genesis 30:30). On the other hand, Laban certainly claimed the right to detain his daughters and to continue treating them as members of his own family (Genesis 31:26; Genesis 31:43). It is doubtful, however, that the claim was more than an extreme assertion of the right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even after marriage. Concerning the dowry (Heb. mohar, price paid for a wife: Genesis 34:12, Exodus 22:17, 1 Samuel 18:25; zebed, a gift, Genesis 30:20): In arranging for marriage, as soon as the parental consent was obtained, the suitor gave the bride a betrothal or bridal gift, as well as presents to her parents and brothers. In more ancient times the bride received a portion only in exceptional cases (Joshua 15:18; Joshua cf., 1 Kik Genesis 9:16). The opinion that the Israelites were required to buy their wives from the parents or relatives seems to be unfounded. The mohar in the Old Testament was not -purchase money,-' but the bridal gift which the bridegroom, after receiving the bride's assent, gave to her, not to the parents or kinsfolk (UBD, 274). In early O.T. times wives were selected for sons by the heads of tribes or families, as Abraham for Isaac (Genesis 25:20), Isaac for Jacob (Genesis 28:6). Betrothal was effected by the payment of the mohar (usually 50 shekels) to the father of the prospective bride, not as a purchase price, but as a compensation for the loss of the daughter (Genesis 34:12, 1 Samuel 18:25); by the presentation of substantial gifts to the girl (Genesis 34:12, Exodus 21:7; Exodus 22:15-17; Deuteronomy 22:28 ff.; Ruth 4:5; Ruth 4:10); or by the groom's agreeing to serve the bride's father for a period of time, as Jacob served Laban for Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29:18; Genesis 29:20; Genesis 29:25; Genesis 29:30). The bride often brought considerable means to the new home, e.g., Abigail (1 Samuel 25:42). The recently discovered Eshnunna Law Code current in Babylon probably 3800 years ago (the oldest law code yet known) required the payment of -bride money-' by the prospective groom, and a refund of the same plus 20% interest in case the bride died (HBD, 421). It should be noted that the marriage of both sisters to Jacob took place about the same time; evidently such a connection was then permissible, although later prohibited (Leviticus 18:18). We find in this narrative, not only bigamy, but polygamy, and polygamy on a larger scale than has hitherto appeared in Genesis, These marriages, however, are not to be judged by the rules of the Christian, or even if the Mosaic, code of morality. For although the will of the Creator was sufficiently indicated by the union of a single pair at first, a clear definite marriage law, specifying the prohibited degrees of consanguinity had not been enacted, and the idea of incest, therefore, must be excluded (CECG, 203).

The Problem of Polygamy. According to Scripture, marriage is a divinely ordained institution, designed to form a permanent union between the male and female, i.e., the conjugal union, which is the basis of all social order. (Genesis 1:27-28; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9). The physiological sex union in marriage has a twofold function: procreative, to reproduce the species, and unitive, to enhance the intimacy of the conjugal union. Because the human infant is the most helpless, and the most helpless for the longest time, by comparison with animal offspring, it stands in greater need of parental protection, affection and training; hence the permanent monogamous relation that provides for the satisfaction of all these essential human needs, both of children and parents, is obviously the divinely ordained relationship, as the Bible clearly teaches. However, at an early period the original law as made known to our first parents was violated, and the familial institution corrupted, by the degeneracy of their descendants, and concubinage and polygamy became rather common (cf. Genesis 4:19-24). The patriarchs themselves took more than one wife. Abraham, at Sarah's prompting took her maid as his subordinate wife, and later a second wife, Keturah. Jacob was inveigled, through Laban's duplicity, to take Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed, as wives; and later, through the rivalry of the two sisters, he took both of their handmaids and begat sons by them. From these facts it has been inferred that polygamy was not wrong in ancient times, nor at all opposed to the divine law as revealed to the Jews. But this is an unwarranted conclusion. It is true, indeed, respect being had to the state of religious knowledge, and the rude condition of society, and the views prevalent in the world, that the practice could not infer, in the case of individuals, the same amount of criminality as would necessarily adhere to it now, amid the clear light of Gospel times. But still all along it was a departure from the divine law.. Christ taught the divine origin and sacredness of this institution. It is more than filial duty; it is unifying; the husband and wife become one through the purity and intensity of mutual love; common interests are necessitated by common affection (Matthew 19:5-6, Ephesians 5:31); only one single ground for divorce is lawful (Matthew 19:9) (UBD, 697-701). That ground is, of course, unfaithfulness to the marriage vow (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9). Departures from the original standard, even under the Old Testament, were tolerated, but never with God's complete approval (cf. Acts 17:30, Matthew 19:8). The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing evils which were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed: (1) to the discouragement of polygamy; (2) to obviate the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; (3) to bring divorce under some restriction; and (4) to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond (UBG, 697). (For all aspects of the problems of the dowry, marriage, concubinage, divorce, etc., the reader is referred to Unger's Bible Dictionary, in the opinion of the present writer, one of the most comprehensive and reliable in its field.

Genesis 29:30Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. There can be little doubt that this affection for Rachel was truly love at first sight, and love of the most ardent kind. However, it is not a matter of surprise to learn that Rachel should occupy a place in his affection far above that of her sister, who, after all, must have been a willing accomplice in the treacherous plot to trap him into a marriage with her, Subsequent developments seem to establish the fact that Leah was more than willing to become Jacob's bride. As a matter of fact, her affection for him seems to have engendered a rivalry between the two sisters to be instrumental in providing for Jacob a numerous progeny. Jacob's love for Rachel, on the other hand, is rightly described as more like what is read in the pages of romance than what is paralleled in real life.

Jacob Suffers Retributive Justice. We have here an illustration of how a man must reap as he has sown. The deceit which Jacob practiced on Esau was returned to him by Laban, who practiced the same kind of deceit. For all of that, however, Jacob was under the covenant care of God and did not come out a loser in the end. Yet in later years Jacob's own sons practiced on him a similar form of deceit in connection with Joseph's abduction (Genesis 37:32-36) (HSB, 48). V. 23Leah being veiled, as ch. Genesis 24:65, and it being dark, Jacob could not discern the fraud. Thus he who beguiled his brother, and imposed on his dimsighted father, was now, in like manner, beguiled himself. Genesis 29:25By bitter experience Jacob was now taught how painful, how harrowing, to the feelings of others, was the cunning and duplicity which he himself had practised on his father and brother. From this moment to the day of his death he continued to be the victim of deception and falsehood. Retributive justice seems to have followed him until, in God's providence, it completely purified him (SIBG, 262). Laban's deception in first palming off Leah on Jacob instead of giving him Rachel, whom he wanted to marry, was the first retribution Jacob experienced for the deceitful practises of his former days. He had, through fraud and cunning, secured the place and blessing of Esauhe, the younger, in the place of the elder; now, by the same deceit, the elder is put upon him in the place of the younger. What a man sows that shall he also reap. Sin is often punished with sin (Gosman, BCOTP, 529). (Retributive justice, in Greek thought, was personified by the name of Nemesis. That Nemesis finally overtakes and punishes inordinate human pride and ambition was the thesis of the histories of Herodotus, who is known as the father of history, The same idea is explicit in Scripture: cf. Numbers 32:23, Ezekiel 21:27, Romans 2:5-11, Proverbs 12:14, Galatians 6:7,1 Timothy 5:24, Revelation 20:11-15).

Genesis 29:30Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban yet another seven years for her. A great stone was over the well where the sheep were watered, and the men who were there were waiting for other shepherds to come and help them roll it aside; but Jacob went and rolled it aside himself. Why? Because he had met Rachel; and in contact with Rachel, Jacob from the first moment was a different man. He kissed her first as his kinsman, but quickly he fell in love with her. He said to Laban, her father, that he would serve seven years for her; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. In the light of words like these, Jacob's remoteness in time and place passes like a shadow, and he is at one with all lovers of every age in the timeless wonder of the meeting of man and maid. Moreover, Jacob showed himself to be an individual to a degree that was notable in that period when family pressure was generally so controlling. His father, Isaac, had his bride picked out for him. Laban tried to foist upon Jacob the daughter he wanted Jacob to take; but in spite of that deception, Jacob would not be turned from the girl to whom his heart went out. He served for her not only the first seven years of his agreement, but seven years more; and Rachel was henceforth the center of his life's devotion. In the whole story of his career, which sometimes was far from beautiful, this relationship with Rachel shines like a shaft of sunlight, sifting with a lovely radiance through a broken, cloudy sky (IBG, 697).

The nuptial feast generally lasted a week (Judges 14:12, Job 11:19); after this week had passed, Jacob received Rachel also: that is, two wives in eight days. To each of his daughters Laban gave one maid-servant to wait upon her; fewer, it may be noted, than Bethuel gave to his daughter Rebekah (Genesis 24:61). The difference between the house at Haran and Isaac's house at Beersheba, appears from this, that Laban entangled Jacob in polygamy. And even in this case the evil consequences of polygamy appear: envy, jealousy, contention, and an increased sensuality. Nevertheless, Jacob's case is not to be judged according to the later Mosaic law, which prohibited the marrying of two sisters at the same time (Leviticus 18:18). Calvin, in his decision, makes no distinction between the times and the economies, a fact which Keil justly appeals to, and insists upon, as bearing against his harsh judgment (that it was a case of incest) (BCOTP, 533). Isaac's prejudice, that Esau was the chosen one, seems to renew itself somewhat in Jacob's prejudice that he must gain by Rachel the lawful heir. The more reverent he appears therefore, in being led by the Spirit of God, who taught him, notwithstanding all his preference for Joseph, to recognize in Judah the real line of the promise (ibid., 533; cf. Genesis 49:10). Jacob's service for Rachel presents us a picture of bridal love equaled only in the same development and its poetic beauty in the Song of Solomon. It is particularly to be noted that Jacob, however, was not indifferent to Rachel's infirmities (Genesis 30:2), and even treated Leah with patience and indulgence, though having suffered from her the most mortifying deception (ibid., p. 532). This bigamy of Jacob must not be judged directly by the Mosaic law, which prohibits marriage with two sisters at the same time (Leviticus 18:18), or set down as incest, since there was no positive law on the point in existence then. At the same time, it is not to be justified on the ground, that the blessing of God made it the means of the fulfilment of His promise, viz., the multiplication of the seed of Abraham into a great nation. Just as it had arisen from Laban's deception and Jacob's love, which regarded outward beauty alone, and therefore from sinful infirmities, so did it become in its results a true school of affliction to Jacob, in which God showed to him, by many a humiliation, that such conduct as his was quite unfitted to accomplish the divine counsels, and thus condemned the ungodliness of such a marriage, and prepared the way for the subsequent prohibition in the law (BCOTP, 287).

Certainly it should be noted here, that it was a son born to Jacob by Leah who became the ancestor of Messiah. That son was Judah; hence Messiah is named the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5,cf. Genesis 49:9-10) Leah's election is founded upon Jehovah's grace. Without any doubt, however, she was fitted to become the ancestress of the Messianic Line, not only by her apparent humility, but also by her innate powers of blessing, as well as by her quiet and true love for Jacob. The fulness of her life becomes apparent in the number and in the power of her children; and with these, therefore, a greater strength of the mere natural life predominates. Joseph, on the other hand, the favorite son of the wife loved with a bridal love, is distinguished from his brethren, as the separated (ch. 49) among them, as a child of a nobler spirit, whilst the import of his life is not as rich for the future as that of Judah.. The history of Jacob's and Leah's union sheds a softening light upon even the less happy marriages, which may reconcile us to them, for this unpleasant marriage was the cause of his becoming the father of a numerous posterity; for it, indeed, proceeded the Messianic Line; leaving out of view the fact that Leah's love and humility could not remain without a blessing upon Jacob. The fundamental condition of a normal marriage is doubtless bride love. We notice in our narrative, however, how wonderfully divine grace may change misfortune, even in such instances, into real good. God is especially interested in marriage connections, because He is thus interested in the coming generations (Lange, CDHCG, 533). The fact must not be overlooked, however, that, as we have stated heretofore several times, the manifestations of Divine grace are the products of the Divine foreknowledge of man's free choices; in this particular case, the foreknowledge of the blessing which Leah's humility and love would bring into Joseph's life and to his progeny, no small part of which was the foreknowledge of Judah's intercession with Joseph for the life of young Benjamin and the well-being of his aged father Jacob: one of the most touching incidents in the lives of the patriarchs (Genesis 44:18-34).

JacobMan of Many Wrestlings. Jacob here appears clearly as the man of the wrestlings of faith and as the patriarch of hope. However prudent, it happens to him as to Oedipus in the Greek tragedy. Oedipus solved the riddle of the Sphinx, yet is blind, and remains blind in relation to the riddle of his own life. Laban cheated him, as his sons did afterward, and he is punished through the same transgression of which he himself was guilty. Jacob is to struggle for everythingfor his birthright, his Rachel, his herds, the security of his life, the rest of his old age, and for his grave. But in these struggles he does not come off without many trangressions, from which, however, as God's elect, he is liberated by severe discipline. He, therefore, is stamped as a man of hope by the divine providence. As a fugitive he goes to Haran; as a fugitive he returns home. Seven years he hopes for Rachel; twenty years he hopes for a return home; to the very evening of his life he is hoping for the recovery of Joseph, his lost son in Sheol; even whilst he is dying upon Egyptian soil, he hopes for a grave in his native country. His Messianic hope, however, in its full development, rises above all these instances, as is evident in the three chief stages in his life of faith: Bethel, Peniel, and the blessing of his sons upon his death-bed, His life differs from that of his father Isaac in this: that with Isaac the quickening experiences fall more in the earlier part of his life, but with Jacob they occur in the later half; and that Isaac's life passes on quietly, whilst storms and trials overshadow, in a great measure, the pilgrimage of Jacob. The Messianic suffering, in its typical features, is already seen more plainly in him than in Isaac and Abraham; but the glorious exaltation corresponds also to the deeper humiliation (CDHCG, 532).

Review Questions

See Genesis 31:1-16.