Genesis 29:31-35

3. Jacob's Family (Genesis 29:31 to Genesis 30:24).

Basic Facts: (1) Jacob became the father of twelve sons and one daughter. The inferior value set on a daughter is displayed in the bare announcement of her birth. (2) The assignment of the names here by the respective mothers themselves is determined by the circumstances. (3) The entire history of the birth of these sons is reflected in their names. (Their names all reappear in Jacob's Blessing, ch. 49). (4) Most significant of all, in the birth of these twelve sons, we have the basis for the future development of the Old Covenant in the history of the twelve tribes, especially in their organization into the Hebrew theocracy at Sinai and occupancy of the Land of Promise. All this was, of course, prophetic of the strictly spiritual norms and institutions of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews, chs. 7, 8, 9, 10; John 1:17; John 2 Cor., ch. 3; Colossians 2:8-16; Galatians 3:15-29; Galatians 4:21-31; Ephesians 2:11-22, etc.). The account of the jealousy and contention between Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29:31; Genesis 30:1-2), and the subsequent sinfulness and jealousy of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 34:25; Genesis 34:30; Genesis 35:22; Genesis 37:8; Genesis 37:18; Genesis 49:5-6) show vividly the fruits of polygamy. For the one man, Adam, God made the one woman, Eve. And why only one? Because He sought a godly seed (Malachi 2:15). Broken and ungodly homes produce ungodly offspring (OTH, 101).

Leah's first four sons, Genesis 29:31-35. Jacob's weakness showed itself even after his double marriage in the fact that he loved Rachel more than Leah (hated, in Leah's case, meant less loved; not so much hated as rejected or unloved: ABG, 230). When Yahweh saw that Leah was thus less loved, He opened her womb. The birth of Leah's first four sons is specifically referred to Jehovah's grace; first, because Jehovah works above all human thoughts, and regards that which is despised and of little account (Leah was the despised one, the one loved less, comparatively the one hated, Deuteronomy 21:15); secondly, because among her first four sons were found the natural first-born (Reuben), the legal first-born (Levi), and the Messianic first-born (Judah); even Simeon, like the others, is given by Jehovah in answer to prayer. Jacob's other sons are referred to Elohim, not only by Jacob and Rachel (Genesis 30:2; Genesis 30:6; Genesis 30:8), but also by Leah (Genesis 29:18; Genesis 29:20) and by the narrator himself (Genesis 29:17), for Jacob's sons in their totality sustain not only a theocratic but also a universal destination. He opened her womb, that is, God made her fruitful in children, which should attach her husband to her. But theocratic husbands did not esteem their wives only according to their fruitfulness (cf. 1 Sam., ch. 1). Leah named her firstborn Reuben, that is, Behold, a son! Joyful surprise at Jehovah's compassion. From the inference she makes: now, therefore, my husband will love me, her deep, strong love for Jacob, becomes apparent, which had no doubt, also, induced her to consent to Laban's deception. Simeon (he has heard), her second son, receives his name from her faith in God as a prayer-answering God. Levi (he will cling, joined, reconciler, etc.). The names of the sons are an expression of her enduring powerful experience, as well as of her gradual resignation. After the birth of the first one, she hopes to win, through her son, Jacob's love in the strictest sense. After the birth of the second, she hoped to be put on a footing of equality with Rachel, and to be delivered from her disregard. After the birth of the third one she hoped at least for a constant affection. At the birth of the fourth she looks entirely from herself to Jehovah, hence the name of the fourth, Judah (I shall praise, or just praised). (Quotes above are from Lange, CDHCG, 529, 530). The eye of the Lord is upon the sufferer. It is remarkable that both the narrator and Leah employ the proper name of God, which makes the performance of promise a prominent feature of his character. This is appropriate in the mouth of Leah, who is the mother of the promised seed. That Leah was hatedless loved than Rachel. He therefore recompenses her for the want of her husband's affection by giving her children, while Rachel was barren. Reubenbehold a son. The Lord hath looked on my affliction. Leah had qualities of heart, if not of outward appearance, which commanded esteem. She had learned to acknowledge the Lord in all her ways. Simeonanswer. She had prayed to the Lord, and this was her answer. Leviunion, the reconciler. Her husband could not, according to the prevailing sentiments of those days, fail to be attached to the mother of three sons. Judahpraised. Well may she praise the Lord, for this is the ancestor of the promised seed. It is remarkable that the wife of priority, but not of preference, is the mother of the seed in whom all nations are to be blessed. Levi the reconciler is the father of the priestly tribe. Simeon is attached to Judah. Reuben retires into the background. On the etymology of the proper names of this and of the next chapter it has been remarked: -the popular etymologies attached to. the names are here extremely forced and sometimes unintelligible-' (Skinner). Such a statement is the result of the critic's confusion. He acts on the assumption that these etymologies are to be scholarly efforts based on a careful analysis of Hebrew roots according to the Hebrew lexicon. Whereas, in reality, these are not etymologies at all but expressions wrought into the form of proper names, expressing the sentiments or the hopes associated with the birth of these sons, So someone or even the mother may have remarked at the birth of the first-born, -Look, a son,-' Reu-bhen.-' What is there -forced-' or -unintelligible-' about such a name? The added explanation as to what further thoughts Leah associated with this name -Reuben-' do, indeed, not grow out of the words, -look, a son,-' but they lay bare the inmost thoughts of her heart. Leah knows God as -Yahweh,-' an index of fine spiritual understanding and faith, and ascribes to him her fertility. She sees that Yahweh delights in being compassionate toward them that have -affliction,-' and hers was a state of affliction; and she anticipates that her husband will love her more. As for the second son Simeon, Yahweh heard (shama), so she calls him -hearing.-' So in Hebrew the idea becomes more readily apparent. Leah implies that she has asked for this child in prayer. Again she ascribes the son to the graciousness of -Yahweh.-' She must have been a woman of faith. With respect to the name Levi, here the play on words centers upon the root lawah which in the passive signifies -grow attached to.-' How poor Leah must have thirsted for the love that was denied her! Leah now stands on pretty firm ground; any man would be grateful for three healthy sons: especially are men in the Orient minded thus. As for the fourth, Judah (Praised), apparently her hopes are by this time realized: she is no longer disregarded or loved but little. But in a sense of true devoutness she lets all praise be given to Yahweh and here contents herself with pure praise (Leupold, EG, 801-803).

Rachel's adopted sons, Genesis 30:1-8. A rather passionate scene, in which Rachel does not appear to advantage by any means. She even vented her spleen on Jacob: Give me children, or else I die. Certainly not, I will take my life; but rather, I die from humiliation or dejection. Driven by jealousy of her sister, she yields her place to her maid, Bilhah. Her vivid language sounds not only irrational, but even impious, and therefore she rouses also the anger of Jacob (Lange). Her petulant behavior recalls that of Sarah (Genesis 16:5), but Jacob is less patient than Abraham, as he exclaims, in substance: Why ask me to play God? You know that God alone controls the issues of life and death (cf. Deuteronomy 32:39, 1 Samuel 2:6). In Freudian terms, Rachel was projecting her own weakness upon her husband, a favorite avocation of humankind generally (cf. Genesis 3:12-13). (Cf. Genesis 50:19, 2 Kings 5:7). Rachel becomes impatient of her barrenness and jealous of her sister, and unjustly reproaches her husband, who indignantly rebukes her. God, not he, has withheld children from her. She does what Sarah had done before her (Genesis 16:2-3), gives her handmaid to her husband. No express law yet forbade this course, though nature and Scripture by implication did (Genesis 2:23-25) (Murphy, MG, 397). Since Jacob had already sired offspring by Leah, Rachel could hardly have doubted his ability to do so by her, and must have recognized that the fault was with her. But she was unwilling to face the facts and tried to palm off the responsibility for the situation on Jacob. Genesis 29:3that she, Bilhah, may bear upon my knees, and I also may obtain children by her. (cf. Genesis 50:19; Genesis 50:23; 2 Kings 5:7). From the fact that children were taken upon the knees, they were recognized either as adopted children (Genesis 50:23), or as the fruit of their own bodies (Job 3:12) (Lange). An illusion to the primitive ceremony of adoption, which here simply means that Bilhas's children will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own (Skinner). To place a child on one's knees is to acknowledge it as one's own; cf. the Hurro-Hittite tale of Appu.. This act is normally performed by the father. Here, however, it is of primary interest to the adoptive mother who is intent on establishing her legal right to the child (Speiser, ABG, 230). The ceremony may be traced to a widespread custom, according to which, in lawful marriage, the child is actually brought forth on the father's knees.. Then it became a symbol of the legitimization of a natural child, and finally a form of adoption generally (ICCG, 386). (Cf. Job 3:12; Iliad 9:455ff.; Odyssey 19, 401ff,; Genesis 50:23). In the case before us, the putative mother names the adopted child. Rachel named Bilhah's first son Dan (judge; dananni, he has done justice to me), i.e., God had procured justice for her, hearkened to her voice and removed the reproach of childlessness. Bilhah's second son: Rachel named him Naphtali (wrestlings, wrestlings of prayer she had wrestled with Leah). The wrestlings of God could only be in the wrestlings of prayer, as we afterward see from Jacob's wrestlings, through which he becomes Israel (Lange, 530; cf. Genesis 32:24-25). In reality, however, with God Himself, who seems to have restricted His mercy to Leah alone (Delitzsch). Leah, who had been forced upon Jacob against his inclination, and was put by him in the background, was not only proved by the four sons whom she had bore to him in the first years of their marriage, to be the wife provided for Jacob by Elohim, the ruler of human destiny; but by the fact that these four sons formed the real stem of the promised numerous seed, she was proved still more to be the wife selected by Jehovah, in realization of His promise, to be the tribe-mother of the greater part of the covenant nation. But this required that Leah herself should be fitted for it in heart and mind, that she should feel herself to be the handmaid of Jehovah, and give glory to the covenant God for the blessing of children, or see in her children actual proofs that Jehovah had accepted her and would bring to her the affection of her husband. It was different with Rachel, the favorite and therefore high-minded wife, Jacob should give her what God alone could give. The faithfulness and blessing of the covenant God were still hidden from her. Hence she resorted to such earthly means as procuring children through her maid, and regarded the desired result as the answer of God, and a victory in her contest with her sister. For such a state of mind, the term Elohim, God the sovereign ruler, was the only fitting expression (BCOTP, 288-289). But how can Rachel speak of a victory over her sister rich in children? Leah has left bearing, while Bilhah her maid, begins to bear; at the same time, Rachel includes as much as possible in her words in order to overpersuade herself. [She believes she has overcomeGosman]. Hence, still, at Joseph's birth, she could say: Now (not before) God has taken away my reproach (Lange, CDHCG, 530; cf. Genesis 30:23-24).

Leah's adopted sons, Genesis 30:9-13. Leah, however, was not content with the blessing of four sons bestowed on her by Yahweh. The means employed by Rachel to retain the favor of her husband made her jealous, and this jealousy moved her to resort to the same device, viz., that of giving her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob for the begetting of adopted sons. Jacob begat two sons by Zilpah. Leah named the first one Gad (good fortune, or good fortune has come). She named the second Asher (the happy one, or the bringer of happiness). Leah is still less excusable than Rachel, since she could oppose her own four sons to the two adopted sons of Rachel. However, the proud and challenging assertions of Rachel seem to have determined her to a renewed emulation; and Jacob thought that it was due to the equal rights of both to consent to the fourth marriage. That Leah now acts no longer as before, in a pious and humble disposition, the names which she calls her adopted sons clearly prove (Lange, ibid., 530) (It is worth noting that Gad was the name of an Aramean and Phoenician god of Luck (Tyche, cf. Isaiah 65:11. It is possible also that the name Asher is historically related to the Canaanite goddess Asherah, consort of El in Ras Shamra texts,)

Leah's last two sons, Genesis 30:14-20. We have here what might be called a primitive tradition. These occur in Scripture, simply as matters of fact, historically; even though they may savor of magic they serve to give us the background against which the careers of the patriarchs are portrayed. It must be understood that the mere recording of magical theories and practices, and popular superstitions, of any period, as historical facts, does not mean that they are Biblically sanctioned. According to the story of Genesis 30:14-16, Reuben, when a boy of some four or five years of age, brought to his mother a plant found in the fields, of the kind known as Mandragora officinarum. This is described as a narcotic, laxative perennial of the nightshade family, related to the potato and the tomato. Out of the small white-and green flowers of this plant, according to the Song of Solomon 7:13, there grows at the time of the wheat harvest, yellow, strong, but sweet-smelling apples, of the size of a nutmeg. These were thought to promote fruitfulness. The fruit of the plant is still considered in the East to have aphrodisiac properties (ABG, 231), hence the common designation, love-apples. Theophrastus (who took over the Lyceum after the death of Aristotle) tells us that love-potions were prepared from the plant's roots. It was held in such high esteem by the ancients that the goddess of love, in some areas, was known as Mandragoritis. Mandrakes are still used by Arabs as a means of promoting child-bearing. As for mandrakes themselves something may be said. Reuben gathered them in wheat-harvest, and it is then that they are still found ripe and eatable on the lower ranges of Lebanon and Hermon, where I have most frequently seen them. The apple becomes of a very pale yellow color, partially soft, and of an insipid, sickish taste. They are said to produce dizziness; but I have seen people eat them without experiencing any such effect. The Arabs, however, believe them to be exhilarating and stimulating, even to insanity, and hence the name tuffah el jan-apples of the jan-' (Thomson, LB, 577).

The incident of the mandrakes shows how thoroughly-the two wives were carried away by constant jealousy of the love and attachment of their husband. When Rachel requested that Leah give her some of the mandrakes, the latter bitterly upbraided her with not being content to have withdrawn (alienated?) her husband from her, but now wanting to get possession of the mandrakes which her little son had brought in from the field. It would seem that peculiar, even paradoxical, emotions are involved in the actions of these two women. It should be remembered that Leah is said to have left off bearing, after the birth of Judah (Genesis 29:35). Was she now fearful that Rachel might now, with the help of the mandrakes, excel her in prolificness? It is obviously the design [of the narrator] to bring out into prominence the fact that Leah became pregnant again without mandrakes, and that they were of no avail to Rachel.. Moreover, it could not be the intention of Rachel to prepare from these mandrakes a so-called love-potion for Jacob, but only to attain fruit-fulness by their effects upon herself. Just as now, for the same purpose perhaps, unfruitful women visit or are sent to certain watering-places. From this standpoint, truly, the assumed remedy of nature may appear as a premature, eager self-help (Lange, ibid., 530-531). It should be noted that Rachel asked only for some of the mandrakes: it seems that there was no thought in her mind of depriving Leah of all these potent means of fruitfulness, nor is there any evidence that she thought of her sister as having left off bearing (a statement of the author of the narrative). Reuben, as little children will, presents the mandrakes to his mother. Rachel, present at the time, and much concerned as usual about her sterility, thinks to resort to this traditional means of relieving the disability and asks for -some of the mandrakes-' (min, -some of-') of Reuben. She had hardly thought that this harmless request would provoke such an outbreak on her sister's part. For Leah bitterly upbraids her with not being content to have withdrawn her husband from her, but, she petulantly adds, Rachel even wants to get the mandrakes of her son Reuben. Apparently, her hope that her husband would love her after she had born several sons (Genesis 29:32) had not been fully realized. Childless Rachel still had the major part of his affection. Quite unjustly Leah charges Rachel with alienation of affection where such affection had perhaps never really existed. Leah was still being treated with more or less tolerance. So Leah certainly begrudges her sister the mandrakes, lest they prove effective and so give her sister a still more decided advantage.. Rachel desires to preserve peace in the household, and so concedes to yield the husband to her sister for the night, in return for the mandrakes which she nevertheless purposes to eat. The frank narrative of the Scriptures on this point makes us blush with shame at the indelicate bargaining of the sistersone of the fruits of a bigamous connection (EG, 812). A bitter and intense rivalry existed between Leah and Rachel, all the more from their close relationship as sisters; and although they occupied separate apartments with their respective families, as is the uniform custom where a plurality of wives obtains, and the husband and father spends a day with each in regular succession, this arrangement did not, it seems, allay the mutual jealousies of Laban's daughters. The evil lies in the system, which, being a violation of God's original ordinance, cannot yield happiness. Experience in polygamous countries has shown that those run great risk who marry two members of one family, or even two girls from the same town or village. The disadvantages of such unions are well understood (Jamieson, CECG, 205). Matthew Henry suggests a somewhat different interpretation of sisterly motivation in the case before us, one which is certainly well worth considering: Whatever these mandrakes were, Rachel could not see them in Leah's hands, where the child had placed them, but she must covet them. The learned Bishop Patrick very well suggests here that the true reason of this contest between Jacob's wives for his company, and their giving him their maids to be his wives, was the earnest desire they had to fulfil the promise made to Abraham that his seed should be as the stars of heaven in multitude. And he thinks it would have been below the dignity of the sacred history to take such particular notice of these things if there had not been some such great consideration in them (CWB, 50). (However, certain objections to this view would be the following: (1) Rachel asked for only somenot allof the mandrakes: this would seem to indicate she was seeking only to put an end to her own sterility; (2) implicit in this view is the assumption that the sisters were fully cognizant of the details of the Abrahamic Promises, but we find no sure evidence that this was the fact; (3) implicit in this view also is the failure to apprehend fully the stark realism of the Biblical narratives; the Bible is one book that pictures life as men and women live it, never turning aside from truth even to hide the faults of men of great faith. The Bible is pre-eminently the Book of Life. It makes us fully aware of human character and its weaknesses.)

Leah parted with the mandrakes on condition that Rachel would permit Jacob to sleep with her that night. After relating how Leah conceived again, and Rachel continued barren in spite of the mandrakes, the writer justly observes (Genesis 29:17), -Elohim hearkened unto Leah,-' to show that it was not from such natural means as love-apples, but from God the Author of life, that she had received such fruitfulness (BCOTP, 290). Leah then bore Jacob two more sons: (1) the first she named Issachar (hire, reward), that is to say, there is reward or he brings reward. (2) The second she named Zebulun (dwelling). The import of the first name is, either that she had hired her husband, or that she had received her hirei.e., a happy resultfrom God. The name of the second signified she hoped that now, after God had endowed her with a good portion, her husband to whom she had borne six sons, would dwell with her, i.e., become more warmly attached to her (Delitzsch). The birth of a son is hailed with demonstrations of joy, and the possession of several sons confers upon the mother an honor and respectability proportioned to their number. The husband attaches a similar importance to the possession, and it forms a bond of union which renders it impossible for him ever to forsake or to be cold to a wife who has borne him sons. This explains the happy anticipations Leah founded on the possession of her six sons (Jamieson). It is to be noted that in connection with these two births, Leah mentions Elohim only, the supernatural Giver, and not Yahweh, the covenant God, whose grace has been forced out of her heart by jealousy (Delitzsch). It should be noted that the reference here to the wheat harvest (Genesis 29:14) has prompted the critics to affirm that the agricultural background shows the episode here to be out of place in its nomadic setting. But the text does not say that the nomads did the harvesting. Besides, no one would deny the possibility of their using the expression -wheat harvest-' to specify a definite season of the year even if they themselves did no harvesting. Moreover, this may be only the author's remark, used to specify the particular season when, as his readers would know, mandrakes usually ripened. In addition to all these considerations, there is the explicit information that the patriarchs on occasion sowed and reaped in their homeland (cf. Genesis 26:12) and perhaps their relatives did so in Mesopotamia. It is quite possible, too, that the lad Reuben might have wandered into the fields where some of his farmer-neighbors were harvesting, and gathered his mandrakes there. We see no reason for accepting the critical view stated above as the only explanation of the milieu of this incident. (Cf. Exodus 9:32, Deuteronomy 8:8, Judges 6:11, Ruth 2:23; 1 Samuel 6:13; 1 Samuel 12:17; 1 Chronicles 21:20; 2 Chronicles 2:10-15; 2 Chronicles 27:5; Ezra 6:9; Ezra 7:22; Matthew 13:25; Matthew 13:29; Luke 3:17; John 12:24).

Leah's daughter, Genesis 29:21. The name Dinah, about the same in meaning as Dan, could signify Vindication. However, the etymology is not indicated in the text. Moreover, Dinah is not included in Genesis 32:22, where Jacob's household is said to have consisted of his two wives, his two handmaids, and his eleven children. Later Scriptures would seem to indicate that Dinah was not Jacob's only daughter (cf. Genesis 37:35; Genesis 46:7). It is likely that Dinah is specifically mentioned here in passing, as preparatory to the incident in her historythat of her defilementrelated in ch. 34. The fact that Dinah is given only passing mention here is ample evidence of the subordinate place of the daughter in the patriarchal household.

Rachel's first son, Genesis 30:22-24. God remembered Rachel and hearkened to her (prayers) and opened her womb. The expression used here denotes a turning-point after a long trial (cf. Genesis 8:1) and in the matter of removing unfruitfulness (1 Samuel 1:19-20). God gave Rachel a son, whom she named Joseph, one that takes away, or he may add: because his birth not only furnished an actual proof that God had removed the reproach of her childlessness, but also excited the wish, that Jehovah might add another son. The fulfilment of this wish is recorded in chap. Genesis 35:16 ff. The double derivation of the name, and the exchange of Elohim for Jehovah, may be explained, without the hypothesis of a double source, on the simple ground, that Rachel first of all looked back at the past, and, thinking of the earthly means that had been applied in vain for the purpose of obtaining a child, regarded the son as a gift of God. At the same time, the good fortune which had now come to her banished from her heart her envy of her sister (Genesis 29:1), and aroused belief in that God, who, as she had no doubt heard from her husband, had given Jacob such great promises; so that in giving the name, probably at the circumcision, she remembered Jehovah and prayed for another son from His covenant faithfulness (BCOTP, 290). According to Lange, the text allows only one derivation: he may add: to take away and to add are too strongly opposed to be traced back to one etymological source. Rachel, it is true, might have revealed the sentiments of her heart by the expression, God hath taken away my reproach; but she was not able to give to her own sons names that would have neutralized the significance and force of the names of her adopted sons, Dan and Naphthali. That she is indebted to God's kindness for Joseph, while at the same time she asks Jehovah for another son, and thereupon names Joseph, does not furnish any sufficient occasion for the admission of an addition to the sources of scripture, as Delitzsch assumes. The number of Jacob's sons, who began with Jehovah, was also closed by Jehovah. For, according to the number of twelve tribes, Israel is Jehovah's covenant people (CDHCG, 531). The majority of Old Testament commentators seem to agree that the meaning of Joseph's name is more literally, add; that is to say, May Yahweh add to me another son. At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for and therefore marked out for a brilliant destiny (ICCG, 389). A double thought plays into the name Joseph: it incorporates both of Rachel's remarks. For yoseph may count as an imperfect of -asaph-', -to take away.-' Or it may also count more definitely as imperfect (Hifil) of the verb yasaph, -to add.-' We must admit this to be very ingenious. But why deny to a mother a happy ingenuity on the occasion of her greatest joy? Why try to inject the thought of a confusion of two sources? (EG, 816). We are disposed to conclude this phase of our study with the pertinent and (one might well say) almost facetious remarks of Dr. Leupold in relation to Leah's action, Genesis 29:16: Jacob's lot cannot have been a very happy one. To an extent he was shuttled back and forth between two wives and even their handmaids. Almost a certain shamelessness has taken possession of Jacob's wives in their intense rivalry. Leah almost triumphantly claims him as a result of her bargain, as he comes in from the field (EG, 813). We are glad to note that with the birth of Joseph, the shuttling back and forth on Jacob's part seems to come to an end and the dove of peace settles down over his household, as evidenced especially by the loyalty of both daughters to their husband in the continued contest with their father Laban (cf. Genesis 31:4-16).

Review Questions

See Genesis 31:1-16.