Genesis For The Mildly Curious

[WebersHome]

.
Hello;

Back around 2000 or 2001; I got the daring idea to begin composing a daily, bite-size commentary on the book of Genesis. It was a clumsy effort at first but I stuck with it and as time went by, it got pretty good. On some forums where I've survived opposition long enough to complete the whole fifty chapters, Genesis has attracted several thousand views.

As of today's date, I'm 76 years old; and an on-going student of the Bible since 1968 via sermons, seminars, lectures, Sunday school classes, radio Bible programs, and various authors of a number of Bible-related books. Fifty-two years of Bible under my belt hasn't made me an authority; but they've at least made me competent enough to tackle Genesis.

Barring emergencies, accidents, vacations, unforeseen circumstances, and/or insurmountable distractions, database errors, pandemic shut-downs, computer crashes, black outs, brown outs, deaths in the family, Wall Street Armageddon, thread hijackers, excessive quarrelling and debating, the dog ate my homework, visiting relatives, ISIS, car repairs, Black Friday, Cyber Monday, student walk-outs, Carrington events, gasoline prices, medical issues, and/or hard luck and the forces of nature; I'm making an effort to post something every day including Sundays and holidays.

Some really good stuff is in Genesis: the origin of the cosmos, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the Flood, tower of Babel, and the origin of the Jews.

Big-name celebrities like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael, Rebecca, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph are here.

Not here are Moses vs. Pharaoh and the parting of the Red Sea. That story is in Exodus; Samson and Delilah are in Judges, David and Goliath are in 1Samuel; and Ruth and Esther are in books of the Bible named after them.

The author of Genesis is currently unknown; but commonly attributed to Moses. Seeing as he penned Exodus (Mark 12:26) it's conceivable that Moses also penned Genesis; but in reality, nobody really knows for sure.

Scholars have estimated the date of its writing at around 1450-1410 BC; a mere 3,400± years ago, which is pretty recent in the grand scheme of Earth's geological history.

Genesis may in fact be the result of several contributors beginning as far back as Adam himself; who would certainly know more about the creation than anybody, and who entertained no doubts whatsoever about the existence of an intelligent designer since he knew the creator Himself like a next door neighbor.

As time went by, others like Seth and Noah would add their own experiences to the record, and then Abraham his, Isaac his, Jacob his, and finally Judah or one of his descendants completing the record with Joseph's burial.

Genesis is quoted more than sixty times in the New Testament; and Christ authenticated its Divine inspiration by referring to it in his own teachings. (e.g. Matt 19:4-6, Matt 24:37-39, Mk 10:4-9, Luke 11:49-51, Luke 17:26 29 & 32, John 7:21-23, John 8:44 and John 8:56)

Buen Camino
(Pleasant Journey)
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 28:22a . . And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's abode;

Jacob's pillow stone wasn't really meant to be a dwelling or a container as we typically think of human habitat or animal cages. It was meant to be a sort of monitoring device. An 8th century BC Aramaic treaty inscription from Sfire, in Syria, terms each upright stone on which the treaty is inscribed as an abode of the gods.

The Hebrew word for "God" is 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which is a plural word meaning gods of all descriptions; both the good and the bad; and the true and the false. So that we could translate Gen 28:22a-- "shall be the abode of the gods."

The stone(s) symbolize a divine presence monitoring fulfillment and/or infractions of the terms of a treaty or a vow. So Jacob's pillar was not only the custodian of his vow, but was also its regulatory agency taking note whether Jacob and Yhvh keep their promises to each other. The very same thing turns up again in Gen 31:44-52.

• Gen 28:22b . . and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You.

This is probably the very first Biblical instance of the so-called "faith promise". Though coming from a wealthy family; and heir apparent to his father Isaac's personal fortune, the fulfillment of this particular vow was contingent, not upon what Jacob possessed already; but upon God's future providence.

Jacob didn't promise a set dollar figure, but promised a "tithe" which in English Bibles is commonly translated a tenth; but in reality the Hebrew word 'asar (aw-sar') just means to apportion; which Webster's defines as: to divide and share out according to a plan; especially to make a proportionate division or distribution of.

The value of a nondescript tithe therefore is left up to individual discretion.

"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God prefers a whole-hearted giver." (2Cor 9:7)

"And here is my advice about what is best for you in this matter: Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have." (2Cor 8:10-12)

Jacob was under no obligation to reciprocate and compensate God for the promises. Their fulfillment was dependent neither upon Jacob's generosity nor his piety. Fulfillment was dependent solely upon God's own personal integrity.

So why should Jacob dedicate a tithe? Well; like I said, he didn't have to. Jacob's response was totally spontaneous and voluntary. His tithe was motivated from a sense of fair play-- reciprocation --rather than a response to Holy mandates. In other words: Jacob reciprocated God's kindness with kindness of his own.

A faith that gives out of friendship, rather than obligation, is much better than a religion that mandates a tithe. And the gift should be given where the giver feels whole-hearted about it; viz: they should have some say in where their offering goes, and they should be able to feel quite satisfied about it rather than feel as though their pockets were picked.

So; how was Jacob going to transfer some of his assets into God's account? There was neither Temple nor synagogue in his day, and certainly no Aaronic priesthood. Abraham did his business with Melchizedek but there is no record of either Isaac or Jacob doing business with one of Mel's successors.

When all else fails, a very, very good way to give to God is by helping people less fortunate than yourself; in other words: pay it forward.

"He who is generous to the poor makes a loan to Yhvh: He will repay him his due." (Prv 19:17)

There are lots of charities benefiting disadvantaged people. United Way lists quite few to pick from; and just about every city has at least one gospel-oriented rescue mission. For sure; those causes are a whole lot more satisfying than just mindlessly tossing money into a basket passed around on a Sunday morning.
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 29:1 . . Jacob resumed his journey and came to the land of the Easterners.

The geographic region in Turkey where Jacob went wasn't actually east by his reckoning. It was just about dead north. But the people who populated that region had roots in the east. Here's another version.

"Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the sons of the east."

Many of the peoples in and around Haran, although they lived northward from Canaan, were actually descendants of early pioneers who migrated out west from the world of Babylon; just as Abraham and his dad Terah had done many years prior to Jacob's birth. (cf. Gen 11:1-2)

• Gen 29:2a . .There before his eyes was a well in the open.

The balance of Jacob's trip, from Luz to this well, is passed over in silence. Apparently nothing of significance occurred along the way. If Jacob traveled at, say, 25 miles per day, it would have taken him about eighteen days to reach Haran.

If he stuck to the trade route, he could have stopped in Damascus and took in some of the local sights and maybe stayed at a "motel" before pushing on. Food wouldn't really be a problem because there surely were plenty of settlements and/or vendors along the trade route.

Major highways, like the old US routes 66, and 101, always had lots of merchants offering overnight accommodations, plus all the goods and services a traveler would likely need to see them through. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there existed in that day food cart equivalents of McDonalds and Burger King.

• Gen 29:2b-3 . .Three flocks of sheep were lying there beside it, for the flocks were watered from that well. The stone on the mouth of the well was large. When all the flocks were gathered there, the stone would be rolled from the mouth of the well and the sheep watered; then the stone would be put back in its place on the mouth of the well.

Apparently this well wasn't fed by an artesian source but was a variety that kept itself filled by seepage out of a substrate aquifer. A well like that-- which is more like a cistern --can become rancid very quickly by bird droppings, dead critters, and debris if it's not kept covered. Although structuring the watering time created a rush hour, it was sensible. That way the well wasn't left open for too long a time and there was less chance of polluting it.

• Gen 29:4a . . Jacob said to them: My friends, where are you from?

Exactly what language Jacob spoke in his greeting isn't said; but during his era; Akkadian was a common language in Mesopotamia where Laban lived.

I don't think this well is the very same one where Abraham's servant met Rebecca. For one thing, it's out in the open, not actually connected with any specific town. If it had been, then Jacob could have assumed the shepherds lived nearby and not asked them where they were from.

This particular well was within walking distance of pasture land. Any grasses close in to the towns were likely over-grazed. That's just one of the natural results of progress and urban sprawl.

• Gen 29:4b-6a . . And they said: We are from Haran. He said to them: Do you know Laban the son of Nahor? And they said: Yes, we do. He continued: Is he well?

Laban's location, and his state of affairs, would of course be Jacob's primary concern. After all, he just traveled nearly 500 miles to find him. If the man was dead or moved away, then the trip was all for nothing; and in those days, there was no way to call ahead.

• Gen 29:6b . .They answered: Yes, he is; and there is his daughter Rachel, coming with the flock.

According to Gen 31:1 Laban had sons too, not just daughters. But the boys may have been too young at the time to go out in the fields alone. So big sister had to do all the ropin' and brandin' till her little brothers grew a few more hat sizes.

Does that maybe indicate Rachel was a bit of a tomboy? Maybe. Personally; I think she was. But I don't think she was one of those hard, masculine kinds of tomboys, like some tough she-male working shoulder to shoulder with roughneck oil drillers, or packing a 9mm Glock, a nightstick, and a can of pepper spray as a cop, or putting out fires with a hook and ladder company, or dressed full-out for combat in Afghanistan.

I think Rachel was one of those women who can survive in a man's world if need be; yet retain their feminine side too. They still like cosmetics, dinner out, husbands, family and children, pampering themselves with a trip to the beauty parlor, and shopping for new shoes and a purse-- but don't mind running a lawn mower, trimming the hedges, or firing up a leaf blower when they have to.

There's a lot of single moms out there nowadays who haven't much choice but to wear a man's hat now and again-- not to prove a point, but just to get by.

Herding sheep out in the open is risky for a lone woman. But apparently Rachel wasn't afraid of any of the local men; who no doubt were motivated by male chivalry to look out for her; and besides, we're going to see just up ahead that her dad was not a man to trifle with. Anybody who messed with Rachel would have to answer to Laban; and he was a man who took nothing lying down.

Jacob is going to fall for this tomboy-ish angel in a very short time; and no surprise. Men often hook up with women that resemble their moms. That is so weird because some of those very same guys were brought up by moms from hell. But that's what they're used to. So, without even thinking about it, they often gravitate to those very same attributes in a girl.

Well, Rachel and Rebecca were like peas in a pod. They were both confident, fearless, and decisive: not to mention tens to boot. I think Jacob felt very secure with women like that.
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 29:7 . . He said: It is still broad daylight, too early to round up the animals; water the flock and take them to pasture.

The Hebrew word for "broad" is gadowl (gaw-dole') which means great (in any sense). Gadowl is variously translated as high day, the sun is high, early in the day, and much daylight.

Apparently the usual time for watering flocks was later in the afternoon just prior to bedding them down for the night.

Jacob just blew into the neighborhood and he's already telling strangers what to do! No doubt an attitude he brought with him from Isaac's ranch. Down there the servants jumped when Jacob said something. Up here in Haran though, things were just a wee bit different.

• Gen 29:8 . . But they said: We cannot, until all the flocks are rounded up; then the stone is rolled off the mouth of the well and we water the sheep.

Actually, someone may have owned that well; and set the rules for it's use. In those days, whoever dug for water usually had the rights to it; somewhat like a prospector's claim in the gold fields out in 1850s California. Apparently the owner didn't mind people using the water as long as they respected his feelings about it. But Jacob had a mind of his own, and seemed to care very little for the property rights of others.

There's a clash of cultures going on in this scene. Jacob was from the frontier lands of Canaan where men of mettle did pretty much as they wished. I'm guessing that Haran was a bit more sophisticated.

And then too; Jacob was a privileged kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I've seen the kind of superiority complex that kind of upbringing sometimes instills within children. Well; that's going to change. Jacob is entering the school of hard knocks, and he's going to learn a thing or two from professor Laban. But when it's all over, Jacob will be a better man for it.

• Gen 29:9-10 . .While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father's flock; for she was a shepherdess. And when Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of his uncle Laban, and the flock of his uncle Laban, Jacob went up and rolled the stone off the mouth of the well, and watered the flock of his uncle Laban.

Violating local customs is an insolent thing to do; and almost certainly guaranteed to get you off on the wrong foot. And besides: fair is fair. The other shepherds were there ahead of Rachel, and no telling how long they'd been waiting. Word of Jacob's favoritism, and his disdain for fair play, would surely spread.

Coming from a privileged family; Jacob was accustomed to doing pretty much as he pleased and answering to no one for it. But arriving in Haran, he was a nobody: a homeless drifter. Now he's going to learn what it's like to be just another face in the crowd; and he is also going to learn what it's like to do as you're told. Unkie Laban is just the bull o' the woods for some long overdue rich-kid attitude adjustment.

• Gen 29:11 . .Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and broke into tears.

Poor Jacob. He'd been under a lot of stress lately; and probably feeling very alone in the world. His cousin must have seemed to him like an angel of mercy come to rescue his soul from the abyss. First he helped water her flock; for no apparent reason to Rachel other than courtesy; which she seemed to accept without any fuss. But then he impulsively kissed her (on the cheek I hope) and started sobbing. Rachel must have stared at Jacob like a man gone mad from a brain tumor.

• Gen 29:12 . . Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's kinsman, that he was Rebecca's son; and she ran and told her father.

Zoom! Out of there like a bottle rocket (so to speak). Boy that girl sure takes after auntie Becky. Rachel lit out of there like the critters sent from Jessie the Cowgirl to fetch Sheriff Woody in Toy Story2.

• Gen 29:13a . . On hearing the news of his sister's son Jacob, Laban ran to greet him;

I seriously doubt that Laban sprinted. The man was over 100 by now and near the age of Jacob's mom; maybe even older than her. Isaac and Rebecca were married twenty years before she became pregnant for the very first time, and Jacob is around 75 at this point. For a man Laban's age "rushed" and/or "hurried" seems more reasonable than ran.

• Gen 29:13b . . he embraced him and kissed him,

Foreign customs often offend Americans. I was visiting the home of a Portuguese man in San Diego a number of years back when his son and daughter-in-law showed up unexpectedly. Dad and son greeted each other with a hug; and kissed full on the lips. I just about died; it was so gross. And then he kissed the daughter-in-law full on the lips too. I think you have to grow up in those kinds of customs to really be comfortable with them.

• Gen 29:13c-14a . . and took him into his house. He told Laban all that had happened, and Laban said to him; You are truly my bone and flesh.

Adam said pretty much the very same thing about Eve at Gen 2:23 because she wasn't created from the dust as he had been, but was manufactured from already existing human tissue amputated from his body. In other words: ol' Laban was saying "You and I are one and the same" because tricking a father in order to supplant a brother was just the thing Laban would have thought of himself had he been in Jacob's shoes.
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 29:14b-15 . .When he had stayed with him a month's time, Laban said to Jacob: Just because you are a kinsman, should you serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?

It's curious that Laban would offer Jacob employment. I'm guessing that Jacob had offered to help out around Laban's ranch only just long enough for the heat blow over back home; but Laban became impressed with Jacob's work ethic and wanted him on permanently. Sometimes good help is very hard to find; and worth paying for.

• Gen 29:16-17a . . Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older one was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah had weak eyes;

According to Jewish folklore, Leah had weak eyes from crying all the time at the prospect of being forced to marrying Esau.

The word for "weak" is from rak (rak) which means, variously: tender, soft, weak, and/or gentle and quite possibly young and youthful.

So rak doesn't necessarily mean that something is feeble. It can also mean that something is kind, sweet, and/or gentle as opposed to harsh and/or cruel. And in this case, where the beauty of two girls is being compared, I don't think the author of Genesis meant to convey that Leah's eyesight was weak; only that she had nice eyes, but little else to offer.

Pity. Leah was a good girl; but just about bankrupt in what really matters to most guys; and as any woman with assets can vouch; most men think better with their eyes than with their brains. In other words: when it comes to women, men's brains switch off and it's all about the view after that: if you know what I mean.

• Gen 29:17b-18a . . Rachel was shapely and beautiful. Jacob loved Rachel;

Duh. Why does that not surprise us? You know, Jacob was fortunate about something. In those days, a man didn't have to win a woman's heart. He had to win her custodian's heart. So men could pick out a girl like they might pick out a shirt or a new car. Girls, through no fault of their own, could easily get stuck with a very disagreeable man.

But there is something very missing in this story-- Rachel's love for Jacob. The man was ga-ga over her. But how did she really feel about him?

• Gen 29:18b-19 . . so he answered; I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel. Laban said; Better that I give her to you than that I should give her to an outsider. Stay with me.

Done! And just like that; a girl became engaged. Jacob traded seven years of his life for Rachel. But it wasn't really about money, and they actually dickered over wages later. What Jacob actually proposed was a service commitment; like the contracts musicians sign with recording companies; and professional athletes sign with big league teams like the Blazers or the Mets; and like the terms of service to which young men commit themselves to the armed forces.

So Jacob didn't really buy Rachel with money. She was more like a bonus for signing up as a full-time employee with Laban. And the seven years weren't Laban's idea. They were Jacob's; and I think he made it so many years because he wanted to offer Laban a deal so lucrative that he couldn't possibly refuse it.

• Gen 29:20 . . So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her.

It's a fact of human experience that men will sell their souls to satisfy their wants. But I'm guessing there was more to Rachel than just her looks. After seven years living in such close proximity, Jacob still wanted her. If she had been one of those tough, thin skinned, defensive, obtuse, chafing and demeaning Tomb Raider kind of girls, I'm pretty sure Jacob would have lost interest by then. I say "pretty sure" because there are some men who will live with a witch in spite of the abuse they endure just so's they can sleep with the woman of their dreams; viz: a trophy wife rather than a man's best friend forever. In that respect, it turns out that Leah was the better choice.
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 29:21 . .Then Jacob said to Laban; Give me my wife, for my time is fulfilled, that I may cohabit with her.

The word "cohabit" is not actually in the Hebrew. It should read "go near". What Jacob said, in the common colloquialism of our day, is what men sometimes say when they want to sleep with a particular girl. They sometimes say: Wow! I'd sure like to get next to that! (chuckle) Very expressive.

• Gen 29:22-23 . . And Laban gathered all the people of the place and made a feast. When evening came, he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him; and he cohabited with her.

Jacob has got to rank as just about the dumbest groom in history. He knew both of those girls like the back of his hand. For seven years he lived right next door and saw them both every day. Leah and Rachel didn't even resemble each other. The one was shapely and beautiful. The other was not. Even if he couldn't see well enough in the dark to tell the difference, he certainly should have been able to feel the difference; and to recognize the difference in their voices.

Was that man so totally plastered with booze from the reception that he couldn't even tell who, or what, he slept with that night? Awww-Haw-Haw-Haw-Haw-Haw!

But the real mystery was Leah. Wouldn't you think that she would have spoken up and said something before things got out of hand? That sly girl. (chuckle) Personally I think she had a big crush on Jacob. Later on Leah will try very hard to get Jacob to transfer his affections to her and forget about Rachel.

This so reminds me of Sadie Hawkins' day in the Little Abner comics of the old days. In the town of Dog Patch, men didn't grow on trees; there just wasn't enough to go around; and on top of that, some of the hillbilly girls weren't much to look at either. Subsequently, some of the local gals had a tough time getting husbands.

So, in memorial of an old spinster lady named Sadie Hawkins, a special day was set aside each year wherein the bachelorettes had a chance to get hitched. All they had to do was run down one of the unattached men; and whoever they caught, absolutely had to marry them; no exchanges and no returns.

But hey! Where was Rachel!?! Was she tied up out in the barn or something? Well; I hate to say it, but I really don't think she ever did want to marry Mr. Jacob. I really think she was in on the whole scam all along and I think Rachel was seriously hoping Jacob would settle for Leah and forget all about herself. But alas; such was not to happen. Jacob was very determined. He accepted his fate with Leah, but went after Rachel anyway.

NOTE: The covenant that Moses' people eventually agreed upon with God as per Lev 18:18 protects sisters like Rachel and Leah so that men are not permitted to cohabit with both girls at the same time.

• Gen 29:24 . . Laban had given his maidservant Zilpah to his daughter Leah as her maid.

Zilpah didn't say anything either. In fact she very likely assisted Leah to bathe and prepare for her wedding night. Poor Jacob. He was so defeated. It was like the whole world, and even the stars above in their courses, were in a grand conspiracy to dupe the old boy that night.

• Gen 29:25 . .When morning came, there was Leah! So he said to Laban: What is this you have done to me? I was in your service for Rachel! Why did you deceive me?

There is really no one to blame for this situation but Jacob himself. They say to never look a gift horse in the mouth. But I think your wedding night has to be the exception. For crying out loud, you'd think the man would have enough sense to make sure the woman in his bed was the one who was supposed to be there. Yes, Laban was a rascal. But then so was Leah, and so was Zilpah; and Rachel too. And maybe this gave Jacob cause to remember how he tricked his own dad back home into giving him Esau's blessing. (chuckle) There's an old saying: What goes around, comes around.
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 29:26 . . Laban said; It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the older.

Jacob lived in "our place" for seven years. I tend to think he knew full well their customs.

Perhaps Jacob expected the locals would make an exception for him because he was a rich boy from down south. But no; local custom was local custom, and even Mr. Silver Spoon In Your Mouth was going to have to accept it.

NOTE: I suspect the guests all knew that Jacob was being tricked on his wedding night, but I also suspect that they never forgot his lack of fair play back at the well when he first blew into town. You know, when you're unfair with people, you have to expect that they will be unsympathetic when unfairness comes your way.

• Gen 29:27 . .Wait until the bridal week of this one is over and we will give you that one too, provided you serve me another seven years.

Serving Laban the first seven years for Rachel was Jacob's idea; except that instead of getting Rachel; he got Leah. Now Laban's proviso is that Jacob serve yet another seven years for Rachel; which will total fourteen for a girl he was supposed to get in seven. I think most any normal red-blooded man would have refused.

But Jacob was an Ethan Frome kind of guy. I don't think he wanted to hurt Leah, and maybe even felt partially responsible for her predicament.

That's a crummy reason to marry a girl, but I don't think Jacob could have lived with himself if he threw Leah back now. After all, Jacob was her first love, and it's not like she was used goods or anything.

It's true that Jacob was not above fraud; but basically, he was a fairly honorable man.

• Gen 29:28-29 . . Jacob did so; he waited out the bridal week of the one, and then he gave him his daughter Rachel as wife. Laban had given his maidservant Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid.

Maidservants weren't just female commodities. They were actually a part of the household, and often treated with a pretty fair degree of respect.

• Gen 29:30 . . And Jacob cohabited with Rachel also; indeed, he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he served him another seven years.

I'm sure Jacob never mistreated Leah. But he wasn't crazy about her in a romantic way. It's like the relationship between Robert Philip and his fiancé Nancy Tremaine in the Disney movie Enchanted. Nancy is neither a bad girl nor a bad choice-- the chemistry just isn't there.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, Jacob's situation probably led to some favoritism. And in this case, I think Jacob began spending most of his time with Rachel and leaving Leah out in the cold; so to speak; viz: she was in the unenviable limbo of a burden to her husband. However, since Jacob chose to keep Leah, he was morally obligated to treat her as if he was infatuated with her, even if he really wasn't.

When you get right down to it; Leah didn't do any more to Jacob than what he did to his dad; so all in all: what right had Jacob to complain? I've a pretty strong feeling that after Leah's week was fulfilled, no more was said about this incident.
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 29:31 . .The Lord saw that Leah was unloved and he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.

God didn't make Rachel barren. She was already that way. And Leah was too. In fact, every one of the matriarchs were barren women. It must have been in their genes. But the Lord elected to repair Leah and leave Rachel out of whack for a while longer.

I really don't think what the Lord did was punishment against Jacob and Rachel. I think it was a countermeasure to get Jacob to pay a little more attention to Leah. It's very important for spouses to bond. Allowing Jacob to focus too much of his attention on Rachel would soon make Leah the odd man out; and a very lonely woman.

But why would God do that-- take an interest in Leah's problems? Because, as Hagar discovered, Abraham's god is a sensitive god who sees people (Gen 16:13-14). And it seems very obvious to me that He was sympathetic to Leah's circumstances.

And that tells me something. It's true that Leah was in on the scheme to trick Jacob. But God didn't get upset with her for that. In fact, it looks to me like He was actually very pleased that she married Jacob. After all, it was through Leah that the man predicted in Dan 7:13-14 would come, not Rachel. I believe that is very significant.

I would even go so far as to say that Leah was the one God Himself would have picked for Jacob if he had only sought a wife in the very same manner that Abraham had sought one for Isaac. But no. Jacob took matters into his own hands, came to Haran in person, and fell in love with the wrong girl. Well; he ended up marrying Leah anyway in spite of his feelings for Rachel; just like his dad ended up blessing Jacob in spite of his feelings for Esau.

Most guys have visions of the girl they would like to marry. She's young, gorgeous, shapely, and congenial. But the reality is: most will never find a girl like that. So they settle for what they can get and become resigned to missing out on life. Big mistake. Leah was no less a woman just because she wasn't Miss Haran circa 1770 bc. And when the chips are down in life, your very best friend had better be your wife. Beauty means nothing when a man is out of work, or coming down with cancer. That's when guys need a faithful friend, not a love pet.

Unbeknownst to Jacob, he was destined to father the twelve tribes of Israel. Up to now, It had been one patriarch fathering just one descendant. But that all changed with Jacob. The nation of Israel quite literally started with him.

(chuckle) That guy lived solo for better than eighty years of his life and then all of a sudden, WHAM, in just one week's time, four women moved in with him. Then, in just seven years time, he had a posse of juveniles running around the house. Awww-Haw-Haw-Haw-Hawww!!!

The scheme God implemented to bond Jacob to Leah probably wouldn't work with men like Esau. Not all guys are cut out to be family men. Adventurers, explorers, scientists and the like; typically aren't all that well suited for marriage and parenthood.

But Jacob was a man who'd rather be home than away for five months on a long hiking trail, or risking his life to free climb rocks and/or summit difficult mountains, or squandering untold hours operating a particle collider searching for an elusive boson. Married guys with kids at home should not be doing things like that; especially dangerous things that could easily, and quite suddenly, rob their family of its daddy.

"Nobody should seek only his own good, but also the good of others." (1Cor 10:24)
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 30:1a . .When Rachel saw that she had borne Jacob no children, she became envious of her sister;

Sibling rivalry is bad enough. But when siblings compete for the affections of the same love object, it's all the worse. I don't know what it is about kin, but it's much easier to compete with someone outside the family than those within. Rivalry within family is not just a competition; it is more like the passions of a blood feud. The feelings run deep, and hot, and painful. People who never had a brother or sister cannot understand this. You just have to live it to know what it's like.

• Gen 30:1b . . and Rachel said to Jacob: Give me children, or I shall die.

Somehow Rachel felt the fault was Jacob's as if he were doing something to deliberately prevent conception. According to Jewish folklore, it was a common practice in that day for a man with two wives to give the prettier one some sort of birth control herb to prevent her from getting pregnant and losing her figure. Thus the prettier of the two was reserved for pleasure; and the other for bearing children. Genetically, that was a pretty dumb idea since the practice results in the perpetuation of inferior stock. I seriously doubt you'll ever see breeders of dogs, cats, livestock and/or race horses conducting their business like that.

Jacob wasn't doing anything to Rachel. She was just simply unable to have children. If only she had followed her sister Leah's example in prayer instead of getting in one of those moods, then she wouldn't have been so ready to rag on Jacob for something over which he had no control.

• Gen 30:2a . . Jacob was incensed at Rachel

Jacob's anger was no doubt an unpleasant mixture of hurt and indignation. He really did love Rachel. She wasn't just a girl toy. For her to insinuate that he was keeping her around just for pleasure must have bitten deeply into his soul. Romantic love can easily turn into hate-- very suddenly and very quickly; like turning a page in a book.

Romantic love is very different than the love of a loyal friend. Romantic love seeks its own best interests and is very fragile and easily wounded. Fraternal love is much better. It's like a strong anchor. The more a storm buffets the ship, the deeper the anchor digs into its moorage.

• Gen 30:2b . . and said: Can I take the place of God, who has denied you fruit of the womb?

I'm sure that just as soon as Jacob lashed out at Rachel he regretted it. His retort implied that she was a sinner who didn't deserve children. What an ugly thing to say. But he was upset and felt betrayed by his best girl. So his reaction is understandable. But isn't there a better way? Yes.

Instead of attacking her husband in an attempt to put blame, Rachel would have been much better off just finding a nice quiet spot and telling God how she was feeling about her sterility-- how it was hurting her and making her feel inferior to her sister: and threatening her marriage. Would God respond to that? Yes. Because that is exactly what Rachel did do eventually. It's just too bad she didn't think of it sooner.

If Rachel felt that God cared about her at all, then she would have recognized that barrenness was serving some sort of Divine purpose; even if she couldn't think of one at the time. But Rachel's circumstances were causing her feelings to override her thinking; and making her emotional and reactive instead of objective and rational.

• Gen 30:3-5 . . She said: Here is my maid Bilhah. Consort with her, that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children. So she gave him her maid Bilhah as concubine, and Jacob cohabited with her. Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son.

That was indeed a strange custom, and a cruel one at that. Why is it nobody ever thought to ask the maids how they felt about it? I just don't think it's ethical to subjugate women to the status of mere breeder stock.

Those who give their babies away in adoption, often don't want to see them when they're born-- not even a glimpse; they don't even want to know their gender. They want their baby delivered and whisked out of the room immediately with no more feeling than doing their business in the lou. Women who get abortions typically do not want to see a sonogram of their babies nor listen to its heartbeat because that's just too bonding and sensitive. Pharaoh's daughter (Ex 2:6) fell apart when she gazed upon baby Moses weeping. What normal woman can resist something like that?

The maid's baby would be legally Rachel's, but she would never be the biological mother. Nothing can ever change a thing like that.

• Gen 30:6 . . And Rachel said: God has vindicated me; indeed, He has heeded my plea and given me a son. Therefore she named him Dan.

Dan's name means judge, and/or the past tense: judged. (or possibly: a judgment)

In Rachel's mind, Bilhah's success proved that God wasn't withholding children from her for being a sinner, as Jacob had insinuated. But Dan wasn't really Rachel's child. He was only hers by adoption.

But who was going to nurse Dan? There was no such thing as formula in those days. Somebody had to be his wet nurse. Well . . what about Dan's biological mom? Didn't she just go through a pregnancy? So Dan remained with his biological mother at least until he was weaned; and probably longer too. It wasn't like they all lived miles apart. All four women were practically living under the same roof.

So although Dan was reckoned legally Rachel's child, he wasn't taken away from home. Trouble is; Bilhah became a single mom with no husband. But she wasn't really alone. At least she had Dan; and her boy had Jacob; and everyone was together, in one way or another.

I am he,
As you are he,
As you are me,
And we are all together.
(The Beetles / I Am The Walrus, 1967)
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 30:7-8 . . Rachel's maid Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. And Rachel said; A fateful contest I waged with my sister; yes, and I have prevailed. So she named him Naphtali.

rayyyrrr! scratch! Man that woman was scrappy! No second place winner; Rachel would keep kicking at you even if her arms were pinned down on the mat. Move over Chyna! (Chyna used to be a WWF professional female wrestler)

"Naphtali" is from Naphtaliy (naf-taw-lee') which means: my wrestling. Not just any wrestling, but "my" wrestling. Apparently Rachel took things very personal. The bitter rivalry between her and Leah had become the total focus of Rachel's life.

NOTE: Jacob could've easily disowned Naphtali by simply emancipating Bilhah; same as his grandpa Abraham broke with Ishmael by emancipating Hagar.

• Gen 30:9 . .When Leah saw that she had stopped bearing, she took her maid Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as concubine.

Since Jacob favored Rachel, when did he find time for Leah and Zilpah? Well; don't women have a certain time of the month? It was very unsanitary in those days to sleep with women during their period and, in fact, was later forbidden by the laws of the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God. (Lev 15:19-24, 18:19)

So every month, like clockwork, Jacob was forced to sleep with Leah whether he liked it or not. I guess he could have slept on the couch, but that would look stupid. So Leah got a shot at him at least one week a month. And she made the most of it, you can be sure of that! So now she farmed him out to Zilpah's bed for that week to see what would happen. If Rachel could have children by her maid, then by golly Leah was going to do it too. Boy, those sisters were really at war!

• Gen 30:10-11 . . And when Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son, Leah said: What luck! So she named him Gad.

"Gad" is from gad (gawd) which means: a troop. (chuckle) Leah was having enough boys to field a recon squad.

• Gen 30:12-13 . .When Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a second son, Leah declared: What fortune! meaning, Women will deem me fortunate. So she named him Asher.

Well; what had the local women been deeming her up till then? Women can be so cruel to each other. Leah wasn't attractive, and she was getting up in years before she met Jacob. Women in Leah's neighborhood very likely made her the object of sneering gossip: "Oh, here comes that old maid. Hasn't she found a husband yet? Poooooor thing; tsk." And they would put on their best pity faces for Leah as she walked by.

"Asher" is from 'asher (aw-share') which means: happy.

• Gen 30:14 . . Once, at the time of the wheat harvest, Reuben came upon some mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah: Please give me some of your son's mandrakes.

Mandrake is the common name for any of a genus of herbs. The species to which the name is particularly applied has two varieties, vernal and autumnal, both native to the Mediterranean and Himalayan regions and especially to Greece. The whole plant has a fetid odor. As late as the Middle Ages, a dose of the oddly shaped root was sometimes given to patients as a narcotic before surgical operations. In the United States, mayapple is often called mandrake.

The mandrake has traditionally been an object of superstition, largely because of the resemblance of its forked root to the human figure. Used as an aphrodisiac, the mandrake was also variously regarded as a charm for pregnancy-- a sort of fertility drug --also for invulnerability, and for discovering treasure.

Leah certainly didn't need mandrakes to have children. She was doing just fine without a charm or a fertility drug. But she may have wanted them around the house for medicinal purposes and home remedies. Rueben was trained to recognize mandrakes and he brought them home because he knew his mom would want them: and of course Rachel would want them too because she was infertile.
_

[WebersHome]

.
• Gen 30:15a . . But she said to her: Was it not enough for you to take away my husband, that you would also take my son's mandrakes?

Of the two sisters, Leah is the only one to label Jacob "my" husband. Personally, I don't think Rachel ever really thought too much of Jacob.

One of the very first social skills children learn from their parents is sharing. Jacob's family was so bitterly divided that his wives, two blood kin sisters, were not even disposed to display even the simplest of graces towards each other. In other words, Leah was saying: if you want some mandrakes, go out and find your own!

• Gen 30:15b-16 . . Rachel replied: I promise, he shall sleep with you tonight, in return for your son's mandrakes. When Jacob came home from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said: You are to sleep with me, for I have hired you with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.

Haw! Jacob became a gigolo in his own home. His wives were not only fighting amongst themselves because of him, but they were bartering for him like a commodity too. Jacob was sure in a pickle. He was probably like most men; just wanting peace and quiet in his own home. If that's what the women arranged for him that night, well alright; if it made them happy and kept the noise down then what the hey.

You would think the home life of the patriarchs would be the most sterling role models you could ever want. But no. They were actually pretty disappointing. And why was that? Becuz they were people. They weren't a celestial breed of supernatural beings whose home planet was located out in space somewhere between the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud.

No, the patriarchs didn't fall down from Jupiter as a superior race of extragalactic agents, nor did they draft in on the tail of a comet and drop off in the land of Palestine. None of that. They were just as human as anybody else and they were all slaves to human proclivities and predilections right along with the rest of the Adams' family.
_