Chapter 30

1 Rachel, in grief for her barrenness, giveth Bilhah her maid unto Jacob. 5 She beareth Dan and Naphtali. 9 Leah giveth Zilpah her maid, who beareth Gad and Asher. 14Reuben findeth mandrakes, with which Leah buyeth her husband of Rachel. 17Leah beareth Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah. 22 Rachel beareth Joseph. 25 Jacob desireth to depart. 27 Laban stayeth him on a new covenant. 37 Jacob’s policy, whereby he became rich.

1. Give me children. Leah’s success as a mother aroused Rachel’s jealousy beyond the point of endurance. Now, envy is “rottenness of the bones” Prov. 14:30), and “jealousy is cruel as the grave” (S. of Sol. 8:6). Though Rachel enjoyed the greater share of her husband’s affection, she could not be content so long as her sister surpassed her in what was, to an Oriental, most important of all the duties of a wife—motherhood. Sarah had been married at least 25 years when Isaac was born. Rebekah had vainly waited 20 years for a child, when she and Isaac turned to God in prayer. But waiting in the face of competition made Rachel jealously impatient relatively soon after her marriage, and in bitterness of spirit she censured Jacob.

2. Am I in God’s stead? Jacob’s passionate displeasure was naturally aroused by his favorite wife’s unseemly words. He refused to take the blame for a situation only God could change. Rachel well knew that God alone could remove sterility (v. 6), but to this fact her jealousy of Leah appears for the moment to have blinded her. Jacob’s reply also manifests a certain lack of spirituality. Why did he not suggest to his disappointed and embittered wife that they seek help in prayer, as his parents had done before he himself was born? Instead of doing this he assented to a proposal that was nothing more than a sinful expedient.

3. Behold my maid Bilhah. Rachel’s proposal, which Jacob accepted and carried out, was as sinful as that of Sarah (ch. 16:2), but without Sarah’s excuse, since there was now no question as to an heir for Jacob. If such a reason had, indeed, existed, it would not have justified the act, which even in the case of Abraham had been so clearly condemned.

She shall bear upon my knees. This statement has been considered by many commentators as a Hebrew idiom expressing adoption (see ch. 50:23). It is possible that the expression originated in an ancient Oriental custom, whereby, at the birth of a child that was to be adopted, the one adopting the child would receive it as his own. Rachel probably had one of these customs in mind and planned to receive the baby from birth as her own.

4. Jacob went in unto her. Jacob’s laxity in marriage began with polygamy and ended in concubinage. Though God overruled this for the development of the seed of Israel, He did not thereby place His approval on such a custom.

6. Dan. Rachel, who had considered her sterility an injustice in view of Leah’s fecundity, looked upon the birth of Dan as divine vindication of her conduct. She clearly stated, this conviction when she said, “God has judged me” or “has procured for me justice,” for which reason she called him Dan, “judge.” Her statement, “and hath also heard my voice,” means either that she had prayed about the matter or that she considered Dan’s birth as God’s reply to her bitter complaints (v. 1).

8. Naphtali. After Dan’s birth Jacob either considered Bilhah as one of his legitimate wives or followed a renewed suggestion of Rachel to procure another son for her by her maid. At the birth of Bilhah’s second son, whom Rachel considered hers by proxy, she stated that she had “wrestled with Great wrestlings,” literally, with “wrestlings of ХElohim [God],” with her sister and had been successful. Hence she called him Naphtali, “my wrestling.”

9. When Leah saw. Leah, accustomed to bearing a son each year, became impatient when it seemed she was to bear no more. That Rachel had obtained sons by her maid did not disturb Leah so long as there was prospect of her having sons of her own, but now she became the victim of envy, as her sister had been before. The means employed by Rachel to retain Jacob’s favor made Leah jealous, and jealousy drove her to the employment of the same means Rachel had used. However, Leah seems to have been conscious that she was pursuing a device of her own heart, since she made no reference to God in her statements at the birth of Zilpah’s two sons.

As for Jacob, it is surprising how easily he consented to the devious suggestions of his wives in order to increase their offspring. If he had felt some excuse for taking Bilhah in order to satisfy his beloved Rachel, who had no children of her own, by what excuse could he have quieted his conscience in regard to the proposal of Leah, who already had four sons? Having entered the path of wrongdoing, he seems neither to have seen the wrong of his conduct nor to have thought of its possible consequences. On the other hand, it must be admitted that in so doing he followed a common custom of his day. From the law code of Hammurabi and other cuneiform documents we know that such a practice was legally and socially acceptable, particularly when sterility prevented childbearing. The existence of this custom is probably the main reason that neither Abraham nor Jacob saw any great mistake in taking their servants as concubines.

11. Gad. The KJV translation of Leah’s exclamation at the birth of Zilpah’s son, “A troop cometh,” is based on Jewish tradition of the post-Biblical era. Actually, the expression means, “in good fortune,” as the LXX and Vulgate have it. Thus Leah called Zilpah’s son, God, “good fortune.”

13. Asher. Zilpah’s second son was named Asher, “the happy one,” or “bringer of happiness.” She said literally, “to my happiness, for daughters call me happy,” that is, as a mother of many children. In statements she made upon the birth of three of her own first four sons, Leah had recognized Jehovah (ch. 29:32, 33, 35). Now, with those born to her maid, she seems not to think of God. They were the successful and welcome result of her own clever devising.

14. Mandrakes. In Upper Mesopotamia the wheat harvest comes in May and June. The mandrake is an herb of the belladonna family with white and reddish blossoms. Its yellowish, odoriferous fruit is about the size and shape of a small apple. Today, as in ancient times, the fruit has been considered by people of the Near East as promoting fertility. Women of the Orient still make a philter of mandrakes, which was thought to stimulate sensual desire and to aid conception.

15. Is it a small matter? Rachel, apparently, desired the mandrakes as a means of removing her sterility. Leah was indignant at the very thought of parting with something that might increase her sister’s prospects of securing more of Jacob’s love than she already had. Rachel it seems, perhaps in contrast to Leah, had more faith in mandrakes than in God’s power. Eventually, however, she learned to trust in God rather than in mandrakes (see Gen. 30:22; Ps. 127:3).

18. Issachar. “God hearkened unto Leah” (v. 17), to show that it was not from such natural means as mandrakes, but from God, the Author of life, that life comes. Leah thought she saw in the birth of her fifth son a divine reward for having given her maid to her husband, apparently considering the action that had sprung from jealousy an evidence of self-denial. The name Issachar contains the idea of “reward,” but whether it means “there is a reward” or, according to a rabbinical tradition, “he bears a reward,” is not certain. Note that it was Leah, not Moses, who saw in Issachar’s birth a “reward” for sinful action.

20. Zebulun. In naming her sixth son Zebulun, “dwelling,” Leah expressed her hope that now Jacob would prefer her to her barren sister. She was bidding for the first place in his affections, bidding for him to “dwell” with her in the honored relationship of first wife.

21. Dinah. The name means “vindication.” She was not the only daughter of Jacob (chs. 37:35; 46:7) and is probably mentioned here in anticipation of the account of her misfortune in ch. 34. The word “afterwards” indicates that some time had passed since the birth of Zebulun. Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter when he returned to Canaan (see on ch. 34:1).

22. God remembered Rachel. It seems that Rachel eventually took her problem to the Lord in prayer. Her petition was heard, and faith obtained what impatience and unbelief had heretofore prevented.

23. My reproach. In the Ancient Orient a barren woman was not pitied but despised, and childlessness was considered a shame and a curse. This explains why women like Rebekah, Rachel, and Hannah felt it so keenly when they found themselves without children. Among the Jews, barrenness was considered as justifying divorce, polygamy, or concubinage.

24. Joseph. Meaning either “he takes away,” in allusion to the removal of her reproach, or “he shall add,” in anticipation of another son whom she hoped God would add to this first one. The removal of the reproach implied this possibility.

25. It came to pass. Upon the birth of Joseph, Jacob sought Laban’s permission to return to Canaan. According to vs. 25–28, it seems that Joseph was born at the end of Jacob’s 14th year of service for Laban, 7 years after his marriage (see ch. 29:21–28). Whether the 11 sons Jacob now had were all born during the 7 years intervening between his marriage and the close of this 14 years of service with Laban, or whether some of them were born during the 6 remaining years of the 20 he spent there (ch. 31:38), is not entirely clear.

The order in which Jacob’s sons are here listed does not necessarily represent the precise chronological order of their birth, but it seems to be based on their maternal parentage. Moses lists four for Leah, then two each for Bilhah, Zilpah, and again Leah, and one for Rachel—in these five groups. No two lists of Jacob’s sons recorded in the OT give them in precisely the same order (see Gen. 46:8–25; 49:3–27; Ex. 1:1–4; Num. 1:5–15; 1 Chron. 2:1, 2; etc.), and therefore it is impossible to discover any consistent pattern of birth sequence.

It would seem more than passing strange for 11 sons and 1 daughter (Gen. 29:32 to 30:24) to have been during Jacob’s first 7 years of married life, and none during the remaining 6 years he served with Laban. If, however, that be the case, then Leah bore seven children in seven years, with a distinct interval of time during which she bore no children (chs. 29:35; 30:9). If, during this interval, the four children of Bilhah and Zilpah were born in sequence, seven years would obviously be far too short. Except for the fact that Leah’s six sons are separated into two groups, it might be thought that Moses’ order here was based strictly on maternal parentage. Since this is obviously not the case, it would seem that the five groups are arranged in the order of the birth of the first son of each group, and that there is probably some overlapping between any two consecutive groups. This suggestion seems to accord best with the context and with known facts. Accordingly, the birth of Dan would be found to precede that of all the sons listed subsequent to him, but not necessarily to follow that of Judah. The same, in principle, would be true for Gad, Issachar, and Joseph. Close overlapping such as this would make possible the birth of the 11 sons within a 7-year period. But even if the principle of overlapping be accepted, there is no reason for requiring that all 11 be born during that 7 years; some may have come during the final 6 years of Jacob’s sojourn with Laban. The latter possibility, in fact, seems more likely, for, even granting the possibility of overlapping during the seven years, the rapid succession in which the births must then have come would be extremely close even according to Oriental standards.

28. Appoint me thy wages. Inasmuch as the second period of seven years terminated about the time of Joseph’s birth, Jacob requested Laban’s permission to return to Canaan (v. 25). Laban, however, was ill-disposed to lose so valuable a man, and yet was at a loss for a stratagem by which to keep him longer. The fact that he invited Jacob to state his wages did not prevent him from changing them ten times during the six years (ch. 31:7). Back of Laban was the evil one, intent upon thwarting God’s plan by preventing, if possible, Jacob’s return to the Land of Promise.

31. If thou wilt do this thing. When Laban repeated his offer, evincing his seriousness in making it, Jacob proposed terms on which he would be willing to stay. His proposal was based on the fact that in the Near East goats, as a rule, are black or dark brown, rarely white or spotted with white, and that sheep are for the most part white, seldom black or speckled. Inasmuch as Jacob’s proposal involved but a small part of Laban’s flocks and herds, Laban hastened to approve of the plan (v. 34). Jacob offered, furthermore, to begin separating them “that day,” so that Laban might be able to see just what the results were likely to be.

The further course of the narrative shows that more was involved in the agreement between Jacob and Laban. Either Moses chose to mention only the basic principle of the agreement, and so omitted the fact that the separation was to be repeated at regular intervals, or this point was not mentioned at first, but rather taken for granted by both parties. Either way, Jacob proceeded accordingly, to which even Laban, notwithstanding his frequent alterations in the contract, does not appear to have taken exception (ch. 31:7, 8, 41).

34. According to thy word. Laban cheerfully accepted the proposal, but did not leave Jacob to make the selection (vs. 34–36). He undertook that himself, probably to make certain that it was done according to his interpretation of the agreement. He then gave the off-color sheep and goats to his own sons (here mentioned for the first time) to tend, and left Jacob in charge of only the pure-color animals of the flock. Finally, Laban “set three days’ journey betwixt himself and Jacob,” namely, between the flock to be tended by himself through his sons and that to be tended by Jacob, in order to prevent breeding between the two flocks.

37. Jacob took him rods. The narrative of vs. 37–40 appears on the surface to contradict known laws of genetics, and is sometimes cited as proof that the Bible is unscientific. However, a careful study of the context and a comparison of the narrative with known facts relating to the laws of genetics reveals what took place and vindicates in a truly remarkable way the inspiration of the Scriptures. For a detailed, scientific discussion of the subject, see F. L. Marsh, Studies in Creationism, pp. 367-374.

Thinking to safeguard his own interests in the bargain proposed by Jacob, Laban immediately separated flocks and herds (v. 36), a fact which indicates that Laban also knew something of the laws of heredity. He placed all the off-color sheep, goats, and cattle under the care of his own sons, intending thereby to remove them from Jacob’s charge and thus avoid the possibility of breeding these off-color characteristics back into what, visibly at least, was pure stock. What Laban did not know was that some of the apparently purebred animals might still carry recessive color characteristics that could be transmitted to their offspring. Laban thought he had outwitted Jacob by the shrewd device of separating the flocks.

Jacob, for his part, had no doubt been counting on selective breeding, concerning which he must have known at least as much as Laban did. This procedure would have been entirely legitimate according to a strict interpretation of the contract. The distinction Jacob made between strong and weak cattle (v. 41) is evidence that observation had taught him something of the laws of heredity. Now that Laban had separated all the off-color animals Jacob was probably at a loss to know what to do, for it is apparent that he know no more about the transmission of recessive characteristics than did Laban. Trusting to his own supposed cleverness and to the application of the ancient and still popular superstition that offspring may be marked in a way corresponding to sights or fears experienced by the mother during the prenatal period, he set up the procedure explained in these verses. Says F. L. Marsh:

“All marking of the offspring such as that which Jacob thought he was accomplishing in Laban’s flocks, is completely impossible. … In the placenta and umbilical cord, which constitute the only connection between the mother and the fetus, there are no nerves. … Thus absolutely no mechanism exists whereby the mother can mark her offspring in the way that Jacob thought he was accomplishing the marking” (Studies in Creationism, pp. 368, 369. Italics in the original).

A further apparent difficulty lies in the fact that Jacob’s method seems to have proved method eminently successful (v. 43; ch. 31:7–9). Lest Jacob, however, credit his own ingenuity and superstition, God revealed to him in a dream how the recessive, off-color characteristics were transmitted through apparently pure-color parents to their offspring (ch. 31:10–12). What the angel told Jacob in a dream could only apply to the flocks and herds under Jacob’s care, for all off-color animals had previously been removed by Laban (ch. 30:35, 36). To the operation of this law of genetics God added His special blessing, for recessive characteristics would not normally show up in so marked a manner as is indicated in v. 43. In so doing, He may perhaps have utilized principles of genetics at present only imperfectly understood.

This revelation of a law of genetics not discovered and understood by scientists until a few decades ago attests the scientific accuracy and divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Professor Marsh closes his discussion of the subject by saying:

“The Scriptures teach that such markings among domestic stock are the result of hereditary factors in both parents working according to Mendelian principles and are not due to maternal impressions. A fair reading of the text thus shows that that incident in the Scriptures, which is so often cited as proof that the Bible is a book of fables, is in actuality one of the important reasons for believing that it is indeed an inspired volume” (ibid., p. 374. Italics in the original).

In passing, it may be observed that the Hebrew word translated “hazel” in the KJV should be rendered “almond,” and the “chestnut tree” as “plane tree.” The Oriental plane tree belongs to the maple family.

41. The stronger cattle. The ancient Jewish rabbis understood this passage as meaning that Jacob practiced his trick during the spring breeding season only, since the ancients considered animals conceived in the spring and born in the autumn stronger than those conceived in the autumn and born in the spring. Modern commentators are inclined, however, to apply it to the early- and late-born lambs of the same season, since early-spring lambs are more valuable than those born later in the season. According to this opinion, Jacob did not conduct his experiments with the second litter of cattle, because he knew they would be weaker, but with the early, stronger litter. Whatever method Jacob used, he did so to strengthen and increase his own flocks, obviously at the expense of weakening and diminishing Laban’s.

43. The man increased exceedingly. The story of Jacob’s relations with Laban is one in which cunning and skill are matched against avarice and foul play. Cunning, which applies superior knowledge, is often the weapon of the weak against the strong. Men who are grasping and treacherous but lacking in wisdom are often outwitted by men of equally devious but more clever ways. Justice was on Jacob’s side. He was simply taking advantage of his new position to offset the disadvantage under which he had labored for 14 years. However, he was lacking in strict honesty and integrity. That openness and simplicity of character people expect to find in a righteous man were lacking. Jacob’s plan was most successful, to be sure, but does not commend itself as one that a servant of Jehovah would be expected to follow. Jacob erred, furthermore, in relying more upon his own craft to secure the divine blessing promised him than upon the power and providence of God. For his part, Jacob, however, attributed his success to the power of God (ch. 31:9).

Ellen G. White comments

25-27, 30PP 192

41 PP 237

43 PP 192