29:15–20 Abraham’s servant came seeking a bride for Isaac from a position of strength, bearing rich gifts and the promise of financial security for Rebekah (24:36–51). Jacob has none of these advantages; he arrives as a penniless wanderer whose only asset is his work ethic. He has shown that he is not afraid of hard work (29:10), and, after a month of living with the family, he has already demonstrated his usefulness to Laban. So Laban introduces the idea of paying him wages to stay—a theme that will dominate the next several chapters, as Laban persistently promises one thing and then seeks to give Jacob something far less. Since Jacob is a relative, not a slave or a hired worker (v. 15), the usual rules of compensation do not apply, leaving a gray area for Laban to exploit.

Before Laban’s question to Jacob about suitable wages can be answered, some additional background information is required, namely, the complicating presence of another (older) daughter of Laban. Normally Hebrew refers to wives and daughters as “first,” “second,” and so on (4:19; Ruth 1:4; Job 42:14),381 but here the language of “older” and “younger” is used to recall the struggle between Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:23). In this case also “the older shall serve the younger.” The derivation of Leah’s name is uncertain, though it may be related to an Akkadian word meaning “cow,” while Rachel’s name means “ewe.”382

Both daughters are described in terms of their physical appearance. Rachel is “beautiful in form and appearance” (Gen. 29:17), recalling Sarah, who was also “beautiful in appearance” in 12:11 (cf. Rebekah in 24:16); Leah’s eyes, however, are rakkot, a Hebrew word whose meaning is obscure. English translations have ranged from “weak” (ESV) or “no sparkle” (NLT) to “lovely” (NJB), while some have opted for the more multivalent “tender” (KJV). Commentators have suggested an even wider selection of choices, including “young looking”383 and “pale in color.”384 What is abundantly clear, however, is the contrast between Rachel and Leah, who has (at best) one good feature, her eyes, while the rest of her appearance is no match for Rachel, or has (at worst) a significant bad feature in contrast to Rachel’s uniform beauty.385 The eyes were a defining part of ancient beauty standards, as the Song of Solomon makes clear, especially in a culture where, even if a woman was not normally fully veiled (cf. comment on 24:62–67), much of her anatomy would be modestly covered.

The difference in the girls’ appearance explains the subsequent sentence: “Jacob loved Rachel” (29:18). Unlike her aunt, whom Abraham’s servant chose on the basis of her character, Rachel is chosen for her beauty. As a penniless sojourner, Jacob has no way to pay Laban any bride-price for her, but he can offer his services as a hired worker to Laban. Seven years of constant labor is no small commitment to make on Jacob’s part, yet the text notes how the time will fly by in his eyes because of his love for Rachel (v. 20). Even after one month living with Laban Jacob understands the importance of having a proper contract for the agreement, so he specifies clearly to Laban which of his daughters he is working for: “Your younger daughter Rachel” (v. 18). And Laban seems to agree to his terms apparently without demur, desiring to keep her (and Jacob) in the family, where they could both continue to serve him, rather than marrying her to another family, where she would be gone from his household into another. Even though Laban does not formally adopt Jacob, this is clearly an advantageous arrangement for him in many different ways. Jacob may think that at the end of the seven years he can leave with Rachel; subsequent events will prove that such a plan is not so easy to carry through. What is more, a sharp lawyer would have pointed out that Laban nowhere actually explicitly committed himself to anything.

29:21–30 After the seven years are completed Jacob is naturally eager to consummate the relationship (v. 21). Laban in turn makes ready all the arrangements for a wedding feast, as though following the agreed plan—but at the crucial moment he brings in Leah and substitutes her for her younger sister, so that Jacob is deceived (v. 23). Laban’s deception of Jacob is a case of a punishment that fits the crime. The words that Jacob says to Laban—“Why then have you deceived me?” (v. 25)—could just as well have been directed at Jacob by his own father, Isaac. Laban’s response, “It is not so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn,” is an explicit rebuke. In his place, Jacob may have supplanted his elder brother—Esau, the firstborn—but Jacob is no longer in his country. He is a sojourner now, without rights or recourse, completely at the mercy of his uncle. Even the way in which Jacob is deceived would be achingly familiar to him. Jacob first fed his father a celebratory meal, then took advantage of the old man’s blindness; so too, Jacob is wined and dined by Laban before being deceived in the dark. As it turns out, it is not the “weakness” of Leah’s eyes that is the problem but rather the inability of Jacob’s eyes to discern who is in the tent with him that causes his mistake. At the crucial moment he is just as blind as Isaac had been. In the morning, when it is too late, it all becomes painfully clear to him, just as Isaac had an epiphany when Esau came in. There in the bed beside him is Leah!

Laban, of course, has prepared a solution to the problem: in order to acquire Rachel, Jacob can serve him for another seven years, although at least this time he will receive payment up front (v. 27). In this way Laban will retain the ongoing services of both daughters, as well as trapping his son-in-law within his family for a further seven years. Laban evidently does not care about the relational carnage that his plan will bring about, condemning his two daughters to a competitive marriage in which only one is loved by her husband,386 not to mention the cost to his own relationship with Jacob. But then, Jacob had put equally little thought into the relational damage wrought by his deception of Isaac and stealing the blessing.

Along with two wives Jacob also acquires their two maidservants, Zilpah and Bilhah respectively (vv. 24, 29). If Leah and Rachel are treated like pawns in a larger game by Laban, Zilpah and Bilhah are doubly taken advantage of, treated as chattel not merely by Laban but by their mistresses as well—though little else would be expected, given their status as “maidservants” (Hb. shifkhot). They will subsequently become relevant as “proxy wives” in the competition to win Jacob’s affections, presenting him with children (cf. 30:4–13). However, the bitterness of the battle that ensues is undoubtedly driven by one fundamental fact: “Jacob . . . loved Rachel more than Leah” (29:30). The favoritism that has torn Jacob’s own family apart will now be perpetuated in the next generation.