In this family those normal desires turn into inordinate ones, whereby the two women are driven into wrathful outbursts and self-destructive behavior in pursuit of the blessing of their idols. To imagine that adding two more concubines into a strained marriage would add to domestic peace and harmony is the definition of insanity, while trading a husband’s favors for mandrakes shows a low regard for the sanctity of the marriage bed. The names given to the various children allow us to peer inside the hearts of the women and to see how they imagine they are experiencing God’s favor and blessing, even though their actions are entirely contrary to his Word.
However, although human sin and rivalry have been driving the action in the narrative at one level, at another level God has been accomplishing his purpose of making Jacob the father of a multitude of sons (cf. Gen. 28:14). Would Jacob have had twelve sons if he had married only Rachel and not been tricked into marrying Leah first? Or if Rachel and Leah had enjoyed a beautiful sisterly friendship rather than a bitter rivalry? God’s plan for the Abrahamic blessing is that its channel would broaden out so that, instead of a single chosen son, all Jacob’s sons would be included in the new people of God, of whom he would be the father (cf. 28:3). God is making Jacob into a company of peoples, and the sordid scheming of his wives will be the providential means by which God will accomplish his purpose of granting Jacob many sons.
Of course, many things might have been easier for the family if from the outset Leah and Rachel had worked together harmoniously in pursuit of God’s glory. Idolatry causes real pain and suffering, devastating relationships and families. But God’s plans are in no way jeopardized by Leah and Rachel’s stubborn, self-serving strategizing. On the contrary, it is precisely through their sin that the Lord achieves his good purposes. What they mean for evil, the Lord means for good (50:20).
The ultimate answer for our sin is not to be found among any of Leah’s or Rachel’s children. It is to be found only in another name, the ultimate offspring of Jacob, the true Israelite, Jesus. He is God’s one and only Son, who earns the name the angel assigns to him: “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). As Peter declares in Acts 4:12, this name is the only name given to mankind whereby we may be saved. He is the one who brings hope to the hopeless, rest to the weary, and new life to the lost—even to those, like Leah and Rachel, who are hopelessly lost in their idolatries.Genesis 29:31–30:24
Reuben means See, a son
Simeon sounds like the Hebrew for heard
Levi sounds like the Hebrew for attached
Judah sounds like the Hebrew for praise
Hebrew on my knees
Hebrew be built up, which sounds like the Hebrew for children
Dan sounds like the Hebrew for judged
Hebrew With wrestlings of God
Naphtali sounds like the Hebrew for wrestling
Gad sounds like the Hebrew for good fortune
Asher sounds like the Hebrew for happy
Issachar sounds like the Hebrew for wages, or hire
Zebulun sounds like the Hebrew for honor
Joseph means May he add, and sounds like the Hebrew for taken away
29:31–35 The narrative opens by attributing Leah’s fertility to the Lord, while Rachel remains barren (v. 31). In Genesis 16 the Lord “saw” Hagar’s situation of need (16:13) and gave her conception; so too here with Leah. Although the Lord is expressly said to have opened Leah’s womb, he is not said to have closed Rachel’s; rather, without the Lord’s direct intervention barrenness is a natural condition. The Lord’s action is specifically attributed to his seeing that Leah was “hated” (Hb. senuʾah; 29:31). This Hebrew word can have a broad semantic range, from “unloved” and “despised” all the way through to “hated,” each of which in English can serve as an antonym of “loved”—and each of which represents an extremely negative outcome in marriage. The Hebrew word also has legal connotations highlighting the insecurity of Leah’s position in Jacob’s household. Leah is the unfavored wife, who in that culture could be mistreated, cast off, or divorced.
The word has strong emotional connotations as well; there is no doubting the sting that Leah feels, as verse 32 makes clear. Given the circumstances of their marriage, it is not surprising that Jacob resents her, and it is hard to believe that there was not some level of complicity in Jacob’s deception on her part. He likely also blames her for his seven extra years of unpaid servitude to Laban. That leaves her in an extremely difficult situation.
Leah thinks that her fertility might win her husband’s favor, especially since Rachel is barren. When she delivers a son, she names him Reuben, whose meaning she derives via a pun: “See! A son” (reʾeh ben). Sons were especially highly valued in the ancient world, so with Reuben’s birth Leah thinks she might finally win her husband’s love: “Because the Lord has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me” (v. 32). In these words Leah’s pain comes to expression, yet these words also reveal the idolatry gripping Leah’s heart. She views the Lord as a useful means to winning what is really important to her—Jacob’s affections—not as the one who in and of himself supplies all the meaning in her life. This is the essence of idolatry.
The same idolatrous orientation is present in Leah’s naming of her second and third sons, Simeon and Levi. The name Simeon means “heard,” and she affirms with her lips that the Lord has heard of her unloved status and responded to her with this gift (Gen. 29:33). Yet it is evident that the fact that the Lord has seen and heard her misery counts for little if there is no similar seeing and hearing on the part of Jacob. In the same vein, Levi means “attached”; the verbal root is used in the OT to describe converts who attach themselves to Israel, becoming part of God’s people (e.g., Isa. 56:6). But the one to whom Leah really longs to be attached is her husband, not the Lord, and she is sure that now—finally—he will pay attention to her (Gen. 29:34). Surely three sons are enough—the same number fathered by Adam, Noah, and Terah. Yet Jacob is still coldhearted toward her, and Leah’s idolatry remains frustratingly unsatisfied.
It is not until Leah’s fourth son, Judah (“praise”; v. 35), that Leah’s attention finally shifts from Jacob to the Lord, as she says, “This time I will praise the Lord.” It seems that she has become resigned to her status as a perpetual second-class citizen in her marriage and is finally seeking comfort from the only one who can truly give it to her, the Lord. The Lord has dealt faithfully with her, granting her these four sons, and he deserves her praise whether or not Jacob ever loves her. It is at this point she stops bearing children, perhaps because, having acquired four sons, Jacob is no longer attentive to her sexually. According to Genesis 30:14–16, once Jacob’s attention is restored to Leah, she once again begins to bear children.
30:1–8 Leah’s children may not bring her the favor of her husband, but they certainly incur the wrath of her sister. Rachel is envious of her sister (the same Hb. verb, qanaʾ, is translated “jealous” in Gen. 37:11 regarding Joseph’s brothers), which is a natural response in the situation. What is not so natural is her demand of Jacob: “Give me children, or I shall die!” (30:1). Disappointment, sorrow, and grief are appropriate when a cherished desire goes unmet; as Proverbs 13:12 reflects, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick.” Rachel’s response that life without children is not worth living reveals an inordinate desire in her heart, however; having children has become her primary goal in life. Without that, Jacob’s love—and the Lord’s—is not enough.
In fact it is Rachel’s rivalry with her sister, not her barrenness itself, that makes her childless situation so unbearable. Sarah and Rebekah were barren for far longer than Rachel has been, yet without showing any of her bitterness. They, however, did not have the same kind of household rivalry to contend with, which made their pain more manageable.
Jacob’s response is far from compassionate. Instead of praying for Rachel to conceive, as Isaac did for his wife (25:21), he responds to Rachel’s anger with anger of his own: “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (30:2). Rather than taking any personal responsibility for the difficult family situation or coming alongside her in her pain, he blames God for her difficulty. Although what he says is theological truth, it is not delivered kindly or out of love (cf. Eph. 4:15).
In her desperation Rachel offers her maidservant, Bilhah, to her husband—though this is more of a demand than a request (Gen. 30:3). Even though this strategy caused such havoc when employed by Abraham and Sarah (16:1–2), Rachel deems it her only option. Any children that result from this union will legally be hers (30:3), enabling her to fight back against her sister. “So that she may give birth on my behalf” (v. 3) is in Hebrew “That she may bear upon my knees”; this may refer to a formal ceremony in which the newborn baby was placed on someone else’s knees as a symbol of legitimation as that person’s child and heir (cf. Gen. 48:12; 50:23).
Through Bilhah Rachel does indeed receive two children she can call her own, Dan and Naphtali. The names she gives to these boys show that Rachel regards their birth as positive proof that God approves of her choice of means. Dan means “He has judged/vindicated,” a statement of her belief that Dan’s birth means the vindication by God of her strategy (30:6), while Naphtali’s name (“my struggle,” v. 8) is a claim to have triumphed in her titanic struggle with her sister. The narrator ascribes no direct role to God in these births, however, as he did with several of the other births in this account (cf. 29:31; 30:17). Rachel’s claims to have received divine help are left unsupported. It is, however, notable that Rachel nowhere asserts that these children will or should gain the attention of her husband, as Leah does. Perhaps she is more confident of her husband’s affections than her sister is. In fact each sister possesses what the other sister desires: Leah has children but feels empty without Jacob’s love, whereas Rachel has Jacob’s love but feels unfulfilled without children.
30:9–21 Each of the movements in this narrative begins with someone’s seeing something. First, “The Lord saw” (29:31), then “Rachel saw” (30:1), and now “Leah saw” (v. 9). Stung by the recognition of the facts that she has stopped bearing children and that her sister is gaining on her, Leah adopts the same strategy her sister has chosen. She sends her servant, Zilpah, in to Jacob (v. 9). She too sees this strategy succeed, as Leah bears Jacob two more sons who can be counted on her side of the equation. These she names Gad (“good fortune,” v. 11) and Asher (“to be envied,” v. 13), claiming that their births are proof that God’s favor rests upon her. Once again, however, the narrator says nothing about God’s direct involvement in either of these conceptions.
At this early period of biblical history it is common to date events by agricultural seasons rather than by months; the wheat harvest would occur during May (v. 14). Although Laban and Jacob are primarily pastoralists, raising sheep and goats, it was common for such people to engage in seasonal field-based agricultural activity as well. Mandrakes were used widely for a variety of medicinal purposes but were especially prized as fertility aids, to the point that the Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite, was called “the Lady of the Mandrake.”
When Leah’s son Reuben goes out into the fields and finds some mandrakes, therefore, the find is significant (v. 14). As Leah’s oldest son, Reuben has much to gain from any improvement in his mother’s status in the household, so he takes the plants home for his mother’s use. Word of his find spreads quickly, however, and it is not long before Rachel is in the tent, requesting a share of the mandrakes. Not surprisingly, Leah is reluctant to part with her valuable commodity, especially to her chief rival. But Rachel persists until her sister agrees to trade the mandrakes for a night with Jacob (v. 15)—a deal that suggests Leah’s recent “infertility” has had as much to do with lack of access to her husband as anything else.
By now the sisters’ bitter rivalry has cheapened the marital relationship to the point that Jacob’s one-flesh intimacy with his wife has become a commodity to be bartered. The word used in Rachel’s offer (Hb. shakab, “He may lie with you”; v. 15) is generally used of immoral relationships rather than marital intimacy (e.g., 19:32; 34:2; 39:7). Jacob is again reaping what he sowed when he sought to wrest the birthright from Esau in exchange for a bowl of soup. Now he is the one being traded for an item of food.
Ironically, however, it is the sister who gives up the artificial fertility aid that becomes pregnant (30:17). This is because the Lord alone, not mandrakes, has the power to open the womb. God hears Leah’s cries (v. 17) and in response grants her two more sons of her own, Issachar (“wages,” v. 18) and Zebulun (“honor,” v. 20). Yet these gifts of God’s kindness are misinterpreted by Leah. The reason she gives for Issachar’s name is that God has rewarded her for her idolatrous shortcut of presenting her maidservant to her husband. Even worse, with the naming of Zebulun Leah returns to her original idolatrous starting point. “Now my husband will honor me, because I have borne him six sons,” she says (v. 20). She also bears Jacob a daughter, Dinah (v. 21), who is mentioned briefly in passing because of her significance later in the story (cf. Genesis 34). However, it is clear that daughters do not count for much in the emotional calculus of Jacob’s family. They are incidental rather than central to a woman’s efforts to demonstrate her worth and value.
30:22–24 Finally God remembers Rachel, hearing her cries and opening her womb (30:22). It is not, of course, as though God had been deaf to Rachel earlier. However, she needed to recognize that Jacob could not provide her with a son (v. 1), nor could the mandrakes (v. 14). Only the Lord could open her womb and cause her to bear a son. And indeed, the Lord has compassion on her need and emptiness and gives her a child. Having a son of her own takes away Rachel’s disgrace (v. 23), though there is no evidence that it weakens her competitive spirit with her sister. As well as a thanksgiving to God for mercies received, Joseph’s name is a request to the Lord for another son (v. 24; cf. v. 1). Rachel is still dissatisfied with God’s gracious provision, though at least her request now seems to be directed to the right person—to the Lord, rather than to her husband. The use of the Lord’s name in 30:24 provides a neat inclusio with 29:31, bracketing the birth accounts and reminding the reader that it is the Lord who provides and withholds conception.
The language of God’s remembering someone generally points to a decisive act on his part, as at the turning point of the flood in Genesis 8:1. When the time is right, God intervenes decisively not just in Rachel’s life but in the lives of his people, and the result is the birth of Joseph, the child who ultimately will be used by God to save the lives of all his brothers—despite their best efforts to murder him (cf. Genesis 37). Joseph’s birth also brings about a decisive change in Jacob’s own thinking. It is striking that it is only after Rachel gives birth to a son that Jacob’s thoughts finally turn homeward (30:25). He already has ten sons by his other wife and concubines, but in Jacob’s mind none of them really count. For Jacob, Joseph is always the child of promise for whom he has been waiting all these years. All Jacob’s hopes revolve around him, which is why, when he later thinks Joseph to be dead, his grief is utterly inconsolable (37:34–35). The result of this attitude will later be a repetition of the kind of destructive favoritism that has so scarred and broken his own family of origin.