And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.
31. hated ] By this is meant that Jacob had less affection for Leah than for Rachel. Cf. Deu 21:15, “if a man have two wives, the one beloved and the other hated.” In order to prevent the evil effects of jealousy, the marriage by one man of two sisters is forbidden in Lev 18:18. See, also, Mal 1:2-3, “I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 29:31 to Gen 30:24. Birth of Jacob’s Children
31 35 (J); Gen 30:1-24 (J, E and P)
In this section is narrated the account of the birth of eleven sons and one daughter. Six of the sons, viz. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, and the daughter Dinah, are the children of Leah; Gad and Asher are the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid; Dan and Naphtali are the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid; and Joseph is the son of Rachel. These are all born to Jacob in Haran. The only son born in Canaan is Benjamin (see Gen 35:16-19).
It has been conjectured that this account not only furnishes the popular etymology of the names of the tribes of Israel, but may also symbolize, under the terms of family life, the growth of Israelite clans into a united, though composite, people in the land of Mesopotamia, before the migration into Canaan.
The explanation of the meaning of the names is of the usual popular kind, based upon resemblances of sound. The fact that in some cases more than one etymology is given reflects the composite nature of the narrative (cf. Gen 30:16; Gen 30:18; Gen 30:20; Gen 30:23-24).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 31. The Lord saw that Leah was hated] From this and the preceding verse we get the genuine meaning of the word sane, to hate, in certain disputed places in the Scriptures. The word simply signifies a less degree of love; so it is said, Ge 29:30: “Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah,” i.e., he loved Leah less than Rachel; and this is called hating in Ge 29:31: When the Lord saw that Leah was hated-that she had less affection shown to her than was her due, as one of the legitimate wives of Jacob, he opened her womb-he blessed her with children. Now the frequent intercourse of Jacob with Leah (see the following verses) sufficiently proves that he did not hate her in the sense in which this term is used among us; but he felt and showed less affection for her than for her sister. So Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, simply means, I have shown a greater degree of affection for Jacob and his posterity than I have done for Esau and his descendants, by giving the former a better earthly portion than I have given to the latter, and by choosing the family of Jacob to be the progenitors of the Messiah. But not one word of all this relates to the eternal states of either of the two nations. Those who endeavour to support certain peculiarities of their creed by such scriptures as these, do greatly err, not knowing the Scripture, and not properly considering either the sovereignty or the mercy of God.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Leah was hated comparatively to Rachel, less loved, slighted. So that word is oft used, as Deu 21:15; Mat 6:24; 10:37, compared with Luk 14:26; Joh 12:25. Thus variously doth God distribute his favours, that all may be contented and none despised.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31. Leah . . . hatedthat is,not loved so much as she ought to have been. Her becoming a motherensured her rising in the estimation both of her husband and ofsociety.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And when the Lord saw that Leah [was] hated,…. Not properly and simply hated by Jacob, as appears by his doing the duty of an husband to her, but comparatively; she was less loved than Rachel: and there are many things to be said for it; she was not beautiful as Rachel was; she was not Jacob’s choice, as she was but imposed upon him through deceit, and he was forced to marry her, or he could not have Rachel his beloved wife: but the Lord had pity on her, and that she might have a share in her husband’s affections,
he opened her womb; or gave her conception; as Onkelos paraphrases it:
but Rachel [was] barren; bare no children as yet, and for many years after, Ge 30:22.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Leah’s First Sons. – Jacob’s sinful weakness showed itself even after his marriage, in the fact that he loved Rachel more than Leah; and the chastisement of God, in the fact that the hated wife was blessed with children, whilst Rachel for a long time remained unfruitful. By this it was made apparent once more, that the origin of Israel was to be a work not of nature, but of grace. Leah had four sons in rapid succession, and gave them names which indicated her state of mind: (1) Reuben, “see, a son!” because she regarded his birth as a pledge that Jehovah had graciously looked upon her misery, for now her husband would love her; (2) Simeon, i.e., “hearing,” for Jehovah had heard, i.e., observed that she was hated; (3) Levi, i.e., attachment, for she hoped that this time, at least, after she had born three sons, her husband would become attached to her, i.e., show her some affection; (4) Judah ( , verbal, of the fut. hoph. of ), i.e., praise, not merely the praised one, but the one for whom Jehovah is praised. After this fourth birth there was a pause (Gen 29:31), that she might not be unduly lifted up by her good fortune, or attribute to the fruitfulness of her own womb what the faithfulness of Jehovah, the covenant God had bestowed upon her.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Increase of Jacob’s Family. | B. C. 1749. |
31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. 34 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. 35 And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing.
We have here the birth of four of Jacob’s sons, all by Leah. Observe, 1. That Leah, who was less beloved, was blessed with children, when Rachel was denied that blessing, v. 31. See how Providence, in dispensing its gifts, observes a proportion, to keep the balance even, setting crosses and comforts one over-against another, that none may be either too much elevated or too much depressed. Rachel wants children, but she is blessed with her husband’s love; Leah wants that, but she is fruitful. Thus it was between Elkana’s two wives (1 Sam. i. 5); for the Lord is wise and righteous. When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, that is, loved less than Rachel, in which sense it is required that we hate father and mother, in comparison with Christ (Luke xiv. 26), then the Lord granted her a child, which was a rebuke to Jacob, for making so great a difference between those that he was equally related to,–a check to Rachel, who perhaps insulted over her sister upon that account,–and a comfort to Leah, that she might not be overwhelmed with the contempt put upon her: thus God giveth abundant honour to that which lacked, 1 Cor. xii. 24. 2. The names she gave her children were expressive of her respectful regards both to God and to her husband. (1.) She appears very ambitious of her husband’s love: she reckoned the want of it her affliction (v. 32); not upbraiding him with it as his fault, nor reproaching him for it, and so making herself uneasy to him, but laying it to heart as her grief, which yet she had reason to bear with the more patience because she herself was consenting to the fraud by which she became his wife; and we may well bear that trouble with patience which we bring upon ourselves by our own sin and folly. She promised herself that the children she bore him would gain her the interest she desired in his affections. She called her first-born Reuben (see a son), with this pleasant thought, Now will my husband love me; and her third son Levi (joined), with this expectation, Now will my husband by joined unto me, v. 34. Mutual affection is both the duty and comfort of that relation; and yoke-fellows should study to recommend themselves to each other, 1Co 7:33; 1Co 7:34. (2.) She thankfully acknowledges the kind providence of God in it: The Lord hath looked upon my affliction, v. 32. “The Lord hath heard, that is, taken notice of it, that I was hated (for our afflictions, as they are before God’s eyes, so they have a cry in his ears), he has therefore given me this son.” Note, Whatever we have that contributes either to our support and comfort under our afflictions or to our deliverance from them, God must be owned in it, especially his pity and tender mercy. Her fourth she called Judah (praise), saying, Now will I praise the Lord, v. 35. And this was he of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. Note, [1.] Whatever is the matter of our rejoicing ought to be the matter of our thanksgiving. Fresh favours should quicken us to praise God for former favours. Now will I praise the Lord more and better than I have done. [2.] All our praises must centre in Christ, both as the matter of them and as the Mediator of them. He descended from him whose name was praise, for he is our praise. Is Christ formed in my heart? Now will I praise the Lord.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 31-35:
These verses show that Leah had faith in Jehovah, and that He was mindful of her plight. “Hated” is literally “loved less.” Use of this term does not mean that Jacob literally hated her, but that he loved Leah less than Rachel. This doubtless showed in his treatment of his two wives.
Jehovah saw Leah’s humiliation, and extended a special manifestation of His grace to her (see Jas 4:6). Like Sarah and Rebekah before her, Leah was given a son. Her firstborn son was named Reuben, literally, “behold, a son!” Leah hoped that this son would win a greater portion of her husband’s love, since she had borne his firstborn.
Reuben’s birth likely did not achieve what Leah had desired. Once again Jehovah interposed, and gave her a second son. She named him Simeon, “hearing,” implying that God had heard her pleas and had given her this son who would win Jacob’s greater love.
Once more Leah conceived, and bore another son. She named him Levi, “joined or associated,” still in the hope that this son would join her husband to her in greater bonds of love.
Another son was born to Leah. She named him Judah, whose name means “praise.” This name implies that she finally came to the point in her spiritual life that she was willing to praise Jehovah and rely upon Him regardless of what others might think or feel toward her.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
31. And when the Lord saw. Moses here shows that Jacob’s extravagant love was corrected by the Lord; as the affections of the faithful, when they become inordinate, are wont to be tamed by the rod. Rachel is loved, not without wrong to her sister, to whom due honor is not given. The Lord, therefore, interposes as her vindicator, and, by a suitable remedy, turns the mind of Jacob into that direction, to which it had been most averse. This passage teaches us, that offspring is a special gift of God; since the power of rendering one fertile, and of cursing the womb of the other with barrenness, is expressly ascribed to him. We must observe further, that the bringing forth of offspring tends to conciliate husbands to their wives. Whence also the ancients have called children by the name of pledges; because they avail, in no slight degree, to increase and to cherish mutual love. When Moses asserts that Leah was hated, his meaning is, that she was not loved so much as she ought to have been. For she was not intolerable to Jacob, neither did he pursue her with hatred; but Moses, by the use of this word, amplifies his fault, in not having discharged the duty of a husband, and in not having treated her who was his first wife with adequate kindness and honor. It is of importance carefully to notice this, because many think they fulfill their duty if they do not break out into mortal hatred. But we see that the Holy Spirit pronounces those as hated who are not sufficiently loved; and we know, that men were created for this end, that they should love one another. Therefore, none will be counted guiltless of the crime of hatred before God, but he who embraces his neighbors with love. For not only will a secret displeasure be accounted as hatred, but even that neglect of brethren, and that cold charity which ever reigns in the world. But in proportion as any one is more closely connected with another, must be the endeavor to adhere to each other in a more sacred bond of affection. Moreover, with respect to married persons, though they may not openly disagree, yet if they are cold in their affection towards each other, this disgust is not far removed from hatred.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
3. Jacobs Family (Gen. 29:31 to Gen. 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 Jacobs 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 (Jer. 31:31-34; Hebrews, chs. 7, 8, 9, 10; Joh. 1:17; 2 Cor., ch. 3; Col. 2:8-16; Gal. 3:15-29; Gal. 4:21-31; Eph. 2:11-22, etc.). The account of the jealousy and contention between Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29:31; Gen. 30:1-2), and the subsequent sinfulness and jealousy of the sons of Jacob (Gen. 34:25; Gen. 34:30; Gen. 35:22; Gen. 37:8; Gen. 37:18; Gen. 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 (Mal. 2:15). Broken and ungodly homes produce ungodly offspring (OTH, 101).
Leahs first four sons, Gen. 29:31-35. Jacobs weakness showed itself even after his double marriage in the fact that he loved Rachel more than Leah (hated, in Leahs 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 Leahs first four sons is specifically referred to Jehovahs 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, Deu. 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. Jacobs other sons are referred to Elohim, not only by Jacob and Rachel (Gen. 30:2; Gen. 30:6; Gen. 30:8), but also by Leah (Gen. 29:18; Gen. 29:20) and by the narrator himself (Gen. 29:17), for Jacobs 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 Jehovahs 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 Labans 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, Jacobs 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 husbands 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 critics 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, 801803).
Rachels adopted sons, Gen. 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 (Gen. 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. Deu. 32:39, 1Sa. 2:6). In Freudian terms, Rachel was projecting her own weakness upon her husband, a favorite avocation of humankind generally (cf. Gen. 3:12-13). (Cf. Gen. 50:19, 2Ki. 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 (Gen. 16:2-3), gives her handmaid to her husband. No express law yet forbade this course, though nature and Scripture by implication did (Gen. 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. Gen. 29:3that she, Bilhah, may bear upon my knees, and I also may obtain children by her. (cf. Gen. 50:19; Gen. 50:23; 2Ki. 5:7). From the fact that children were taken upon the knees, they were recognized either as adopted children (Gen. 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 Bilhass children will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own (Skinner). To place a child on ones knees is to acknowledge it as ones 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 fathers 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,; Gen. 50:23). In the case before us, the putative mother names the adopted child. Rachel named Bilhahs 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. Bilhahs 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 Jacobs wrestlings, through which he becomes Israel (Lange, 530; cf. Gen. 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, 288289). 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 Josephs birth, she could say: Now (not before) God has taken away my reproach (Lange, CDHCG, 530; cf. Gen. 30:23-24).
Leahs adopted sons, Gen. 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. Isa. 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,)
Leahs last two sons, Gen. 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 Gen. 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 Son. 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 plants 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 janapples 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 (Gen. 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., 530531). 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 sisters 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 (Gen. 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 Labans daughters. The evil lies in the system, which, being a violation of Gods 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 Leahs 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 Jacobs 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 (Gen. 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 (Gen. 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 authors 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. Gen. 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. Exo. 9:32, Deu. 8:8, Jdg. 6:11, Rth. 2:23; 1Sa. 6:13; 1Sa. 12:17; 1Ch. 21:20; 2Ch. 2:10-15; 2Ch. 27:5; Ezr. 6:9; Ezr. 7:22; Mat. 13:25; Mat. 13:29; Luk. 3:17; Joh. 12:24).
Leahs daughter, Gen. 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 Gen. 32:22, where Jacobs 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 Jacobs only daughter (cf. Gen. 37:35; Gen. 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.
Rachels first son, Gen. 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. Gen. 8:1) and in the matter of removing unfruitfulness (1Sa. 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. Gen. 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 (Gen. 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 Gods 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 Jacobs sons, who began with Jehovah, was also closed by Jehovah. For, according to the number of twelve tribes, Israel is Jehovahs covenant people (CDHCG, 531). The majority of Old Testament commentators seem to agree that the meaning of Josephs 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 Rachels 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 Leahs action, Gen. 29:16 : Jacobs 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 Jacobs 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 Jacobs 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. Gen. 31:4-16).
Review Questions
See Gen. 31:1-16.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
BIRTH OF JACOBS ELEVEN SONS, AND HIS DAUGHTER.
(31) Leah was hated.We must not soften this down too much; for plainly Leah was not the object of love at all. It was her fruitfulness which gave her value in her husbands eyes, and when this ceased, Jacob utterly neglected her (Gen. 30:15).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
LEAH’S FIRST FOUR SONS, Gen 29:31-35.
Rachel was barren This would appear like a chastisement for Jacob’s partiality, (Gen 29:30,) and an intimation that the blessing of posterity was “not of him that willeth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jacob’s Wives Are Fruitful As Yahweh Had Promised ( Gen 29:31 to Gen 30:24 )
Gen 29:31
‘And Yahweh saw that Leah was unloved and he opened her womb. But Rachel was barren.’
The bearing of a son was of vital importance in Jacob’s day for such a son or sons would inherit the family tribe and wealth and maintain the family name. A man felt he lived on in his sons. They would also eventually strengthen Jacob’s position. Thus Leah is delighted when she bears not one but four sons. But Rachel, who was barren was devastated.
The writer sees what has happened to Leah as a sign of God’s goodness to her. But it is noteworthy that he does not directly suggest that Rachel’s barrenness is God’s handywork, although others would see it that way.
“Unloved.” The word regularly means ‘hated’ but the previous verse suggests that although Jacob preferred Rachel he still had some love for Leah. Thus the translation ‘unloved’ is more likely. There is no suggestion that he treated her badly (contrast his words to his beloved Rachel in 30:2).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The First Sons of Leah
v. 31. And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, v. 32. And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben v. 33. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also; and she called his name Simeon v. 34. And she conceived again, and bare a son, and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons; therefore was his name called Levi v. 35. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she said, Now will I praise the Lord; therefore she called his name Judah
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Gen 29:31
And when the Lord sawliterally, and Jehovah saw. As Eve’s son was obtained from Jehovah (Gen 4:1), and Jehovah visited Sarah (Gen 21:1), and was entreated for Rebekah (Gen 25:21), so here he again interposes in connection with the onward development of the holy seed by giving children to Jacob’s wives. The present section (Gen 29:31-35) is by Davidson, Kalisch, and others assigned to the Jehovist, by Tuch left undetermined, and by Colenso in several parts ascribed to the Elohist. Kalisch thinks the contents of this section must have found a place in the earlier of the two documentsthat Leah was hated,i.e. less loved (cf. Mal 1:3)he opened her womb (cf. 1Sa 1:5, 1Sa 1:6; Psa 127:3): but Rachel was barrenas Sarai (Gen 11:30) and Rebekah (Gen 25:21) had been. The fruitfulness of Leah and the sterility of Rachel were designed not so much to equalize the conditions of the sisters, the one having beauty and the other children (Lange), or to punish Jacob for his partiality (Keil), or to discourage the admiration of mere beauty (Kalisch), but to prove that “the origin of Israel was to be a work not of nature, but of grace” (Keil).
Gen 29:32
And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben (literally, reuben, Behold a Son! an expression of joyful surprise at the Divine compassion): for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction. Though not directly contained in the term Reuben, the sense of these words is implied (Kalisch). As Leah’s child was an intimation that she had been an object of Jehovah’s compassion, so did she expect it to be a means of drawing towards herself Jacob’s affection. Now therefore (literally, for now) my husband will love me. She was confident in the first flush of maternal joy that Jacob’s heart would turn towards her; she believed that God had sent her child to effect this conversion of her husband’s affections; and she regarded the birth of Reuben as a signal proof of the Divine pity.
Gen 29:33
And she conceived again, and bare a son (probably the following year); and said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated (the birth of Reuben had obviously not answered Leah’s expectations in increasing Jacob’s love), he hath therefore given me this son also (She faith and piety of Leah are as conspicuous as her affection for Jacob): and she called his name Simeoni.e. Hearing, because God had heard that she was hated (ut supra).
Gen 29:34
And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me,, to join, is the root from which comes . (Levi), her son’s namebecause I have borne him three sons: therefore was his name called LeviAssociated, or Joined.
Gen 29:35
And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the Lord. Well she might; for this was the ancestor of the promised seed (Murphy). There cannot be a doubt that her excellence of character as well as eminence of piety eventually wrought a change upon her husband (vide Gen 31:4, Gen 31:14; Gen 49:31). Therefore she called his name Judah (i.e. Praise); and left bearing. Literally, stood still, i.e. ceased, from bearing. Not altogether (Gen 30:16); only for a time, “that she might not be unduly lifted up by her good fortune, or attribute to the fruitfulness of her own womb what the faithfulness of Jehovah, the covenant God, had bestowed upon her” (Keil.).
HOMILETICS
Gen 29:31-35
Leah and Rachel, or the two wives.
I. RACHEL THE BELOVED. “Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah.” That Leah was not hated in the sense of being regarded with aversion, the numerous family she bore to Jacob proves; that she occupied a lower place than Rachel in her husband’s affections is explicitly declared. This preference of Rachel to Leah was
1. Natural in Jacob. Rachel had been his heart’s choice from the first, while Leah had been thrust upon him against his inclination. But even had this been otherwise, as no man can serve two masters, so can no husband love two wives equallyan argument against polygamy.
2. Painful to Leah. Had Leah loved Jacob less than she manifestly did, it is doubtful if the undue regard shown to Rachel would not have inflicted a grievous wound upon her wifely heart; but, entertaining towards him an affection strong and tender, she yearned for a larger share of his esteem, and at each successive child’s birth gave utterance to a hope that he would yet be joined to her. No heavier blow can be dealt by a husband to the tender heart of a loving wife than to withdraw from her his love, or even to be cold and indifferent in its expression.
3. Sinful in the sight of God. Though not so beautiful as Rachel, Leah was yet entitled to an equal share with her in Jacob’s affection. Equally with Rachel she was Jacob’s wife. It was Jacob’s sin that he had married her at all when he did not either love or desire her. On detecting the fraud he should have instantly repudiated the engagement. But having publicly ratified the contract with Leah by fulfilling her week, he owed to Leah a full share of his affection as a husband. Nay, though not the wife his inclination had selected, there is reason for believing that Leah, rather than Rachel, was the bride God had chosen (Leah was the ancestress of the Savior); hence doubly was Jacob bound to love Leah equally with Rachel.
II. LEAH THE FRUITFUL. While Rachel enjoyed the highest place in Jacob’s affection, she was “barren”a grievous affliction to one who might possibly be the mother of the promised Seed. The fruitfulness of Leah was
1. Expressly caused by God. The Lord, who had decreed temporary barrenness for Rachel the fair, opened the womb of Leah the despised; neither to compensate Leah for the loss of Jacob’s love, nor to punish Jacob for his sinful partiality; but to manifest his power, to show that children are the heritage of the Lord, to vindicate his sovereignty, to attest that God giveth families to whomsoever he will, and to suggest that the line of promise was designed to be not the fruit of nature, but the gift of grace.
2. Thankfully acknowledged by Leah. While cherishing the hope that her children would eventually unite Jacob’s heart to her own, she delightedly recognized her exceptional fruitfulness as a special mark of Jehovah’s favor, and gave expression to her gratitude in the naming of her sons: Reuben, see, a son! Simeon, hearing; Levi, joined; Judah, praise.
3. Enviously beheld by Rachel. This appears from the opening statement in the ensuing chapter; and this, though perhaps as natural as Leah’s sense of pain at Rachel’s preference by Jacob, was yet as sinful as Jacob’s excessive partiality towards herself.
Learn
1. The sinfulness and sorrow of having more wives at once than one.
2. The wickedness of wedding where one does not love.
3. The sovereignty of God in giving and withholding children.
4. The cruelty and criminality of showing partiality towards those who possess an equal claim on our affections.
5. The duty and profit of remembering and acknowledging family mercies.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Gen 29:31. Leah was hated The words in the foregoing verse explain this seemingly harsh expression, He loved Rachel more than Leah; this is agreeable to the Hebrew idiom; see Mal 1:2-3. Luk 14:26. The word hate, in the New Testament, is frequently to be understood in this sense, of loving less. Considering the part Leah acted, nobody can wonder she was hated, that is, less beloved than Rachel; while hence we have an argument against polygamy, it bring morally impossible for a man so to divide his affections, as to preserve mutual harmony, and to prevent domestic feuds and discord.
He opened her womb, &c. We may note in this instance the goodness of that Providence who is ever watchful over the welfare of his creatures. To sooth the affliction of Leah, for the want of her husband’s love, he blesses her with children. All states in life have their comforts and their evils: it is our wisdom to be thankful for the former, and to bear the latter with all possible fortitude and resignation. The names which Leah gave her four sons are derived from the Hebrew: the interpretation of the names is given in the margin of our Bibles; and it affords a proof, as Bishop Patrick remarks, that Laban’s family spake the same language with Abraham’s, with some little variation; see note on Luk 14:4.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gen 29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.
Ver. 31. When the Lord saw that Leah was hated. ] That is, less loved and respected. So God hated Esau; and accounts the neglects of wife or husband, no better than hatred. Eph 5:25
But Rachel was barren.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 29:31-35
31Now the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. 32Leah conceived and bore a son and named him Reuben, for she said, “Because the LORD has seen my affliction; surely now my husband will love me.” 33Then she conceived again and bore a son and said, “Because the LORD has heard that I am unloved, He has therefore given me this son also.” So she named him Simeon. 34She conceived again and bore a son and said, “Now this time my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore he was named Levi. 35And she conceived again and bore a son and said, “This time I will praise the LORD.” Therefore she named him Judah. Then she stopped bearing.
Gen 29:31 “unloved” This is a Hebrew idiom which is, literally, “hated” (BDB 971, KB 1338, Qal PASSIVE PARTICIPLE, cf. Gen 29:33), but because of its use in Deu 21:15; Mal 1:2-3; Joh 12:25 and Luk 14:26, we know that it is simply an idiom of comparison which should be translated “unloved,” not “hated.” It speaks of priority. Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah.
Gen 29:32 “Leah conceived and bore him a son and named him Reuben” Reuben (BDB 910, “behold a son” from the VERB “to see,” BDB 909) is the popular etymology for the term “seen” (BDB 906, KB 1157, Qal PERFECT, “to see”).
To bear a son was a great honor. Leah was certain Jacob would be pleased and acknowledge her with more attention.
Gen 29:33 “Then she conceived again and bore a son. . .Simeon” The word “Simeon” (BDB 1035) is the popular etymology from the Hebrew word “heard” or “the Lord heard” (BDB 1033, KB 1570, Qal PERFECT).
Gen 29:34 “She conceived again and bore a son. . .Levi” His name (BDB 532 I) is from the popular etymology for “joined” (BDB 530 I, KB 522, Niphal IMPERFECT). Leah longed for a deeper emotional relationship with Jacob.
Gen 29:35 “she conceived again and bore a son. . .Judah” This one is the son that God chose to fulfill His promise. His name means “praise” (BDB 397), which is a play on “I will praise YHWH” (BDB 392, KB 389, Hiphil IMPERFECT). His name becomes the name of a tribe, then a nation, and then all Jewish people. The three older sons will be rejected because of their improper acts. Again, it is interesting that God chose the woman who was less loved to bring forth the line of the Messiah. This reversal of expected events is common in Genesis and shows YHWH’s control and sovereignty.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
LORD. Jehovah used with the five sons (Gen 29:31-35 and Gen 30:24). Elohim is used with six (Gen 30:2, Gen 30:6, Gen 30:17, Gen 30:18, Gen 30:20, Gen 30:23). No title used with Benjamin (Gen 35:16-18). All were in pairs. Two pairs from Leah, one pair from Bilhah, one from Zilpah, one from Leah, one from Rachel.
hated. Figure of speech Metonymy (of Cause), App-6, by which love and hate are put for the esteem or neglect, caused by love and hate = less loved, Deu 21:15. Mat 6:24.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
saw: Exo 3:7
was hated: Gen 29:30, Gen 27:41, Deu 21:15, Mal 1:3, Mat 6:24, Mat 10:37, Luk 14:26, Joh 12:25
he opened: Gen 16:1, Gen 20:18, Gen 21:1, Gen 21:2, Gen 25:21, Gen 30:1, Gen 30:2, Gen 30:22, Jdg 13:2, Jdg 13:3, 1Sa 1:5, 1Sa 1:20, 1Sa 1:27, 1Sa 2:21, Psa 127:3, Luk 1:7
Reciprocal: Gen 11:30 – barren Gen 20:17 – General Gen 30:23 – General Gen 35:22 – Now the sons Exo 1:1 – General Deu 22:13 – General Rth 4:13 – the Lord Job 3:10 – it shut not Act 7:8 – and Jacob Rom 9:13 – hated 1Ti 6:10 – and pierced
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The Children of Jacob The Lord opened the womb of Leah. Her firstborn son was named Reuben, or “look, a son.” Her hope was that Jacob would now love her more because she had borne him a son. She named her second son Simeon, or “heard.” She felt the Lord had heard she was not as well loved as her sister. Next, she bore a son she named Levi, or “will be joined.” Her hope was that Jacob would now be joined to her. She named her fourth son Judah, or “will praise,” because she was now praising the Lord ( Gen 29:31-35 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Gen 29:31. When the Lord saw that Leah was hated That is, loved less than Rachel, in which sense it is required that we hate father and mother, in comparison with Christ, Luk 14:26, then the Lord granted her a child, which was a rebuke to Jacob for making so great a difference between those he was equally related to; a check to Rachel, who, perhaps, insulted over her sister upon that account; and a comfort to Leah, that she might not be overwhelmed with the contempt put upon her.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 29:31 to Gen 30:24. The Birth of Jacobs Children.This section is from JE, with slight touches from P. Roughly Gen 29:31-35, Gen 30:9-13 is from J, Gen 30:1-6; Gen 30:8 is from E, Gen 30:14-24 mainly from JE, the two strands here being hard to unravel. It records the origin of the tribes of Israel. It reflects conditions a good deal earlier than those known to us in the history of Israel. In the later period Reuben dwindled into insignificance, Simeon and Levi were largely exterminated, Judah was detached from the other Leah tribes, Joseph closely associated with them. The rivalry between the sisters plays an important part. The less favoured wife is compensated by the blessing of children, barrenness redresses the superiority of the more fondly loved (1 Samuel 1). It drives her to the device, chosen by Sarah (Gen 16:1-3), of yielding her maid to her husband, and, by receiving the child on her knees as it was born, of making it her own. Apparently by this means Rachel secured two sons, while her sister had only one, for when Naphtali is born she gives him a name claiming to have beaten her sister in her mighty wrestlings with her. The names play an important part in the story, reflecting for the most part the struggle between the wives. The etymologies are not scientific, they are based on similarities of sound (see mg., which, however, does not bring out all the assonances); in several cases, two etymologies are suggested, one by E, the other by J. Some of the names in the story are those of animals; Rachel means ewe, Leah perhaps antelope, Reuben possibly lion or wolf, Simeon the mongrel of wolf and hyna; they may point to an earlier prevalence of totemism. In its original form the story of the mandrakes (Ca. Gen 7:13*) presumably explained the fruitfulness of Rachel. They were a plum-like fruit ripening at wheat harvest in May. They are regarded as aphrodisiacs (cf. mg.) and as promoting conception. Rachel does not require the former; she has all her husbands love, but she longs for children, and offers to surrender her husband (for one night!) to the neglected Leah, in return for some of the mandrakes. Opportunity is thus given for the hired (Gen 29:16) husband to become the father of Issachar. The mandrakes, the earlier form of the story probably went on to say, removed the disability from which Rachel, like Sarah (Gen 16:1 f.) and Rebekah (Gen 25:21), suffered, so that Joseph was born. It is to be noted that the chronology does not permit more than about three years between Judah and Joseph, so that Joseph and Issachar may well have been about the same age. This is not the general impression left by the narrative, but the whole of Gen 29:32 to Gen 30:24 has been crowded into the first seven years of Jacobs married life, too short an interval for the events, it is true, Leah having six sons in the period (unless Zebulun is put later), not to speak of Dinah, who seems to be interpolated to prepare for Gen 29:34, and an interval of barrenness (Gen 29:35), during which Zilpah has two sons.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he {k} opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.
(k) This declares that often they who are despised by men are favoured by God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Moses recorded the births of Leah’s first four sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. When the clause "the LORD saw" occurs (Gen 29:31), His acting decisively, often for the weak and oppressed, follows soon (cf. Gen 6:5; Gen 7:1; Gen 18:21; Gen 31:12; Exo 2:25; Exo 4:31).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
8. Jacob’s mishandling of God’s blessing 29:31-30:24
God formed Jacob’s family, the ancestors of the tribes of Israel, as He had promised Jacob at Bethel. Unfortunately Jacob and his wives lived in envy and friction over how God chose to bless them. The real issue of the two sisters’ conflicts in this pericope is the same as that of the brothers Esau and Jacob’s struggle. Who will take the lead and be first, and who will have to serve?
"Jacob had planned to take Rachel as his wife, but God intended him to have Leah. Thus in two major reversals in Jacob’s life, we can begin to see the writer’s theme taking shape. Jacob sought to marry Rachel, but Laban tricked him. Then Jacob sought to build a family through Rachel, but she was barren; and God opened Leah’s womb." [Note: Ibid., p. 200.]
This record of Jacob’s children, the center of the Jacob story structurally, is important for at least three reasons.
1. It shows God’s faithfulness in providing descendants as He had promised.
"Now the account centers on the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise to be with Jacob and to bless him." [Note: Leupold, 2:800.]
2. It gives the origins and circumstances surrounding the births of the tribal heads of Israel.
"The theme of the Pentateuch is not difficult to discern. It is the story of the birth and adolescence of a nation." [Note: Whybray, p. 9.]
3. It explains much of the tribal rivalry that follows in Israel’s history.
The section culminates with the birth of Joseph (Gen 30:24), which proved to be the cue for Jacob to return home (Gen 30:25).