|
|
Post by michelle on Mar 19, 2007 20:28:03 GMT -8
I'm trying to reconcile in my mind the situation with Jacob, Leah and Rachel and I might have a hard time getting my thoughts across, but here goes. I'm disturbed by the fact that God punishes Rachel (and Jacob I suppose) by not letting her conceive a child (for a very long time) because she is loved by Jacob more than Leah is. For me, it seems obvious that Jacob would love Rachel more. Rachel is the one he had hoped to marry and he was fooled (both by Laban and Leah) into marrying Leah. It's a marriage based on deceit. Why wouldn't he love Rachel more? And why would God punish Jacob for what Laban and Leah did?
Were Jacob's actions with manipulating the sheep and goats to be spotted (see Gen 30:25-43) revenge for Laban tricking Jacob into marrying Leah? It seems that Jacob is guilty of the same sort of deceit that Leah and Laban committed against Jacob. Obviously Jacob wanted to settle away from Laban and Laban was reluctant to let him do so. Were Jacob's actions out of greed or was it a sort of "I'll stick it to him" attitude?
The amount of deceit that revolves around Jacob is quite disturbing and saddening to me. Since he was a kid he's been intentionally tricky, manipulative and deceitful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 21, 2007 17:44:49 GMT -8
I don't see in the text where it says or implies that Rachel's barrenness is a punishment from God. It seems to me that her barrenness has more to do with God's plan regarding Joseph than it is some kind of reprisal by God.
Yes, it does totally make sense that Jacob would love Rachel.
I guess I see this as Jacob receiving his 'karma' for his past deceptions.
Yes, Jacob is disturbing. And it's interesting how the text (and it's author) remains pretty ambivalent about him- neither overtly condemning but certainly not applauding him. Still, Jacob's new name becomes Israel and I think he embodies all that is bad and good about God's chosen people- and He is an example of God's stern mercy. (I love when Jacob wrestles Jesu... ur, the angel ;)and gets his new name and his limp!)
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Mar 21, 2007 20:43:05 GMT -8
I don't see in the text where it says or implies that Rachel's barrenness is a punishment from God. It seems to me that her barrenness has more to do with God's plan regarding Joseph than it is some kind of reprisal by God. "The LORD knew that Jacob loved Rachel more than he did Leah, and so he gave children to Leah, but not to Rachel." Genesis 29:31 (CEV). I would argue that this implies a sort of punishment. Rachel was loved more, Leah was loved less. Rachel wan not given children (at this point), Leah was given several. I can, however, see the other side of the coin, which is that Leah was being blessed for not be loved in the same way. (I love when Jacob wrestles Jesu... ur, the angel ;)and gets his new name and his limp!) I love this story too!! |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Mar 21, 2007 20:55:23 GMT -8
One other thing about Jacob. I think it's easy for us to look at him and say, "Man, that dude was a jerk". His sins are written out for us on paper. It's easy to criticize and think, "why in the world would God make a great nation out of him?" But then I think about my salvation. I doubt I'd look any better than Jacob if I wrote all of my sins down. I'm sure people would think the same thing about me. "Man, that girl is whack. How on earth could God use her for His Kingdom?" The reality is that no matter how sinful I amre, God's grace and mercy are there for me through Christ. And God can use anyone He chooses for His glory regardless of the bad things they've done in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 24, 2007 8:11:40 GMT -8
Michelle,
Take a look at this comparison of Genesis 29:31 in these different translations:
31 When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. (NIV)
31Now the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. (NASB)
31And when the Lord saw that Leah was despised, He made her able to bear children, but Rachel was barren. (Amplified)
31 When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. (NKJ)
31The LORD knew that Jacob loved Rachel more than he did Leah, and so he gave children to Leah, but not to Rachel. (CEV)
The CEV differs significantly from all the other ones I found. The other translations say Rachel was barren as a separate, comparative fact without a direct cause, while the CEV makes Rachel's inability to have children look more like an active punishment.
Another way of putting this is that all the translations besides the CEV simply say "Rachel was barren", just stating a fact, whereas the CEV directly implies that the Lord did not give children to Rachel, giving God an active role in her inability to have children.
I think with the other translations one could just assume that Rachel's barrenness wasn't a punishment but just a fact that contrasted her with Leah.
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Mar 24, 2007 9:31:29 GMT -8
I actually read all of these translations (yes, even the Spanish one) before drawing my conclusion.
(ASV) And Jehovah saw that Leah was hated, and he opened her womb. But Rachel was barren.
(CEV) The LORD knew that Jacob loved Rachel more than he did Leah, and so he gave children to Leah, but not to Rachel.
(ESV) When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
(JPS) And the LORD saw that Leah was hated, and he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.
(KJV+) And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
(LBLA) Vio el SEÑOR que Lea era aborrecida, y le concedió hijos; pero Raquel era estéril.
(LITV) And Jehovah saw that Leah was hated. And He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
(MSG) When GOD realized that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb. But Rachel was barren.
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Mar 25, 2007 21:00:26 GMT -8
Why is it metioned in 2 different chapters that Jacob will be called Israel? We see it mentioned first in Gen 32 after Jacob wrestles with the angel/man then again in Gen 25 after Jacob returns to Bethel after a stay in Succoth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 26, 2007 19:09:11 GMT -8
Two possibilities I see:
This could be an example of a doublet. A doublet is the occurance in the text of a very similar story or event one or more times with slight variations in the details. According to many Documentary Hypothesis commentators, the idea is that when the writers of the Pentateuch took the older oral traditions and wrote them down in the form we have now, they had several stories which seemed to be about the same event with slightly varying details, or stories which sometimes had redundant details.
For instance, the three stories in Genesis involving one of the patriarchs lying that their wife was their sister to save their hide- each quite similar but with somewhat differing details (Abraham in Egypt, Abraham and Abimilech, and Isaac and Abimilech, if I recall).
According to this theory of doublets (or triplets, in this case), although perhaps there was only one original event, the oral tradition had blurred the lines a bit, so the writers, wanting to preserve the centuries old stories accurately, just included all three, instead of trying to recreate one event out of the different accounts.
I think there could be some merit to this idea, though it does imply a less than absolute accuracy of detail in the text (though it does actually attribute an interest in the writers to preserve the oral traditions accurately).
However, I don't think we should be took quick to cry "Doublet!" because what DH commentators seem to ignore is that history does have an interesting tendency to repeat itself. Having these repetitions in the text might be there to show us, for instance in the case of the patriarchs lying about their wives, that the sins of the fathers are passed down, or that men don't learn easily from their past sins, etc...
In the example you're referring to (Jacob getting his new name Twice), we could be talking about a doublet. Perhaps one tribe remembered it in their oral tradition that Jacob got his name at Bethel, while another tribe had the story that he got it in the wrestling with the angel. The compilers included both stories.
But even if this is the case (and I don't think there's a great weight of evidence for it by any stretch), it could very well be that both memories are accurate. God, throughout Scripture has this tendency to inaugurate something and then finalize it at a later point. The wrestling with the angel is Jacob's turning point- his 'coming of age'* so to speak, so it's fitting that he receives word of his new name. But it's later at Bethel, near the conclusion of his story, that it is again bestowed upon him.
It's kinda like the David story where he is anointed king over all Israel by Samuel when he's still a shepherd boy and then has to go back to his day job for years before he is finally, formally crowned king.
Maybe we can see this inauguration/ finalization theme in our lives, as well.
* and quite a late "coming of age" it was. He was like a thirty-something adolescent.
|
|
