Genesis 29:31-35 (and following)

(Genesis 29:31-35 ESV) When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben, for she said, "Because the LORD has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me." She conceived again and bore a son, and said, "Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also." And she called his name Simeon. Again she conceived and bore a son, and said, "Now this time my husband will be attached to me, because I have borne him three sons." Therefore his name was called Levi. And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, "This time I will praise the LORD." Therefore she called his name Judah. Then she ceased bearing.

Hated is a strong word, but it is the literal meaning. Often it is translated as "unloved" which is probably closer to the intent.

Jacob had two wives. Perhaps not surprisingly they vied for supremacy. This is so foreign to us on a couple of levels. First we think bigamy is a sin, an awful thing. We look and see there are about an equal number of males and females so it's not fair that some would take two wives and leave others to have none. We value faithfulness, as we should. But faithfulness means only one man and only one woman. For some reason this was not a problem for men in Jacob's time. Why? Were things different as far as the ratio of men to women went? Was it only a factor of some could support wives and others could not? Was it kind of a class thing? There was a servant class and they were expected to remain celibate?

Secondly Jacob seems to feel no guilt about having a favorite. In Genesis we read a lot about favorite wives and children. No one seems to feel this is wrong. We certainly do today. Today we are taught to treat each child as an individual but never to think of one as better than the other. I know DW and I certainly tried to do that. I always tried to have no favorites and thought I succeeded.

But according to my children, now grown, I did not succeed. And I think there is some strong feelings about this. They tell me that they agree that we did have a favorite. So perceptions can be very different from one person to another. And children see things differently than adults. Perception is reality I guess. We, as parents, felt we had to spend more time with one child that needed special attention because of their problems. But to the other children more attention meant favoritism. One got more attention, so that meant they were the favorite. As I look back I do not even think that is true. But you cannot argue with perception. So I guess only God can do it perfectly.

Rachel and Leah thought the way to Jacob's heart was to have sons. There is no evidence given that this plan worked. Jacob was steadfast in his faithfulness to Rachel. He was tricked into taking Leah and he never changed his opinion of that. Yet God worked it for his own purposes. Later in chapter 30 there is the part about mandrakes. It seems mandrakes must have been considered a sort of aphrodisiac. Leah trades mandrakes for time with her husband. It seems Leah was not even getting conjugal visits at this time and she had to give Rachel this gift in order to get Rachel to relinquish Jacob. Jacob openly favored Rachel. But in this situation he seems to not be in control, his wives were.

I am interested in Genesis 29:31-35 and the naming of Leah's first four children. It goes on with the rest of them. We are given etymologies for these names. One might call them "folk etymologies" for scholars and Hebrew experts often scratch their heads about the logic. Also notice that Leah seemed to have total control over naming these children. Jacob seems to have no part in it.

The etymologies given for the names do not follow and rules. They seem to be based on word plays, sound alikes. Yet the sound alikes do not seem alike to us. For example Simeon is seemingly based on the word "shama". It does not seem that close to me. But to the Hebrew mind at that time it did. We are left to simply accept it. I don't think we can understand it. I am reminded of nicknames for English kings and queens. How does one get "Bess" for Elizabeth? There are plenty more like that.