# Question About Genesis 29:28-30



## bookslover (Sep 29, 2009)

A friend and I are having a mild disagreement. I think that a natural reading of this passage shows that Jacob married Rachel and *then* served the second seven years for her. My friend says that Jacob served the second seven years first, then married Rachel after that was completed.

I think Genesis 29:30a ("So Jacob went in to Rachel also"...) clinches the argument in my favor (Jacob could not have done this if they weren't married), but my buddy still disagrees.

John Calvin and Derek Kidner agree with me. Matthew Henry doesn't mention this passage.

Opinions?


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 29, 2009)

Yes, you're right!


----------



## JennyG (Sep 29, 2009)

OPC'n said:


> Yes, you're right!


Yes! You are!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 29, 2009)

It makes the most sense to read the marriages as happening at basically the same time.

It further highlights the abandonment of Leah. Rachel isn't unhappy because Jacob can't sleep with her, but because she's barren.

It also maximizes the time needed for at least 12 children (11 sons, 1 daughter by four women) to come into the world. Joseph was born (to Rachel), and THEN Laban made his third arrangement to have Jacob serve him for compensation, which lasted for six years. This positively crams the birth of the eleven brothers within the seven year period (perhaps allowing for a few extra months) following the marriages.

One additional option for adding more time between the births is to propose that Jacob served a *majority * or a certain legal obligation of his first seven years, and when the contract had been substatially fulfilled he asked for his wife. But all this does is push the weddings back sometime into the first seven years instead of the very end. Joseph still isn't born until the 14 years are complete, and Jacob asks to be released.


----------



## Andres (Sep 29, 2009)

bookslover said:


> John Calvin and Derek Kidner agree with me.



or maybe you agree with them?


----------



## au5t1n (Sep 29, 2009)

I agree with you. He married Leah and then Rachel, and then served 7 more years.


----------



## Edward (Sep 29, 2009)

I don't see how you can torture any other reading out of the passage. Do they have any basis for their conclusion?


----------



## bookslover (Sep 30, 2009)

Edward said:


> I don't see how you can torture any other reading out of the passage. Do they have any basis for their conclusion?



No, not really.

It only makes sense that Jacob would marry Rachel and then do the second seven years. After all, he was angry with Laban for tricking him into marrying Leah after the first seven years' service. If he had then agreed to serve another seven years BEFORE he could marry Rachel, Laban would have been thinking to himself, "How stupid is THIS guy?!"


----------



## bookslover (Oct 4, 2009)

Having ransacked some commentaries on this issue, I've come up with 30, so far, who agree with me that Jacob married Rachel and THEN served the second seven years for that bozo, Laban.

A few of those include: John Calvin, Derek Kidner, Keil & Delitszch, Marcus Dods, John J. Davis, John E. Hartley, H. C. Leupold, John Phillips, Arthur Pink, Gerhard von Rad (!), Gordon J. Wenham, Claus Westermann, Donald Grey Barnhouse, John J. Currid, R. Kent Hughes, John H. Walton, James Montgomery Boice, and Sidney Greidanus.

I think mine is the majority opinion.

It's nice to be right...


----------

