This passage always puzzles me.

[blhowes]

Jacob had worked 7 years for Laban so he could marry Rachael. The time seemed to him as if it were only a few days because of his love for Rachael.

Then:
Gen 29:23-25 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?

In this passage, Laban brings Leah, instead of Rachael, to Jacob, and it seems like it wasn't until morning, after the marriage was consummated, that Jacob figured out that it was Leah instead of Rachael. That seems a little unusual to me.

I was wondering if anybody knows some reason why, if I'm reading the passage correctly, it wasn't until morning when Jacob finally seemed to figure out what Laban had done? I scratch my head every time I read it.

Does anybody know anything about the marriage customs back then? I thought, maybe, since in Genesis 24:65, Rebekah took a vail, and covered herself when she was first brought to Isaac, that perhaps it was the custom to leave the vail on until "the morning after".

Any thoughts?

Bob

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Well, it seems to me that the only documented encounter Jacob had with Rachel was when he first arrived in Laban's. It is possible that he had very little contact with her after that due to custom. But, then again, they lived in the same household. You're right, it's seems unlikely that Jacob didn't know. But, then maybe Jacob DID know and was deceiving Laban so he could get 2 wives?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Another possibility is that perhaps he was drunk?

 

[default]

Hello Dear Brethren,

I looked in my customs book and they did not say anything of this, but I suspect wedding vail or very dark night. I WILL keep looking, you 've triqued my interest!

I pulled this from pbministries.org from A.W.Pinks' archives "Gleanings from Genesis...

But what follows is even more remarkable: "And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah was tender-eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favored. And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that! should give her to another man: abide with me. And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the first-born. Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also" (Gen. 29:16-28). The quotation is a lengthy one hut it was necessary to give it in full so that the reader might be able to follow our remarks upon it. In the preceding paragraph we have seen how that the first lesson God was now teaching Jacob was that of humble submission-if he had refused to submit to God then he must submit to "serve" a human master. Here, in this quotation, we discover the second lesson that Jacob must learn was to respect the rights of the first-born! This was just what Jacob had disregarded in connection with Esau, so that which he had ignored concerning his brother he must bow to in connection with his wife. In the third place, mark how God was correcting the impatience of our patriarch. It was because he had refused to wait God's time for the fulfillment of His promise (as per Genesis 25:23) that he had involved himself in so much trouble, and had to leave home and flee from Esau; how fitting then he should now be obliged to wait seven years before he could obtain Rachel, and that he should be made to serve a further seven years for her after they were married!


I thought this was a good answer as to WHY!

Blessings to you all,
Lori

 

[blhowes]

Patrick and Lori,
Thanks for your responses.

I agree with what Pink said about some of the lessons that God was probably teaching Jacob. Like they say, what goes around comes around.

In my Bible reading this morning I read another passage in Genesis that makes me lean towards thinking that it may have been some kind of a custom for Leah not to remove her vail (which hid the face more than present day marriage vails do) until the following morning. The passage was in Genesis 38, involving Judah and Tamar.

As you recall, Tamar heard that her father-in-law was going to a certain place, so she removed her widow's garment, covered herself in a vail, and wrapped herself up (vs 14). She then went to wait where Judah was going to be. Judah negotiates with her "face-to-face" (or "face-to-vail" ) in verses 15-18, but didn't recognize her because she had covered her face (vs 15). It isn't until after she leaves (vs 19) that she removes her vail, etc., and then put the widow garments back on. As we see later in the chapter, Judah had no idea that it was Tamar during the whole episode. It was probably a similar kind of custom (keeping the vail on) with Jacob and Leah.

Bob


[Edited on 4-12-2004 by blhowes]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

That's a good point Bob. But don't you think that Jacob would have noticed Leah's eyes? Or was there a type of veil over them too?
[quote:db5aaf4d71]
Gen 29:17- Leah's eyes were delicate, but Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance. [/quote:db5aaf4d71]

And wouldn't Rachel have been at the wedding ceremony and festivities in public view too? Did the crowd not know that it was Leah instead of Rachel too or was Jacob the only one in the dark?

 

[blhowes]

Patrick,
Thanks for your post. I like your "that's true, but what about this" type responses. Excellent. My questions are more of the curious nature, not really critical to theological pursuits.

Even so, I think there are many other interesting things to learn along the way that can be very useful and interesting. Most importantly, perhaps, is understanding the culture and customs of the time better. Often, when I read an OT passage, I try and put myself into the situatation and I scratch my head sometimes, thinking that I wouldn't have reacted the way the characters in the story did. Since the customs and mindset of the people back then may be radically different from our customs and mindset, it seems important to try and understand them first.

[b:619aa3cdf9]Patrick wrote:[/b:619aa3cdf9]
And wouldn't Rachel have been at the wedding ceremony and festivities in public view too? Did the crowd not know that it was Leah instead of Rachel too or was Jacob the only one in the dark?

Out of all the questions so far, the ones about where Rachel was during the ceremony is what I wonder about the most. I assume that, if Rachel was at the ceremony and was recognizable to the crowd, that Jacob would have certainly recognized her too.

The challenge for me is to try and gain a better understanding of the customs and dress of the times. I think that will be most helpful. When I think of weddings, my mind thinks of a bride in the beautiful, white lacey gown with a paper-thin vail, the groom, best man, and ushers up there at the altar in their tuxes, the wife's family on one side of the church, and the husband's family on the other side. I think the dress and customs back then would be noticeably different from what we see today - I wonder how different?

I don't know for sure, but I think something they showed on TV a while back would be closer to the way many people back then dressed, especially the women. Do you remember seeing pictures of the women in Afghanistan during our initial conflicts with the Tallaban? They were covered from head-to-toe in white robes and you could hardly make out even the features of their faces. If I remember correctly, even the small slit for their eyes was covered with another somewhat more transparent piece of material - transparent enough so they could see where they were going, but still quite useful in hiding their facial features. For this culture, it was considered shameful for a woman to be in public with her face uncovered.

This way of dressing was probably closer to the way it was back then. I don't see yet in the scriptures that it was considered a shame for them to be in public with her face uncovered, but, nevertheless, it may have been the custom during the wedding ceremony - I don't know.

[b:619aa3cdf9]Patrick wrote:[/b:619aa3cdf9]
But don't you think that Jacob would have noticed Leah's eyes? Or was there a type of veil over them too?

Good questions. I'm at work now, so I won't have time until lunch to start researching this. I've heard different interpretations of Leah in Genesis 29:17 in sermons over the years. I'm not sure the best way to interpret the verse (maybe some of the board's Hebrew scholars can shed some light on it). I've heard it interpreted to mean that she had some eye problems that made her less attractive than Rachel. I've heard that its just an expression that means something like "she was a site for sore eyes" - kind of plain looking. Gill's commentary says "Blear eyed, had a moisture in them, which made them red, and so she was not so agreeable to look at; though Onkelos renders the words,"the eyes of Leah were beautiful,''as if her beauty lay in her eyes, and nowhere else:"

Well, I've gotta get back to work now. I'll give it more thought and try and respond more later.

Bob

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by blhowes]

 

[Saiph]

[quote:dd61b41d5b]


But when Jacob asked for his reward at the expiration of this period, and according to the usual custom a great marriage feast had been prepared, instead of Rachel, Laban took his elder daughter Leah into the bride-chamber, and Jacob went in unto her, without discovering in the dark the deception that had been practised. Thus the overreacher of Esau was overreached himself, and sin was punished by sin.

K&D

[/quote:dd61b41d5b]



[quote:dd61b41d5b]
III. The base cheat which Laban put upon him when he was out of his time: he put Leah into his arms instead of Rachel, Gen_29:23. This was Laban's sin; he wronged both Jacob and Rachel, whose affections, doubtless, were engaged to each other, and, if (as some say) Leah was herein no better than an adulteress, it was no small wrong to her too. But it was Jacob's affliction, a damp to the mirth of the marriage-feast, when in the morning behold it was Leah, Gen_29:25. It is easy to observe here how Jacob was paid in his own coin. He had cheated his own father when he pretended to be Esau, and now his father-in-law cheated him. Herein, how unrighteous soever Laban was, the Lord was righteous; as Jdg_1:7. Even the righteous, if they take a false step, are sometimes thus recompensed on the earth. Many that are not, like Jacob, disappointed in the person, soon find themselves, as much to their grief, disappointed in the character. The choice of that relation therefore, on both sides, ought to be made with good advice and consideration, that, if there should be a disappointment, it may not be aggravated by a consciousness of mismanagement.

The Most Venerable Matthew Henry
[/quote:dd61b41d5b]

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Wintermute]

 

[blhowes]

Mark,
Thanks for your help. Its amazing that, inspite of all the sins committed (and there's plenty of blame to go around), that God's purposes aren't thrwarted and everything seems to fit together without missing a beat.

[b:02c1ffbf43]Mark wrote:[/b:02c1ffbf43]
...according to the usual custom a great marriage feast had been prepared

Its interesting that there are so many different words for feast in the OT - I counted around five or six. The word for feast in this verse is:

H4960 (mish-teh' ) From H8354; drink; by implication drinking (the act); also (by implication), a banquet or (generally) feast: - banquet, drank, drink, feast ([-ed], -ing).

I'm seeing more and more how neat it must be to know the ancient languages. The Hebrew words for the word feast can help add a little more depth or meaning to the scriptures. For example, here's the english:

Num 29:12 And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days:

In reading this verse and the surrounding verses, I get a picture of a sitdown feast, kind of like the pilgrims may have had at their first thanksgiving.

Here's the Hebrew word for the word "feast":

H2287 (khaw-gag) A primitive root (compare H2283, H2328); properly to move in a circle, that is, (specifically) to march in a sacred procession, to observe a festival; by implication to be giddy: - celebrate, dance, (keep, hold) a (solemn) feast (holiday), reel to and fro.

What a different picture this word paints. It reminds me of the Havah Nagilla (SP??) type dances you might see at a Jewish wedding where they're going around in the circle, just having a blast.

[b:02c1ffbf43]Mark wrote:[/b:02c1ffbf43]
...instead of Rachel, Laban took his elder daughter Leah into the bride-chamber, and Jacob went in unto her, without discovering in the dark the deception that had been practised.

I started looking into the bride chamber a little. Apparently, as the name implies, it was a dark room where there was just enough light to perhaps see shadows, but dark enough to most likely keep Jacob from recognizing the difference between Leah and Rachel. Also, I'm not sure at what point the bride customarily removed the veil. I've read some accounts that said she removed it as soon as they went into the bride-chamber and some that seemed to say it came off in the morning. If the veil was taken off immediately upon entering the room, the darkness may have been enough to hide the identity. And, of course, if the veil was left on until morning, the combination of the darkness and the veil would have made it almost impossible to discern the deception (that is of course if either Leah didn't talk much that night or, if she did talk, that Leah and Rachel had very similar voices).

Thanks again.

Back to work,
Bob

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by blhowes]

 

[blhowes]

Well, my curiosity is satisfied. Thanks for helping me find some logical explanations to my questions. Time to move on to bigger and better things.