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?

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.alexandermaclaren.wordpress.com
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.spurgeonswords.wordpress.com

Devout souls do not take offence at the depths and difficulties of God's Word, but are, thereby, drawn to intenser contemplation of them. - Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910)

Yes, you're right!

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

Yes! You are!

__________________
JennyG
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Fife, Scotland

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.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

or maybe you agree with them?

__________________
Andrew S.
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Abilene,TX

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

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

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

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

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?!"

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...