Does the word "week" in Genesis 29:27-28 refer to a period of seven days or a period of seven years?

I read that Calvin thinks the week refers to seven years. Is there anyone else who takes this view?

Here is what Calvin says about Genesis 29:27
The reason I ask is that in Daniel 9 most commentators view the seventy weeks as referring to 490 years. I am curious if there is anywhere else in the Bible or in the Hebrew language where the "week" refers to seven years.

Thank you for your reply.

__________________
Jeffrey Murray
Member of Sterling Presbyterian Church
Sterling, Virginia

I've always understood the week in Gen 27 to be referring to consummation of the marriage, which in the Hebrew tradition was a feast time lasting usually a week.

Theognome

__________________
Bill Cunningham
Covenant Reformed Church, URC
Kansas City
There are three kinds of people- those who can count, and those who can't.

Thanks. It seems that is pretty much the predominant view.... I'm curious if Calvin is the only person to have taken the alternative view.

Why don't you post something controversial?

__________________
Kevin - PCA - Mississippi

"What, for some, is sin, others do to the glory of God. And the good Dr. Pentecost's remarks notwithstanding, I intend to go home tonight and smoke a cigar to the glory of God. It is a kind of incense drifting to Heaven." - Charles Spurgeon

"Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!" - 2 Corinthians 9:15

I don't think that Calvin is taking quite the point that is being attributed to him. He clearly uses the term "week" (as in the verse) to refer to a seven-day period.

The issue of interpretation he mentions has to do with the demonstrative pronoun (this one, that one) which in most translations is rendered "her" in the first instance and then later "this" (KJV), and then again (v28) "her" again; the question being exactly: what is "this" in the second instance, not what does the word for "week" mean? And additionally, do all the demonstratives (being the same word) have the same referent?

At the beginning of the verse, I have inclined to the position that Calvin does not prefer, namely that the demonstrative points to Leah, and afterward to Rachel. But Calvin seems to suggest that they all mean the same woman, Rachel, a plausible reckoning with the text.

As for the word for "seven/week", at the beginning of the verse H7620 (Strong's #) seems clearly to mean "week" or the customary marriage festival, and at the end of the verse, the word for "seven" (H7651) is ordinal, stating how many more years (שׁנים, H8141) shall be further payment.

So, let me pour what I think is Calvin's meaning into the verses:

27 Fulfill Rachel's week, that is, I offer you to marry according to customary practice "this one" as you have married her sister, on these conditions: and we will give you Rachel [this one] also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled Rachel's week, that is, he indeed married "this one" according to custom: and [or 'thus'] he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.

I think this is actually a very plausible reading, and has merit. I don't know if I have fully accepted it myself, but it has its attractions.

Bottom line, I do not think that the question of "heptad of years" is actually in Calvin's understanding of this text at all.

__________________
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? --

Thanks for that reply. I had not considered the possibility that he was referring to Rachel's seven day week. I guess what gave me the other view is this line:
So it seemed (to this humble and admittedly unlettered fellow) that Calvin understands the beginning of verse 27 as "Fulfill Rachel's week of seven years". But he may have been referring to the words "this one", as you suggested.

Interestingly the Geneva Bible has this reading:
Also Leviticus 25:8 speaks of "seven sabbaths of years" to refer to a period of 49 years, but this appears to be a different Hebrew word.

I imagine that it is not too profitable to sit around speculating about this sort of thing too much. But the interesting thing to me is to consider how a Jew living around the time of Christ would view the time in which they lived. Would they have understood that they lived in the time prophesied of by Daniel? Were they looking so earnestly for a messiah because they knew that he had been prophesied to come during their lifetime? It seems this would be likely if a week in Hebrew can also refer to period of seven years.

I have to admit though that the in the context of Genesis 27 the seven day wedding ceremony seems more likely, especially in the light of Judges 14:12.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain that to me.

Greetings Jeffery,
I think it's quite pertinent that you found in the Geneva Bible a reference to "yeers". Certainly, given the Genevan context of the making of that translation, it is quite possible that the the first "seven" was commonly thought of, possibly even by Calvin, as a heptad of years. In the larger context, there are several references to seven years, albeit more explicit. I plan to take a closer look at his personal Latin translation (which many editions of his Genesis Commentary have), to see if that sheds any light on his own understanding.

I still think presently that solely on the strength of the quotation you provided, Calvin is pointing out the question over the demonstrative pronoun,and not really bringing out any ambiguity (of which he might be well aware) in the term "week". But noting that alone makes no positive statement on how he was inclined to the understanding the first "week".

But, clearly the Geneva also adds the word "years" in the first instance, thus inserting a slight interpretation; ostensibly to eliminate English ambiguity, but perhaps doing so inaccurately. But Calvin's statement:is more probably taken not from the first portion of the verse, but from the unambiguous final reference to "thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years" (v27), where the word "years" is right there in the text (along with terminology for "another").

**************

Re. Leviticus 25:8, this is actually a helpful verse for seeing that yet again the Hebrews generally, and Moses in particular, took pains to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding. That verse refers to counting off "seven Sabbaths of years," which makes explicit reference to the previous verses that call every seventh year a "Sabbath" year.

Thus, there is an explicit tie to the whole idea of seven years, which culminate in a Sabbath year. And after an entire seven of those "Sabbaths" in a row, there shall be yet one more special rest year, the year of Jubilee. And note also that the terms "49 years" is spelled out, as well as saying "seven times seven". No ambiguity. In three separate ways, in the same verse, the space of time is delineated.

*************

Do I think that the Jews of Jesus' day understood Daniel 9 to refer to a period of time culminating in their day? I think that it is possible that there were some people who made that connection. Perhaps Simeon, whom we meet in the Temple at Jesus circumcision, was one of them. There is quite a bit in Daniel pointing to "signs of the times," including those 70 "sevens". Most commentators that I've read agree that those "sevens" or "weeks" refer to years of time, rather than to a weekly scale.

But I also think that its important to note that few Jews, if any, seem to have conceived of Daniel's prophecy as registering an exact chronological timescale, or else there would have been much more attention to date-setting. Daniel's prophecy, like other messianic predictions, was intended to be studied with care, and reflected and meditated upon, rather than simply used as a "clock" to fix the arrival-date for the Messiah.

But if we assume big round numbers there, and note other time-related textual cues, I think there might have been quite a bit of earnest and pious expectation for Messiah's coming based in part on Daniel's figures and comments. Certainly many (pious and impious) were expecting a Messiah to drive the Romans away when Jesus' ministry began.

I know there have been a number of persons who have confidently chosen this "start-date" and that for Daniel's figures, and have added and subtracted this gap or that overlap in order to arrive at "exact dates" such as Jesus triumphal entry, or the start of his ministry, or his birth, etc., at exactly 490 years from some beginning moment. But not one of them presents without problems.

But whatever level of expectation there was in the earthly days of Jesus, when the Wise Men came, and later John the Baptist arrived announcing the arrival of the kingdom of God, all confusion should have fled, and people begun to recognize the days were upon them. But, as I mentioned, they were hoping in the wrong kind of Messiah, and closer attention to what Daniel was predicting might have helped them.

Again, thanks for the well-thought reply. You've talked me out of trying to re-shape the verse to fit my preconceptions.

I don't know Latin but I will post verse 27 here if anyone wants to take a stab at it:

Comple hebdomadem hujus, et dabimus tibi etiam hanc pro servitute, quam servies mihi adhuc septem annos alios.

My classical Latin dictionary says hebdomas is the seventh day of a disease

The lesson I'm taking away from this is:
1) I need to learn Hebrew
2) I need to learn Latin
3) I need to learn basic English grammar so I know what a demonstrative pronoun is

FWIW, here's a rather wooden rendition (which I myself cobbled together from the dictionary definitions) of Calvin's Latin:Not much more to go on, all by itself...