Genesis 29:31-30:24

The Origins of the Tribes of Israel
Or
How to Grow a Large Family
And Still Have Your Family Fall Apart


It seems that Jacob is fairly adept at procreating. Granted, the text does not provide us a chronology during this genealogical breakdown, but Jacob doesn’t have the same issues with childbearing that his father and grandfather did. On the other hand, just like his forebears, the woman he chose as his wife does have the same problems with fertility that Sarah and Rebekah had. Barrenness appears to be a common thread throughout the Story of the Patriarchs, and Rachel is the next in line to experience such heartbreak and domestic turmoil. (Berlin & Brettler, p61)

I don’t know about you, but reading through this selection of verses brings to mind a great many questions, concerns, and queries concerning the details of Jacob’s family and how daily domestic affairs were handled. A cursory examination might lead us to state that things haven’t gotten much better since the days of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. However, when we begin to look deeply into this portion of The Story, we quickly obtain a glimpse of much of the rest of Genesis will bear out, both in terms of Jacob’s generation and that of his children. It is as if the intensity of the effects of Sarah’s desire to subvert God’s plans by pushing Hagar upon Abraham back in Genesis 16 have been compounded and multiplied many times over.

I debated on just how deep I should delve into the finer cultural specifics and details present within this passage. As we see in the course of events between Sarah and Hagar of chapters 16 & 21, a woman, for reasons of procreation, may send her maidservant to her husband and any child born would legally belong to the husband and wife, and not to the maidservant. Moreover, we also learn from those two chapters that a great deal of tension can be easily introduced into a family and the individual lives of the people in that family when infertility and surrogate birthing rear their heads. Nevertheless, on top of the familiar problems Rachel has with bearing Jacob a child of her own, Jacob must face the discordant permutation of Leah and Rachel’s sibling rivalry into marital jealousy. Two sisters fighting over the affections of one man is never a pretty arrangement, and one that I’m surprised hasn’t been made into a major Hollywood teen-oriented movie.

Poor Jacob… At least Abraham and Isaac had enough sense not to marry more than one wife – Jacob has to become skilled at interacting with four adult women in his household. Sadly though, Jacob never becomes proficient with such tactics and diplomacy, because, from the outset of this portion of text, he chooses Rachel above all others, much to the dismay of Leah and the course of his children’s lives. But God proves to possess a rather unusual sense of decency and justice, since, upon seeing how Jacob ignores Leah, God opens up Leah’s womb as Rachel remained barren. “As in the case of Hagar (16:10-12; 21:17-18), God shows compassion to the unloved mate, thus partially equalizing the disparity between her and her co-wife. Barrenness, in some instances a punishment (e.g., 2 Sam 6:20-23), serves in Rachel’s case to place her in succession to Sarah and Rebekah (11:30; 25:21).” (Berlin & Brettler, p61)

Thus, Leah is able to bear children and three sons are the prompt result of God’s blessing – Rueben, Simeon, and Levi. However, in spite of what should be a time of great joy in the life of this family, it seems that Leah is in perpetual angst about Jacob’s lack of love for her and the names she gives to these three boys stands as proof of this. Rueben (see, a son), Simeon (has heard), and Levi (will join) are all evidences of Leah’s pleadings through childbearing for her husband to love her and give her some attention outside of the marriage bed. (Alter, p156-157) It isn’t until the birth of her fourth son, Judah, in 29:35 that Leah’s name-giving turmoil is silenced, but even that isn’t long-lived. (Hamilton, p268)

“When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister; and she said to Jacob, ‘Give me children, or I shall die!’” Jacob became very angry with Rachel and said, ‘Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?’” (Genesis 30:1-2, NRSV)

And, throughout all of this prodigious child-bearing, Rachel, the wife that Jacob does love has remained without a child, much less a son, a fact that plagues Rachel and her plight in life. “In the ancient Near East, one vital measure of a wife’s worth was her ability to bear sons – to tend the fields, herd the flocks, defend land and honor, and carry on the family name. For the woman herself, unable to inherit on her own, sons represented security in her old age.” (Frankel, p 54) Thus Rachel’s torment is two-fold – not only has she not produced any sons from practical reasons, but she feels ashamed that she had not born any sons to the man who does love her, who voluntarily worked seven extra years for her father to earn the right to marry her.

So, she approaches her husband in her anguish, begging him to bless her and give her a child of any kind, but he responds harshly, not truly understanding the depth and breadth of her request. (Frankel, p56) Granted, Jacob is correct in stating openly that he is not the person that Rachel should be beseeching for children, as culture custom and Biblical precedent dictate that she should visit a holy person, talk to God, or hope that God sees her in her childlessness and sends a messenger of God to visit her. (Alter, p158) But while his theological resolve is in the right place, he is relationally unsound. Throughout both women’s frustrations – Leah’s in bearing many sons to a husband who doesn’t love her and Rachel’s in not being able to become pregnant – Jacob seems to either not be present or not paying very much attention to the domestic strife. (Frankel, p56) Thus, reminiscent to Sarah’s thrusting of Hagar upon Abraham, Rachel responds to her husband’s pronouncement that he isn’t God by giving him her servant girl Bilhah to be a surrogate mother, an arrangement that produces two sons – Dan and Naphtali.

And the sad thing is that the birth of these two boys to Rachel, via adopting them straight out of Bilhah’s womb, only produces more domestic strife. It’s as if every single, possible familial disturbance that ever occurred in the prior two Patriarchal generations has been rolled together and greatly magnified in the Love Pentagon that is Jacob-Rachel-Leah-Bilhah-Zilpah. For, as soon as Bilhah bore two sons for Rachel, Leah counters by sending Jacob her maidservant Zilpah, assuming that, in her barren status, she can continue attempting to work her way into Jacob’s heart by siring more children (especially boys). Moreover, these two women were fighting through the naming of their son’s names: 1) Dan – “God has vindicated me”; 2) Naphtali – “I have been entangled in a desperate contest with my sister and have won”; 3) Gad – “What luck”; and 4) Asher – “Women will count me blessed.” (Hamilton, p271-273 & Frankel, p55, 57) Over and over again, the overt infighting being inculcated via the wife-and-sibling rivalry in Jacob’s house sets up the future for the failure, conflict, strife, and pain that will be so prevalent in Joseph’s story in the latter parts of Genesis.

“When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him, and said, ‘You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.’ So he lay with her that night. And God heeded Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son.” (Genesis 30:16-17, NRSV)

However, the child-rearing competition doesn’t even begin to cease. Rachel observes Leah’s eldest child, Reuben, returning home with some harvested mandrakes, a plant purported to possess a combination of aphrodisiac and fertility-increasing properties. (Berlin & Brettler, p61) Quite obviously, such rumored traits are attractive to both women – Rachel wants to get pregnant and Leah would like for Jacob to love her. (Frankel, p58) With this hope, Rachel proposes a trade with Leah – you give me the mandrakes so that I can increase my chances to become pregnant and I’ll let you sleep with Jacob tonight. There is a bargain here that is undertaken by these women, one that displays the absolute desperation present in both their lives, as Rachel wants a child that is her own and Leah just wants love from a husband that really doesn’t pay her any attention. (Hamilton, p275)

And what happens as a result? Leah bears three more children – another son, Issachar (“God has given me my wages”); her last son, Zebulun (“God has given me, even me, a valuable gift”); and a daughter, Dinah. (Alter, p161 & Hamilton, p275-276) And curiously, in a family rife with the tendency to provide an over-the-top significance for a newborn’s name, there is no explanation given for Dinah’s. However, textual commentators quite enjoy instances like these, as they are able to enjoy the privilege of debating whether the authors are a) intentionally silent due to Dinah’s status as a female (Alter, p161); b) highlighting Dinah’s position as the only female child being born to a family full of boys (Frankel, p58); or c) crafty and alluding to future events (Hamilton, p 276).

“Then God remembered Rachel, and God heeded her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son, and said, ‘God has taken away my reproach’; and she named him Joseph, saying, ‘May the Lord add to me another son!’” (Genesis 30:22-24, NRSV)

I can hear Rachel scream at this point, “FINALLY!” God finally remembers Rachel, finally heeds her, finally opens her womb, and finally allows her to conceive and bear a child, all privileges and blessings that have been bestowed upon Leah 8 times already (7 sons and 1 daughter). At this event, Rachel loudly proclaims that she finally feels that God no longer hates her and finally desires for her to have a child, a sentiment that she greatly holds in common with the prior two Matriarchs. However, Rachel becomes a bit consumed in her overwhelming need to compete with Leah and declares that, not only has God at long last given her a son, she will be blessed with more children. Now, there’s nothing wrong with hoping and believing – it’s what keeps us motivated and moving forward, even when we don’t want to do so. “Like all of us, Rachel keeps upping the ante of blessing. Although Jacob clearly loves her, she remains miserable without a child. And when she finally gives birth to a son, she immediately longs for another. Why is it so difficult for us to appreciate the birds in our hand?” (Frankel, p59)

Thus, with the birth of Joseph, and until the late-occurring birth of Benjamin through Rachel, we have the chronological and matriarchal breakdown for the children of Jacob. There are 11 sons and 1 daughter – 6 sons and 1 daughter to Leah, 2 to Bilhah, 2 to Zilpah, and 1 to Rachel, the most-and-only-loved. Jacob has proven to be quite the impressive creator of progeny, far more than the other Patriarchs (his father and grandfather) had ever imagined themselves to be. With 11 sons and 1 daughter, it seems that the Promise given originally to Abraham finally has a chance of coming to pass, if only people could/would stop fighting.

Genesis 29:15-30

Jacob Marries Twice
Or
Laban Plays Rebekah to Jacob’s Isaac
Or
The Youngest Was the Most Loved


Our passions can be quite conniving at times. They have this uncanny ability to dominate the direction our lives at the mere mention of anything that might tickle their fancy. And there’s often something rather fleeting about many of these seemingly random passions of ours in that they rarely have the tendency to stay around for very long. However, what’s easily the scariest about our passions is that there are some that remain a very long time and revel in their capacity to permanently blind us to the actual events taking place in our lives. We think that we have them under control, referring to them as things we “like” or “love,” when, in reality, our passions are dictating to us the terms of any given interaction, whether public or private.

But at the same time, I find my passions to be fairly fickle on a regular basis. Whether it’s a style of music, a certain song, an author, a food group, a restaurant, or even someone in my group of acquaintances, I rotate through my likes and dislikes like I’m changing underwear (a pitiful metaphor, I know). I feel that it’s human nature to undergo this vicious cycle, but that cycle is nothing compared to the spontaneous and overwhelming feeling of “I have to have that now!” And this sudden shift in our passions can quickly turn into an obsession that compels us to set everything else aside, especially our sense of judgment and what's best for us.

Thus, I present the thought that much of Jacob’s trouble in this portion of the Patriarchal Story, as well as subsequent ones in Genesis, revolve around Jacob’s passions and his propensity for allowing those passions to take the lead in decision-making. Jacob was so overcome with emotions in verses 1-14 that he removed a very heavy stone covering the well all by himself and wept openly upon seeing Rachel for the first time. Thus, when Laban offers him a chance to set any possible terms for his servitude and work, Jacob readily offers up himself as a common laborer for the hand of Rachel in marriage. However, as we shall see, Laban has other plans in store for Jacob, plans that will replay an earlier story in a dark tent with a dark twist of irony.

“Then Laban said to Jacob, ‘Because you are my kinsman, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?’ … Jacob loved Rachel; so he said, ‘I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.’” (Genesis 29:15, 18; NRSV)

From the outset, it appears that Laban knows exactly what he’s going to do in terms of exploiting Jacob’s obvious and over-the-top love for Rachel. Jacob arrives at Paddan Aram with little or nothing, the exact opposite of how The Servant approached him, Rebekah, and their mother when negotiating for the hand of Rebekah in marriage to Isaac. There is no possible way for Jacob to pay the standard bride-price to prove his financial and social worth to Laban, as was required for arranged marriages in such cultures. (Alter, p154) Thus, Laban is within his rights to request Jacob’s services in exchange for Rachel’s hand in marriage, but the language that he employs is intended to display his benevolence at wanting to pay Jacob for his services and mask his desire to marry off his eldest daughter deceptively. (Hamilton, p259) The trickster is tricked and he is so blinded by his passion that he sets aside his normally shrewd tendencies and embarks blindly into his labor. (Coogan, et al; p51)

Now, you see, Laban had two daughters – Leah, the eldest, and Rachel, the youngest – and, by custom, the eldest was supposed to be married off first, a situation reminiscent of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew and/or Junger’s 10 Things I Hate About You. Jacob agrees to work seven years for the hand of Rachel in marriage, a time period that Jacob seems to not bother working, especially if it means that he obtains the object of his heart’s desire. However, Laban has other plans in that, when Jacob had completed the arranged period of labor, Laban tricks him into marrying Leah by veiling and disguising her, both during the marriage feast and in the marriage bed. Waking up from his slumber, Jacob discovers that the woman in his bed is not the woman he had arranged to marry and is thoroughly outraged. He confronts Laban with this deception and is met with Laban’s coolly-formed response that marrying off the younger daughter first goes against the customs of the land. The trickster may have been tricked, but this is not the first and this will not be the last time that Jacob’s past actions come back to haunt him.

Whether Jacob is aware of the cultural distinctive of the eldest having to be married first or not, it seems that Laban is fully aware of the fact that Leah must be married before Jacob can marry Rachel. Thus, the question remains – why doesn’t Laban enlist Jacob’s help in finding a husband for Leah? Why didn’t he inform Jacob of that point of cultural law? Don’t you think that Jacob would has been quite motivated to locate and/or coerce someone who is ready, willing, and/or able to ask for Leah’s hand in marriage? Why does Laban decide to deceive Jacob into marrying his eldest? Does he not think that any potential suitors will ever approach Leah? I could ask many more similar questions, but suffice to say that Laban’s course of action was one of intentional deception, forsaking logic and reason for long-term chicanery. (Hamilton, p262-263)

Regardless of his misplaced sense of timing and confronted by Jacob’s discovery of his ruse, Laban presents his son-in-law with the following option: if Jacob really wants to marry Rachel, he can work another seven years as Laban’s servant. If Jacob will wait a week, undergo another wedding feast, and work some more, Rachel is his, since Leah is now married off. And this is an arrangement to which Jacob readily assents, which is not surprising, since he willingly offered up his labor for Rachel in the first place. Victor Hamilton notes that Jacob’s character is affirmed and established in this passage – he honors both seven-year terms of labor and does not find a way to steal away with Rachel, repaying Laban’s deceit for one of his own. (Hamilton, p264)

Jacob’s integrity has been progressively rebuilt (or maybe even created for the first time) ever since his flight from home began, following his life of dishonest machinations. He was born tugging on the heel of his twin brother, he bought the birthright for a bowl of soup, and he hoodwinked his father into giving him the blessing due to the eldest son, effectively stealing the birthright that was rightfully Esau’s. Thus, specific to this story as a whole, from the dual marriages in this chapter to Joseph’s deception of his grain-seeking brothers in Genesis 44-45, Jacob is forced to bear the burdens and learn the lessons prescribed by the villainy he wrought upon his family. (Berlin & Brettler, p60)

Walter Brueggemann states it this way – “Since 25:27-24 and 27:1-45, we have known that Jacob was an effective trickster. But now he has met his match in Laban. Here Jacob is on the receiving end. He is done in. The one led and accompanied by God (28:15) is duped by his uncle. The reasoning of Laban has its own logic. And the irony of it is striking and perhaps a fair retaliation to Jacob. Since the early kick in the womb (25:22), Jacob has struggled with the ‘natural’ rights of the older. Only by subterfuge had he settled that with his own brother. And now it meets him again. The resistant reality of primogeniture blocks his love even as it blocks his inheritance. Leah is older, Rachel must wait. And so also Jacob must wait. But this time, Jacob has no trick to reverse the matter. He must wait. And he does. God is at work keeping promises again, but the keeping of promises can be delayed.” (Brueggemann, p 253)

I am not one to suggest that Jacob is set up by God here to get his “just desserts” and “he was getting what was coming to him.” However, it does appear that Jacob was the recipient of a great deal of justice here – the one who deceived his father regarding his birth order was deceived by his desired bride’s father as to the birth order of his daughters. Moreover, the fact that Jacob acquiesces to the course of events that have been handed to him is further testament to Jacob’s desire to marry Rachel and his growing understanding that he has brought this upon himself. The passions by which Jacob has lived for so long have finally risen up to receive their due position in Jacob’s life – he thought that he ruled over them, but it was they who controlled him.

Now, like many of you, you’ve heard this story portrayed in loving terms, even used in weddings to describe how Jacob was more than willing to spend the extra seven years of hard labor and that they “seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her.” (Genesis 29:20, NRSV) I’m not discounting such a possibility in my discussion of this passage, but I do want to provide a shift in an interpretation that is merely cursory and simplistic. Jacob did love Rachel and he was more than willing to serve an extra seven years for Rachel’s hand in marriage, but it must be clearly stated that Jacob’s time spent in Laban’s tents was time spent with Jacob being the recipient of similar levels of deceit that he and his mother Rebekah enacted upon his father Isaac.

This story has two distinct, yet intertwined messages – Jacob does reap what he sows, but he remains focused upon obtaining that which he loves, no matter what the circumstances and obstacles. His passion blinded him to the deception, but also provided him the means by which he could make the best of the situation and come out with what he most desired – the hand of Rachel in marriage. However, Jacob’s desires in the past to obtain the birthright and receive the blessing, eschewing traditional familiar norms come to the fore later in the Story with the constant battles over children and Jacob’s favor undertaken by Leah, Rachel, and their two very fertile handmaidens (Zilpah & Bilhah) as well as the conflicts between Jacob’s children concerning who Jacob loved the most. As the Patriarchal Story infers continually, it can be quite hard for us to escape our past.

Genesis 29:1-14

Jacob Arrives in Paddan Aram
Or
Jacob Really Knows How to Show Off to Get the Girl


One of the primary reasons I’ve come to enjoy the Story of the Patriarchs throughout the book of Genesis is that it is such a distinct microcosm of world history. Nations are born, nations develop, nations propagate internally and externally, the strength of the nations ebbs and flows, nations experience conflict internally and externally, and the story repeats itself endlessly. Moreover, nary three generations have finished with this story before the events are reprised with a new crop of descendents. It is as if the author(s) of the story would like for whoever is reading the tale or listening to it being told to realize the patterns and the various levels of significance present within each pattern.

But what makes the story of the Covenant so great is that, much like all other epic and archetypal narratives throughout literary and world history, these lessons being communicated are not spelled out in specific terms. They don’t scream, “Hey you! Pay attention here! Remember this!” And we should be glad of this fact. And yes, autocratic leaders throughout time immemorial have regularly concocted stories that openly declare their intentions and tell people exactly what to do and not do, believe and not believe. However, history also tells us that (with few exceptions) such belief systems have a rather short shelf life. Thus, we must perpetually approach the Story of the Patriarchs with reverence and awe, for we often aren’t aware of what ideas and impressions our current perusal of any given passage in the text might work their way into our imaginations.

So, if you’ve followed my train of thought this far, I ask you to walk with me into this bit of text – Jacob’s arrival at his mother’s home and subsequent conversation with the shepherds, Rachel, and Uncle Laban, who is both Rachel’s father and Rebekah’s brother. Jacob continues with his journey across the desert, seeking out the family members that his parents instructed him to locate. In so traversing the vast sandy peninsula, he comes across a well, covered by a large stone and surrounded by several shepherds and their sheep. As such wells are common places for people to meet, converse, barter, and trade, it is proper for Jacob to approach these shepherds and inquire of them where he was and if they knew who Laban was. (Coogan, et al; p51) However, Jacob seems to have found a collection of lazy shepherds who were seemingly unable and unwilling to remove the large stone protecting the well so that they may water their sheep and continue on with the rest of their daily chores. (Hamilton, p253)

The subsequent scene is a shortened, but altogether mirrored version of The Servant’s mission to locate a wife for Isaac. (Berlin & Brettler, p59) It seems that not only do these shepherds know of Laban, they point out to Jacob that Rachel, Laban’s daughter, is a shepherdess who is walking their way. Jacob sees Rachel and his reaction is one of “Samsonesque” strength as he removes the stone covering the well on his own, a task that typically requires the strength of two or three men. (Hamilton, p255) It seems that Jacob is intent upon impressing Rachel with his physical abilities and willingness to serve others – without the stone being removed, neither Rachel or the stationary shepherds would be able to water their sheep.

After accomplishing such a feat, Jacob is so overcome with emotion that he kisses Rachel and weeps upon her shoulder. He then declares to her that he is the son of her father’s sister, a piece of information that causes Rachel to run immediately and report this fact to her father, Laban. Realizing exactly who Jacob is and what his arrival means for him and his family, he quickly hurries to the well to see the visitor, falling upon him in a hug and kiss. And thus, upon Jacob’s recitation of the details of his lineage and voyage, Laban announces that Jacob is his flesh and blood and implies that he and Jacob possess more than a casual familiar connection. (Hamilton, p256)

I can hear the comments now – “What are you talking about? You said this episode was a copy of the interaction between The Servant and Rebekah. I don’t see any similarities!” And that’s an understandable reaction. This latter portion of the narrative seems to merely skim the surface of the former, as it is shorter, quirkier, and begins under different sets of circumstances. Nevertheless, you must realize there are some immediate parallels between Genesis 24 and Genesis 29:1-14 – 1) someone is commissioned to cross the desert to find a wife from amongst their family members; 2) there is a discussion that occurs at a well; 3) a man meets a woman at a well; and 4) the woman tells her family about meeting the man at the well. But in spite of those seemingly obvious parallels, what is subtly implied must be overtly stated – Jacob equals neither Isaac nor The Servant and Rachel certainly is not Rebekah. In fact, it’s the total other way around.

The means by which the details of Jacob’s meeting of Rachel occur are literally a mirror image of Rebekah’s introduction to Abraham’s house. The roles of the players are completely flipped. Ellen Frankel, in the voice of “Our Mothers” explains the situation this way: “When Abraham’s servant Eliezer devises a test to identify the right wife for Isaac, he’s looking for the following qualities: kindness to strangers and animals, beauty, modesty, and loyalty to family. He finds them all in Rebekah. But when Jacob comes to the same well years later, he finds himself replaying Rebecca’s [her spelling and italics], not Eliezer’s: so instead of waiting for a young woman to approach him, he comes forward to meet her; instead of her watering his animals, he waters hers. When he reveals himself to her, it’s not Rachel but he who weeps.” (Frankel, p50)

Jacob is certainly not his father; the fact that it is he has made this journey on his own and Isaac never sent out any kind of servant to find a wife for his children. He is the “antithesis” of his father in that he is the one present at the meeting of the future spouses and he is the one who prefers activity to passivity. (Alter, p152) Granted, Esau, back in Genesis 28:6-9, took offense to the mere assistance that their parents gave to Jacob concerning where to go to find a wife, but Jacob, considering the fact that he stole the birthright and blessing, was more than happy to get out of the house. Moreover, Jacob is certainly not a mere copy of his mother: having left his family’s tents, he can act of his own accord and allow his inner strength to come to the fore as he both does the shepherds’ jobs for them and initiates the potentially awkward introductions with Rachel and Laban. (Hamilton, p255)

Thus, we approach the end of this passage with a sense of heightened expectations – Jacob has met Rachel, he has sought to prove his worth and his bloodline to her and her father, his uncle Laban, and Laban has declared that he accepts Jacob as his kin by blood. It seems that everything is in order; all that remains is for Rachel to leave her family’s tents to become Jacob’s wife, just as her aunt Rebekah did when The Servant negotiated for her hand in marriage. However, the common factor in both of these stories is Uncle/Father Laban, a man who did his best to negotiate for extra dowry and time before The Servant took his sister away to Isaac’s tents. Jacob has none of the financial backing that The Servant provided in Isaac’s stead, a variation in the two stories that Laban latches onto quite quickly. Jacob the Trickster will come to meet his match in the personage of Laban. (Brueggemann, p253)

We are faced with the question of how to discern the content and purpose of this story in the narrative. We can approach these fourteen verses as purely story; they are the simple continuation of the larger account. Jacob has to go somewhere after meeting God at Bethel, so the logical place for him to go is for him to arrive at Paddan Aram, the tents of his mother’s family. He meets his future wife and her father, demonstrates his value, and places himself at the mercy of Laban. Many commentators mention specifically that they felt that this is the beginning of Jacob’s reaping of the sowing of bad deeds from his past, but to speak of this passage merely in vengeful tones misses the larger picture. To put it rather simply, the show must go on – Jacob must continue fulfilling The Promise, as God commissioned him to do. Moreover, after three chapters of reading about how despicable, deceptive, and power-hungry he seemed to be, it is in this passage that we learn of good, positive aspects to Jacob’s character. Jacob now stands up, all on his own, and does the proper and honorable thing by watering the sheep of his Uncle Laban and approaching Rachel with reverence and awe. However, with such helpful actions, Jacob falls prey to the machinations of Laban; Jacob will get to see what true deception looks like. (Frankel, p51)