Rachel was second wife to Jacob, though he bargained for her to be first after meeting her at his uncle’s well. On the lam from having deceived his own father, Isaac, to procure brother Esau’s birthright, he is himself deceived at the altar by his father-in-law, his uncle Laban, and given older sister Leah.
Jacob works to earn Rachel’s brideprice too, and, shockingly, Laban cheats him again out of the inheritance. Rachel steals her father’s idol and invokes Jacob’s curse on their way out of town.
Rachel is a sort of foreshadowing of Mary losing her child to save others (Joseph will be sold into slavery to Pharoah and will save his father and brothers). Rachel also echoes the barren Sarah who then almost lost Isaac to Abraham’s obedience to God in the ultimate foreshadowing of sacrifice and bloodletting. It is also noteworthy to mention a LOT of these people were related to one another by blood prior to marriage. Enough said.
Rachel, known for dignity and patience, is consigned to be known in either history or legend as weeping for her children as they are led again and again into captivity and bondage until the Messiah sets them free. Somehow, that has come to mean the Second Coming of Christ to those of us who think in terms of Christian Theology. For Rachel, that idol of her father’s had only recently been discarded, so I’m not sure she was aware of the long plan.
I’m not really sure what Jacob had told any of them about the confrontation with Esau or the wrestling match on the ladder. I doubt he told them the whole truth. Would you?
Whether or not you believe the Biblical figures are mythical or metaphorical, I find great value both philosophically and spiritually in thinking about Rachel’s (and the others) historical role as the patiently grieving mother, buried on the roadside after a difficult childbirth. (Genesis 35:16–20) Jacob buries her there near Ephrath (later Bethlehem) where she will bear witness to the suffering of her children when they are taken into captivity by Babylon. (Jeremiah 31:14-16) It is a real enigma.
In a parallel to Fourth Turning generational theory, it is interesting that Rachel is the “fourth” matriarch(s) of the Four Founding Couples: Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Rachel/Leah, all of whose bones are enshrined at Hebron, except Rachel’s.
Is it just me or do I see a bit of the sins of the father getting visited on some children in this scenario?
The question is a plethora of ideas I can’t quite blend into a single solitary query but I hope these few questions elicit some discussion on the lamentation of Rachel and, by extension, of all women suffering for the sins of our mothers being visited upon their daughters.
What does Rachel represent to the idea of family and continuity of the ideal of wife and mother? She has a dignity and patience the other three seem to lack, but is simply a story device to set her apart?
BTW? Why does Jacob weep when he meets her at the well?
What do you get when you cross a donkey with an onion? A piece of ass that will bring a tear to your eye.
When I’m logged in, I have other options available to me… let’s see what they are.
That does not compute. It smacks of Marianism. Please re-phrase your question.
https://sspx.org/en/i-am-your-mother-lady-of-guadalupe
Donkey dude that was deep……and way above my pay grade. I enjoyed it and hope the experts chime in.
Glad to see you here, Blaine. Mentioned you when reading a miles mathis piece. if you are you…
Thanks for this article bunny broad , I thought it was donkey dicks
I am me yes, I have never been to a miles mathis piece to the best of my knowledge , probably catch a bot and a black helo.
It is my opinion that Jacob wept because he knew the value of a virtuous woman, something most men do not appreciate in society today.
To be set free from the sins of our Fathers was accomplished in the work at the cross by Jesus and Him alone. This mystery which had been hidden for ages is now revealed in us, which is Christ, the hope of glory. (Col. 1:27)
Weeping? There should be much weeping and repentance, for much of so called Christianity has fallen away from true faith as was prophesied. (2Thess. 2:3, 2Tim. 4:3). Sadly, most men and women today cannot make the connection that all of the evils that are coming upon the earth right now were present in the days of Noah and of Lot. Many are the men that tell me they do not like what is happening and many are the men who refuse to repent. I just watched a video with Rob Kirby and he was asked what his recommendations were for the trouble ahead. Rob stated without any reserve, “we need to repent and pray.” I never thought it would happen but it did, and Rob Kirby was the first man in the economic world to say it (that I have heard). My hat’s off to you Rob Kirby, well done.
I can get wound up and discouraged as much as anyone but I have to collect my thoughts and return to sound doctrine. This is all unfolding as was prophesied, and my life is in the hands of the Father no matter what happens. Until then, much weeping repentance and prayer and as the apostle Paul said, exhorting one another and so much more as you see the Day approaching. And that Day is approaching. My two pennies, Thanks.
You shall know them by their fruits. You, sir, appear to be an orchard of study.
Thank you for the kind words but I am just a fellow pilgrim.
You are a pretty good fruit inspector and it takes one to know one.
Many thanks Old Timer for your thoughts. I am engaged in Bible studies myself at present with a sound mentor who has extraordinary knowledge of the interpretations of the prophesies. I am doing this to test my own assumptions about the future of our western civilisation as described in my book.
There is no doubt in my mind that the universe is not what it seems. It could be a virtual matrix; it could also be the result of intelligent design. This book has proven to be an eye-opener for me:
Thank you Peter. Curious have you read the book “The camp of the saints” by Jean Raspail? It is a novel written I think in the early 70’s. It is quite amazing how he predicted the destruction of western civilization with utmost accuracy.
Sounds interesting OT, thank you, I will look into it. Strange how fiction can often reveal the truth. I remember Dan Dare in the Eagle (the ‘Eagle’ has landed) and Star Trek; much of Capt Kirk’s technology we have today.
I actually visited a discussion of the Torah version and learned that Jacob cried upon meeting her because he saw her destiny… to be left behind to weep for Israel. Then it references the book of Ruth and Jeremiah and even points toward the abandonment of Samuel with Eli as being somehow related to the theme I’m trying to explore.
When I ask when will Rachel’s lament end, I am asking if there will ever be a time when mothers will not lose their children and weep for their return.
How broken was Eve’s heart when she saw what Cain had done? Did she think about that morning at the tree, when she’d committed the first trespass? Did she, as I imagine she did, cry out for forgiveness, realizing the enormous mistake she’d made after all.
(Thou will surely die had more impact, I imagine, for both Adam and Eve (and for us) while looking at their murdered son and his brother-killer than if they’d both dropped dead and ended it all at the Tree.
I’d hate to be the first to tell you but they’re just stories. Keep this up and I’m outta here.
As I said in my framing of the question, anonymous… even if the characters are simply the matriarchal Origin Mythology of a certain religious sect, there is some religious value which drives the origin stories and makes them similar to origin stories of other religions. (Think of the garden and tree of life/knowledge… repeated in many origin stories)
If they are just stories, then the character traits are even more significant. Because they become part of the Narrative.
Please expand and expound before you are “outta here!”
No big loss, anonyfags are a dime a dozen. You have to have a persona worth following before the threat means anything.
Goodbye cruel world, said the mayfly.
And that is a viable threat, how? More like a hopeful promise, with an attitude like that.
bye
You’re under no obligation to read or comment.
“Keep this up and I’m outta here.”
Your loss.
Exodus 3:7 – “He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
this has been proven in lab tests to actually be the case on short-lived animals. the effects of trauma pass on to the next few generations. epigenetics. incredible what knowledge the ancient words contained, only to be revealed now, to be taken on faith only until now.
Look forward to giving this some serious consideration tomorrow.
Having finished reading the book Mark posted, The death of uncle Sam. I don’t speculate on the OT. The false Jews own the western countries and the recommendations to fix this in the book will never come to pass in the next 2 generations.
MG…
This story began with the protoevangelium (protevangelium) Genesis 3:15 ” And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
It’s a also a story about disobedience and treachery that ‘attempts’ to thwart God’s plan…
Leah was the mother of Judah, the branch that would bring us a Saviour…..
“Rachel, known for dignity and patience” ….maybe not so much. Rachel was selfish and indulgent, she even traded a night with her husband for some mandrakes- Gen. 30: 14-15
She was given a son…then wanted another, which ended her life. You compared her to Sarah. Even that comparison seems to have a two-fold (or more) meaning. Sarah did not believe God when she had been promised children, so she brought in her bond woman Hagar who birth Ishmael; but God intended Isaac to be the ‘branch’ that would continue the genetic line He had planned. In other words, both Sarai and Rachel trusted to their own devices instead of trusting in God……
The thing about the Bible, you can make an entire volume out of discussing one small aspect…and many, many ‘interpretations’ of the words and meanings to each….
It remains- Jesus Christ, Emmanuel, the “I AM that I AM”, is going to reconcile his creation at HIS WILL.
Jews, Gentiles…..and reprobates. Who was the first “gentile”….not the first gentile ‘christian’…..but the very first ‘gentile’?
annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum <—–== the 'age of deceit' …..and now the world is even flat. Is the deception part the sphere, or the flat? If the deception is the global sphere, then the potential of deception coming from the court of an English King concerning translation of scripture, what they deemed to be scripture, can likely be a complete and total deception….
"as above so below" ……isn't in my KJV…."the phrase as above so below refers to a principle that exists between planes of existence. The principles that apply on one plane also applies to a higher plane or a lower plane. It is an ancient teaching of Hermes…."
The matriarchs did tend to use their serving women as surrogates with their husbands a lot, didn’t they?
I always thought that was a strange little exchange, those mandrakes. It almost mirrors Rebecca’s making Isaac’s favorite stew for Jacob while Esau was out hunting.
Was there something not quite right with Isaac?
Do you think it is possible that history repeats itself simply because it can’t think of other things to do?
In my little pea brain, I see it as a ‘tapestry of every time and purpose under the sun’….
A “mystery” of unfolding events since before time began….I do not see a ‘gap theory’ as an impossibility….we deal with eternal and limitless concepts with the Almighty…
Esau sold his birthright, and Rachel ‘sold’ her husband’s seed…? IDK….
Somewhere in that ancient bloodline, I believe the incursion of angelic DNA occurred, and the “fallen angel’ theory is valid; the ‘sons of Seth’ theory to be the apostatical…..
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” Job 1: 6-7
“Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” Job 2: 1-2
annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum
“Rachel is a sort of foreshadowing of Mary losing her child to save others…”
Interesting take!
“Rachel also echoes the barren Sarah who then almost lost Isaac to Abraham’s obedience to God in the ultimate foreshadowing of sacrifice and bloodletting”
Indeed. Gen 22:8 KJB… “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”
A stunning verse! God will provide HIMSELF a lamb… what did God later become? Jesus Christ, the Lamb without spot or blemish.
John 1:29… “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
Note how, in its constant attempt to diminish the Deity of Jesus Christ, the NIV renders the same verse.
Gen 22:8 NIV… “Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” Nothing special about this here lamb, just another animal… pathetic and evil book.
“It is also noteworthy to mention a LOT of these people were related to one another by blood prior to marriage.”
Very true. Human genetics were far superior back in these early times. We are not evolving (becoming superior) we are devolving.
“Rachel, known for dignity and patience, is consigned to be known in either history or legend as weeping for her children as they are led again and again into captivity and bondage until the Messiah sets them free.”
I’m not quite sure how you come to this conclusion. Can you provide some supporting scripture? Rachel was certainly fair and Jacob fell hard for her, not necessarily because of her virtue, but because of her physical beauty (Gen 29:17). Jacob, unlike Issac was not one to seek Gods counsel near as much his father and grandfather were. He was far more impetuous and carnally oriented. The first thing he does to “impress” her is to preform a physical act of strength. Jacob must have been a physically powerful man to have moves a stone it normally took several men to move (Gen 29:1-10).
He works for Laban 7 years that she become his wife. Laban deceives Jacob and presents Leah from whom Judah comes – the line of Christ. Seven more years and Rachel is presented to him. The Lord favors Leah, opening her womb before Rachels who makes the statement: Gen 30:1 KJB… “And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, give me children, or else I die.” Foreshadowing? She dies giving birth to her second son. She does not see them grow.
She also, following in the self willful footsteps of Sarah, gives Jacob her handmaid Bilhah to wife. This begins a jealousy fueled dual between the two sisters to see how many children they can produce for Jacob using other women. This does not seem to be a patient and/or dignified lady. She is also a liar, a thief and an idol worshipper, stealing her father Laban’s idols (whatever they may be) and sits upon them in the “time of her uncleanness”. Not very respectful to the idols either…
What about her weeping however? Looking at:
Jeremiah 31:14-16 KJB… “And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.”
This is not Rachel, it is Rahel. Not a typo as I checked several KJB’s from different publishers. What does the NIV say??? Rachel. Rachel never had an opportunity to weep for her children as she died birthing her second son, Ben-oni/Benjamin. She was distraught because she knew she was about to die, not that her children were (Gen 35:17-19). The words “wept” and “Rachel” appear only once together in the Bible and its Jacob weeping for the joy of kissing her (Gen 29:11). The NIV is a liar and a deceiver. Intentionally so. Take some time and learn of Westcott and Hort… the fathers on “modern bible translations”. Horrid agenda driven men. Put away a book that would intentionally deceive you and pick up a KJB.
Who then is Rahel? I’m not sure as her name appears only one single time in the verses quoted in Jer 31. She must be a sorrowful yet contrite Israelite woman. She sees clearly the sins of her people and it takes the Lord to comfort her with the promise of the new covenant given to them. The chapter looks forward to the day (yet in the future) when the new covenant is finally brought to pass for the currently apostate nation Israel. See Hebrews 8-10, Zechariah 12 (Israel mourns not “yet” for whom they pierced). What a day that will be…!
“In a parallel to Fourth Turning generational theory, it is interesting that Rachel is the “fourth” matriarch(s) of the Four Founding Couples: Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Rachel/Leah, all of whose bones are enshrined at Hebron, except Rachel’s.”
This much is accurate and an interesting comparison. Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel all barren, with miraculously opened wombs. One might even say that Eve’s first birth was miraculous as her son was the first human to be “born” and not directly created by God. She was not barren like the other 3 however.
“Is it just me or do I see a bit of the sins of the father getting visited on some children in this scenario?”
The law is not yet in place but I sure can’t say no. What I see is the universal (transdispensational) “law” of reaping what one sows. From pre-law “Job” through post-law “Paul” we all somehow eventually reap what we sow either here on earth or wherever we wind up in eternity.
“…and, by extension, of all women suffering for the sins of our mothers being visited upon their daughters.”
The same works for fathers, no? This is just a part of the human condition. Another word for it is sin.
“What does Rachel represent to the idea of family and continuity of the ideal of wife and mother?”
There are better examples of more ideal wives and mothers in the Bible. Take Mary, the mother of the human vessel our Lord was manifest within, just for one. She was virtuous and found favor in Gods sight, in that she kept the law in her heart (where it’s supposed to be), sacrificing as needed out of love and respect for the Lord… not simply to “go through the religious motions” because that’s what one had to do.
“Why does Jacob weep when he meets her at the well?”
Gen 29:11 KJB… “And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept.”
Youthful exuberance! Young love… 🙂
Great questions M G. Wonderful to contemplate such things! Thank you…
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/draconian-law-outrage-over-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-stealing-9
i have no problem with his sentence–he had multiple convictions & this was an armed robbery–
Returning to leave just a note for our posterior.*
Some folks avoid Bible stories for the best of reasons: Bible stories were written about cultures from so long ago they’ve been reviewed, revised and reinterpreted so many times any and all useful meaning has been completely wrung out of them, leaving only husks of thought resembling someone’s scattered memories. But, for some there are gems in the scattered memories.
Rachel, I assume, was a lovely young teen when Jacob arrives at his uncle’s well and falls madly in love with Rachel. He weeps.
His Uncle Laban who was also Abraham’s nephew on his brother’s side, which makes him Isaac’s first cousin, meaning Rebecca was also his first cousin. Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel, daughters of his Uncle Laban.
Laban was a bit of a conniver as was his sister Rebecca, who helped her youngest son acquire his brother’s blessing from Isaac.
So, Rebecca sends Jacob to where? Brother Laban to get himself a wife because Esau’s wife (wives) taken from among the Hittites are hard to live with. Rebecca sends Jacob to go marry one of Laban’s daughters. For better or worse, he gets two cousins after 14 years hard labor.
Now, Esau goes and grabs one of Ishmael’s daughters to remind us all about the Abrahamic grudge which not only plagues his father, but guarantees future emnity between their children and reminds us that it was Sarah who invited Hagar to bear Abraham a child, Ishmael.
So, Esau’s children are his own half-cousins by Isaac’s half-brother Ishmael and Jacob’s children are his cousins from both his mother’s line (Laban) and his father’s line (Isaac) and if you go and take a peek at Laban and Rebecca’s background, you will find more of the same. Just a “cultural” note, not a judgmental one… this is a review for our posterior.
So, I hope I’ve kind of explained what sort of tangled mess I’ve tried to follow to determine exactly why I was taught that Rachel was different… that she patiently waited for Jacob for 14 years and, then, got jostled in a cart while pregnant with her second child (son number 13, btw), and died near a little rock called Ephraim(?) and, later, of course, Bethlehem.
So, the planting of the idea that Rachel’s tomb is of great significance is placed the moment we learn the spot later becomes “near Bethlehem” and that Jeremiah stands listening to her cries, metaphorically, as Rachel’s children are led into captivity by lies (Babylon) again and again. She must really be wailing now, metaphorically.
So, as I said earlier, either these women really existed and at least some of the events and people in the story are real historical figures, which means there is ancestral historical value in understanding where our DNA got all mucked up. Or, are these women story motif characters meant to convey symbolic meaning?
Copied from my own comment below… just to put all the thoughts in one place for “posterior.”
[I actually visited a discussion of the Torah version and learned that Jacob cried upon meeting her because he saw her destiny… to be left behind to weep for Israel. Then it references the book of Ruth and Jeremiah and even points toward the abandonment of Samuel with Eli as being somehow related to the theme I’m trying to explore.
When I ask when will Rachel’s lament end, I am asking if there will ever be a time when mothers will not lose their children and weep for their return.
How broken was Eve’s heart when she saw what Cain had done? Did she think about that morning at the tree, when she’d committed the first trespass? Did she, as I imagine she did, cry out for forgiveness, realizing the enormous mistake she’d made after all.]
(Thou will surely die had more impact, I imagine, for both Adam and Eve (and for us) while looking at their murdered son and his brother-killer than if they’d both dropped dead and ended it all at the Tree.
*One time, I was helping a kid in Oklahoma memorize the preamble as written by her teacher. I told the kid’s mother the teacher had writter “posterior” instead of “posterity.” The mother didn’t see a big diff.