Good evening, and welcome to EBible Fellowship’s Bible study in the book of Genesis. Tonight is study #20 of Genesis 29, and we are going to read Genesis 29:31-35:
And when JEHOVAH saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely JEHOVAH hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because JEHOVAH hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise JEHOVAH: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing.
In our last study, we were continuing to look at the spiritual meaning of the relationship between Jacob and his two wives. We have seen that Jacob is a type and figure of God, the Lord Jesus, who is married to the unsaved people of the world and to the saved people. The saved are the loved of God, as Rachel was, and the unsaved are the hated, just as God said of His relationship with Jacob and Esau: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” One was loved because God took upon Himself his sins and paid for them at the foundation of the world, and the other was hated because God did not do that glorious work of atonement for him. And so it is with the spiritual picture of Jacob and his love for Rachel. It is not that he despised Leah, but Biblical “hatred” has to do with separating from someone, and his heart, his feelings, his desire, and most of his time was likely spent with Rachel, and not Leah. He preferred Rachel. And with that preference, he loved her, and it is said that his other wife Leah was hated.
But Leah was the one bearing the children, and we can see through Leah’s statements after she bore these sons that it was her hope that through giving her husband sons, he would come to love her. That is what it said in Genesis 29:32:
…for she said, Surely JEHOVAH hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.
I think there were similar statements made elsewhere. Yes – in the next chapter Genesis 30, after Leah bore two more sons (for a total of six), we read in Genesis 30:20:
And Leah said, God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons: and she called his name Zebulun.
It was her hope that through much childbearing and, especially, through the giving of these six sons, that he would come to the realization that Leah, who was more fruitful, was the better wife, and he would dwell with her and love her. It is really sad. It is really a sorrowful thing that we see in this Biblical language Leah’s desire for her husband simply to love her. She desired her husband’s love, but never received it in the way that she had hoped.
And this is what sin does. This is the destructive force of sin in relationships and families, and the sin here was the multiplying of wives. It just is not going to work out well. Whenever we go contrary to the Word of God, then we are really setting up a situation for failure, misery, and sorrow, and that is what happened here.
So we know this is the spiritual picture. Christ is married to His elect. All those He has saved are His bride. We are the bride of Christ if we are truly saved. And He is married to the unsaved people of the world. So Jacob was married to Leah first, just as God created man first, and even though man sinned, mankind was still married to the Law. Before God began to work out His salvation program to form the “woman” for his eternal bride, He was first married to the creatures that were made in His image and that rebelled against Him. So in the historical parable, we see that Leah is Jacob’s first wife, but he wanted a bride to love, and he did not love Leah. It is just as Christ wanted a people for Himself (a bride) to shower with rich blessings and abundance of love for evermore, but He first had this unfaithful wife of unsaved mankind that were married to Him through the Law, but were adulterers.
We do not see that ugly side of the spiritual marriage between the Law of God and mankind in the historical relationship between Jacob and Leah. She seemed to be a good wife to him in many ways, so not every element is in view when God paints a picture. But we do see that she was a wife of Jacob, and it was said she was hated, and she was very fruitful in having many children. So, too, unsaved mankind is very fruitful in populating the world, as well as in populating the churches with the multitude of tares that entered into the congregations. This is the spiritual picture.
Last time we were discussing the Law in Deuteronomy 21, and I will turn there again. It says in Deuteronomy 21:15-17:
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Now this is the Law of God, and we can see how well the situation of Jacob and his wives fits these verses. Leah was hated. Leah had the firstborn son, who is Reuben. And Rachel was loved, but so far in this historical account, Rachel was barren, and it would be a while before she does have a son. Actually, we know that Jacob came to the land of Haran at age 60, and he would not have a son through Rachel until he was 91. We know that absolutely. Jacob was 91 years old when Joseph was born, because it can be shown that when Jacob entered into Egypt, he was 130 years old, and it can also be shown that at that same time Joseph was 39 years old. Joseph was 30 when he was brought out of prison and stood before Pharaoh. Then there were seven years of plenty, and at the time that Jacob went down into Egypt, there had been two years of famine in the land. So the seven years of plenty, plus the two years of famine, would make Joseph 39. Just do the math: (130 – 39 = 91 years of age).
By the way, consider how the number “13” is in view with those ages. The number “130” is “10 x 13,” and the number “39” is “3 x 13,” and the number “91” is “7 x 13.” So the difference in age between them emphasizes the number “7” and the number “13.” The number “13” is found in this account because it is pointing to the time of the end of the world. The seven years of famine were referred to as “great tribulation” in Acts 7, and Great Tribulation came beginning in the year 1988, which happened to be the 13,000th year of earth’s history. So God does not want His elect people that are living at the time of the end (as we are presently living in that time) to miss this fact.
Anyway, Joseph would be born when Jacob was 91, so it was 31 years into his stay in the land of Haran before Joseph was born. And at this point, as Leah was beginning to bear these four sons, it was probably around the eleventh year, so it would be about 20 more years before Rachel finally had her first son.
So that is the situation that matches Deuteronomy 21:15-17, concerning the “son of the hated.” He, by Law, is to receive the blessing of the firstborn son, and not the firstborn of the loved (wife). And, yet, it turned out that Rueben, the first born of the hated, did not receive the blessing of the firstborn son, but Joseph, the firstborn of the loved wife, was the one who got the blessing.
Is there some wrongdoing here, or some injustice, or some violation? And the answer is, “No.” Let us to Genesis 35, and we are going to see that Reuben did something very wrong. As we read this, remember that “Israel” is another name for Jacob. It says in Genesis 35:22:
And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:
Reuben laid with his father’s concubine, and a concubine is a wife. From everything we can read in the Bible, a concubine was not quite “on par” as far as the stature of a wife like Leah or Rachel, because a concubine was a handmaid of the wife, just as Hagar was a handmaid of Sarah. But although it was a lesser position in status, as far as God is concerned, these women were wives as well as the others. So it was a terrible thing for Reuben to lay with his father’s concubine or wife. Interestingly, Bilhah was Rachel’s handmaid, not Leah’s handmaid, so I do not know what that means. But Rueben went in unto her and laid with her and, as a result, Israel (Jacob) heard it. It was something that came to his knowledge. It surely was done secretly, but there was “gossip,” and it finally reached Jacob’s ear and he heard of it.
Now in Genesis 49, when Jacob was on his deathbed, we read in Genesis 49:1-4:
And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days. Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father. Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.
Then Jacob moves on to speak of the next-born son, and so forth. So Jacob recognizes here that Reuben is his firstborn son and “the beginning of my strength.” He should receive the blessing of the firstborn. However, he is “unstable as water,” and will not excel, and the reason was that he went up to his father’s bed and defiled it. He went up to his couch.
We read something similar in 1Chronicles 5:1-2:
Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's:)
The sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, were tribes of Joseph in the Bible, so for them to get the blessing of the birthright and the blessing of the firstborn, it is as though Joseph received it. And here, again, the explanation is that, yes, it is true that Reuben was the firstborn, and he should have received the birthright. However, it was taken away from him because he defiled his father’s bed, and this is the second time we are reading the reason, as it also said in Genesis 49.
And this was a horrible sin. How horrible a sin was it? Remember what we read in the New Testament in 1Corinthians 5, and we will see a very similar sin discussed in 1Corinthians 5:1:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
Let us just stop for a minute. It does not mean that it was incestuous in that a son was having sexual relations with his mother. It does not say “his mother,” but it says his father’s wife, just as the concubines were Jacob’s wives. So, in this case, there was a man that had sexual relations with one of his father’s wives, and probably a concubine. And, yet, this kind of sin was not so much as named among the Gentiles “that one should have his father’s wife.” And the Gentiles would have been people of the world who were not Jews. They were, therefore, not the corporate people of God. You know, the church age was just starting to spread at that time, and most of the Gentiles were not in those churches. They were not part of Israel, and they were not yet part of the New Testament corporate church. They were the heathen and ungodly of the world and, yet, at that time in the first century A. D. , they would not have even thought of engaging in such a sinful activity. And that is really saying something because the ungodly of the world engage in all kind of wicked things. And, yet, they had some sense of decency and morality regarding this – they would not go in unto their father’s wife. They would not defile his bed in that way. The Lord was moving the Apostle Paul to point out the sin of a member of the Corinthian church for doing this thing. Then it says in 1Corinthians 5:2-5:
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
We have talked about this passage before, and I mentioned that this is a “figure.” It is another historical parable, because there was this man that did go in unto his father’s wife, and he lived in Corinth in the first century A. D. And the judgment of the church, as the Apostle Paul was given wisdom from God, was to deliver that man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. That is, he was to be cast out of the church. He was to be officially excommunicated. That is the church term for casting an individual out of the church. It would be done by those in authority within the congregation where members in good standing would have partaken of the Lord’s Table and received communion. But someone like this was to be excommunicated. They cannot partake of the Lord’s Table. So the idea was to deliver such a one to Satan. That is, he was to be cast out, in the hope that the Lord would use this chastisement to bring correction and repentance in his life, and he would come back broken and humble. Then maybe after a period of time, he could be reinstated. But that is not the language here, is it? The language states: “…deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” To destroy the flesh means that person is dead. But, you see, what the churches have done is that they have taken this wording and they say, “It means this.” But they are not using the Bible to come up with the definition of excommunication. I think it properly could have been used in that way over the course of the church age with their limited understanding, but the real meaning is that at the time of the end, those that should receive the blessing of the firstborn Son (the Lord Jesus Christ) ought to have been those professed believers in Christ, and they ought to have been fellowheirs counted for the seed in Him, but, no, they have committed a horrible sin – they have gone in unto their Father’s wife. It is as if God has looked at the corporate church, and they have gone in unto His wife; they have gone in unto His bed. And, therefore, they must be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh. That could be put another way, and that is to say, “for the destruction of the tares.” Then we understand right away what it is saying, where it splits the man into two halves: the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. That is what God did with the corporate body. There were the wheat and tares, and God split them or divided them, and He bundled the tares for burning, which were all those remaining behind in the churches, while delivering the wheat (the spirit), which were the elect He had called out of the churches, and these had the Spirit of Christ within and, therefore, are considered to be the “spirit.” They are the ones with life in their souls. And God did this so the elect would be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
We do not have time to get into the proof for this. But, Lord willing, when we get together in our next Bible study, there is a Scripture that does confirm this understanding.