On Genesis, Part 41: Mutual Exploitation

On Genesis, Part 41: Mutual Exploitation

As we have seen in Genesis chapter 29 and the marriage agreement between Jacob and Laban for his daughter Rachel, Laban had exploited Jacob by burdening him with seven years of labor in exchange for her hand, which was a condition to which Jacob had rather eagerly agreed. That alone seems to have been excessive, since ninety years earlier, Laban’s father Bethuel had required nothing from the servant of Abraham in exchange for giving him Rebekah as a wife for Isaac. There in Genesis chapter 24, where the servant had asked for Rebekah and had given Bethuel and Laban an account of his experiences and the visions which he had, we read in part: “50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceedeth from the Lord: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good. 51 Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the Lord hath spoken.” Then as we read in the subsequent verses, the servant had given gifts to Rebekah’s mother and brother, this same Laban who had burdened Jacob here, but he had evidently given nothing to Bethuel, Rebekah’s father, and apparently Bethuel required nothing of him.

So even after laying a comparatively excessive burden on Jacob, Laban went even further and had exploited him by burdening him far beyond the seven years to which he had agreed. First, he deceived Jacob by having him marry Leah rather than Rachel, and by that action he then compelled him further, to work seven additional years for Rachel, whom Jacob had evidently already professed to have loved. This we read in Genesis chapter 29: “20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.” So Jacob, who could not deny his love, actually had worked fourteen years for Laban’s daughter Rachel, and none for Leah, whom he obtained by Laban’s choice and not by his own. In contrast, Isaac did not have to lift a finger to marry Rebekah, who only cost Abraham the journey of some servants and a few choice gifts. While we may never know whether or not that was his reason, Isaac had apparently sent Jacob to Haran empty-handed, as he is not recorded as having had any gifts for a prospective bride and her family.

As a further digression, after our last presentation one of our friends suggested that Jacob may have been intoxicated at the feast, for which reason he was more easily deceived into sleeping with Leah rather than Rachel. While the customary wine may have been a factor, it is my opinion that Jacob could not have been too intoxicated, since there should be no doubt that he remembered that he did indeed marry Leah once he awoke in the morning. Furthermore, he did not regret having lain with Leah, and neither did he blame any wine, but he only rued Laban’s deception. So apparently, for fourteen years Laban had Jacob’s labor only for the cost of his board, and then some as Joseph is already now born at some time close to when twenty years must have already passed. Now here we shall learn that Laban continued to exploit him even after those first fourteen years were passed, as Jacob had remained in Haran for a total of twenty years, which we shall read in Genesis chapter 31 (31:38, 41).

But first we shall take a digression to discuss our chronology. From the information which Genesis provides, we can only estimate that Jacob was a hundred and thirty years old when Joseph was forty years old, as we see that about the time that Joseph was thirty, as it is described in Genesis chapter 41 (41:46), seven years of plenty had passed, and then two years of famine, when Joseph had sent his brothers back to Canaan to fetch his brother Benjamin and his father Jacob so that they would survive a remaining five years of famine, as it is described in Genesis chapter 45 (45:5, 11). Therefore, when Jacob stands before pharaoh in Egypt, as it is described in Genesis chapter 47 (47:9), he is a hundred and thirty years old and we may imagine that Joseph was nearly, if not already, forty years old.

So on this account, we can imagine that when Jacob stood before pharaoh, it had been about forty years since Jacob had left Haran, as Joseph was the last child born to him there, and here where we shall commence with Genesis chapter 30, in verse 25 it is apparent that Jacob wanted to leave Haran almost as soon as Joseph was born. But there will be a delay, and we do not know the length of the delay. It could be a year, or it could be two. So if Joseph was 3 years old when Jacob left Haran after having been there for twenty years, then Jacob could not have gotten to Haran until he was seventy-three years old, rather than seventy. But if Joseph was a year old, since we approximated his age on the high side when he was forty, where he may have been only 39, then Jacob may have only been seventy, or perhaps seventy-one, when he arrived in Haran. Because we cannot know precisely how much longer Jacob had stayed at this point, after Joseph was born, our chronology could easily be a year or two off in regard to the precise time when Jacob was in Haran. However that would not change the chronology of the time when Jacob went to Egypt in relation to when Jacob was born, or the age of Jacob when Joseph was born, because in regard to those events we do have an explicit number of years.

However in any event, Jacob could not have stayed in Haran for too long after Joseph was born, since even after fourteen years, when he had finally married Rachel, Leah had conceived and came to full term with three more children, which had very likely taken at least three years, before Rachel had even conceived Joseph. That reflects a period of at least three years during which Rachel was barren, which is sufficiently consistent with the Genesis narrative, and it leaves no more than two years for Jacob to finally leave Haran after Joseph was born, or perhaps three if all four children were born in the fastest possible succession. But it is more likely that he had less than two years. So this circumstance is just another example of why no Biblical chronology can be entirely accurate in every respect. Instead, we would only claim that our chronology is a reasonable approximation based on what facts we can glean from Scripture.

With this in mind, we should also note that the gestation period for sheep is about five months, while that of goats is almost precisely the same. So two generations of such animals may be born within a year. This is a factor here in this account, as the time to produce two generations of sheep and goats, or even three, may still fit into a period of twenty years along with the births of the twelve children of Jacob before he leaves Haran. This also implies that Jacob had been working for Laban for even longer than he was bound by his agreement to work for Rachel, and that had to be the case, since Rachel was barren for at least several years before she had Joseph, from the time that they were first married.

Therefore, if the twenty years which Jacob had spent in Haran were from ages seventy to ninety, or seventy-two to ninety-two, or somewhere in between, it really does not matter and our estimation is close enough to being reasonable regardless of what we may settle upon. So with this we shall commence with Genesis chapter 30, as we had left off with the birth of Joseph which is described in verses 22 to 24, and the prayer of Rachel that she would yet have another son:

25 And it came to pass, when Rachel had born Joseph, that Jacob said unto Laban, Send me away, that I may go unto mine own place, and to my country.

We may imagine that this had happened only days, or even weeks after the birth of Joseph. Leah had left off bearing children with Judah, and it is rather safe to assume that some of those sons were born before Jacob had married Rachel, otherwise in the manner in which their births are described, they could not have all been born in only five or even six years, before Rachel had conceived Joseph. As we have also seen earlier in this chapter, Reuben was already old enough to go out into the field, and to recognize and bring home the mandrakes which he had found to give them to his mother Leah. Even then, before Rachel conceived Joseph, the two handmaids had also each had two sons, and Leah would have three more children, two sons and a daughter, before Joseph was conceived.

Jacob’s request continues:

26 Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee, and let me go: for thou knowest my service which I have done thee.

As we had explained, it must be very much near to twenty years, and by the ages of Jacob and Joseph when they are in Egypt much later in their lives, at this point it could not be much less than twenty years since Jacob must have been eighty-nine or ninety years old when Joseph was born.

27 And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake. 28 And he said, Appoint me thy wages, and I will give it.

If Jacob remains, Laban is allowing him to fix his own value, but as we shall see later in this account, Laban had exploited him on at least several other occasions by changing his wages. But even that had begun when he changed Leah for Rachel. Here it is also manifest, that Laban had wanted Jacob to stay for his own personal gain, and not for Jacob’s benefit. Then since Laban had sons of his own, it is also apparent that Jacob would have nothing of his estate if he had died. So Jacob replies:

29 And he said unto him, Thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle was with me. 30 For it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it is now increased unto a multitude; and the Lord hath blessed thee since my coming: and now when shall I provide for mine own house also?

Regardless of any inheritance which Jacob may have had with Isaac, after working for Laban for nearly twenty years he must be able to provide for himself and his family, so he illustrates this predicament to justify what he is about to demand if he remains.

Earlier in this account, where we saw in Genesis chapter 29 that Rachel was the keeper of her father’s sheep (29:6, 9) we wondered whether she was a keeper of his sheep, or the keeper of his sheep. Here Jacob seems to be answering that question by informing us that all the sheep which Laban had were kept by Rachel, as he asserts that the flock was small. So Laban replies:

31 And he said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock:

Now Jacob makes his demand for his wage, but the end result will also be that Jacob is compelled to leave Haran:

32 I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire.

The word for flock here is צאן or צאון, tsawn or tsan (# 6629), which Strong’s defines as being “from an unused root meaning to migrate; a collective name for a flock (of sheep or goats)”. With this Gesenius generally agrees, and gives examples of the use of the word in this specific manner, defining it to mean “flocks, small cattle, i.e. sheep and goats” [1]. The word for cattle, which appears twice here, is שה or seh (# 7716), which Strong’s defines as “a member of the flock, i.e. a sheep or a goat” and once again Gesenius agrees, where he has “commonly a sheep or a goat, a noun of unity, to which answers the collective צאן [tsan] … a flock of sheep or goats” [2]. Therefore the cattle here are sheep and goats, and not larger bovines which have much longer gestation periods.

There are at least four adjectives here, translated as spotted, speckled, ringstraked and grisled, of which the original nuances in the differences of meanings among them may have been lost to some degree, so their translations in the King James and other versions, as well as those which are found in the lexicons, are mostly only estimations. We shall examine the definitions of the terms in chapter 31. For now, where Jacob continues he explains the motive for the method by which he shall receive these wages:

33 So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me.

Here the New American Standard Bible offers a clearer sense of the intended meaning, where it has the verse to read: “So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come concerning my wages. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and black among the lambs, if found with me, will be considered stolen.” In other words, Jacob would only take the speckled or spotted or otherwise blemished of the cattle for himself, which would have been expected to have been only a minority of the cattle. But unknown to Laban is something which Jacob did not admit here, and which Laban, for all his treachery, did not deserve to know.

In chapter 31 there is an account where Jacob describes to Rachel and Leah how he had gained great wealth from this circumstance which is described to Laban, and for what reasons. So he explained to them that he had a dream, and we read in part: “10 And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled. 11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.”

While all of the details of how this happened are not related in that explanation, it must have been revealed to Jacob how it should be made to happen, because here in the subsequent verses Jacob would do certain things to make it happen which he could not of otherwise known. This is not an account of some miraculous event or some act of magic, but rather, it seems to be an example of an epigenetic phenomenon, where certain environmental factors can indeed affect genetic expression. [3] While we should not agree with everything that modern science claims concerning DNA, especially because the fools still uphold a belief in macroevolution, epigenetics only describes genetic expression, and not the changing of the DNA itself. All living organisms apparently carry genes which a certain individual may not express, such as an individual with blue, brown and green-eyed ancestors and children who himself may have blue eyes. We have had several friends who had blue eyes as children, and green or hazel eyes as adults.

Therefore, rather unwittingly, Laban had accepted the proposition:

34 And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word.

So Laban answered with a prayer, “I wish it to be according to your word”, even if we may suspect that since, at least on the surface, Jacob’s offer sounds like it may be more advantageous for Laban, that his prayer is disingenuous. Now Laban reacts:

35 And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

The “he” here is Laban, and he evidently removed the spotted and speckled animals from his flock since they may have been intended for Jacob’s first wages, but perhaps he had set them aside not only for that purpose, but also because he may have believed that their offspring would also more likely be speckled and spotted when they mated with the others. The fact that Jacob had told Laban to separate out all of the speckled and spotted animals before he went to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks is remarkable, because when the remaining animals bore speckled and spotted offspring in abundance, not being speckled and spotted themselves, then the truth of Jacob’s words where he said “so shall my righteousness answer for me” could not be questioned. So now Laban made certain that the speckled and spotted animals would not be near to have contact with his main flocks:

36 And he set three days’ journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks.

The Septuagint has “between them and Jacob”, referring to the animals, and that is more accurate in this context. While Laban had evidently thought that speckled and spotted animals would breed more of the same, the truth is that all sheep, goats, and other animals, such as mice and even humans, have latent genes which may be activated in various ways, which may change the coloration of the animal’s coat or hair.

The following is from the abstract of a study published at the American National Library of Medicine:

Agouti signaling protein (ASIP) is one of the key players in the modulation of hair pigmentation in mammals. Binding to the melanocortin 1 receptor, ASIP induces the synthesis of phaeomelanin, associated with reddish brown, red, tan, and yellow coats. We have sequenced 2.8 kb of the goat ASIP gene in 48 individuals and identified two missense (Cys126Gly and Val128Gly) and two intronic polymorphisms. In silico analysis revealed that the Cys126Gly substitution may cause a structural change by disrupting a highly conserved disulfide bond. We studied its segregation in 12 Spanish and Italian goat breeds (N = 360) with different pigmentation patterns and found striking differences in the frequency of the putative loss-of-function Gly(126) allele (Italian 0.43, Spanish Peninsular 0.08), but we did not observe a clear association with coat color. This suggests that the frequency of this putative loss-of-function allele has evolved under the influence of demographic rather than selection factors in goats from these two geographical areas. [4]

Selection refers to traits from genes directly inherited from parents regardless of genetic expression. But when genetic scientists speak of demographic factors, they are referring to a group of factors which include environmental fluctuations. [5] Nutrition is also such a factor, and yet another article published at the National Library of Medicine states: “In particular, specific genetic variants can influence the response to dietary components and nutrient requirements, and conversely, the diet itself is able to modulate gene expression.” The nutritional and environmental factors cannot change DNA, but they can effect which of the genes that are already in an individual’s DNA are expressed, as all animals have genetic material representing traits which are not expressed, but which may be expressed throughout one’s life, or at some time in one’s life, or passed on and expressed in future offspring. In the same study we read:

Thus, maternal nutrition can be considered as a major influence on resetting the epigenome in the early embryo because it affects offspring phenotype through alterations of oocyte maturation, oocyte provisioning, and oocyte stores of mitochondria and metabolites. In particular, the cytoplasmic constituents respond to maternal nutrition in a specific way: dietary fat increases lipid droplet size and composition, micronutrients influence DNA methylation and alterations in dietary lipid and sugars affect mitochondrial activity. [6]

This last part is most relevant to our interpretation of Jacob’s actions here, but the reasons why we are discussing these things will only become apparent as we proceed. First, we should briefly familiarize ourselves with DNA methylation, from an article at Wikipedia:

DNA methylation is a biological process by which methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule. Methylation can change the activity of a DNA segment without changing the sequence. When located in a gene promoter, DNA methylation typically acts to repress gene transcription. In mammals, DNA methylation is essential for normal development and is associated with a number of key processes including genomic imprinting, X-chromosome inactivation, repression of transposable elements, aging, and carcinogenesis.

37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

The word which is translated as rods here, מקל or or maqel, or in the feminine מקלה or maqelah (# 4731) would have been better translated as sticks or even better, as shoots in this context. Strong’s original Concordance defines the word as being “from an unused root meaning apparently to germinate; a shoot i.e. stick” regardless of whether it still had leaves or was used for some other purpose. Here Jacob, who must have done this with the inspiration of Yahweh in the vision which he later described, stripped portions of the bark of either sapling trees or tree branches, which would allow aromatic emissions, and purposely put them into the water ahead of the flocks which the cattle would then drink.

Additionally, both sheep and goats are evidently notorious for eating the bark of trees, from pine trees to fruit trees and other hardwood trees, and also even the wood itself. A study described in a blog post at Tuskegee University suggests that eating pine bark is even beneficial to goats and sheep to reduce parasites where pharmaceuticals have been ineffective. [8] In the United States, many agricultural hobbyists have published articles and videos complaining about their trees having been destroyed by their sheep and their goats, and among many other sources, an Australian government agency has published an article for small landholders titled Preventing tree damage by livestock. There we read in part: “Grazing animals can cause extensive damage to trees, both young and old. Seedlings are removed and mature trees chewed, bunted and rubbed against by goats, sheep and cattle.” [9]

We have already discussed studies that discuss DNA methylation as a device by which genetic expression is manipulated, and an explanation that that DNA methylation is a biological process by which methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule. In yet another study published at the National Library of Medicine, we read that “Lignin is one of the main components of plant cell wall and it is a natural phenolic polymer with high molecular weight, complex composition and structure.” Then, in an academic handbook on cell wall chemistry, we read that “Softwood lignin has a methoxyl content of 15–16% while hardwood lignin has a methoxyl content of 21%.” According to the National Library of Medicine, methoxyl is a radical form of methyl [10], and that and other forms are found abundantly in trees. [12]

One more study, published at Oxford Academic, puts this information together in a manner that should elucidate its relevance to Jacob’s experience here in Genesis, where we read in an article titled The agouti mouse model: an epigenetic biosensor for nutritional and environmental alterations on the fetal epigenome:

The ability of environmental factors to shape health and disease involves epigenetic mechanisms that mediate gene-environment interactions. Epigenetic gene regulation comprises the heritable changes in gene expression that occur in the absence of changes to the DNA sequence itself. Epigenetic mechanisms include chromatin folding and attachment to the nuclear matrix, packaging of DNA around nucleosomes, covalent modifications of histone tails (e.g. acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation), and DNA methylation. The influence of regulatory small RNAs and micro RNAs on gene transcription is also increasingly recognized as a key mechanism of epigenetic gene regulation.

Then in a subsequent paragraph:

The viable yellow agouti (A^vy) mouse model, in which coat color variation is correlated to epigenetic marks established early in development, has been used to investigate the impacts of nutritional and environmental influences on the fetal epigenome. The wild-type murine Agouti gene encodes a paracrine signaling molecule that produces either black eumelanin (a) or yellow phaeomelanin (A). Both A and a transcriptions are initiated from a developmentally regulated hair-cycle-specific promoter in exon 2. Transient A expression in hair follicles during a specific stage of hair growth results in a sub-apical yellow band on each black hair shaft, causing the brown agouti coat color of wild-type mice.

And even further on in the study:

Maternal dietary supplementation with genistein (250 mg/kg diet), the major isoflavone present in soy, shifted the coat color distribution of A^vy/a offspring toward pseudoagouti (brown). This marked phenotypic change was mediated by increased DNA methylation of six CpG sites within the A^vy IAP. The extent of DNA methylation in tissues from the three germ layers (brain, kidney, and liver) was correlated, indicating that genistein's influence on DNA methylation occurs during early embryonic development. [13]

Therefore here it should be fully evident, that all of the necessary ingredients and reproductive circumstances needed in order to affect genetic expression in the coats of Laban’s cattle may be found in Jacob’s trees, and while we cannot reproduce the phenomenon in an experiment of our own, it must have been for good reason that Jacob had employed these particular types of trees.

As for the trees themselves, which are identified in the King James Version as the green poplar, hazel and chesnut trees, the word for green is לח or lach (# 3892), which is fresh or new, and that supports our earlier assertion that rods which Jacob used would have been better translated as shoots, or even saplings. Here we would assert that the adjective applies to each of these varieties of trees. The word for poplar is לבנה or libneh (# 3839), which is related to the Hebrew word laban which means white. The original Strong’s Concordance defines it only as “some sort of whitish tree; perhaps the storax”. Gesenius shares the uncertainty of the identification of this tree as it was defined by Strong, but notes that in some places, the Septuagint translated it as the styrax, and in others as the white poplar, as the Latin Vulgate translated the term here. [14] The word for hazel is לוז or luwz (# 3869), which is apparently an almond tree, and the word for chesnut is ערמון or armown (# 6196), which is defined as the plane tree or Platanus orientalis, a tree which is also called Old World sycamore or Oriental plane. [15]

Evidently, when a ewe or a she-goat lowers her head to take a drink, she gets a little more than that, where we now read:

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

The Hebrew word for ringstraked is עקד or aqod (# 6124) which is striped or banded. The word for speckled is נקד or naqod (# 5348), which almost seems to be related. Strong’s defines it as “to mark (by puncturing or branding); spotted”. Evidently because a נקדה or naqodah (# 5351) is a point or a stud, according to Gesenius, he defines naqod as “marked with little points, or little spots”. [16] The word for which the King James Version has spotted is תלא or tala (2921), which Strong’s original Concordance defined as “properly to cover with pieces; i.e. (by implication) to spot or variegate (as tapestry)”, and using different words and examples Gesenius agrees with that. [17] Finally, another adjective which does not appear until this event is recounted in chapter 31 is grisled, from the Hebrew word ברד or barod (# 1261). This word Strong’s defined as “spotted (as if with hail)”, since an identically spelled word (# 1258) means hail. While Gesenius made the same connection to hail, which is obvious, he primarily defined the term as “sprinkled with spots” and that נקד or naqod “denotes lesser spots”. [18] Whatever that means, it is probably difficult to write into a dictionary definition without illustrations.

40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban’s cattle.

The word translated as brown in this verse is חום or chum (# 2345), which Strong’s defines as being “from an unused root meaning to be warm, i.e. (by implication) sunburnt or swarthy (blackish)”. Gesenius defines the word simply as black, listing the unused root under the same spelling and defining it to mean “to be black, properly burned or scorched”. [19] Evidently, this was also seen as being defective, in the sense of being in the same category as the cattle which were speckled and spotted.

It is not entirely clear what is being conveyed here in this verse. The New American Standard Bible has the verse to read: “And Jacob separated the lambs, and made the flocks face toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban; and he put his own herds apart, and did not put them with Laban’s cattle.” That does not seem to make sense either. Although it does not entirely correlate with the Hebrew, Brenton’s Septuagint, which is faithful to the Greek here, has the verse to read: “40 And Jacob separated the lambs, and set before the sheep a speckled ram, and every variegated one among the lambs, and he separated flocks for himself alone, and did not mingle them with the sheep of Laban.”

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. 42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s.

Here the last clause of verse 42 in the Septuagint reads “… but the unmarked ones were Laban's, and the marked ones Jacob's.” Here in the King James Version, the word translated as feebler is the Hebrew word עתף or ataph (# 5848) which Strong’s defines as “a primitive root; to shroud, i.e. clothe … hence (from the idea of darkness) to languish”. The word translated as stronger, קשר or qashar (# 7194) is defined by Strong’s as “a primitive root; to tie, physically (gird, confine, compact) or mentally (in love, league)” so stronger makes no sense at all. As for the Greek of the Septuagint, Brenton’s translation is correct, since the Greek the word ἄσημος means without a mark, and ἐπίσημος, means having a mark upon. It is nevertheless difficult to correlate those words with the corresponding Hebrew terms which are found in the Masoretic Text, so there is no apparent explanation for the discrepancy. In context, the Septuagint text here is more accurate.

Once again, it seems that the sap from the young shoots would enter the water in the gutters, and that the cattle would also eat of the shoots themselves. By that means, as we have already explained at length in the citations which we have provided here, it is apparent that the resulting nutritional factors were the cause of the activation of latent genes which caused the offspring of the cattle to be variegated in the coloring of their coats. Then, although this is only conjecture, we must wonder whether the three different trees were responsible for the differing outcomes, spotted, speckled, ringstraked and grisled.

The final verse of the chapter informs us of the ultimate result of Jacob’s labors in the house of Laban:

43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.

We are not informed as to how Jacob had attained servants beyond the handmaids which were given by Laban to each of his wives. Nor are we informed as to how he had acquired camels and asses. It may only be conjectured that while he had worked for Laban, he also had time to engage in at least some industry for his own personal profit.

Here it seems that Jacob was dishonest, but Laban had agreed to the arrangement, and just as Jacob agreed to work seven years and Laban had deceived him by substituting Leah for Rachel, whereby he held Jacob hostage for another seven years, now Laban has been recompensed by his own devices. Then, as we shall learn in chapter 31, it was Yahweh who had informed Jacob of what to do, and therefore Yahweh himself had justified and avenged Jacob, while having punished Laban for his deceit.

But the first to complain of what was done are Laban’s sons, who were not mentioned at all until Laban had entrusted them with the speckled and spotted cattle among his original flock:

1 And he heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying, Jacob hath taken away all that was our father’s; and of that which was our father’s hath he gotten all this glory.

Of course, they would stand to inherit whatever Jacob would not have taken away, and Jacob’s devices here must have greatly diminished the flock of Laban. The sons must have said this in the form of a report to their father:

2 And Jacob beheld the countenance of Laban, and, behold, it was not toward him as before.

Here Laban the exploiter must have realized that he was exploited in turn, and that Jacob had gotten the better of him in his own game.

As we had explained, there could not have been much time left in Jacob’s twenty year stay with Laban for him to have accomplished this, perhaps two years at the most. An article at Scotland’s Farm Advisory Service advises us that “Lambing three times in two years is possible with some breeds of sheep e.g. Dorset, Merino, etc, rather than the normal system of one lambing per year. Generally, sheep are seasonal breeders, with the dark autumn and winter nights triggering the start of the breeding season.” [20] Corresponding to this, although we did not document it with a citation, many of the sources which informed us that sheep and goats eat tree bark and even the wood had also stated that such activity is especially prevalent in the fall and winter months, which are evidently the same months in which such animals are most likely to breed.

3 And the Lord said unto Jacob, Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred; and I will be with thee.

So Jacob immediately informs his wives of the division, and will find them to be in agreement with him, as it is proper that wives should be. Women also must be subject to the commandment which was given to Adam where he was told in Genesis chapter 2 that “24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” It does not say “cleave unto his wife and her parents”, but only “cleave unto his wife”.

4 And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock, 5 And said unto them, I see your father’s countenance, that it is not toward me as before; but the God of my father hath been with me. 6 And ye know that with all my power I have served your father.

Notice that the handmaids were not called, even if they may have accompanied Leah and Rachel. Just as it was with Hagar and her relationship with Sarah, Zilpah and Bilhah would not have had the same status in the household as Jacob’s wives, and they would only expect to do what they were told so they had no choice in any matter of decision and no expectation to even be informed, since essentially they were still slaves.

So Jacob continues his address:

7 And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me. 8 If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the cattle bare speckled: and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be thy hire; then bare all the cattle ringstraked.

So even though this could only have happened over the course of a couple of years, unless the process began much earlier than the account of Moses actually reflects, which is another possibility, we once again see the extremely concise manner in which these accounts were written, since much of Jacob’s conversation here reflects things which were not described when the account was first related, in chapter 30.

Where the King James Version has “changed my wages ten times”, the Septuagint, in Brenton’s English, has “and changed my wages for the ten lambs”, which seems to be nonsense. The text of verse 8 supports the reading translated from the Masoretic Text. In verse 8, the Septuagint has white rather than ringstraked, which also cannot be readily explained.

Jacob could not have understood epigenetics, or the effects of nutrition on genetic expression, but rather, he only understood what instructions Yahweh had given him earlier, in the dream which is mentioned here, and his actions as they are described, stripping some of the bark of the shoots of young trees and placing them in the troughs, must have resulted from what he saw in that dream, so he can only make an attestation of the results:

9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me. 10 And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled. 11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.

So, as we have asserted, this was not a magic trick, nor was it a miracle, except that before any understanding of genetics and the effects of nutrition on human cells, men could only have perceived it in that manner, and therefore many critics have scoffed at this account in their ignorance. In recent decades, some denominational churches have noticed some of the things which we have discussed here, so I have not been the first to notice these things, but we can understand that Jacob’s experience here is a result of natural phenomena. Yahweh God, being the Author of nature, knows how His creation was designed, and this is just one more event in Scripture which our modern knowledge vindicates, even if what men call “science” is abused in many other aspects.

Now Jacob concludes by once again informing his wives that they must separate from their father’s house, where he is still repeating what Yahweh had spoken to him in the dream:

13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

The word for kindred here, מולדת or mowledeth (# 4138) is the same word which was used on several occasions in Genesis chapter 24 to describe the relationship between Abraham and the house of Bethuel, the father of Laban. So here it is used in an even narrower and more immediate sense.

Now where Leah and Rachel answer Jacob, it is evident that they are concerned for their own futures above that of their father and brothers, and they express ambivalence towards their father for the manner in which he had married them to Jacob:

14 And Rachel and Leah answered and said unto him, Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house? 15 Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us, and hath quite devoured also our money.

The word for strangers here in verse 15 is a feminine plural form of נכרי or nokriy (# 5237). While it is often interpreted as stranger or alien, and it may describe such, it is also used of someone of one’s own tribe or race who is simply not recognized. In this same manner, Job had lamented in the time of his calamity that “15 They that dwell in mine house, and my maids, count me for a stranger: I am an alien in their sight”, in Job chapter 19. In Psalm 69 David cried that “8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.” All of these passages used this term, nokriy. Ruth had also called herself a stranger in that sense in relation to Boaz, using that same word (Ruth 2:10). Rachael and Leah, Job, David and Ruth were not complaining that they were somehow of some other race. They were only lamenting that they were estranged from their own families or households. A nokriy is an outsider, someone who is unknown to the beholder, and the term does not designate race or refer to any particular or necessarily different race.

Now Leah and Rachel express a sense of entitlement in relation to what Jacob had done, as they evidently felt short-changed by their own father, who would have kept them and their children poor while he kept their husband as his serf and he left his wealth to their brothers:

16 For all the riches which God hath taken from our father, that is ours, and our children’s: now then, whatsoever God hath said unto thee, do.

Therefore they are fully agreeable to their departure with him:

17 Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels; 18 And he carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padanaram, for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan.

This ends the relationship of mutual exploitation between Laban and Jacob, but Jacob had only moved to exploit Laban when Yahweh told him how it was that he should be avenged. Once again, Jacob accepted his burdens, and left his plight in the hands of Yahweh his God, who rewarded him in the end.

Now Jacob shall face several challenges along the long journey home, the first being the pursuit of Laban and one final and unexpected confrontation with his father-in-law. During that confrontation, Jacob would finally inform Laban of his grievances, and how Yahweh his God had ensured that he would leave with his wealth, which also serves as a condemnation of the greed of Laban.

Footnotes:

1 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, p. 698.

2 ibid., p. 785.

3 Weinhold B. Epigenetics: the science of change. Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Mar;114(3):A160-7. doi: 10.1289/ehp.114-a160. PMID: 16507447; PMCID: PMC1392256, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392256/, accessed December 29th, 2023.

4 Badaoui B, D'Andrea M, Pilla F, Capote J, Zidi A, Jordana J, Ferrando A, Delgado JV, Martínez A, Vidal O, Amills M. Polymorphism of the goat agouti signaling protein gene and its relationship with coat color in Italian and Spanish breeds. Biochem Genet. 2011 Aug;49(7-8):523-32. doi: 10.1007/s10528-011-9427-7. Epub 2011 Mar 5. PMID: 21373989; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21373989/; accessed December 28th, 2023.

5 Genetics and Demography in Biological Conservation, Russell Lande, Science, 16th September 1988, Volume 241, Issue 4872, pp. 1455-1460, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.3420403, accessed December 28th, 2023.

6 Franzago M, Santurbano D, Vitacolonna E, Stuppia L. Genes and Diet in the Prevention of Chronic Diseases in Future Generations. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Apr 10;21(7):2633. doi: 10.3390/ijms21072633. PMID: 32290086; PMCID: PMC7178197, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7178197/, accessed December 28th, 2023.

7 DNA methylation, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation, accessed December 29th, 2023.

8 Can Pine Bark Help Save the Southeast’s Goat and Sheep Industry?, Nicole Nunoo, https://blog.tuskegee.edu/caens/pine_bark, accessed December 29th, 2023.

9 Preventing tree damage by livestock, https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/small-landholders-western-australia/preventing-tree-damage-livestock, accessed December 29th, 2023; Liu Q, Luo L, Zheng L. Lignins: Biosynthesis and Biological Functions in Plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Jan 24;19(2):335. doi: 10.3390/ijms19020335. PMID: 29364145; PMCID: PMC5855557, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5855557/, accessed December 29th, 2023.

10 Methyl radical, methoxy-, National Library of Medicine, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Methyl-radical_-methoxy, accessed December 29th, 2023.

11 Cell Wall Chemistry, Handbook of Wood Chemistry and Wood Composites, Roger M. Rowell, et al. Online publication date: September 2012, Routledge Handbooks Online, https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.1201/b12487-5, accessed December 29th, 2023.

12 Uptake of Methacrolein and Methyl Vinyl Ketone by Tree Saplings and Implications for Forest Atmosphere, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 18, 7096–7101, Publication Date: August 18, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1021/es1017569, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es1017569, accessed December 29th, 2023.

13 Dana C Dolinoy, The agouti mouse model: an epigenetic biosensor for nutritional and environmental alterations on the fetal epigenome, Nutrition Reviews, Volume 66, Issue suppl_1, 1 August 2008, Pages S7–S11, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00056.x, found at Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/66/suppl_1/S7/1939970, accessed December 29th, 2023.

14 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 429.

15 Platanus orientalis, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platanus_orientalis, accessed December 29th, 2023.

16 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 564.

17 ibid., p. 322.

18 ibid., p. 139.

19 ibid., p. 265.

20 Lambing three times in two years, Scottish Farm Advisory Service, https://www.fas.scot/downloads/lambing-three-times-in-two-years/, accessed December 29th, 2023.