Genesis 30: 40 Commentary

Further to my post # 2, I may add that Jacob had his flock obtained as wages from Laban, still he did tended the flock of Laban for wages for maintaining his own family( Genesis 30:30, 31and 36).This also goes to make sense of the words “With Laban’s flock” in verse 40.

With regard to my question in Post # 4 and agreeing to Jean’s reply thereto, I would further like to say that in the matter of birthright and his father’s blessings, Jacob had deceived Esau. But then he was deceived by Laban in the matter of marriage and giving of his wages. In fact, Laban had changed Jacob’s wages ten times. But every time the Lord favored Jacob in that there was increase in birth of the types of flock that had been decided upon as his wages. I wonder then why did Jacob resorted to scheming putting of the rods before mating animals, instead of relying on the Lord. (This is the limitation of Jacob’s nature, as is our too). For it was the Lord’s miraculous intervention responsible for increase in his flock as wages. See 30:7-9 and the words of the Lord, “For I have seen all that Laban had been doing to you” in Jacob’s dream in Genesis 31:10, 12.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/22/2010 22:42 pm

There was indeed an ancient belief that what animals see in the time of mating, it is what will be reflected on their offspring, for example a color. But modern science or genetics does not approve such a practice, because it is a mere superstition, there is nothing in the animals body that could react in response to such a practice. For example if the parent sheep are white, just by seeing a completely black rock, there is no such thing in their nerves or genes (includes the information for physical appearance) that could respond or change in response to that and bring forth completely black sheep.

They have also studied if there could be some kind of substance or chemical liberated in the water from the peeling of the rods that could cause such a result, but again there is no evidence or proof.

The answer to this mystery is that God rewarded Jacob even though he was making use of superstition, or maybe it wasn’t superstition, but a direct command from God that he do all of this, see for example Genesis 31:10-13, a confirmation that God was in control of everything happening then. Maybe Jacob believed it was an official or real way of obtaining such results, or maybe he just had a strong faith in his God that by doing this, He was going to respond to his faith, and that is what happened.

In the Scriptures we see that our God sometimes uses symbolisms, for example Jeremiah 19, specifically verses 1 and 10. So it maybe was a symbolism from God to the people of that time and to us now. But the most important thing is that God always had the control of everything that was happening then.

God bless you brother, and thanks a lot for your help and attention,

Shalom in Yeshua, blessings

By Jean (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/20/2010 20:55 pm

God bless you,Jean

But I also want to know about this event of keeping peeled rods before the conceiving flock. Is there something that is there in vetenary or animal husbanday science or some popular belief in the Bible time to explain this? Or is it simply that it was the miracle of God favouring Jacob in blessing him through good quality of flock? Is it some kind of psycological effect that is envisaged here, even in the case of animals?

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/20/2010 11:01 am

Thanks a lot,

So in essence when the verse says “and made the flocks face toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban”, the part that says “flock of Laban”, it is really the flock of Jacob that will be his property as wages (because they weren’t normal colored animals), but that they are in a general way still called Laban’s flock?

By Jean (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/20/2010 01:39 am

I have come to understand this as follows:

Jacob proposes that he should be given as his wages the following categories of the flock:

Goats: ringstracked speckled and spotted (White spotted).

Sheep: All the black.

Jacob wanted to have identity of the flocks given to him as wages, so that in the case of dispute he can point it out and that Laban may not put an allegation of stealing on him.

Laban agreed to the proposal of Jacob, but took away that very night the identified category of goats and sheep and put them with the flocks of his sons. He wanted to ensure that the agreed wages in terms of identified flocks do not go to Jacob up to that time. Only those goats and sheep of identified category that are born thereafter that would then be the wages for Jacob. Laban thus deceived Jacob once again.

So Jacob became alert and tried to get his wages in good quantity used the trick of putting peeled rods before the fatted flocks when they conceived at the trough, while not placing the rods before the weak flock. This was his trick that the identified category of the flock that may be born be stronger than the others that would belong to Laban.

Now the sheep and the lambs are mostly either white (brownish white). So the sheep can be easily separated into two groups of white and black. As proposed by Jacob and agreed to by Laban, the black sheep were to be the portion for Jacob, whereas the sheep other than black were to belong to Laban. So Jacob took the black sheep out of the flock of Laban for his agreed wages. Here Jacob had just to separate the black sheep for him.

The goats can be white, black, spotted, speckled etc. Jacob had used a trick of keeping the peeled rods at the time of conceiving. So he kept the faces of the spotted, speckled goats toward such rod. This was perhaps to ensure that these goats do not get mixed with other flocks.

So in essence verse 40 says that as for the sheep Jacob took the black sheep out of the flock of Laban that was there with him. He also separated the goats like on the basis of the identified category. He then kept his flock (the Spotted, speckled goats and the black sheep) separate from the rest of the flock of Laban. Jacob did this to ensure that Laban may not again steal the wages of Jacob. ( So in verse 40, the phrase “all the black in the flock of Laban” is correct).

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/20/2010 00:18 am

Hi, God bless, my question is because I recently started reading the Bible again, but the problem is that I can’t understand the verse in Genesis 30:40. It may not have all that importance but I want to make sure that I understand every verse in the Bible.

I am using the New American Standard Bible:

Genesis 30:40
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 flock.

I can’t understand the part in the verse that say’s:
“and made the flocks face toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban”

I can’t understand why the phrase here say’s “in the flock of Laban” because the “striped and all the black” (lambs) were of Jacob not Laban’s.

I could understand the verse if it said instead:
Jacob separated the lambs, and made the flocks OF LABAN face toward the striped and all the black; and he put his own herds apart, and did not put them with Laban’s flock.

OR

Jacob separated the lambs, and made the flocks face toward the striped and all the black in HIS OWN FLOCK (JACOB’S); and he put his own herds apart, and did not put them with Laban’s flock.

I recently read an article from a website: http://bible.org/seriespage/jacob-gets-laban’s-goat-genesis-3025-3116

And I found this explanation:
“The second phase of Jacob’s plan to predispose the outcome of his labors was to segregate the flocks. The striped, speckled, and spotted offspring (which belonged to Jacob) were put off by themselves. The rest of the flock was faced toward those animals which were either striped or all black (verse 40). While the peeled poles were artificial, the striped animals were the “real McCoy.” Surely by seeing these animals, the rest of the flock would get the idea.”

So where it say’s:
“The rest of the flock was faced toward those animals which were either striped or all black”, it means that the verse should say Jacob instead of Laban?

I will greatly appreciate your help, thanks in advance.

God bless you.

By Jean (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/19/2010 03:39 am