17<\/strong>. Leah’s eyes were tender<\/em> ] i.e. weak or soft, wanting in clearness and brilliancy. The eye was the chief feature of Oriental beauty. The versions rather exaggerate the sense. LXX = “weak,” Lat. lippis oculis<\/em>, Aq. Sym. = “tender.”<\/p>\n beautiful and well favoured<\/em> ] Lit. “fair of form and fair of looks.” The Old English “favoured” has reference to personal appearance; cf. Gen 41:2<\/span>; Gen 41:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n Verse 17<\/span>. Leah was tender-eyed<\/B><\/I>] raccoth<\/I>, soft,<\/I> delicate, lovely<\/I>. I believe the word means just the reverse<\/I> of the signification generally given to it. The design of the inspired writer is to compare<\/I> both the sisters together, that the balance may appear to be greatly in favour of Rachel. The chief recommendation of Leah was her soft<\/I> and beautiful eyes<\/I>; but Rachel was yephath toar<\/I>, beautiful in her shape<\/I>, person,<\/I> mien<\/I>, and gait<\/I>, and yephath mareh<\/I>, beautiful in her countenance<\/I>. The words plainly signify a fine shape<\/I> and fine<\/I> features<\/I>, all that can be considered as essential to personal beauty. Therefore Jacob loved her, and was willing to become a bond servant<\/I> for seven years, that he might get her to wife; for in his destitute state he could produce no dowry, and it was the custom of those times for the father to receive a portion for<\/I> his daughter, and not to give one with<\/I> her. One of the Hindoo lawgivers says, “A person may become a slave<\/I> on account of love, or to obtain a wife.” The bad system of education by which women are spoiled and rendered in general good for nothing, makes it necessary for the husband to get a dowry with his wife to enable him to maintain her; whereas in former times they were well educated and extremely useful, hence he who got a wife<\/I> almost invariably got a prize<\/I>, or as Solomon says, got a good thing.<\/P> <\/p>\n Leah was tender-eyed<\/B>; her eyes were soft and moist, and therefore unsightly. <\/P> <\/p>\n 17. Leah tender-eyed<\/B>that is,soft blue eyesthought a blemish. <\/P> Rachel beautiful andwell-favored<\/B>that is, comely and handsome in form. The latterwas Jacob’s choice.<\/P><\/p>\n Leah [was] tender eyed<\/strong>,…. Blear eyed, had a moisture in them, which made them red, and so she was not so agreeable to look at; though Onkelos renders the words,<\/p>\n “the eyes of Leah were beautiful,”<\/p>\n as if her beauty lay in her eyes, and nowhere else;<\/p>\n but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured<\/strong>; in all parts, in the form of her countenance, in her shape and stature, and in her complexion, her hair black, her flesh white and ruddy, as Ben Melech observes.<\/p>\n (17) Leah was tender eyed.<\/strong>Leah, whose name signifies languor, weariness, <\/em>had dull bleared eyes. Probably she suffered, as so many do in that hot sandy region, from some form of ophthalmia. Rachel (Heb., the ewe<\/em>) <\/em>was, on the contrary, beautiful and well favoured (Heb., beautiful in form and beautiful in look<\/em>). <\/em>Leahs bleared eyes would be regarded in the East as a great defect, just as bright eyes were much admired. (See 1Sa. 16:12<\/span>, where David is described as fair of eyes.<\/em>) <\/em>Yet it was not Rachel, with her fair face and well-proportioned figure, and her husbands lasting love, that was the mother of the progenitor of the Messiah, but the weary-eyed Leah.<\/p>\n 17<\/strong>. <\/strong> Leah was tender eyed <\/strong> Her eyes were weak <\/em> (Sept . ) and perhaps inflamed, <\/em> (Vulg . lippi,<\/em>) a great blemish, “since bright eyes, with fire in them, are regarded as the height of beauty in Oriental women . ” Keil<\/em> .<\/p>\n Gen 29:17<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Leah was tender-eyed<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Leah had tender <\/em>eyes: the Hebrew word (racoth<\/em>) imports soft, tender, <\/em>and delicate; <\/em>and, in that sense, some of the ancient versions render it, Leah had soft <\/em>and beautiful eyes, <\/em>which were her chief or sole external grace; while Rachel was perfectly agreeable and complete in person, beautiful <\/em>and well-favoured. <\/em>By the first word, beautiful, <\/em>is meant, say some, an exact symmetry and proportion of her body; by the latter, well-favoured, <\/em>the loveliness of her face and complexion is expressed. <\/p>\n Gen 29:17 Leah [was] tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.<\/p>\n Ver. 17. Leah was tender-eyed.<\/strong> ] Purblind or squint, as one a<\/em> interprets it. Now, a froward look and squint eyes, saith the historian, b<\/em> are the certain notes of a nature to be suspected. The Jerusalem Targum tells us, that her eyes were tender with weeping and praying. Mary Magdalene is famous for her tears; and Christ was never so near her as when she could not see him for weeping. After which she spent (as some report) thirty years in Gallia Narbonensi, in weeping for her sins. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n But Rachel was beautiful, &c.<\/strong> ] Plato calls beauty the principality of nature; Aristotle, a greater commendation than all epistles. See Trapp on “<\/em> Gen 24:16 “<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Mercer. <\/p>\n b<\/em> Turk. Hist<\/em> ., fol. 483. <\/p>\n c<\/em> Heidfeld.<\/p>\n tender = weak. <\/p>\n beautiful = comely in form. Compare Gen 39:6. <\/p>\n well favoured = comely in countenance. <\/p>\n Rachel: Gen 29:6-12, Gen 29:18, Gen 30:1, Gen 30:2, Gen 30:22, Gen 35:19, Gen 35:20, Gen 35:24, Gen 46:19-22, Gen 48:7, 1Sa 10:2, Jer 31:15, Mat 2:18 <\/p>\n beautiful: Gen 12:11, Gen 24:16, Gen 39:6, Pro 31:30 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 29:16 – was Leah<\/p>\n Leah [was] tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favored. 17. Leah’s eyes were tender ] i.e. weak or soft, wanting in clearness and brilliancy. The eye was the chief feature of Oriental beauty. The versions rather exaggerate the sense. LXX = “weak,” Lat. lippis oculis, Aq. Sym. = “tender.” beautiful and well favoured … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 29:17”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"