6.
WOMEN AND IDENTITY
Leah and Rachel
Gen. 29:15-30:24
Evangeline Anderson-Rajkumar
[Note: The Bible study group may be encouraged to read chapters
29 and 30 from the Book of Genesis as preparatory reading for a
meaningful participation in the discussion.]
Introduction:
In this Bible Study, we shall see how women's lives
and experiences in every context are conditioned by some
religio-cultural and social expectations, like fertility, motherhood,
ideal womanhood etc. What is the identity that a society confers
on a woman? What is the relationship between sexuality /
fertility and women's identity? Is she respected and regarded as
a person in her own right or is she considered a complete human being
only when she becomes a mother? How does a woman become an
unconscious victim of trying hard to fit into the patriarchal framework
of a social definition of a woman? To go into these questions, I
have chosen the story of Leah and Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. When
we read the above text, we see that the lives of all four women are
defined in relation to the life of Jacob, the patriarch. The
stories of these women find a place in the Bible not because they are
women of great repute but because they are the `bearers' of the twelve
tribes of Israel. Their emotions, feelings and their whole life
is not recorded descriptively in the way the lives of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob are recorded. Let us now go into this story as recorded
in the book of Genesis.
Setting the Story of the Women in Context:
It is therefore a "patriarchal burden" for us to
start the story of these women with the story of Jacob. He was
fleeing for safety because he had cheated his brother Esau of his
birthright, catching him at a vulnerable moment of hunger and making a
conditional offer of hot soup in exchange for his birthright. To
make it worse, he cheated his brother Esau of his blessings due upon
him. Jacob was on the run because he sensed Esau's anger against
him.
A Dowry in Reverse! (Bride price)
As a way of getting away from Esau, who was plotting
to kill him, Jacob heeds the advice of his parents and sets off to his
mother's relatives' house to look for his life partner. It is
interesting to note that just as the servant whom Abraham sends to find
a suitable bride for Isaac met Rebekkah near the well, so also Jacob
meets Rachel, his cousin, near the well. It seems to be love at
first sight for Jacob! After the initial joy of reunion with his
mother's brother's family, Jacob and Laban talk business.
Jacob expresses his desire to marry Rachel.
What follows is of extreme importance to a discussion on the problem of
dowry in the Indian context. Some conditions are laid down for
marriage. The girl's father, not the groom's parents, lays them
down! The condition is that Jacob should serve for seven years in
order to win the hand of his beloved. Jacob does not mind
this. The NRSV reads thus (ch. 29:20): "Jacob served seven years
for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he
had for her"! What a love! What a reversal of dowry!
In Genesis 24 (where Abraham's servant presents Rebekkah with precious
gifts before seeking her hand as a bride for his master Isaac) we find
that it is the man who gives presents to the woman and not vice
versa. Imagine a context where men have to serve seven years as
dowry for marriage! If the patriarchal church is keen on literal
interpretation when it comes to keeping women silent and invisible in
the church, how is it that these passages do not disturb them?
This is not to suggest that the Bible should be understood literally,
but rather how faithful one should be in interpreting the word of God
as a Word of Life.
The Cheater is Cheated!
Little did Jacob realize what was in store for
him. Just as he had cheated Esau, the first born, of his
birthright, Laban cheats Jacob by giving the elder daughter, Leah,
instead of Rachel, whom he had promised as a `wage.' Now how is
it possible that Jacob did not know that it was Leah and not
Rachel? Of course there was a tradition that the bride was
brought veiled to the bridegroom and one could only hope and believe
that it is the woman of choice. What we read instead (in Gen.
29:23-25) is that Jacob did not know that the woman was Leah even after
`going into her' that night. It is only in the morning that he
realizes that it is not Rachel! Was it because of the tradition
of the darkness of the nuptial chamber that Jacob does not realise that
it is not Rachel but Leah? Does this mean that Jacob was either
drugged or drunk, like one of his forefathers, Noah? Or is it a
deliberate twist introduced into the story to show that Jacob did get a
taste of his own medicine? That the cheater gets cheated in the
end may be some consolation to those who find it difficult to
understand the mysterious acts of God in choosing Jacob as a favored
servant rather than Esau. Laban is "gracious" in giving Rachel in
marriage to Jacob before he completes another seven year term, but
fourteen years of hard work surely seems more than enough for a dowry!
We read in Leviticus 18:18, "Do not marry a woman as
a rival to her sister and uncover her nakedness in the other's
lifetime." If this was the law given on sexual relations, how and
why did Jacob marry Rachel as well? How do we understand the
issue of polygamy? Where and why did this practice of polygamy
originate? It has always struck me as a weak argument, full of
patriarchal values, when the society justifies polygamy for reasons
such as `few men-more women,' infertility etc. Will the same
society accept polyandry as an answer in a situation in a country like
India where female sex ratio is steadily on the decline in many states?
Leah and Rachel: Sisters or Co-wives?
As sisters, Leah and Rachel would have presumably
had pleasant memories of playing together, sharing their dreams
together with their friends. When Jacob marries both of them,
their relationship changes from that of sisters to co-wives.
There is an uneasy feeling of having to compete with the same man for
attention, for love, for intimate relationship. The goal for both
women is to win the love and attention of Jacob for themselves because
each one's identity is involved in it. Polygamous relationships
introduce a new enemy within the territory, and on this occasion,
within the family. Leah and Rachel exchange heated words.
They pour out their jealousy and hatred that was probably nonexistent
before marriage. Some exegetes do refer to Leah as one with
beautiful eyes but others confess that the Hebrew meaning of the name
`Leah' is hard to decipher. Rachel is described as lovely and
beautiful. There is nothing wrong or bad if one looks
different/better than the other. People can admire one another
and also believe that each one is gifted with different talents.
The problem arises when women are forced to compare their "external
beauty" with one another. The spirit of competition is
unnecessary because there cannot be common criteria drawn up to
evaluate the diverse features of beauty with which God has endowed each
one. God's gift of creation is essentially pluralistic in every
sense and women need to be careful not to allow false concepts and
pseudo values to distract them from real life issues.
Gift of Motherhood:
In Genesis 29:31, we come across yet another
interesting factor that demands our attention. When God sees that
Leah is not loved, God opens the womb of Leah and she conceives and
bears four sons, one after another. Each time she bears a son,
her confidence as a woman increases, as one who has every right to
claim her superiority as a mother and as a wife, for she has produced
male progeny. What more does a woman want in life than to gain a
status of a mother of sons? Some of her reflections following her
delivery and in naming her children indicate her fear and anxiety as a
wife. "Surely now my husband will love me, my husband will surely
be joined to me, because I have borne him three sons"
(29:32,34).
Rachel, on the other hand, is envious and jealous of
her sister, who has become a mother. She starts the `War of
Motherhood' (just as Sarah did by giving Hagar, the slave girl to
Abraham) by giving Bilhah, her maid, to Jacob, to bear children for
her! The emotions and feelings of the surrogate mother are not
taken into account at all. The surrogate mother's body is only an
instrument to bear the child for another woman. The natural bond
between a mother and a child is assumed to be (forced to be)
non-existent. The fact that Bilhah bears sons is a point of
victory for Rachel. This is evident in the way she names Dan as:
"God has vindicated and given me a son" and Naphtali, whose name means:
"I have waged a contest with my sister and prevailed"!
Are not these situations familiar to us? In
Indian society, cruel treatment is meted out to women who do not have
children. Such women are called "barren woman." There is no
term such as "barren man"! It does not exist. Analyzing the
implication of the term `barren' shows that the blame for the problem
of infertility invariably falls on the woman. Barrenness is
deemed as a valid reason for second marriage. A Dalit woman
shares an experience in her own family saying: "One of my
sisters-in-law has no children, so she herself got her husband
remarried, and she is very well spoken of. That co-wife has got
two girls. My sister-in-law does everything for the other wife,
puts up with her nastiness and doesn't quarrel with her and so she is
respected." The womb thus is not a part of a woman's anatomy, but
that which defines her identity in society. In the Indian
context, the issue of surrogate motherhood is not as common as polygamy
for the sake of progeny.
Dominant Role Played by Leah and Rachel:
It is extremely interesting to note how Leah and
Rachel together play a dominant role in the life of Jacob. They
decide for Jacob whom he has to sleep with. When Rachel agrees to
`allow' Jacob to sleep with Leah in exchange for a share of Reuben's
mandrakes, it shows Rachel's hope that the medicinal value of
mandrakes would increase her chances of conception (30:14). She
desperately wants to have a child. "Give me children or I shall
die" (30:1). Ironically, it is during her second child birth that
Rachel dies!
Leah and Rachel name all the children mentioned as
sons of Jacob. The power to name indicates authority and these
two women seem to possess that power. Even when their maids give
birth, it is Leah and Rachel who name the sons. This also implies
that the identity of the maids is a derived and restricted one.
They were `given' to Jacob to continue the fertility and security of
Rachel and Leah! The women are forced to swallow their pain of
humiliation and `defeat' and `give' their maids to Jacob. The
emotions and feelings of Bilhah and Zilpah are completely ignored by
Rachel and Leah. This does not mean that they are powerful women,
but indicates how they are unconscious victims of a patriarchal
structure that reduces the identity of women to baby producing machines!
Reflection:
`Motherhood' is not a definition of identity of a
woman. Neither is it the ultimate fulfillment of
`womanhood.' Motherhood is a state of womanhood that a woman
enjoys as a gift from God for the ability to bring forth life. If
motherhood is defined as the ultimate identity of a woman, it gives
rise to several discriminatory and cruel customs and traditions and
values. It is one of the root causes for the perpetuation of
violence against women.
God is a God of Life. Children indeed are a
gift from God. It is difficult, however, to understand the
biblical statement that refers to God as "one that closes and opens the
wombs" in a situation where women conceive as a result of
rape. In case of the practise of the Devadasi system, which still
prevails in some parts of Northern Karnataka, we recognise the grip of
patriarchal traditions, where men exploit women's sexuality. How
do we regard the birth of those children to Devadasis? Did God
`open and close the wombs of these women"?
As human beings created in the image of God, women
have to take control of the essential truth that God has created each
one with a purpose and identity as human beings. This identity is
a gift from God, to blossom to full life, and is connected with
fellow human beings and with the whole created earth. If
society has constructed our identity by limiting our potentialities,
defining women in terms of our bodies, then we need to challenge
society. We need to reconstruct our identities as women who are
created in God's own image. For that to happen, we need to come
together to analyse our own biases, our value systems, our
understanding of different moments of womanhood. How can we
celebrate the gift of sexuality, the gift of the ability to bring forth
life, and at the same time reject the system that defines the ultimate
identity of a woman in terms of her body? We need to reconstruct
our identity as human beings created in the image of God. The
task begins by critically analysing all those religio-socio-cultural
elements that have defined a woman in terms of femininity and
womanhood. A reconstruction of the woman and her identity begins
by affirming the body, mind, and spirit as a holistic gift from God for
enhancement of life. Let us accept the challenge to reconstruct
our own identities in a life-giving and holistic way.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Who defines the identity of women in church and
society?
2. How can women break away from oppressive
identities constructed by religion and society?
Endnotes:
1. Sumitra Bhave, Pan on Fire: Eight Dalit
Women Tell
Their Stories. Delhi: Indian Social Institute,
1988, p. 20f. The group members may share
similar experiences or customs from their own
locality.
2. Mandrake or mandragota, an herb thought to confer
fertility.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhave, Sumitra Bhave, Pan on Fire: Eight Dalit Women Tell
Their Stories. Delhi: Indian Social Institute,
1988.
Buttrick, G.A., et.al. eds., Interpreter's Bible Commentary,
Vol. 1, New York: Abingdon Press, 1952.
Newsom, Carol A. and Sharon H. Ringe, The Women's Bible
Commentary, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1992.