Childless and Ambiguity: Reading Genesis through the eyes of the infertile (Unpublished Manuscript)

1 John Byron

Childless and Ambiguity: Reading Genesis through the eyes of the infertile

Childlessness and Ambiguity

Reading Genesis through the Eyes of the Infertile

Introduction

Infertility is a stigma that attaches itself to some six million couples a year in the USA. Many of

those couples discover their infertility unexpectedly. It is normal for two healthy people to join

together in a committed relationship and expect that children will be a natural outcome of that

union. But for six million each year, something goes wrong. Once diagnosis has occurred then

options need to be weighed. Statistically, 80-90% of the infertility cases that occur each year are

somehow treatable medically. But for some infertile couples, the medical options are either non-

existent, too expensive, or create ethical dilemmas. Adoption is an option, but is a process that

can also be expensive and full of roadblocks that prove to be too emotionally draining for a

couple that has had to endure the disappointment that infertility has forced upon them.

Society is not always a positive force in this struggle. Western civilization in particular is

a child centered society. The advertizing and the entertainment industries are two examples of

how westerners have made children the center and focus of their universe. Even as the modern

notion of “family” is redefined, children are almost always assumed as somehow a necessary or

vital part of that definition. Childless couples do not fit into this paradigm of family and are left

standing at the peripheral of society. When a couple is childless it is often assumed that there

must be a medical cure or, failing that, an adoption agency that can remedy the ‘problem’.

Couples who are unable or chose not to have children sometimes feel that they have been

plastered with a label that makes them less than a full participant in society. Since they do not

and cannot converse about their children, do not participate in the school run and are not on the

hunt for a babysitter, their status in relation to other child bearing couples is ambiguous. They are

members of society, yet, there is much that does not relate to them.

But what is not always appreciated is that even in the modern era of medical marvels and

state certified adoption agencies, the overwhelming feeling of powerlessness can cripple an

infertile individual or couple to the point that even available options are no longer options. The

physical and emotional roadblocks are so many that it is easier to give up. Instead these couples

try to find an identity in society that is not tied, at some level, to childbirth. They try to escape

their ambiguous status.

A disproportionate amount of the emotional and physical weight of infertility invariably

falls on the female. This is not to say that males do not experience grief and a sense of loss. But

since it is the woman who carries the child, the focus is more often on her. The roles of wife and

mother, as constructed by society, each carry a particular set of expectations that are not

2 John Byron


shouldered in the same way by the man. Thus while the couple is of ambiguous status in society,

the woman is quite often more keenly aware of what is missing.

The Bible is of little help to the permanently childless couple. The perception of women

promoted by the Bible is that their sole purpose in life will be accomplished through the bearing

of children. This mind-set is found from the opening chapters of the Bible. In Genesis 3:16-18

God’s words to the woman concerns her destiny to bring forth children in pain while the man is

destined to toil with the earth to produce food. This is restated in 1 Timothy 2:15 where we read

that it is through the bearing of children that women will saved. The one year exemption from

military service in Deuteronomy 20:7 and 24:5 may have more to do with achieving an early

pregnancy than a prolonged honeymoon for the couple. Keeping a newly married man from war

contributed towards his effort to achieve immortality through the conception of a son and to

provide an heir to his property.

On the other hand, the failure or inability of a woman to bear children is sometimes

lamented. In Judges 11:39 Jephthah’s daughter is mourned before she dies because “she had

never known a man”. Implicit here is not so much the lack of a sexual relationship as it is the

absence of children. A similar situation is found in 2 Samuel 6:23 when Michal, Saul’s daughter,

dies with the narrators comment “she had no child until the day of her death”. The expectation,

then, was that women were to bear children and the failure to do so was a reason for mourning.

A quick survey of the Bible reveals a number of stories about childless couples. Most of

them focus on the woman’s apparent inability to conceive.1 All of them, without exception, find

resolution when God opens the woman’s womb.2 Quite often the focus of readers, teachers and

preachers of the Bible is on the divine intervention that finally allows the woman to bear a child

and bring to fruition a previous promise made by God. The focus of this study, however, is to

highlight the powerlessness to alter their circumstances that would have hindered all of these

women from finding a resolution to their childlessness. So often, the situation is not appreciated

for the potential disaster that hung over a childless woman. Without a child of her own, the status

of a wife in antiquity was ambiguous.

The purpose of this study is not to explore the modern medical and social issues related to

infertility. I am a biblical scholar and science and family life is not within my purview. But the

stigma and the feeling of powerlessness (real or otherwise) that often accompanies childlessness

is not unique to the modern age. It is this common thread, the feeling of powerlessness, which I

want to trace in the biblical text. In antiquity infertility did more than create a social stigma. The

1 The cases of Samson and John the Baptist are less clear than others since there is no record that the fathers

of these men (Menoah and Zechariah) were able to produce children with other women. Thus it is possible that the

husband was the infertile one rather than the wife. 2 It is a curious, if not discouraging fact, that there are no instances in the Bible of a couple whose infertility

remains unresolved. Such an absence, for whatever the reason, makes it difficult for the modern infertile couple to

find solace in the pages of scripture.

3 John Byron


outcome could mean a lost inheritance and social and financial ruin. In an era with limited

medical knowledge about infertility and no formal adoption agencies, powerlessness to alter the

circumstances was more than a feeling. It was the unavoidable reality. There was often very little

that could be done. For women in particular, the consequences and stakes could be even higher.

What this study attempts to do is to examine how the problems related to childlessness in

antiquity created an ambiguous status for women and how these problems can be found just

below the surface of the biblical text. Rather than focus on the triumph of the resolved infertility,

I will highlight the potential threats that childlessness posed to these women. Rather than view

some of their attempts at resolution as circumventing the divine will, I will demonstrate how

their actions were an attempt to overcome their powerlessness and ambiguous status. Moreover,

I will also suggest that these attempts to escape ambiguity and powerlessness sometimes forced

the same status upon other women.

My methodology can be best described as a close reading of Genesis through the lens of a

childless couple. Rather than concern myself with questions of historicity or sources, I try to look

at the details of the stories with fresh eyes and allow the details in the text to provide a different

perspective. I attempt to read the stories through the eyes of a childless person in antiquity. I do

not focus on scholarly arguments and only reference issues related to the Hebrew when

necessary. The study is outlined as followed.

Chapter one provides a broad historical and social framework that will help us to

understand the dilemmas and choices facing a childless woman in antiquity. Without a child, a

male child in particular, a woman’s status in her husband’s household was not guaranteed. The

main function of the wife was to produce a male heir who would receive and manage the wealth

and property that was left behind once the father died. A childless woman could provide a

surrogate to her husband, but this made her status even more ambiguous since the protection of a

widow was often found in her son. Without a son the wife faced financial and social challenges.

Following this I present three case studies of barren women in the Genesis narrative.

The first case of childlessness examined is that of Sarah. Sarah’s barrenness overshadows

her throughout the narrative. By reading Sarah’s story through the eyes of the childless, often

overlooked elements and details of the story are brought to light. The focus of interpreters is

often on triumphant divine intervention in the situation as evidenced by the miraculous birth of

Isaac. But a new reading will seek to demonstrate that Sarah’s status in Abraham’s household

was not secure and that her own attempts at producing an heir threatened her position even more.

When read carefully, Sarah’s is the story of a woman whose ambiguous status threatens to

jeopardize her position more than once. Coupled with the story of Sarah is that of the handmaid

Hagar and her son Ishmael. Hagar is thrust into the role of surrogate and with that enters into an

ambiguous uncertain status. She gives birth to a son, who for a time is the expected heir, but her

own position is a threat to Sarah and eventually Hagar’s son also becomes a threat when,

4 John Byron


although the eldest of Abraham’s children, Ishmael is thrust to aside to make room for Sarah’s

son Isaac.

The second case study involves four women. The sisters Leah and Rachel represent one

side of the story, the handmaids Zilpah and Bilhah the other. In this situation Jacob, the husband,

is married to two co-wives who are also sisters. Leah is the first primary wife and is fertile. She

provides Jacob with a number of heirs through whom he is able to secure his household. Rachel

is the second primary wife, but she is barren. Unlike Sarah, Rachel’s infertility does not threaten

her relationship with her husband since Jacob already has children to Leah. But without a son,

Rachel faces a possible threat if Jacob should die before her. Without Jacob as a male advocate

in the home, Rachel faces the possibility of being pushed aside by Leah and her sons. Rachel’s

childless condition starts a breeding competition between the two women that forces the

participation of their two handmaids. Bilhah and Zilpah are voiceless pawns used as incubators

to solve the status problems of other women, a problem exacerbated by the childless condition of

one of them. The situation is different from that of Sarah and Hagar since the handmaids and

their children are never sent into exile by Jacob’s wives. But in spite of their status as “sons”

they are redundant sons nonetheless. Rachel’s childless condition is the impetuous behind

producing four more sons by Jacobs, but not all sons are equal.

The third case study involves Tamar who was forced into a childless state by her

husband’s family. The story of Tamar introduces a third perspective on how childlessness effects

family relations. For Sarah, childlessness is the complicating factor in her relationship with her

husband Abraham. For Rachel, it is her relationship with her sister and co-wife Leah. In Tamar’s

case her childlessness is what strains her relationship with her father-in-law Judah. In the other

two cases the status of the childless woman is under threat within her husband’s household.

Sarah is in danger of being sidelined by her husband, Rachel by her sister. Tamar’s situation is

unique since her first two husbands die without leaving her with any children and she is waiting

for her next husband to mature enough to marry her. Creating tension between Judah and Tamar

is the reality that he has one son left and no grandchildren. If this last son dies without

impregnating Tamar, Judah’s household is under threat of extinction. Consequently, he must

guarantee that his youngest son produces a son who will carry on his portion of the Terah,

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob legacy. Thus Tamar is childless not because she is barren but by

conspiracy. The refusal of Onan to give her seed and Judah’s prevaricating with Shelah are

designed to box her out of the family. Tamar’s actions in the story represent her attempt to secure

her own status in Judah’s household by producing an heir for him. Without a child, Tamar has no

tangible evidence of her connection to Judah’s family.

The book finished with an epilogue in which I draw some conclusions from the study. I

suggest that the Bible considers infertility a disability that needs to be healed. Through the

Genesis narrative we discover that childlessness overshadows the life a woman to such a degree

that it becomes more important to her identity than anything else we learn about her. The result is

5 John Byron


that without a child her status is ambiguous and her attempts to resolve her status and identity

can sometimes affect those who are enlisted to help her overcome her childlessness. I close with

some brief thoughts on what is like for a childless person to read the Bible.

6 John Byron


Chapter One

The Status of the Childless Woman

Childlessness, in the Hebrew Bible, is presented as a particularly female problem. There are no

biblical stories that center on an infertile man.3 The imagery of barrenness is never applied to a

man. The focus and preoccupation with childlessness in the Bible falls solely and consistently

on women. Moreover, childlessness is never presented as a positive or acceptable condition.4

Every story of a childless woman in the Bible is about how that situation is reversed. Sarah,

Rebekah, Rachel, Samson’s mother and Hannah are all described as suffering a condition of

barrenness which finds its resolution in divine intervention.5 In addition to the stories of these

five women, the negative image of childlessness is communicated by promises which declare

that if Israel is faithful to God, there will be no barrenness in the land (Ex 23:26; Deut 7:14),

suggesting that childlessness is evidence not of the blessing of Yahweh but a curse.

Socially, the position of the childless woman in the Hebrew Bible is ranked among the

despised, the poor, the helpless, the widow (Job 24:21) and contrasted with the mother who is

blessed, joyful and rich in children.6 In Psalm 113:9 and Isaiah 54:1 the image of the barren

women is used to illustrate the contrasting promise of a joyful reversal that will be enacted by

God. Compounding this negative image is the evaluation that often considered childlessness the

result of sin and/or divine displeasure (Gen 20:17; Num 5:11-31; 2 Sam 6:20-23). It was God

who opened and closed the womb (Gen 16:2; 20:18; 1 Sam1:5) and conception after a long

period of infertility was a cause for rejoicing and the hope that God had removed the woman’s

reproach (Gen 30:23; 1 Sam 1:10-11; 2:1-10).

The view of the childless woman found in the Hebrew Bible is attested widely in

antiquity. Hennie J. Marsman has examined the role and status of women in the Ancient Near

East and demonstrated that childlessness was considered to be a defect in the wife.7 For instance,

3 Male infertility is implied in some cases. For instance, the stories of Tamar and Ruth imply that their first

husbands were unable to produce children since both women were left childless when their husbands died, but then

went on to bear children to other men. The case of King Abimelech in Gen 20:16-17 suggests that he suffered

infertility from his sin and required Abraham’s prayers to heal him. But the narrator notes that it was not just

Abimelech who was suffering. His entire household was afflicted and we are told that God had “closed the wombs

of the entire household”. Deuteronomy 7:14, on the other hand, promises relief from both male and female

infertility. Even after giving consideration to these, we can still conclude that the focus of childlessness in the Bible

is consistently on the woman, not the man. 4 M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean setting (Groningen: Styx, 2000), 34.

5 Added to these is the New Testament story of Elizabeth who gives birth to John the Baptist in her old age

(Luke 1:5-66). 6 Fabry, “rq(”, TDOT, ?:323

7 Hennie J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of

the Ancient Near East. (OtSt, 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 176.

7 John Byron


the Ugaritic legend of king Kirtu describes how he married seven times in the unsuccessful bid to

produce an heir. In all seven attempts he failed, but the preponderance of responsibility seems to

be placed on the woman rather than Kirtu (KTU 1.14:I.10-20).8 The presumption of female

defect is confirmed in a letter to the Ugarit king about a woman who failed to produce any

children for her husband after an extended period of time. The letter relates how the man used

the infertility as an occasion to take a second wife. It was only when he failed to produce

children with the second woman that he was then considered to be the defective one (RS

86.2208).9

While monogamy was probably the norm in antiquity, childlessness was one of the most

common reasons that a man would resort to a bigynous marriage.10

The Code of Hammurabi

§145 mentions the case of a man taking a second wife if the primary wife does not bear him any

children (ca. 1728-1686 BCE). Several Nuzi marriage contracts made between free persons

contain clauses indicating when a man may have a second wife (ca. 1450-1350 BCE). The

stipulations outline that the man cannot take an additional wife unless she fails to provide him

with children. These clauses emphasize “the importance of children in the institution of marriage

at Nuzi. The bride’s status as “wife” usually depended upon whether or not she bore children”.11

Even more interesting is that these stipulations in the Nuzi marriage contracts were initiated by

the bride’s family, indicating that the social pressure for a woman to produce children began

within the bride’s own paternal home.12

A similar marriage contract was found among the

Nimrud tablets which also stipulate that if the wife remains childless the husband may then take

another wife for the purposes of producing children (ca. 668-652 BCE).13

Yet another example

of such stipulations is found in a Late Babylonian marriage document (dating to 624 BCE) in

which a man declares that his wife has produced no sons and therefore he seeks to be joined to a

younger woman with the clear intent to produce children. What these examples demonstrate is

the continuity of expectation that the wife would produce children and that, should this not

happen, the man has the legal right to take a subsequent wife for the sole purpose of begetting

children by her.14

8 Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 208, 459. Kirtu’s third wife does in fact conceive, but dies in the

midst of childbirth leaving him without a child. For a translation of the legend see: Johannes C. De Moor, An

Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. (Leiden, Brill, 1987)191-92. 9 The situation reflected in the letter may not be typical since the first wife seems to be of a higher status

and has accused the man of committing some unnamed crime. In any case, while the letter does allow for cases of

male infertility, it also confirms that women were often assumed to be the defective one rather than men. Marsman,

Women in Ugarit and Israel, 637-38; 707; 712. 10

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 126. 11

Jonathon Paradise, “Marriage Contracts of Free Persons at Nuzi”, JCS 39 (1987): 8 12

Paradise, “Marriage Contracts”, 11. 13

John Van Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel”, JBL

87 (1968): 407. 14

Amelie Kuhrt, “Non-Royal Women in the Late Babylonian Period,” in Women's earliest records: From

ancient Egypt and western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown

8 John Byron


While the introduction of a second wife was one way to circumvent the problem of

childlessness, divorce was also an option. In Egypt it seems that the marriage agreement was

considered completed not at consummation but with childbirth.15

Egyptian marriage contracts

mention a woman’s infertility as one of the major reasons for divorce and surpassed only by

accusations of the wife’s infidelity.16

That this was a comprehensive practice, however, is

doubtful. Divorcing a woman for being childless could mean that the husband would forfeit her

dowry. The Code of Hammurabi §145-149, for instance, describes how a man cannot replace his

primary wife with a second wife and that should he force her to leave, he must provide her with

compensation.17

The financial disincentive would mean that such a choice would probably be

under taken only by the wealthiest of individuals.18

For most men, however, divorce was

probably not an option even if the legal means were in place.19

More commonly, it seems, men

who could afford it, opted for a second wife.

As in the Hebrew Bible, a childless marriage led to the fear that the couple had been

rejected by the gods or had committed some type of sin that prevented the woman from

conceiving. A prayer to the Mesopotamian moon god Sin asks that the petitioner be reconciled

to Sin and be granted children.20

In a similar prayer to Ishtar a Mesopotamian woman asks for

forgiveness of sin and the blessing of offspring.21

At times one or both of the couple would make

a vow to the deity in the hopes that they would be granted children.22

But relief was not

necessarily found in conception and birth. Even if the woman was successful in becoming

pregnant and giving birth, any irregularities during the pregnancy, a difficult birth, and a stillborn

or handicapped child were all interpreted as the result of some sin committed by the woman.23

All of these circumstances conspired together to compound the social pressure and personal

despair felt by the childless woman. “The woman who remained childless not only ran the risk of

being disdained, or worse, repudiated by her husband and in-laws, she also incurred the

suspicion of indecent behavior”.24

If she was unable to conceive and bring a healthy child to

University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5-7, 1987 (ed. Barbara S. Lesko ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989),

225. 15

S. N. Kramer, “The Woman in Ancient Sumer: Gleanings from Sumerian Literature,” in La Femme dans

le Proche-Orient Asiatique (Paris: , 1987), 109. 16

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 176; P.W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property in

Ancient Egypt: A Contribution to Establishing the Legal Position of the Woman. (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 75-76. 17

Raymond Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (AfO.B, 23; Horn: Berger, 1988), 77-78. 18

Naomi Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective (Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1993), 15-16. 19



K. Van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia (SSN; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum,

1985), 86. 22

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 196; Van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of

Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman, (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 80. 23

Van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel, 86-87. 24

Van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave, 79.

9 John Byron


full term, it was assumed that she had either been rejected by the gods or was guilty of some sin.

The focus on the infertile couple fell predominately on the woman.

While perceived physical and/or spiritual defects played a large part in stigmatizing the

childless woman, there was a social aspect that contributed to the pressure the woman felt. The

status of a childless woman living in the home of her husband was ambiguous. Although she

may be the primary wife, the lack of a child threatened any social or financial guarantees that

could normally be expected by fertile wives. The lack of an heir not only jeopardized the future

of the husband’s inheritance, it made the woman vulnerable if or when her husband died.

Without children, particularly a son, the woman lacked social and financial protection.

The primary function of marriage was to produce an heir. Throughout the Ancient Near

East marriage facilitated the orderly transference of property (land or otherwise) from the father

to a son.25

Therefore, while being a mother was a good thing, being the mother of a son who was

also an heir was even better.26

Since women often were married to older men the likelihood

increased that a wife could live many years after her husband’s death.27

In the patriarchally

dominated society of the ancient world, a woman’s social and financial survival was often

predicated on her relationship to a male figure. Prior to her marriage that figure was usually her

father or an older brother. Once married, responsibility for the woman shifted to the husband.

But if or when the husband died, the woman would most often be cared for by her son(s). As the

heir, her son would not only assume responsibility for his father’s property but also for his

mother. A woman’s status within the household was linked to her son and a mother would often

promote her son in order to secure her own status (cf. 1Kings 2:19).28

Laws of inheritance,

particularly in the Bible, depend on the heir living in the house.29

If the wife was not the mother

of an heir, then her status was ambiguous. If, for instance, her husband had a son to another wife

it was that woman’s son who would be the heir and that woman who would most benefit from

the social and financial protection offered by the son.30

An example of this state of affairs is found in biblical legislation. Deuteronomy 21:15-17

protects the rights of the firstborn son who is to receive a double portion of the father’s

inheritance.31

But it also describes a hypothetical situation in which a man has two wives, both of

25

Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 6; G. Robins, “Women and Children in peril,” KMT: a modern journal

of Egypt 5 (1994/5): 24-26. 26

Katherine D. Sakenfeld, Just Wives?: Stories of Power and Survival in the Old Testament and Today

Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 13. 27


Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 240-41. 29

Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 26. 30

This scenario assumes that there is only one eligible son. 31

There were a variety of firstborn inheritance rights in the ANE and not all of them were granted to the

biological firstborn (Isaac Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156 [1959]: 38-40).

The Hebrew Bible, however, is particularly interested in the rights of the firstborn as reflected in the stories in which

Esau sells his birthright to Jacob (Gen 25:29-34; 27:36) and the midwife tying a red thread on the arm of the

10 John Byron


whom bear him a son, yet one wife is loved and the other hated. The injunction in this

circumstance prevents the man from giving the firstborn rights of inheritance to the son of the

loved wife if that son is not in fact the firstborn. Consequently, the favored wife’s status is only

as secure as her husband’s support for her while he is alive. Once he is dead the unloved wife

and her son benefit the most from the inheritance based on the law of the firstborn. The favored

wife and her son, although receiving a portion of the inheritance, diminish in status once the

husband/father has died.

There were, of course, a number of options that a childless woman/couple could employ

to rectify their circumstances and not every situation was the same. But what is important for the

current study is an appreciation for the ambiguous status of the childless woman. Without a

child, a son in particular, her position in the marriage as primary wife was not necessarily fixed

and therefore she was in danger of either being replaced by her husband with another wife, or

pushed aside by a subsequent wife who did produce a child who was also the heir. With this in

mind, we may now consider what options were available to a childless woman and how even

these options did not always remove her ambiguous status but sometimes made her position even

more delicate. Furthermore, some of these options may strengthen the wife’s position, but create

a new set of circumstances with another woman whose status is also ambiguous within the

household.

Options available to the childless

As noted in the introduction, it is not always appreciated that the childless woman was in a

situation of powerlessness to alter her circumstances. Medical treatments were few to non-

existent and would require financial means. Thus compounding the feeling of powerlessness by

the childless couple/woman would be the reality of limited resources especially for poorer

individuals. Nonetheless, the importance of children to the family structure meant that there were

a number of options of which the childless couples/women could avail themselves.

Appeal to the gods

Among the options available to the childless couple, the first, and probably least costly, would be

an appeal to the gods. As mentioned above, several prayers are preserved from Mesopotamia

which appeal to the gods to provide the petitioner with a child. In a prayer to Ishtar a woman

says: “Grant me a name and descendants, let my womb be productive”.32

A Sumerian proverb

reflects on the presumption of the deity’s necessary involvement when it says: “Marrying several

wives is human, getting many children is divine”.33

This sense of dependence on the gods is

firstborn of Tamar’s twin sons Zerah and Perez (Gen 38:27-28) (Jeffery H. Tigay, Deuteronomy [JPSTC;

Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], 195-96). 32

Van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel, 86. 33

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel,192.

11 John Byron


emphasized in the Hittite Story of Appu who was a wealthy man, but had no children. He

appeals to the Sun God to help and the story concludes with the god granting him children.34

In Egypt domestic deities included Bes and Taweret who not only provided protection

over the household, but were strongly connected to pregnancy, childbirth and newborn infants.

Bes is often depicted unclothed with his genitals exposed while Taweret usually has a swollen,

pregnant belly. Both were often depicted in temple scenes depicting a king’s birth. Amulets in

the form of the two deities have been found in excavations and were probably worn by women

during pregnancy.35

In addition to Bes and Taweret was the goddess Hathor who was also

connected to fertility and childbirth and whose name is frequently included in prayers and

hymns.36

The Hebrew Bible also focuses on the need for God’s help in bearing children. Several

times a narrator will relate that it was God who either opened or closed a womb (Gen 16:2;

20:18; 1 Sam 1:5). Prayer for fertility is recounted on at least two occasions in the Bible. In

Genesis 25:21 we read that Rebekah was barren, but that her husband Isaac prayed for her and

God opened her womb. Hannah asks for and receives a son from God in a prayer that includes a

vow (1 Sam 1:10-20). Although no prayers for fertility are attributed to Leah and Rachel, the

narrative implies that this was the case. Genesis 29:31 notes that since Leah was unloved God

opened her womb, implying that, while not specifically identified as barren, she had not yet been

able to have children and had perhaps asked for God’s help. When Rachel, who is identified as

barren by the narrator, gives birth to her first child it is because God remembered and “listened to

her” again implying prayers for fertility (Gen 30:22). In each case it is apparent that conception

is considered a gift from God that most, at times, be sought after when it does not seem that God

has blessed the woman/couple with children.

Medicine and Magic

When religion did not work, magic and/or medicine might.37

From Nippur in Mesopotamia texts

have been discovered which contain incantations and magic treatments to help a women having

difficulty in childbirth.38

From Babylonia a short text on the making of amulets says; “Silver,

gold, iron, copper, in total 21 stones, in order that a woman who is not pregnant becomes

pregnant: you string it on a linen yarn and, you put it on her neck”.39

34

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel,193. 35

G. Robins, “Women and Children in peril, 29. 36

G. Robins, “Women and Children in peril, 32-33. 37

It is a false dichotomy to separate medicine and magic from religion since both frequently include

appeals to deities. However, for purposes of outlining the options available and, in particular, those represented in

the biblical text, I have imposed an artificial framework. 38

M Civil, “Medical Commentaries from Nippur”, JNES 33 (1974), 331-6. 39

Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 35.

12 John Byron


In some Babylonian sources plants were thought to promote pregnancy. In a reference list

of plants used for medicinal purposes (a vademecum), there is a section that lists a “plant for a

woman who does not bear”. The description of this plant’s uses indicates it was intended to help

not only infertility but the whole process from conception to birth. 40

In Egypt, one method for

determining whether or not a woman could become pregnant was to have her urinate on wheat or

barley.41

Some forms of this method even claimed to identify the child’s gender.42

In addition to

plants, there were other recipes used to help women conceive. Stol provides a translation for an

unpublished recipe which reads: “To make a not child-bearing woman pregnant: You flay an

edible mouse, open it up, and fill it with myrrh; you dry it in the shade, crush and grind it up, and

mix it with fat; you place it in her vagina, and she will become pregnant”.43

The Hebrew Bible does not reveal a particular interest in medical and magical remedies

for infertility. But the story of Leah’s mandrakes in Genesis 30:14-17 provides a glimpse at a one

such possible remedy. The mandrake plant is a perennial wild herb that grows with a set of

forked roots causing it to resemble the human torso. The plant’s leaves form a rosette and

between autumn and spring it produces flowers in the center of the rosette.44

It is debated

whether the plant was used to enhance fertility or simply to act as an aphrodisiac as described in

Song of Songs 7:14. 45

While there is strong evidence for the plant’s perceived aphrodisiac

powers, the context of the Genesis story does suggest a connection to fertility.46

In the story

Reuben, Leah’s son, finds mandrakes in the field and brings them to his mother. Rachel asks

Leah for some of the mandrakes but is rebuffed by Leah who asks the accusing question: “you

have already stolen my husband what more do you want from me?” Rachel resorts to bargaining

with her sister, a night with Jacob for a portion of the mandrakes. While the situation could

surely be interpreted as focusing on the aphrodisiac qualities of the plant, both sisters are wanting

to attract Jacob to their tent, it is the broader context that suggests a desire for fertility. The

chapter begins with Rachel’s inability to conceive reaching a breaking point when she demands

that Jacob give her children or she will die (30:1). In tandem with the narrative of Rachel’s

infertility is the description of Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah each bearing children. Compounding

this is the irony that even though Rachel bargained for the Mandrkaes, it is her sister Leah, who

seemed to have ceased conceiving (30:9), who gets pregnant another three times (30:16 ). Thus

whatever the real or imagined properties of the plant, in the narrative at least, “it seems clear that

40

Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 53. 41

This method is also described in a magical papyrus written in Demotic which says: “The way to know it

of a woman whether she will be pregnant: You should make the woman urinate on the plant at night. When morning

comes, if you find the plant scorched, she will not conceive. If you find it green she will conceive” (H. Betz, The

Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992), 242. 42

G. Robins, “Women and Children in peril, 27. 43

Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 53. 44

Irene Jacob and Walter Jacob, “Flora,” ABD 2:812; F. Nigel Hepper, “Mandrake,” NIDB 3:787. 45

Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 257-60. 46

Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 56-57.

13 John Byron


Rachel and Leah valued it as a fertility drug, Rachel because she had never conceived, Leah

because she had become infertile”.47

Adoption

When prayers, medicine and magic did not work the childless couple might choose to adopt.

Since the ultimate function of marriage was to produce an heir, adopting a son was one way to

fill that need. A number of adoption contracts from Nippur reveal how widespread this practice

was. One damaged tablet reads: “[ ] son of Inanna- [ ] has adopted as his son (or has been

adopted as a son by) [ ] son of Siyatum and had made him his heir” (SAOC 44 10).48

Another

contract relates how a husband and wife adopted two brothers as their heirs. The contract

specifies that the older brother will get a preferential share first, and then the rest will be divided

between the two brothers. A stipulation is included, however, stating that if the two brothers

should ever say “You are not our father, you are not my mother”, the inheritance would be

forfeited. Similarly, if the adoptive parents should declare “you are not our sons” they forfeit

their house and lands and pay a fine (BE 6/2 24).49

Another contract containing similar

stipulations provides a smaller fine against the parents should they break the contract, but the

penalty for the adopted son is more severe. If he should say “You are not my father, you are not

my mother,” they will shave him and place a slave mark on him and sell him for silver (BE 6/2

57).50

While providing homes for orphans was certainly one aspect of adoption in Nippur, it is

clear from many of the contracts that adoption was also motivated by economics. A childless

couple found a son to retain their property and the child, depending upon his previous socio-

economic background, found an opportunity for social mobility.51

But the penalty stipulations

also reveal how seriously the agreement was considered. To have a rejection of such an

agreement meant possible social and economic ruin.

The Law codes of Hammurabi, which provide protection for the adoptee, provide insight

into who were the candidates for adoption. The sons that have been adopted are not necessarily

orphans. Line 185 stipulates that once a son has been given up for adoption, he cannot be

demanded back. But if that son should injure his adoptive parents, then he will be sent back to

his father (§186). On the other hand, if the adoptive parents do not care for the son then he may

go back to his father (§190). That these sons are not orphans indicates the economic and social

function of adoption. If the adoptive parents are childless, adopting a son provides them with the

needed heir.

47

Gordon Wenahm, Genesis 16-50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word, 1994), 247. 48

Elizabeth Caecilia Stone and David I. Owen, Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur and the Archive of

Mannum-mešu-lissur. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 43. 49

Stone and Owen, Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur, 46. 50

Stone and Owen, Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur, 47-48. 51

Stone and Owen, Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur, 33.

14 John Byron


Adoption was also common in Egypt and there is a particularly interesting story about a

childless Egyptian couple found among the Adoption Papyri. Instead of adopting a son an

Egyptian husband, Nebnofre, adopted his wife, Rennofre, making her the sole heir to his

property and thus protected her from social and financial disaster when he died. Rennofre, in

turn, manumitted and adopted three children of her female slave.52

The oldest girl she married to

her brother, whom she also adopted. All four children were then allotted equal shares of the

inheritance and her brother (now also her son) was charged to care for her in her old age. This

adoption story demonstrates the shrewd means to which some couples would go to protect their

inheritance. By adopting the slave girl and marrying her to her brother, Rennofre found a way to

keep the property within the family while at the same time providing for herself, a childless

widow.53

Since adoption was a widely used legal institution throughout the ancient world it is

somewhat surprising that it is hardly mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.54

While the New

Testament uses specific adoption terminology to explain metaphoric usages of the institution, the

Hebrew Bible has no such equivalent.55

Unlike the Law code of Hammurabi there are no legal

stipulations listed for adoption and there are only two cases in which an adoptive relationship is

described and both of these are in the context of a foreign setting. In Exodus 2:10 Moses is

adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter and in Esther 2:7 we read that Mordecai raised his niece while

exiled in Persia. But the details in both situations make these cases unusual. Moses is not an

orphan when he is taken to live as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Moreover, he is cared for by

his own sister and mother until he is weaned (Ex 2:7-8). Esther is an orphan, but she is raised by

an uncle and thus still part of her parent’s family. Added to these is Abraham’s choice of his

servant Eliezer of Damascus as heir apparent. The story provides further evidence from the Bible

that adoption was an acceptable or at least known method for circumventing the challenges of

childlessness (Gen 15:2). But this part of Abraham’s story is only included to reveal God’s

promise that Abraham would have a son and that Eliezer would not be Abraham’s heir (Gen

15:4). Consequently, while adoption is attested in the Hebrew Bible, it is not presented as an

alternative to childlessness. As noted in the introduction, the only alternative is divine

intervention.

Surrogate Mothers and Second Wives

If prayers and magic did not work and adoption, for whatever reason, was not an option, there

was the possibility of surrogacy. Unlike today, however, this was not a matter of hiring someone

to carry a child to term for the couple. The process involved the husband taking an additional

52

Some have suggested that the children were fathered with the slave by Rennofre’s husband, Nebnofre

(R.M Janssen, J.J. Janssen, Getting Old in Ancient Egypt, [London: Stacey/Rubicon, 1996], 88). 53

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 207, 442). 54

Westbrook and Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel, 65. 55

Mary Foskett, “Adoption,” NIDB 1:54.

15 John Byron


wife. As noted above, numerous marriage contracts from antiquity contain the stipulation that if

the wife does not bear children, the husband has the legal right to take another wife. But this is

not simply a case of polygyny in which a man has multiple wives of equal status.56

Rather this is

more accurately described as polycoity whereby the first wife retains her status as the primary

wife and the subsequent wife has a secondary status to that of the first.57

The purpose of the

secondary wife is for producing an heir within the household. Her status, however, does not

make her the equal of the primary wife simply by providing an heir to the husband. She is still of

a lower status than the first wife. This is demonstrated most clearly in the Law Code of

Hammurabi §145 which states: “If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he

intend to take another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into the house, this second

wife shall not be allowed equality with his (first) wife.”

The option of taking a secondary wife was an alternative primarily available to the

wealthy.58

It is difficult to conceive how a childless, peasant couple could afford to budget

another adult into their economic situation. Or, what family was going to give their daughter to a

man who was not only childless but also poor? Conversely, it was not always economically or

socially advantageous for a man to marry a second wife. At the very least, a barren wife could

help with running the household or working in the fields.59

But a man could, in addition to his

wife, have children with a concubine or one of his female slaves.60

Furthermore, slaves were

sometimes part of a woman’s dowry that she brought with her into the marriage agreement.61

A

childless woman could offer her personal handmaid to her husband as a way to produce an heir.

The Law Code of Hammurabi §144 and 145 describes just such a situation and the biblical

stories of Sarah, Rachel and Leah reveal that the Genesis narrator was aware of this possibility

(Gen 16:1-3; 30:3, 9).62

But this remedy was far from being complicated. On the one hand, it

could potentially solve the inheritance problems connected with childlessness. On the other hand,

it threatened to complicate the status issues facing the wife. The presence of another woman in

the household who produced an heir meant that the division between slave and wife became

intertwined and confused.

The handmaid was always of a lower status than that of the wife.63

Although she might

be in a sexual relationship with the husband she was not the primary wife. The giving of the

56


Sakenfeld, Just Wives, 12. 58


Katarzyna Gorsz, “Dowry and Brideprice in Nuzi,” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzu,

M. Morrison and D. Owen (ed.) (Winnona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 181. 60

It is not clear that concubines were always slaves. In the Hebrew Bible, the designation seems to refer to

a wife of secondary status (M.E. Shields, “Concubine,” NIDB, 1:713-14). 61


LH §144 “If a man take a wife and this woman gives to her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him

children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second

wife.” 63

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel,123.

16 John Byron


handmaid to the husband for the purpose of bearing children complicated the situation, however,

since she belonged to the wife, but was now also the husband’s other wife.64

The female slave

was the property of the owner and could, under normal circumstances, be exploited and disposed

of like any other piece of property.65

But when the slave/master relationship resulted in

motherhood, the female slave was afforded some protection from the regular status of property.

According to LH §171, a slave who had borne her master children was to be released after his

death. Furthermore, LH §146-147 discusses the case of a wife who gives her handmaid to her

husband.

If a man takes a wife and she gives this man a maid-servant as a wife and she bears him

children, and then this maid makes herself equal with the wife, because she has borne

him children, her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave,

reckoning her among the maid-servants. If she has not borne him children, then her

mistress may sell her for money.

These stipulations demonstrate that the introduction of motherhood potentially alters the status of

the slave. Raymond Westbrook has described the child-bearing slave woman as possessing a

split-legal personality. She remains the slave of her mistress while becoming the wife of the

latter’s husband. The primary wife loses some of her rights over the slave.66

She can discipline

her by reducing her status within the household, but she can no longer sell her since the

introduction of motherhood has altered her status and there is a tangible relationship between the

handmaid and the husband as evidenced by the child. Although a slave, she is still a wife, but the

dividing line between these two statuses is not always clear. As a result her status is somewhat

ambiguous since she cannot claim the rights and benefits of a wife, but she also cannot be

disposed of in the same way as that of any other slave.

Another piece of relevant information demonstrating how motherhood alters the status of

the female slave is found in LH §119. The line describes what happens if a man sells his female

slave to repay a debt. If he sells her, he is obligated to go back and redeem her from her new

master and set her free.

“If any one fails to meet a claim for debt, and sells the maid servant who has borne him

children, for money, the money which the merchant has paid shall be repaid to him by the

owner of the slave and she shall be freed”.

Westbrook notes that while the right of redemption was widespread in the ANE, it was normally

applied to family members, not slaves. But when the slave had borne children to the master, her

status was altered to such a degree that, although still a slave, she was sufficiently regarded as a

64

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel,144, 442. 65

Westbrook, “The Female Slave,” 215. 66

Westbrook, “The Female Slave,” 215, 228.

17 John Byron


member of the family so as to benefit from the privilege of redemption.67

Thus, motherhood

brought a change in status to the female slave.

At this point it is important to signal caution when reading the above legal codes. It

would be incorrect to suggest that the codes were somehow descriptive of what always

happened. The codes, more than likely, reveal an ideal principle rather than a fixed practice.

Indeed, marriage contracts demonstrate instances when a wife retained the right to give her

husband her handmaid to produce offspring and then to sell the slave.68

Such a condition in the

contract is probably designed to overcome the type of restraint described in LH §146-147. But

even if the legal codes were not always followed, they do represent a window into social

perceptions about female slaves that have borne their masters children. Motherhood brought

about a change in status to the slave. She was still a slave and under the power of her master

and/or mistress, but she was afforded certain protections based on her newly attained status.

Consequently, the female slave who bore children to her master had an ambiguous status. Like

her childless mistress, she held a position in the household but was not guaranteed the full

protection and benefits of one who was the primary wife. By giving her handmaid to her

husband, the childless wife projected her own ambiguous status onto her slave by gaining a child

through her while at the same time creating a split legal personality for the slave. The handmaid

was the slave of the wife, wife of the husband, mother of the heir, but not able to benefit fully

from her relationship with the husband or her son’s status as heir.

The interjection of motherhood brought about another complexity to the situation. The

children of a female slave were also of ambiguous status unless specific mechanisms were

employed to change that status. Although a child may have been sired by the master of the

house, that child was considered the offspring of its mother. It was counted among the household

property.69

Children born to a slave woman were usually known by their mother’s name and, as a

result, had no legal father.70

There was a trigger that allowed the slave woman and her children

to go free when the master died, thus preventing the wife from enslaving them further, but the

children of the slave woman had not rights of inheritance since they legally had no father (LH§

171).71

Such a situation was patently different from that of the wife giving her husband a

handmaid for the purpose of providing the household with an heir. In this case the female slave is

an economic asset that the master is able to exploit to his own advantage. Even though the

mother and her children were freed upon the master’s death, there were no clear advantages to

the slave woman or her children in this situation. The children were of the same status as that of

cattle and their genetic connection to the master provided them with no status claims.

67




Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel,440. 71

Westbrook, “The Female Slave,” 222.

18 John Byron


It was possible, however, that the male child of a slave woman could receive a status

change based on his genetic connection to the master. If the master made an adoptive declaration

recognizing the handmaid’s son as his own, then that son could make a claim on the

inheritance.72

LH §171 states:

If his wife bear sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne sons, and the father while

still living says to the children whom his maid-servant has borne: "My sons," and he

count them with the sons of his wife; if then the father die, then the sons of the wife and

of the maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The son of the wife is

to partition and choose.

In this situation two things have happened. First, the son of the handmaid has now eclipsed his

mother in status. The above description does not attribute any status change to the handmaid,

only to the son. Thus the child of the handmaid now has a separate status than that of his

mother.73

He is a recognized member of the household with rights of inheritance, but the slave,

his mother, is still in the same position. She receives her freedom when the master dies based on

her having borne him children, but no further change in her status is outlined.

The second thing that occurs is that the handmaid’s son, although now a recognized son

of the master, is relegated to that of lesser born. Even if he is the master’s firstborn, he does not

have the full rights of that of the firstborn son of the primary wife. Although the slave woman’s

son has a share in the inheritance, it is the son of the primary wife that determines how that

inheritance is divided up. Thus he has an ambiguous status. He is a son, perhaps even the

firstborn, but he is not afforded the opportunity to determine how the inheritance is divided. As a

result, his claim on the inheritance is mediated by the wife’s son.

In sum, surrogacy was one way of solving the challenges of childlessness that created

new problems within the household. The childless wife could secure her position within the

household by giving her handmaid to her husband to produce an heir. But this resulted in the

wife’s ambiguous status being projected onto the slave woman. Although she produced an heir,

she is not the mistress of the house and her son holds a separate status. She is protected in that

she cannot be sold, but she can be treated harshly and find herself demoted within the household

order. Her son is the heir, but she gains nothing from that status. Her status is ambiguous. She is

a slave that cannot be sold, a wife who has no power and a mother who will not be supported by

her son. Under the stipulations outlined above, she is relegated to living as a slave and then

released whenever her master, the father of her son, dies.

72

Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel,123-124, 441. 73

Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 17.

19 John Byron


The Plight of the Childless Widow

There is one other situation of childlessness in antiquity which adds another dynamic to the

problem. The case of the childless widow raises a number of issues about how such a woman

could benefit from her deceased husband when that man did not leave her with any children.

Although she may have been the favored wife, without a son she has no rights of succession and

thus is classified as a widow. The barren woman’s status was ambiguous.74

A woman’s status

within the household depended upon her reproductive role, and until she fulfilled that role she

was basically considered to be an outsider to her husband’s family.75

Thus a barren woman,

although the primary wife, was not always guaranteed social and financial protection if or when

she became a widow.

The classification of “widow” was not the same as it today. In modern society “widow” is

a label applied to any woman whose husband has died. But in the ancient world the classification

was not so simplistic. In Babylonia, for instance, a woman was only designated as a widow if

both her husband and father-in-law had died and she had no son to provide for her. Thus the root

cause of the definition was not simply that she had been bereft of her husband but included a

more nuanced social problem; she was lacking a male who was responsible for caring for her.76

Mesopotamian texts often portray the widow as poor, vulnerable and in need of protection.77

Her

social position was shaky and she depended upon the kindness of those around her.78

The ancient

widow’s need of protection is highlighted when Hammurabi declares in the epilogue of the law

code that part of his mandate from the gods is to protect the widow: “The great gods have called

me . . . That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans.” In

a society where kinship provided identity and protection, the widow had none.79

As in Mesopotamia, the criterion in the Hebrew Bible for designating a woman as a

widow was not just the death of her husband. Ruth, for example, is never called a widow but the

wife of a dead man (Ruth 4:5, 10). A similar designation is given to the anonymous woman

whose dead husband had been a member of Elisha’s company of prophets (2 Kings 4:1-7).80

Instead, the designation seems to describe a woman who lacked some type of financial support

from a family member. Unlike women in Babylonia, however, they may in fact have male

74



Paula S. Hiebert, “Whence Shall Help Come to me: The Biblical Widow,” in Gender and Difference in

Ancient Israel. Peggy L Day ed (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 128; Van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her

Grave, 134. 77


Van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave, 134. 79

Hiebert, “The Biblical Widow,” 130. 80

Hiebert, “The Biblical Widow,” 129.

20 John Byron


children, but if those children are not financially secure or old enough to support their mother,

then the woman qualifies as a widow.81

The precariousness of the childless widow’s situation is illustrated in 2 Samuel 14:4-7.

As part of Joab’s ruse to reinstate Absalom, he sends a woman to King David identified only as

the widow of Tekoa. In her plea to David she describes how one of her two sons killed the other

with the result that the clan demanded the execution of the surviving son. The woman’s request

that her son be spared is based on her socio-economic situation. The surviving son, murderer that

he may be, is the only remaining heir to her husband and thus her last means of support.82

Although the woman’s account is imaginary it does provide a window into the plight of the

widow. A woman with grown sons had some protection, thus the prospect of losing them was

especially bitter for a widow (c.f 1 Kings 17:17-24).83

On the other hand, a widow who successfully brought up her sons either by remarrying or

self-support was honored. While it was normal for a man to be identified by his father’s name,

there are two examples in the Bible of men who were raised by widows and were known as the

son of a widow rather than by their father’s name. 1 Kings 7:14 relates how a man named Hiram

was one of Solomon’s expert bronze makers. We are told that he was the son of a widow, from

the tribe of Naphtali, and that his father was from Tyre. The name of his father is missing

suggesting that it is his skill with bronze that is to be emphasized rather than his probable Tyrian

descent. The mention of his unnamed widowed mother links him to Israelite society and provides

her with honor through him. Similarly, in 1 Kings 11:26 Jeroboam is listed as the Widow of a

woman named Zeruah. The young man’s administrative skills were brought to the attention of

Solomon and he placed Jeroboam over all of the forced labor, a fairly prestigious and responsible

position for a man with no clear lineage except that of his widowed mother. Thus, a widow with

children could, under certain circumstances, find security, prosperity and even honor through her

sons. But her status in society was predicated on her relationship to her sons. By helping her son

to advance, the widow promoted herself within society.

In the Bible the widow is often portrayed as an oppressed victim. The Psalms contain five

references to widows. Four of them group the widow with the fatherless and the weak depicting

their need for protection from the wicked (Ps 68:6; 94:4-7; 78:63-64; 109:9). The widow is

victimized because she is a widow and thus needs God’s protection.84

In Isaiah the prophet

exhorts his listeners to rescue the widow and the orphan (1:17), the very thing that the princes of

Judah are not doing (1:23). Job 24:3 describes the wicked as those who exploit the weak in

society by stealing their property, driving off orphans and taking a widow’s ox as surety for a

pledge. Deuteronomy 24:17 forbids taking a widows garment as part of a pledge and Numbers

81

“hnml),” TDOT, 288. 82

A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC 11; Dallas: Word, 1989), 188. 83

“hnml),” TDOT, 290. 84

Hiebert, “The Biblical Widow,” 126-27.

21 John Byron


30:9 prescribes the vow of a widow as one of only two that can be made by a woman without

male validation. Implicit in the protections for the widow outlined in Deuteronomy and Numbers

is the absence of male authority and the weak position filled by the widow in society.

While some ANE societies allowed for the widow to receive a share of her husband’s

property, the biblical codes make no such provisions forcing the childless woman to join the

landless members of society who are entitled to humanitarian aid (Deut 14:28-29).85

Widows

were among the recipients who received an allotment from the third year tithe (Deut 26:12). But

descriptions of the treatment of widows in Exodus 22:21-24 make no mention of a societal

welfare system which may suggest that such care for widows was only gradually

institutionalized over the course of time.86

Thus, the protections and provisions available to the

widow were probably infrequent at best.

While a widow with children had few options, the options available to the childless

widow were even fewer. Without a male representative to arbitrate her way in society, the

childless widow was at a severe disadvantage. She may have been able to access her dowry, but

it is doubtful whether she would have been able to support herself.87

In Nuzi, for instance, living

off of a dowry was probably not an option for a widow. The dowry was a pre-mortem inheritance

given to the bride, but was only a token inheritance and did not form the basis for an independent

existence.88

Thus, the best option for her was to either remarry or find a way to bear a son even

though her husband was dead.

One option that is well attested in the ancient world was that of levirate marriage.

Coming from the Latin levir for “brother-in-law”, this custom prescribed that when a man died

without leaving any children behind, sons in particular, the brother of the deceased was

responsible for providing the widow with a male heir.89

The custom was practiced by the

Hittites, is attested among documents from Ugarit, and given legal justification in a number of

Middle Assyrian laws.90

It is also referenced in the New Testament when the Sadducees question

Jesus about a childless woman who married and buried a total of six husbands, all of them

brothers (Mat 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40).

The Hebrew Bible contains a description of this practice in Deuteronomy 25 and the

stories of Tamar (Gen 38) and Ruth each illustrate a form of the custom being practiced.

According to Deuteronomy 25:5, the custom is triggered when a man dies without leaving a son

85

In some cases the woman may have a dowry or some other means of support, but if these sources were

non-existent or exhausted, charity was her only resort (Raymond Westbrook and Bruce Wells, Everyday Law in

Biblical Israel [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009], 101). 86

Van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave, 136. 87

Hiebert, “The Biblical Widow,” 137. 88

Grosz, “Dowry and Brideprice”, 178-79. 89

Eryl W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage”, VT 31 (1981): 139. 90

Davies, “Levirate Marriage”, 139; Victor P. Hamilton, “Marriage (OT and ANE),” ABD, 4:561, 567).

22 John Byron


behind. The focus on the lack of a son suggests that the law would still be in effect even if the

dead man left behind a daughter.91

The woman in question, therefore, is a widow in a particular

sense. She is without a male, an heir to her husband’s property, to protect her and care for her

and the dead man’s legacy. Deuteronomy also stipulates that the firstborn son from the

relationship between the widow and the brother-in-law will succeed in the dead man’s name so

as not to “blot out his name from Israel” (25:6). For a man to die without a son was apparently a

grievous thing. Absalom erects a pillar in the Kidron valley in his own memory since he has no

son (2 Sam 18:18) and Amos describes the grief of those who mourn the loss of their only son

(Amos 8:10). But the offspring of the levirate marriage was not necessarily known by the dead

man’s name but his real/biological father’s name. This is evidenced by the fact that in the

genealogies Tamar’s son Perez is listed as the son of Judah and not ER and Boaz is listed as the

father of Obed rather than Mahlon.

It seems that the notion of preserving the dead man’s name has more to do with the

preservation of his property than his memory. Although the firstborn son of the levir may not

take the dead man’s name, he was the heir to his property. This means that a levir would father a

child, who stood to inherit his own brother’s property, and yet not benefit from the inheritance.

In other words, the levir would be responsible for marrying his dead brother’s widow, providing

an heir to her, caring for both mother and son, but not be in control of the property, which

presumably he is managing until the son is of age. In such a situation, one could understand why

a potential levir might not want to perform such a service. Indeed, the desire for personal gain

might also enter the picture. According to Numbers 27:5-11 the brother-in-law of a childless

widow stood to gain by being the next in line to inherit the dead man’s wealth.92

The possibility

of such self-interest getting in the way is probably what Deuteronomy has in mind when it allows

the widow to publically shame the man who refuses to perform his duty as levir (25:7-10). This

would perhaps serve as a deterrent intended to prevent an unscrupulous man from taking

advantage of his brother’s widow by positioning himself as the most eligible heir.

The purpose of the law, then, was not only to provide the dead man with an heir but to

provide the widow with a son who could inherit her husband’s property and serve as her

protector and benefactor. Levirate marriage represented a social mechanism that provided the

childless widow a way to be freed from her ambiguous status. The custom produced an heir and

gave to the woman the one thing that she had lacked while her husband was alive; a secure place

within her husband’s household. A woman’s status within the household depended upon her

91

According to Numbers 27:5-11, if there was a lack of male heirs, daughter could, under certain

circumstances, inherit the father’s property. But this is a mechanism that represents the importance of preserving the

family’s property rather than an affirmation of the rights of woman to be heirs. Such a conclusion is confirmed by

Num 36:1-12 which forbids daughters, who act as heirs to their father, from marrying outside of their father’s tribe. 92

Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOT Sup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1991), 76.

23 John Byron


reproductive role, and until she fulfilled that role she was an outsider to her husband’s family.

Levirate marriage is a posthumous recognition of her place within that home.

Summary

In summary, childlessness was not an option for women in society. Unlike modern society,

women did not have the choice to delay having children and they certainly could not choose to

have a career rather than a family. A woman’s status and significance within her husband’s

household was determined and/or confirmed by her ability to produce an heir. Bearing children

was of such paramount importance that numerous marriage contracts which have survived from

antiquity contain provisos about what would happen should the woman fail to conceive.

Childlessness was seen first and foremost as a defect in the wife. Moreover, it led to the

suspicion that she was guilty of some nefarious act that had caused the gods to withhold the

blessings of children from her.

When a woman was unable to have children her status in the home was threatened.

Without an heir the husband’s legacy was under threat of extinction. The childless wife faced

several possible outcomes. Her husband could divorce her and marry another woman. If the man

produced a child with his new wife, the childless wife was relegated to a life outside of marriage.

Who would want to marry a divorced woman who had already demonstrated her inability to

conceive? The second option was for her to remain in the home while her husband married a

second wife. While this allowed the childless woman a place within the household it did not

guarantee her future financial and social security. If a second wife had been brought into the

home and produced an heir, then it was that woman who would benefit most from the marriage.

The first wife’s status was ambiguous. She was a wife, but did not provide the needed heir. Since

a woman’s place in society was predicated on her association with a male, the thought of being a

childless widow was a frightening prospect. Once her husband was gone there were no

guarantees that wife number two and her son would care and provide for wife number one.

Adoption was an option that probably worked best for both husband and wife. This way

of circumventing infertility protected the childless wife from being excluded from the household

and provided an heir to the husband’s legacy. But while this is well attested in antiquity, its

presence in the Bible is strangely absent. It is never presented as an alternative to childlessness.

Although a viable alternative, it is not presented as such by the authors of the Bible.

For those who could afford it, surrogacy through a female slave was an option. But while

this method solved the problem of childlessness for the wife, it projected her ambiguous status

onto the slave woman. Motherhood altered the status of the female slave within the household. If

she displeased her master and/or mistress she could be treated harshly, demoted within the ranks

but not sold. The presence of her son, the recognized heir of the household, provided her some

protection. But she was unable to fully benefit from his position. Her son was the heir, but she

24 John Byron


gained nothing from that status. Her status was ambiguous. She was a slave but could not be

sold, a wife who had no power and a mother who would not be supported by her son. She was

relegated to a life of slavery and then released whenever her master, the father of her son, died.

In antiquity infertility did more than create a social stigma. The outcome could mean a

lost inheritance and social and financial ruin. In an era with limited medical knowledge about

infertility and no adoption agencies, powerlessness to alter the circumstances was more than a

feeling. It was the unavoidable reality. There was often very little that could be done. For the

childless women, the consequences and stakes of infertility were quite high. They were

emotional, relational, financial and social.

It is with the above background in place that we will begin to explore the Genesis

narrative. It needs to be stated at the outset that what is not happening is an alignment of the

narrative with the various law codes as a way to interpret Genesis. Rather, I am reading Genesis

against the above background and listening for echoes of the situations outlined above. It is a

reading of Genesis through the eyes of the childless to tease out aspects of the text that are not

always appreciated. Rather than focus on the triumph of the resolved infertility, I will highlight

the potential threats that childlessness posed to these women. Rather than view some of their

attempts at resolution as circumventing the divine will, I will demonstrate how their actions were

an attempt to overcome their powerlessness and ambiguous status. Moreover, I will also suggest

that these attempts to escape ambiguity and powerlessness sometimes forced the same status

upon other women.

25 John Byron


Chapter Two

Abraham’s Pursuit for an Heir

The account of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 12 presents the first story about a couple since the

Garden debacle involving Adam and Eve.93

It is here that we read of God’s call for Abraham to

leave his family and to travel to Canaan. It is also here that we first encounter the divine promise

declaring that Abraham will become a great nation. Much of what follows involves God’s

reiteration of and the couples striving to realize the promise. Readers who are introduced to the

couple at this point of the story could not be faulted for assuming that the story is simply about

how God chose the couple as the human agents to carry out the results of this promise. That is,

they are destined to produce a line of descendants that will ultimately become a nation of people.

But if this is where one begins engaging the story of Abraham and Sarah, a vital element is found

to be missing. To be sure, God’s promise is a prominent theme in the Genesis narrative. But

overshadowing the entire story is a niggling element. Sarah is childless. A reader who starts at

chapter 12 will not know this until chapter 16. In order to fully appreciate the way the childless

Sarah is portrayed in Genesis we must begin not with the story of Abraham’s call by God nor the

promises made to him. Rather we need to begin where Sarah first enters the narrative.

Sarah’s ambiguous status

Sarah’s introduction to the story is in the genealogy of Abraham’s father Terah in 11:27-32.

Terah was the father of three sons: Abraham, Nahor and Haran. The youngest son, Haran, died

prematurely, but left behind a son named Lot who would eventually accompany Abraham to

Canaan. The narrator does not tell us the name of Haran’s wife. The wives of Abraham and

Nahor, on the other hand, are both recorded. Abraham married Sarah and Nahor married Milcah.

It is in the recording of Sarah as Abraham’s wife that two elements are introduced which will

overshadow the entire story of Sarah; her ambiguous status and her barrenness.

First of all, Sarah has no pedigree.94

The narrator records that Milcah, Nahor’s wife, is

the daughter of Haran and thus the granddaughter of Terah. But no genealogy, no matter how

brief, is given for Sarah. She has no past, no ancestry. She is simply known as Abraham’s wife.

One could point to Abraham’s later claim in 20:12 that Sarah is his half-sister, the daughter of

his father but not his mother. But if this is the case why is no mention of that relationship found

in 11:29? It would be easy to dismiss the lack of Sarah’s lineage if the narrator had not gone to

the trouble of detailing that Milcah was Terah’s granddaughter. As it stands, Sarah is the only

93

Abraham and Sarah are more properly known as Abram and Sarai prior to their name change in Genesis

17 . However, for ease of discussion I will refer them to their more common names, Abraham and Sarah. The only

exception to this rule will be when quoting directly from the Bible. 94

Tammi Schneider, Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2008), 22.

26 John Byron


person in the genealogy that has no hereditary claims. Her character is ambiguous from the start.

She seems to be an outsider and the only identity she is given is that of Abraham’s wife.

The second element is found in the verse immediately following Milcah’s genealogy. We

are told that Sarah was barren and that she had no children. The description is striking. Of the

women described as “barren” in Genesis, only Sarah receives the explanatory addition detailing

her lack of children. Neither Rebekah (25:21) nor Rachel (29:31) is described this way. While

both women are declared to be barren, neither receives the additional description specifying the

lack of children.95

Sarah, it seems, receives the double indignity of not only being declared

barren, but an addendum that emphasizes her particular condition. Moreover, unlike the stories

of Rebekah and Rachel there is no mention that Sarah did not attempt to have children nor that

Abraham prayed for Sarah as did Isaac (25:21). The reader is merely presented with the fact of

Sarah’s barrenness without any suggestion that this was an ongoing struggle or that the woman

ever had a desire to bear children. She is a barren woman whose sole identity is based on her

relationship to Abraham.

From the very beginning Sarah’s barrenness overshadows the narrative.96

What’s more,

her condition is emphasized on several occasions in ways that make it clear that Sarah has not

and cannot have children. In 16:1 the narrator restates the problem detailed in 11:30, Sarah had

not bore Abraham any children. Important here is that blame is being laid at the feet of Sarah. No

question is raised as to whether Abraham is the partner responsible for Sarah’s childless

condition. It is assumed the defect lies with Sarah. Indeed, Sarah’s own evaluation of the

situation is that it is the Lord who has prevented her from having children (16:2). Thus she

willingly embraces the problem as her own and attributes it to some unexplained incident of

divine disfavor.

In addition to the possibility of divine disfavor there are also natural, physical reasons

that lead to the conclusion that Sarah cannot bear children. In 17:17 Abraham laughs at God’s

promise that Sarah will bear a child since she is nearly ninety years old. In 18:11 the narrator

adds a side comment that informs the reader that “it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner

of women”. Sarah was both advanced in age and post-menopausal. Not only was she too old to

bear children her body no longer had the ability to do so.97

“Conception, let alone birth, was

impossible.”98

Compounding the narrator’s comments is Sarah’s own words in the next verse. In

18:12 she laughs at the possibility of having a child since not only are she and Abraham old but

95

Genesis 30:1 notes that Rachel realizes she is not having children which suggests that she had been

trying. But the language is different from the narrator’s comments about Sarah in 11:30 and does not represent a

compounded description of Rachel’s condition as it seems to do for Sarah. 96


Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narrative (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1984), 9. 98

Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 48.

27 John Byron


beyond the years of sexual pleasure.99

It appears that the couple no longer engages in sexual

intercourse which effectively draws a line under the entire situation.

When the reader considers all of these elements of the story the picture is a very different

one. It is not simply about two people walking in the promises of God waiting for their

fulfillment. Rather, it is about a woman who did not and cannot have children. Not only has

Sarah failed to bear Abraham children, she is at a stage in her life that renders it a foregone

conclusion. Read from the point of view of a childless woman, the situation is dire. There is no

possible reason to conclude that she will ever bear a child. Sarah’s character, then, is ambiguous.

She is a woman with no past and no future. She has no recorded ancestry and no future

descendants. Her identity is only realized through her role as Abraham’s wife, and that status is

endangered by her failure to give him a son.

Abraham’s threatened legacy

The result of this situation is that there is a crisis surrounding who will be Abraham’s heir.

Without a son Abraham’s wealth is exposed. There is no family link that will guarantee the

patriarch’s enduring legacy. The narrative sets up the problem of the heir in three ways. First, as

we have just demonstrated above, Sarah is barren and there is no expectation that these

circumstances will change (11:30; 16:1-2; 17:17; 18:11-12). Second, Abraham is wealthy and

continues to grow richer. Third, and most important, Abraham is childless (15:2-3).

Abraham’s wealth is highlighted a number of times in the narrative. In 12:4-5 Abraham

departs Haran, where his father Terah had died, and takes Sarah, his nephew Lot and all the

possessions and the people (the terminology here probably refers to slaves) they had acquired in

Haran and travels to Canaan. The placement of this description of Abraham’s wealth so soon

after his father’s death and the comment that it had been acquired in Haran suggests that

Abraham is the sole heir to Terah’s estate. Nahor, Abraham’s surviving brother, is not said to

have gone with his father and brother to Haran and thus not an heir to at least that portion of

Terah’s estate. Moreover, Abraham is the firstborn son and by custom the one who would

receive the largest share of the property. Hence, the picture painted by the narrator is of a

wealthy male who has inherited his father’s legacy in the form of property. As the heir, it would

be expected that Abraham would not only increase the size of the legacy, but one day pass it on

to his own son.

And increase it does! For instance, the result of Abraham’s deception of Pharaoh

concerning the true nature of his relationship with Sarah does not end in reprimand but reward.

When Sarah enters the royal palace Pharaoh gives Abraham a gift that includes a variety of

livestock and an assortment of male and female slaves (12:16). And just in case the reader

99


28 John Byron


missed the point about Abraham’s growing wealth the narrator repeats it in 13:2. We are told that

Abraham is very rich, not only in livestock, but in silver and gold, a portion of his wealth that

had not yet been mentioned. Finally, in 20:12 Abraham attempts again to pass Sarah off as his

sister resulting in his further enrichment. Abimelech does more than return Abraham’s wife to

him. He gives him more livestock, more slaves and the opportunity to settle in the choice

sections of the land.

The narrative also includes indirect allusions to the extent of Abraham’s wealth. He is

apparently rich enough in servants (318 of them) to form his own private army with which he

sets off to rescue his captured nephew Lot (14:14).100

Coupled with this is the story of

Abraham’s negotiation of a non-aggression pact with Abimelech and Phicol the commander of

Abimelech’s army (21:22-32). Abraham is powerful enough that the other people groups in the

land are concerned about his growing hegemony and opt for making a treaty with him less they

be overtaken by him.

When these references and allusions to Abraham’s wealth are considered together, the

conclusion is that the patriarch should not be interpreted as a lone, wandering Bedouin moving

from place to place to sustain his meager flocks. On the contrary, Abraham is very wealthy and

wields a significant amount of power as manifested both in his ability to undertake a military

campaign and to negotiate treaties between himself and other local rulers. For all intended

purposes, Abraham is already beginning to resemble the great nation that God promised he

would be in 12:2. The problem, however, is that Abraham has no heir. Sarah has yet to give him

a son (11:30; 16:1). Without an heir the legacy of Terah that Abraham has so carefully preserved

and enlarged is exposed to the possibility of either being decimated or passed onto someone

outside of the family. At this point in the story Abraham shares one specific quality with Sarah.

Neither of them have a future as long as there is no heir.

The problem of the heir is vocalized for the first time in 15:1-3. God comes to Abraham

in a vision promising him a great reward. Abraham’s response, however, seems somewhat

incredulous. He asks: “O Lord God, what will you give me since I am childless?” The retort is

interesting since Abraham connects any possible reward with the problems surrounding the lack

of an heir. The reward seems almost pointless to Abraham if he is unable to somehow pass it on

as part of a secure legacy. Abraham has resigned himself to the fact that Eliezer of Damascus

will inherit his property, but this is of cold comfort since Eliezer is not Abraham’s offspring. His

fear, it seems, is that although Eliezer may preserve the continuity of Abraham’s wealth and

legacy, it ultimately will not be recognized as the legacy which was passed on from Terah to

Abraham.

100

Here again, the army is probably made up of slaves since the comment that these individuals were “born

in his house” suggests that they are the result of inter-slave relationships (Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 314).

29 John Byron


As the narrative is constructed, it creates some unintended results while at the same time

revealing some common perceptions about childlessness. The terminology used to describe

Abraham’s childlessness is rare in the Hebrew Bible.101

In addition to Genesis 15:2 it appears

only two more times and in both cases it is used in the context of divine judgment. In Leviticus

20:20-21 childlessness accompanies the death sentence pronounced upon those who commit

crimes of incest. In Jeremiah 22:30 it is the sentence placed on the exiled king Jehoiachin.

Although Jehoiachin has seven sons, God declares that his offspring will not succeed him to the

throne which effectively renders him childless as far as his royal legacy is concerned. If the term

is understood to convey similar connotations in Genesis 15:2 as it does in Leviticus and

Jeremiah, then it appears that Abraham is the victim of some undefined form of divine

retribution. But even if the term is stripped of its possible allusions to judgment, it continues to

present a problem. This is the third time in the narrative that Abraham has been promised a

multitude of descendants (12:2, 7; 13:16). Yet, Abraham’s “situation contradicts not only the

general view of Genesis that divine blessing leads to a man being fruitful and multiplying (1:28;

9:1; 26:24; 35:11), but also the specific assurances already made to him.”102

The promises of

God, no matter how oft repeated, depend on the presence of a legitimate heir. Without a child

Abraham’s household faces possible extinction.

On the flipside of the potential theological problems created by Abraham’s childlessness

are the encoded perceptions found in antiquity. This is the first time in the narrative that the

problem of childlessness has been connected in some way to Abraham. Until now the reader is

aware that Sarah is barren, but no suggestion has been entertained that Abraham might be the

one responsible for the couple’s circumstances. It is assumed that the problem is Sarah’s. But

even though the narrator lays the blame on Sarah in 16:1, there are still unanswered questions

that linger below the surface of the narrative. We know that Abraham will have a son with

Hagar, but this has not yet occurred in the sequence of the story. If Abraham could cause this

slave woman to conceive why did he not do so earlier? The reader learns later that Abraham did

in fact have relations with a number of concubines some of which resulted in male offspring

(25:1-6). Until Ishmael is conceived, however, Abraham does not seem to produce any children

and until that moment in the narrative it remains a very real possibility that Abraham is a

contributing factor to Sarah’s childlessness. Nevertheless, the assumption of the narrator, and by

extension the reader, is that Sarah is the defective one. Such a perception was common in the

ANE and is confirmed in 16:1. Here, in spite of Abraham’s own lament in 15:2, the narrator

places responsibility upon Sarah by restating the barrenness label and causing her to confess her

own suspicions that there is some type of divine interference involved. Abraham, on the other

hand, is portrayed as a rich and powerful man who lacks an heir and is saddled with a wife who

101

The term is yryr(. 102


30 John Byron


cannot give him one. The challenge facing Abraham, then, is how to circumvent his barren wife

and provide himself with an heir.

Abraham’s attempts to secure an heir

With the exception of the Hagar incident, Genesis hints at four possible attempts by Abraham to

circumvent Sarah’s barrenness. Two of them represent forms of adoption and two resemble

outright attempts at abandonment.

The first suggestion that Abraham may adopt an heir is found within the narrative outline

of Genesis where Abraham’s nephew Lot appears as a potential heir. Lot is the son of Abraham’s

dead brother Haran and, from the way the narrative is constructed, appears to be the heir of his

father’s house and a potential heir of Terah. This suggestion is based once again on Terah’s

genealogy. In 11:31 we read that “Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran,

and his daughter-in-law Sari, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out together from Ur of the

Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there.” Here

again we see Sarah’s ambiguous status surface. Both Abraham and Lot are identified by their

relationship with Terah. Sarah, as in the preceding verses, is only known by her relationship to

Abraham as his wife. And it is her relationship to him that makes this part of Terah’s genealogy

so interesting. We would expect that in the list of those who accompanied Terah that Sarah

would be listed after her husband Abraham. If this had been the case then the genealogy would

have continued with the name of Abraham and Sarah’s firstborn son and progressed from there.

But Sarah is listed third, after Lot, suggesting that Abraham’s nephew is the putative heir.103

The

assumption is logical. Sarah is barren and Abraham has no heir. Lot is not merely a family

member. He is a direct descendant of Terah and, therefore, the natural choice to preserve the

inheritance of his grandfather. Once Abraham died, Lot could expect to combine his own assets,

inherited from his father Haran, with Abraham’s expanded version of Terah’s property and

create a significant legacy for his ancestors, himself and his descendants. Sarah, on the other

hand, has an ambiguous status. She is Abraham’s wife, but she is listed in a way that indicates

her insignificant standing in the family. She has no father and no son. At this point in the

narrative she is merely Abraham’s wife.

The relationship between Lot and Abraham is reemphasized in 12:4-5. When Abraham

leaves Haran we are told twice that Lot went with him. In 12:4 only Lot is listed as going with

Abraham. In 12:5 Sarah is listed, this time with Abraham, but so is Lot. This second listing

seems to serve as an introduction to the description of the property the two men acquired in

Haran. At this point in the narrative no promise of offspring has been made to Abraham. God has

promised to make Abraham a great nation, but no specific mention of children appears here. The

presence of Lot, Terah’s grandson, suggests that he is the expected heir. Terah’s legacy, through

103


31 John Byron


his sons Abraham and Haran, is protected by the apparent adoption of the nearest blood relative.

Lot is the son of Abraham’s dead brother and the natural choice to allow the continuation of the

family line.104

When God promises to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s offspring (seed), the

reader can logically expect that Lot will fulfill that role. Sarah is barren and Lot is the nearest

blood relative in the line of Terah.

The reader’s expectations of Lot unravel quickly. In the very next chapter the two men

who were listed together in Terah’s genealogy and left Haran to seek their fortune in Canaan,

separate from each other. Both men become so rich that there is not enough room in the land for

them and feuds breakout between each man’s shepherds (13:5-7). Abraham is forced to ask Lot

to separate from him and gives him first choice of the land. Lot’s choice reveals the narrator’s

knowledge that he will not be the heir. Lot chooses the plain of the Jordan which according to

the defined boundaries of the Promised Land in Numbers 34:2-12 falls either at the very edge of

the land or outside of it.105

By moving outside of the land Lot can no longer be Abraham’s lineal

descendant since according to 12:7 Abraham’s descendants are to be given the land of Canaan.

Moreover, Lot’s ultimate disqualification as heir is hinted at in 13:10-13 when the narrator notes

that God had not yet destroyed the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is this episode that

leads to Lot’s eventual debasement with his daughters in 19:30-38. Had he stayed with Abraham

Lot could have expected to be a recipient of God’s promise and become part of the great nation

God promised to make of Abraham. Instead his choice to move to the margins of the land leads

to his disqualification. He became the father of nations, but not the ones that grew from the

Terah/Abraham line. Abraham, on the other hand, is again lacking an heir.

The irony of the way Lot unravels from the narrative is that once Lot departs from

Abraham, God reiterates the promise of offspring. In 13:14-16 God specifies three times that

Abraham will have innumerable offspring (seed) who will live in Canaan. But no mention is

made here that the child will be born from Sarah. The reader already knows that she is barren.

The problem surrounding Abraham’s lack of an heir staggers forward towards resolution, but

Sarah is not necessarily carried by the rising tide. She is still barren and the narrative allows

Abraham the opportunity to find an heir while circumventing his barren wife. Sarah has yet to

secure her place within Abraham’s household.

Within the narrative’s exploration of Lot as the heir, is another possible attempt by

Abraham to circumvent his barren wife. The scene in Egypt resembles abandonment, although it

is not always read that way. The description of Abraham’s denial of Sarah’s status as his wife

presents the reader with a host of difficulties. Some commentators find in this story an

104


105


32 John Byron


illustration of God’s ability to fulfill the promise in spite of Abraham’s weakness.106

While this

may provide a tidy theological conclusion to a conundrum in the narrative, it does not take into

consideration Sarah’s part in the drama. Indeed, some commentators assume that Sarah’s lack of

voice represents her acquiescence to Abraham’s plan.107

But if this incident is read against the

backdrop of Sarah’s childlessness another perspective emerges.

In Genesis 12:10-13:1 a famine causes Abraham and Sarah to leave Canaan and travel to

Egypt to weather the crisis. As they enter the Egyptian region Abraham asks that Sarah deny her

status as his wife and instead claim to be his sister. This, Abraham claims, is because she is so

beautiful that the Egyptians will surely kill him and take her from him. On the face of it this

seems like the only reasonable thing for Sarah to do in order to save her husband’s life. But the

corollary of Abraham’s request is that it further mitigates her already weak and ambiguous

status. Sarah’s inclusion in Terah’s genealogy presented her as an outsider. Unlike her sister-in-

law Milcah, she enters the family without any pedigree. She also has no future prospects since

she is barren and has not provided an heir to Abraham. This is illustrated by the way the narrator

presents Lot as the putative heir in 11:31 and 12:4 by listing him before Sarah. At this point in

the narrative, there is no justification for Abraham’s request that she claim to be his sister. Her

only identity thus far is as Abraham’s wife and his request effectively strips her of any

protections that relationship guaranteed. She has no child to prove that she is already married and

no father to protect her. Abraham’s disregard for her status, ambiguous as it is, represents more

than just a desire to save his own neck. It resembles an attempt to abandon her. If she has no

father and no husband, then Abraham’s new status as “brother” provides him the leverage he

needs to be free of her and marry her off to someone else.

Initially Abraham’s plan succeeds. Not only is his life saved, but he marries off his

“sister” to Pharaoh and becomes very rich. Genesis 12:15 says that Pharaoh “took” Sarah into his

house a term which is normally used to describe the taking of a wife rather than just sexual

intercourse.108

All of the arranged marriages in Genesis involve a transfer of goods or money

from the groom to the family of the bride. We are told in 12:16 that Abraham was treated very

well by Pharaoh on account of Sarah and was gifted a large amount of livestock and slaves.

Naomi Steinberg suggests that “based on comparative kinship data, it appears that Abram may

be interested in being rid of his barren wife in order to receive property that he will later use to

secure another, presumably fertile, wife”.109

That plan’s ultimate failure reflects the narrator’s knowledge of how the story ends. Sarah

is Abraham’s wife and although her status as such may be weak at this point in the narrative, the

106

U. Cassuto, A commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), 351; Gerhard Von

Rad, Genesis (rev. ed. ; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 169; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 292. 107

Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 288. 108



33 John Byron


narrator emphasizes it by referring to her as “wife” no less than eleven times in 12:10-13:1.

Although she is barren her status is still that of Abraham’s wife and his apparent attempt to rid

himself of her is prevented by God. She is saved for now, but her status is still ambiguous. She

has yet to produce an heir and until that happens neither she nor Abraham has any future beyond

themselves. There is no one to carry on the legacy of Terah. Seemingly confirming that the

problem remains is the reintroduction of Lot in 13:1. There is no indication whether Lot had

gone to Egypt with them. We are only told that Abraham and Sarah went to Egypt (12:10). But

with Abraham’s failure to marry off Sarah and find a new wife, his nephew, the putative heir,

reenters the narrative. But as we saw above, Lot’s role in this tale quickly comes to an end.

Abraham’s third attempt at finding an heir again involves adoption. In response to God’s

fourth promise of blessing in 15:1 he complains to God that any reward he might receive is

pointless since Eliezer of Damascus will inherit his property. This time it appears that Abraham

seeks to find an heir who comes from within his house, but who, unlike Lot, is not a kinsman.

This passage is notoriously difficult. The meaning of the Hebrew phrase ben-mešeq in 15:2 is

unknown and therefore routinely untranslated. In 15:3 Abraham says that Eliezer was born in his

household (literally “a son of my house”), but this does not help to clarify the situation. Some

have suggested that Eliezer was the son of one of Abraham’s slaves. This seems to be the

strategy adopted by the NRSV when it translates 15:3 to read “You have given me no offspring

and so a slave born in my house is to be my heir”. If this were correct then it would suggest that

Abraham was legally adopting one of his slaves as an heir, a practice found in the Nuzi tablets.110

But the data and the parallels are too ambiguous to make any firm conclusions.111

Nevertheless,

adoption, of some kind, does seem to be what the narrator has in mind based on the way the

statements of Abraham and God are contrasted. Abraham complains that God has given him no

offspring (seed) the very thing God mentioned three times in 13:14-17. Abraham’s response is

that God has not fulfilled that promise and therefore he must find his own heir. Abraham seems

to interpret the notion of “offspring” to include anyone born in his household and thus his claim

that Eliezer will be the heir. God, however, reiterates the promise with an expansion. This time

God specifies that the offspring (seed) will be from Abraham’s own loins (15:4). This last detail

unambiguously spells out that the childless Abraham will have an heir that is from the direct line

of Abraham and Terah. With this statement all doubt is removed as to the pedigree of Abraham’s

future heir. He will be one who has a legitimate claim to the legacy of Terah. Missing, once

again, however, is any mention that this heir will be the son of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah’s

barrenness has overshadowed the narrative since 11:30 and will be restated in 16:1. At this point

in the story, neither Abraham nor the reader has any expectation that Sarah will be the mother of

the heir. She is still identified as Abraham’s wife, but her status is ambiguous. With this latest

version of God’s promise her position is even more precarious. Abraham will have a son of his

own, but Sarah’s barrenness leaves her own future in question.

110


T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. (BZAW, 133; Berlin: 1974), 203-30.

34 John Byron


Abraham’s fourth and final attempt to circumvent his barren wife is another incident of

abandonment. The scene in Gerar in which Abraham again denies Sarah’s status is similar to the

episode in Egypt but with some intriguing twists. Unlike the scene in chapter 12, the reader now

knows that Sarah will indeed have a child of her own. God has promised that Sarah will bear a

son and provide the heir that Abraham has so eagerly sought (18:9-15). But Abraham seems to

disregard the promise. Rather than protect his wife, he once again requests that she deny her

status as his wife and claim to be his sister (20:2-5; 10-13). The results are to be expected. Like

Pharaoh, Abimelech, “takes” Sarah into his palace using language that is reminiscent of marriage

(20:2). Once again, God intervenes to save the woman from being implicated in an adulterous

affair.

The explanations that Abraham gives for his actions are flimsy at best. He claims that he

believed there was no fear of God in Gerar and that they would kill him in order to take his wife.

But the dream sequence in the narrative undermines this claim since Abimelech is presented as a

just and moral king who is protected from disaster by God (20:3-7).112

Abraham’s subsequent

claim that he has been mostly honest cuts both ways. His claim that Sarah is his half-sister, the

daughter of his father, is unfounded (20:12). In Terah’s genealogy the narrator is careful to point

out the ancestry of each child except Sarah. If she is Terah’s daughter the narrative is strangely

silent. And even if she was Abraham’s half-sister, later biblical law banned such relationships

(Lev 18; Deut 27:22; 2 Sam 13:13). A reader would certainly question the validity of such a

marriage that was specifically forbidden in the law.113

Finally, and perhaps most damning, is

Abraham’s confession that this ruse was a common practice he employed wherever he travelled

(20:13). In other words, this is not the second time he has forced Sarah to deny her marital status.

Based on his statement it appears that Abraham is in the habit of denying that Sarah is his wife

and the narrative recounts how, on at least two occasions, she was taken from him and he

apparently did not resist or dispute her removal from him. Abraham’s excuses suggest that Sarah

is expendable and that as long as she remains barren he is determined to get rid of her.

In the midst of this final episode there are elements of irony that raise some curious

questions. As the scene closes Abraham prays for Abimelech’s household since God had closed

the wombs of his wife and all of his female slaves. This added detail suggests that Sarah had

been in Abimelech’s home long enough that all of the women began to notice that they had

stopped bearing children. The irony here is that Abraham’s attempt to rid himself of his barren

wife only spreads her infertility to other women around her. Furthermore, it is only when

Abraham prays for Abimelech’s wife and his slaves that they begin to bear children again. This

closing comment raises the important question of why God had not listened to the prayers of

Abraham and Sarah concerning their own childlessness. Or, did Abraham ever pray that God

would open Sarah’s womb? Such a prayer would not have been unjustified as seen when God

112


Note here on how later interpreters tried to get around this problem.

35 John Byron


listens to Abraham’s son Isaac who prays for his barren wife Rebekah (25:21). The fact is,

however, there is not one narrated incident in which Abraham takes the initiative to seek divine

help for Sarah’s infertility. On the contrary, he seems to be single-minded in his attempts to be

divested of her and to find a way to produce an heir. He consistently denies her status as his wife

and demonstrates repeatedly that without a child her position in his household remains

invalidated.

Sarah’s attempt to secure an heir

Sarah’s status as a childless, unwanted wife compels her to find a way to secure her place in

Abraham’s household. In16:1-6 we encounter the voice of Sarah for the very first time. Until

now she has been a silent, passive character in the story of Abraham’s search for an heir.

Moreover, in all four iterations of God’s promise to Abraham, Sarah has not yet been mentioned.

Until now, she has only been the silent, barren wife. But following Abraham’s two failed

attempts at finding an heir, and at least one attempt of trying to replace her, the narrative now

shifts to Sarah and her own attempt at circumventing her barrenness.

In 16:1 the narrator again notes that Sarah is childless, but this time by saying that she has

not borne any children to Abraham. This statement is in discontinuity with 11:30 where we read

that she is barren and has no children. Now, however, the statement focuses explicitly on her

failure to provide an heir for Abraham. The seriousness of the situation is demonstrated by the

way the narrator opens the scene. The description of Sarah as Abraham’s wife is juxtaposed with

the announcement that she had borne Abraham no children. This opening line emphasizes the

dissonance of the situation. Sarah is a wife but does not bear children. Her purpose in the house

of Abraham has not yet been fulfilled. Compounding the seriousness of Sarah’s plight is the

detail in 16:3 that Abraham had been in Canaan ten years. It seems, then, that Sarah’s

circumstances have reached a crucial point. For more than ten years she has failed to produce an

heir while successfully avoiding abandonment or replacement. But with no clear future her status

remains ambiguous and her security unguaranteed. It is from this dire position that she offers

Abraham her handmaid Hagar.

Up till this point we have not met the slave woman. Her existence is first made known to

the reader in 16:1 as part of the narrator’s description of Sarah’s status as a failed wife. Hagar’s

entrance into the story represents yet another attempt of solving Abraham’s heir problem by

circumventing Sarah’s infertility. We are told that Hagar belongs to Sarah, but how Sarah came

to own this woman is not detailed. It was not uncommon for a woman to bring a handmaid into

the marriage as part of her dowry. But as we noted, the narrative is strangely silent about Sarah’s

family history and thus it is impossible to know whether she came from a family wealthy enough

to provide her with the gift of a slave. Since this scene takes place after the episode in Egypt

(12:10-13:1) some commentators surmise that Hagar was acquired while Abraham and Sarah

36 John Byron


were living as refuges from the famine in Canaan.114

But here again the lack of detail makes any

firm conclusions impossible.

What is clear, however, is that Sarah and Hagar are different yet similar. Both are women

without pedigree. We know nothing about Sarah’s family background and we know nothing

about Hagar’s origins. Sarah’s only status in this story is that as “wife of Abraham” and “Hagar’s

status is as the “handmaid of Sarah”. And it is these varying statuses of the two women that

make what unfolds in the narrative significant for understanding the degree to which

childlessness could threaten a women’s position in the household. Sarah’s attempt to circumvent

her own infertility has the unintended result of further threatening her already fragile position.

The introduction of Hagar into the equation is initiated by Sarah. Although Hagar’s

character is new to the story, the initial focus is not on her but on Sarah. We are told nothing

about Hagar’s reaction to the arrangement.115

The narrator emphasizes that the purpose of

introducing Hagar is to solve Sarah’s status problem. Thus Sarah’s stated hope in 16:2 that she

might build a family through the slave woman. The Hebrew terminology here is telling. Sarah

literally says “perhaps I might build from her” (hnb)). The similar spelling and resonance

between the Hebrew terms for “building” (hnb) and “son” (Nb) create an obvious wordplay that

underlines Sarah’s ultimate goal.116

She wants a son and if God will not give her one naturally,

she will obtain one through other means. The unintended result of Sarah’s actions, however, is a

status change for Hagar. Very quickly the slave woman moves from being an unknown to a

potential rival.

The account of Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham resembles a marriage. The language used

in 16:3 is analogous to other marriage scenes in Genesis. Sarah “takes” (hql) Hagar and “gives”

(Ntn) her to Abraham as a “wife” (h#y)).117

Sometimes this terminology is used to describe a

man taking a woman as his wife as in 12:15 when Pharaoh “takes” the woman (Sarah) into his

house. Similar language is used when Abimelech “takes” Sarah (20:2) and when Isaac “takes”

Rebekah as a “wife” (24:67). At other times the language describes how the woman’s guardian

gives her to be the wife of someone. Thus Laban takes and gives both Leah and Rachel to Jacob

as wives (29:19, 23, 26-28). Hamor wants Jacob to give Dinah to his son, Shechem, as a wife

(34:8) and Judah takes Tamar as a wife for his son Er (38:6). The difference of the situation in

Genesis 16, however, is that of Hagar’s status. She is introduced in 16:1 as the handmaid of

Sarah (hxp#), a term most often associated with slavery in the Hebrew Bible.118

Sarah, as

Hagar’s owner, acts as her guardian and has the right to give the woman to her husband as a

114

Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 104; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 6. 115

Sakenfeld, Just Wives? 15. 116


hxp#, TDOT, ?:407. 118

The term sometimes appear with db( which suggests that there is a comparable status (TDOT, 406).

37 John Byron


wife. But she is not displacing Sarah. Sarah remains the primary wife since Hagar’s sole purpose

is to provide the heir that Abraham and Sarah have so desperately sought. Nonetheless, a status

change does occur for Hagar which makes the situation a complicated one at best.

Hagar is immediately impregnated by Abraham and with this result there is no doubt that

responsibility for the couple’s childlessness rests with Sarah rather than Abraham. The

handmaid, given as a wife to Abraham, has accomplished what the barren Sarah has failed to do

for over ten years. But it also prompts a situation that Sarah had not anticipated.119

Hagar’s

association with and pregnancy by Abraham has complicated the slave/mistress relationship and

allowed Hagar a new sense of status within the household. Sarah’s status is diminished and

tenuous since she has not produced a son.120

Pregnancy confers prestige on a woman and when

Hagar becomes pregnant her status in the family is raised and threatens Sarah.121

Evidence for Hagar’s elevated status is found within the same sentence describing her

pregnancy. In 16:4 we read that Hagar’s success creates tension between her and her mistress as

expressed by the Hebrew phrase “her mistress was slight in her eyes”. Translations of 16:4b

often read: “when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress”

(NRSV) or “When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress” (NIV). The

problem with these readings, as Trible points out, is that translators often alter the syntax of the

sentence so that Hagar is the subject of the verb. They also translate the verb (llq) to mean

“contempt” or “disdain”. While this is not an illegitimate translation it is not necessarily correct

if Hagar is not the subject, but rather Sarah. When the verb and its correct subject are translated,

a less harsh reading is rendered: “she (Sarah) was lowered in her (Hagar’s) esteem”. This is not

necessarily a description, then, of Hagar hating Sarah, but a reordering of the relationship. “By

giving Hagar to Abram for a wife, Sarai hoped to be built up. In fact, however, she has enhanced

the status of the servant to become herself correspondingly lowered in the eyes of Hagar.”122

Of

all the women in Abraham’s household it is only this woman who has given him what he has

sought, an heir.

Sarah’s reaction to the situation reveals the complexity of the arrangement and the

tenuous position of Hagar in spite of her triumph. In 16:5 she reacts to Hagar’s new position

within the household by blaming Abraham for this situation and looking to him to resolve it. It

appears that although it was within Sarah’s power to give Hagar to Abraham, she is not able to

discipline the slave woman without Abraham’s permission.123

Hagar’s legal personality is split.

She is the handmaid of Sarah, but she is also Abraham’s pregnant wife carrying the potential

heir. The terminology of the chapter reveals this split personality. Hagar is described as Sarah’s

handmaid (hxp#) three times in 16:1-3a. When Abraham causes Hagar to conceive in 16:3b-4

she is described as a wife (h#y)). But when Abraham is called upon to resolve the status

119

Trible, Texts of Terror, 11. 120

Hackett, “Rehabilitating Hagar” in Gender and Difference, 12-13. 121

Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 63-64; Von Rad, Genesis, 191. 122

Trible, Texts of Terror, 12. 123

This finds parallel with LH§ 146-147. See chapter one for a discussion of the legal restrictions

surrounding the treatment of a slave who was impregnated by the master.

38 John Byron


struggle between the two women Hagar’s status reverts back to that of Sarah’s handmaid

(hxp#). Indeed, Abraham himself confirms Hagar’s split legal personality when he not only

refers to his now pregnant wife as Sarah’s handmaid (hxp#) but also delivers Hagar into

Sarah’s hands for the purposes of discipline. Hagar is the mother of the potential heir, but she is

not the primary wife. Pregnancy has elevated her status, but it has not freed her completely from

her principal status which is that of a slave.

Hagar is not the only one in this escapade whose position is complex. Her presence in the

household guarantees the future of the Abraham/Terah legacy, but it threatens Sarah’s position as

the barren primary wife. With Hagar carrying the potential heir the narrative provides no reason

to suggest why Sarah should still be considered the mother of the promise. At this point she

remains barren and none of the four iterations of the promise to Abraham has yet to mention

Sarah. The narrative has already outlined two failed attempts by Abraham to secure an adopted

heir and he has attempted to abandon Sarah at least once. With the pregnant Hagar in place, there

is no reason for Abraham to continue with Sarah. The fact that Sarah reacts to Hagar’s new

position within the house while the woman is still pregnant suggests a heightened awareness of

the circumstances. Once Hagar’s child is born, Sarah’s security as the primary wife is finished.

There is no reason to believe that a man who has already tried to rid himself of his barren wife

would cease to do so once he has a secure heir. Consequently, Sarah must act before the child is

born.

One of the mysteries of the narrative is the ease with which Abraham so quickly returns

his pregnant slave wife into the hands of her mistress. Till now Abraham’s search for an heir has

been overshadowed by Sarah’s barrenness. Why he should allow this childless woman to

mistreat the mother of his child is not clear. Whether he was trying to mollify Sarah or was

chiding her for not acting on what is her legitimate right as the primary wife is also unknown.124

One possibility is to attribute it to the narrator’s knowledge of how the story ends. Sarah’s harsh

treatment of Hagar and the latter’s eventual escape from her mistress is not a problem since the

narrator knows that Isaac rather than Ishmael is the true heir. But even this explanation leaves

lose ends in the narrative. Hagar flees from Sarah and by doing so takes Abraham’s potential heir

with her.125

Again we must ask why at this point in the story Abraham would allow this to

happen. Hagar’s eventual return home, at the suggestion of an angel who sends her into the

hands of an irate mistress, only complicates the story further. The tension between Sarah and

Hagar is not yet resolved. Hagar returns home and gives birth to Ishmael. Abraham, for the first

time in the story has a son who can be the heir. Sarah remains barren and there is no reason to

doubt that Ishmael is not the son of the promise. Indeed, as we will see below, Hagar has

received a promise from God concerning Ishmael that is every bit as significant as the one that

was given to Abraham.

The scene in chapter 16 closes with what looks like the beginning of the end to

Abraham’s heir problem. It also closes without mentioning Sarah’s reaction to Hagar or the son

she bore Abraham. In fact, Sarah is not mentioned at all. The language used to identify Ishmael

as the son whom Hagar bore to Abraham stands in direct contrast to the opening scene in 16:1.

There we read that Sarah had not borne Abraham any children. In 16:15-16, however, it is

124

Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 65; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 8. 125

Von Rad, Genesis, 192.

39 John Byron


emphasized that Hagar did bear children to Abraham. When the scheme was hatched in 16:2 the

resulting child was intended to be Sarah’s. But instead Ishmael is indentified three times as being

the son which Hagar bore to Abraham (16:15-16). Consequently, while Sarah’s plan worked, she

seems unable to benefit from it. Thus although Hagar was mistreated by her mistress, she has

supplanted her in that she is the mother of Abraham’s firstborn son, and she is identified as such.

Once again, Sarah’s bareness causes her to be sidelined in the narrative. The reader may assume

that some sort of détente has been reached between the two women. But the presence of Ishmael

in the household and his slave-mother is a source of simmering tension that will surface again

when Sarah is finally able to produce an heir for Abraham.

In brief, Sarah’s attempt to secure an heir is no more successful than Abraham’s.

Moreover, her concerns for her status as primary wife are only exacerbated by the decisions she

makes. Her offer of Hagar to Abraham to act as a surrogate solves the problems associated with

his lack of an heir, but magnifies her own ambiguous status. She remains barren and with the

addition of a new wife who gives birth to a son, Sarah appears to be redundant. There is no

legitimate reason for her to continue within the household of Abraham. Without a child she has

no future. But she also has no past. Her lack of any ancestry suggests that she has no one to

protect her interests other than Abraham and that any abandonment of her holds no serious

repercussions for him. Added to this is the injustice that Sarah’s actions have caused to Hagar.

The woman already fills a precarious status as a slave within the household. Sarah’s thrusting of

her upon Abraham to solve her own childlessness only complicates Hagar’s status further. She is

the pregnant wife of her mistress’s husband. She does not have the authority of a primary wife

even though she will give birth to the son who could inherit everything. Her pregnancy elevates

her status, but not enough to free her from being mistreated by her mistress. She is ambiguous.

She has performed the task of a primary wife but cannot benefit from it. She remains a slave who

also happens to be the mother of the potential heir. Should Ishmael grow up to be that heir, there

is no guarantee that she will benefit from his position. On the other hand, the situation also

leaves open the possibility that should Ishmael become the heir that Sarah will be displaced in

favor of his mother Hagar. Neither woman has yet to secure their place within Abraham’s

household.

Ishmael the would be heir

The introduction of Ishmael to the story adds yet another layer of complexity. Ishmael is

Abraham’s firstborn son. Usually children born to a female slave or concubine remain slaves

regardless of the identity of their father. Even though they are to be freed when the master dies,

they receive no inheritance (LH§170-171).126

But when a slave is procured to provide the master

with a legitimate heir, the resulting son is usually recognized as the child of the father and the

primary wife.127

Thus the son has a greater status than his mother.128

His mother may be a slave,

but he is born free. The son that Hagar bore for Abraham was intended to be Sarah’s. Hagar,

Ishmael’s mother, fades from the story. The next we encounter her is after Isaac is born at which

point the slave woman reappears only to be banished by Abraham at Sarah’s and God’s behest.

126

Westbrook, “The Female Slave”, 220, 222. 127



40 John Byron


Ishmael, however, appears at several key parts in the narrative suggesting that he was being

raised to be the heir. Yet, there is never any recognition by Sarah, the narrator or God that

Ishmael is the intended son of Sarah. He is Abraham’s son, but Sarah is not his mother. His

mother is a slave, but she appears to have little if any role in his life once he is born. Added to

this is that God does not recognize Ishmael as Abraham’s son and rejects him as a legitimate

heir. The result is a number of scenes that demonstrate the rather ambiguous position of Ishmael

in the story.

The first we are told anything about Ishmael is prior to his birth. In 16:7-14 when the

pregnant Hagar flees the abusive Sarah she encounters the angel of the Lord in the wilderness.

The angel orders Hagar to return to her mistress, but tempers the situation with a promise and an

oracle about her unborn child. The Lord promises to multiply her descendants to such a degree

that they will be uncountable (16:10). This is significant since it echoes the pledge God made to

Abraham in 13:16. There God declares that Abraham’s descendants will be as numerous and

uncountable as dust. Variations of this promise are repeated to Abraham in 17:2 and 22:17. The

same promise is also made to his son Isaac (26:24) and his grandson Jacob (28:13-15; 32:12). At

this stage in the narrative the promise to Ishmael (via Hagar) appears to confirm God’s earlier

promises to Abraham and could suggest that Ishmael is in fact the legitimate heir that Abraham

has so desperately sought. But this expectation is quickly disappointed by the oracle which

declares that the child will be at odds with his family. Such prophesy would not seem to bode

well for someone looking to be the family heir. More important than what is promised, however,

is what is not promised. Missing is any reference to land. Before God promises to multiply

Abraham’s descendants in 13:16 he first promises to give them the land of Canaan. Land for

Abraham’s family is promised in 12:7, 13:15 and 17:8. It is also promised to Jacob in 28:13. But

no promise of land is given to Ishmael. He is to be a great nation, his descendants will be

innumerable, but they will be landless and in opposition to everyone else. Although he is

Abraham’s firstborn son Ishmael has no part in the covenant. He is given a separate promise that

sounds hollow in comparison to that which his father was given. Consequently, even before he is

born Ishmael is of ambiguous status. He is the firstborn son of Abraham, the only legitimate heir,

but not a recipient of the divine promise.

The next time the reader is confronted with Ishmael is when God promises Abraham, for

a fifth time, that he will have a son.129

The context of this most recent iteration of the promise is

God changing his name from Abram to Abraham and giving circumcision as a sign of the

covenant between them. Abraham’s new name (father of many) encapsulates God’s promise to

provide him with offspring, to multiply him into a great nation, and to grant the land of Canaan

to his descendants (17:5-8). Circumcision is the physical sign that signifies the covenant made

between God and Abraham. But there is an additional element to the promise.

Like Abraham, Sarah receives a name change, but for the first time in the narrative God

specifies that Abraham’s heir will come from Sarah. In 12:2, 7 and 13:15 the promise is vague.

God pledges that Abraham’s offspring will be numerous and inherit the land of Canaan. But God

never indicates that this offspring would come directly from Abraham and Sarah’s persistent

barrenness leaves open the possibility that the heir would be an adopted son. Adoption is ruled

out, however, in 15:4 when God specifies that the child will be a direct descendant of Abraham.

Yet, again, no mention is made of Sarah. The birth of Ishmael, then, would seem to fulfill God’s

promise since at no point in the story has Sarah been designated to be the mother of the heir. She

129

C.f. 12:2, 7; 13:15; 15:4.

41 John Byron


has remained the barren, primary wife. In 17:15, however, God has acted, for the first time, to

remove the shadow that has hung over the narrative from 11:30. Sarah will no longer be

childless. She will bear a son and as a result her status will no longer be ambiguous. She will

secure her place in Abraham’s household by providing him an heir who will be the recipient of

the promises that God made to Abraham. Through Sarah the legacy of Terah will continue and

God’s promises to Abraham will be realized.

It is this new development in the promise that makes Abraham’s response to God seem

somewhat surprising. Abraham’s first response is to fall on his face and laugh at the

ridiculousness of an elderly couple having a child. The narrator recites Abraham’s silent words

for the reader: “will a son be born to a man one-hundred years old? Will Sarah give birth to a

child at ninety”? At first glance, Abraham’s recognition of the humor in the situation seems

logical. Most people recognize that after a certain age the ability to conceive and bear children

diminishes and at some point ceases. Modern commentators point out, with some justification,

that Abraham’s actions are representative of his disbelief in the promise God has just made to

him.130

However, is having a child at ninety-nine any more impossible than having one at eighty-

six?131

A careful reader will remember that in the closing lines of chapter 16 the narrator notes

that this was Abraham’s age when Hagar bore him Ishmael. Granted, a lot can change in thirteen

years. But Abraham’s last attempt at producing a son was successful. The lack of faith in God’s

words, then, is centered not so much on Abraham’s own physiological limitations but Sarah’s.

Her barrenness has overshadowed the narrative since 11:30. Moreover, it has been some twenty-

three years since Abraham first received the promise of offspring in 12:7. He had been in Canaan

ten years when he conceived Ishmael with Hagar (16:3) and thirteen more years had passed until

God delivered the promise for a fifth time and this time with the inclusion of Sarah. So far in the

story Abraham has exhibited little evidence that he is interested in Sarah’s place within his

household. He attempted to abandon her in Egypt and, as we find out later in 20:13, he was in the

habit of denying her status as his wife. Compounding Abraham’s lack of need for Sarah is the

fact that he does not need another son. Abraham already has an heir, Ishmael, and Sarah’s

apparent failure to recognize him as such does not mean that Abraham needs to find another. It is

this last point which leads to Abraham’s second response to God’s promise.

While Abraham may laugh in his heart, his vocalized response is that Ishmael should be

recognized as the legitimate heir. In 17:18 Abraham says to God, “O that Ishmael might live

before you”. This brief prayer reveals much about Abraham’s own perception of the situation.

His request indicates that he already recognizes Ishmael as the heir and that, in all probability,

the boy is being raised to continue the legacy of his grandfather Terah. Within the chronology of

the narrative, it has been thirteen years since Ishmael’s birth. Abraham has no other sons and

there is no reason that he, nor Sarah for that matter, should not expect Ishmael to inherit

Abraham’s property and the promises God made to him. Abraham’s heir problems were resolved

thirteen years ago and God’s expansion of the promise to include Sarah only creates new

complications.

God’s answer to Abraham compounds Ishmael’s ambiguous status in the story and within

the household of Abraham. God rebuffs Abraham and reiterates that it is Sarah that will have

Abraham’s son, named Isaac, and that the covenant will reside with him not Ishmael (17:19). In

130

Wenham, 26, 30; Westermann, 268. 131

Although Abraham claims to be one-hundred in 17:17, the narrator begins the scene in this chapter by

stating that Abraham was ninety-nine (17:1).

42 John Byron


deference to Abraham’s request, however, God says that he will bless Ishmael, make him a great

nation and the father of twelve princes (17:20). This is a slightly different version of the promise

made to Hagar in 16:10-12 and it is not clear at this point if anyone other than Hagar and the

narrator is aware of the promise. Any comfort that it is intended to give to Abraham, however, is

minimal at best. God draws a line under the situation by stating for a third time in seven verses

that Sarah will bear a son and that through this son, not Ishmael, the covenant will be established.

In one fell swoop, Ishmael is divested of his status as heir. For thirteen years everyone

could assume that Ishmael was the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abram in 15:4, a son from his

own body. Abraham’s focus on finding an heir was to preserve the legacy of Terah to which God

promised to add the land of Canaan. But even before Ishmael was born he did not truly have this

status since the promises made to his mother excluded any promises of land. Now, with the

promise that Sarah will bear Abraham another son, Isaac, and that he will be the son with whom

God establishes the covenant, Ishmael’s position in Abraham’s household is uncertain. He is

Abraham’s firstborn son, but he is not recognized as such by Sarah, the primary wife, or by God.

His mother is a slave woman, a secondary wife, but one who seems to have little if any status or

power within the household. He is thirteen years old and on the doorstep of adulthood. And

although he has been raised as the anticipated heir, he must now wait to be replaced by a brother

who has yet to be born. His future in the household is unclear. Any portion of the inheritance he

might receive will be limited by the fact that his mother is not the primary wife and that God has

chosen not to recognize his claims as the firstborn heir.

Clouding the picture even more is that Ishmael receives circumcision as the mark of

God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Three times in 17:23-26 the narrator calls

Ishmael Abraham’s son and three times Ishmael’s circumcision is detailed. But to what end?

True, as a male living in Abraham’s household the covenant stipulated that Ishmael must be

circumcised. Nevertheless, Ishmael’s status as son and bearer of the mark of the covenant

provides him limited status within the household since God has declared that he will not be the

heir and that he will not be included in the covenant with Abraham. His is ambiguous. He is a

son who cannot benefit from that status and he shares in the mark of a covenant that excludes

him.

The next time the reader encounters Ishmael is in chapter 21. According to the

chronology of the narrative it has been a year since God promised Abraham a son through Sarah.

In 21:2 we read that Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age. The shadow that

hung over the narrative since 11:30 is lifted. Abraham has a son from his primary wife; a son that

receives the mark of circumcision and with it a stake in the covenant between God and Abraham.

Moreover, Sarah’s status has changed. She is no longer the childless primary wife but mother of

the heir.132

By giving birth to Isaac she has fulfilled her goal. She has secured her position in

Abraham’s household and their future together. The genealogy of Terah will now include the

name of Sarah as not only Abraham’s wife but as Mother of Isaac, heir to the legacy of Terah

and recipient of the covenant of Abraham.

With the birth of Isaac, Sarah seems to notice Ishmael for the first time. Prior to this there

is no mention of Sarah’s acceptance or rejection of Ishmael as the potential heir. He was, for all

intended purposes, being raised as the anticipated heir. He is Abraham’s firstborn son. But with

the birth of Isaac all this changes. The narrator notes that Sarah’s attention turns to Ishmael on

the day that Isaac is weaned. The timing is significant. Breast feeding was normally continued

132


43 John Byron


for a three year period. High infant mortality rates in antiquity meant that reaching the age of

three was a significant achievement often marked with a celebration (21:8).133

The event also

signaled a new stage in the child’s life. It signified that the child was sufficiently healthy to

escape most childhood diseases, strong enough to begin interacting with other children and to

start receiving education outside of the home.134

It was also a step towards securing the child’s

status within the household as heir. With the period of nursing complete, it seems certain that

Isaac will be Abraham’s heir and that Ishmael is about to be pushed aside now that it is clear

Isaac will live. Ishmael’s continued presence in the household during and after the pregnancy

was a sort of fail-safe. If Isaac did not survive then Ishmael, as the firstborn, could claim his

status as the heir and there is no reason to suspect that Abraham and/or Sarah would have denied

him this claim.

The beginning of the end for Ishmael comes when Sarah sees him doing something that is

not clearly defined. In 21:9 the narrator says – “Then Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian,

whom she had borne to Abraham laughing/mocking”. The Hebrew uses the piel participle

qhcym which could be translated as either “mocking” or “laughing”, but it does not provide a

direct object for the participle which means that it is not clear at what or who Ishmael is laughing

or mocking. The LXX translator recognized this problem and translated qhcym with pai&zw (playing) and added the phrase “with Isaac her son” (meta_ Isaak tou~ ui9ou~ au0th~j). The

translator’s gloss interprets what Sarah saw as Ishmael playing with her son Isaac.135

English

translations are not any clearer. The KJV, NAS and NIV all understand Ishmael as “mocking”,

but do not say at who or what. The ESV, however, understands Ishmael as “laughing”. The

NRSV and the NJB, on the other hand, both follow the LXX and understand Ishmael as playing

with Isaac.

Commentators are also not unified in their translation/interpretation of the verse.

Westermann views Ishmael’s actions as nothing more than innocent child play that causes Sarah

to become Jealous.136

Hamilton suggests that it represents some kind of sexual activity, i.e.

Ishmael was fondling Isaac.137

Wenham, on the other hand, suggests that Ishmael was mocking

Isaac, a conclusion that can only be reached by conflating the Hebrew and LXX versions

together.138

Another possible way to read this verse is within the larger context surrounding Abraham

and Sarah’s desire for an heir. The Hebrew participle describing Ishmael’s action is formed from

qhcy which is the same root from which Isaac’s name is derived. One meaning of this root is

“to laugh” which is how it has been used previously in the narrative in connection to Isaac’s

birth. In 17:17 Abraham laughs at God’s promise that he and Sarah will have a son. Sarah too

laughs when she overhears the promise repeated to Abraham in18:12 and then again in 21:6

when she gives birth to Isaac and contemplates the seeming absurdity of it all. In each instance,

the notion of laughter is connected to Isaac’s name. Jo Ann Hackett suggests that if we read the

verse in this context then what Ishmael may have been doing is not simply laughing or playing

but “Isaac-ing”. In other words, what Sarah saw was “Ishmael doing something to indicate he

133


TDOT, 3:26-27. 135

The Apostle Paul later understands Ishmael as persecuting Isaac (Gal 4:29). 136

Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 339; 137

Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, 78-79. 138


44 John Byron


was just like Isaac, that they were equals, and it is this that threatened her so.”139

Sarah may have

interpreted Ishmael’s actions as striving for a status and family position that was not his to take.

If this interpretation is correct, it would seem to parallel the situation that arose between Sarah

and Hagar in 16:4. There Hagar began to hold Sarah in low esteem since she had become

pregnant and attained a status within Abraham’s household that Sarah had not yet been able to

reach. Hagar was the mother of the potential heir. In a similar yet slightly reversed situation,

Sarah, the mother of the heir, must confront Abraham’s firstborn son and remove him as a threat

to the status of her own son, Isaac. She notices some actions on the part of Ishmael that makes

her realize that the status of her own son is in jeopardy and she decides to remove the threat once

and for all.

That the problem lies in the potential competition between the two brothers is evidenced

by Sarah’s statement to Abraham. In 21:10 she demands that he banish Ishmael and his slave

mother on the grounds that “the son of this slave woman shall not be an heir along with my son

Isaac”. Sarah’s insistence that Ishmael and Hagar leave is rooted in her concerns over

inheritance, status and protection. Isaac is Sarah’s source of status and protection. When a boy

grows up he becomes his mother’s protector, but she must be the mother of the heir in order to

benefit from his status. By forcing Ishmael out Sarah removes any potential competition with or

threats to Isaac’s status as heir and at the same time secures her own position within the

household.140

What, if any, inheritance rights Ishmael may have is not apparent. According to LH

§170-71, if Abraham adopted Ishmael then he would be able to claim inheritance rights, but

division of the inheritance would be decided by the son of the primary wife rather than the slave

woman’s son.141

It is not clear, however, whether this law or any other had jurisdiction over

Abraham’s particular situation or if he had provided Ishmael with the legal means to make such a

claim. Nonetheless, the narrative makes it clear that Sarah fears any possible rights Ishmael may

have that could threaten the status of her son, and by extension, her.

Abraham’s response to Sarah’s demands indicates that there was some basis for her fear.

The narrator relates that the whole matter was distressing to Abraham on account of his son

(21:11). Abraham’s reaction indicates his fondness for his firstborn son and suggests that a

shared inheritance was one possibility Abraham considered. As noted above, until it was obvious

that Isaac would live, Ishmael was raised as the anticipated heir. Now, however, Ishmael has lost

that status and must step aside so that Isaac, the true heir, may take his place.

The details of Ishmael’s banishment emphasize once again his ambiguous status within

Abraham’s household. At no time as the scene unfolds does either Sarah or God ever refer to

Ishmael as Abraham’s son. Sarah refers to him as the son of “this slave woman” (21:10). God

refers to him as a “youth” (r(n [21:12]) and the son of the slave woman (hm)h-Nb [21:13]).

This is consistent with God’s early statements in 17:20-21 where Ishmael never receives divine

recognition as Abraham’s firstborn son. Only the narrator identifies Ishmael as Abraham’s son.

Ishmael’s claim to the status of firstborn son receives no support from Sarah or God. Instead his

status is diminished in that neither of them ever refers to him as Abraham’s son but rather as the

son of the slave woman. The way in which they choose to identify him makes it difficult, if not

139

Jo Ann Hackett, “Rehabilitating Hagar: Fragments of an Epic Pattern”, in Gender and Difference in

Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1989), 20-21. 140


Wenham, Genesis16-50, 83.

45 John Byron


impossible, for Abraham to provide Ishmael any claim as the heir. Sarah will not allow Ishmael

to share the inheritance with Isaac and God will not allow him to participate in the covenant. He

is Abraham’s firstborn son, but no one will recognize him as such.

Some consolation is afforded Ishmael. Although never recognized as the firstborn, God

does recognize the fondness that Ishmael’s father has for him and that he is Abraham’s “seed”

even if he is never called “son”. Twice in the banishment scene God repeats the promise made in

17:20 that Ishmael would be a great nation. The promise is repeated to Abraham when God

voices support for Sarah’s demand that Ishmael be banished (21:13). It is then repeated to Hagar

when the angel of God directs her to a water supply that helps the mother and son survive their

trek in the wilderness. But once again the promise seems hollow in comparison to the one that

was given to Ishmael’s father. No land is promised and the scene ends with him living a nomadic

lifestyle with his mother in the wilderness forcefully separated from his father and completely

divested of any claims to his status as firstborn. The elevated status he once enjoyed in

comparison to his slave mother has vanished.

The last time the reader encounters Ishmael is at the time of Abraham’s death. This last

scene is brief and the reader could easily miss the significance of Ishmael’s final recorded act. In

25:9 the narrator records that Abraham was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons

Isaac and Ishmael. The description is striking for two reasons.

First, Ishmael is a banished son. He was forcibly separated from his father’s household.

But the description of Ishmael’s return to help bury Abraham suggests that the banishment was

not complete. The narrative leaves open the possibility that some type of communication was

maintained that allowed Ishmael to learn when his father died. This implies that although he was

ultimately not the favored son (i.e. the heir), he remained a son. Ishmael’s status as firstborn,

even if from a slave woman, allowed him certain, limited advantages that might not have been

afforded to other sons.

This leads to the second point which is that Ishmael and Isaac are not Abraham’s only

two sons. If the death and burial of Abraham is read within its larger context, the reader learns

that Abraham has a number of sons. In 25:1 we read that after the death of Sarah Abraham took

another wife named Keturah. This woman, wife number three if Hagar is included, bore

Abraham six sons and these sons went on to be the fathers of children later associated with

Arabian tribes (25:2-4).142

It appears, then, that Abraham had eight sons to three different

women. What is interesting, however, is that although these six additional sons are clearly

Abraham’s they are never acknowledged as such. The narrator only identifies them as the

children of Keturah (25:5). Moreover, the narrative leaves open the possibility that Abraham had

other, unnamed, unnumbered sons. In 25:5-6 we read that Abraham gave everything that he

owned to Isaac but to the sons of his concubines (My#glyph ynb) he gave gifts and sent them

away.143

The comment is significant about what it says about Abraham’s other children and their

ability to stake a claim as sons. First, unlike both Ishmael and Isaac, they are never identified by

the narrator as Abraham’s sons. Even though Sarah and God never identify Ishmael as

Abraham’s son the narrator does. Second, none of these sons are allowed to challenge Isaacs’s

status as the heir. They are given some token of recognition (hntm), but are forced to leave. It

142

Wenham, Genesis16-50, 158-59. 143

This is only the second time in Genesis that the term for concubine appears. The first occurrence is in

22:24 in the descendant list of Abraham’s brother Nahor.

46 John Byron


can be surmised, then, that although descent and inheritance is commonly traced through the

father, not all sons are equal. Some, like the children of Keturah and Abraham’s other children

are not given a place within the household. They are not the children of the primary wife and

therefore have no stake in the inheritance. They are not even identified as their father’s sons.

This context makes the appearance of Ishmael all the more intriguing. Like the sons of

Keturah and the concubines, Ishmael was sent away so as not to threaten Isaac’s status as heir.

Yet, unlike Abraham’s other children, Ishmael is consistently identified by the narrator as

Abraham’s son. Sometimes the identity of his mother, Hagar, is included other times it is not.

Even though he is not the son of Sarah, the primary wife, Ishmael never loses his status as

firstborn son. What he does lose is his claim as heir.

This leads to some final important observations about Ishmael. He is the son of

Abraham’s secondary wife, but his mother is never identified as a concubine. He is also the older

half-brother of the heir. Unlike the children of Keturah and the concubines he is identified as

Abraham’s son. But his status as firstborn forces him to be treated like the other sons in that he is

sent away from Isaac just as were they. But he is allowed to return to help bury his father which

suggests that his status as firstborn still affords him some privileges.

Consequently, Ishmael, the would be heir, is an enigmatic, ambiguous character in the

story of Abraham’s pursuit for an heir and Sarah’s attempts to overcome childlessness. The very

act of Ishmael’s conception was with the purpose of securing an heir. He was the intended son of

Sarah, but she never embraced him as such. He was Abraham’s firstborn son and for thirteen

years was raised as the heir apparent. But God refused to recognize his claim and pushed him

aside in favor of Sarah’s yet to be born son. He remained in the house for three years after

Isaac’s birth. But once it was clear that Isaac would survive he was forced from his home and his

father so as not to threaten his brother’s status as heir. Yet, although banished from home and

family he participates in the burial of his father with Issac, an act in which none of Abraham’s

other sons participate. In sum, the ambiguous status that childlessness placed upon Sarah was

project on to Ishmael in the same way that it was upon his mother Hagar. Once his brother Isaac

was born, Ishmael’s reason for existence disappeared. Rather than bring resolution to the

situation his birth complicated it further and left him an ambiguous character in the story. A

figure who once had a legitimate claim but was then pushed aside once the challenge of Sarah’s

childlessness was overcome.

Summary

When the story of Abraham and Sarah is read from the view of the tragedy of childlessness a

very different picture of the couple appears. Instead of a story celebrating the realization of

God’s promise to grant an heir to a childless couple, the story reveals the consequences of

childlessness in antiquity. The single minded focus on finding an heir for Abraham is

consistently hindered by Sarah’s infertility and the choices made by the various characters in the

story to circumvent her condition have implications for the wider community.

Sarah’s childlessness makes her an ambiguous character for most of the narrative. Along

with her identification as Abraham’s wife it is the first thing we learn about her (11:29-30). And

it is these two things that hang over the narrative until chapter 21. Sarah is Abraham’s wife, but

she does not bear him any children. Her lack of a genealogy deprives her of a past and her lack

of children deprives her of a future. Her position in Abraham’s household is not secured and she

47 John Byron


is threatened with abandonment at least twice. When she finally surrenders any hope of having

her own children, she handovers her handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham to serve as a surrogate for

them. But the unintended effect of this action is to further threaten her position. She is the

primary wife, but she is not the mother of the heir and her status is lowered since Hagar’s

pregnancy provides the slave woman with a new found status. Sarah is even more ambiguous

than before. She is the primary wife, but her purpose in the house unfulfilled. She has not borne

Abraham any children. The introduction of Ishmael appears to solve Abraham’s problem and

diminishes Abraham’s need for Sarah.

Abraham is a powerful Middle Eastern male who risks seeing his legacy decimated

because he lacks an heir. His wife is persistently barren and there is no one to carry on his name.

When analyzed within the context of childlessness in antiquity, many of his actions appear to be

attempts to circumvent his barren wife whether through adoption or abandonment. When he

finally has a son with the slave woman Hagar, it appears that his problems are solved. His

disregard for Sarah is demonstrated in the way that he lobbies God to establish Ishmael rather

than give Sarah a child and the way that he attempts to abandon her, for at least the second time,

even though God has promise them a son. Abraham’s reluctance to send Ishmael and Hagar

away from Sarah and Isaac highlights his apparent preference for his firstborn son over that of

the one born to his formerly childless wife.

Hagar is a character caught in the middle. Her role as surrogate mother is thrust upon her

by the childless Sarah and with that so is Sarah’s ambiguous status. Once Hagar becomes

pregnant by Abraham her status within the house is more complicated. She is the slave of her

mistress, the slave wife of Abraham and the mother of the heir. But she is not the primary wife

so there is no guarantee that her position with the household will be secured. Even if her son

would have eventually become the heir, there was no assurance that she would benefit from his

status. Eventually both she and her son are removed forcibly from the household in order to

remove any threat to the son of the primary wife.

Ishmael is a tragic character in this story. His whole reason for existence was to help

Abraham and Sarah circumvent their childless condition. Yet, although he was intended to by the

child of Sarah, he is never recognized as such by her. His status is more of a threat to Sarah than

a comfort. Abraham, on other hand, raises his firstborn to be the heir and considers Ishmael to be

the answer to all of his problems. God, however, also does not recognize Ishmael as the

legitimate heir and pushes him aside in favor of Sarah’s yet to be conceived child. Once Isaac is

born and weaned, Ishmael is officially divested of his status as son and heir and forced to leave

his father and his home. His status, however, is better than Abraham’s other sons, who like him,

were sent way so as not to threaten Isaac’s inheritance. Unlike his other brother’s, he is able to

help bury his father. But beyond that he is ambiguous. He is Abraham’s firstborn son, but his

unable to benefit from that status. He bears the mark of the covenant, but is prevented from being

a partaker of it. He receives his own divine promise, but it is devoid of any guarantee of land and

it sets him up as landless wanderer. Sarah’s attempt to escape childlessness and ambiguity is

what brought him to life. But once her problems were solved Ishmael ceased to be necessary.

Instead he became a threat that needed to be removed.

48 John Byron


Chapter Three

Leah, Rachel and the Handmaids

The story of Jacob is very different than that of his grandfather Abraham. In the previous story

Sarah’s bareness was an obstacle to Abraham’s quest for an heir. Her childless condition

threatened the extinction of Terah’s lineage and most of Abraham’s actions were centered on

finding a way to secure an heir. In Jacob’s case, Rachel’s childlessness is not a threat to the

inheritance since Jacob has a number of sons by Leah, Rachel’s sister. The Jacob narrative

expresses none of the pressures experienced by Abraham’s ongoing failure to secure an heir. In

fact, the only time specific inheritance language appears in the Jacob narrative is when his father

Isaac blesses and sends him to his mother Rebekah’s family in Paddan-aram to find a bride

(28:4). Allusions to inheritance can be found in the reiterations of the promise made to Abraham

in 28:15 and 32:11, but Jacob’s status as successor to the Terah/Abraham/Isaac line is never

threatened by the lack of an heir. Instead childlessness is the complicating factor that exacerbates

the competition between two sisters married to the same man. While there was an element of

rivalry between Abraham’s two wives, Sarah and Hagar, it was uneven. Hagar was not

Abraham’s primary wife and therefore never her mistress’s equal. She was the mother of a

potential heir, but her status was untenable and ultimately she was banished from her home

because Sarah perceived her and her son as a threat. With Leah and Rachel, however, the rivalry

is the result of them both being wives with equal status. Rachel’s childlessness, then, is a threat

to her own status rather than her husband’s lineage. There is no suggestion that Jacob needs or

wants to rid himself of Rachel. The problem, it seems, is that she is a childless wife in the home

of a man who has children to another co-wife.

Jacob is the first in the Terah line to participate in a bigynous marriage. But bigynous

marriages were not unusual in antiquity and there is precedence within the Genesis narrative.

Lamech married Adah and Zillah (4:19) and Esau married Judith and Basemath (26:34).144

Biblical law recognizes the right of a man to take a second wife with the provision that the first

wife not be neglected (Exod 21:10; Deut 21:15). In a bigynous marriage both women could be

co-wives with equal status instead of one being the primary and the other a secondary.145

This

seems to be the case with Leah and Rachel whose story is one of soral polygyny rather than

polycoity.146

The two sisters do not share differing statuses making either one of them legally

inferior. They are co-wives married to the same man. Nonetheless, both women face status

challenges; Leah because she is an unloved wife and Rachel because she is childless wife.

144

Outside of Genesis other men who had two wives include Elkanah (1 Sam 1:2) and David, prior to his

becoming king (2 Sam 2:2). 145

Marsmen, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 141. 146

Steinberg, Marriage and Kinship, 15.

49 John Byron


Leah’s tragic marriage

Readers of Genesis are accustomed to thinking about Rachel as Jacob’s true love. In contrast, we

never learn anything about Abraham’s feelings for Sarah. The only time we find out about the

object of Abraham’s love is when he almost sacrifices Isaac (22:62). Isaac, on the other hand, is

said to love Rebekah (24:67). But the love story between Jacob and Rachel is unrivaled in the

Bible. Complicating this story, however, is Leah’s status as Jacob’s wife.

Leah’s role in the story is problematical since she seems to be the woman no one wants.

While the narrator tells us about Jacob’s passionate love for Rachel, nothing is said of Leah

except a possible depreciating comment about the quality of her eyes (29:17). When Jacob first

meets Laban and his family the reader has no anticipation that Leah will become Jacob’s bride

and neither, it seems, does anyone else in the story. Leah’s injection into the story occurs when

she is used by Laban to trick Jacob. The narrator sets up the plot by describing Rachel and Jacob

as having a seven year courtship during which time Jacob works for Laban to earn Rachel as his

bride (29:20). At the end of the agreed period of time, Jacob demands of Laban “Give me my

wife.” But Jacob does not ask for Rachel by name which seems to leave Laban the opening he

needs. Instead of Rachel, he places Leah in the marriage bed. When Jacob realizes what has

happened he not only confronts Laban, but demands, this time by name, Rachel, for whom he

had labored. Laban agrees and, after Jacob and Leah’s honeymoon week is completed, gives

Rachel to Jacob “as a wife.” Jacob works another seven years to get the wife he really wants.

Leah is the unexpected wife of Jacob and, unlike Rachel, is never specifically referred to

as Jacob’s wife.147

She is recognized on a number of occasions as the daughter of Laban and the

sister of Rachel, but there are only two instances in the Genesis narrative where Leah’s character

is associated with Jacob in terms that implicitly recognize her status as wife. It appears as if the

narrative is engaged in a program that quietly denies Leah her status as “wife.”

The first time this can be observed is in conjunction with Leah’s marriage to Jacob. In

29:21 Jacob demands that he be given his wife, by which he means Rachel. Laban, however,

does not bring Rachel to Jacob’s tent but Leah, with whom Jacob then has intercourse. The lack

terminology is what is telling here. Genesis 29:23 says that Laban “took his daughter Leah and

brought her to him.” While the language certainly reflects the notion of marriage rather than just

sexual intercourse, it is interesting that there is no mention of Leah’s new status. That is, she is

described as Laban’s daughter but not Jacob’s wife.148

Compounding the perception that the

narrator is denying Leah’s status is the description of Rachel’s marriage to Jacob only five verses

147

Jacobs, Mothers of Promise, 78, 81. 148

This not without precedence in Genesis since both in 12:15 and 20:2 Sarah is “taken” from Abraham

without specifically indicating that she was to become the “wife” of Pharaoh or Abimelech. But this may have more

to do with the narrator’s rhetoric since in both cases the claims on Sarah are illegitimate because she is already

Abraham’s wife. In contrast, other marriage stories in Genesis do indicate the new status of the women. Rebekah is

“taken” to become the “wife” of Isaac (24:67) and Judah “takes” Tamar as a “wife” for his son Er (38:6). Even in

the unusual case of Hamor and Dinah specific terminology indicating that Dinah would become Hamor’s “wife” is

present (34:8). This suggests, then, that the narrator’s failure to clearly label Leah as “wife” may be a rhetorical

strategy that purposely overlooks Leah’s status in favor of Rachel.

50 John Byron


later. In 29:28 we read that Laban “gave to him (Jacob), Rachel, his daughter to him for a

wife.”149

The failure to identify Leah as Jacob’s wife is highlighted by Rachel’s clearly stated

status as wife. By describing Leah’s marriage in this way, the narrative reinforces the perception

that Leah is an illegitimate, interloper in Jacob and Rachel’s love story.

In addition to the description of the sisters’ marriages, there are a number of places where

nuptial language appears, but bypasses Leah. Rachel is identified as “wife” four times in the

Genesis narrative (29:21, 28; 44:27; 46:19). Even the handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, are labeled

“wife” when their mistresses hand them over to Jacob (30:4, 9). And although Leah refers to

Jacob as her husband some six times, acknowledgment of their relationship is never found on the

lips of Jacob (29:32, 34; 30:15, 18, 20). The closest that she comes to being acknowledged as

Jacob’s wife is when the narrator twice includes her among the other women in Jacob’s

household. In 31:17 Jacob puts his children and his wives on camels to flee Laban, a description

that implicitly acknowledges Leah’s status. The description is slightly more specific in 32:23

where it says that Jacob took his “two wives and his two handmaids,” but again Leah is not

mentioned by name.150

The final time that Leah is mentioned by name in Genesis underscores the narrative’s

tendency to ignore her status. In 49:29-32, a dying Jacob commands his sons to carry his body

back to Hebron to be buried in the cave at Machpelah. Jacob remarks that this is where Abraham

is buried with his wife Sarah, Isaac with his wife Rebekah, and where he buried Leah (49:31).

Interesting here is that Jacob does not refer to Leah as his “wife,” although he does attribute that

status to his mother and grandmother. This is even more striking since Leah’s burial in the

family tomb at Machpelah does recognize her status as Jacob’s first wife, a distinction not

afforded to Jacob’s true love Rachel.151

But even though she is buried with the other matriarchs

of the family, her status as Jacob’s wife is never explicitly stated.

The failure of Jacob and the narrator to recognize Leah’s status as wife is sharply

contrasted by what we know about her pedigree. Unlike Sarah, we know her family identity

since she is one of Jacob’s cousins. She is the firstborn daughter and, as Laban argues, entitled to

being married before her sister in any potential nuptial contract. Moreover, although her

marriage to Jacob was arranged by deceit, he does accept her. Granted, he does this as a way to

acquire the woman he really wants, Rachel. But by doing so he also makes her his first and

primary wife. Thus, although Rachel will also be a primary wife, Leah as the oldest sister and

first wife should, by all rights, hold at least a slightly elevated status by virtue of her positions in

both Laban’s and Jacob’s households. But in the end she is at best unappreciated.152

149

Translation mine. 150

An acknowledgment that Leah is among Jacob’s wives is made by Laban in 31:50. Laban’s treaty with

Jacob prevents him from taking any other daughters as wives other than Laban’s daughters. But again, as in 31:17

and 32:23, Leah is not mentioned by name but rather grouped with Rachel. 151

Rachel dies while giving birth to Benjamin and is buried in Ephrath (35:16-21). We are not told when

Leah died or how it is that she came to be buried in Hebron. 152

Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 67.

51 John Byron


The story of Leah’s children is linked to the complicated relationship between her, her

husband and her sister. Bridging the description of the sisters’ marriage to Jacob and the

beginning of Leah’s childbearing years is a statement that frames the tension that exists between

the three: “he (Jacob) loved Rachel more than Leah” (29:30). This is immediately followed by

the declaration that God opened Leah’s womb because she was hated. This verse also includes an

abrupt description of Rachel’s barrenness.153

Thus the narrator begins to detail the birth of Jacob

and Leah’s first four sons. Epitomized in these brief birth narratives is the level of insecurity that

Leah feels in her marriage to Jacob. Her firstborn, Reuben, is so named because she believes that

now Jacob will finally love her (29:32). But her disappointment is reflected in the name of her

second son, Simeon, as she laments that, in spite of bearing Jacob two sons, she is still hated

(29:33). With Levi her hope to be loved peaks one last time perhaps with the thought that the gift

of three sons would please any husband (29:34). But with the fourth son, Judah, she seems to

realize that she will never be loved by Jacob and instead she resigns herself to enjoy the

company of her four sons and to praise God for them (29:35).154

Leah’s drive to bear children is

connected to her desire to attract the attention of her husband. Although he is having intercourse

with her, she recognizes that she is still unloved in spite of giving him four sons. By all rights,

her status as the first primary wife and the mother of Jacob’s oldest children should establish her

position within Jacob’s household. Instead, her children only add to her grief as she recognizes

that her status as “wife” is one that Jacob seems to only begrudgingly, if ever, recognize.

The central issue of Leah’s status surfaces in the midst of the mandrakes controversy

(30:14-16). In the story Reuben, Leah’s son, finds mandrakes in the field and brings them to his

mother. Rachel asks Leah for some of the mandrakes but is rebuffed by Leah who asks the

accusing question: “you have already stolen my husband what more do you want from me?”

Rachel resorts to bargaining with her sister, a night with Jacob for a portion of the mandrakes.

This altercation between them highlights the tension that has lurked beneath the surface of the

narrative. Although the focus has been on Leah’s longing to be loved by her husband, it is here

we learn that she considers Rachel to be the one who is the interloper in the marriage.155

Her

accusation that Rachel has “taken my husband” confirms that Leah understands herself as first

and primary wife.156

Rachel apparently controls Jacob’s cohabitation schedule.157

The fact that

she does not counter Leah, but instead offers her access to Jacob, suggests Rachel’s tacit

153

It is not clear if the narrator is suggesting that Leah has been infertile. In Genesis, the inclusion of God

in the conception process is often connected to a period of barrenness (20:17; 21:1; 25:21; 30:22). But there are no

chronological markers indicating the space of time between Leah’s marriage to Jacob and her impregnation by him.

It is possible that the narrator includes God’s intervention as a way to highlight that Rachel is barren and thus not

being helped by God. 154


Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 84. 156

Ibid., 66. 157

Ibid., 93.

52 John Byron


agreement with Leah’s claim.158

Rachel has not only monopolized Jacob’s affection, she has

isolated Leah and effectively stripped her of the status of first and primary “wife.”

Leah’s character is a tragic one. She is the oldest sister, the first and primary wife, mother

of Jacob’s oldest sons, yet she benefits from none of these. Leah’s position in Jacob’s household

should be secure. But in spite of all of these status creating circumstances, she is never explicitly

referred to as “wife” by either Jacob or the narrator. Her status is under threat. Her sister is

younger, a second wife and barren. Leah is fruitful, but unloved. Consequently, her status within

Jacob’s household is ambiguous. Although she has fulfilled all of the criteria to be recognized as

his wife, the honor is not forthcoming. Even in death, although she receives pride of place by

being buried with the other matriarchs, she is still denied the title of wife. The continued

presence of her barren sister in the marriage suggests that the only reason Leah has not been

eliminated from the equation is because she is needed to secure Jacob’s legacy with an heir.

Rachel’s quest for children

Rachel is, in many ways, the central character in this love triangle. She is the first member of

Laban’s family that Jacob meets when he arrives in Paddan-aram (29:9-12). We are told that she

is beautiful both in form and appearance (29:17). We are also told twice that Jacob loves her

(29:18, 30) and she is identified as his “wife” four times in the Genesis narrative (29:21, 28;

44:27; 46:19).159

Unlike her sister Leah, Rachel is the wife Jacob wants, a fact that he

demonstrates by working no less than fourteen years to acquire her. He is willing to be saddled

with Leah if it means he can also have Rachel.

While Rachel seems to have everything that a woman in her position might desire, she is

lacking one of the most important things that would secure her status within Jacob’s household.

She is childless. Like Sarah and Rebekah, Rachel is the third person in Genesis to be labeled by

the narrator as barren. But the introduction of this fact is unusual. In Sarah’s case, her barrenness

is one of the first things we learn about her (11:29-30) and it overshadows much of the Abraham

narrative. Rebekah’s barrenness, on the other hand, is introduced and resolved in a single verse

(25:21). Rachel’s case is particularly interesting since we learn of her condition in conjunction

with her sister’s ability to conceive and bear children. In 29:31 the narrator tells us that God

opened Leah’s womb, but that Rachel was barren. It is not clear if the narrator is suggesting that

Leah has been infertile. In Genesis, the inclusion of God in the conception process is often

connected to a period of barrenness (20:17; 21:1; 25:21; 30:22). But there are no chronological

markers indicating the space of time between Leah’s marriage to Jacob and her impregnation by

him. Thus we have no idea how long she had been trying to become pregnant. What is more

likely is that the narrator includes God’s intervention not to suggest that Leah was infertile, but

to highlight that it is Rachel who is barren and thus not being helped by God. Although there is

158

Ibid., 72. 159

Added to this is 31:17, 50 and 32:23 where all of the women in Jacob’s household are anonymously

grouped together under the title of “wives.”

53 John Byron


no mention that Rachel’s womb was closed by God, it seems to be implied since her condition is

juxtaposed with that of Leah. This introduction also helps to set up another side of the story. The

competition between these two women is not just for the love of their husband. It also centers on

who will bear him children.

Although Rachel is childless it would appear that her place within Jacob’s household is

secure. She is the wife that Jacob wanted and his love for her should alleviate any fear of being

divorced or replaced. Jacob has four sons to Leah and, unlike Abraham, has no incentive to

separate from his childless wife in order to pursue an heir with another woman. Jacob’s

inheritance is secure and the Terah, Abraham, Isaac legacy is more protected than ever before.

With four sons, Jacob can afford to keep Rachel, the woman he loves, and concentrate on

expanding the wealth and power of his household.

But in spite of her seemingly secure position, the narrative does indicate that Rachel feels

threatened. In 30:1 Rachel, having witnessed her sister’s four successful pregnancies, realizes

something is amiss. Over the course of several years, she has bore Jacob no children. Her first

response is to be envious of Leah. Jacob’s love for Rachel does not erase the fact that much of

his attention, at least sexually, is being given to her sister. Also, the sons that he is raising do not

belong to her. Since she and Leah are co-wives, she has no claim on them. If Leah was a

secondary wife, married for the purposes of providing children for the barren Rachel, then

Rachel would be able to call those children her own. But as it stands, she and her sister are of

equal status even if not equally loved. Moreover, there is another element lurking below the

narrative that would give Rachel reason to feel threatened. If Jacob should die, Rachel has no son

to protect her well-being. There is no guarantee that Leah’s sons will provide for Rachel to the

same degree that they do for their mother. The sisters would now be co-widows and the balance

of power would tip in favor of Leah, the mother of the four heirs. Rachel would recognize that

her position within the household was only secure so long as her husband was still living. Once

Jacob died, however, Leah would be free to assert her status as first primary wife and to fully

benefit from it.

Rachel’s second response to her plight shatters the romantic direction of the narrative. In

Gen 30:1 we hear, for the first time, the voice of Rachel and the words she speaks are not of love

and comfort, but a bitterness laced threat. She says to Jacob: “Give me sons or I will die!”160

In

order to appreciate the depth of Rachel’s despair here, we need to understand the terminology

she uses. English translations of 30:1 usually render the Hebrew Mynb, which is plural for

“sons,” as “children.” This is not without warrant. There are numerous instances in the Hebrew

Bible where Mynb is used as a generic reference to both male and female children rather than just

sons. But the way the term is used in Genesis and the context of Rachel’s demand suggests that a

translation of Mynb as “sons” in 30:1 may more accurately reflect the situation.

160

Translation mine.

54 John Byron


Of the twenty-eight times that Mynb appears in Genesis, only four can be translated as

“children” rather than “sons.” In 3:16 God tells Eve that she will bear children. In 21:7 Sarah

laughs at the thought of nursing children at her age. In 22:20 Abraham is informed about the

children born to his brother Nahor. And in 32:11 Jacob prays that God will protect his children

from Esau. But even in these four instances the term seems to refer more often to “sons” than the

generic idea of “children.” Eve’s first two children are sons (4:1-2) and when she does have

daughters they are specifically designated as twnb, “daughter” (5:4). Sarah’s only child is a son,

so there is no need to insist that her statement is a generic one about “children.” Among the

children of Nahor listed in 22:20-23 only one of them is a daughter. This is also the case with

Jacob’s prayer for his children among whom there is only one daughter, Dinah. Moreover, in

seventeen of the twenty eight times that Mynb appears in Genesis it is followed by twnb, the

plural form for “daughters.”161

The narrator seems very careful to point out when there are both

male and female. The plural Mynb more commonly refers to “sons” rather than “children” in the

generic sense and suggests that Rachel’s demand for Mynb in 30:1 is not a request for children of

either sex, but a specific demand for sons. This leads to a consideration of the context of

Rachel’s demand.

Rachel’s demand, “Give me sons or I will die,” immediately follows the birth narrative of

Leah’s four sons. At this point in the story, Jacob’s only daughter, Dinah, has not yet been born.

The constant presence of Leah and her sons is what has made Rachel envious.162

Added to this is

the knowledge that a childless woman’s future is uncertain. Without a son to protect and lookout

for her, Rachel would be exposed should Jacob die before her. Thus her demand for sons is with

any eye on the future. If her death threat is a warning of possible suicide it is not stated as such.

In light of her precarious position within the household, however, it is possible that the death she

speaks of is the realization that, should Jacob die before her, she will be as good as dead without

a son. Jacob’s intense love for her is not enough to make her feel secure in her status as his wife.

Rachel wants and needs a son.

What Rachel expects Jacob to do is unclear. Unlike the earlier chapters of the Abraham

narrative, there is no question as to whether or not Jacob can produce an heir. His four sons with

Leah is evidence enough that the challenge lies with Rachel rather than Jacob. And Jacob’s

response to her underscores this for the reader. In 30:2 he angrily answers her with the rhetorical

question: “Am I in the place of God who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” His

retort confirms what the reader suspected in 29:31. While God opened Leah’s womb, Rachel’s

womb was divinely shut. It appears that God has rejected Rachel and that Jacob has accepted this

turn of events.163

His anger may be symptomatic of his inability to give her what she wants. But,

unlike his father Isaac, there is no mention of him praying for Rachel. Like his grandmother

161

(5:4, 7, 10, 13 16, 19, 22, 26, 30; 11:11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24) 162

Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 2: 474. 163


55 John Byron


Sarah, he concludes that her infertility is an act of God (16:2). After all, he already has four sons

and a woman that he loves. What would be the motivation?

Like Sarah, Rachel decides to take matters into her own hands and find a way to

circumvent her childlessness. In 16:2 Sarah concluded that God had prevented her from

conceiving and decided to have children through a surrogate, her female slave Hagar. Using

language reminiscent of her grandmother-in-law, Rachel gives her female slave to Jacob so that

she “too might build up sons from her.” Like his grandfather, Abraham, Jacob listens to his wife

and lies with Bilhah for the purpose of giving Rachel children (30:4).

Rachel’s reaction to Bilhah’s pregnancy contrasts sharply with that of Sarah. Unlike

Sarah, Rachel accepts Bilhah’s son as her own and names the child as if she was the boy’s

mother (30:5-6). She also does not cast Bilhah out of the household in a fit of jealousy, as Sarah

did to Hagar. On the contrary, rather than feel threatened by her handmaid’s relationship with her

husband, Rachel feels empowered by it since for the first time she has found a missing element

of security in her three-way marriage. In fact, she is so pleased with the results that she allows

Jacob to sleep with Bilhah again and produce a second son for Rachel (30:7-8).

The names that Rachel gives to Bilhah’s sons emphasize how the struggle between the

two sisters is aggravated by their fertility or lack thereof. Rachel names the first child Dan

because she concludes that God has judged her and heard her voice. Although nothing has been

mentioned yet, the name she gives this son indicates that she has prayed that God would remove

her reproach and grant her children. The name she gives to Bilhah’s second son confirms that her

desire to have children was because she felt threatened by Leah’s fertility. She names him

Naphtali because “With divine struggles I wrestled with my sister.” English translations usually

render this part of the verse as “with mighty struggles,” but this glosses over the Hebrew term

Myhl), which is a direct reference to the participation of the divine. It seems that “[i]n some

sense, Rachel saw her struggle with Leah as a contest in which God was involved, for he had

opened Leah’s womb, but shut hers” (29:31; 30:2).164

The sisters struggled with one another for

Jacob’s love and with God for the blessing of children. Rachel interpreted the birth of two sons,

through a surrogate, as vindication. Her position in Jacob’s household was more secure and,

should Jacob die before her, she had an advocate that would protect her status in the future.

Leah’s response to Rachel is to give her own handmaid, Zilpah, to Jacob for the purpose

of bearing children for her. Her efforts are rewarded with two more sons, Gad and Asher. Leah’s

motivation is linked to her own sudden case of infertility. In 30:9 we read that Leah “saw that

she had stopped bearing.” The language is similar to 30:1 where Rachel “saw that she bore no

children to Jacob.” In both cases the women’s statement is preceded by a set of birth narratives in

which the other sister gives names to her sons. Both women, it seems, reach a point when they

recognize that the other is getting ahead by means of bearing children, albeit through a surrogate.

But Leah’s infertility may have more to do with the sisters’ competition with each other than

medical circumstances. In the mandrake incident that follows the birth of Zilpah’s sons, the sister

164


56 John Byron


negotiate over their rights to sleep with Jacob. Rachel apparently controls Jacob’s cohabitation

schedule.165

It is possible that Rachel had so isolated Leah from Jacob that she was unable to

bear him more children because he was spending all of his time in Rachel’s bed. This suspicion

may be validated by the fact that, after negotiating with Rachel for a night with Jacob, Leah

becomes pregnant by him another three more times providing him two more sons and a daughter

(30:17-21). Leah’s infertility may have more to do with forced celibacy than physical

complications.

The mandrakes story crystallizes the situation between the sisters. In spite of Rachel’s

apparent triumphs, the competition with Leah doesn’t end. Her request for some of Rebuen’s

mandrakes suggests that Bilhah’s children are not enough to placate Rachel’s quest for children

of her own. While the situation could be interpreted as focusing on the aphrodisiacal qualities of

the mandrake plant, the broader context suggests a desire for fertility.166

Much of the action in

the narrative from the time the two women marry Jacob focuses on their ability or in ability to

bear children. The irony of the situation is that although Rachel bargains for the Mandrakes, it is

Leah who gets pregnant another three times (30:17-21).

The resolution to Rachel’s childlessness is anti-climatic. Her barrenness is resolved as

abruptly as it was introduced. In 29:31 we are told that she is barren and in 30:22 that God

“remembered Rachel, listened to her and opened her womb.” These two verses serve as books

ends to the competition that exists between the two sisters. It begins with God opening Leah’s

womb and concludes with God opening Rachel’s womb. After at least seven years of marriage

and fourteen years of betrothal, Rachel finally is able to escape her childless condition. It is only

by the intervention of the divine that Rachel’s shame is lifted. She has a son which confirms her

status as Jacob’s wife and secures her future within the household. But in spite of finally

attaining that which she thought she would die without, it is still not enough.

The name that Rachel gives to her firstborn son reveals that there is still, for whatever

reason, a level of insecurity or dissatisfaction. She names her son Joseph, with the explanatory

prayer “may the Lord add to me another son.” Perhaps it is the knowledge that Leah has six sons

the drives Rachel to ask for yet more children. Paradoxically, it is the thing that Rachel wants

most that kills her. Rachel becomes pregnant one more time, but suffers greatly during the

delivery. As she dies she names her second son Ben-oni, “son of my suffering,” although Jacob

renames him Benjamin. The tragedy of Rachel’s story is that she had demanded a child from

Jacob lest she die. In the end, it was the gift of a child that killed her. Since Rachel died while the

family was still on their way to Bethel, Jacob buries her there beside the road.167

165

Ibid., 93. 166 See chapter one for the use of magic in treating infertility and the mandrake plant. Wenham notes “It

seems clear that Rachel and Leah valued it as a fertility drug, Rachel because she had never conceived, Leah

because she had become infertile” (Genesis 16-50, 247). 167

It is not clear how far off the family was from their destination in Bethel when Rachel died. The Hebrew

reads: ht'r"_p.a, aAbål' #r<a'Þh'-tr:b.Ki dA[ï-yhiy>w:). English translations usually render it as “there was still some distance to go”

57 John Byron


Rachel’s story, like that of Sarah, is overshadowed by her childlessness. But her quest for

children is not motivated by a dissatisfied husband, but her competition with her co-wife sister.

Although Rachel is beautiful and loved by Jacob, she is not the first primary wife and she is

Leah’s younger sister. Compounding this situation is her childless condition. As long as Jacob is

alive, her place within his household is secure. But if he should die, there is no guarantee that,

without a son, she will continue to benefit from her status as wife. Leah, although hated, is the

first primary wife and the mother of Jacob’s oldest sons. While both sisters are equal legally,

there is some differential in status. Leah is always slightly more privileged than Rachel.

Evidencing this differential in status is the location of the sisters’ burial. Leah, the first primary

wife, is buried with Jacob and the other patriarchs and matriarchs in the tomb at Machpelah.

Although hated and never explicitly recognized as Jacob’s wife, she is buried with him. Rachel,

on the other hand, is buried by the side of the road. The once childless woman, who so

effectively isolated her sister from their husband, is forever separated from him in death.168

The Handmaids’ Tale

There is another aspect to Leah and Rachel’s feud that needs to be examined. As with the story

of Sarah and Hagar, the role of the handmaids is complicated. In both stories the women are

given to the husband by their mistress for the purpose of bearing children. Readers focusing on

the childlessness of the main characters and the quest to resolve it could easily overlook the

plight of these “other women.” But Zilpah’s and Bilhah’a inclusion in the story and the children

they bear is the direct result of Rachel’s childless condition. Apart from their role as surrogates

to Jacob’s two feuding wives, there is little information about them. Had Rachel not given Bilhah

to Jacob, we might have known even less.

The first time we meet these two women is when they are given to Leah and Rachel as

part of a wedding gift from their father Laban (29:24, 29). The mention of both Zilpah and

Bilhah is akin to a side comment. The introduction of both women immediately follows Laban

giving each of his daughters to Jacob. The two women are each called “handmaid” (hxp#),

which like Hagar in Gen 16:1 suggests slave status.169

Laban’s “gift” to his daughters may be

some form of dowry.170

But we know even less about these two women than we do about Hagar.

In 16:1 we are told that Hagar is Egyptian, However, no nationality is attributed to Zilpah and

(NRSV) or “there was a little way to go” (KJV). Wenham translates it as “about two hours distance” (Genesis 16-50,

326). 168

Although we are not told when or where Leah died it is nonetheless significant that she is buried with

Jacob at Machpelah. The tragedy of Rachel’s roadside death could suggest that distance from Hebron prevented

from moving her body there. But this must be considered in light of Jacob’s request that he be buried in Machpelah.

In 49:29-33, Jacob is in Egypt yet he charges his son to return his body to Hebron to be buried in the tomb of the

patriarchs. His son Joseph fulfills this request in 50:7-14. If the narrative allows for Jacob’s body to be repatriated

for burial, it seems possible that Rachel’s body could also have been moved a short distance across the Judean

wilderness to the tomb of the patriarchs. 169

In the Hebrew Bible, the term also appears with db( which suggests that there is a comparable status

(TDOT, 406; Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 448-49). 170

Wenham, Genesis16-50, 239.

58 John Byron


Bilhah. In fact, there is a whole host of information that we do not know. What is their tribe?

Who is their father? How old are they? The reader is not even given a hint as to the women’s

appearance. We are told that Rachel is beautiful and something about Leah’s eyes, but we are not

given any details about the two handmaids. The most we know is that they are of slavish status

and that they were given, seemingly without choice, to the sisters. Zilpah and Bilhah are

ambiguous. They have no identifiable connection to Laban’s family other than their status as

female slaves and their obligation to serve the two new brides. But the way that the women’s

slavish status is described raises some questions from the text.

When the narrative details the transfer of the handmaids to the daughters it explicitly

identifies Zilpah and Bilhah as Laban’s handmaids (29:24, 29). What was the nature of the

relationship between these women and Laban? A female slave was the property of the owner

who could exploit her sexually if he so desired.171

There is no reason to suppose that Laban had

not been sexually active with his handmaids. There is no mention of a Mrs. Laban. Leah and

Rachel’s mother does not appear in the narrative and her absence adds weight to the suggestion

that Laban could have been sexually involved with the women. Contrast this situation with that

of Laban’s sister in 29:59-61. When Rebekah leaves Paddan-aram to be married to Isaac she

takes along “her nurse” and “her maids.” It is clear that these women were already serving

Rebekah prior to her marriage. But we are uninformed about how Rachel and Leah may have

interacted with Zilpah and Bilhah prior to their marriage. Was their mother dead? Did these slave

women care for Laban’s daughters and fill his bed? Did Laban have any children with these

women? It would be imprudent to go beyond raising questions. But the two women’s ambiguous

status is only accentuated by the lack of information surrounding their relationship with

Laban.172

It is an element that might also have raised a few questions in the mind of a reader

more familiar with that world.

The next time we encounter Zilpah and Bilhah is when they are handed over to Jacob. In

30:4 Rachel “gives” Bilhah to Jacob “for a wife.” The scene is repeated in 30:9 when Leah

“takes Zilpah” and “gives her to Jacob for a wife.” The language is reminiscent of numerous

marriage scenes in Genesis including when Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham (16:3) and Laban

gives Rachel to Jacob (29:28).173

But as with the case of Hagar, this is a complicated “wedding.”

The wife gives “her handmaid” to the man, but the handmaid has no say.174

Furthermore, it is not

clear to what degree this new relationship changes the status of the handmaid. With the exception

of when the “handmaids” are given as “wives” to Jacob (30:4, 9), the only other time they are

explicitly identified as Jacobs “wives” is in 37:2 when Joseph brings back a bad report about

171


It is interesting to note that I have not read one commentator who is ever questioned the status of

Laban’s relationship with Zilpah and Bilhah. Most readers of the narrative gloss over the mention of the two women

with a focus more on Leah and Rachel. 173

Elizabeth Wyner Mark, “The Four Wives of Jacob: Matriarchs Seen and Unseen,” The Reconstructionist

(1998): 27. 174

In fact, the handmaids have no speaking parts in this drama. We never hear their voice.

59 John Byron


Zilpah’s and Bilhah’s sons.175

Apart from these, the two women are consistently identified as

“handmaids” rather than “wives.”176

In one instance they are referred to as Jacob’s “handmaids”

(32:22) and in another they are listed as “handmaids” along with Jacobs “wives” (33:1).177

Thus

it is not clear if the women’s status has improved at all. They are the mothers of four of Jacob’s

sons, but there status remains ambiguous. They are mothers, but not necessarily “wives,” at least

not to the same degree that Rachel and Leah are wives. They remain in their slavish status and,

as we will see below, are unable to benefit fully from the status of their sons who are among

Jacob’s heirs.

But even the status of “mother” is not one that the handmaids are able to enjoy fully.

Neither Zilpah nor Bilhah has the privilege of naming their sons. Their children are named by

their mistresses and the significance of those names is associated with Leah’s and Rachel’s

quarrel with each other rather than then the identity of the birth mothers. Since the mothers are

slaves, Rachel’s and Leah’s act of naming provides these four sons with legitimacy.178

But such

an act also highlights the ambiguous status of the handmaids. Their only role in this situation is

to be incubators. They are being used for their wombs and as pawns in the feud. Although Leah

and Rachel each receive the designation of “mother” (30:14; 37:10; 44:20), Zilpah and Bilhah do

not. The closest they come to being identified with their children is in the first complete list of

Jacob’s children in Genesis 35 where Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher are listed as the sons of

Bilhah and Zilpah. But rather than explicitly list the women as the “mothers” of the four sons,

they are instead designated as the handmaids of their mistress (35:25, 26). Their slavish status

overshadows their status as mother.

A passing comment that provides some insight into these women’s status is the reference

to the “handmaids tent” in 31:33. As part of Laban’s search for his stolen gods, the narrator

reveals that while Rachel and Leah each have a separate tent, the handmaids share one tent.179

This minor detail demonstrates the status differential between the “wives” and “the handmaids.”

The location of the women indicates their status level. Rachel and Leah are co-wives and thus

warrant their own tent. Zilpah and Bilhah, however, are forced to dwell together.

Another indicator of the women’s status is the absence of any detail about when they died

and where they were buried. Leah, we know, is buried with Jacob in Machpelah (49:31) and

Rachel by the side of the road on the way to Ephrath (35:19). No such details are provided about

175

The narrator notes that these two were “his father’s wives,” but as is the case with Leah, this

identification is never found on the lips of Jacob. The only women clearly identified as a wife by the narrator and

Jacob is Rachel. 176

Gen 30:7, 12, 18; 32:22; 33:1, 2, 6; 35:25, 26. 177

Laban also seems to consider only Leah and Rachel as Jacob’s wives when in 31:50 he makes a treaty

prohibiting Jacob to take any other wives other than his daughters. 178


The Hebrew term here is hm), “slave woman,” rather than hxp#, “handmaid.” But this does not

indicate a change in the women’s status for either good or bad since they each are referred to again as hxp# in later

instances (e.g. 35:25, 26). The terms seem to be synonymous for slave status and it is difficult, if not impossible, to

sort out the difference in meaning. See 30:3, 4, for instance, where both terms are used to describe Bilhah without

any hint of status change.

60 John Byron


Zilpah and Bilhah. With the exception of the Bilhah incident in 35:22, we do not encounter the

two women after Jacob meets Esau in chapter 33. They cease to be characters in the story.180

Even outside of Genesis the two are not always given the recognition they deserve. In Ruth 4:11

it is Rachel and Leah that are given credit with “building the house of Israel.” In fact, Zilpah and

Bilhah are never mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible. They seem to fade from the story having

served their purpose, which was to provide offspring for their childless mistresses.

There is one final scene that deserves our attention. In 35:22 we read that Reuben, Leah’s

oldest son, has sexual intercourse with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine and Rachel’s handmaid. This

verse ranks among some of the most opaque in the Bible. Its insertion between Rachel’s death

and the first list of Jacob’s sons seems misplaced and/or incomplete. Some scholars have

suggested that Reuben’s act is an attempt to displace his father and take over the role as family

leader.181

But when read in the context of the Rachel and Leah’s feud, it may have something to

say about Leah’s status in Jacob’s household.

One of the first things we notice about this verse is the change of terminology associated

with Bilhah. For the first time she is not called Jacob’s “handmaid” or even “wife,” but

“concubine” (#lgyp). It is difficult to know exactly what to make of this change in terminology

particularly when Bilhah is called “handmaid” (hxp#) again just three verses later (35:25).

Westbrook suggests that calling Bilhah a concubine spares Reuben from the sin of sleeping with

his father’s wife.182

Others suggest that the change in terminology indicates an elevated status

change.183

The Hebrew Bible, however, gives little thought or explanation to the social and legal

status of the concubine.184

Nonetheless, within the context of Genesis, concubines appear to hold

a status similar to but not equal to “wife.”185

For instance, in addition to the list of children born

to Nahor and his wife, the names of the children born to Nahor’s concubine are also listed

(22:24). This is pattern is repeated with the children born to Esau’s son Eliphaz (36:12).

Abraham’s case is problematic since Keturah is identified as his “wife” in 25:1 and then we learn

in 25:6 that Abraham also had “concubines” (My#glyp). It is not clear if the narrator intends to

identify Keturah as one of the concubines or as another wife. Since it seems to be the habit of the

narrator to designate separate identities for wives and concubines, it is probably safe to assume

that Keturah was not a concubine. In light of this evidence, it appears that Bilhah did receive

some type of status change that recognized her relationship with Jacob, but did not extend to her

the status of “wife.”

180

Ibid., 116. 181

Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 284. 182


Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 113; Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 134. 184

TDOT, 11:551. 185

Some scholars assume that the concubine was a slave. But it is not clear whether concubines were

slaves. In the Hebrew Bible, the designation seems to refer to a wife of secondary status (M.E. Shields,

“Concubine,” NIDB, 1:713-14).

61 John Byron


The second observation about this verse is its placement. The Reuben/Bilhah incident

takes place immediately after Rachel’s death. Bilhah was Rachel’s handmaid and the two had a

relationship that was formed not only by their statuses as mistress and handmaid but also by

Rachel’s barrenness.186

Bilhah did for Rachel that which she had been unable to do, she provided

her with children.187

Although Bilhah was the mother of two of Jacob’s sons, she seems to have

remained under the control of Rachel (30:7; 35:25). The question is, then, once Rachel has died,

to whom does Bilhah belong?188

Steinberg suggests that “the terminology switches at this point

in the narrative because with the death of Rachel immediately before, the status of her handmaid

becomes elevated in Jacob’s household.”189

Apparently, she now belongs to Jacob, and since she

is the handmaid of the wife that Jacob loved, it is easy to surmise that he had a special fondness

for Bilhah.

Finally, Reuben’s role in this scene is significant. This is the second time Reuben has

played a part in the Jacob narrative. His first part was in the mandrakes controversy between his

mother, Leah, and his aunt Rachel. It is Reuben who finds the mandrakes and brings them to his

mother. Although Rachel wants the plant for its fertility purposes, Leah seems to want it for its

aphrodisiacal properties. Remember, Rachel is controlling Jacob’s cohabitation schedule (30:15,

16). 190

Reuben’s delivery of the mandrakes to his mother looks like an effort to help her attract

Jacob’s attention. As the eldest son, Reuben is looking out for Leah’s wellbeing and promoting

her over Rachel, Jacob’s other wife. Consequently, Reuben’s motives for sleeping with Bilhah so

soon after Rachel’s death may be more than sexual. It resembles another attempt by the eldest

son to promote his mother within Jacob’s household. “By his act, he hoped to prevent Rachel’s

maid succeeding Rachel as his father’s favorite wife. Reuben resented that Jacob did not honor

his mother Leah.”191

Bilhah, then, is yet again a pawn in the feud between the two sisters. Rachel

used her womb to circumvent her barrenness and protect her status within Jacob’s household.

Reuben used her sexuality to promote his mother’s status within the household.

The tale of the handmaids is really not about them, but two other women vying for status

protection in their husband’s household. Rachel’s childless condition is the primary reason that

the handmaids become involved in the sisters’ feud. Zilpah and Bilhah are silent characters in

this drama. Their wombs are used by Rachel and Leah as a way to promote their status as “wife.”

The handmaids’ status, however, is ambiguous. Although they are each given to Jacob as a

“wife,” they continue to be identified as Rachel and Leah’s handmaids. There does not seem to

be any rewards for providing heirs to Jacob. The two women are not even called “mother.” They

are the mother of four Israelite tribes, yet history seems to forget them.

186


Leah and Zilpah do not have this same bond since Leah already had four sons before Zilpah bore two

more for her. 188

Ibid., 130. 189




62 John Byron


Less than Sons

The children born to Zilpah and Bilhah are paradoxical characters in this story. In the case of

Dan and Naphtali, their entire reason for existence is to solve the problem of a woman to whom

they are not related. If Rachel had not been childless, these two brothers may never have existed.

Furthermore, their half-brothers, Gad and Asher, are the direct result of the conflict between

Rachel and Leah. There is no apparent need for Leah to have more children. The scence

resembles a tit for tat; anything Rachel can do Leah can do better.192

The two sisters are involved

in what may be crassly referred to as a breeding war with these four sons the resulting byproduct.

Dan and Naphtali are the result of Rachel’s infertility and insecurity. Her reason for

resorting to acquiring children through a handmaid is not because Jacob needs an heir. He

already has four sons. It is Rachel’s concern for her own future that compels her to handover

Bilhah to Jacob. With the birth of Joseph, however, Rachel’s childless condition is resolved and

Bilhah’s sons are, for all intended purposes, redundant. Rachel’s belief in 30:6-8 that God has

heard her prayer is reevaluated when Joseph is born (30:22-23). While Dan and Naphtali may

have been answer to prayer, Joseph is evidence that God has removed the curse of childlessness

from her. Although Rachel never overtly rejects Bilhah’s sons, the data suggests that lurking

below the surface of the narrative is the attitude that they are not sons in the same way that

Joseph is a son.

Gad and Asher, the sons of Zilpah, are also the result of some type of infertility. Whether

or not Leah had entered a period of physical infertility or was being denied her conjugal rights by

her sister is not entirely clear. Whatever the situation, she follows Rachel’s example and looks

for resolution in the womb of another woman. She acquires two sons through Zilpah and then

goes on to bear Jacob two more sons and a daughter (30:17-21). But Gad and Asher were already

redundant before Issachar, Zebulon and Dinah were born. Leah already had four sons by Jacob

with Reuben being his oldest. The circumstances did not require that Leah raise up children

through her maid. Jacob’s legacy was not under threat. But Leah perceived that her status as wife

was under threat from her sister Rachel and therefore competed with her through Zilpah’s womb.

Yet the identity of these sons is associated with Rachel and Leah rather than their birth

mothers. As noted above, it is not Bilhah or Zilpah that give names to them, but Rachel and

Leah. Dan and Naphtali are seen as the answer to Rachel’s prayers while Gad and Asher are

interpreted by Leah as evidence of her good luck (Gen 30:6-13). It is this naming process that

legitimizes them. Children born to slave women were usually known by their mother’s name

and, as a result, had no legal father.193

Even if the child was the result of an encounter between

the master of the house and a slave, the child was considered the offspring of the mother and thus

property.194

Rachel and Leah’s act represents a form of adoption evidenced by the fact that these

192

Ibid., 246. 193


Westbrook, “The Female Slave,” 220.

63 John Byron


four are identified as Jacob’s sons more than once (35:22-26; 46:8-27; 49:1-28). In other words,

although their mothers may be slaves, their status is not the “sons of slaves.”195

If there is one aspect of this situation that benefits these four it is that they all have the

same father. Their relationship with Jacob is never cast in doubt and their status as heirs is

confirmed by Jacob’s final words in chapter 49. This is very different than the situation with

Ishmael. Until the birth of Isaac, Ishmael was raised as the putative heir. But once Isaac’s

survival was assured, Ishmael was dismissed from the household lest he compete with Isaac for a

share of the inheritance (21:10). The sons of the handmaids, however, never face a threat of

dismissal by their adoptive mothers. Unlike Sarah, Rachel and Leah show enough interest in the

sons to name them. And even after both women go on to have more children of their own, these

four are never considered to be a threat. Their place within Jacob’s household is secure.

But not all sons are equal. A careful reading of the narrative indicates that these four sons

were not as loved as Jacob’s other eight sons. The first time this becomes evident is when Jacob

prepares to meet his brother Esau. Having cheated his older brother of both his birthright and

their father’s blessing, Jacob has reason to suspect that Esau will take revenge. In 33:1-3 Jacob

sees Esau approaching with four hundred men and panics. He divides his children according to

their mothers, but not their birth order. The arrangement is an indicator of who Jacob loves most.

He places Zilaph and Bilhah at the head of the group followed by Leah and her children with

Rachel and Joseph bringing up the rear. Although not stated, the narrative implies Jacob’s

strategy is to save those he loves most. If Esau kills Jacob and then moves on to the women and

children, perhaps the wives could escape while the handmaids and their children are slaughtered.

Should Leah and her children also be overtaken by Esau, maybe Rachel and Joseph would

escape. The arrangement suggests that Jacob is hedging his bets, willing to risk his children from

the handmaids before the children from his wives.196

The next time the four are mentioned is in the first complete list of Jacob’s sons in 35:22-

26. Here they do not lead the family, as they did when preparing to meet Esau, but bring up the

rear. Jacob’s twelve sons are listed, but not according to birth order. Instead, they are listed

according to primacy of their mother’s status. Thus Leah’s sons are listed first, followed by

Rachel with Joseph and Benjamin and then the handmaids’ children. The sons of Bilhah and

195

Although the Genesis narrative is careful to never refer to these four as the “sons of slaves” a number of

Jewish texts from the Second Temple and Rabbinic periods reflect the concern that one third of the tribes of Israel

are descended from slaves. Some later interpreters go to great lengths to expunge the lingering suspicion that the

mothers of four of Jacob’s sons were slaves. For an overview of the problem and some of the solutions employed

see my “Noble Birth as a Response to Enslavement in the Testament of Naphtali 1.9-12,”JJS 55 (2004): 45-57. 196

Westermann (Genesis, 525) and Sarna (Genesis, 229) are not convinced that Jacob’s reason for dividing

the family is for protection. Wenham, however, is not sure (Genesis 16-50, 298). But Jacob’s actions in 32:13-23

suggest protection is his motivation. He not only sends gifts to appease his brother, but separates his wives,

handmaids and children from him to make it harder to capture or kill everyone. I think the broader context makes the

case for protection as Jacob’s motivation rather than trying to present his family in the correct manner. Jacob is

facing his brother and four hundred men. The narrator has constructed the scene so that the reader is unsure of

Esau’s actions until the last minute. Jacob’s division of the family indicates that he too is unsure what his brother

will do.

64 John Byron


Zilpah appear to be deliberately separated from the other sons in a way that hints that while they

are Jacob’s sons, not all sons are equal.

An expanded version of this list appears in 46:8-27 which lists all of Jacob’s offspring

that made the trip to Egypt. This time the handmaids and their children are not at the end, but

grouped with their respective mistress. Once again, however, birth order is not followed. Leah’s

children are listed and then followed by Zilpah’s children. Rachel’s children are listed and then

followed by Bilhah’s children. The listing of the handmaids immediately after their mistress

mirrors their first appearance when the sisters are married to Jacob in 29:24, 29 and reinforces

the nature of the relationship that exists between the four women. Although they are mothers of

four of Jacob’s sons, they are still the property of the sisters. Had this list been an attempt to

demonstrate equality among the sons, one would expect Bilhah’s children to be listed before

Rachel since they were born first. But this is not about who is equal, but who is more equal.197

This uneven treatment of the handmaids’ sons is reflected in the way that the brothers

sometimes treat one another. In 37:2 we read that Joseph was a shepherd’s helper to his brothers

and that one day he returned a bad report to his father about them. But this report was not about

all of Joseph’s brothers, but his brothers from Bilhah and Zilpah. It is interesting that these four

are depicted as being in conflict with Joseph, the oldest son of the woman Jacob loved. Indeed,

the very next verse tells us that Jacob loved Joseph more than any of his other sons (37:4). Yet,

while Joseph is portrayed as being in conflict with all of his brothers, only these four are singled

out with a specific incident. It is not clear that the four had done anything wrong. We are not

offered any specifics as to the supposed infractions committed by the four brothers nor the

content of Joseph’s report. But the terminology chosen by the narrator suggests that it was a false

report.

Apart from Gen 37:2, hbd (“report or rumor”) appears in the Hebrew Bible only eight

more times, and not once in a positive context. In Numbers it is used three times to refer to the

negative report of the holy land spies (Num 13:32; 14:36-37). Other times it refers to rumors,

slander and whispers (Ps 31:14; Pro 10:18; 25:10; Jer 20:10; Eze 36:3). The consistent use of the

term to describe negative and not necessarily true reports suggests that Joseph was lying to his

father. Add to this the qualifying adjective h(r (“evil”) and “it seems likely that Joseph

misrepresented his brothers to his father.”198

But again, this report was not about all of the

brothers but the four sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. Whether Jacob believed him or not, we are not

told.199

But this passing incident adds to the evidence that while the sons of the handmaids were

a part of Jacob’s house, not all of them were equal.

197

The list of Jacob’s in Gen 49 is even more confusing. The narrator begins by listing all of the children of

Leah, then he separates sandwiches Zilpah’s two children between Bilhah’s children and ends with Rachel’s

children. Unlike the previous two lists, however, Gen 49 does not appear to classifying the sons according to status. 198


The reasons we are given for Joseph’s brothers hating him is not the evil report but because of Jacob’s

love for him and his dreams about them (37:4, 8).

65 John Byron


When read through the lens of childlessness, the story of Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher is

a tragic one. The four are the direct result of a childless situation exacerbated by the competition

between Rachel and Leah. Unlike Isaac, these are not the long awaited sons of the promise.

Rather, they are very much like their slavish birth mothers. They are pawns in the sisters’ feud.

And while they certainly have the status of “sons” it is clear that some sons are more equal than

others. Although Leah and Rachel are their adoptive mothers, they still carry the lingering

stigma of their birth mothers status.

Summary

When read in the context of childlessness, the story of Jacob and Rachel looks less like the

romantic story it is sometimes portrayed as. This is not a story about a childless couple who

passionately loves one other and together seeks ways to have a child. It is about a three-way

marriage that is complicated because two of the actors in this drama are siblings. Childlessness

does not so much affect the relationship between the wife and the husband as it does the two

wives.

Jacob is somewhat of a non-character in this section of the narrative. Once he marries the

two sisters in 29:21-25 he is mostly silent until his conflict with Laban (30:25). The only voice

Jacob has in between is found in his retort to Rachel in which he declares that it is God who has

made her childless. He does not worry about how or when he will obtain an heir and exhibits no

motivation to remove or replace either of his wives. He voices neither exception nor rejection to

the sisters’ plan to pair him with their handmaids and his acquiescence to their plan is only

evidenced by the four sons he produces with the handmaids. Even when his sexual services are

negotiated for and traded between the two sisters, he remains silent. Jacob has accepted that

Rachel is childless and seems happy to raise Leah’s sons as his heirs. In contrast to the story of

his grandfather Abraham, this portion of the Genesis narrative has more to do with the wife’s

pursuit of a child than the husband’s.

Leah is a woman who should be happy and secure in her marriage. She is the first

primary wife and the mother of Jacob’s heir. Even though her husband does not love her, her

status in his household should be protected even if Jacob dies. But the presence of her sister

complicates the situation. Rachel’s younger age and her status as second primary wife coupled

with her childless condition should empower Leah within in the marriage. Nonetheless, Leah is

never identified as Jacob’s “wife” and is in competition with Rachel to the point that she must

negotiate with her sister for the privilege of spending a night with her own husband. The honor

that is due her is not forthcoming and her only real security is the knowledge that if or when

Jacob dies she has four sons who will protect and her promote her status. And in the end, Leah is

the one who triumphs even if the narrative does not acknowledge it. Her burial with Jacob in

Machpelah represents recognition of her status as wife and forever places her with the other

matriarchs of Israel.

Rachel is the loved wife, but she begins the story with a status deficit. She is the youngest

of Laban’s daughters and she is Jacob’s second primary wife. Moreover, while she may have

66 John Byron


Jacob’s love she cannot have his children. The sons that Jacob is raising and training to be his

heirs are Leah’s. And these sons will promote and protect their mother once Jacob is gone.

Without a child Rachel’s future is uncertain. Her demand for children from Jacob and her

thrusting of her handmaid upon him each represent an attempt for her to circumvent her

childlessness and secure her status. And even though Bilhah’s womb twice brings her a victory,

her satisfaction is short-lived. It is only a short time later she is once again looking for a child of

her own. In the end, what she desires most is her undoing. Not satisfied with one son, she asks

God for another. The answer to that prayer is what kills her. In the end, Rachel is unable to enjoy

the benefits of being both wife and mother. She dies before her children and is buried by the side

of the road. The circumstances of her death and the location of her grave are both testimonies to

her failed struggle to win the status competition with her sister.

Bilhah and Zilpah are voiceless pawns used as incubators to solve the status problems of

others women, a status problem that is exacerbated by the childless condition of one of them.

Although each is given to Jacob as a “wife” it is not clear that their status was ever improved by

giving him and his wives four more children. They do not have their own tents, they are more

often referred to as “handmaid” rather than “wife” and they are never called “mother.” It is

plausible that had it not been for Rachel’s childless condition, these two women would never

have made a debut in the narrative. In the end, we do not know when they died or where they

were buried. And although they are the mothers of one third of the tribes of Israel, they are

mostly forgotten.

Bilhah and Ziplah’s sons are redundant. Like their mothers’ roles in this drama, their

existence is the direct result of Rachel’s childlessness and competition with Leah. They are

named and adopted by Rachel and Leah, yet they never seem to reach the same level of equality

within Jacob’s household. Although adopted by the sisters, they are consistently referred to as

the sons of the handmaids. Their redundancy is evidenced by their father’s willingness to place

them in harm’s way and the tensions that emerge between them and the sons of wives. Jacob

may be their father, but the identity of their mother designates their status location. They are not

listed according to rank of age, but the rank of their mother. The status deficit that plagued

Rachel was projected upon these sons through her search for a child. Had Rachel not been

childless these four might never have existed.

67 John Byron


Chapter Four

Judah and Tamar

The final case-study of childlessness in Genesis is the story of Tamar and Judah in chapter 38.

This story is very different from the previous two. Readers of Genesis usually do not group

Tamar with childless women like Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel. Instead, illicit sexual activity that

includes overtones of prostitution and acts of incest tend to overshadow Tamar’s story. Tamar’s

actions cut across legal and social taboos. But as will be demonstrated, one of the driving forces

behind much of the action in Genesis 38 is the need for Judah to have an heir. Judah has three

sons, one daughter-in-law and no grandchildren. Although inheritance language and concerns are

not explicitly stated in this narrative, it is ever present beneath the surface. Associated with

Judah’s challenge is Tamar’s need to secure her status in Judah’s household. Without a child, she

is in danger of being abandoned.

The overarching theme of Genesis 38 is the threat to Judah’s family. Familial language

permeates almost every verse in this chapter. In thirty verses familial terms appear thirty-five

times. We read about wives, fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, father-in-laws, daughter-in-laws,

firstborn, offspring, twins and widows. Two of these are rare terms in the Hebrew Bible.

Daughter-in-law (hlk) appears only fourteen times, four of which refer to Tamar. Father-in-law

(Mh) is even rarer appearing only four times, two of which refer to Judah. The saturation of

familial language and the outline of the story suggest that Genesis 38 is about how Judah’s

family is threatened by childlessness.

The story of Tamar introduces a third perspective on how childlessness effects family

relations. For Sarah, childlessness is the complicating factor in her relationship with her husband

Abraham. For Rachel, it is her relationship with her sister and co-wife Leah. In Tamar’s case her

childlessness is what strains her relationship with her father-in-law Judah. In the previous two

cases we saw how the status of childless women was under threat within their husband’s

household. Sarah was in danger of being sidelined by her husband, Rachel by her sister. Tamar’s

situation is unique since her first two husbands died without leaving her with any children and

she is waiting for her next husband to mature enough to marry her. Creating tension between

Judah and Tamar is the reality that he has one son left and no grandchildren. If this last son dies

without impregnating Tamar, Judah’s household is under threat of extinction. Consequently, he

must guarantee that his youngest son produces a son who will carry on his portion of the Terah,

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob legacy.

Judah builds a house

We begin the analysis of this story with Judah since he is the first character we meet and the one

who is responsible for a majority of the action. Chapter 38 details the beginning of Judah’s

family history. In 38:1 Judah abruptly separates himself from his brothers and pitches his tent

elsewhere. The reason for this sudden move away from the rest of the family is not detailed, but

68 John Byron


in light of what follows, it appears as if Judah is separating in order to establish his own family

and identity. Like his father Jacob, he leaves home, finds a wife, has children and begins a life

apart from his father and brothers. Since the chapter covers the time of Judah’s separation from

his brothers to the birth of his grandchildren, the narrative probably covers twenty or more

years.200

Observing this chronology is important since readers tend to flatten the narrative by

reading it all at once. Indeed, the narrative itself is somewhat flat since we are given few

chronological markers most of which are ambiguous. In 38:1 we learn that Judah moved “about

the same time” Joseph was taken to Egypt. In 38:12 we are told that Judah’s time of mourning

his dead wife ended “after a number of days.” In 38:24 a more specific chronology is given,

however, when the narrator indicates that Tamar’s pregnancy is discovered in the third month.

Thus the focus of the chapter is on the span of time between Judah being widowed and Tamar

giving birth, approximately one year. All the action moves towards that moment, but the details

we learn on the way are important.

The second thing Judah does after moving away from his family is to find a wife (38:2).

But this marriage situation is very different than that of his father Jacob. Judah’s Canaanite wife

is in direct opposition to the endogamic practices of his father and grandfather.201

Both Isaac and

Jacob were proactively prevented from marrying outside their clan by their fathers. By taking a

Canaanite woman as a wife, Judah has more in common with his uncle Esau than his father

(28:8-9; 36:2-5). But even in Esau’s case the identity of the Canaanite women was at least

known. Not so with Judah’s wife, she remains anonymous.

We know that the name of Judah’s father-in-law is Shua, but the woman’s name is not

recorded. Her only identification is as the Canaanite daughter of Shua and the wife of Judah. The

reason her name is missing might be attributed to the fact that ultimately it is Tamar who is the

mother of Judah’s heirs (Num 26:19-22; Ruth 4:18-22). Whatever the reason, the absence of the

woman’s name diminishes her importance in the story. Even though we know her lineage, that

she is Judah’s wife, and that she is the mother of three of his sons, she is a non-character in this

story. Unlike the other woman identified as wife in previous chapters, this woman is not afforded

any of the rights or privileges that could be expected with that status.

We do learn one other detail about this woman. She is able to successfully conceive and

deliver three sons for Judah. In 38:3-5 Mrs. Judah gives birth to Er, Onan and Shelah. The rapid

succession of sons with barley a breath in between suggests that she has confirmed her purpose

within Judah’s household.202

Like her mother-in-law Leah, she is able to give her husband more

than one heir. But this also draws a line under her in the narrative. The next time we read about

her is in 38:12 when she dies. Hence, the most intimate feature we learn about this woman is that

she is fertile. Her identity and sociological existence depends, it seems, on bearing children for

200

Wenham, Genesis16-50, 366. 201

Victor Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 433. 202

Diane M. Sharon, “Some Results of a Structural Semiotic Analysis of the Story of Judah and Tamar,”

JSOT 29 (2005): 298.

69 John Byron


her husband.203

But since none of her sons succeed in becoming Judah’s heir, her character is, for

the most part, inconsequential.

Unlike their mother, the names of Judah’s three sons are each given to the reader. But

unlike other births in Genesis, no meaning is provided for the names. Their brief appearance in

the story does not seem to warrant any explanation. One detail that is important to the story,

however, is the identification of Er as Judah’s firstborn son (rkb). This happens twice within

the space of two verses and emphasizes Er’s identity as Judah’s heir. It appears as if Judah’s

attempts at creating his own family unit are successful.204

The next logical step in Judah’s family

building strategy is to secure his legacy in perpetuity. He does this by marrying Er to Tamar.

There are two things about the wedding in 38:6 that suggest Judah is trying to secure his

lineage. First is the mention that Er is Judah’s firstborn. While Er’s brothers Onan and Shelah

“are sons” (Nb) they are not the firstborn (rkb), which means that they are not first in line to

inherit Judah’s property. That privilege and responsibility belongs to Er. In order for Judah to

secure his legacy, he needs to make sure that he has a grandson to carry on the line. This leads to

the second detail about this wedding. It is Judah who secures a wife for his firstborn.

Er does not get to choose his wife, his father chooses her for him.205

This is not without

precedence. Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, was chosen for him by one of his father’s servants (Gen 24).

But the reason for that arranged marriage was to prevent Isaac from taking a wife from among

the Canaanite women (24:3-4). Judah has already abandoned the endogamic practices of his

father and grandfather by marrying the nameless Canaanite woman. Furthermore, we are never

told Tamar’s ethnicity, so Judah’s reason for choosing a bride for Er does not seem to be a

concern for protecting the narrow ethnic makeup of the Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob line.

Rather it seems to be the next step in his attempt to secure his legacy and build his own family

unit. Judah left home, married, had children and is now ready to extend and build upon his

achievements through his descendants. In order to guarantee success, he chooses a wife for his

firstborn son who will inherit everything that he has worked so hard to accomplish. But, as with

much in life, it is at the point when everything is going so well that it goes so badly.

The situation surrounding Er’s death is brief and void of detail. In one breath the narrator

is telling us who Er married and in the next breath we are told that he is dead (38:7). We don’t

know how long the couple was married. There is not even a mention of intercourse, a detail that

even Judah’s marriage to the nameless Canaanite woman includes. It could appear as if he died

just prior to coming together with Tamar if not on their wedding night.206

All that we are told is

that Er was “evil in the eyes of the Lord so the Lord put him to death” (38:7). We don’t know if

this is Judah’s interpretation or the narrator’s. Judah may be clueless as to why Er died.

Whatever the reason, Judah has hit his first roadblock on the way to securing his lineage. With

203

Susan Niditch, “The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38,” HTR (1979): 144. 204

Sharon, “Analysis of the Story of Judah and Tamar,” 298. 205

Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, 434. 206

Nehama Aschkenasy, Women at the Window: Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape (Detroit: Wayne

State University Press, 1998), 84.

70 John Byron


two sons and a daughter-in-law in the house, he will need to resort to a new conjugal

combination to accomplish his goal of preserving his legacy.

In 38:8 Judah commands his second born, Onan, to sleep with Tamar for the express

purpose of making her pregnant. Onan is to act as the levir and provide a child for his dead

brother’s wife. It is not clear what, if any, laws are trigging this action. Levirite marriage is an

attested custom among numerous cultures in the ancient Near East and seems acceptable to the

Genesis narrator. What is interesting about Genesis 38 is Judah’s involvement as father and

father-in-law. The description of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5-10 focuses on the interaction

between the widow and the dead man’s brother. While it may be necessary to get the city elders

involved, there is no mention of the father being an advocate for either party. The legal situation,

it seems, exists solely between the widow and her brother-in-law. This is illustrated in Ruth 4:1-6

where the decision of who will marry the widowed Ruth is made in the presence of the elders, at

the city gate. In light of this, it appears that Judah’s actions resemble more a scheme to

perpetuate his own line. He does not give Onan an option. He simply commands him to produce

a child for his brother. We have no evidence that Judah ever mourned Er’s death, as he does with

his wife. Judah’s only concern is that his deceased firstborn not lack an heir and that his legacy

not be threatened.207

That Judah’s concern here is more for his posterity than his dead son is evidenced by the

thrice repeated term “seed” ((rz) in 38:8-9 variably rendered by English translations as

“offspring” (NRSV), “heir” (NKJV), and “your brother’s line” (NJB). Prior to this chapter the

term has been used almost exclusively of Abraham’s promised descendants who would become a

great nation and inherit the land. Wenham suggests that its triple usage in 38:8-9 has similar

overtones.208

It appears that Judah’s effort to form a new family unit apart from Jacob is also an

attempt somehow stake a separate claim on the promise. Thus his command to Onan, “raise up

seed for your brother” echoes with the words of God’s promise to Abraham and Jacob. We can

surmise that the actions of Judah’s brothers have caused them to fall out of favor with their

father. Reuben violated Bilhah (35:22) and Levi and Simeon brought shame upon Jacob through

the Dinah affair (34:30). Judah may have calculated that his best chance of being Jacob’s heir

was to demonstrate himself as a successful and responsible son. The death of his own “seed”, Er,

complicates his goal of being “the heir” of Abraham. Thus his effort to produce children for Er

looks more like a grab for the promise than just a concern for family continuity.

Onan realizes that the child he is supposed to produce will not be recognized as his and

so he formulates his own option. Rather then impregnate his sister-in-law he practices coitus

interruptus. But this is not a one-off dodging of responsibility. The syntax of the Hebrew

indicates that Onan did this repeatedly whenever he had sex with Tamar.209

By sleeping with

Tamar on multiple occasions he gives the appearance of obeying his father even though he is

207

Hamiltion, Genesis 18-50, 435. 208

Wenahm, Genesis 16-50, 367. 209

Hamiltion, Genesis 18-50, 436; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 367.

71 John Byron


faking it. What is more, the longer it takes Tamar to become pregnant the more it appears that

she is infertile. She has already had one husband die and leave her childless. Until she becomes

pregnant, she is overshadowed by suspicion and concern that the reason she was left a childless

widow is because she is incapable of becoming pregnant. Onan may have calculated that, given

enough time, Judah would conclude that Tamar was incapable of bearing children and abandon

his goal of producing children for his firstborn. With his dead brother finally out of the way,

Onan would be the next-in-line to inherit Judah’s legacy and perhaps the Abrahamic promise.

While a woman might see levirate marriage as an opportunity for security, men could

view it as a threat.210

This is Onan’s interpretation when he put his own interests ahead of his

father, his brother’s memory and ahead of Tamar’s security. As noted above, it is difficult to

know what if any laws or customs were being brought to bear on this situation. Nonetheless,

there is sufficient information about how inheritance and levirate marriage worked in antiquity to

provide a backdrop for Onan’s act. Biblical law states that if a man dies without a son, then his

inheritance is to be passed on to his daughter. If the man had no daughter, then it is transferred to

the dead man’s brother (Num 27:8-11).211

If Onan fulfills his duty as levir, the child will not be

recognized as his but Er’s. This means that a child, biologically related to Onan, will pass over

him to become heir, not only of Er’s property but also that of Judah. By refusing to provide

offspring for his brother, Onan is attempting to steal the inheritance.212

But he is also threatening

the stability of the house of Judah. It does not appear as if Onan has yet fathered any children of

his own. By refusing to provide a child for Er he is dishonoring Er’s memory and Judah’s wish

that his “seed” will be carried on through his firstborn “seed.”The irony, however, is when Onan

spills his “seed” on the ground in attempt to deny his brother and father of “seed,” it is a

symbolic act of his own failure to perpetuate himself. Onan’s greed cost him his life (38:10).

The double execution of Judah’s two oldest sons magnifies his failure to secure

progeny.213

The story of Judah’s family begins with such promise in 38:1-6 and turns into

tragedy just four verses later. Judah’s house and legacy is under threat. He began with three sons

and one daughter-in-law. Now he only has one son and the same daughter-in-law. Shelah is his

last candidate for heir. If having another son with his wife is an option, the narrative does not

mention it. She dies apparently having birthed only these three children. Judah recognizes that he

should give Shelah to Tamar, but he is also afraid that Shelah will meet the same fate as Er and

Onan (38:11). If Shelah dies, Judah has no remaining heir and his attempt at creating a separate

family line will be a failure.

It is not clear if Judah knows why his two sons have died. He may assume that Tamar has

some sort of black widow curse that will kill his last son at the next opportunity. Whatever his

conclusions, Judah has no intention of handing over his last best chance at immortality to a

210

Dvora E.Weisberg, “The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and Ancient Israel,”

JSOT 28 (2004), 405-406. 211

Sarna, Genesis, 267. 212

George W. Coats, “Widow’s Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38,” CBQ 34 (1972): 462. 213

Sharon, “Analysis of the Story of Judah and Tamar,” 301.

72 John Byron


woman with such a track record. Instead, he makes an excuse about Shelah being too young and

sends her back home to her family to wait for Shelah to mature (38:11). This is just an excuse,

however. We do not know how old Shelah is, but in light of the quick succession of births in

38:3-5 he was probably not much younger than Onan.214

Unlike Tamar, the reader is given

access to Judah’s private thoughts, which reveal his real concern is losing his last son. Judah is in

danger of becoming like his firstborn son Er – married, but childless.215

Shelah is spared and

Tamar is banished from the house of her husband and father-in-law, forced to live as a widow in

her father’s house. The narrative does not say, but it appears as if Judah may be hoping to find a

way around giving Shelah to Tamar. It is possible that he hopes she would die before Shelah, or

would just simply remain in her father’s house as a widow. Perhaps Judah thinks he can

eventually marry Shelah to someone else without too much interference from her. Whatever the

case, Judah has no intention of losing his last chance to build a lasting legacy.

Tamar’s unlucky marriage

Although Tamar is one of the main characters in this story, her introduction does not reflect the

importance of her role. The first time we meet her is when she marries Er in 38:6. Tamar’s

character is, in some ways, similar to Sarah, Zilpah and Bilhah. We know nothing about her

lineage or ethnicity. While Judah’s wife remains anonymous, we do know that she is a Canaanite

and that her father’s name is Shua. None of this information is ever provided about Tamar. Even

when she is sent home to live with her parents there is no mention of her father’s name or the

town that she came from. The mention of Judah going up to Timnah (38:12) and Tamar sitting at

the entrance to Enaim (38:14) indicates that some of the story takes place in the Shephelah

region, but we are not given any hint as to where Tamar is living when she leaves home to meet

Judah.216

Thus, like Sarah, she is a woman with no delineated past. She is simply a woman,

chosen by Judah, to marry his firstborn son Er.

Although Tamar’s identity contains many mysteries she does receive a distinguishing

identification. Tamar is a wife. The description of her marriage to Er in 38:6 resembles other

marriage language in Genesis: “Judah took a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was

Tamar.” This description, along with Judah’s later efforts to procure sons for Er through her,

indicates that she is a legal wife.217

She is not a slave wife or a concubine. Three references to

her as “wife” in three verses underscore her status. She is given to Er to be a “wife” (38:6) and is

still Er’s “wife” when given to Onan for the purpose of levirate marriage (38:8-9). Even when

she is given the label of “widow” it demonstrates her status as a “wife” from the household of

214


Hamiltion, Genesis 18-50, 437. 216

Some place the scene in the hill country of Judea based on the mention of another Timnah in Joshua

15:10, 17. But the mention of both Timnah and Enaim in Joshua 15:34 places them in the shephelah (Sarna, Genesis,

267; Wenham, Genesis, 368). 217


73 John Byron


Judah, albeit a wife without a living husband (38:11, 19). She is Er’s primary wife and can

expect all of the rights and privileges associated with that status.

Although we are unsure of Tamar’s lineage she was probably not part of Judah’s clan.218

She is brought into the marriage from the outside and integrated into Judah’s household.219

Her

membership in the house of Judah is confirmed by three references to her as Judah’s daughter-in-

law (hlk). In 38:11 Judah tells his daughter-in-law to return to her father and live as a widow.

In 38:16 Tamar’s veil prevents Judah from knowing it his daughter-in-law and in 38:24 he is

informed that his daughter-in-law has become pregnant. These references highlight two

important aspects of her relationship with Judah. First, he has some sort of obligation to her as

her father-in-law. Second, he has authority over her similar to a husband. Although she was

widowed twice, she is still part of Judah’s family and has some role to play in it.

Children are a visible statement of a woman’s connection to her husband’s family.220

The

problem confronting Tamar, however, is that she has no children and a childless widow is never

fully a family member.221

She is not Onan’s wife and Judah’s command for him to sleep with

Tamar is to provide children for Er, not to become her new husband.222

Judah has promised her

to Shelah, which means that she is still a part of the family. It is not clear, however, whether

Shelah will be her husband or simply the next person to fulfill the duties of leverite marriage (cf.

38:26). Besides, Judah has no intention of giving Shelah to Tamar for fear that he would die too.

Consequently, Tamar’s childlessness is not the result of some unexplained barrenness or act of

God as it was for Sarah and Rachel. It stems from the withholding of intimacy.223

Onan withheld

his seed from Tamar’s womb and Judah has withheld Shelah from her bed. Tamar is childless by

conspiracy and her status is under threat. She is a wife without a husband, a daughter-in-law with

no tangible evidence of her connection to the family. Her childless condition means that her

status within Judah’s home is under threat. Without a son to carry on Er’s name, Tamar is in

danger of being abandon. Without a husband or a son, she has no advocate.

Up until now, there has been no stated interaction between Judah and Tamar. All actions

related to her have been the result of Judah giving her to his sons. But in 38:11 Tamar is

addressed for the first time in the narrative. The first time Judah speaks to Tamar, however, is not

with words of comfort, but with a command to leave his household and return home to live as a

widow. The reader knows, of course, that he does this to avoid giving her to Shelah. But Judah’s

decision to move her out of the house is problematic. He tells her to live as a widow, but as we

saw in chapter one, the classification of “widow” was not the same as it today.

218

Some interpreters assume that Tamar is Canaanite, but the narrator never states this as such (Schneider,

Mothers of Promise, 151) 219

Niditch, “The Wronged Woman Righted,” 144. 220

Ibid. 221

Ibid., 145. 222

Hamiltion, Genesis, 435; Coats, “Widow’s Rights,” 463. 223

Sharon, “Analysis of the Story of Judah and Tamar,” 308.

74 John Byron


In modern society “widow” is a label applied to any woman whose husband has died. But

in the ancient world the classification was not so simplistic. In Babylonia, for instance, a woman

was only designated as a widow if both her husband and father-in-law had died and she had no

son to provide for her. Thus the root cause of the definition was not simply that she had been

bereft of her husband, but included a more nuanced social problem; she was lacking a male who

was responsible for caring for her.224

The situation seems to be slightly more nuanced in the

Bible. Kathleen Nash notes examples of women identified as “widow” who also have sons some

of which are adults (2 Sam 14:4-8; 1 Kgs 11:26; 17:8-24).225

So having or not having a son did

not always play a role in determining whether or not a woman was officially a widow. The more

important factor was, did she have financial support.

Tamar’s status in Judah’s house does not seem to qualify her as a widow. Although her

husband is dead, she is waiting for Shelah to mature enough to give Er children through her.

Judah is not yet dead so we can assume that she is still receiving financial support from him. But

this is what makes Judah’s decision so threatening to Tamar’s status. There is little evidence in

the Bible for a woman returning to her father’s home when she is widowed.226

Nash points out

that in Tamar’s case, she is not called “widow” until Judah instructs her to return to her father’s

household. Thus, it is only when she is deprived of her father-in-laws support that she becomes a

widow. This withdrawal of material support is the functional equivalent of Judah’s death.227

As

Schneider notes, “sending her to live as a widow in her father’s house signals a dismissal of

her.”228

Judah’s treatment of Tamar is unjust and he has put her in tight spot. Tamar is innocent in

this situation. Both of Judah’s sons are dead because of something they did to displease God. We

don’t know if Judah has this knowledge, but his recognition that he should give Shelah to Tamar

suggests he knows something of the situation surrounding their death. By sending her back to her

father’s home he has practically condemned her to loneliness and childlessness.229

She is waiting

for Shelah to mature enough to give her children, which means she is not free to remarry.230

Judah’s plan to prevent her and Shelah from coming together has doubly imprisoned her. She is a

prisoner in her father’s home and in her childless condition.231

It’s possible that Judah hopes that

time away in her paternal family will lead her to go astray, which would be more desirable for

him then giving her to Shelah.232

From Tamar’s perspective, this is a cruel sentence. She is a

young woman, capable of bearing children, yet forced to leave the protection and provision of

224

Hiebert, “The Biblical Widow,” 128; Van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave, 134. 225

Kathleen Nash, “Widow” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 1377. 226

Leviticus 22:13 does allow a priest’s daughter to return home, but this is not an allowance made for

everyone (Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, 436-37). 227

Nash, “Widow,” 1377. 228


Aschkenasy, Women at the Window, 83. 230

Bird, “Harlot as Heroine”, Semeia. 231

Aschkenasy, Women at the Window, 84. 232

Ibid., 82.

75 John Byron


her husband’s home. She returns to her father’s home devoid of husband, sons and

motherhood.233

Tamar is ambiguous. She has no identifiable ethnicity or lineage. She has no

husband, no son and no real future prospects for either.234

She has been dismissed to live out her

existence as part of an anonymous family with few if any options at her disposal. Her only hope

of regaining a place within Judah’s home is to demonstrate her status as wife and mother of

Judah’s line. But as long as she is kept away from Shelah, she will never restore herself.

Tamar’s Quest for a Child

As noted above, there are very few chronological markers in this story, so we have no indication

how long Tamar lived in her paternal home once returning there. All that we are told in 38:12 is

that “after many days” Judah’s wife died.235

This unnamed woman exits the narrative in much

the same way she entered it, with no name and no voice. The only thing she is known for is her

three sons, two of which were killed by God. The demise of Mrs. Judah sets up the second half

of the story. While the first eleven verses covered twenty years or more, the next nineteen focus

on the time between Mrs. Judah’s death and the discovery that Tamar is pregnant, a timeframe of

perhaps one year.

Some interpreters view the mention of Mrs. Judah’s death only as a set up for Judah’s

sexual encounter with Tamar. The assumption is that her death is meant to present “an

extenuating circumstance to account for his consorting with a harlot” 236

or “to avoid the

subsequent complication of a further marriage of Judah.”237

But such an interpretation fails to

take into account how Mrs. Judah’s death heightens the threat to Judah’s household. Her death

seals Judah’s fate. Shelah is his last best chance at building/rebuilding his family. Although the

reader might ask why Judah does not simply marry another woman, the narrator does not

introduce that option into the story. Unlike the stories of Abraham and Jacob, Judah has no

handmaid given to him by his wife. He has a son and he has a daughter-in-law. There is no need

for another actor in the story since everything is in place for him to continue building his

household.

Shelah’s role in the story ends quickly after his mother’s death. We are simply told in

38:14 that Judah had yet to give Tamar to him. This detail suggests that enough time had passed

for Shelah to mature enough to marry Tamar, but that Judah was still avoiding the situation. One

wonders how long Judah planned to deprive both Tamar and Shelah of one another. Would he

never allow Shelah a sexual life? Would he keep Tamar a prisoner in her father’s home

233


Westermann, Genesis 37-50, 3:53. 235

Sarna suggests about a year. But the same Hebrew phrase in 1 Sam 7:2 is often understood to mean

twenty years (Genesis, 267). Thus it is not clear how long a period of time it had been since Tamar left Judah’s

household. It is clear that Shelah has grown some and the Tamar is still capable of bearing children which means we

could be looking at a time frame of One to ten years. 236


Westermann, Genesis 37-50, 3:53.

76 John Byron


forever?238

The longer he waits the more his own household is threatened. The longer he waits

the more Tamar’s status is threatened.

There is an element of irony in the way the storyline shifts at this point. We are told that

eventually, we don’t know how long, Judah was comforted concerning his wife’s death (38:12).

This is in direct contrast to Tamar who has yet to be freed from her period of mourning. The

clothes she wears are that of a widow and demonstrate that she is being held hostage by the

memory of her dead husband and the authority of her father-in-law. She is not free to remarry

and unable to escape the double prison of childlessness and her father’s house until Judah

decides to free her. Judah, on the other hand, is free to wander the countryside and even consort

with prostitutes.

When Tamar hears that Judah is travelling through the area she goes out to meet him. She

removes her widow’s clothes, puts on a veil and strategically places herself at a spot on the road

near the entrance to a city (38:14). Judah has been to the local sheep shearing festival, an event

that usually features an abundance of wine.239

He is probably a little tipsy and even a bit

horny.240

The narrator tells us that Judah does not know that it is his daughter-in-law, but thinks

that she is a prostitute. Unable to penetrate her identity through the veil, he propositions her for

sexual intercourse.

The mention of Tamar’s veil has led many interpreters/translators to conclude that she

was playing the role of a prostitute as a way to trick her father-in-law into sleeping with her. But

this interpretation reads more into the text than is there. We are never told Tamar’s motive for

changing clothes and the only mention of prostitution is when the narrator tells us that Judah

thought she was a prostitute.241

But it is possible that Tamar’s veil was not the apparel of a

prostitute but that of a bride.

In the ancient world veils were not worn by prostitutes. Paragraph 40 of the Middle

Assyrian Law declares that while a concubine or a married woman should be veiled in public, a

prostitute should not. The face of a prostitute was fully visible to everyone. If a prostitute was

caught veiling her face she was flogged fifty times and had hot pitch poured on her head. If a

man saw a veiled prostitute and failed to turn her in, he too was beaten fifty times.242

Rather than an artifact of prostitution, the veil was a part of the wedding ceremony. Sarna

points out that “[i]n Akkadian the bride on her wedding day is called kallatu kutumtu, ‘the veiled

bride.’” 243

In the Middle Assyrian Laws, a veiling in the presence of the court was a requirement

238

Aschkenasy, Women at the Window, 84.

239


Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Tamar 1,” in Women in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 162. 241

Phyllis A. Bird, “The Harlot As Heroine: Narrative Art and Social Presupposition in Three Old

Testament Texts.” Semeia 46(1989): 123. 242

Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBLWAW 6; Atlanta: Scholars

Press, 1995), 167-68; Sarna, Genesis, 268; Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 154. 243

Sarna, Genesis, 170.

77 John Byron


for moving a concubine to the status of a wife.244

This custom is reflected in Genesis when

Rebekah covers herself with a veil prior to becoming Isaac’s wife (24:67). In Song of Songs (4:1,

3; 6:7), the “bride of Solomon” is described as wearing a veil.245

In contrast, Babylon is ordered

to remove her veil in Isa 47:2 because she will no longer be the mistress, but instead will do the

work of a slave.246

Consequently, the veil is associated with the free woman who is either going

to be married or is married. It is a mark of distinction that was not attributed to a woman selling

herself for sex.247

What then should we make of Tamar removing her widow’s clothes and donning a veil?

In the context of the story it is likely that Tamar veils herself in preparation for marriage rather

than trickery. The description of Tamar changing her clothes in 38:14 and Judah’s conclusion

that she is a prostitute in 38:15 is interrupted by the narrative interjection “for she saw that

Shelah was grown up, but she had not been given to him as a wife.” Although not stated by the

narrator, Tamar’s action could be a signal of her readiness to be married to Shelah. Her change

of clothes signifies not an attempt to deceive Judah, but to remind him of her status other than

that of a widow.248

By confronting him on the way home she would remind him of his obligation

to her. He veil symbolize the status of a wife within his household and the obligation of a father-

in-law to a daughter-in-law.249

Positioning herself in a public area, alongside the road near the

entrance of a city, resembles an attempt to openly confront him and even embarrass him into

fulfilling his neglected duty to her.

Judah’s failure to recognize Tamar demonstrates just how far she is from his mind.250

The

narrator’s reminder that she is his daughter-in-law emphasizes his duty to her (38:16).251

The

assumption that she is a prostitute and the request to sleep with her is all attributed to him by the

narrator. Tamar has yet to speak in this narrative and her actions have been nothing but

honorable. It is Judah who misinterprets the situation and by doing so further exacerbates the

family tension. His request to sleep with her might have enraged her, but we are never told.

Instead the first time we hear Tamar speak is when she negotiates a price with him. For the first

time in the narrative she is in control of her fate. Tamar asks “what will you give me to come

into me?” The irony of the situation is that Judah should be giving her Shelah to raise up seed for

244

Ibid. 245

Othmar Keel, The Song of songs (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 141. 246

John WD.W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (WBC 25; Waco: Word, 1987), 171. 247

Sarna, Genesis, 170. Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, 442. 248

Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Gender, Power, & Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First

Story (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), 88. 249


Fewell and Gunn, Gender, Power, & Promise, 88. 251

Wenham suggests that the mention of Judah and Tamar’s relationship is intended to get the off the hook

for having an incestuous relationship as defined by Lev 20:12 (Genesis 16-50, 368). But such an interpretation

assumes that Tamar intended to trick Judah into having sex with her. If, however, her intentions are to be taken

home and given in marriage, then the mention of the relationship emphasizes the ongoing legal bond between the

two.

78 John Byron


Er to expand Judah’s household, but in the end it is Judah who provides the seed.252

Tamar meets

his need for sex and he meets her need for seed.253

Judah leaves his staff and seal with Tamar in lieu of payment. These are highly personal

objects, symbols of his authority, an extension of his personality which means he leaves a part of

himself with Tamar.254

When Judah later sends his friend to make payment to the woman he

thought was a prostitute she is nowhere to be found (38:20-23). Some interpreters contend that

the purpose of including this scene is to demonstrate that Judah is an honorable man. While

visiting a prostitute might not be dishonorable, reneging on the payment would be.255

But this

interpretation misses the point which is the complete opposite. Judah is not an honorable man.

The scene portrays him as a man more concerned with fulfilling a promise to a woman he does

not know and with whom he has no permanent relationship rather than as a father-in-law who is

obligated to looking after a daughter-in-law to whom he promised his son.256

Judah is more

concerned with getting back the symbols of his authority than he is taking care of those under his

authority.

Tamar is playing a dangerous game. Although the narrator does not tell us when Tamar

became aware that she was pregnant, the reader knows before she even gets up from being with

Judah. In 38:17 Judah’s penetration and impregnation of Tamar is told in one breath. The next

verse relates how she then got up and went away. Her return home and redressing in widows

garments suggests that she suspects that she has conceived. The anonymity that the narrative has

forced upon her by not detailing the name of her father or the location of his home provides her a

hiding place to allow her unborn child to grow. Although Judah has dismissed her from his

home, she is still his daughter-in-law and promised to Shelah. Her decision to maintain her status

as a widow will give her time before she is discovered. An added feature of not mentioning

Tamar’s father is that he plays no role in her subsequent trial. Had he or one of her brothers

discovered her pregnancy they could have preserved their honor by punishing her before word

ever reached Judah.257

As it stands, however, the focus of the story remains on Judah, Tamar and

their relationship.

We are not told how Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered only when it was discovered. In

this most specific mention of time in the narrative, Tamar is found to be with child around the

end of her first trimester. Word of her condition is brought to Judah by some anonymous

messengers who also bring an accusation against her. Her pregnancy is the result of some type of

immoral sexual encounter (38:24). Some English translations render the Hebrew word hnz as

“harlot” (KJV, NAS, RSV) or “prostitute (NIV). But a better translation might be “whore”

(NRSV) or even more precise “immorality” (ESV). While the noun form of hnz can mean

252


Fewell and Gunn, Gender, Power, & Promise, 88. 254


Westermann, Genesis, 3:54. 256


Aschkenasy, Women at the Window, 89.

79 John Byron


“prostitute” the verb form has a greater range of meaning.258

Its root meaning refers to any

sexual relations outside of or apart from marriage and is limited in its primary usage to women

since only for a woman is marriage the primary determinant of legal status and obligation. It can

also refer to a prostitute, but as Bird points out, herein lays a critical distinction. A prostitute has

no husband or sexual obligation to another male. But a promiscuous wife, daughter or levirate–

obligated widow offends the male to whom she is subject.259

Thus Tamar’s accusers are not

saying that she has been playing the prostitute. They have no evidence or knowledge of this and

not Judah’s friend could find her or anyone who knew about her when he went back to pay her

the fee (38:20-23). Rather, they are accusing her of being a levirate obligated widow who has

been sexually active outside the bounds of her marriage. She has offended the males to whom

she is subject who is Judah and Shelah.

The irony of the situation is located in the way the narrator has used the hnz term. In

38:15 Judah thinks that the woman is a prostitute (hnz) and therefore free from male obligation.

In 38:24 Tamar is accused of being sexually unfaithful (hnz) to her male protectors. In reality,

however, both women are one in the same and Tamar is guilty of neither crime. In 38:15 she is

not free of obligation to any males and the male she does consort with is one of those to whom is

subject. In 38:24 she is accused of going outside of her levirate obligations, but in reality she has

never stepped out from under the authority of the house to which she is attached.

There is some question as to the legality of Judah and Tamar’s relationship and whether

or not it constitutes incest. Later biblical law does prohibit a man from sleeping with his

daughter-in-law, a crime punishable by death (Lev 20:17). But it is not clear what laws would

regulate the situation between Judah and Tamar especially since Tamar is a widow waiting for

her levir to come of age. Westbrook notes that there is enough ambiguity surrounding levirate

marriage in antiquity that Tamar and Judah’s interaction might not qualify as incest. The Law

code of Hammurabi 156, for instance, states that a man can sleep with a girl that he has betrothed

to his son as long as the son has not slept with her first. It is not regarded as sin, but he must give

the girl her freedom. Since Shelah had not yet slept with Tamar no abrogation of the law seems

to have taken place. 260

When Judah hears of Tamar’s condition his reaction is determinatively swift. He orders

her brought out and burned immediately. For the first time since 38:11 he fulfills his role as

father-in-law. The family relationship and obligation that exists between Judah Tamar is

emphasized for a final time in the narrative when the anonymous messengers refer to her as

“your daughter-in-law” (38:24). As such Judah has the authority to order her execution since she

is accused of being unfaithful to Shelah the man to whom she is betrothed.261

Schneider observes

that Judah has been playing both sides of the father-in-law game. On the one hand he does not

258


Phyllis Bird, “To Play the Harlot,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, 77. 260

Westbrook, “The Law of the Biblical Levirate,” 86-87. 261

Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, 450.

80 John Byron


want to be responsible for her so he sends her to her father to live as a widow. But when he finds

out she is pregnant he asserts his rights over her as a daughter-in-law.262

Judah does not yet know that he is the one that impregnated her and this turn of events

must seem like a gift to him. Until now he has been dragging his feet finding ways to avoid

giving Tamar to Shelah. But Tamar’s pregnancy and execution could get him off the hook

quickly. With Tamar out of the picture Judah could select a new woman to be Shelah’s wife from

whom the family could be rebuilt. If Judah is successful the tragedy which is Tamar’s story

would be complete. He has already worked to steal motherhood from her by keeping Shelah

from her. If she dies while still pregnant, her child will not be born and the only lasting memory

of her will be the unfaithful act which caused her early death rather than any offspring that she

bore.

In the end it is Tamar who turns the tables on Judah. He is confronted by his own staff

and seal which have been in her possession for the last three months (38:25). Judah

acknowledges that he was wrong for not giving her to Shelah and fades from the narrative

(38:26). Tamar, however, completes the story by giving birth to not one but two sons of Judah.

Once again the Irony is hard to miss. The man who lost two sons to this woman and refused to

give over his third gains two more through her. These are not the grandchildren he had hoped

would issue from Er, however, but are his own sons. Er and Onan both were executed by God for

the evil they committed. Judah wanted to execute the innocent woman who was carrying the

replacement for those sons. In the end, the woman that Judah thought represented a threat to his

household is responsible for ensuring its ongoing existence.

The story of Tamar ends with a peculiar note of triumph. She has her sons, but we are

never told who, if anyone, she marries. She does not marry Shelah who faded from the story in

verse 14 and was never much of a character to begin with. In theory Judah would now be her

husband since he has known her intimately. But the narrator adds the detail in 38:26 “he did not

know her again.” Hamilton points out that this statement may have more than a legal or historical

connotation. Throughout the narrative Judah has never really known her. In fact, he never calls

her by name.263

In his mind she is a brother’s wife (v. 8), a daughter-in-law (vv. 11, 16, 24), a

widow (v. 11) a prostitute (v. 15) and a woman (v. 20). He did not know her when he thought she

was a prostitute, and even now he seems to refuse to know her again as a wife. In the end she is

not identified as anyone’s wife either here or outside of Genesis. In Ruth 4:12 she is recognized

as the mother of Perez “whom she bore to Judah,” but is not called Judah’s wife. In 1 Chronicles

2:4 she is called the daughter-in-law of Judah and the mother of Perez and Zerah. But the

absence of any husband underscores the point of the narrative for Tamar. Her need was not for a

husband but for a child. The child represented tangible evidence that she belonged to the

262


Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, 451.

81 John Byron


household of Judah. It is not a husband she wants but an heir, someone who would look after her

once Judah was gone. 264

Summary

The story of Judah and Tamar is often read like a torrid affair. Judah is a father reluctant to lose

his last living son to a woman who seems to have a black widow curse. Tamar is the scorned

woman who relies on ambition and ingenuity to entangle her father-in-law into honey pot trap

that gets her pregnant. When Judah attempts to remove the blemish on his family’s honor Tamar

turns the tables on him and demonstrates that she is the more honorable one of the two. While

some of the elements in this reading of the story are accurate, they tend to obscure the most

important point of the story. Both Judah and Tamar need a son. When read through the lenses of

childlessness, the story can be unpacked in such a way that readers fully appreciate the

impending danger that is hanging over both of them.

Judah is a man desperate to build up his house and stake a claim in promises of Abraham.

But his attempts are threatened by the death of two sons and his wife. Within the confines of the

narrative, his only option is his daughter-in-law Tamar who has already been widowed by one

son and contributed to the death of another. Out of fear for his legacy, Judah becomes a negligent

father-in-law. Rather than secure his legacy through Tamar, he boxes her out of the family. His

surviving son represents his only opportunity to ensure that his household expands, but he

refuses to risk losing that son. Unlike the patriarchs before him, Judah’s challenge is not a

childless wife, but a daughter-in-law who is childless because he refuses to hand over his last

son.

Tamar is an innocent woman who is childless not because of a defect of her own, but as a

result of conspiracy. Onan refused to give her children because they would belong to his dead

brother and thwart his chance to be Judah’s heir. Judah refuses to give her Shelah lest he die too.

In the end it is only by forcing Judah’s hand that Tamar get what both so desperately need, sons.

Like Sarah and Rachel, Tamar’s status is ambiguous due to her childless condition. Even

though she is forced to play the part of a widow by her father-in-law, she is still part of his

household. But it is clear to her that he is pushing her out. Her salvation is not is getting another

husband, however. She had one husband, Er, and by all rights need not marry another to remain

part of Judah’s house. What she lacks is a son who will secure her place in Judah’s household.

But as long as Judah refuses to handover Shelah, Tamar ‘s status is ambiguous and she is

exposed to the danger that comes with being a childless woman.

Unlike Sarah and Rachel, Tamar has no handmaid to give to Shelah or Judah by which to

raise up children in her stead. Neither the narrative nor her status as the wife of a dead man offers

264

Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 123.

82 John Byron


her that option. Rather she must find a way to circumvent Judah and her childless condition in

ways that most would interpret as less than desirable.

The story is important because in spite of its overtones of incest and other illicit sexual

relations, it demonstrates how important it was not just for a man to have a son but also for a

woman to have a son. The story of the two’s potentially incestuous relationship is never defined

as such by the biblical authors nor is it ever condemned. Rather, Tamar is held up as the mother

who helps the house of Judah to perpetuate itself. That she never becomes nor is ever described

as Judah’s wife demonstrates that more important to the story than whose wife she was is whose

mother she is. Tamar is held up as a rather unusual heroine by the way she circumvented her

childlessness and guaranteed that from the line of Judah the Davidic dynasty would one day rise.

83 John Byron


Epilogue

As noted in the introduction, quite often the focus of readers, teachers and preachers of

the Bible is on the divine intervention that finally allows infertile women in the Bible to bear a

child. Rather than focus on the triumph of the resolved infertility, I have attempted to highlight

the potential threats that childlessness posed to these women. Instead of viewing their attempts at

resolution as circumventing the divine will, I have demonstrated that their actions were an

attempt to overcome their powerlessness and ambiguous status. In the world of the Genesis

narrative, infertility created a social stigma that could result in social and financial ruin. With

that in mind, we can draw some concluding thoughts about the nature of infertility in Genesis.

Infertility is a disability

Although not noted specifically in the text, one conclusion we can draw is that infertility is

viewed as a disability by the Genesis narrator and other authors of the Bible.265

From the first

time we meet Sarah in Gen 11:30 till the closing lines of Tamar’s story in Genesis 38, infertility

is a problem to be solved. The rhetoric of Genesis, indeed the whole Bible, is that childlessness is

not the norm and the Bible doesn’t imagine what life could be like for the permanently childless

woman.

Some examples of infertility as a healable disability are found in Genesis as mentioned

above. The first is in the case of Abraham and the household of Abimilek which we learn has

become cursed with infertility because of Sarah. God tells Abemilek to request prayers for

healing from Abraham. God answers Abraham’s prayers and heals Abimelek’s wife and female

slaves so that they can once again bear children (20:17-18). Similarly, when Isaac prays for

Rebekah God hears his prayers, heals her and she begins to bear children. Yet another example is

found with Rachel. Although we are never told that she prayed for healing, the announcement of

her pregnancy with Joseph is preceded by the statement “then God remembered Rachel and

listened to her and enabled her to conceive” suggesting that God was answering her prayers for

healing. (30:21-24).

In each of these cases infertility is recognized as being an abnormality interfering with

the woman’s expected role in the marriage. Coupled with the evidence in chapter one where we

saw how various medications, enchantments and prayers were used to reverse infertility, it seems

accurate to define infertility as being understood by the ancients as a disability since it was

something that prevented the woman from being a full participant in society.

265

Jeremy Schipper, “Diasabling Israelite Leadership: 2 Samuel 6:23 and other Images of Disability in the

Deuteronomistic History,” in The Abled Body: Rethinking Disability Studies, ed. Hector Avalos, Sarah Melcher, and

Jeremy Schipper (Semeia Stuides 55; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 105. However, Joel Baden is less willing to refer to

infertility as a disability (“The Nature of Barrenness in the Hebrew Bible” in Disability Studies and Biblical

Literature. Ed. by Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper [New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011], 13-27).

84 John Byron


Infertility is an identity

But barrenness is more than just a disability. In the Bible it becomes part of a woman’s identity.

In the story of Sarah we learn only two things about her in Gen 11:29-30: (1) she is Abraham’s

wife and (2) she is childless. Her identity as a childless woman overshadows her and is

reinforced numerous times throughout the story, not only by narrative statements (16:1), but by

Abraham’s attempts to circumvent her infertility. Her status as Abraham’s wife is threatened by

her status as a childless woman. The focus of the story, therefore, is not just on God’s promise to

Abraham, but how that promise will be fulfilled in spite of the childless Sarah. Once Sarah gives

birth to Isaac and removes Ishmael as a potential rival in Genesis 21, she vanishes from the story

and the last we hear about her is when she dies in Genesis 23. Sarah’s identity as childless is

arguably more central to the story than her status as Abraham’s wife. Once the “disability” is

healed her purpose is fulfilled, her identity problem solved and she exits the story.

The situation is similar with Rachel. While the narrative tells us more about her

background than it does Sarah, her identity as Jacob’s wife is overshadowed by her infertility.

Her lack of children is magnified by Leah’s fertility and the focus in the narrative is on Rachel’s

pursuit of getting pregnant. The breeding war that takes place between the two sisters is at its

heart an attempt by Rachel to secure her status as Jacob’s wife by giving him children. On the

one hand, she succeeds by building a family through Bilhah, but the narrator and the reader both

realize that this is not sufficient. Unlike Abraham, Jacob doesn’t need sons to secure his legacy;

Leah has done that for him. So regardless of how many sons Bilhah bears for Rachel the

narrative still understands Rachel to be infertile. This is a stigma she continues to bear until her

pursuit for a son is finally realized in Joseph. But as we noted above, the irony in Rachel’s story

is that her attempt to have one more son is what proves to be her undoing and she dies while

giving birth to Benjamin. That which brings her status and security is also what kills her. Like

Sarah, once children are born she exits from the story. Most of the scenes and dialog that include

Rachel focus on her attempts to be freed from her childlessness. It is the identity the narrator

gives her and once she resolves that identity she is removed from the story.

Tamar’s story is a tragic case of childlessness for different reasons. Unlike Sarah and

Rachel she is not labeled as “barren.” Her childlessness is not the result of an inability to

conceive or a divine curse. She is childless by conspiracy and her identity in the story is framed

by her lack of children. Like Sarah, Zilpah and Bilhah we know nothing about this woman’s

lineage or ethnicity. We are not even told the name of her father or the town in which she is

forced to live as a widow. Like Sarah, her identity is framed by two statuses: (1) she is Er’s wife

and (2) she is childless. Tamar’s childlessness threatens her first status as wife and it threatens

the establishment of Judah’s house. Everything we learn and read about Tamar in this story is

focused on her overcoming her childlessness. Once Tamar gives birth to twin boys her identity as

a childless woman is resolved and the story comes to an end.

85 John Byron


In all three cases it is the woman’s identity as childless that is more important than their

status as wife. Until they have a child their status as wife is precarious. The disability of

infertility is what prevents them from fully identifying and securing them as one of the

patriarch’s wife. Once their infertility is healed their identity as a childless woman is resolved

and they are able to exit the story.

Infertility creates ambiguity

This point was highlighted a number of times above. A married woman without a child suffered

from a status deficit. She was a wife, but as long as she remained childless her place in that home

was not secure. Without a child, a son in particular, her position in the marriage as primary wife

was not necessarily fixed and therefore she was in danger of either being replaced by her

husband with another wife, or pushed aside by a subsequent wife who did produce a child who

was also the heir. If the wife was not the mother of an heir her status was ambiguous.

This is evident in the story of Abraham by the way he attempts to abandon her on at least

two occasions and on another occasion promotes the son of Hagar over the yet to be born son

God promises to Sarah. In the story of Rachel, it is not rejection by Jacob that threatens her status

in the household, but his possible death. If Jacob dies before Rachel gives birth to a son then her

ambiguous status could be exploited by Leah and her sons. There is no guarantee that Rachel

would be cared for by the other wife and her children. In the case of Tamar, her ambiguity results

not just from her childlessness but from her widowhood. Without a child she has no tangible

connection to the house of Judah. Her husband is dead, she is not the mother of the heir, and her

father-in-law is less than willing to incorporate her. All of these women are ambiguous. Their

place in the household is not secure and even though they have the status of “wife” their

childlessness makes that status ambiguous and threatens to undermine it.

Infertility affects others

A major focus of all the childless women stories in Genesis is on how to resolve it. But these

attempts did not always remove that ambiguous status, but rather made the woman’s position

even more delicate. This is best demonstrated in the story of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar’s

pregnancy by Abraham complicates the slave/mistress relationship and allows Hagar a new sense

of status within the household. Sarah’s status, on the other hand, is diminished since Hagar’s

presence threatens Sarah’s position as the barren primary wife. Once Hagar’s child is born,

Sarah’s security as the primary wife is even more threatened.

But ambiguous status is not reserved only for the childless wife. Like a disease, it infects

those who are enlisted to help the wife circumvent her infertility. In the case of Hagar her status

becomes more complicated. She is pregnant by her mistress’s husband but she is not the primary

wife even though she will give birth to the heir. Her pregnancy elevates her status, but not

86 John Byron


enough to free her from being mistreated by her mistress. She is ambiguous. She performs the

task of a primary wife, but cannot benefit from it. She remains a slave who also happens to be

the mother of the potential heir.

Rachel and Leah’s handmaids, Zilpah and Bilhah also suffer from this ambiguous status.

Like Sarah and Tamar, we know nothing of these women’s lineage and ethnicity. All we are told

is that they have a slavish status that obligates them to obey their mistresses when told to sleep

with Jacob. But even though these women are the mothers of one third of Israel’s children, the

status of “mother” is not one that they are able to enjoy fully and nor do they have the privilege

of naming their sons. Like the childless women they are assisting, the handmaids’ status is

ambiguous. Their role is not to be “mothers” but incubators. Supporting this interpretation is the

absence of the two women anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Rachel and Leah are given credit

for building the house of Israel (Ruth 4:11). Zilpah and Bilhah, on the other hand, fade from the

story having served their purpose, which was to provide offspring for their childless mistresses.

And it is not only the handmaids who have status problems. Their sons’ status is also

somewhat ambiguous. Dan and Naphtali are the result of Rachel’s infertility and insecurity. Her

reason for resorting to acquiring children through a handmaid is not because Jacob needs an heir

but her concern for her own future. With the birth of Joseph, however, Rachel’s childless

condition is resolved and Bilhah’s sons are, for all intended purposes, redundant. The same can

be said of Gad and Asher, the sons of Zilpah. Leah acquires these two sons through Zilpah and

then goes on to bear Jacob more children (30:17-21). But Gad and Asher are redundant since

Leah already has four sons by Jacob. The circumstances did not require that Leah raise up

children through her maid since Jacob’s legacy was not under threat. But Leah perceived that her

status as wife was under threat from her sister Rachel and therefore competed with her through

Zilpah’s womb. In the end we discover that not all sons are equal. Although Jacob has many

sons, those given to him by his wives’ handmaids seem to be infected by their mothers’

ambiguous status. Thus while Jacob certainly values these sons, they are not as valuable to him

as others.

Infertility, then, while very personal to the woman/couple also impacts those around

them. The desire, indeed the expectation by society and others, to solve the reproductive problem

has a knock on effect. In the Genesis narrative one woman’s infertility and ambiguous status can

create difficulty for other women and for their children. In those cases what we discover is that

not any child will do since some are more equal than others. While a surrogate mother might

bear a child for the infertile couple that child and its mother are only secure in their new found

status as long as the primary wife never bears a child. But even in that case the surrogate mother

may never attain the same status of the primary wife even if her son goes on to become heir.

87 John Byron


The Bible and the Childless Reader

I stated in the introduction my conviction that the Bible is of little help to the permanently

childless couple. The perception of women promoted by the Bible is that their sole purpose in

life will be accomplished through the bearing of children. The situation of the three women we

examined above seems to support this assertion. With that in mind, we can draw the following

conclusions.

First, the Bible promotes the myth that childlessness is a particularly female problem.

There are no stories that center on an infertile man and the imagery of barrenness is never

applied to a man. The focus and preoccupation with childlessness in the Bible falls solely and

consistently on women. In practice, however, the opposite is often true. Male and female

infertility is statistically equal and in some cases a couple is childless as a result of both partners

facing reproductive challenges. And in some cases there is no discernible reason why a couple is

childless. But for childless couples reading the Bible, like the stories in Genesis, the myth that

infertility is a female problem is compounded by the absence of stories about infertile men. In

the Bible it is women who are infertile and it is a problem they must solve or risk being

circumvented by their husband.

Second, the Bible promotes the idea that infertility is a disability that needs to be fixed

and that a couple without children is not complete. Since all of the stories about childless couples

end with resolution readers of the Bible cannot be faulted for concluding that infertility is

something from which they need to escape. Granted, the majority of couples in the world will

have children. But for people of faith who are also childless, the Bible offers little in the way of

comfort or example on how to live a childless life. For many the absence of permanently

childless couples in the Bible reinforces their feelings of inadequacy and alienation. Like the

women in the stories, their identity as a couple is as “the ones without kids” and their status is

ambiguous since there is much in life where they don’t fit in.

On the flipside, in spite of the above there may be some benefit in these stories for the

permanently childless. I intentionally read Genesis without focusing on the stories’ resolution of

childlessness. Rather than focus on the birth of the long awaited child I attempted to emphasize

the struggle and anguish experienced by childless women. Perhaps this is a reading strategy that

can be adapted by childless readers of the Bible. By not focusing on the birth of Isaac, Joseph

and others readers could identify with the plight and struggle that infertility thrust on the

characters in Genesis. For those who read the Bible as an inspired source for faith and practice,

such a reading strategy might prove helpful. But even this approach will have its pitfalls since

those who are reading the stories will invariably know how they end. While they may be able to

identify with the plight of the childless women/couples, they will still not be able to identify with

their joy when a child is born. This leads me to conclude where I began. The Bible is of little

help to the permanently childless couple.

88 John Byron


Working Bibliography

Anderson, A.A. 2 Samuel. WBC 11; Dallas: Word, 1989.

Aschkenasy, Nehama Women at the Window: Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape. Detroit:

Wayne State University Press, 1998.

Aubert, J.-J. “Threatened Wombs: Aspects of Ancient Uterine Magic.” GRBS 30 (1989): 421-

449.

Baden, Joel “The Nature of Barrenness in the Hebrew Bible” pp. 13-27 in Disability Studies and

BiblicalLiterature. Ed. by Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper .New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2011.

Ben-Barak, Zafrira. Inheritance by daughters in Israel and the Ancient Near East: a social, legal

and ideological revolution. Haifa: Archaeological Center Publications, 2006.

Betz, H. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992)

Biggs, R.D. “Conception, contraception, and abortion in ancient Mesopotamia.” In A.R. George

& I. L. Finkel (ed.), Wisdom, gods and literature: studies in honour of W.G. Lambert

(Winona Lake 2000) 1-13.

Bird, Phyllis A. “The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative Art and Social Presupposition in Three Old

Testament Texts.” Semeia 46 (1989): 119-39.

Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Byron, John. “Noble Birth as a Response to Enslavement in the Testament of Naphtali 1.9-

12,”JJS 55 (2004): 45-57.

Cassuto, U. A commentary on the Book of Genesis. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992.

Civil, M. “Medical Commentaries from Nippur”, JNES 33 (1974), 329-38.

Coats, George W. “Widow’s Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38,” CBQ 34 (1972):

461-66.

Davies, Eryl W. “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage”, VT 31 (1981): 138-44.

De Moor, Johannes C. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Leiden, Brill, 1987.

Farber, Gertrud. “Another Old Babylonian Childbirth Incantation.” Journal of Near Eastern

Studies 43 (1984): 311-316.

Fewell, Danna Nolan and David M. Gunn. Gender, Power, & Promise: The Subject of the

Bible’s First Story. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.

Foskett, Mary. “Adoption,” New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. 1:54-56.

Grosz, K. “Daughters adopted as sons at Nuzi and Emar.” In J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans

le Proche-Orient antique (Compte rendu de la 33e Rencontre assyriologique

internationale; Paris 1987) 81-86.

Hackett, Jo Ann. “Rehabilitating Hagar: Fragments of an Epic Pattern,” in Gender and

Difference in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1989.

Hamilton, Victor Genesis 18-50. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

----. “Marriage (OT and ANE),” Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4:561, 567.

Hepper, F. Nigel. “Mandrake,” New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. 3:787-88.

89 John Byron


Hiebert, Paula S. “Whence Shall Help Come to me: The Biblical Widow,” in Gender and

Difference in Ancient Israel. Peggy L Day (ed.) Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Jacob, Irene and Walter Jacob, “Flora,” Anchor Bible Dictionary. 2:803-817.

Janssen, R.M. and J.J. Janssen. Getting Old in Ancient Egypt. London: Stacey/Rubicon, 1996.

Keel, Othmar The Song of Songs. CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Kramer, S. N. “The Woman in Ancient Sumer: Gleanings from Sumerian Literature,” in La

Femme dans le Proche-Orient Asiatique Paris: 1987.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Tamar 1,” in Women in Scripture Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Gorsz, Katarzyna. “Dowry and Bride price in Nuzi,” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of

Nuzu, M. Morrison and D. Owen (ed). Winnona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981.

Kuhrt, Amelie. “Non-Royal Women in the Late Babylonian Period,” in Women's earliest

records: From ancient Egypt and western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on

Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island,

November 5-7, 1987. Barbara S. Lesko (ed). Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Mark, Elizabeth Wyner “The Four Wives of Jacob: Matriarchs Seen and Unseen,” The

Reconstructionist (1998): 22-35.

Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the

Context of the Ancient Near East. OtSt, 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Mendelsohn, Isaac. “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156 [1959]: 38-40.

Nash, Kathleen. “Widow” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.

Niditch, Susan. “The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38,” HTR (1979): 143-

49.

Paradise, Jonathon. “Marriage Contracts of Free Persons at Nuzi,” JCS 39 (1987): 1-36.

Pestman, P.W. Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt: A Contribution to

Establishing the Legal Position of the Woman. Leiden: Brill, 1961.

Robins, G. “Women and Children in peril,” KMT: a modern journal of Egypt 5 (1994/5): 24-26.

Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. SBLWAW 6; Atlanta:

Scholars Press, 1995.

Sakenfeld, Katherine D. Just Wives? Stories of Power and Survival in the Old Testament and

Today. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Sarna, N. M. JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. New York: Jewish Publication Society,

1989.

Schipper, Jeremy “Diasabling Israelite Leadership: 2 Samuel 6:23 and other Images of Disability

in the Deuteronomistic History,” in The Abled Body: Rethinking Disability Studies, ed.

Hector Avalos, Sarah Melcher, and Jeremy Schipper. Semeia Stuides 55; Leiden: Brill,

2007.

Sharon, Diane M. “Some Results of a Structural Semiotic Analysis of the Story of Judah and

Tamar,” JSOT 29 (2005): 289-318.

Shields, M.E. “Concubine,” New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. 1:713-14.

90 John Byron


Schneider, Tammi. Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2008.

Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB, 1; New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Steinberg, Naomi. Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Stol, M. Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean setting Groningen: Styx, 2000.

Stone, Elizabeth Caecilia and David I. Owen. Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur and the

Archive of Mannum-mešu-lissur. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991),

Thompson, T.L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. BZAW, 133; Berlin: 1974.

Tigay, Jeffery H. Deuteronomy. JPSTC; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.

Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narrative. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1984.

Van der Toorn, K. From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the

Israelite and the Babylonian Woman. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

----. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. SSN; Assen/Maastricht: Van

Gorcum,1985.

Van Seters, John. “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of

Israel,” JBL 87 (1968): 401-408.

Von Rad, Gerhard Genesis. rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Watts, John D.W. Isaiah 34-66. WBC 25; Waco: Word, 1987.

Weisberg, Dvora E. “The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and Ancient

Israel,” JSOT 28 (2004): 403-29.

Wenahm, Gordon. Genesis 16-50. WBC 2; Dallas: Word, 1994.

Westbrook, Raymond. “The female slave.” in V. Matthews et al. (ed.), Gender and Law in the

Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Sheffield 1998, 214-238.

----. Old Babylonian Marriage Law. AfO.B, 23; Horn: Berger, 1988.

----. Property and the Family in Biblical Law. JSOT Sup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1991.

Westbrook, Raymond and Bruce Wells. Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An

Introduction. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2009.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion.

Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985.

----. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion.

Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985.

Childless and Ambiguity: Reading Genesis through the eyes of the infertile (Unpublished Manuscript)

Documents

Transcript of Childless and Ambiguity: Reading Genesis through the eyes of the infertile (Unpublished Manuscript)