Nothing could be more charmingly poetic than this story as told by the
old Hebrew chronicler. The language is so simple yet so pictorial that
we fancy we can actually see Jacob as he accosts the shepherds at the
well to ask after his uncle Laban, and they reply "Behold, Rachel his
daughter cometh with the sheep." We see him as he rolls the stone from
the well's mouth and waters his uncle's flocks; we see him as he
kisses Rachel and lifts up his voice and weeps. He kisses her of
course by right of being a relative, and not as a lover; for we cannot
suppose that even an Oriental shepherd girl could have been so devoid
of maidenly prudence and coyness as to give a love-kiss to a stranger
at their first meeting. Though apparently her cousin (Gen. 28: 2;
29:10), Jacob tells her he is her uncle; "and Jacob told Rachel that
he was her father's brother."[286] There was the less impropriety in
his kissing her, as she was probably a girl of fifteen or sixteen and
he old enough to be her grandfather, or even great-grandfather, his
age at the time of meeting her being seventy-seven.[287] But as men
are reported to have aged slowly in those days, this did not prevent
him from desiring to marry Rachel, for whose sake he was willing to
serve her father. Strange to say, the words "And Jacob served seven
years for Rachel" have been accepted as proof of self-sacrifice by
several writers, including Dr. Abel, who cites those words as
indicating that the ancient Hebrews knew "the devotion of love, which
gladly _serves the beloved_ and shuns no toil in her behalf." In
reality Jacob's seven years of service have nothing whatever to do
with self-sacrifice. He did not "serve his beloved" but her father;
did not toil "in her behalf" but on his own behalf. He was simply
doing that very unromantic thing, paying for his wife by working a
stipulated time for her father, in accordance with a custom prevalent
among primitive peoples the world over. Our text is very explicit on
the subject; after Jacob had been with his relative a month Laban had
said unto him: "Because thou art my brother shouldst thou therefore
serve me for naught? tell me what shall thy wages be?" And Jacob had
chosen Rachel for his wages. Rachel and Leah themselves quite
understood the commercial nature of the matrimonial arrangement; for
when, years afterward, they are prepared to leave their father they
say: "Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father's
house? Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us, and
hath also quite devoured the price paid for us."
Instead of the sentimental self-sacrifice of a devoted lover for his
mistress we have here, therefore, simply an example of a prosaic,
mercenary marriage custom familiar to all students of anthropology.
But how about the second half of that sentence, which declares that
Jacob's seven years of service "seemed to him but a few days for the
love he had for her?" Is not this the language of an expert in love?
Many of my critics, to my surprise, seemed to think so, but I am
convinced that none of them can have ever been in love or they would
have known that a lover is so impatient and eager to call his beloved
irrevocably his own, so afraid that someone else might steal away her
affection from him, that Jacob's seven years, instead of shrinking to
a few days, would have seemed to him like seven times seven years.
A minute examination of the story of Jacob and Rachel thus reveals
world-wide differences between the ancient Hebrew and the modern
Christian conceptions of love, corresponding, we have no reason to
doubt, to differences in actual feeling. And as we proceed, these
differences become more and more striking:
"And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my
days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. And
Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and
made a feast. And it came to pass in the evening, that
he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and
he went in unto her.... And it came to pass, in the
morning that, behold, it was Leah: and he said to
Laban, What is this thou has done unto me? Did not I
serve with thee for Rachel? Wherefore then hast thou
beguiled me? And Laban said, It is not so done in our
place, to give the younger before the first-born.
Fulfil the week of this one, and we will give thee the
other also for the service which thou shalt serve with
me yet seven other years. And Jacob did so, and
fulfilled her week; and he gave him Rachel his daughter
to wife."
Surely it would be difficult to condense into so few lines more facts
and conditions abhorrent to the Christian conception of the sanctity
of love than is done in this passage. Can anyone deny that in a modern
Christian country Laban's breach of contract with Jacob, his
fraudulent substitution of the wrong daughter, and Jacob's meek
acceptance of two wives in eight days would not only arouse a storm of
moral indignation, but would land both these men in a police court and
in jail? I say this not in a flippant spirit, but merely to bring out
as vividly as possible the difference between the ancient Hebrew and
modern Christian ideals of love. Furthermore, what an utter ignorance
or disregard of the rights of personal preference, sympathy, and all
the higher ingredients of love, is revealed in Laban's remark that it
was not customary to give the younger daughter in marriage before the
older had been disposed of! And how utterly opposed to the modern
conception of love is the sequel of the story, in which we are told
that "because" Leah was _hated_ by her husband "therefore" she was
made fruitful, and she bore him four sons, while the beloved Rachel
remained barren! Was personal preference thus not only to be repressed
by marrying off girls according to their age, but even punished? No
doubt it was, according to the Hebrew notion; in their patriarchal
mode of life the father was the absolute tyrant in the household, who
reserved the right to select spouses for both his sons and daughters,
and felt aggrieved if his plans were interfered with. The object of
marriage was not to make a happy, sympathetic couple, but to raise
sons; wherefore the hated Leah naturally exclaims, after she has borne
Reuben, her first son, "Now my husband will love me." That is not the
kind of love we look for in our marriages. We expect a man to love his
wife for her own sake.
This notion, that the birth of sons is the one object of marriage, and
the source of conjugal love, is so preponderant in the minds of these
women that it crowds out all traces of monopoly or jealousy. Leah and
Rachel not only submit to Laban's fraudulent substitution on the
wedding-night, but each one meekly accepts her half of Jacob's
attentions. The utter absence of jealousy is strikingly revealed in
this passage:
"And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children,
Rachel envied her sister; and she said unto Jacob, Give
me children, or else I die. And Jacob's anger was
kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's
stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the
womb? And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto
her; that she may bear upon my knees, and I also may
obtain children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her
handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her. And
Bilhah conceived and bare Jacob a son.... And Bilhah,
Rachel's handmaid, conceived again, and bare Jacob a
second son.... When Leah saw she had left bearing, she
took Zilpah her handmaid, and gave her to Jacob to
wife. And Zilpah Leah's handmaid bare Jacob a son....
And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and
bare Jacob a fifth son. And Leah said, God hath given
me my hire, because I gave my handmaid to my husband."
Thus polygamy and concubinage are treated not only as a matter of
course, but as a cause for divine reward! It might be said that there
does exist a sort of jealousy between Leah and Rachel: a rivalry as to
which of the two shall bear their husband the more sons, either by
herself or by proxy. But how utterly different this rivalry is from
the jealousy of a modern Christian wife, the very essence of which
lies in the imperative insistence on the exclusive affection and
chaste fidelity of her husband! And as modern Christian jealousy
differs from ancient Hebrew jealousy, so does modern romantic love in
general differ from Hebrew love. There is not a line in the story of
Jacob and Rachel indicating the existence of monopoly, jealousy,
coyness, hyperbole, mixed moods, pride, sympathy, gallantry,
self-sacrifice, adoration, purity. Of the thirteen essential
ingredients of romantic love only two are implied--individual
preference and admiration of personal beauty. Jacob preferred Rachel
to Leah, and this preference was based on her bodily charms: she was
"beautiful and well-favored." Of the higher mental phases of personal
beauty not a word is said.
In the case of the women, not even their individual preference is
hinted at, and this is eminently characteristic of the ancient Hebrew
notions and practices in regard to marriage. Did Rachel and Leah marry
Jacob because they preferred him to all other men they knew? To Laban
and his contemporaries such a question would have seemed absurd. They
knew nothing of marriage as a union of souls. The woman was not
considered at all. The object of marriage, as in India, was to raise
sons, in order that there might be someone to represent the departed
father. Being chiefly for the father's benefit, the marriage was
naturally arranged by him. As a matter of fact, even Jacob did not
select his own wife!
"And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged
him and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of
the daughters of Canaan, Arise, go to Padan-aram, to
the house of Bethuel, thy mothers father; and take thee
a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy
mother's brother."
And Jacob did as ordered. His choice was limited to the two sisters.