INTRODUCTION 1.

Feminist Response to Interpreting the Bible The society in the past had generally been inured to unfairness and injustice done to women. Injustice to women had never been an issue. The scholars and the experts never felt the problems of women as a problem at all to be discussed. Today it is no more the case. One of the major responses of our times towards the issues of women is feminism. Feminism is a way of seeing the world, independent of patriarchal assumptions. Feminists commit themselves to equality, dignity and humanity of all persons, to such an extent they are working towards a social change where men and women share equal dignity. In the Christian circle many feminist theologians have taken up the task of interpreting the Bible from a feminist perspective. The underlying motivation behind the feminist interpretation of the Bible is the belief that the Bible is an elite male project, to protect and legitimize the powers of patriarchy. Therefore, the writing, the selection and the final editing of the text were in favour of a male society.1 Feminist theologians expose and critique the biblical texts which explicitly or implicitly exclude woman and legitimize the oppression of woman. They brought to the fore many woman characters in the Bible mothers queens, prophets, warriors, powerful woman and victims, who had been forgotten, or sidelined, but played a vital role in the salvation history. 2. The Structure of the Paper The theme for this seminar paper is the character of Hagar, in the book of Genesis (Genesis 16: 1-16; 21:9-21). Hagar is one of the first females in the scripture to experience use, abuse and rejection.2 We do not have lengthy tales about this Egyptian slave woman in the Bible except a few bits and piece of information written from the oppressors perspective. My aim in this paper is to look at Hagars tale of servitude, surrogacy, flight, exile, encounter with God, etc., from a feminist perspective. The methodology I would be following in this research paper is not a detailed exegetical analysis of the texts, but I would pick up certain ambiguous texts and analyze them from Hagars (losers) point of

view. To that purpose, I will search for what is said about Hagar, what is not said about Hagar, and what these sayings and no sayings mean. In chapter one, I would limit my discussion only to Genesis 16: 1-16. Genesis 16 describes about Hagar as a maid of Sarah. She is coerced into service, as a surrogate for barren Sarah. Hagars success alienates her mistress, followed by the harsh treatment and running away to the desert while being pregnant. In chapter one I shall discuss on the topics such as, motherhood as a forced condition, God, a liberator?, surrogacy roles and wilderness experience. I shall also look for some of the remarkable features of Hagar that make her one of the preeminent biblical heroines. In chapter two, I shall analyze Hagars journey from slavery to freedom, homelessness and economic realities. Genesis 21: 9 21 describes Hagar being banished to desert by Abraham with their child Ishmael. In this context, I am interested to discuss about three enemies of Hagar (the word enemies may not be appropriate) and their attitudes, such as, the wrath of Sarah, Abrahams cowardly indifference, and the blindness of a God who sees. In the concluding chapter, I shall try to trace some parallels of Hagars story in todays context, especially how Hagar symbolizes various kinds and conditions of people in the contemporary society. However, my interest here is not to give an elaborate illustration of this, rather to expose how the surrogacy role of Hagar is closely linked with the surrogate mothers of our day. And in exposing that, I shall try to show, how the feminist way of interpreting Hagars story challenges our own perception of Woman.

_____________________________ 1. Carole Fontne, The Abusive Bible: On the Use of Feminist Method in Pastoral Context, Carole Fontaine and Athalya Brenner (eds.), A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Shapes (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 92-93. 2. Phyllis Trible, Text of Terror (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 9.

CHAPTER I AN UNEQUAL BARGAIN 1.1 Introduction In accordance with the documentary hypothesis, Genesis 16: 1-16 and Genesis 21: 9-21 are related episodes in Hagars life. The two accounts come from different sources written down at different times. Genesis 16: 1-16 primarily comes from J or Yahwist tradition, while Genesis 21: 9-21 comes from E or Elohist tradition. J is believed to have been written down in the 10th century B.C., while E in the 8th century B.C.1 A cursory reading of both the narratives gives us an impression that it is a story of Gods rescue of Hagar from dying of thirst in Negev desert. Or it is the story of a woman who complicated the salvation history.2 However, when we reread this same story with Hagar, the slave woman as the center of attention, it manifolds before us a variety of alternative perspectives in which Hagar can be appreciated. Such a rereading, especially from a feminist perspective will reveal to us a number of remarkable features of Hagar that would elevate her as one of the preeminent biblical heroes. It will also tempt us to pose certain uncomfortable questions why we have so blithely passed over Hagars contribution to the biblical story and the wrongs done to her. Moreover a critical exploration of the themes implicit in Hagars story justice, slavery, sexual exploitation, exile and encounter with God inspire all of us to work together, survive together and march together toward human liberation. 1.2 Surrogacy Role of Hagar The character of Hagar is introduced in the verses, Genesis 16:1-6. In fact, in these verses Hagar is introduced as a solution to a problem confronted by a wealthy Hebrew slave holding family of Sarah (Hagars owner) and her husband, Abraham.3 Sarah is married, rich and free; she is also old and barren, and has borne Abraham no children. Hagar is single, poor and bonded. She is also young and fertile. Power belongs to Sarah the subject of the action and powerlessness mark Hagar, the object.4 In ancient Near East tradition there was no greater sorrow for an Israelite or Oriental woman than

childlessness.5 So, Genesis 16:2 says that Sarah proposes the use of a surrogate mother, Hagar, who is her own personal slave to provide her and her husband with a child which was lawful as per the existing custom. Verses 3 4a continues the narration that Sarah took Hagar her Egyptian slave girl and gave her to Abraham as his wife. He went to Hagar and she was conceived. It is interesting to note that Sarahs reasons for using Hagar as a surrogate (that I may be built up through her), are put not in terms of fulfilling Gods promise or in terms of providing Abraham an heir. Sarahs voiced concern is for her own status in the family.6 Sarah needs a birthing mother to maintain her status and Hagar is just a means for achieving her purpose. While, for Hagar, this motherhood will be a coerced experience, not a privilege; it takes away her authority over her own body, her virginity, and her reproductive capacities. It was a choice less submission. In matters of forced motherhood the law always provided options for wealthy, free women like Sarah who were barren. Gerhard von Rad reports: The wife could bring to the marriage her own personal maid, who was not available to her husband as a concubine in the same way his own female slaves were. If she gave her personal maid to her husband, in the event of her own childlessness, then the child born of the maid was considered the wifes child.7 In the following verses, Genesis 16: 4b-6, we see that when Hagar becomes pregnant Sarah thinks that her status is diminished in front of Hagar, and she blames Abraham for this outrage done to her. She demands her husband to rectify the wrong because he holds authority over Hagar too. At this point Abraham reminds Sarah that in Ancient Hebrew law and custom the womans slave-woman is her own personal property for her to dispose of as she wishes. As per the law Hagar has only a generative function. By sleeping with Abraham and conceiving for him in any way does not provide Hagar with a wifely status equal to Sarah. Moreover, to put herself on a par with her own mistress is a punishable act.8 Exegetes have traditionally interpreted this passage as a conflict that arose because Hagar began to feel that she should take Sarahs place because she was producing the offspring for him.9 Such an interpretation implies that Hagar did not know the existing law. In fact there is nothing in the text to let us know what Hagar knew about the laws. Nor is it explicit about the wrongs done by Hagar that hurts Sarahs feeling.

What we are sure of from the narration is that Sarah afflicted Hagar (until Hagar could not take it anymore), so she fled into the desert (Genesis 16:6). This affliction characterizes the suffering of the entire Hebrew population in Egypt. Ironically, here it depicts the torture of a lone Egyptian woman. In the hand of Sarah, with the consent of Abraham, Hagar becomes the suffering servant. Yet no God comes to deliver her from the bondage and oppression; nor does she beseech one. But, she finds her own way by fleeing into the desert. Thus Hagar becomes the first female in the Bible to liberate herself from the oppressive power structures.10 Though law prescribes harsh punishment for run-away slaves, she takes the risk rather than endure more brutal treatment by Sarah. 1.3 Survival in the Wilderness Hagar at present appears to us as a person momentarily in control of her destiny. However a major issue now Hagar faces is the issue of survival. She has run off into the wilderness as a lone woman without family support and protection. Moreover, she is without the support and physical sustenance a pregnant woman needs. Hagar does not cry out to any God, nevertheless, she encounters God. The text says that the angel of the Yahweh found her by a spring in the desert, on the road to Shur (Genesis 16: 7). Most biblical scholarship agrees that in patriarchal narration there is no distinction between the angel of the Yahweh and Yahweh himself.11 The most common, almost automatic, interpretation of religious professionals of this passage is that God is with Hagar in the midst of her personal suffering and destitution. However, it would be too early to conclude that way. While Hagar was filling her water skin from a spring she heard the voice, Hagar servant of Sarah where have you come from and where are you going (Genesis 16:8)? Interestingly, God still identifies Hagar as Sarahs property, but seek from Hagars her own words about her past ands her sense of destitution. If God knows very well where she is coming from, what is the purpose of his first question? As far as Hagar is concerned, the first question was easy enough to answer. She was coming from a house of bondage, where she had been passed back and forth between Abrahams bed and Sarahs kitchen. Where she had suffered abuse at the hands of her mistress while an indifferent Abraham had turned his head, despite the fact she was carrying his child.12

It was the second question that plagued her. She did not know where she was going. Hagars identity is so shaped by her servitude that she cannot conceive of a different future. As she left Abrahams house she thought she would go back to Egypt. But, now yet another question has popped up in her mind, how she is going to survive? She is a woman, alone and no way to take care of herself. What about the child she is carrying inside her. Her slavery had begun from Egypt and hence to return to Egypt means running back to slavery again. She doesnt want to see her child be born into slavery again.13 To Gods answer Hagar speaks about neither her past nor her future. She tells only her present: I am running away from my mistress Sarah (Genesis 16:8b). Hagar response here suggests that Hagar still sees herself as a property of Sarah. But the more disturbing observation is about God. He orders her to return and submit to Sarahs enmity and mistreatment. Does God who is supposed to be a liberator sanctions slavery when he says go back to you mistress and submit to her (Genesis 16:9)? Is he a God of wealthy? Or probably what God wants is that she and the child should be saved. The only way he could accomplish his plan is by returning Hagar to the house of Abraham.14 In fact, that is the only explanation we can give for a God who apparently is not concerned about the liberation of the exploited. The intervention of God has put Hagar in a dilemma. If she obeys Gods words, she can be sure that her autonomy will be severely restricted, but to go forward means to risk the childs and her own life in the desert. God further said to Hagar, I shall make your descendents too numerous to be counted (Genesis 16: 10). This means that Hagar a foreign female slave whose life ordinarily does not advance more than slavery is given hope and promise not only for the survival of her generation but also for the possibility of future freedom for her seed.15 The birth announcement in Genesis 16: 11-12 and the promise are connected. The promise assures survival and the birth announcement forecasts the strategy that will be necessary for the survival.16 1.4 Hagar the Privileged One The last few verses in Genesis 16 remind us of various roles Hagar assumes in the narrative and there by claims an important place in the whole of the biblical narrative. . To begin with she is forced to substitute for Sarah in the reproduction of a male heir for

Abraham. She is first person in the Bible to be visited by an angel (Genesis 16:7), as well as the first to receive an annunciation (Genesis 16:11-12). While, Sarah is spoken to by God in rebuke (Genesis 18:15) Hagar also steps into the role usually reserved for males, such as, receiving promise of innumerable descendents (Genesis 16:10), naming of well (Genesis 16: 14). In fact, she is the only woman in all of the scripture ever to receive a promise of numerous posterity. The most striking of all is the depiction of Hagar as boldly bestowing a name on God a power attributed to no one else in the Bible (Genesis 16: 13).17 The text claims that Hagar gave a name to Yahweh who had spoken to her: you are El-roi, for she said, Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him? Therefore the well was called Bee-lahai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered (Genesis 13-14). The commentators have given variety of interpretation to this passage. The one which I correctly understood and less enigmatic is of Reis: Hagar is astonished by the long sightedness of the being who appears to her. She gives an expression to her astonishment saying he is indeed a God of seeing for he perceives her circumstances, and she experienced his providence. And the well is named the Well of Living-Seeing In fact, the text does not actually identify Hagar as the person who named the well. It only suggests that Hagars experience with God at the well was so significant that the well, thereafter, bore a name issuing from Hagars experience of naming.18 Therefore, Hagar is responsible for the name and is in that sense its author. While, in the case of naming God, as Phyllis Trible observes, the expression (Genesis 16:13a) is very significant because it connotes naming rather than invocation. In other words, Hagar does not call upon the name of the deity; instead she calls the name El-roi, a power attributed to no one else in the Bible.19 Hagar returned to the household of Abraham and Sarah knowing that she would pay dearly for her attempt to escape. The final two verses in this chapter, vv.15-16, narrate the result of Hagars return to the household of the salve owners Sarah and Abraham. It says that Hagar bore Abraham a son and Abraham gave his son borne by Hagar the name of Ishmael, which means God hears, as though the boy was Gods response to his own petition for a son. We are never told how Abraham comes to name the boy Ishmael. Does Hagar tell him of her encounter at the well? Does God make a separate revelation to

Abraham? Does Abraham simply understand the boy to be the answer to his own petition and thus name him accordingly?20 Hagar kept her secret, pondering it in her heart, wondering from time to time whether God had really heard her anguish or whether she was just a pawn in the story of somebody more important. ___________________ 1. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, trans. John H.Merks (Philadelphia: Westminister Press,1956), 23. 2. Elza Tamez, The Woman Who Complicated Salvation History, in John S Pobee and Barbel von Wartenberg Potter (eds.), New Eyes for Reading: Biblical and Theological Reflections by Women from the Third World (Geneva: Meyerstone Books, 1986), 5-17. 3. Delores S. Williams, Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk ( Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993),15. In the Genesis 16 account the name of the slave owners are Sarai and Abram. But in Genesis17 God changes the names of Sarai and Abram to Sarah and Abraham. However to avoid the complication, I prefer to use Sarah and Abraham throughout the paper. 4. Phyllis Trible, 10. 5. Gerhard von Rad, 186. 6 Delores S. Williams, 16. 7. Gerhard von Rad, 186. 8. Pamela Tamarkin Reis, Hagar Requited, Journal of Old Testament, Vol. 87 (March 2000),79. 9. Delores S. Williams, 17. 10. Phyllis Trible, 13. 11. Gerhard von Rad, 188. 12. Danna Nolan Fewell, Changing the Subject: Retelling the Story of Hagar the Egyptian, in Athalya Brenner (ed.), Genesis: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 182-83. 13. Ibid. 14. Delores S.Williams, 21. 15. Ibid, 22. 16. Ibid, 21. 8

17. Phyllis Trible, 14-18. 18. Pamela Tamarkin Reis, 92. 19. Phyllis Trible, 18. 20. Danna Nolan Fewell, 183.

CHAPTER II LIVING ON THE EDGE 1. Introduction Genesis 21 begins with motif in human sexuality, birth and tells of the fulfillment of the promise of a child to Abraham and Sarah. In the previous three chapters, that is, Genesis 17- 20, we see a string of stories being narrated that bridge the gap between the first episode of Hagars story and the second episode which appears in Genesis 21:9-21. Most of the stories contain some motif in human sexuality which is essential for understanding either the relation and concern of God to Abrahams history (Genesis 17, 18) or Gods response to sexual abuse (Genesis 19) or the origin of certain tribes kin to the patriarch (Genesis 19) or Abrahams attempt to offer his wifes body to ensure his own safety (Genesis 20: 11-12).1 The text does not say anything about the living condition of Hagar immediately after the birth of Ishmael. Hence we will have to assume what might have been her condition in Abrahams household. Sarah did not mind being on the margin as long as she could see her son in the center. She did not mind the fact that Abraham completely ignored her in favor of her son. She did not even mind that in Sarahs eyes she could do nothing right. She was watching her son growing up free, the first born of a wealthy man who had been promised land and progeny by the very God who had seen her by the very spring of water. She spend her days working hard for the old couple , taking care of Ishmael and making sure that she did nothing to give Abraham and Sarah cause to sell her to someone else . Hagar did not trust Abraham. He was a man of convenience. How can one trust a man who offers his own wife as a sister to mate with a king .(Genesis 20:11-12) 2 2. Tension mounting in the Family Things took a new turn when Isaac was born. Once the child is weaned, Hagar and Ishmael come back into the genesis narrative in 21:9-21. Obviously the relations between Sarah and Hagar and her son, Ishmael have not improved. This is very evident from the

10

text: now Sarah watched the son that Hagar, the Egyptian had borne to Abraham playing with her son, Isaac. Drive away that slave girl and her son, she said to Abraham, this slave girls son is not to share the inheritance with my son, Isaac (Genesis21: 9-10). Abraham and Sarah never refer to Hagar by name. Her name is used only by God and the narrator.3 In chapters 16 and 17 of Genesis we see the emphasis on Hagars ethnicity and lowly status. Both the women are identified as mothers. But we do not know whether Sarah actually took Ishmael as her son. The reference to this slave girls son leads us to conclude that Sarah did not consider Ishmael as her son.4 However, there is certain ambiguity with regard to the son-ship of Ishmael and his inheritance right. Sarahs concern about Ishmaels inheritance suggests that Ishmael is not a slave. Because among the early Hebrews, the slave sons of the masters concubines could not inherit, unless their father had given them equal rights with the sons of the freeborn wives by legal adoption.5 Economic realities specified by inheritance are the central issues here. Hagar is poor and apparently Sarah does not want Hagars status to be elevated. This is possible only if she can prevent Ishmael receiving the inheritance from his father which every first born son is supposed to receive. Beneath the economic realities and inheritance there is an underplaying of power relations that could seriously affect the life of Hagar and Sarah in the future. According to the ancient Hebrew Law wives could not inherit their husbands wealth. Therefore, neither Sarah nor Hagar would inherit anything from Abraham. Naturally the responsibility for Sarahs sustenance and care would fall upon the first born son, who is the chief inheritor of fathers wealth. But if this chief inheritor is going to be Ishmael, Sarah may have considerably less power and status. So, if Hagar is allowed to remain in the household, it would always result in disadvantage of Sarah.6 Sarahs demand for the expulsion of mother and child displeased Abraham. This greatly distressed Abraham, because the slave girls child too was his son, but God said to him, do not distress yourself on account of the boy and your slave girl. Do whatever Sarah says, for Isaac is the one through whom your name will be carried on. But the slave-girls son I shall also make into a great nation, for he too is your child (Genesis 21: 11-13). The text on account of his son implies that Abraham was displeased with his disgruntled decision to send away not because he cared much for Hagar, but because he

11

would have to part with his son, form the surrogate womb of the Hagar. She was nothing more than a slave to him. It was God who includes a reference to Hagar, but does so in words that perpetuates Abrahams and Sarahs perspective: do not be distressed over the boy or your slave woman God does not say your son but the boy ,and not your wife but your slave woman (Genesis 21: 12). There by minimizes Abrahams relationship to Ishmael and Sarah. If Abraham neglected Hagar, God belittles her. 7 It seems that the character of God is fully implicated in the sanctification of exploitation. In Genesis 16, Gods voice entered in conversation with Hagar and not her oppressors, while in this episode (Genesis 21), God first communicates with Hagars oppressor, Abraham. In both episodes God is seen siding with Sarah. Here God reaffirms the covenant made with Abraham and qualifies the promise made to Hagar. In Genesis 16, God does not tell Hagar that the promise made to her is in anyway connected with Abraham. Rather, God has heard her cries of distress (Genesis 16: 11). Therefore, the gift of numerous progeny will be given to her. Now in Genesis 21, God authenticates the promise to Hagar on the basis of her connection with Abraham. It is God who sanctions the plan to send Hagar and Ishmael in to the wilderness.8 The hostility of God towards an innocent slave is an embarrassment and a disturbing factor. Can we say it is God who ultimately destroys Ishmaels right to claim primogeniture and receive the appropriate inheritance and Abraham only just heeded to Gods voice? The talk between God and Abraham in the middle of the night would give Hagar a hope that Abraham would insist for the right thing. After all, Abraham had put up a brave defense for Sodom and Gomorrah insisting God that he should be just even while punishing someone. Neither God nor Abraham insists on the right thing for Hagar and Ishmael. The rightness and justice became a matter of convenience here. 3. The Casting off of Hagar The next day morning, with a cowardly indifference, Abraham took some bread and a skin of water and giving them to Hagar, put the child on her shoulder and sent her away (Genesis 21:14). Abraham has given Hagar and his son no economic resources to sustain them in their life away from his family. Bread and a skin of water would not sustain them on their journey which apparently had no destination. The text claims, She wandered off into the desert of Beersheba. When the skin of water was finished she abandoned the

12

child under a bush. Then she went and sat down at a distance, about a bow shot away, thinking, I cannot bear to see the child die. Sitting at a distance, she began to sob (Genesis 21:15-16). To recognize Hagars and Ishmaels frightening and insecure predicament at this point, we must understand something about the composition and function of the family among these ancient people. According to de Vaux, the family consists of those who are united by common blood and common dwelling place the family also included the servants who live under the protection of the head of the family. Even for the slave, to be without family is to be without protection.9 So Hagar and Ishmael expelled from the family of Abraham, and Sarah, were not only without economic resources, they were without protection in a nomadic culture where men ruled the families, tribes and clans. Though this desert and wilderness is the site of many important events in the Hebrew and ancient Israelite history, it is hardly a place where a lone woman and child ought to be wandering without sustenance, shelter or protection. In Hagars case there might have been a problem since she was an expelled slave and a woman. That is her inferior status as ex-slave was compounded by her sex. But if Ishmael was free because of adoption by his father, Abraham, their chances of joining another tribe could have been better. Whether Hagars slave status would change in new family and tribal connection is not known. Probably much would depend upon Ishmaels age at the time of expulsion.10 Information in the biblical texts, however, suggests that Hagar and Ishmael might not have become attached to another family or tribe. One is led to believe that with the aid of God, Ishmael and Hagar maintained an autonomous existence.11 In Genesis 21:17-19, we see God calling down to Hagar from heaven. He bid her to pick the boy up and hold him safe, and assured her that contrary to childs near death appearance he will make him into a great nation. Then God opened Hagars eyes and she saw a well, so she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink Thus God renews the promise made to Hagar in Genesis16 and Genesis 21: 13. Ishmael survived; he grew up and made his home in the desert. The ending of the story is double edged. On the one hand, we are told of Gods presence with and protection of Ishmael and, by extension, his mother. On the other hand, the very notice of divine

13

presence and protection permits the reader to give no more thought to their welfare. The import of such a clever- full ending of the story will be better understood if we can read how this story might have functioned during the terms of Ezra and Nehemiah when Judean men were told to send away their foreign wives and mixed children.12 The obvious question arises for both ancient Judeans and readers of every age: where will these women and children go? How will they live? This story gives an opiate answer: do not worry. God will take care of them. You do not even have to provide for them. After all, Abraham did not provide anything for his foreign wife and mixed child and God sanctioned his lack of generosity. Leave it to God. The Hagars and Ishmaels of this world will be alright. Do not be distressed (Genesis 21:12) __________________________ 1. Delores S.Williams, 26-27. 2. Danna Nolan Fewell, 187. 3. Ibid., 188. 4. Ronald de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its life and Institutions (London: Darton, Longmann and Todd, 1961), 45 cited in Delores S. William, 27. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid., 28. 7. Phyllis Trible, 21-22. 8. Delores S. Williams, 29. 9. Ronald de Vax, 85 cited in Delores S.Williams, 30. 10. Delores S. Williams, 31. 11. Ibid. 12. Danna Nolan Fewell, 194.

14

CONCLUSION 1. Old Oppression New Threat Hagars story is an embarrassment in many ways and hence, it challenges and shapes our faith and our perspectives of the world. Reading Hagar in the light of contemporary issues it points to womens predicament of poverty, sexual and economic exploitation, surrogacy, domestic violence, homelessness, rape, motherhood, single parenting, and ethnicity. Phyllis Trible observes that as a symbol of the oppressed, Hagar becomes many things to many people. She is the faithful domestic maid exploited by the society ladies; she is the poor woman used by the male and abused by the female of the ruling class; the surrogate mother ; the runaway youth; the pregnant woman alone; the expelled wife; the divorced mother with child; the homeless woman.1 In this chapter, my attempt is to show certain conspicuous parallels between Hagars (coerced) surrogate motherhood and surrogate mothers of our days. Since, Hagar was a slave she had no control over her body or her labor. Her body, like her labor could be exploited in any way her owners desired. Her reproductive capacities belonged to the slave owners, Abraham and Sarah. She was used and abused by her owners. God, the guarantor of justice trapped her in an unequal bargain. She had to suffer for conceiving a child and at the end the mother and the child were thrown out. She was a hapless victim of the Laws of a patriarchal society. In our contemporary social world and in the privatized world of family too, we find the continuation of this oppressive slavery camouflaged in very decent forms of surrogacy. 2. Wombs for Hire With the development of biotechnology an issue that attracted the recent attention and is surrounded by controversy is surrogate motherhood. Some groups condemn it and seek to have it banned, while, supporters of surrogate motherhood acknowledge the need for legislated guidelines and regulations. An important thing we need to ask is: what prompts women to act as surrogate by offering their wombs for bearing children? Poverty seems to be a crucial factor for many

15

surrogates.2 Poor women in Africa, Asia and South America are paid a pittance for the use of their wombs by the richer class, specially the Westerners who do not consider asking other western woman to do the same. Third World countries become bases for manufacturing embryos.3 Critics call it a trade that involves exploitation. All the same statistics shows surrogacy has been on the increase everywhere, especially in India. Non Residential Indians (NRIs) are flocking to India to hire a womb. It is not that surrogacy is uncommon abroad, but what is attractive about India is the price tag. The maximum a surrogacy would cost in India is Rs. 5 lakhs, including hospital and pregnancy care expenses. While, the same process would cost almost ten times more abroad. 4 The Sociologists say that if the practice of surrogacy is allowed to be commercialized, we may see in the future the emergence of a new class of breeder woman who rent their wombs to wealthy people. In the commercial market of surrogacy, womans womb is treated as a commodity to house the fetus which can be rented for a few months with a stipulated amount of money. Surrogacy services are advertised, surrogates are recruited from the third world and operating agencies make large profits. The commercialization of surrogacy raises fears of black market and baby selling, breeding baby farms, turning impoverished women into baby producers and the possibility of selective breeding at a price.5 Surrogacy degrades a pregnancy to a commodity service and a baby to product. There are number of wealthy women, who do not want to disrupt their careers for child bearing. They are ambitious and give priority to their professional careers rather than their families. There are some who are worried about ruining their body shape by pregnancy changes. Surrogacy serves as an ideal solution to their problem. They get a ready made child without undergoing the pains of bearing one even though they have no infertility problems. Is it ethically justifiable for a surrogate mother to be used for satisfying the desires of such woman? When a couple enters into a contract with a surrogate the contracting couple wants complete control over the type of woman who is to bear their child. The surrogacy contracts are always biased in favor of the financially secure contracting couple. Experience shows that like any other commercial dealing the customer lays down his/her conditions before purchasing the goods. The supposed benefits of surrogacy are created by

16

a capitalist patriarchal society.6 It is assumed that there is an equal exchange money paid for the service rendered. In reality the woman must give more than her egg in order to gestate a child. What surrogates sell is not only their labor but their body itself and every act that surrogate performs may be under the scrutiny of the contracting couple. In the process of surrogacy a woman is being depersonalized; she becomes an object to be manipulated, merely a womb for breeding babies. All these lead to the complete degradation and devaluation of the personhood of the surrogate mother and reinforce the age old notion that a womans purpose is just to bear babies and could be cast off once the purpose is achieved. If women are now expected to function merely as reproductive vehicles, birth mothers with no identity apart from being a suitcase to carry the child, how far can they be pushed into invisibility? How far can we ignore their moral status? Any failure to consider the ethical implications of surrogate motherhood is to show a lack of concern for women. ____________________________ 1. Phyllis Trible, 28. 2. Trevor Allis, The Moral Implications of Motherhood by Hire, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 1. 3. Malini Karkal, Surrogacy from a Feminist Perspective, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Oct. 1997),3. 4. Nandini Oza, To Let : Wombs, The Week, ( July 9, 2006), 21. 5. Malini Karkal, 2. 6. Ibid., 3.

17

BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Fontaine, Carole and Brenner, Athalya (eds.), A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Shapes (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Gruber, Mayer, Genesis 21:12: A New Reading of the Ambiguous Text in Brenner, Athalya (ed.), Genesis: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 174- 179. Fewell, D.N., Changing the Subject: Retelling the Story of Hagar the Egyptian in Brenner, Athalya (ed.), Genesis: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 182-194. Kramer, P.S., The Dismissal of Hagar in Five Art Works of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries in Brenner, Athalya (ed.), Genesis: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 195 217. Williams, Delores, Sisters in the Wilderness ( NY: Orbis Books, 1993). Nowell, Irene, Women in the Old Testament (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1997), pp. 13- 20. 5.2 ARTICLES Dozeman, Thomas, The Wilderness and Salvation Story in Hagars Story, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 117, No. 1, 1998, pp. 23-43. Thompson, L.J, Hagar, Victim or Villain ? 13th Century Views, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 59, No.2, 1997, pp. 213- 233. Hagar Requisted, Journal of Study of Old Testament, Vol. 87- 89, March, 2000, pp. 75-109.

18