When I was a little girl, I watched a family coming to see a girl for marriage. There were two sisters in that house. The older one had a squint in her eyes. The younger one did not. On the day the visiting family came to see the older sister for their son, the sisters’ own family hid the younger one away in another room. They were afraid that if the visitors learned there was another daughter in the house, without the squint, they might ask for her instead. The older sister’s eyes were treated as something she lacked, a fault that made her easy to reject, and so the whole household quietly organised itself around hiding the sister who did not share that fault, just so the older one might still be chosen.
I have never forgotten that incident, and I find I cannot read Genesis 29 now without thinking of it. This week’s lectionary reading includes Genesis 29:15-28, the story of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel. It tells the story of a deal. Laban offers Jacob wages. Jacob names his price, seven years of work for Rachel. Then Laban tricks Jacob and gives him Leah instead, hidden by darkness and a veil. Jacob has to work another seven years to also marry Rachel. Under this story about a deal is a story about two women’s bodies being compared and ranked. And there is silence around the woman whose body is seen as the lesser one. What happened in my village was, in its own quiet way, the same household calculation Laban makes, except that in Paddan Aram the hiding runs the other direction. Laban does not hide Leah to protect her chances. He hides the truth from Jacob so that Leah can be married off before anyone has the chance to prefer Rachel instead.
There is a reason to read this old story in this particular way, through the body, through what is compared, through who is silent. In biblical studies, scholars have shown for some time now that when the Bible pauses to describe a person’s body, that description is rarely neutral. It is doing moral work. It is telling the reader who matters, who is desired, and who is a problem to be managed. Once we notice that Leah’s eyes are described at all, and described in a way that is genuinely unclear in the Hebrew, we are given an opening to ask a harder question than what the words simply mean. We are given an opening to ask what the comparison itself is doing, and who it serves.
It is worth entering the text this way now, in July, because many communities around the world use this month to mark disability pride. The tradition began in Boston in 1990, in the same year the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law, and it has since grown into a wider observance kept by disabled communities, charities, and a good number of churches, who use the month to insist that disabled lives are not simply lives to be pitied or fixed, but lives worth honouring exactly as they are. Reading Leah’s story during this month is not an attempt to force a modern idea onto an ancient text. It is instead a chance to notice something the text itself has been doing all along, quietly ranking a woman’s worth by her body, and to ask whether the church has ever fully reckoned with that.
So rather than opening this reflection by mapping out its stages, I want to open it with a question, one that Leah’s own story never answers for us. Who decided that Leah’s eyes made her worth less than her sister, and on what grounds. Holding that question open, rather than rushing to settle it, is itself the way into this text that this reflection will try to keep.
The Text as Traffic: Genesis 29:15-28
This part of the story reads like a business deal before it reads like a love story. In verse 15, Laban asks Jacob what wages he wants. In verse 18, Jacob names his price, seven years of work for Rachel, because he loves her. Then Laban tricks him. In the evening, under a veil, he brings Leah to Jacob instead. Jacob does not find out until morning that the woman he married was not Rachel. The whole passage uses the language of work and payment, years counted, wages paid. The daughters are treated like property in a family business that only the father controls.
Neither Leah nor Rachel is asked what she wants. Neither of them says a single word during this whole deal. It is worth noticing how normal the story makes this silence feel. The text does not treat what Laban does as shocking. When Jacob complains in verse 25, he is complaining about a broken business deal between two men. He is not saying that a woman should have been asked for her consent. Laban’s answer, that in his country the younger daughter cannot marry before the older one, is treated as a good enough reason, and the story does not challenge it.
I have come to believe that much of Christian history carries this same pattern. It is a pattern where people belong to others through ownership, not through being truly seen and respected. In this pattern, land and bodies become things to be given away, not people or places with their own voice. Genesis 29 shows this pattern in a small way, inside one family, long before empires used the same pattern on a much bigger scale. What Laban does to his daughters in a tent, later powerful nations would do to whole peoples, always using the same words, contract, custom, and price, instead of the word consent.
Leah’s Eyes Were Rakkot: The Crux of Translation
The Hebrew word used for Leah’s eyes in verse 17 is rakkot. This word is genuinely unclear, and that unclear meaning has not been treated carefully enough. It has been translated as weak, tender, delicate, or dull. The verse contrasts Leah with Rachel, who is called graceful and beautiful. Many scholars have read rakkot as meaning Leah had some kind of visible eye problem, maybe poor eyesight, maybe a lasting eye condition, or maybe she simply lacked the brightness the story so freely gives to Rachel.
For me, what matters is not which translation is exactly correct, because even the original word may have been unclear on purpose or by accident. What matters is what is at stake in the choices translators have made over many centuries. I have noticed that translations often quietly soften or hide signs of a body being different or disabled in the text. This lets the story’s main point, that Rachel is more desirable, continue without anyone questioning whether beauty and worth were ever fair measurements to begin with. Turning rakkot into a soft compliment like lovely eyes lets readers skip past the harder truth, that the text may be describing a body that was seen as different, and therefore as less, from the very first time we meet her.
It is worth noticing that rakkot comes from a Hebrew root connected to softness or weakness, not strength. This word family is not always negative. A young animal can be described this way. New grass can be described this way. There is no shame in it there. It is only when the text directly compares Leah to Rachel’s beauty that this softness becomes a fault. If there really was some kind of impairment, it only becomes a problem the moment someone puts two people side by side. This is exactly how disability often works in real life too. It is not only about the body itself. It is about being compared to someone else and being found lacking by that comparison. A body that would seem completely ordinary on its own becomes a disadvantage the moment a sister, a rival, or some outside standard is placed next to it.
So whose eyes get called lovely, and whose eyes get called weak. This is not just a question about translation. It is the same question asked, in different ways, by every system that has ranked people’s worth by their ability to work, to have children, or to look a certain way, from ancient marriage customs to the quiet discrimination disabled people still face today in job interviews and in dating. In this reading, Leah’s body is treated as lesser not only because of a possible physical difference, but because the story itself looks at her through a judging eye, an eye the text never questions until much later, and in a completely different way.
Leah is not introduced alone. Genesis often stops its story just to describe women’s bodies at the exact moment they enter a marriage story, and it is worth noticing how unevenly this is done. Sarah’s beauty is mentioned right when it becomes useful for Abraham’s safety in a foreign land. Rebekah is described as very beautiful in the same verse that says she is available to marry Isaac. Rachel gets the fullest body description of any of the matriarchs, and right after it, in the very next sentence, comes Leah’s lesser description. This pattern suggests that women enter these stories mainly as bodies to be judged for their usefulness, and a body seen as less desirable becomes a problem in the story to be managed, rather than a full person to be understood.
I see this as proof of something bigger than just one family’s way of describing people. Across the Bible’s early stories, a woman’s worth is often decided using categories controlled entirely by men, her ability to have children, her beauty, her usefulness in the household. There is very little room left for a woman to describe her own body in her own words. Leah’s rakkot eyes fit this same pattern. She is not just a woman who happens to have one described feature. She is an example of how these old family stories consistently treat a woman’s own body and experience as less important than how useful she is to someone else’s plan, whether that is Laban’s business or Jacob’s personal preference.
The Woman Who Does Not Speak
Leah says nothing at all in verses 15 through 28. People talk about her, trade her, cover her with a veil, and hand her over, but the story never tells us what she herself felt about being switched with her sister inside her father’s household deal. This silence is not an accident. It comes from being both a woman and someone whose body has already been marked as less, whether through a real eye condition or simply through being not Rachel.
I keep coming back to a hard question. Whether someone who has been pushed to the margins can truly speak was never really about whether she is able to talk. It is about whether the world around her lets her words be heard as real words, rather than being ignored like background noise. Applied to Leah, the question becomes even sharper. Even if she had spoken up during the switch, inside a family system that had already valued her sister more highly than her, would her words have been taken seriously at all, or simply dismissed as the complaint of a lesser option.
I do not think we should see the strength of women living under this kind of control as something missing. Instead, it is something to be found again, often hidden exactly in the parts of the story that were never written down. Reading into the quiet gaps of this text, I find myself wondering what Leah herself might have known, felt, or wanted on the night of the switch. Was it fear. Was it grief. Was it something more complicated. The old, male-centred way of telling this story was never interested in preserving that part of her.
There is one more layer worth naming here. Leah’s body, like the bodies of many women from colonised nations who were described by outsiders claiming to understand them, is described completely through the eyes of the people with power over her, a father who trades her and a husband who does not want her. A woman with a marked body does not only lack a voice. She is actively unheard within a story built entirely around what the men around her want. It is worth noticing that Rachel, too, says nothing during this whole scene. This suggests that the household silences both daughters, just in different ways, one prized for her beauty but unable to have children, the other valued for her fertility but not for her beauty. Neither daughter is ever allowed to describe her own worth at the exact moment the story most needs to hear from her.
The Lord Saw That Leah Was Hated: A Counter Gaze
The turning point in the story comes right after this whole trade, in verse 31. The narrator tells us that the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, and so gave her children, while her sister could not have any. This seeing matters greatly. Laban saw a business opportunity. Jacob saw a switch he never chose. But now the narrator tells us that God sees Leah herself, sees how she has been pushed down, sees the whole system that measured her against her sister, and acts because of what he sees, rather than simply agreeing with the old judgement of her.
When Leah names her first son Reuben, she speaks about her own life in a spiritual way for the very first time in this story. She says, in one of the very few direct quotes the story gives her, that the Lord has seen her suffering. This is the moment her voice finally enters the story, not during the trade, where she had no voice at all, but through naming her children, where being a mother becomes the way she explains her own suffering to God and to herself. Each time she names another son, Simeon, Levi, Judah, she continues this pattern. She is reading her own life through faith, in real time, and claiming for herself the right to interpret her own story, a right the earlier part of the chapter never gave her.
It is a small change, but a real one. The God who sees here is not the God who ranks people by how beautiful their eyes are. This is the God who sees suffering where the family system only saw a lesser value. I find myself believing that God’s own way of being present in the world does not match what society calls a whole or perfect body, and because of this, God is able to see what ordinary human eyes usually miss. Leah naming her children is a small but real act of speaking for herself. It happens not despite her marked body, but through her choice to say that her own suffering matters to God.
This turning point should not be turned into a simple happy ending. Leah stays in the same household. She is still ranked against her sister. She is still competing for her husband’s love, as we see later when her younger sons are born during ongoing rivalry with Rachel, even involving their two servants, Zilpah and Bilhah. The story gives Leah a spiritual voice without giving her freedom from her situation. That, too, teaches us something. God seeing someone’s pain does not automatically destroy the system that caused that pain. It gives the suffering person words for her pain before it gives her full freedom from the system that hurt her. It is worth asking what this order, words before freedom, might mean for people today who are still waiting for the second half of that promise.
The same system that traded Leah’s body based on how beautiful she looked has not gone away. It has only grown bigger and spread further. Disabled women in many different cultures still carry a heavy combination of shame, about their family’s reputation, about money, about religious respect, and this shame still affects who is allowed to marry them, inside family systems built much like Leah’s, around someone else’s decision about their worth. Disabled people seeking asylum in Europe and North America still face government systems that judge bodies mainly by how much they can work, travel, or produce, which is the very same logic that once measured Leah against her sister’s greater appeal.
Iranian Christian women who arrive as refugees in new countries, often carrying the physical effects of prison or displacement on their bodies and their eyesight, often find churches that welcome their testimony of faith, but are slower to welcome their whole bodily presence into leadership roles. Deaf and blind Christians in many churches still say that leadership committees, without meaning to, ask the very same question that Laban’s household never even had to speak out loud, whether a marked body can truly represent the community at its centre, rather than staying at its edges.
In many churches more widely, disabled women are still quietly passed over for ordination, marriage, and leadership. They are seen as useful, but not desired, not central, not truly seen, until they insist on describing their own experience using their own faith and their own words. Racial Justice Sunday, and Disability Pride Month alongside it, rightly celebrate bodies that were once hidden because of shame. But Leah’s story reminds us that this celebration must also name the systems, family systems, church systems, national systems, that created that shame in the first place. Celebrating a disabled body without naming the system that first devalued it risks becoming just a change in language, without any real change in structure.
Leah’s naming of Reuben refuses that easy shortcut. She does not simply feel better about her eyes. She names God as the one who truly saw her suffering, inside a system that never bothered to ask her opinion at all. In doing this, she shows us a form of resistance that is still available to communities today who are working out how to be truly seen inside systems that would rather manage them quietly than truly listen to them.
Whose Eyes Are Legitimated?
Let me conclude this way, Leah’s story does not give us a miracle where her eyes are suddenly healed. There is no moment where the text finally calls her eyes beautiful too. Instead, it gives us something harder to sit with. It is a strong criticism of any family, and any system built the same way, that measures a woman’s worth by how she looks, trades her without asking her, and only afterward gives her the smallest amount of spiritual voice, through naming a child, so that she can describe her own suffering as something God has seen, rather than simply something her father decided the price of.
None of this should be read as saying healing does not matter. The Bible is full of stories where bodies are healed, and the hope of healing remains a real and precious part of Christian faith for many disabled people, including those who are still hoping and have not yet received healing. But what Leah’s story insists on is something that comes even before that hope. Before any question of healing, this text shows us a God who works through a body exactly as it already is, who trusts a woman, whose eyes her own family had already judged as not good enough, with covenant, with motherhood, and with the future of a whole people. The Lord does not wait for Leah to change into what Laban’s household would call normal or complete before bringing her into the very centre of the story. This is what Disability Pride Month asks the church to remember every July (and all the time), that God has never needed a person to first match someone else’s idea of a whole or perfect body before choosing to work through that person.
It is worth remembering where this story eventually leads. Out of all Leah’s sons, it is Judah, not one of Rachel’s more favoured children, through whom the Bible’s family line continues on to King David, and centuries later, all the way to Jesus himself. The very body that one household once ranked as the lesser choice becomes, as the story continues to unfold, the very body through which God’s promise keeps moving forward. Scripture does not need to erase Leah’s marked eyes in order to reach this outcome. It simply keeps working through her, generation after generation, all the way until her family line leads to the birth of Christ. Perhaps this is the clearest message disability pride can offer the church, not the promise that every body will one day be changed to fit what the world calls whole, but the deeper truth that God has never needed that change before choosing someone, blessing someone, and working through someone exactly as they are.
The Lord who saw Leah’s suffering still asks every family, every church, every nation, who among us have we failed to truly see. May we have the grace to look again, and this time, to see as the Lord sees.
Leave a Reply