The Covenant Of The Rainbow: The Ultimate Sign Of Hope
For many stories, the meaning changes drastically when read through different lenses. Looking at the context in which Thucydides writes might lead one to see it as a warning to the Athenians not to repeat the mistakes of the past, while looking at the text as a separate entity reveals a depressing commentary on the predictability of human nature. But the covenant of the rainbow in Genesis 9 seems less fickle in interpretation. On every level of analysis, from the word choice to speculations about the author’s motives, one can see the same underlying message. Perhaps it is because of the universal assurance this message provides. For the rainbow is the ultimate sign of hope in forgiveness, one that existed long before organized religion. The rainbow, and the covenant it represents, can give hope to many generations that God’s wrath will eventually subside, no matter how severe the crime.
When comparing translations of the Bible, there are remarkably few major variations in translation. Because of this, it is ironic that the biggest discrepancy comes from the most famous word in this passage: rainbow. While translations such as the New International Version and the New Living Translation use the word “rainbow”, the King James Bible, the American Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version all use the word “bow.” The word in Hebrew, qeše?, usually refers to a hunting bow. The word also shows up figuratively in several other places in the Bible. In books such as the Psalms, Hosea, and Jeremiah, it is used to represent “the judgment of God”. In the flood, God’s judgment had come down on the people in the form of rain (thence, the rainbow). But the bow is nothing to fear, since it is “now ‘put away,’ hung in place by the clouds, suggesting that the “battle,” the storm, is over.” God’s weapon is no longer pointed at humanity. Instead, it is facing away. While his wrath was severe, it is finished. Now is the time for mercy. At the simplest level, the words of Genesis 9 provide hope that God does relent from punishing his people. In the Bible, the story of the rainbow seems to be a simple etiological legend.
Genesis chapter 9 provides a very easy explanation for why rainbows exist. But the covenant it represents is much more meaningful when taken in context. The covenant in chapter 9 is the first one mentioned in the Bible. It seems odd then, that in the New Living Translation, God says that he is “confirming” his covenant with Noah (most other translations use the word establish).2 The Hebrew word, “kum,” can be translated either way. But how could God confirm something that did not exist yet? The answer lies in Genesis 1, with God’s initial command to Adam and Eve: “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth” (Gen 1:28).2 This command is then repeated in Genesis 9:1 to Noah and his sons. Despite the evil that had been committed before the flood, “The old Adamic Covenant would be established (heqîm) with Noah, and all that the Lord had entrusted to and required of Adam would devolve on Noah and his descendants.” This is the same God who had just destroyed almost all of creation! But now his anger seems to have dissipated. He lets humans start over again from before the fall, before the wickedness of humankind doomed it to almost complete destruction. God gave all of creation back to humanity. He recanted from his anger, and even “blessed” Noah and his sons.5 The hope provided here in not just hope for a partial absolution, but for complete pardon. This story not only establishes the rainbow, but also the idea of total forgiveness to start over, whatever the scale. It is the message of God’s mercy that would have been a powerful source of strength to the original Jews reading it.
This section of Genesis is often attributed to the P source, which is believed to have been written after the monarchy fell in 586 BCE. During this time, many ancient stories were written down or copied by former royal scribes in order to give hope to the Jews living in exile in Babylon11. This story probably resonated with its early Jewish readers because they felt that their exile was punishment for their sins. The prophet Jeremiah writes that they are conquered “because they have perpetrated outrage in Israel,” such as committing adultery and blasphemy (Jer 29:23 NRSV)5. Surely many must have wondered if God would ever restore the people of Israel. Since the royal scribes also transcribed down Genesis 1, they could use the same language to remind the people of the new beginning after the flood. Their desire to provide hope followed the story of the flood as it has spanned the ages, from when it was written, even to the present.
No matter what the problems facing a generation, everyone is always looking for a reason to hope for a better day. Perhaps that is why the message of forgiveness in Genesis 9 is so prevalent, no matter how one looks at it. From the smallest word choice to the entire context in which it was written, its purpose does not change or diminish. It remains the first promise, made to all of humanity, that God’s wrath is not eternal. It is a story not only for an ancient Jewish nation, but also the rest of humanity, both past and present. It is for this reason that it has endured the test of time and is still studied from so many different perspectives today.
American Standard Version. Bible Explorer. 4th Edition. Web. 6 October 2011 Brettler, Marc Z. Forward. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 4th edition. Ed. Michael D Coogan. Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Freedman, David Noel., Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck. “Bow and Arrow.” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. 195-96. Print. Geerhardus, Vos, Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. King James Bible. Ed John Bois, John Ward. Bible Explorer. 4th Edition. Web. 6 October 2011. Life Application Study Bible. Wheaten IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005. Print. New International Version. New Living Translation. Trans: Daniel I. Block, Allan Ross, Gordon Wenham. Bible Explorer. 4th Edition. Web. 6 October 2011. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 4th edition. Ed. Michael D Coogan. Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Young, Robert. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible: Based upon the King James Version. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1982. Print. Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 1:40. Young, Robert. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible: Based upon the King James Version. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1982. Print.
 Life Application Study Bible. Wheaten IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005. Print. New International Version. p 34.  New Living Translation. Trans: Daniel I. Block, Allan Ross, Gordon Wenham. Bible Explorer. 4th Edition. Web. 6 October 2011  King James Bible. Ed John Bois, John Ward. Bible Explorer. 4th Edition. Web. 6 October 2011  American Standard Version. Bible Explorer. 4th Edition. Web. 6 October 2011  The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 4th edition. Ed. Michael D Coogan. Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. p 22.  Young, Robert. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible: Based upon the King James Version. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1982. Print.  Freedman, David Noel., Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck. “Bow and Arrow.” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. 195-96. Print  Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 1:40  Young, Robert. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible: Based upon the King James Version. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1982. Print.  Geerhardus, Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 64.  Brettler, Marc Z. Forward. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 4th edition. Ed. Michael D Coogan. Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.
Mind Over Matter: A Close Reading of Character Contrasts in The Rainbow
Early in The Rainbow, D. H. Lawrence introduces the farm laborers and an intellectual vicar through the eyes of Mrs. Brangwen, describing the characters’ distinct lifestyles. Lawrence establishes a contrast between the two types of men to illuminate the significance of knowledge over physical ability. To construct this hierarchy of values and virtues, Lawrence pays special attention to imagery and word choice. He accomplishes much through powerful turns of diction, which place the two sets of men (those defined by brute strength, and those defined by knowledge) in direct yet intriguing opposition.
The motif of blood compares farming and battle, painting the laborers as warriors whose physical strength exceeds their mental capacity. The text states that “they know in their blood” about the land and nature (Lawrence 8-9). Through the connection of the land to blood, Lawrence expresses the Brangwen men’s familiarity with farming, and presents them as more physically than mentally oriented. Their innate connection to blood emphasizes the men’s association to battle, thus demonstrating their inclination to more tangible possessions, as they value body over mind. Lawrence also explains that the Brangwen men’s faces are always “turned to the…blood” (12). This statement depicts the men in constant admiration of the land, without consideration for expanding their knowledge. With the men looking to blood, Lawrence illustrates the men’s attraction to battle and their role as a warrior whose only value lies in physical exertion. Their position indicates a strong embracement of the rural farming lifestyle that neglects the importance of mental development, which characterizes them with purely physical ability. The men also possess “blood-intimacy” as a form of life, which implies that they have an intimate understanding of and relationship with blood, presenting them with a sense of aggression important in battle (16). Since farming and labor distinguishes the Brangwen men from the more knowledgeable men of the world beyond the farm, the battle that blood represents displays their appreciation of the strength that battle requires. Through the motif of blood, Lawrence examines the relation between farming and battle, casting the Brangwen men as warriors with the sole ability of physical strength, to communicate their disinterest in expanding their knowledge and thus the inferiority of physical prowess without intellect.
The diction describing the Brangwen men emphasizes the physical aspect of their characters to establish them as lesser beings. Lawrence describes the men with their “senses full fed” (11-12). The diction of “senses” identifies the men with their bodies’ physical responses to the environment, and the state of “fully fed” illustrates their satisfaction with mere physical sensations. The statement further demonstrates the men’s disinterest in mental fulfillment and pursuit of knowledge, thus placing the significance of the men at the hands of their physical, rather than mental, abilities. The men’s lack of knowledge reflects an incomplete fulfillment of the complex human experience, which develops them as simple beings. Through expressing the simplicity of physical ability, Lawrence lowers its significance in relation to intellect. The Brangwen men are also “lacking outwardness,” instead living “faced inwards” (47, 28). The diction of “in” signifies a limited mindset of the men who exist within fixed boundaries and choose to remain stationary. Lacking the quality of continual development and evolution that makes people distinctly human, the characters are monotonous and unexciting. This dullness suggests that the men do not completely embody all the qualities of full human beings, and thus they are inferior to those who possess intellect. The narrator also describes the men as “dull and local” (50). The diction of “dull” depicts the Brangwen men as uninteresting, while “local” similarly characterizes them as old and unappealing. The men’s lack of complexity and appeal devalues them as human beings, as the text portrays their characters with little substance, affirming their position as lower and inferior. Lawrence’s diction characterizes the Brangwen men, having physical strength yet limited mental abilities, as simple and lacking the totality of human qualities and thus as lesser human beings. Therefore, Lawrence elevates the importance of intellect over physical ability.
Lawrence’s repetition of certain words establishes the relationship between the Brangwen men and the vicar to display the superiority of intellect over physical prowess. Lawrence repeats the word “craved” to portray the woman’s desire to obtain the knowledge that the vicar possesses (56). The repetition conveys the woman’s persistence to know about the vicar and also illustrates the intrigue of the vicar that inspires this craving, which the Brangwen men lack. The woman’s need to know about the vicar and his knowledge asserts the vicar’s position above the simple men due to his mental superiority. Comparing the physicalities of the vicar and the husband, Lawrence repeats the words “strong” and “little and frail” (58, 59). These descriptions display the power relation between the vicar and the man, illustrating the vicar’s power over the man despite his weak build. This reveals the superiority of intellect over physical abilities, as the text establishes the vicar as a figure of great knowledge without superior physicality. The repetition of “master” as the vicar’s title further demonstrates the relationship in status between the men (64). “Master” suggests control and dominance, which affirms the vicar’s power over the Brangwen men, who are below the master in status. In repeating this, Lawrence magnifies the difference in superiority between the vicar and the man, and between intellect and physical abilities. Through the repetition of particular words, Lawrence demonstrates the power of the vicar’s desirable knowledge over the laborers’ mere physical strength. Without intellect, the Brangwen men remain cemented in their positions below the vicar, emphasizing the importance of mind over body.
The motif of knowledge conveys the power of intellect over physical ability, reflecting the hierarchy that Lawrence creates. Describing the vicar’s intellect, Lawrence states that the vicar “passed beyond her knowledge” (52). “Beyond” indicates an expansive, even endless, range of knowledge that surpasses both the limits of the Brangwen men’s knowledge and the woman’s understanding. Not specifying the extent of the vicar’s intellect, the woman’s inability to comprehend adds an element of fascination of the unknown to the vicar’s character. This contrasts with the Brangwen men’s simplicity and dullness in a way that places the vicar above the men, establishing the vicar’s higher status. Lawrence further displays the hierarchical structure when presenting the way the woman “craved to know” and “to achieve this higher being” (55, 56). The woman compares knowing to achieving a higher being, which highlights the power of knowledge to elevate one’s status in the hierarchy. “Higher” raises the vicar above the other men due to the superiority of knowledge over physical strength, as the text portrays knowledge as desirable. Because the vicar possesses substantially more knowledge than the Brangwen men, he is superior in nature. Through the close relation of knowledge to position in the hierarchy, Lawrence proves the significance of knowledge over physical prowess. The text presents the motif of knowledge a final time as the answer to the woman’s questions about the vicar with “a question of knowledge” (66). Despite declaring knowledge as the answer, the woman’s decision lacks specificity, suggesting that she still does not fully understand the concept of the vicar’s knowledge. Designating this statement as the conclusion of the passage and of the woman’s inquiry, Lawrence links the characters and positions of all the men to knowledge, proving that the hierarchy hinges on this factor. Through the motif of knowledge, Lawrence constructs a hierarchy according to mental capacity, placing intellect above strength.
Lawrence establishes intellect as superior to physical ability through the contrast he creates between the two types of men. The motif of blood portrays the Brangwen men as laborers with only physical strength. Diction describing the men further develops them as lesser human beings as he illustrates their boring, simple nature. In addition, the repetition of words regarding the husband’s and the vicar’s relationship assert the significance of intellect over physical prowess, while the motif of knowledge reiterates the hierarchy. Through the two distinct types of characters, Lawrence reveals the limiting nature of simply physical ability, and contrastingly, the freedom and dominance that mental ability provides. He proves the superiority of knowledge to physical prowess to express the restricted capacity that physical ability grants in living a fulfilled human experience, and the need for individuals to pursue development beyond the body in the endeavor for a more meaningful existence.
Gender in The Rainbow
The differences between men and women have been distinguished since the beginning of time. Though traditional gender roles by circumstance often portray the niche best exuded by a gender, it is undeniable that the emblematic characteristics accredited to a specific sex are often false. For example, the belief that men are the true movers-and-shakers of the world is misleading. Gender stereotypes are the most basic form of oppression, for they limit one’s right of choice. D.H. Lawrence’s The Rainbow characterizes it’s heroine as the master of her own fate by way of juxtaposing the men and the women of the farm, ultimately conveying the notion that women are the foundation of change. The combination of juxtaposing the men to the singular woman, as well as the contrast between the city and the country men, decidedly predicts the use of active voice to empower the protagonist of the piece.
The juxtaposition of the male and female roles of the farm is represented in the use of referring to each gender as “the men” and “the woman”. Not only is the significant approximate number of each sex stated in this terminology, but also their niche. While the protagonist’s husband “looked out to the back at sky and harvest and beast and land”, we as the reader can understand that the environment supporting the story in one that is in the favour of men, being the stronger of the sexes, to farm the land in which the novel is set. Thus, many men are needed, while in comparison, “the woman” signifies her stature and class in the society of the farm. Likely, this woman is the wife of the landlord of the farm, and perhaps these many men are hired hands. We can presume that her life is one that is kept indoors for her work; cleaning, caring, and cooking for the workers is not an unlikely duty for a woman of the time. It is this juxtaposition of roles and stature that is represented by the use of “the men” versus “the woman.”
Another juxtaposition established within The Rainbow is the identities of the different types of men that the protagonist sees. The woman envisions men in “the far off world of cities and governments” while in front of her she can only see that “it was enough for the men … that they lived full and surcharged.” The discrepancy of the men leads her to wonder what is the true difference between them, and eventually comes to the conclusion that “it was a question of knowledge.” Simply put, the men in far off cities knew better so they did better, while the men on the farm were content with their way of life and had a sense of pride about the work they did. This represents the kind of life that the protagonist envisions for herself; she desires knowledge and discovery and wants a man who wants the same things as her. As the wife of a farmer, her frame of knowledge is limited. Her yearning to seek a higher level of understanding, inspired by the contrasting of the men, is what drives the stream of consciousness of the piece.
The syntactical structure of the excerpt characterizes the woman through the use of active voice. Sentences such as “She knew her husband” example this by use of putting the noun before the verb, as is done often with the woman describing her life on the farm. Many of the sentences in the piece do begin with female pronouns, serving to represent the woman’s belief in herself and her understanding of what she desires most in life. From this simple structuring of putting the pronoun before the verb, the reader immediately identifies the woman as the focus of the story and recognizes the woman’s needs as importance. “Her house faced out from the farm-buildings and fields” is an easily identifiable sentence of power. The house is described as belonging to the woman, that which would be uncommon considering the time period. Active voice is the principle identification of the woman’s determination and character.
D.H. Lawrence’s use of juxtaposition and active voice in his novel The Rainbow clearly define the woman’s greatest wishes and characterizes her as a pillar of determination and a bringer of change. Such characterization begs the question that gender stereotypes are more often than not untrue, and that to see a person’s true character you must look past their gender. From this the reader can understand that the differences between men and women are not in their genetics and gender, but in their character.