 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Women's Rights by Signature Books; Salt Lake City
|
|||
|
Michal was the younger of two daughters of Saul, the first king of Israel (1 Sam. 14:49). Michal loved David, and Saul determined to use this to his advantage to encourage David to risk his life against the Philistines. Through agents Saul urged David to “be the king's son-in-law.” David demurred: “Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son-in-law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?” Saul responded to this polite protestation by sending word back through his servants: “The king desireth not any dowry {mohar or “bride-price”}, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies” (v. 25). Was this a bride-price? Fathers could demand whatever bride-price they felt was reasonable in a traditional marriage, but the surviving examples of contracted marriage are all fairly ordinary transactions involving property or the groom's adoption. Nor are there any examples of royal marriage contracts where the proposed spouse was not also royal or at least noble. Hence Saul's proposal stands without recorded precedent in the ancient world. The biblical record reports the offer without comment, so it is difficult to determine the sentiment of Saul's people at this unusual bride-price. Perhaps since Saul was Israel's first king, a certain amount of lattitude was expected. This arrangement seems familiar because many fairy tales and ancient myths use the similar structure of the quest, often with the goal of slaying a great enemy or bringing a desired good to the kingdom with the hand of the king's daughter being either a primary or secondary reward. David had already fulfilled such a quest in slaying Goliath. But Merab had been withheld from him and given to another man. Now Saul was requiring a second quest. David must have realized it would be fruitless to point out the unfairness of the bargain. In fact he appeared to be delighted with this offer: “It pleased David well to be the king's son-in-law: and the days were not expired” (1 Sam. 14:26). There was a time limit set on delivery of the foreskins, and so David sprang into action, organizing a band of men to help with the scrimmage (v. 27). He seems to have had little fear of death or little worry that he could not fulfill the requirement. In fact they brought in twice the required amount—two hundred foreskins. “And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife” (v. 27). Even if the foreskins represented a bride-price, there was no mention of a dowry which would have been unnecessary in a metronymic marriage.1 For a time David was reconciled with Saul. But after he led the Israelites to another resounding victory over the Philistines, Saul's jealousy was kindled and he sought to kill David (1 Sam. 19:8). Michal helped David escape Saul's assassins by delaying them until David had left through a window (vv. 12-14). She then defended herself to her father by saying that David had threatened to kill her if she did not help him (v. 17). It is possible that by the laws of metronymic marriage, she owed a higher duty to her father than to her husband. Further evidence that the marriage was metronymic is the mutual use of kinship terms. Several years later David found Saul sleeping in a cave near the Dead Sea and cut a section from Saul's clothing. He confronted Saul with the evidence from a distance: “Moreover my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it” (1 Sam. 24:11; italics added.) Saul called back: “Is this thy voice, my son David? . . . Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil” (vv. 16-17; italics added). During the several years of forced estrangement, Saul divorced Michal from David and married her to another man (1 Sam. 25:44). The basis for Saul's right to do this is not known. It could be that he defined David's flight as abandonment. According to Middle Assyrian Law, women abandoned for five years without support were free to remarry.2 Perhaps Saul simply asserted his authority as king. David did not accept the divorce, but he was powerless to prevent either it or Michal's remarriage. During the several years while he was a rebel warrior in Judah, he married two women, Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:42-43). As king of Judah he would add four more wives (2 Sam. 3:3-5). During negotiations with Ishbosheth, Saul's successor-son, David demanded that Michal be returned to him. Ishbosheth agreed and took her from her second husband Phalti or Phaltiel, who wept and pled fruitlessly for her return (v. 16). The account does not record Michal's feelings at this time, but as part of David's harem her status among the wives is uncertain. Even if her separation from David and her divorce occurred against her will, her second husband evidently loved her tenderly. At best she must have had mixed feelings about being reunited to David. Perhaps she returned to him unwillingly, or perhaps their marital relationship deteriorated over time because of the competition with David's plural wives. Her feelings are not recorded at this point, but later, on the day of David's greatest triumph when he united Israel and brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, Michal watched him celebrating and “despised him in her heart” (2 Sam. 6:16). When David returned to his house, Michal accused him of “shamelessly uncover[ing]” himself to dance in the streets (v. 20). He responded by banishing her from the marital chamber (vv. 22-23). Their first union, a metronymical marriage, was revoked by a despotic father/king. Their second union, a traditional marriage between a king and a daughter of a king, fared no better. Bathsheba Bathsheba could not resist the charms of her king and committed a capital crime by sleeping with him. It all began when David took a restless stroll on his rooftop one evening and happened to look down into his neighbor's courtyard where Bathsheba was bathing. She was “very beautiful to look upon” (2 Sam. 11:2), and the enchanted David inquired about her. She was the wife of Uriah, one of David's thirty military commanders, and the granddaughter of Ahithophel, privy counselor to David. David knew that Uriah was away at war, laying siege in his behalf to the town of Rabbah (Amman). Apparently he did not hesitate but promptly “sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her . . . and she returned unto her house” (2 Sam. 11:4). Ancient legal codes are uniform in their condemnation of adultery, which they define as consensual sexual relations with a married woman by a man other than her legal husband. A married man would not be guilty of adultery if his sexual partner were unmarried. This double standard was apparently based on a woman's childbearing role. According to this rationale, ensuring that a woman had sexual access only to her husband would guarantee that a man's heir was his biological child. Under the Code of Hammurabi, Middle Assyrian law, and Hittite law, the wronged husband was judge and executioner. Whatever punishment he determined for his wife was pronounced by the state upon her lover. If the husband killed his wife, her lover was also killed. If she was disfigured or publicly humiliated, so was he. If she was not punished, he was also set free.3 Under the laws of Israel, adultery was considered a moral crime against the community. Therefore the legal authorities, not the husband, adjudicated such cases (Deut. 22:24; Ezek. 16:40). The only prescribed penalty for adultery in Israel was death (Deut. 22:22). The Bible does not say whether the liaison between David and Bathsheba continued beyond this first encounter. But whether they had one or several encounters, Bathsheba became pregnant. This was a clear-cut case of adultery by both parties. It is not clear whether Bathsheba offered any resistance to David's proposal, but in any case under the terms of Deuteronomy 22:22, “they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman.” Bathsheba's story provides an example that those who have power over law refuse to be subject to it. David was the ultimate judge, the one who could condemn or reprieve from death. He brought her husband Uriah home and twice tried to send him home to have relations with Bathsheba to make him think the child was his. When these efforts failed David ordered his field commander Joab to put Uriah in the fiercest part of the battle and then to withdraw from him, leaving him to be killed. Thus Uriah, a military hero and Hittite convert to Israel, died.4 Some time later Nathan the prophet told David that he knew of a rich man who had great herds and flocks, while a neighbor had only one ewe lamb that he loved and had raised with his own children so that it “was unto him as a daughter.” One day a traveler visited the rich man, who took the poor man's lamb and served it to the traveler for supper (2 Sam. 12:1-4). David was livid and swore that “the man that hath done this thing shall surely die . . . because he had no pity” (2 Sam. 12:6-7). Then Nathan revealed to David, “Thou art the man,” and cursed him: “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun” (vv. 10-12). As predicted, David's old age would be blighted by murder, incest, insurrection, and scandal. His ten concubines would be sexually humbled in a public tent by his son Absalom (16:22). Bathsheba married David after her period of mourning had passed. Shortly thereafter she gave birth to their son (2 Sam. 11:27). The infant died soon thereafter in spite of a seven-day fast by David (12:14). Bathsheba bore David four additional sons, Solomon, Shimea, Shobab, and Nathan (1 Chr. 3:5). Solomon became the most successful king in the history of Israel. Bathsheba rose to the throne of queen-mother of Israel. Tamar: Daughter of David One of the first events recorded after Nathan's condemnation of David is the narrative of Tamar and her brothers, Amnon and Absalom. This is a story of incestuous rape leading to fratricide. Tamar was the daughter of David and his wife Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur in Syria. She and her full brother Absalom were renowned for their beauty. Amnon was the oldest son of David and Ahinoam and was thus a half-brother to Tamar. He was heir-apparent to the throne of Israel, but his lust for Tamar destroyed him. Amnon's passion for Tamar was so frenzied that he fell sick (2 Sam. 13:2). He consulted with his friend and cousin Jonadab, who schemed to trap Tamar in Amnon's bedroom. Taking advantage of Tamar's trusting nature, they asked her to come and nurse Amnon because he was sick. When she consented Amnon asked her to cook him some food. Once Amnon and Tamar were alone, he threw her on his bed. She begged him eloquently not to rape her, pleading with him instead to ask their father for permission to marry: “My brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee” (2 Sam. 13:12-13). But Amnon raped and brutalized her, and threw her into the street (2 Sam. 13:15). She immediately tore her clothes and put ashes of mourning on her head. Her brother Absalom instantly deduced what had happened, “Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee?” (2 Sam. 13:20). He counseled Tamar to say nothing, took her to his own house, and spent the next two years ignoring Amnon's existence while plotting his revenge, “for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister” (v. 22). Under law, Amnon should have offered to marry Tamar. While marriage among brothers and sisters, including half-brothers and sisters, was prohibited in the Mosaic code (Deut. 27:22; Lev. 18:11), it was a common practice among the pharaohs of Egypt and therefore not without precedent among royalty. Tamar felt that “this evil in sending me away is worse than the other” (2 Sam. 13:16). King David, probably because of the notoriety of his own sins, took no action in this tragic affair. Amnon was not required to marry Tamar nor to pay compensation to her. We hear no more of Tamar except the poignant pronouncement that she “remained desolate in her brother Absalom's house” (2 Sam. 13:20). Absalom took his revenge two years later. He invited Amnon to a sheep-shearing festival, and when Amnon was happily drunk, Absalom had him killed. Fearing for his life, Absalom then fled to Geshur and lived with his grandfather for three years. David ultimately forgave Absalom. Perhaps Tamar's standing in the family and her culture was also restored by Absalom's vengeance. David's Concubines While king, David was married to eight named wives and ten unnamed concubines. At the time of Absalom's rebellion, when David discovered that Absalom had substantial support (2 Sam. 15:13-14), he fled Jerusalem to avoid a massacre, leaving his ten unnamed concubines in charge of the palace. Absalom recruited Ahithophel, grandfather of Bathsheba and chief counselor to David. This counselor had an impressive reputation for wisdom, and upon consolidation of his power in Jerusalem Absalom asked Ahithophel what he should do next. His advice “was as if a man had inquired at the oracle of God” (16:23). He advised Absalom to have intercourse with his father's concubines. Politically his advice had a great deal of merit. As he explained to Absalom, “And all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong” (v. 21). Ahithophel was advising a step that would make reconciliation with David impossible. Also, when a king died and another was crowned in his place, the former king's wives became those of the new king, if for no other reason than to continue their accustomed support. Sexual relations were permitted, except with the new king's own mother. The widows could never marry anyone else once they had been married to the king.5 For this reason Adonijah, David's fourth son by Haggith, signed his death warrant when, after David's death, he sought to marry Abishag, David's last wife (1 Kings. 2:13-25). Absalom accepted Ahithophel's advice and publicly asserted his kingship: “So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel” (2 Sam. 16:23). David was ultimately victorious over Absalom, who was slain. When he returned to the palace, David placed the ten concubines in separate accommodations where they were housed, fed, and clothed. But never again was he intimate with them: “So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood” (2 Sam. 20:3). A married woman who consented to sexual relations was guilty of adultery, a capital offense. That they survived David's return to power would suggest that they were unwilling participants (Gen. 39:14). The Widow of Tekoah The widow of Tekoah may not have been a widow at all. In all likelihood she was an intelligent and delightful fraud. Certainly the story she told was legally sound and touched the heartstrings of her king. She appeared before King David three years after Absalom had fled into exile for arranging the murder of his half-brother Amnon (2 Sam. 13:29). Joab, David's commander-in-chief, knew David pined for his son but was reluctant to call him home. Therefore Joab arranged for a certain woman known to us as the “Widow of Tekoah” to tell David a story that paralleled his own—of one son who killed a brother yet was loved and needed by his parent. It is possible the widow's story was true. But I believe the story was Joab's creation, and he brought the woman from distant Tekoah (south of Bethlehem) to make her tale more difficult to verify. The woman reported that her two sons had quarreled in a field. One killed the other. The relatives demanded that the slayer, called the “heir” (2 Sam. 14:7), be killed under the law of blood revenge (Num. 35:15-28). The widow bewailed the fact that the family would destroy her husband's name from off the earth. David accepted her story and assured her that he would issue an order protecting the son (v. 8). The story was believable. The widow obtained her support through the inheritance that her sons had received from their father. Now one son was dead and the second was in jeopardy. The family insisted that the slayer be killed according to the law of blood revenge (Num. 35:15-28). But if the second son were killed, the name of her husband would be lost, the lineage terminated, and she would lose her position as mother or matriarch because would have no posterity. Also, she was not an heir of the estate.6 When the last son died, the property would go to the next heir or nearest kinsman—either a brother or nephew to her husband who was presumably among those clamoring for the death of her surviving son. Such an heir would have an obligation to support the widow, but this is a position far removed from that of matriarch with a surviving posterity. David's assurance that he would intervene to protect the son lay fully within his powers. Cities of refuge had been established to protect killers from the law of blood revenge who were guilty of less than first-degree murder—the equivalent of manslaughter or accidental death. If the story had been real, the widow's son would have been saved, her husband's name perpetuated, and her current standard of living secured. As it was David virtually summoned back to Jerusalem, under cloak of royal protection, the son who would eventually mount a rebellion against him and defile his concubines.
|
|
1. John Van Seters, “Jacob's Marriages,” Harvard Theological Review 62 (1969): 386. 2. Middle Assyrian Law A 36, in G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, eds., The Assyrian Laws (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1935), 403. 3. “If a man has taken a man with his wife (and) charge (and) proof have been brought against him, both of them shall surely be put to death; there is no liability therefor. If he has taken and brought (him) either before the king or before the judges (and) charge (and) proof have been brought against him, if the woman's husband puts his wife to death, then he shall put the man to death; (but) if he has cut off his wife's nose, he shall make the man a eunuch and the whole of his face shall be mutilated. Or, if he has allowed his wife to go free, the man shall be allowed to go free.” Middle Assyrian Law A 15, in Driver and Miles, The Assyrian Laws, 389; see also Code of Hammurabi 129, in G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, eds., The Babylonian Laws, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 2:51; Hittite Law 198, in E. Neufeld, The Hittite Laws (London: Luzac & Co. Ltd., 1951), 57. 4. William Smith, A Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), 722. 5. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 3:32. |
|Joseph Smith | Book of Mormon | Mormon Temples | Mormon Polygamy | contact us |
| Copyright © Signature Books, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this text or graphics may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from Signature Books, LLC |