Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Love and Marriage, part 2

As mentioned in the previous entry, there were multiple instances where the Biblical narrative explicitly states a man loves his wife/woman. However, that same emotion, action, state of being is not explicitly stated on behalf of the women in the narrative. The first instance (correct me if I'm wrong) of "love" being expressed by a woman for a man is the story of Michal's love for a young David (1 Samuel 18-19).

Michal is a younger daughter of Saul "who was in love with David", and thus her father Saul tried to use her love to his advantage against David. Saul demanded that David bring back the foreskins of 100 Philistines, thinking that David would be killed during such a battle. However, David agrees to the bride price to marry Michal, fulfills the price, and Michal becomes David's first wife.

Now the text does not say how or what David felt for Michal, but he was willing to meet the bride price to have her. He could have ignored it like he did when Saul offered Michal's older sister Merab to David to marry. Thus, David must have had some reason for accepting and risking his life to meet the price, and I do not think it was because he was wanting to become Saul's son-in-law. However, neither am I willing to say that David did it because he returned the feelings and actions of Michal.

In fact, this marriage is one sided in the effort and feelings expressed. Michal loves David, risk's her life to help him get away from a murderous Saul, and defends David to Saul. Her payment for her effort, she is given to another man as a wife. What does David do for Michal? Leaves her behind to face her father alone, marries multiple women while away, does not seek her out when she was going to be given to another man, and then demands her back when he comes into power. Never does David do anything for the benefit of Michal. Even bringing her back should be seen as a good thing for her, but is it really? Paltiel, her "husband", "went with her, weeping behind her all the way...". Paltiel is willing to express more emotion and desire than David ever did.

Her story has a very depressing ending. David, in his celebration to "God", dances naked in the street in front of everyone. Michal, I can imagine, was jealous, embarrassed, frustrated, upset, disappointed, etc with David's actions and rebuked him for it. David's response was to rebuke Michal that his dance was for "God" (alright, so maybe I'm highly cynical about David doing it purely for the benefit of God), and if other women saw him, then so be it! The passage ends with the line that Michal was then childless until the day of her death.

Michal's story of love and commitment to David seems like it should be the plot of a Shakespearean tragedy. Young woman loves young man, young lovers are separated, and when they are reconciled, they are different individuals and they aren't able to come back together. It's unfortunate that the first instance of a woman stating her love for a man in the Bible ends in tragedy for her.

Love and Marriage, part 1


The lyrics from Frank Sinatra's song, "love and marriage/go together like a horse and carriage/this, I tell you brother/you can't have one without the other" are what most 21st young adults in the United States view as an essential pairing for a good marriage to occur. Within my cohort of females, we tend to view practices such as arranged marriages as barbaric practices that we as "enlightened" females would never deign to participate in. We, as 21st females, get to choose, and the concept of "love" for marriage implies that two individuals are both choosing to join together as one entity. If we can't marry for love, why get married at all...

However, what we tend to forget is that not all women are afforded the same set of circumstances that allow for "freedom" to chose to marry for love. Throughout the world, and within the confines of the Biblical narrative, women marry because of political alliances, exchange of power dynamics, necessary for child bearing, escape from impoverished circumstance, or for money in her family coffers. A woman may have the choice in all these situations, but those choices may be between a rock and a hard place, not exactly the most desirable of options! 

An interesting thought though, women in the Old Testament may or may not have "loved" their husband, but there is plenty of examples of their husbands "loving" them. Issac loved Rebekah (Gen 24:67), Jacob loved Rachel (Gen 29:18), Jacob even "loved" Leah (Gen 29:30), Samson loved Delilah (Judges 16: 4), and Elkanah loved Hannah (1 Samuel 1:5). Why would the authors of scripture specifically mention the feelings of some men towards their wives or "women"? Did this signify a stronger feeling than what Abraham might have felt for Sarah or what David felt for his wives? 
Just some humor to end this blog on!

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Samson and Joseph

While reading the story of Samson, I was struck by how many similarities could be found between the story of Samson and Joseph. 

Before their birth, both of their mothers prayed long and hard to have a child. Neither Samson nor Joseph had many siblings by their biological mothers, and thus they may have had the lonely only, privileged, get whatever they want upbringing. Although Joseph did have many half brothers, I can't say that he was particularly close to any of them.

When they were slightly older, they both told riddles that they only knew the answers to. Joseph told riddles about one day ruling over his family, and Samson’s riddles were about honey from the carcass of a lion. In both instances, the riddles got them into trouble and resulted in some terrible consequences for those involved. 

Both at some point were defeated by the actions of a woman. Joseph was thrown in jail for the accusations of Potiphar's wife, and Samson was defeated and captured because of the actions of Delilah. 

At this point their stories begin to diverge and go different directions. However, while not explicitly stated in the stories, one final similarity may occur between the two stories. During their times in captivity, both characters seem to go through a time of personal growth and maturity. Joseph comes across as less cocky and more forgiving, while Samson ends his life by using his superhuman strength for the betterment of others rather than just himself. 

Neither Samson nor Joseph led perfect or blameless lives. They were cocky, arrogant, and prideful individuals whose actions sometimes had negative consequences. However, both of the two men did govern the lives of many individuals. Joseph was in charge of the grain in Egypt and his brothers did eventually bow down to him. Samson was a too smart for his own good, and he did reign/judged over Israel for 20 years. His strength was through the will and power of God, and when Samson was faithful, God  was faithful. Both men faced both good and bad times, and their actions have made it into the history books. They must have done something rather significant. 

Death at the Hands of a Woman

Death at the hands of anyone or anything is very much a final state of being here on Earth. At least in terms of temporal things, once a life has ended, that is is it. However, apparently how you die can have lasting consequences. One such method of death that can have lasting consequences is death at the hands of woman. For a man to be killed by a woman is worse than for him to die in battle, because of an accident, the actions of another man, or death by almost any other means. To die at the hands of a woman is considered to a dishonorable manner for a man to go. It calls into question his ability to defend himself and his character as a man. This trend can be seen throughout history and multiple cultures. The Biblical narrative does not escape this manner of thinking and includes several stories about how women delivering delivering the final blow as a tool to bring dishonor on a man. 

One story is the story of Deborah and Jael in the book of Judges. Deborah received a message to go into battle with King Sisera, and summoned Barak to lead the Israelite army into battle. For an unknown reason, Barak is hesitant to act on Deborah's command without her support and presence going into battle. As a result, Deborah states that Barak will not receive the glory for the victory that Israel will experience, but rather the victory will be found in the hands of a woman. This is not only a slam on Barak's leadership, that he is not worthy enough to have the glory for the victory of the battle, but it will also shame the power of King Sisera to be defeated at the hands of a woman. Jael will ultimately win all the glory for the defeat of the King Sisera when she killed him in her family's tent, and she and Deborah will be the stars of their story. Barak only receives a mention as the commander of the military, but he is not credited with winning the battle. 

Another story is story in the book of Judges is that of Abimelech when he tried to capture the city of Thebez. As he was attacking a tower within the city of Thebez that contained both women and men, a woman dropped a stone on his head. His skull was cracked, and the reader must assume that death was imminent for him but not right way. Ambimelech quickly called to his armor-bearer and told him to kill him "so that they cannot say 'A woman killed me'". His servant did as he was commanded, and technically Ambimelech was merely wounded by a woman but killed by a man. In Ambimelech's mind, this somehow saved him from something, or it just merely saved his honor. 

In my mind, whatever the cause, death is death. However, I can understand that the stigma of death, while it may not affect the individual who died, can and does affect the family and friends left behind. If the view of eternal life for a man was that he lived on through the life of his children, then how he died would taint how his life would continue after death. The stigma associated with death because of a woman would not only taint the memory of the dead man, but also the family line after him. This could have had tremendous consequences for the family line, and a man would take steps to prevent that from happening. 

While the stigma of being killed by a woman is not as prevalent as it once was, other stigmas do exist in modern times. Death through a drug overdose or suicide can carry strong, negative stigmas that individuals left behind have to live with. Sometimes the genetics of the successive family members can be called into question or quality of life for the family greatly diminishes. 

Women on the Losing Side

No one wants to be on the losing side, especially during the days of the Biblical narrative. To be the losing side meant that your entire nation/city/group/family/ or kingdom would be destroyed and . The battles between the Canaanite clans were brutal and a fight to the death of the losing side, or at least death to all the MEN on the losing side. If you possessed a "Y" chromosome, chances were the winning side was not going to allow you to continue to live so that you could one day fight them again. Not necessarily ethnic cleansing, but insurance for squelching future battles that could arise from the male survivors.

The women of the losing side, however, often did not face the same fate as their men. Commentaries discuss that during the days of the Biblical narrative, child bearing age women were in short supply due to the physically and potentially deadly act of child birth. A community or group could only grow as strong as their women were able to have more children to support the community. If there was a shortage of women, then there would be a shortage of children, which would mean a shortage of workers and future leaders of the group. Therefore, if there was a shortage of women within the group, the men would have to go outside the group to find potential wives and concubines.

A manner to "get" more women into the tribe would be to collect the "booty" or women from the losing side of the battle. Although different accounts in the narrative stipulate what women were allowable into the community (some accounts no women were allowed and other accounts all women were allowed), if the importance of getting more women in to the community to provide more more children, then it make sense that the winners would want to ensure that the children were products of THEIR community and not the losing community.

I can understand the benefits behind bringing more women into the group in order for more children to be born. However, I do think such a plan could have backfired on the Israelites. Just because an individual is a woman, does not necessarily entail that she will not seek revenge on the individuals who killed her people and captured her. A mother can be a powerful influence on the development of her children, and if she is not able to accomplish revenge, she will get her children to do it. I can imagine a bitter and revenge filled woman passing on such thoughts and ideas to her children, and thus her male children could now become an equal threat as the adult males whom initially lost the battle.

While I'm not trying to read story lines into the Bible, it seems like by bringing any individuals from the losing side into the winning side could have had disastrous consequences. Even Moses rebelled against the household that had raised him, and I wonder how much of his up bringing did he use against the house of Pharaoh when he was arguing with Pharaoh. This practice seems to be ripe for an epic Greek story.