Tag: Michal

David and Michal, Uzzah and the Ark (2 Sam 6; Pentecost 8B)

For the passage from Hebrew Scripture this coming Sunday, the lectionary offers us selected verses from 2 Sam 6:1–19. Last week, we heard the brief account of how David, the king of Judah, took the city of Jerusalem from its inhabitants, the Jebusites, and was anointed as king of “all Israel” (5:1–10). Next week, we will hear of the promise that God makes to David, that “I will make for you a great name … your throne shall be established forever” (7:1–14).

In between these two pivotal events, establishing beyond doubt that David was both the conqueror supreme of the earlier inhabitants and the progenitor of a dynasty—“the house of David”—that would hold power for centuries to come, we have a curious, yet significant, account relating to The Ark of the Covenant (6:1–19). See

King David and the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6; Pentecost 8B)

David uses the Ark to reinforce and undergird his authority; his intention in bringing into the city, Jerusalem, was to confirm absolutely that he was God’s anointed, in Jerusalem, ruling over all Israel.

However, the lectionary (as it is wont to do) omits some verses from the middle of this narrative (6:6–11), as well as the closing section of the chapter (6:20–26). The middle section (6:6–11) reports the death of Uzzah, one of the sons of Abinadab, because he touched the holy ark with his hand. Before this omitted account is the report of David, with “all the house of Israel”, vigorously dancing “with all their might” as he led the Ark into the city (6:1–5), “with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals” (6:5b). After the omitted verses we find David, continuing to dance “with all his might”, offering sacrifices to the Lord God and distributing food to the people in celebration (6:12–19).

Michael Brown, writing in With Love to the World, continues his reflections on this story: “The celebrations ended abruptly. This story of Uzzah’s death by touching the ark—with the best of intentions to steady it as the oxen stumbled—may be strange to us. Yet it is told as a reminder that it is not within anyone’s power to control, guide or steady the divinity to whom the sacred symbols point. Rather, it is we who are guided, steadied or even shaken by the sacred. David, shaken to the core, angry and afraid, stopped the procession in its tracks and left the ark at a nearby house for three months. An awe-filled experience of the sacred may be a chance to pause and recalibrate.”

Uzzah touches the Ark directly

The death of Uzzah occurs because of the holiness of the ark, as the dwelling place of God. Touching it directly—breaching the boundary between the holy and the everyday—would be enough to incur death. “God struck him there because he reached out his hand to the ark”, the text advises (2 Sam 6:7); this contravenes the earlier instruction of the Lord to Moses, “you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, by which to carry the ark; the poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it” (Exod 25:14–15).

The holiness of the Ark is evident in the set of directions regarding the Tabernacle (from Exod 25 onwards), when Moses had been instructed, “you shall put the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant in the most holy place” (Exod 26:34). Likewise, decades after David, as Solomon dedicates the Temple, “the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord to its place, in the inner sanctuary of the house, in the most holy place, underneath the wings of the cherubim” (1 Ki 8:6; also 2 Chron 5:5–7; and see Heb 9:1–5).

The way that David welcomed the ark into the city underlines the reverence and awe that was due towards God. A wonderful festival is held. From that time onwards, the ark remains in Zion, where the Temple is the focus of piety. Another transition has taken place, from a holy artefact that was mobile, to a fixed, permanent house for God. Now “the most holy place” of the mobile Tabernacle (Exod 26:33–34; 1 Chron 6:49) would be come “the most holy place” of the temple (1 Ki 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; 2 Chron 3:8–10), or “the Holy of Holies” (as it is labelled in Heb 9:3).

Holiness was certainly central to the religious and social life of ancient Israel. Those who ministered to God within the Temple, as priests, were to be especially concerned about holiness in their daily life and their regular activities in the Temple (Exod 28—29; Lev 8–9). The priests oversaw the implementation of the Holiness Code, a large section of Leviticus (chapters 17—26), which explained the various applications of the word to Israel, that “you shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2; also 20:7,26).

As well as overseeing the various offerings and sacrifices that were to be brought to the Temple, the priests provided guidance and interpretation in many matters of daily life, including sexual relationships and bodily illnesses, as well as the annual festivals and other ritual practices.

In the towns and villages of Israel, by contrast, the scribes and Pharisees provided guidance in the interpretation of Torah and in the application of Torah to ensure that holiness was observed in daily living. They undertook the highly significant task of showing how the Torah was relevant to the daily life of Jewish people. It was possible, they argued, to live as God’s holy people at every point of one’s life, quite apart from any pilgrimages made to the Temple in Jerusalem.

Flowing on into the time of Jesus, we see that the followers of Jesus are instructed to consider themselves as God’s holy people (1 Cor 3:17; 6:19; Eph 5:25–27; Col 1:22; 3:12; Heb 3:1; 1 Pet 1:13–16; 2:5, 9) and to live accordingly. Holiness continues to be central in the Jesus movement—albeit, in the manner in which it has been redefined by Jesus (Mark 7:18–23; Matt 15:17–20).


James J. Tissot, David Dances before the Ark (1896–1902),
gouache on board, The Jewish Museum, New York

The lectionary also omits the report of what Michal, the wife of David, said and did as she witnessed this spectacle (6:20–23). It includes the observation that, as Michal look at what David was doing, “she despised him in her heart” (6:16). This is a striking contrast to the earlier affirmation that “Michal loved David” (1 Sam 18:20, 28) and to the care that Michal took to save David from her father, Saul (1 Sam 19:8–17).

Michal is clearly offended that David was “uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ maids, as any vulgar fellow might shamelessly uncover himself” (2 Sam 6:20), even though the earlier report had simply noted that “David was girded with a linen ephod” (6:14). We also don’t read the sad note that concludes this chapter, that “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23). The alienation between the two seems complete; we hear nothing more of Michal in the later chapters of 2 Samuel, nor in the book of Chronicles.

Writing in the Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, Dr. Tamar Kadari notes that later Rabbis proposed that “she had no children until her dying day, but on her dying day she bore a son. The midrash speaks of three women who had difficult deliveries and died in childbirth: Rachel, the wife of Phinehas, and Michal daughter of Saul. Michal bleated like a sheep when giving birth and died, and therefore she was called “Eglah” (Gen. Rabbah 82:7).” (The Hebrew word eglah means “heifer”.) This midrash links Michal with “the wife of David” mentioned at 2 Sam 3:5 and 1 Chron 3:3, who was the mother of Ithraem.

Kadari also notes that Rabbis in a later time—when the Talmud was finalised in the fifth or sixth century CE—elevated Michal in status, noting that they comment that “this righteous woman that Michal would put on tefillinn every day, and the sages of the time did not protest, even though there is no halakhah requirement for a woman to do so (JT Eruvin 10:1, 26a).”

Michal

In an article in the online Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture (vol.51 no.1, 2021), David. J. Zucker explores “Four Women in Samuel Confront Power”. He alert us to the stories of four occasions in the books of 1–2 Samuel when “women put their lives at risk as they dare to confront power … Abigail of Maon to rebellious David; the Medium of Endor to King Saul; the Wise Woman of Tekoa to King David; and the Wise Woman of Abel to Joab, King David’s general.”

Sadly, none of the stories relating to these women are included in the passages suggested by the Revised Common Lectionary. As is often the case, the focus is on the men in the narratives proposed.

Zucker notes that “The details surrounding their specific situations differ considerably from case to case. Likewise, from what little the Bible tells about their backgrounds, it is likely that they all came from different social classes. Nonetheless, each example fits within a broad definition of speaking truth to power.”

See https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146107920980931?

The four women dealt with by Zucker are Abigail of Maon, the wife of Nabal (1 Samuel 25); the Medium of Endor (1 Samuel 28); the Wise Woman of Tekoa (2 Samuel 14); and the Wise Woman of Abel (2 Samuel 20). None of these chapters are included in the sequence of lectionary offerings. Zucker explains how these women speak truth to power.

“Abigail of Maon interacts with pre-monarchic David, then a rebel on the run since he is distanced from King Saul. The Medium of Endor is visited by King Saul, who is seeking Divine counsel via the recently deceased prophet Samuel. The Tekoite has come to King David ostensibly to seek resolution to her family’s blood vengeance problem. The Abelite representing her community which is threatened with immediate destruction is in dialogue with Joab, King David’s foremost general.”

He notes that “these stories vividly capture some of the very different ways in which women in the [Hebrew Bible] are resisting the violence of war that has the potential to utterly destroy their families and the communities in which they live.” What a pity we are not offered the opportunity to consider them in what we read in public worship.

*****

With Love to the World is a daily Bible reading resource, written and produced within the Uniting Church in Australia, following the Revised Common Lectionary. It offers Sunday worshippers the opportunity to prepare for hearing passages of scripture in the week leading to that day of worship. It seeks to foster “an informed faith” amongst the people of God.

You can subscribe on your phone or iPad via an App, for a subscription of $28 per year. Search for With Love to the World on the App Store, or UCA—With Love to the World on Google Play. For the hard copy resource, for just $28 for a year’s subscription, email Trevor at wlwuca@bigpond.com or phone +61 (2) 9747-1369.

David, Jonathan, and Michal (1 Sam 18–20; 2 Sam 1; Pentecost 6B)

In the days leading up to this Sunday, we are thinking of the lament which opens the book we know as 2 Samuel, where David sings of his love for both King Saul and his son Jonathan (2 Sam 1:1, 17–27). As the lectionary has jumped from the rollicking yarn of how David killed Goliath (1 Sam 17), to this sorrowful lament that David sings (2 Sam 1), it has leapt over some important stories.

Jonathan as depicted by photographer James C. Lewis

We have had little opportunity to consider Jonathan, who had been in an intense and intimate relationship with David; he features in the battles of 1 Sam 13—14, but the lectionary has omitted all of these scenes. Nor have we had opportunity to consider Michal, the sister of Jonathan, who was married to David as his first wife—of eight: for after her came Ahinoam the Yizre’elite; Abigail, the widow of Nabal the Carmelite; Maacah, the daughter of Talmay, king of Geshur; Haggith; Abigail; and Eglah.

A list in 1 Chron 3:1–8 identifies eighteen of David’s sons, before concluding “these were David’s sons, besides the sons of the concubines”, and then adding the tag- line, “and Tamar was their sister” (1 Chron 3:9).

David’s relationship with Jonathan was, as we have seen, intense and intimate: “the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.” (1 Sam 18:1–3).

The verb used here is אָהַב (ahab), the same used throughout the ancestral narratives for the love of a man for a woman (Gen 24:67; 25:28; 29:18, 20, 30, 32; 34:3; Judg 16:4; 1 Sam 1:5; 2 Sam 13:1, 4, 15; 1 Ki 11:1; 2 Chron 11:21). It is also used for God’s love for Israel (Deut 7:8; 1 Ki 10,9; 2 Chron 2:11; 9:8)—and, of course, God is understood as the husband (masculine) of Israel (feminine) (Hos 2:16; Isa 54:5–7; Jer 31:32; Ezek 16:8–14; and see Eph 5:31–32; Rev 21:2).

David’s relationship with Michal comes after her father, Saul, had offered David his daughter Merab as his wife—an offer which David politely declined (1 Sam 18:17–19). The first we know of Michal is the stark comment, “Saul’s daughter Michal loved David” (18:20, repeated at v.28). The verb used is אָהַב (ahab), the same used of David’s love for Jonathan (1 Sam 20:17; 2 Sam 1:16). Michal’s love for David had the same quality, the same character, as Jonathan’s love for David, and David’s love for Jonathan.

Perhaps we might reflect more on what David says when he compares Jonathan’s love for him with the love of women for him (2 Sam 1:26). Remember, he had no less than eight wives, who bore him at least nineteen children! So David knew a lot, we might assume about “the love of women”.

In his lament, David remembers that Jonathan’s love for him was “wonderful” (2 Sam 1:27). This is one possible translation of the word used here, פָלָא (pala), which has the sense of something extraordinary, something surpassing normal phenomena. It is used on occasion to refer to the miraculous “signs” that God performed in redeeming Israel from slavery in Egypt (Exod 3:20; Judg 6:13; 1 Chron 16:9–12; Neh 9:17) and that are promised to Israel in future years (Exod 34:10; Josh 3:5). David’s praise for Jonathan’s love is high indeed!

It is worth pondering these two forms of love that revolve around David in the early stages of his kingship. My wife, Elizabeth Raine, has undertaken a careful analysis of how these two relationships are described, and has noted a striking set of comparisons that are drawn between the way that David experienced his living relationship with Jonathan, and his relationship with his first wife, Michal.

David had married Michal (1 Sam 18:20–27) soon after he had entered into the covenant with Jonathan (1 Sam 18:3–5). Michal and Jonathan are both children of Saul, but they show more loyalty to Saul’s competitor (David) than to Saul. Their stories are told side-by-side side in 1 Samuel 18—20. What follows is Elizabeth’s analysis.

When we make careful comparisons, the results are surprising: traditional Hebrew male traits are attached to Michal, the female; whilst traditional Hebrew feminine traits are linked with Jonathan, the male. David relates to Michal as a man relates to a man, whilst David relates to Jonathan as a man relates to a woman.

David and Michal

We are told that Michal loved David and made it known (1 Sam 18:20, 18:28). This is the only time in 1—2 Samuel when a woman chooses her husband; usually the man chooses his wife. We note that it is never said that David married Michal for love, unlike the feelings that he appears to have had for Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24; so also at the end of his life, in 1 Ki 1–2). Rather, David marries Michal for political reasons; he wants to be the son-in-law of King Saul.

Michal’s masculinity is contrasted with effeminate nature of her husband, Paltiel, who runs along crying when David forcibly reclaims Michal (2 Sam 3:16). Michal’s masculine traits are on show when she takes assertive physical action, unlike the typical Hebrew female (with just a few exceptions, like Jael and Deborah). First, Michal saves David by physically lowering him out a window (1 Sam 19:12). Then, she arranges her bed to make it appear that David is there (1 Sam 19:13), she lies to messengers, and then she lies to Saul (1 Sam 19:14–15).

Finally, Michal never bore a child to David; she does not fulfil the primary female role for women. And Michal is never described as beautiful, as other biblical women are: Abigail (1 Sam 25:3), Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2), Tamar (2 Sam 13:1; 14:27), the queen of Ophir (Ps 45:11), and Esther (Esther 2:7)—and, over and over, the woman, “black and beautiful”, of the Song of Solomon.

Thus, Michal is cast in a most unfeminine role.

David and Jonathan

By contrast, David’s love and tenderness are reserved for Jonathan (2 Sam 1:26). On a number of occasions, as we have noted, Jonathan makes known his warm feelings for David (1 Sam 18:1; 19:1; 20:17). When Jonathan declares his feelings for David, David meets him and reciprocates with extravagant actions: “he prostrated himself with his face to the ground, bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more” (1 Sam 20:41).

David and Jonathan kissed and wept with intensity until David ends their encounter with words pregnant with meaning: “the Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever” (1 Sam 20:42). These words evoke the covenantal commitment made by Jacob with Laban at Galeed—the Mizpah blessing, “the Lord watch between you and me, when we are absent one from the other” (Gen 31:49). The intensity of David’s covenantal promise is unparalleled elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

The narrative is clear that Jonathan assumes a role exactly like David’s women. Saul condemns Jonathan for choosing “the son of Jesse”—he won’t even name him (1 Sam 20:30–31)—and says it “to your own shame and the shame of your mother’s nakedness”, a polite way of referring to her genitalia (1 Sam 20:30). Saul is angered at his public shaming by Jonathan’s choice, and he wants to put David to death (1 Sam 20:31). When the tables turn later, David refuses to kill Saul (1 Sam 24:8–15), turning around Saul’s view of him (1 Sam 24:17–21).

David and Jonathan contract a covenant which is analogous to a marriage agreement (1 Sam 18:3) and the text, as we have seen, stresses a number of times that Jonathon had love for David. Jonathan, in turn, is prepared to give up his kingdom for David (1 Sam 18:3). Then, in David’s lament after he learns of Jonathan’s death, he declares that his love for Jonathan was greater than his love for any woman (2 Sam 1:26).

Although Jonathan saves the life of David, he never uses physical means; it is not by action, but by talk, that he does this—exhibiting much more of the characteristic feminine traits in this regard (1 Sam 20:26—29). When David concocts a lie for Jonathan to tell the messengers, Jonathan remains passive (1 Sam 20:4—11); in this, Jonathan acts in the way that Abigail later does (1 Sam 25). Then, David later adopts Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan (2 Sam 4:4; 9:6–13).

Finally, we might well deduce that, as David presumably had sexual relations with each of his wives, resulting in children from most of them, we can reasonably assume that the love which “passes the love of women” that David expresses for Jonathon (2 Sam 1:26) may well have included sexual relations.

Thus, Jonathan is cast in a most unmasculine role.

When we look at the whole story that is told in this section of 1–2 Samuel, it is very important that we note Jonathan was part of God’s divine plan. His love for David is never condemned by God or by others in the narrative, with the exception of his father, Saul, who had been cursed by God. The love that David had for Jonathan, and that Jonathan reciprocated, was expressed in a fully-formed, deep, mature relationship, about which the text gives many affirming indications.

For earlier posts on the David—Jonathan—Saul relationships, see

Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! part 1 (1 Sam 18–20; 2 Sam 1; Pentecost 6B)

and

Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! part 2 (1 Sam 18–20; 2 Sam 1; Pentecost 6B)