The Bible account in Second Samuel chapter six tells of the return of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem and how overjoyed David became on its arrival; so overjoyed that he was leaping and dancing in the streets. At seeing this we are told that Michal 'began to despise him in her heart' (v16). Later on she spoke to the king telling him how ridiculous and undignified his behaviour seemed. The chapter concludes with the observation that 'she came to have no child down to the day of her death' (v23). But who was Michal and what events lead up to this sad episode and did the punishment fit the crime?
The inspiration for this piece came from my good friend Jules. (Jules has a brain the size of a planet. It necessarily has a vastly condensed form, fitting as it does into a fairly standard sized cranium, such that it generates a gravity field of its own. Biblical knowledge is sucked in from sources far and wide, yet unlike black holes, it radiates treasures and gems with enthusiasm and joy). Anyway, this Jules says that Michal is the only woman in the entire Bible to be recorded as being in love with a man. I have little doubt that Jules is correct. This makes Michal unique and therefore worthy of further research.
The account of David and Goliath is well-known. The prize held out to the vanquisher of this said giant was to be a marriage union into the royal family. The king was Saul of Israel and the daughter intended was his oldest one, Merab. However, it was reported to the king that a younger daughter loved David. That Michal did love David is recorded twice in the eighteenth chapter of First Samuel. This fitted Saul's plan nicely. He had no intention of having David as his son-in-law. The deal would be that David would purchase Michal with one hundred Philistine foreskins. He would be killed in collecting them and that would be that. But David, being David, doubled the price in delivering two hundred foreskins and, to Saul's dismay, did not die in the process. Why two hundred? We don't know but it seems a little antagonistic on David's part. His fans were already out on the streets chanting 'who are you?' in Saul's direction. Was he rubbing salt into a festering wound? 'I'm twice as good as you!'. He then proceeded to take Michal as a wife although there is no record of her love ever being requited.
In the nineteenth chapter of First Samuel Michal is seen risking her life to protect her husband from the murderous intentions of her father, the king. She helped David escape through a window of the house and then made up his bed with a statue and a net of goat hair and concocted a story about him being sick. By the time Saul's servants uncovered the statue and the truth, David had got away and was with Samuel at Ramah. Her courage quite possibly saved the life of the anointed of Jehovah. Michal is next mentioned in chapter twenty five as a postscript to the account of Nabal and Abigail. Abigail was discreet and 'beautiful in form'. By contrast her husband was harsh and senseless. In the course of events, Nabal died leaving behind this youngish, attractive and wealthy widow. David, in a unparalleled act of romanticism, sent along his blokes and they said to Abigail 'Oi you, David says you gotta come and be 'is missus'. A rough translation! The chapter concludes with the casual observation that David had already married Ahinoam from Jezreel and that Saul had given Michal to another man as a wife, one Paltiel from Gallim.
The war between the house of David and the house of Saul proved to be a drawn out affair but with the former gradually getting the upper hand. Nevertheless this did not interrupt David's womanising. Whilst in Hebron he gained a further four wives (Maacah, Haggith, Abital and Eglah) and fathered six sons. The laws of probability suggest that he also fathered a similar number of daughters, although these are rarely recorded in Bible genealogies. This war wasn't going well for Saul and eventually one of his main men, Abner, defected to David. The condition of acceptance was that Abner would bring to David 'my wife, Michal, whom I engaged to myself for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines'. He could have stated that they were in love and that he yearned to be reunited with his first love. He didn't. It seems that he viewed this engagement as a commercial transaction and that Michal was little more than property, counted amongst his goods and chattels. Michal was therefore taken from her 'husband' Paltiel and brought to David, but on the journey Paltiel kept walking with her, weeping as he followed her, until Abner abruptly sent him home. Had Michal fallen in love with her new husband? The account does not provide such details. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paltiel had formed a strong emotional attachment to his wife and was unwilling to surrender her to a man who, although having a prior claim, now had six additional wives. The illustration of the rich man taking the one and only lamb of the poor man comes to mind; an illustration that would, at a future time, hit David like the proverbial ton of bricks.
The final chronological mention of Michal is in chapter twenty one but this seems to be in error. It refers to her five sons but, as we have learned, she died childless. Possible explanations are that the author, or subsequent copyists, have mistakenly written 'Michal' whilst intending 'Merab' or that Michal was caring for Merab's children for some unspecified reason. So, to summarise thus far, Michal was sold to the man she loved by her father, the king, who then decided that her new husband must be murdered. So he, not unreasonably, ran away, with the assistance of his newly-wed wife. It seems that some years passed and so the king gave his daughter to a different man. This man fell in love with her but then found that she was being forcibly removed to be handed back to her first husband who, by this time, had collected at least half a dozen extra wives plus concubines. From a purely human perspective, you have to feel sorry for the girl. She was nothing more than a pawn in a game of power and politics; there to be used and abused as necessary. She was probably completely cheesed-off with the lot of them and if the worst she could do was tell her husband that he was acting in a puerile manner, then is that not understandable – and forgiveable?
There is a problem, however. This is in the content and wording of verse 16. NWT says that 'she began to despise him in her heart'. Most translations simply say that 'she despised him' or that 'she was disgusted'. Strong's says that the verb is a conjunctive waw in the consecutive imperfect tense. (I did try delving into the Hebrew construct of something called the waw-consecutive but I got completely confused; '...is formed by waw pointed with patach and followed by dagesh forte... since [blah] will not allow dagesh forte, the patach is lengthened and there can't be any intervening word or particle between a waw-consecutive and its verb... This sounds more like the rules of engagement for a game of Mornington Crescent!) The imperfect tense indicates a past event that continued for some time. It seems correct for NWT to use the word 'began', suggesting that this was not a one-off feeling, a sentiment that quickly passed, but something more chronic. Also, it was in her heart. How would the authors, Gad and Nathan, have known this since humans are unable to read hearts? Could David have known? Equally unlikely. Jehovah must have had good reason to reveal her heart condition. Nevertheless, the punishment meted out was that David denied the marital due thereby ensuring that she died childless. In a normal, monogamous relationship, this would have affected both parties similarly. David had an abundance of women and children. What did he care? But did the punishment fit the crime? We cannot say. You see, Jehovah can read hearts. The author(s) could have known her attitude only by divine revelation. David, impossibly talented and deeply flawed, was the anointed of Jehovah. Maybe the despising of David was more a despising of Jehovah's arrangement. Who else do we think of when we consider those who despised sacred things? Who else showed contempt for Jehovah? Well, David himself when he committed adultery with Bathsheba and subsequently murdered her innocent husband Uriah (2 Sam 12:10). Esau despised his birthright (Gen 25:34). Worthless fellows despised Saul's election (1 Sam 10:27). Goliath despised David's youth (1 Sam 17:42). Michal despised David's religious enthusiasm.
David received extraordinary forgiveness from Jehovah, yet was not shielded from the consequences of his actions. Esau was a generally bad man who lived purely for the present. Instant gratification, a disregard for the future and for those around him characterised his personality. Worthless men are as described. Goliath was wanting to slaughter the Israelites and so, as an enemy of Jehovah, he had to be dealt with. But Michal? Nothing negative is recorded about her prior to this incident. She loved her man, protected him, was abandoned by him in various ways, and was forced to live out her days in a loveless relationship, whilst possibly caring for her nephews and nieces. And then the five nephews were handed over to the Gibeonites by David and slaughtered in atonement for the actions of her father Saul, along with two of her brothers. Yes, she was wrong to despise the anointed of Jehovah, but the circumstances were most extenuating. Should not some of the forgiveness lavished upon David should come her way? A curious tale. No doubt there was far more involved than what is briefly revealed in the Bible account – on both sides of the argument.
Back