Abstract
More than simple narrative embellishment, the descriptions of physical gestures or other body movements by characters in biblical stories are a rich source of cultural information. As is the case with live dialogue, various forms of nonverbal communication both accompany and enliven the scene in a written narrative. They convey emotion, dominance, and social status, and they help to illustrate a position or specific point being made by the dialogue partners. Therefore the use of kinesics and other methods of analyzing nonverbal communication become a valuable interpretative tool for biblical scholars. This study examines categories of nonverbal comunication and provides an annotated survey of their use in biblical narrative.
As a subset, nonverbal forms of communication such as body posture, facial expressions, and the waving of the arms during a dialogue may provide either intentional or non-intentional amplification of mood and meaning (Bull: 4–5). For instance, an audience member at a play can yawn, lean back, or nod his/her head and these body cues, which may not in fact represent boredom, can convey that impression. Intensification of response can be found in the offering and the subsequent refusal of a bribe. The attempted transaction can be made even more dramatic and conclusive either in a written narrative or in an actual social situation when it is accompanied by a socially recognizable gesture such as a hand waving away the offer (see Isa 33:15). As is the case with any form of communication, however, there is a degree of ambiguity inherent to the process that can allow for a variety of meanings and the possibility of misunderstanding.
Still, the rules of interpretation of body movements are somewhat different in a written narrative. The author makes the decision on what details to include in order to create particular meanings and to sharpen understanding. As a result it is unlikely that unintentional actions or unconscious gestures will appear in the story unless they add somewhat to the scene. When a gesture appears in the story telling, therefore, it serves the purpose of supplying “internal feedback” telling the audience or reader how to react to the scene or placing them into the scene by stirring the imagination (Lateiner: 6). Using biblical narrative as the basis for this study of nonverbal communication, the intention here is both to explore the variety of nonverbal behaviors included in the text and to analyze their cultural meaning.
Categories Associated with Nonverbal Behavior (Lateiner: 11)
Ritualized gestures or postures
Subconscious body movements and displays
External social markers, including objects and clothing
Spatiality and time cues
Non-ritualized, informal gestures, postures, or body sounds
The Use of Nonverbal Forms of Communication
Dialogue, including that found in embedded discourse in biblical storytelling, is the basis for social interaction on all levels, facilitating simple exchange of ideas and providing a medium in which business is conducted, legal principles are upheld, and emotions are expressed. It involves the institutionalized use of language and gestures and is dependent on the formality or informality of the discourse and the topic (Davies & Harré: 34). When a narrative contains a gesture cue, it is reasonable to assume that the audience would gain a richer understanding of the scene through the ability to make a mental connection between words and gestures as coordinated parts of a single communication system (McNeill: 2)—for instance, when Job tells his “miserable comforters” that in their place he could also speak condemning words “and shake my head at you.” While the text does not tell us which way the head is shaken, most negative gestures involve a side to side movement. Clearly, the combination of verbal and non-verbal forms of communication magnifies meaning and suggests exactly what the three men had been doing (Job 16:1–4).
Despite the distinct differences between a living social context in which participants speak and act in real time and the description of characters in a scene contained in a written drama, it seems quite possible that the decisions made by live participants and those made by an author/recorder of a written account may be analyzed in similar ways within the social context that produced them. Note, however, that it does become the task of the audience or reader to recognize strategic positioning by the storyteller, since characters in a drama play only the parts assigned to them by the author or storyteller (van Langenhove & Harré: 17). Therefore, within either a live or a created conversation, careful attention needs to be given to the setting, any description of the body posture of the participants, and any socially significant props that may be present. Each of these items provides charged meaning to what is said.
For example, when the storyteller describes an exhausted Saul “leaning on his spear” in the midst of the battle of Gilboa, this gesture may indicate either his wounded state, his despair at the outcome of the battle, or perhaps a bit of defiance as he stood there while the “chariots and the horsemen drew close to him” (2 Sam 1:6; Barrick: 29–30). While Saul chooses suicide, either self-inflicted (1 Sam 31:4) or with the assistance, ironically, of an Amalekite soldier (2 Sam 1:7–10) rather than capture, what catches the imagination of the reader/audience is that lone figure bowed over his spear.
In another case of suicide, the blinded Samson grasped the two pillars of the Philistine temple and “leaned his weight against them.” This act is somewhat reminiscent of how he had grasped the gates of Gaza and wrenched them from their foundations (Judg 16:3) and certainly shows his determination to perform one final feat of immense strength in revenge for the loss of his eyesight (Judg 16:29–30). Unlike Saul, however, he first calls on God to give him the strength to “die with the Philistines” as he pulls the temple down upon them and himself (Galpaz-Feller: 317–18).
Taken from a cognitive linguistic perspective, a reader's appreciation of a described situation is enhanced through the use of setting, speech, or gesture. One method employed in the narrative process is metonymy, which can be used to make one entity stand for another. Thus if someone says that a group chose to “vote with their feet,” the action of walking away or disagreeing with something is graphically combined with the thinking process behind that decision, and the physical gesture tied to walking away becomes a form of communication (Evans & Green: 167). That is graphically illustrated when a growing number of Saul's “trembling” Israelite troops chose to “slip away” rather than stand and fight the huge Philistine army at Michmash (1 Sam 13:5–8).
The Possibility for Misunderstanding
Of course, not every word spoken or written and emphasized with a gesture is always fully understood. In particular, persons of different generations, racial or ethnic backgrounds, or genders may share a common language without being able to comprehend fully every word spoken by the other. To illustrate this principle, Bull (10) points out that “women both smile more and are approached more closely than men; they also use smaller and less open body movements and positions” in modern western cultures. Faced with new data or expressions, it becomes necessary for speakers and/or their audience to test words or gestures against known concepts, and process and categorize them before fuller understanding can take place—if not always completely or satisfactorily (Kamp: 9).
In addressing the use of gestures as part of the process of communication, it is worth noting that gestures may be just as ambiguous as words in a given interchange. In both cases, social understandings as well as the imagination of the audience or reader come into play to create meaning. Furthermore, ambiguity and conscious intent are two communicative methods employed by speakers and by narrators. For those skilled in equivocation, it is possible to misrepresent meaning or mask the truth with either a phrase or a movement of the hand, body, or even a raised eyebrow. At the same time, in living social contexts it is possible to discern a liar by visual cues or “tells” such as furtive or nervous behavior (Frank: 288–91). Ekman (31) points out that “the stronger the emotion, the more likely it is that some sign of it will leak despite the liar's best attempt to conceal it.” Unfortunately, unless there are sufficient cues in spoken narrative, false intent may be difficult to detect. Gestures, especially in a narrative are much less subject to deceit, and even if misdirection is intended by the author there is usually a textual note to make sure the reader understands what is written (Portch: 5).
A further complication arises when words and gestures evolve into euphemistic expressions that may stray quite far from their purported meaning. As a result, it will be necessary to address instances in which linguistic and literary artistry in a social context have been incorporated into a text. In those cases, an actual physical gesture may no longer be meant, but the narrative that describes it in detail betrays how an original act has been incorporated into a socially recognized poetic construction. Still another issue that arises in the study of gestures is whether they represent or form part of a recognized ritual of behavior or whether they are simply a physical accompaniment to high emotions or unconscious movements that may convey meaning or magnify the intensity of spoken words.
The Use of Nonverbal Communication in Biblical Narrative
In what follows, the intent is to explore the use of gesture as it is described in biblical narrative and to point out how it contributes to the communication process in the story and to the audience's understanding and enjoyment of the scene. The fact of the matter is that none of the real-time, physical manifestations of conversation are overtly evident in the biblical narratives except through the cues provided by the storyteller or by the use of specific vocabulary or metaphors associated with emotions or sentiments such as anger (Kruger 2000: 183–85). For example, despair or resignation can be described, but a metonymic illustration employing a gesture allows a storyteller to bring the picture into clearer focus: final illness = “he drew up his feet into the bed, breathed his last” (Gen 49:33).
External factors such as dress cues contained in a narrative demonstrate that “social perception is concerned with cognitive processes as they relate to people or information about people as the objects of perception” (Lennon: 105). These impressions are often formed during first encounters and make it possible to construct various levels of knowledge about people. By applying these principles of “socially shared cognition” (Resnick), it becomes easier to understand why Absalom is so quick to recognize that his sister Tamar has been transformed socially and physically by her encounter with their half-brother Amnon. His impression is affirmed by seeing that she “put ashes on her head, and tore the long robe that she was wearing” (all part of a ritualized gesture of mourning; 2 Sam 13:19–20). Her physical gesture of mourning is the cue for him and the audience that Amnon has shamed her.
To further illustrate this point, Erving Goffman uses the term “key” to refer to a level of “mutual awareness,” a cognitive ability that contributes to participants' understanding of a meaningful activity. Therefore in some cultures if someone offers to shake hands the act can imply a genuine gesture or one that signifies something else entirely (Goffman: 43–44). Competent use of language requires recognized statements of greeting and welcome that is designed within a particular culture to meet the social character of the occasion and the social status of the participants.
There are also commonly used and understood gestures associated with a greeting that exemplify an understanding of the relative status of the characters. For example, when Obadiah meets the prophet Elijah, he engages in both a gesture of respect and a stock phrase of greeting. He “fell on his face, and said, ‘Is it you, my lord Elijah?'” (1 Kgs 18:7). Abigail also prostrates herself before David in 1 Sam 25:23, 41, speaking with her face to the ground as both a sign of respect and a gesture indicating her agreement with David's sovereign right to rule the kingdom. Note, however, that a phrase that refers to body posture like prostration also may be a euphemism for worship or obeisance and should only be translated as a physical action in association with another verb of movement (Gruber).
In any narrative or live social encounter the rules of social interaction ordinarily proceed based on a set of social understandings or obligations. Therefore when misunderstandings or socially inappropriate responses occur, they may be based on a true failure to communicate within the context of the overall social setting. That is exactly the point of the encounter between Judah and Tamar in Gen 38:15–16. Not able to penetrate her simple disguise and fooled by the setting of their meeting, he assumes she is a prostitute and their transactional discourse is based on that initial misunderstanding (Matthews 2008: 30–51).
There are also times when a story turns on a twist or unexpected reversal of social protocol. To illustrate this one only needs to examine how Joab greets his old military rival Amasa. He grabs his friend's “beard with his right hand to kiss him.” Such a public kiss was a well known social gesture of affection and greeting in ancient Israelite society (see Gen 27:26–27; 29:13; Exod 4:27; 2 Sam 14:33). The extra step of grabbing the person may have been a means of providing an extra measure of evident affection (see 2 Sam 15:5). However, since most people are right-handed and the right hand is ordinarily the one used to hold a weapon, in many cultures this action would be recognized as a gesture indicating the intention to disarm and to set aside any potential hostilities between the two parties. In this case, however, Amasa is fooled into a false sense of security and Joab uses the opportunity to stab him, presumably with a weapon in his left hand (2 Sam. 20:8–10; Wong: 402).
Annotated Examples of Nonverbal Communication
To complete this survey of the use of ritualized and non-ritualized communicative gestures in the biblical narrative, specific examples will be separated into various types. An effort also will be made to identify those that are simply designed to accompany dialogue and those that are keyed to a recognizable ritual performance or social activity.
The Use of Physical Gestures
Gross movements of the limbs or the body often constitute or are recognized as definable social signals. In some cases these movements or physical changes represent agitation or reaction to strong emotions. They can also become a form of stereotypical portrayal in a written text. For instance, in Proverbs 6:12–14 it is said that “a scoundrel and a villain goes around with crooked speech, winking the eyes, shuffling the feet, pointing the fingers, with perverted mind devising evil, continually sowing discord.” In a living context some of these bodily movements (winking and shuffling) in fact may be involuntary or unconscious on the part of the “villain” since they otherwise would comprise a form of caricature or stereotype. But in their narrative usage, it is possible that they have evolved into a euphemistic expression indicating delight in someone else's misfortune (see Ps 35:19; Kruger 1994: 218). Furthermore, “pointing the finger” may suggest either physically or euphemistically the actions of a false witness who is engaging in a particularly antisocial form of behavior.
In his assessment of the coming disaster for Judah, the prophet Isaiah's predication includes a magnified physical reaction by the “complacent women” of the rebellious nation. He warns that they will “shudder” when the vintage fails and they are instructed to both tremble and shudder as part of a ritual of mourning over the coming destruction of the land (Isa 32:9–15). Such a physiological manifestation of their high emotions is also part of a shame-based reaction displaying guilt, the lost of respect by the community, and the severing of social bonds in the coming disaster (Scheff: 216–18).
In other cases physical gestures are tied to the negotiation process or to warfare. They accompany recognizable ritual practices associated with command, military action, and often represent or display the degree of animation of the speakers in a dialogue. An initial example of the use of a physical act to augment dialogue is found in Judges 1:14–15. In this case the confrontation between father and daughter begins when Achsah dismounts from her donkey. Since donkeys are quite short this action should not be considered Achsah “coming down” from a physical level that would be above her father. However, the donkey may be a sign of wealth or privilege (see Judg 10:4) and her physical gesture of dismounting may be a way of separating herself from her father's property and indicating to her father that she is now a member of another household. Her willingness to negotiate with Caleb rather than leave it to her husband Othniel suggests either that Othniel has failed to take her advice to ask for a field or that Achsah felt she could shame her father by pointing out that he had not given her an adequate dowry. Certainly, if Caleb's failure to adequately reward Othniel's accomplishments and his slighting of his daughter's dowry allotment became a matter of public knowledge, he would have been shamed in front of the community.
In another case (Ezekiel 4:4–8) the initiation of speech is signaled by a pantomime or prophetic symbolic action. Ezekiel lies on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for 40 days signaling the number of years of the kingdom's exile. These sorts of staged events are a form of physical theater and the gesture functions as an extra physical prop to represent the message and to elicit questions or a reaction from the audience. Ezekiel is also instructed to prophesy against Jerusalem “with bared arm.” Presumably, this means he raised his arm above his head causing his robe to slip off his arm. There is also a sense here of employing a gesture of command typically used by military leaders (see God's “outstretched arm”—Deut 5:5; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kgs 8:42; 2 Kgs 17:36) or when God's “bared arm” indicates divine action against the nations (Isa 52:10; see Keel). The sense of the arm extended in a martial stance also serves as a narrative expression for authority in Isaiah's depiction of a triumphant Yahweh, “my arm shall rule the nations” (Isa 51:5a).
In the military setting the physical gesture often is combined with speech to produce a richer cultural meaning. For example, in Joshua 10:24 Joshua orders his captains to “put your feet on the necks” of these defeated kings, who had been found hiding in a cave (see also 1 Kgs 5:3). This explicitly authoritative gesture, which serves as a form of ritual performance associated with warfare, provides a public display of physical dominance (Hoffmeier: 63–64). Current studies of kinesics (the study of body language) describe a dominance metaphor whose intent is to demonstrate that “any combination of postures and movements that implies power and strength can become part of some culture's accepted mode of the show of status” (Mahrabian: 15–16).
In this case, the placement of a foot on the neck of a defeated enemy leader dishonors and shames the defeated kings, and signals to all present that they are no longer a threat and have been forced to submit to a stronger power (Lemos: 228). Having symbolically stripped these five kings of their authority, Joshua orders the further step of their public execution and then consigns their corpses to be sealed in the same cave where they had hidden themselves (Josh 10:26–27). Each of these linked physical steps within the narrative comprises a grand gesture transferring the power of the kings over the land to Joshua and the Israelite people. Another instance in which physical acts are clearly tied to social understandings of power and gender identity is found in 2 Samuel 10:4–5. Looking to deflect David's attempt to negotiate a continuation of the alliance between Ammon and Israel, King Hanun orders that David's emissaries have half their beards shaved and the lower portion of their robes cut off “in the middle of their hips” to expose their buttocks and genitalia (compare Isa 20:4). Such treatment of diplomats was a clear provocation and was intended not only to challenge David's authority but figuratively to “unman” his representatives (Niditch: 122). Literally stripped of those outward features that indicate their male gender and their authority as royal representatives, they become objects of derision and a reflection, by extension, of David's political weakness. Such a potentially potent political and publicly shaming gesture could not be ignored (Lemos: 233–34). David first allowed his diplomats to remain in seclusion at Jericho until they were able to appear once again in public without the outward signs of their shaming (2 Sam 10:5), and then put his army, under Joab's command, in the field to rectify a situation that could have jeopardized all other alliances with the Israelite king (2 Sam 10:7–19).
Spatial Gestures
In some instances a gesture is associated with the placement of the characters within specific, significant space. The setting of the scene helps to determine both the actions of the characters and provides another form of narrative cue to the audience. When gestures are added to the mix, they tend to magnify the storyteller's point or add an exclamation mark to particular actions. A case in point is found in Judges 19:26–27 in what is one of the most horrendous stories in the book of Judges. In this episode a woman's life is used to buy her husband and his host a night of peace from a violent mob. Using what may be her final breath, the Levite's concubine casts her hands upon the threshold of the Ephraimite's house in Gibeah. In this way, she indicts, without any words, those within the house who had selfishly cast her out to become the plaything of the mob. Her gesture points toward the culprit's house while at the same time serves in her supine position as a form of submission to her fate. The fact that this takes place on the threshold links it to other stories where a legal performance is conducted at the entrance to a private dwelling (see Exod 21:5–6 and Deut 22:20–21).
A similar example of combining space and gesture is found when Boaz positions himself by sitting down in the village gate at Bethlehem. By doing this he is employing a well-recognized social ritual associated with a call to deliberate and come to consensus on a legal or social issue (Ruth 4:2–6; Malul 1988: 20–22). In this way he indicates to the elders that he wishes to conduct business with those entering and leaving the gate area. No specific time is given for his action. However, it may be presumed given the early morning dialogue in chapter 3 between Ruth and Boaz and the likelihood that land owners would leave for their fields or other tasks first thing in the morning that Boaz would have positioned himself at the first opportunity in order to catch the elders as they approach the gate.
Hall (1) rightly states that “time talks.” It is crucial to the narrative to realize when things are possible or the way in which the characters/storytellers use time to provide clues to the action in the scene. By sitting here in this semi-official capacity, Boaz calls on the “next of kin” involved in the case of Naomi's household and on these ten elders to join him to discuss the matter. Once they were all seated (Ruth 4:2; a sign of equal status among them), presumably in a circle so all could see and hear the proceeding, the particulars of the case could be discussed (Ruth 4:3–6). Their standardized arrangement creates a stylized “O-space” that signals they are “in session” and are willing to hear testimony and share the responsibility for creating a community consensus on the matter (Ciolek & Kendon: 243).
Another case in which the gate area plays a part in a narrative is found in 2 Samuel 19:8 where a distraught David initially fails to appear in the gate to welcome home his victorious troops after they defeat his rebellious son Absalom. David's failure to conduct himself in the manner expected of a king endangers the loyalty of his troops (2 Sam 19:1–7). His act of mourning, including covering his face (2 Sam 19:4), is a form of “hiding behavior” and reflects David's grief and shame over the events that had led to Absalom's rebellion (see Scheff & Retzinger: 71). In any case, David's refusal to greet his victorious troops also imposes similar behavior on his soldiers at a time when they should have been celebrating their recovery of the kingdom for David. The situation is salvaged only in the following scene when David is convinced by Joab to take his seat in the city gate at Mahanaim. By performing this familiar ritualized action, David signals that he is once again in charge and a potential crisis of leadership is averted. Ironically, it is a similar political gesture that served as an opening gambit for Absalom's rebellion. The prince positioned himself “beside the road into the gate” and hailed all the approaching petitioners with the statement that David had failed to designate someone to hear their cases (2 Sam 15:2–6). Clearly, the one who commands or controls activity in the city gate holds true authority in the minds of the people.
That principle of associating space with authority is also found in 1 Kings 22:10. In this story Kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat stage an encounter with the prophet Micaiah. Their ritualized performance involves the manipulation of public space in order to dominate the situation. The two kings command that their thrones be taken to the city gate of Samaria in order to pre-position themselves before the prophet speaks. They literary usurp the space usually reserved for legal and commercial activity in order to intimidate Micaiah (Matthews 2008: 119–21). They also indicate to the prophet and to the audience that they are in charge of events and they will be the judge of the prophet's words.
While space may lend itself to power situations, reliance on traditional practices and beliefs may be superseded by other circumstances. That seems to be the case when Joab “fled to the tent of the Lord and grasped the horns of the altar” in an attempt to claim sanctuary (1 Kgs 2:28–34). Despite this recognizable ritual gesture that was also used by Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:50), Solomon orders that Benaiah execute Joab for shedding innocent blood. If both cases are compared, it would seem that grasping the horns of the altar signifies more than a simple claim to sanctuary. Like Boaz' seating himself in the city gate (Ruth 4:7), this physical gesture also signals that a case is in dispute and that a judgment is desired. The subsequent use of a technical term (the Qal form of the verb ρāag' in v 29) for Joab's execution seems to provide a definitive answer to Joab's symbolic call for justice and indicates Solomon's judgment of the case (Hubbard: 129–33). The decision also takes into account the legal stipulation in Exodus 21:12–14 that the willful murderer is a shedder of innocent blood and therefore is not entitled to sanctuary (Cogan: 178).
One final example that combines public gesture with public space is found in 2 Kings 9:30–33. Following the death of her son Joram in battle and knowing that she is the last representative of the House of Ahab, Jezebel “painted her eyes, and adorned her head, and looked out of the window.” Her preparations are an effort to position herself to dominate the scene when Jehu makes his entrance into the city of Jezreel. Some commentators suggest that by appearing in public (presumably the window was in the royal residence) dressed in the regalia of the ruler of Israel she hopes to rally support for the royal family (Camp: 104). Others see a not so subtle cultural ploy by the editors of this story, who consider Jezebel a threat to the proper role of women in society (compare her actions in the story of Naboth's vineyard in 1 Kings 21:5–15: McKinlay: 307). From her vantage point above the gate she can look down on Jehu, and she takes a calculated risk by labeling him a “Zimri,” a man who had betrayed his master (see 1 Kgs 16:15–20; Ackerman: 156–62).
Jehu's response ignores her words and is designed to deflect Jezebel's strategy while discounting any claims to power she may have. He “looked up to the window,” drawing everyone's attention to his rival, and then calls on his supporters to choose sides. When two or three eunuchs respond, Jehu commands that they “throw her down,” a double entendre that reverses Jezebel's commanding position and leaves her bleeding body prey to carrion eaters in the street (2 Kgs 9:32–33). Jezebel's grand gesture, based again on her background as the daughter of a foreign ruler, had failed and Jehu's counter point has placed him firmly in command. For the biblical narrator, her demise, like that of the House of Ahab, is the direct result of Jezebel's “failure to adopt Israelite norms” and that “was sufficient to cast her in the role of a woman who remained loyal to her father's house” rather than to her husband's (Seeman: 27–28).
Use of Violent Physical Gestures
While a blow may be struck intentionally in a brawl (Exod 21:22) or in a battle (2 Sam 1:15), there are occasions when physical violence is a recognizable social act that is designed to reposition an opponent or to express insult and outrage. By this means there can be no doubt of the high emotions involved or the desire to challenge another's statements or actions. Thus when Hananiah removed the ox yoke from Jeremiah's neck and broke it, he used physical force and a prophetic prop to illustrate his message that God would break the “yoke of Babylon” and free Judah from the oppressor. Of course, Hananiah also is asserting that he rather than Jeremiah is the true prophet (Jer 28:10–11).
In another public confrontation between prophets (1 Kgs 22:24), the court prophet Zedekiah punctuates his challenge of Micaiah's words by slapping him and publicly denouncing him as a false prophet (1 Kgs 22:24; compare Lam 3:25–30). This violent gesture is not designed so much to injure Micaiah. Instead it is an aggressive form of nonverbal communication that accompanies the use of first order positioning (van Langenhove & Harré: 14). In effect, Zedekiah's physical act combines two forms of a nonverbal discourse, the insult and the retort. Both measures are designed to reassert the preeminence of the king's prophets and to reassert their primacy as the official spokespersons for Yahweh in the king's court (Perinbanayagam: 120–23).
A change in social status is also signaled by violent gestures. Job's lament in response to the charges of his “comforters” describes how his adversaries “gaped” at him and struck him “insolently on the cheek” (Job 16:10). Such aggressive behavior against a person formerly of high status and prominence within his community could occur only if the adversaries sensed his present weakness and felt the moral right and personal ability to position their target as one deserving public scorn and physical punishment.
A counterpoint to Job's situation is found in the Psalmist's acknowledgement of Yahweh's powerful position, confirming that his divine patron has the ability to “strike all my enemies on the cheek” (Ps 3:7). It is quite possible that the reference here, and in Jeremiah 20:2 where Pashhur strikes Jeremiah before placing him in the stocks involve a ritualized gesture that is designed to indicate to all that someone, or in this case the deity, has gained supremacy over a foe. In that sense it may be a standardized physical action performed before an audience or it may function in the literature as a euphemistic expression for dominance.
Hand Gestures
The hands often are associated with performing a variety of tasks and can even be used to mimic or illustrate the movements involved in carrying out these tasks, such as hammering a nail. They are also used to point out something, give orders, and eat a meal. It is also clear that the hands are used to influence others as they accompany dialogue and provide illustrations emphasizing a point. In written narratives, hands also appear as part of figurative expressions such as taking someone into custody: “they laid hands on her” (2 Kgs 11:16).
It is likely that when Abraham instructs his servant to “put your hand under my thigh” he is performing a familiar ritual associated with taking an oath that in this case will lead to obtaining a wife for Isaac (Gen 24:2–3). There is a similar oath taken along with the same gesture in Genesis 47:29 when Israel causes his sons to swear that they will not bury him in Egypt (Pilch: 498). On its most elemental level the placement of the hand in the groin area ties the significance of both the gesture and the oath to the biological origins of the household. The creation of a ritual associated with the thigh further indicates that the legal stipulations of the oath hinge on the perpetuation of the household (Malul 1985; Wright).
Another clear example of a ritual performance involving the hands is found in Deuteronomy 21:6, where the elders are required to “wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken.” The results of this elimination rite set in an uncultivated area that contains a perpetually flowing wadi (nahal'êtān) are as follows:
to remove the blood pollution associated with the corpse from inhabited, cultivated soil, to reenact the murder with the animal as the substitute for slain man, and to absolve the elders as representatives of the village from blood guilt.
The hand washing ritual signals their transferring “their responsibility (or supposed culpability) in the murder to the animal” (Wright: 398, n. 36). A similar declaration of innocence in the face of false accusation and the need to clear one's name is found in Psalm 26:6. In this instance, the temple sanctuary is the essential setting for the ritual hand washing gesture. It symbolizes purification from any sort of contamination, whether cultic, legal or social (Bellinger: 456; Mosca). The use of a hand gesture forms a central aspect of the narrative in 1 Kings 13:1–4. King Jeroboam is dedicating his royal shrine at Bethel and promoting his leadership over the newly created nation of Israel. In the midst of what should be a triumphant event for the new king, he is interrupted by an unnamed prophet from Judah. Justifiably upset over the disruption of the ceremony and wishing to restore his control over the situation, Jeroboam “stretches out his arm” to order the man's arrest (Walsh: 357–58). The king's gesture points out the culprit who is to be seized and it contains a familiar movement associated with command, high status dominance (Josh 8:19; 2 Sam 24:16) or intended action (Exod 3:20; Job 1:11; Mahrabian: 59). In this instance Jeroboam, who to this point in the scene has been the dominant character, uses a dismissive gesture. That attempt to restore control over events is countered and dismissed by the prophet's or God's reaction when the king's arm is withered. In this way the intent of the king's gesture is nullified, and the authority of the king is further diminished when he is forced to ask the prophet to intercede with God to heal his arm (1 Kgs 13:6).
Of course, there are a variety of ways in which to interpret the phrase to “lift up my hand” (singular). In the plural, “lift up my hands” it is more commonly tied to worship or entreaty to God (Pss 28:2; 63:4; 134:2; Lam 2:19; see Kruger 1994: 215–16). There are also some contexts in which this gesture is tied to taking an oath (Deut 32:40) while in other instances it is a beckoning or empowering signal designed to initiate an action (Isa 49:22). However, it can also be a martial gesture indicating either the intention to strike out or the call for God to do so (Ps 10:12). That is clearly the case in Isaiah 10:32, where the assembled Assyrian troops signal their hostile intentions and provide a mock greeting to the inhabitants of Jerusalem when they “shake their fists.” Such a threatening gesture simply adds tension to the scene and reminds the besieged population of the fight to come. In this case the gesture also magnifies the reality of the army's presence, and together they speak volumes about what is about to take place. A similar gesture of disdain and disapproval is employed after the completion of a siege in Zephaniah 2:15. In that passage the prophet triumphantly describes how all passersby hiss and shake their fists at the desolate remains of the hated Assyrian city of Nineveh (Fox).
Clapping the hands, however, does have a celebratory function in ancient Israel. For example, in his oracle against Ammon (Ezek 25:6) Ezekiel proclaims that they will be destroyed “because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all the malice within you against the land of Israel.” Similar ritualized gestures that express joy using the hands and feet are found in 2 Kings 11:12. When the priest Jehoiada brings Joash out of hiding once the usurper Athaliah had been slain, the boy is presented to the crowd and crowned king, and “they clapped their hands and shouted, ‘Long live the king!'”
Clothing as Nonverbal Communication
Clothing in the ancient world was a status and gender indicator. It could be used to represent the married state (“widow's garments” in Genesis 38:14), membership in the royal household (Tamar's long-sleeved robe in 2 Samuel 13:18), or, of course, membership in the priesthood (elaborate vestments are described in Exodus 28). A shift in clothing can provide a disguise (1 Kgs 22:30) or advance a prophetic strategy (1 Kgs 20:38–43; Bodner: 541). Clothing also facilitates mourning practices or marks a person as being in mourning. Thus David “covered his face” when he heard of Absalom's death (2 Sam 19:4; see Jeremiah's gesture of despair in Jer 14:3–4). A similar mourning practice is the tearing of one's clothing (2 Sam 3:31 [Joab]; 13:19 [Tamar]; Esth 4:1 [Mordechai]) in addition to putting dirt or ashes in the hair and wearing sackcloth. In some cases the mourner is portrayed rolling in ashes while lying in sackcloth (Jer 6:26) or even slashing themselves with whips (Jer 49:3). While there is probably a social expectation that these actions be performed, they also function, depending on the magnitude of the gesture, as a demonstration of the degree of loss or despair.
Garments function on several levels as a form of nonverbal communication, but when combined with a physical gesture their message is quite clear to the community. For instance, clothing is the cue to social shunning when it comes to the leper (Lev 13:45). Such a diseased person is required to wear “torn clothes, let the hair of his head be disheveled; and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘unclean, unclean.’” The ritualized gesture of covering the lip that is associated with the mourning process (Ezek 24:17; Mic 3:7) also may be due to the stench of their breath or the possibility of contamination (Milgrom: 803–04). Accompanied by the repeated warning of “unclean,” these gestures make it clear that all in their path are to steer clear.
When Elijah chooses his successor (1 Kgs 19:19), he performs a transformation ritual in which he “threw his mantle over” Elisha's shoulders. His action is a form of investiture ceremony similar to that used for high ranking officials (Gen 41:42; Esth 6:9) and kings on their coronation day (Pss 21:3–6; 93:1–2). By placing his mantle on Elisha, Elijah transfers a portion of his authority and publicly proclaims that this individual will succeed him. Later in the narrative the gesture takes on a physical reality when the mantle becomes the magical prop used to open the waters of the Jordan River and to indicate that Elisha is in fact Elijah's true successor (2 Kgs 2:13–14).
The book of Ruth contains a couple of examples in which clothing is combined with a gesture designed to communicate a legal and socially recognized point. Thus after lying down at his feet, Ruth asks Boaz to “spread your cloak over your servant” as a ritualized gesture of contracting a marriage (Ruth 3:7–9; compare Ezek 16:8; Kruger 1984). In this scene two legally symbolic acts are employed in a legally significant place, the threshing floor (Kruger 2009: 13; Matthews 2003). It is possible that lying at Boaz' feet is a signal of subservience (Berquist: 30), but more important are her words suggesting that Boaz initiate the legal step of officially taking her into his household.
A textual note is embedded in the subsequent scene in which Boaz presents Naomi's case to the town elders. It provides an explanation for the act of ritually taking off a sandal to indicate the case involves a land transaction. The origin of this gesture may be associated with surveying of the land by physically walking it off between boundary markers. In this way the sandal symbolizes the process of taking ownership and becomes the embodiment of land title (Matthews & Benjamin: 114). Boaz' positive gesture of removing his sandal and his stated willingness to acquire Elimelech's land may be compared to the negative gesture of a widow removing the sandal of the brother-in-law who “refuses to perpetuate his brother's name” in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 (Levinson: 246).
Facial Gestures and Use of the Head
The human face is well equipped for nonverbal communication. Studies have shown that even at birth “all of the important muscles needed for emotional expressions are well developed” (Ekman; Segerstråle & Molnár: 8–9). While facial gestures including elongating the mouth, blinking, and the pursing of the lips can be an unconscious extension of the mental or emotional process, there are socially recognized grimaces and distortions of the face that are intended to communicate feelings or attitudes toward others or toward objects (Windhager, et al; Rule et al).
One graphic way that facial expression is described in a biblical narrative is found in Jeremiah 5:3. The prophet proclaims that the people of Jerusalem, who “refuse to take correction” from God, “have made their faces hard as rock.” Second Isaiah uses a similar euphemism for obduracy when he charges that the Israelites' “neck is an iron sinew and your forehead brass” (Isa 48:4; Retzinger: 1107–09). In this way the people, set firmly in their beliefs, are said to lack the ability to hear and understand the repeated caution against idolatry. Such a determined or obdurate expression is also used in the description of how God has transformed Ezekiel's face, making it like “the hardest stone, harder than flint” (Ezek 3:8–9). While it is difficult to describe facial expressions in a narrative, this phrase plays on the experience of working with stone and the metaphorical hardness associated with obdurate persons.
In fact, it is difficult keep the face from registering thought, fear, pride, shame or guilt (see Isa 3:9; Tangney). For those who have studied how shame is expressed through visual cues they point to combinations of actions that may even occur in sequence. For example, “biting the lip may be followed by false smiling, followed by covering the face” (Scheff & Retzinger: 71). The description of the villain ('ish belial) in Proverbs 6:27–30 appears to suggest such a visual sequence with a winking eye and pursed lips.
A traditional way of expressing disapproval or disrespect in ancient Israel was shaking the head. It is quite possible that the shaking of the head would be a natural accompaniment to disapproval and one that may be performed either consciously or unconsciously (see also Ps 64:9 [ET 64:8]; Jer 48:27). For instance, in Ps 44:15 [ET 44:14] the act of shaking the head is paralleled with the word māšāl (translated as “laughingstock” in NRSV) to create a euphemism for disdain. In a similar gesture, Job says to his “comforters” that I could “shake my head at you” if they were to exchange places (Job 16:4). Lamentations 2:15 describes the shaking of the head accompanied with hissing and clapping hands: “hiss and wag their heads at daughter Jerusalem.” These signals of disdain, anger, and disapproval are also found in Psalm 22:8 [ET 22:7], “They make mouths at me, they shake their heads,” and Psalm 109:25. Clearly, the use of multiple forms of negative gestures magnifies the effect and heightens the degree of abhorrence the audience is to feel when reading this account.
Conclusions
In this examination of the use of gestures as an accompaniment and augmentation to other forms of communication it becomes clear that they function as a natural part of the process of social interaction. Gestures, like spoken words, are part of the culture that employs them. Their meaning is derived from culturally determined and socially accepted values, and their effectiveness in conveying meaning may be limited to the original socio-historical context that produce them. Careful attention to the portion of the body involved, the spatial context, and the degree of effort or violence employed can assist with reconstructing what the ancient audience or reader may have discerned from the story.
Given the fact that all communities make use of gestures, it may be possible to establish cross-cultural links, at least for more universally recognized gestures and body movements. In the case of their use in the course of biblical narratives it is evident that the narrators realized that a description of the gestures used by characters added to the drama as well as the enjoyment and understanding of their audience. Since there are no live witnesses in a written narrative who can immediately process the use of physical gestures, it becomes necessary for the narrator to employ cues to signal that a gesture accompanies the words of a dialogue. It is also evident that the literary use of gestures may also encompass the transformation of physical acts into euphemistic or figurative expressions. As a result, the social imagination of the reader comes into play in order to interpret the meaning of the words supplied by the narrator.