David’s Wives: Michal

Michal in the Bible

Michal is King Saul’s younger daughter, and David’s first wife. Previously Merab, King Saul’s older daughter was pledged to David if he agreed successfully to fight the Philistines (1 Sam 18:17). In the event, however, Merab is given “in marriage to Adriel the Meholathite” (v. 19, that site possibly located near Beit Sh’an in the Jordan Valley). Meanwhile Michal has “fallen in love with David” (v. 20) and so Saul offers her to David as a wife dependent upon David successfully killing a hundred Philistines as his bride-price (v. 25). David more than meets this goal, he killed two hundred Philistines and then disfigured them by presenting Saul with their foreskins (v. 27). At one point Saul literally tries to kill David by thrusting a spear at him, but David escapes unharmed (1 Sam 19:10). That very night “Saul sent messengers to David’s home to keep watch on him and to kill him in the morning. But David’s wife Michal told him, ‘Unless you run for your life tonight, you will be killed tomorrow’” (1 Sam 19:11). She then quite heroically helps him to escape, placing an oracle idol (teraph) on his bed. The biblical text is silent in terms of what was David’s response to Michal. Did he thank her? Did he warn her that Saul would hold her responsible? Did he promise to return? When this ruse is discovered “Saul said to Michal, ‘Why did you play that trick on me?’ … ‘Because,’ Michal answered Saul, ‘he said to me: “Help me get away or I’ll kill you”‘” (1 Sam 19:17). Michal’s excuse to Saul that David will kill her actually is quite plausible. Yet her ruse with the oracle idol demonstrates her complicity. (Auld: 228). David is forced to go into hiding. Some time passes and by then “Saul had given his daughter Michal, David’s wife, to Palti son of Laish from Gallim” (1 Sam 25:44, a locale probably north of Jerusalem). Michal then drops out of the biblical narrative. Probably years pass by. Michal next is mentioned following the death of Saul. In this section Michal is spoken about, but she has no voice, and presumably no choice in what is taking place. She is a pawn in the wider political drama. By this time David established himself in Hebron, but he is planning to unite the twelve tribes under his sole rule. David negotiates with Abner, the lead general of the northern tribes, where Saul’s son Ish-boshet nominally rules as king. Abner is seeking to “bring all Israel over to [David’s]… side” (2 Sam 3:12). David demands that he also needs to be reunited with Michal. Seeing being married to the daughter of the former monarch is an additional factor to strengthen David’s claim to rule the tribes. There is a powerful political sense to David marrying Michal. “David’s marriage to Michal … gives David a certain claim to membership in the royal house of Israel, which he will later, when already king of Judah, use to justify his succession to the northern throne as well (cf. 2 Sam. 3:12ff.)” (McCarter, 1980: 318). While that is so at this moment, at a later point David will want to distance himself from the Saulide monarchy, as will be demonstrated below in David’s actions and his response to Michal as depicted in 2 Samuel 6.

In the meantime, David “sent messengers to Ishbosheth son of Saul, to say, ‘Give me my wife Michal’ … so Ish-bosheth sent and had her taken away from [her] husband, Paltiel son of Laish’ … [Paltiel objects to this, but] then Abner ordered him to turn back, and he went back” (2 Sam 3:14-16).

At some subsequent point David and his men are able to capture Jerusalem and make it David’s capital city. Before too long David wants to bring the Ark of GOD to Jerusalem. He does so amidst great festivities. The biblical text describes those moments this way: “David whirled with all his might before GOD; David was girt with a linen ephod “(2 Sam 6:14). The description continues, as “the Ark of GOD entered the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and whirling before GOD; and she despised him for it” (2 Sam 6:16; cf. 1 Chr 15:29). It is noteworthy that Michal is not described as David’s wife, but rather as the daughter of Saul. She is linked to the past, and to the now discredited Saulide monarchy, not the now-superseded Davidic royal house. The Biblical narrative overwhelmingly refers to Michal has Saul’s daughter, (cf. 1 Sam 18:20, 27, 28; 25:44; 2 Sam 3:13; 6:16, 20, 23; 1 Chr 15:29); as opposed to David’s wife (1 Sam 19:11; 25:44; 2 Sam 3:14).

That Michal “looked out of the window” echoes an earlier event in her life, when in her love for David, Michal betrayed her father King Saul and urged David to escape via a window in their home (1 Sam 19). Then she was the loving wife, protecting her husband; now she is the rejected wife, scorning the manner of his public appearance. The late 17^th-early 18^th century playwright William Congreve said it well when he features a line in his play “The Mourning Bride” where Zara speaks these words: “Heav’n has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned.”

The narrative continues, that when, following these celebrations “David went home to greet his household … Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, ‘Didn’t the king of Israel do himself honor today— exposing himself today in the sight of the maidservants of his subjects, as one of the riffraff might expose himself?’” (v. 20). David is highly incensed at Michal’s reaction and says in effect, I will do what I will do. The Bible then relates that “to her dying day Michal daughter of Saul had no children [lo haya la yeled ad yom motah]” (v. 23). This wording is striking in that it does not suggest that Michal is “childless” using the term that is often used for being childless (‘aqarah in Hebrew). When that word is used, it usually means that the woman has not yet brought forth children (Sarah is childless – ‘aqarah Gen 11:30); Rebecca is childless – ‘aqarah (Gen 25:21); Rachel is childless – ‘aqarah (Gen 29:31); Manoah’s wife is childless – ‘aqarah (Judg 13:2, 3), and Hannah is childless – ‘aqarah (1 Sam 2:5). These women are not barren; they just have not had children as yet. The “Hebrew ‘akarah [‘aqarah] simply means ‘childless’ but not necessarily infertile” (Sarna: 87). Michal is a grass widow: David is not being intimate with her.

It is also noteworthy that Michal, although King David’s wife, is never referred to as a queen, much less David’s Queen. “Israelite society did not admit … that a monarch’s wife could … be a queen in her own right … The only females whom the Bible acknowledges as queens are either foreigners [like the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings 10; 2 Chronicles 9; or Vashti in Esther 1] or else Hebrew women residing in a foreign court [Esther].” (Brenner: 17).

The Rabbis’ Michal

In the early centuries of the first millennium of the Common Era, during the rabbinic period and then well into the Middle Ages Jews and Christians were involved in dialogue and dispute as to who represented the real Israel, Verus Israel, and whose interpretation of Scripture was correct. Each side claimed that it represented “the truth.” The Church, through the Church Fathers/ Patristics, developed a host of categories that included Classical exegetical works, homiletic works that were transcripts of Church sermons, apologetics, anthologies of homilies on single verses, which were organized to create a running commentary on a specific biblical book, and other genres such as histories, letters, and stories of martyrdom. By contrast, the rabbis response was much more focused. (Hirschman: 21). Broadly speaking, the rabbis engaged in two types of discussions, those dealing with legal matters (Halakhah) and those dealing with non-legal matters such as ethical or moral questions (Aggadah) but the line between those categories is often blurred. Midrashic comments are often used by the rabbis as a lens through which to see matters in a different way. Adele Berlin explains that the “rabbis were not interested in what we call ‘the original meaning of the text.’ They were more intent on the meaning for their own time, and they engage in obviously anachronistic readings. They thereby lift the biblical story out of its original context and apply it to another context. In so doing, they keep the Bible alive” (Berlin: 15). The majority of midrashic collections were composed in the first millennium in the Common Era, but some are redacted in the early Middle Ages.

On the whole, the rabbis are very sympathetic towards Michal and are somewhat ambivalent in terms of Saul. There are passages that praise Saul, for example in the Babylonian Talmud (hereafter BT] Megillah 13b, and other examples where Saul is both praised and criticized for his actions (BT Yoma 22b). When compared to David, the rabbis clearly favor David over Saul, though they do not dismiss David’s treachery with Uriah in the Bathsheba affair (BT Yoma 22b).

In 1 Samuel 17 Israel is facing not only the might of the Philistine army, but more specifically the Philistine warrior-hero, Goliath. King Saul is reported to have said, “‘The one who kills him will be rewarded by the king with great riches; he’ll also give him his daughter in marriage’” (v. 25). (Note: technically this daughter is Merab, but as mentioned, she is given to Adriel the Meholathite.) The rabbis explain that God is incensed with Saul for the vagueness of his words. God says, “If an Ammonite, or a bastard … had killed him [Goliath] would you have given him your daughter?” God then specifically “brought him [i.e. Saul] David, and he gave his daughter Michal to him” (Leviticus Rabbah 37.4). The rabbis explain that Michal is an extremely beautiful woman (BT Megillah 15a). Michal and her brother Jonathan both loved David. Each in their own way literally defy the clear wishes of their father King Saul; they independently and successfully act to save David’s life. A midrash then explains that these two are an example for the phrase “two are better off than one” (Eccl. 4:9a) (Midrash Psalms 59.1). There is a rabbinic tradition that Eglah, David’s seventh wife (2 Sam 3:5) is the same person as Michal. The rabbis offer a pun on her name. She was called Eglah (which means heifer) because “like a heifer that will not take a yoke upon her neck, so Michal did not take to the yoke of her father but bucked against it” (Midrash Psalms 59.4).

The text in 2 Sam 6:23 states that Michal did not have a child until her dying day (“So to her dying day Michal daughter of Saul had no children)”. That statement is wonderfully ambiguous. A rabbinic tradition suggests that she did give birth, but then she died (Genesis Rabbah 82.7 and simlarly BT Sanhedrin 21a). According to some manuscripts, Michal is mentioned again in 2 Sam 21:8. See Numbers Rabbah 8.4, and notes in The JPS Tanakh, as well as BT Sanhedrin 19b.

Michal is praised for her piety. The rabbis suggest that she prayed with t’fillin [phylacteries] (Pesikta Rabbati, Piska 22.5; Mekilta Pisha 17.161). On the other hand, reflecting their androcentric and patriarchal worldview, the rabbis are critical of Michal for her berating David in public (Numbers Rabbah 4.20).

The Patristics’ Michal

The Patristics (the Church Fathers) oftentimes interpret material in the Hebrew Bible as a kind of prefiguration of the events in the Christian Bible. Gregory of Nyssa (Bishop of Nyssa, late 4^th cent. Turkey) refers to Saul’s messengers not finding David (they had been sent by King Saul to assassinate David, but Michal had helped David escape through a window— 1 Sam 19:12). Gregory equates the empty room to the empty tomb in the Gospels (see Matt 28:6; Mark 16:6). (Gregory). John Chrysostom, (Bishop, Constantinople, later 5^th cent.) makes the case that sometimes deception is necessary, citing Michal lying to her father King Saul. (Chrysostom: 284-85.)

On the other hand, Michal is also criticized. Similar to the rabbis, Maximus of Turin (Bishop, 4^th cent. Italy) implicitly condemns Michal for chastising David on the occasion when he brought the Ark of GOD to Jerusalem, for he was immodest in his clothing when he danced before the Ark (2 Sam 6). Maximus explains, in his ecstatic dancing David foresaw Mary who was of his own clan. (Maximus: 106-07). Ambrose (Bishop of Milan, late 4^th cent.) in like manner takes a very misogynist approach to David and Michal. “Thus, this is a clear lesson that the prophet who beats a drum and dances before the ark of the Lord is justified, whereas the one who reproves him is condemned to sterility.” (Ambrose: 348). Augustine (Bishop of Hippo, late 4^th / early 5^th cent. North Africa) refers to the fact that David took back Michal after her marriage to Palti. He explains that this was not an adulterous marriage. He alludes to John 8, and especially v. 11. “Rather, David as a figure of the New Testament took back [Saul’s daughter Michal] without hesitation.” (Augustine).

Contemporary Scholars

Contemporary scholars writing in the last decades of the 20^th/early decades of the 21^st centuries are critical of both David and Michal. David may be a biblical hero, but he certainly has his dark sides. One area where that is particularly true is in his relationship with his wives. The women in David’s life, as David Jobling points out, are “pawns in royal power struggles … Women are on the side of kingship; they work to bring it about as a consequence of their individual desire for David. But the farther we progress from story to story—Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba … —the more the deception is stripped away. What Michal and Abigail have been working for is a system that will bring no good to women.” (Jobling: 160).

Michal is “the only woman in the entire Hebrew Bible explicitly reported to love a man. Nothing is said … about what David feels toward Michal … his feelings toward her will continue to be left in question.” (Alter: 115). The undeniable fact is that in helping David to escape from Saul’s soldiers, Michal “shows greater loyalty to her husband than to her father … [and]… David will never again return to Saul’s court.” (McCarter, 1980: 326). Regarding David’s demand for the return of Michal in 2 Samuel 3, P. Kyle McCarter refers to a study by Zafrira Ben-Barak, “The Legal Background to the Restoration of Michal to David” (1979) where the biblical prohibitions to remarrying one’s divorced wife (Deut. 24:1-4) do not apply here. (McCarter, 1984: 115).

In terms of Michal berating David for his dancing before the Ark, McCarter is dismissive of David’s wife. Though she once had loved him, “the Michal of the present episode exhibits no vestige of the old infatuation. She appears here as a mature and haughty aristocrat, openly contemptuous of her royal husband.” (McCarter, 1984: 188). Baruch Halpern is somewhat more sympathetic to Michal, even as he is critical of David, as the title of his book strongly suggests: David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. David had relegated Michal “to a living widowhood … Michal’s confinement was no doubt planned from the first. David was bent on eradicating, not allying with, Saul’s house. Though there is no evidence that Michal was murdered, she does not appear after this episode.” (Halpern: 313).

In some ways the Saul-Michal-David narrative echoes that of Laban-Rachel-Jacob as related in Genesis. “The elements of two daughters [Leah/Rachel; Merab/Michal], of whom the younger is preferred, a bride price, the father in law’s failure to honor his commitments and the son in law’s double service – all these are similar in principle to the two stories. In both a split subsequently develops between father in law and son in law, until the latter is compelled to flee, the daughter aiding him against her father. Teraphim are mentioned in connection with the flight in each case, albeit in different ways (Gen 31:34-35; I Sam 19:13-17).” (Garsiel: 131).

Tikvah Frymer-Kensky points out the painful irony that that when David curtly dismisses Michal he says, “‘GOD … chose me instead of your father … and appointed me ruler over Israel, GOD’s people!’” (2 Sam 6:21). Here he is echoing Abigail’s prediction from many years ago when she said to David: “‘GOD has … appointed you ruler of Israel’” (1 Sam 25:30). (Frymer-Kensky: 321-22).

Contemporary Feminist Scholars

Both the early and the late Michal certainly are active and given voice, yet more often than not she is portrayed as a pawn in a wider political drama. The narrative in the books of Samuel is both androcentric and patriarchal. She is defined in relationship to the most important men in her life, that she is King Saul’s daughter and David’s wife. Yet, she cannot be easily placed into either category. From the viewpoint of her father, King Saul, why “should it matter to Saul that Michal loves David? What do the woman’s feelings have to do with it?” Women’s feelings are unimportant. Saul had already tempted David with his older daughter Merab, “where love is not mentioned—but he gave her to another (1 Sam 18:17– 19).” (Exum: 50). Michal’s feelings are gratuitous for Saul, and for David as well. “The situation is one in which the men’s political considerations are paramount, while regarding the woman, we hear only that she loves. Already the text perpetuates a familiar stereotype: men are motivated by ambition, whereas women respond on a personal level. It would be much more to Saul’s advantage if David loved Michal—but that is precisely what the text leaves unsaid, suggesting that David’s motives are as purely political as Saul’s.” (Exum: 50).

As a character Michal is portrayed as both brave and someone who, when possible, claims her own agency. “Michal is not a woman who is portrayed as fearful or lacking initiative” (van Wijk-Bos: 253). For an insightful discussion focusing on the agency of Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba, see the article by K. H. Gardner in Works Cited.

Michal’s love for David serves as her motivation for saving David’s life. Years later however, when she is reunited with David, and living with him in Jerusalem, (“David went home to greet his household … Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet David” – 2 Sam 6:20) she overplays her hand. She publicly criticizes David. Michal’s motivation may have been to uphold the dignity of the monarchy, but it results in her losing any influence she may have had with David. “What is clear is that Michal comes across as haughty and elitist. Her criticism of David is also made to seem harsh … On a political level, the domestic quarrel represents the battle between the houses of Saul and David … Michal, symbol of the rivalry between her father and her husband, is a victim of their conflict. She dares to confront male authority” (Bellis: 128) but she suffers because of her stance. Michal loves David, but no where does it say that David loved Michal. Indeed, Michal has the dubious honor of being “the only woman in the Hebrew Bible who is said to love a man, yet that very love becomes her undoing.” (Adelman: 150).

Conclusion

As noted at the beginning of this article, “David’s marriages offer an intriguing narrative of gender relations and power on numerous levels.” They cast an “important light on the role of women in securing political power—and also in losing it.” (Hackett: 157). In many ways Michal is the most tragic of David’s wives. She loves him, at least initially, but apparently in terms of his regard for her, Michal remains unloved. She is given to David, and then taken away from him and promised to another. Later, David forces her return. She becomes a pawn in David’s desire to become king of a united land; she has symbolic value to David, but not his affection. She appears to become a grass widow. “Michal … [is] the princess of promise, of broken promises, the woman who meets an embittered fate. Bereft of father, brother, husband-of-her-bed, no children born to her. She thus stands in dramatic contrast to David’s other wives—Abigail and Bathsheba—who wield oaths as autonomous agents in their own right.” (Adelman: 150).