Two Wives—1Sa_1:1-12
The first chapter of the first book of Samuel is of peculiar interest, from the picture of domestic life which it offers; from its furnishing the only description in the Old Testament of the visit of a family to the place of ritual service at the yearly festivals; and from the glimpses which are afforded of the course of proceeding on such occasions at the holy place.
The opening of the chapter presents to us the singular spectacle of a man in private station possessed of two wives. It was not long ago we had occasion to allude to this case, and to remark that, although a plurality of wives was not forbidden by the law of Moses, the possession of more than one was exceedingly rare, except among chiefs and princes, as is still the cast in those eastern countries where the same permission exists. The popular feeling, even in the presence of such a permissive-law, is, and we have reason to suppose was, averse to the exercise of this privilege, except in particular cases. This is evinced by the notion of some old Jewish commentators on the case before us, that one of this man’s wives was childless, as a punishment upon him for having taken more than one. This shows the tendency of Jewish opinion; and among the Jews themselves, polygamy is scarcely ever practised even in those eastern countries where the public law offers no restriction. In the particular instance, however, it is far more likely that Elkanah had taken a second wife only because the first bore him no children. As to the modern Orientals, the country in which polygamy most prevails is Persia; but even there it is not common to find a man possessed of more than one wife. The extent to which public feeling is against it, particularly among the women themselves, may be judged of from a curious native book, Note: Translated by James Atkinson, Esq., for the Oriental Translation Fund, among whose publications it appears. London, 1832. on “the Customs and Manners of the Women in Persia,” In this we read—“That man is to be praised who confines himself to one wife; for if he takes two it is wrong, and he will certainly repent of his folly. Thus say the seven wise women—
‘Be that man’s life immersed in gloom
Who weds more wives than one:
With one his cheeks retain their bloom,
His voice a cheerful tone;
These speak his honest heart at rest,
And he and she are always blest.
But when with two he seeks for joy,
Together they his soul annoy;
With two no sunbeam of delight
Can make his day of misery bright.’”
To this the translator adds in a note—“The learned seven have here, as indeed on all occasions, meritoriously shown a proper regard for strictly moral conduct, and the happiness of domestic life. They very justly insist upon it, that a man ought not to be burdened with more than one wife at a time, being satisfied that the management of two is beyond his power, if not impossible.” To this effect he quotes the sentiments of a widow, named Wali, as expressed in the old eastern drama of “The Sultan:”—
“Wretch! would’st thou have another wedded slave?
Another! What, another! At thy peril
Presume to try th’ experiment; would’st thou not
For that unconscionable, foul desire,
Be linked to misery? Sleepless nights, and days
Of endless torment—still recurring sorrow
Would be thy lot. Two wives! O never, never.
Thou hast not power to please two rival queens;
Their tempers would destroy thee, sear thy brain;
Thou canst not, Sultan, manage more than one!
Even one may be beyond thy government.”
To these Mr. Atkinson adds the short but decisive testimony of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan—“From what I know, it is easier to live with two tigresses than with two wives.”
All the discomfort which these popular Oriental notions on the subject allot to him who dares to take two wives, were realized in the fullest extent by Elkanah. It is in some degree the story of Jacob and his wives over again—though it would appear that the fortunate wife Peninnah, the one favored with children, was more outrageous than Leah; while the childless one, Hannah, was certainly a more meek and pious woman than Rachel. As in that case, so also in this, the childless wife seems to have been the one whom the husband best loved. At least it is said, as if to point a contrast, that “he loved her,” although the Lord had shut up her womb.
The man was a Levite—and hence it peculiarly behooved him to be heedful to all the requirements, of the law, By the law it was obligatory only upon the adult males to visit the place of the Lord’s house at the three yearly festivals. But it seems that pious persons took their wives and families with them. Thus Joseph took his wife Mary and her son, the blessed Jesus, with him when he went up to Jerusalem at the passover. We account for that instance, by observing, that this was when our Lord was of the age of twelve years, and that at that age, the obligation upon the males to attend the great festivals commenced. But from the case before us, we learn that whole families were taken to these holy solemnities, for Elkanah was accompanied not only by his two wives, but by the children of Peninnah—not only by the sons, but by the daughters. It seems that on these occasions, Peninnah was wont to make a special display of her ill-will for, and contempt of, Hannah, by reason of her having no children, and of her abortive prayers from year to year for that coveted blessing. From day to day poor Hannah was at home subject to these insults, and could then bear them better because they were unwitnessed by others. But as they journeyed in company with their neighbors to Shiloh and there consorted with them, the bitter sarcasms of Peninnah became more pointed, by her desire of mortifying and degrading her rival in the presence of others; and they were then, in such goodly company, the more keenly felt by her who was the object of them. She had reason; for in Israel childlessness was not only a privation, but a disgrace; and we may calculate, that the most good-natured and considerate of the company, would scarcely suppress a smile at the cruel taunts which Peninnah delighted to shower upon Hannah’s head. Sad was the contrast. There was the loquacious mother surrounded by her children—children afraid to manifest any of the kind attentions which their little hearts might prompt towards one whom their mother hated; and there was Hannah, by herself alone, wanting of all the little charities and kind solicitudes of motherhood, and possessed of no comfort but in God, and in the kind attentions of her husband’s unalienable love, which indeed enfolded her like a mantle, though it availed little to protect her from the keen shafts of a woman’s scurrilous tongue.
At these festivals, it was usual for those who have the means, to present some lawful animal as a peace-offering, and after it had been slain, and the priest had taken his portion—the breast and the right shoulder—the rest was returned to the offerer, with which he might feast his family and such friends as he invited to partake of it. On this occasion, Elkanah failed not to give Peninnah and her sons and daughters becoming portions; but he signalized his esteem for Hannah, and his desire to comfort her with some mark of distinguishing attention, by the truly oriental mark of consideration, such as Joseph had in former times shown to Benjamin, of giving her “a worthy portion,” which some think to have been a double portion, but others suppose to have been a choice and dainty part of the meat. Such marks of consideration on the part of the husband, gave new venom to the sting of Peninnah’s cruel tongue, whereat Hannah’s grief of heart was such, that she could not taste the dainties Elkanah’s love provided. He, on his part, was greatly touched by her affliction, and sought to comfort her. “Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?” Some think from this that Peninnah had made him the father of ten sons. But it seems rather that the number is indefinitely used to express that the share she had in his affection—the assurance of his unalterable regard, ought to be as much a source of comfort to her as the possession of many children. There is, however, the more significance in this, if, as there is some reason to think, a woman who had given birth to ten sons was, as among the Arabians, deemed entitled to distinguished honors. In the Bedouin romance of “Antar,” we read—“Now it was a custom among the Arabs, that when a woman brought forth ten male children, she should be Moonejeba, that is, ennobled, and for her name to be published among the Arabs, and they used to say that such a one is ennobled.”
Although sensible of her husband’s affection, the heart of Hannah was too deeply wounded to receive all the comfort his words were designed to convey. She had one resource—the best resource for the people of God in all ages, and under all the troubles that afflict them. When the meal was over, she quietly withdrew, and went to the tabernacle, where, being in “great bitterness of soul,” she “prayed unto the Lord, and wept sore.” The prayer ended with a vow that if the Lord would indeed remember her, and bless her with a man-child, that child should be given unto the Lord all the days of his life, “and there shall no razor come upon his head.” This means that he should be a Nazarite for life; and this is the only instance of such life-devotement, spontaneously imposed by the parent before the birth of the child. In the other instances, those of Samson and John the Baptist, the obligation was imposed by the will of God. Here it will be observed that any male-child which might be born to her would, as a Levite, be already given to the Lord. But the period of the Levites’ service did not begin till thirty years of age, and it was Hannah’s meaning that he should be devoted to the Lord’s service even from infancy, besides being under the vows of a Nazarite. It may farther be noted, that wife had no right to make a vow of this nature without the concurrence of her husband, or at least that, if made, he might disallow it if it met not his approval. We may therefore be sure that it had the after-consent of Elkanah, without which it would have had no force. The law on this point may be seen in Num_30:8.
It also well deserves our observation that it is in this prayer of Hannah that God is, for the first time in Scripture, addressed as “the Lord of hosts”—a magnificent title, which describes Jehovah as the creator and master of all the universe and its heavenly bodies—which are expressed in Scripture as “the hosts of heaven.” The title indeed occurs in the early part of the chapter, but it is there the word of the historian, and therefore posterior in time to this use of it by Hannah. We may infer that it had by this time come into use in designed opposition to the worship of the heavenly bodies, which had, in this age, under one name or another, become universally prevalent.
Autor: JOHN KITTO