God Is against Romantic Love (part II)

This is the second post in a series about the mythology of the Enlightenment in the reading of the bible. I endeavour to show that the bible views love as less than ideal - a competition to God.

In the first post of this series, I presented an example of how theologian and biblical scholar Nathan MacDonald rightfully refutes the idea that "monotheism" is something present in the Bible. To demonstrate this, I expanded somewhat on his argument regarding the meaning of the verse "Shema Yisrael." An interesting point emerged from that interpretation: the unity of the beloved is, in all probability, what the Bible aims at when it uses the term "one" in relation to God.[^1] We said that there is no intellectualistic conception of divinity in the Bible—and therefore, the biblical competition cannot be between the ontological belief that there is one god versus the ontological belief that there are many gods. However, I left the true competition shrouded in mystery. The competition for the human heart, as it says: "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ" [And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. — Deuteronomy 6:5, ESV]

In this post, I will attempt to do two things. First, I will share with you an interpretation I've been thinking about for several years, and recently concluded that it's mature enough to share. "God against romantic love." Second, I will expand a bit on the place of memory in the model of practical reason in the Bible, insofar as such a model can be extracted.

The Myth of the "Other Half" and "The One"

Some of you remember the famous myth presented by Aristophanes in Plato's "Symposium," but in case your Plato is a bit rusty: Humans were once composed of two personas. Man-man, woman-woman, and man-woman. Each such persona lived in a wonderful internal harmony that gave it unprecedented power. Humans used their power to rebel against Zeus, who in return split humans. Since then, each human wanders the world in search of their "other half," their "one." In the Bible, we have a similar story, but without the Aristophanic moral: in the second creation story, we are told that woman was hewn from man, and therefore from that day forward, every man leaves his father and mother (ostensibly, the competition) and clings to his wife so that they become one flesh. As we shall see, the Bible has a very different idea of this attachment.

While in Plato there is more than a measure of reservation towards this eros story—which is supposed to explain eros as a search for self-completion—this myth reflects a certain mindset that developed in the West, and today many of us find it difficult to imagine our lives without it. In the Middle Ages, this conception took the form of courtly love, the unique relationship between the knight and his beloved maiden. In German Romanticism, Goethe develops some of the modern approach to the matter around the "chemistry" between two people and its explanation. Today, it's hard to imagine our lives without the constant presence of the idea that there is one special person for each of us somewhere in the world.

But what is the Bible's actual opinion on such love? I want to argue that the Bible sees this kind of love as competition for the love that should be reserved for God. I will demonstrate this through a case study where in all instances where the Bible tells us about a state of "barrenness" among women in the Bible, there is one interesting detail in the story that I'm quite sure has been structurally overlooked until now: it involves a loving couple.

Barrenness in the Bible

In the Bible, there are five or six cases of barrenness. Among them, in four cases we are told about a special love between the couple. In general, if you find the word "love" in the Bible regarding the relationship between a man and a woman, you will see that most references are negative or portend disaster. As many commentators have noted (such as Auerbach), the Bible is very laconic compared to Greek epics. The Bible usually provides us with just enough details to understand the unfolding drama. Instead of going through the list, I've chosen to go through the structure of three cases of barrenness that I find distinctive, and leave to you the more Sisyphean task of conducting a more comprehensive review of "love" in the Bible.

The stories of Isaac-Rebekah, Jacob-Rachel, and Elkanah-Hannah are all clear cases where we are told about love before we are told about barrenness. However, even in less obvious cases, such as Abraham-Sarah and Michal-David, there is involvement of love and barrenness, but to a large extent these are more complex cases (and in Abraham's case, the term "love" does not refer specifically to Sarah). All three stories present the same structure: we are told about a loving relationship between the couple, we are told that the woman is barren, and to be released from barrenness, one must pray to God to open the womb.

The most paradigmatic case is that of Hannah, which opens the Book of Samuel for us (Chapter 1:1-11):

א וַיְהִי אִישׁ אֶחָד מִן־הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים מֵהַר אֶפְרָיִם וּשְׁמוֹ אֶלְקָנָה בֶּן־יְרֹחָם בֶּן־אֱלִיהוּא בֶּן־תֹּחוּ בֶן־צוּף אֶפְרָתִי׃ ב וְלוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֵׁם אַחַת חַנָּה וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית פְּנִנָּה וַיְהִי לִפְנִנָּה יְלָדִים וּלְחַנָּה אֵין יְלָדִים׃ ג וְעָלָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מֵעִירוֹ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת וְלִזְבֹּחַ לַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת בְּשִׁלֹה וְשָׁם שְׁנֵי בְנֵי־עֵלִי חָפְנִי וּפִינְחָס כֹּהֲנִים לַיהוָה׃ ד וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וַיִּזְבַּח אֶלְקָנָה וְנָתַן לִפְנִנָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּלְכָל־בָּנֶיהָ וּבְנוֹתֶיהָ מָנוֹת׃ ה וּלְחַנָּה יִתֵּן מָנָה אַחַת אַפָּיִם כִּי אֶת־חַנָּה אָהֵב וַיהוָה סָגַר רַחְמָהּ׃ ו וְכִעֲסַתָּה צָרָתָהּ גַּם־כַּעַס בַּעֲבוּר הַרְּעִמָהּ כִּי־סָגַר יְהוָה בְּעַד רַחְמָהּ׃ ז וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה מִדֵּי עֲלוֹתָהּ בְּבֵית יְהוָה כֵּן תַּכְעִסֶנָּה וַתִּבְכֶּה וְלֹא תֹאכַל׃ ח וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ אֶלְקָנָה אִישָׁהּ חַנָּה לָמֶה תִבְכִּי וְלָמֶה לֹא תֹאכְלִי וְלָמֶה יֵרַע לְבָבֵךְ הֲלוֹא אָנֹכִי טוֹב לָךְ מֵעֲשָׂרָה בָּנִים׃ ט וַתָּקָם חַנָּה אַחֲרֵי אָכְלָה בְשִׁלֹה וְאַחֲרֵי שָׁתֹה וְעֵלִי הַכֹּהֵן יֹשֵׁב עַל־הַכִּסֵּא עַל־מְזוּזַת הֵיכַל יְהוָה׃ י וְהִיא מָרַת נָפֶשׁ וַתִּתְפַּלֵּל עַל־יְהוָה וּבָכֹה תִבְכֶּה׃ יא וַתִּדֹּר נֶדֶר וַתֹּאמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אִם־רָאֹה תִרְאֶה בָּעֳנִי אֲמָתֶךָ וּזְכַרְתַּנִי וְלֹא־תִשְׁכַּח אֶת־אֲמָתֶךָ וְנָתַתָּה לַאֲמָתְךָ זֶרַע אֲנָשִׁים וּנְתַתִּיו לַיהוָה כָּל־יְמֵי חַיָּיו וּמוֹרָה לֹא־יַעֲלֶה עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ׃

[1 There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite. 2 He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children. 3 Now this man used to go up year by year from his city to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the LORD. 4 On the day when Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and daughters. 5 But to Hannah he gave a double portion, because he loved her, though the LORD had closed her womb. 6 And her rival used to provoke her grievously to irritate her, because the LORD had closed her womb. 7 So it went on year by year. As often as she went up to the house of the LORD, she used to provoke her. Therefore Hannah wept and would not eat. 8 And Elkanah, her husband, said to her, "Hannah, why do you weep? And why do you not eat? And why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?" 9 After they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh, Hannah rose. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the LORD. 10 She was deeply distressed and prayed to the LORD and wept bitterly. 11 And she vowed a vow and said, "O LORD of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head." — 1 Samuel 1:1-11, ESV]

I especially love this story because it explicitly tells us that Elkanah loved Hannah enough to give her a double portion in the distribution of property solely because of his love, and it also explicitly tells us that God was the one who closed her womb. Additionally, the love relationship is emphasized by the fact that Elkanah believes, largely, that why would she need children at all, he is more than capable of being her entire world—and apparently wants to be. After a famous prayer to God, Hannah, of course, is granted the opening of her womb.

In the cases of Rebekah and Rachel, we have the same structure. As if in the love of the woman there is a hidden competition with God, a competition that God quashes as He tries to quash idolatry. To some extent, one can cautiously suggest that even in Numbers 5, where both tradition and scholarship discuss only a "wayward wife," one can think of an interpretation whereby the spirit of jealousy that entered the husband is itself a manifestation, unrelated to suspicion or non-suspicion of the wife, that requires purification so that the woman can bring a child into the world in case her womb is closed. It's possible that there is, in addition to suspicion of a wayward wife, suspicion of a jealous man, because of which the woman must undergo the process (which can better explain, in my opinion, some duplications).[^2] It's possible that this is even the reason Hannah specifically goes to the priest. In any case, it is clear that there is some kind of Gordian knot between love and disaster in the Bible, and if I am right about the structure of most barrenness stories—even a kind of "educational punishment."

For our purposes, what is interesting is the type of competition expressed with other gods. Is it an ontological competition, or is it an affective competition in which other gods might "court" and try to be the object of a relationship that breaks the exclusivity of the connection between a person in Israel and their God? Here I tried to argue briefly that the kinship of idolatry is not a "cognitive error," as per Moore and his followers, but a "conative error." Specifically, closer to the error we might make if we were unfaithful to our partners. However, in order to argue that it is nevertheless a conative error, we must say something about the model of rational reason in the Bible.

The Structure of Practical Rationality in the Bible

In the previous post, I talked a bit about the importance of repetition and memory in the Bible, but I think there's room to expand a little here. We tend to think of memory as a theoretical faculty.[^3] That is, memory functions primarily when we need to remember a piece of information or not lose the basis of our knowledge. But it seems that at least in the Bible, it is suggested to us that memory and forgetting are relevant to a person as a basis for their own practical activity, and consequently, humans tend to forget even the most important things.

The commandment to remember is not arbitrary, but it expresses a possible motive for action. In biblical language, one can say things like "וַיִּזְכֹּר יוֹסֵף אֵת הַחֲלֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר חָלַם לָהֶם וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם מְרַגְּלִים אַתֶּם לִרְאוֹת אֶת־עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם" [And Joseph remembered the dreams that he had dreamed of them. And he said to them, "You are spies; you have come to see the nakedness of the land." — Genesis 42:9, ESV]. Joseph did something (deceived his brothers) because he remembered what they had done to him. Joseph could certainly have forgotten what his brothers did to him, or more correctly: not be guided by the presence of this memory at that moment, but that's not what happened. Remembrance in the Bible is something that motivates action, and consequently can also motivate love. The forgetting of the Israelites, say throughout the Book of Judges, of God is a forgetting that resembles the way a husband "forgets" his wife, or what is the same thing, tries not to remember her, when he is unfaithful to her.

One of the flaws that Nathan MacDonald finds in the monotheistic conception is that it assumes a certain level of knowledge to which humanity has arrived and from which it cannot retreat. MacDonald finds in von Rad one of the only theologians—and the intention, presumably, is to a theologian whose main concern is with the biblical text—who finds in divine unity not knowledge to which man arrives, but a mission he must undertake. In a sense, it can be said that love of a certain kind, love that deifies its object, entails the forgetting of the centrality of God.

---

[^1]: In a later article in a collection of essays around prophets and apocalypse, Nathan MacDonald himself develops the idea of "theology of unity" guided by love.

[^2]: Already the Sages wonder, and not for nothing, about this story of the "spirit of jealousy," and indeed it seems strange to interpret this, as most tradition and even research in the Anchor Bible does, as an expression of the husband's suspicion alone.

[^3]: An example of this is Heidegger's problematic insistence on interpreting Nicomachean Ethics, Book 6, end of Chapter 5—on p. 39 (in the English translation) in his lectures on Plato's "Sophist." Thanks to R' Aviad Hasdiel for the discussion in Greek there—which seems that even in the more common Oxford translation and in Sachs' translation is problematic and replaces "hexis" with "phronesis." There Heidegger insists, for reasons related to the development of his interpretation of Aristotle \ his fundamental ontology, that "conscience cannot be forgotten."