There are plenty of issues about which we can all disagree with Hillary Clinton. If she wins the Democratic nomination and the presidency, we will all need to be even more diligent about engaging her on the issues that matter to us. Still, the opposition to her candidacy in places, including this website, seems more venomous than any issue dispute. I am a firm believer that the foundational stories of our culture shape the way we think and make decisions. I will readily admit that I have a vested interest in this being true because interpreting these stories is my business. So, if you will allow, I would like to play around a little bit with three archetypal female images and see what they may have to say about people’s reactions to Senator Clinton.
Contrary to popular opinion, Eve did not eat the forbidden fruit first. Genesis 3:6-7 that she and Adam ate together, and received the benefits and burdens of this eating together. Still, Eve is the one who "saw that the tree was good for food." Further, in Genesis 4:1, Eve alone spoke of having "acquired a man" after giving birth to the first child, Cain. She is the archetype of all who reach out beyond barriers to reach out for and acquire new things. These new acquisitions, such as knowledge and children, come with great advantages, but also with responsibilities and heartaches. The reaction of God in Genesis 3 has often been read as punishment, but it is also an acknowledgement that living as a free being in this world has its costs. Eve made that decision for us, and we give her little credit for the benefits but all the blame the costs. Does Hillary trouble and terrify some because she is reaching across some new boundary, deciding for us that we will reap the rewards and bear the burdens of that move?
Judges 16 never says the Samson and Delilah were married, only that he was in love with her. He had previously been married to an unnamed Philistine woman in Judges 14. The stories of the two women are similar enough to argue that the text now combines independent traditions about the same woman. But it is the story of Delilah in Judges 16 that is burned into the Western psyche. Delilah is a tool of more powerful forces, the Philistine lords who want to know the secret of Samson’s strength. She betrays Samson for the rewards that they offer her, persisting through three failed attempts to capture Samson based on false information her gives her. While Samson resists telling her his secret those first three times, eventually he gives in to her irresistible charms. Are some afraid that Hillary is luring them with the charming promise of the first female president or the return to the glory of the Clinton years, only to sell us into the hands of K Street Philistines?
Jezebel was a Sidonian princess who married Ahab, king of the northern nation of Israel in the middle of the ninth century BCE. She is infamous for two things, her religious conflicts with the prophet Elijah and her attempts to acquire property for her husband. Both of these set her against Israelite tradition. Ahab and Jezebel are married in I Kings 16:31 and in the verses that follow he immediately begins worshiping false gods. The text does not directly connect Ahab’s idolatry to his marriage to a foreign woman, but it is an easy assumption. This idolatry leads to the conflict with Elijah, who wins the great contest with the prophets of Baal In I Kings 18 but must immediately flee because of Jezebel’s threat to kill him. Jezebel reappears in I Kings 21 when Ahab is unsuccessful in his attempt to acquire the vineyard of Naboth. Jezebel manipulates the legal system against Naboth and he is executed and, thus, she acquires the property for her husband. Are some bothered by Hillary’s foreignness? She is part Illinoisan, part Arkansan, part Washingtonian, part New Yorker, so everybody knows her, but is not quite sure where her loyalties lie. The Jezebel identity also exposes that other issue, her relationship to a powerful man. Does she serve his interests or her own, or do they serve other interests together? Will she lead us into some kind of idolatry?
Cultures which the Bible has helped to form have always been fascinated by these three women, and modern American culture is no different. Allusions to these three appear, for example, in popular music more often than references to Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, or even the Apostle Paul. Even if we are not fully aware of the names behind the traditions their figures are powerful: The Woman Who Seeks to Acquire, The Woman Who Seduces and Betrays, or the Woman Who Manipulates and Leads into Error. Whether each of us supports or opposes the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, these images play around in our heads, and it is a good idea to raise them regularly to critical awareness. In more general terms, of course, these are also female stereotypes which have done great damage to the cause of women in this world. Once again, however, I do not think that ignoring these images is the solution to this problem.
I am neutral about Hillary at this point. I have frequently defended her on this site from attacks and criticisms I thought were inaccurate or unfair. Of the three images above, she is most like Eve to me. Her acquisitive powers make me nervous. I am sure there will be blessings and curse which come with a potential Hillary Clinton presidency, and I am not sure how they will balance. What do you think, or is there another archetypal female image that she fits?