Deuteronomy - Lesson 27

After dealing with marginalized aliens, we need to deal with marginalized females in the Israelite population: The Torah’s Strategies for Guarding the Well-Being of Women. Of course, we begin with the anchor texts: Exodus 20, “Honor your father and your mother that your days may be prolonged in the land that Yahweh your God gives you.” Deuteronomy 5:16, “Honor your father and your mother as Yahweh your God commanded you that your days may be prolonged,” and he adds, “that it may go well with you in the land that Yahweh your God gives you.” That’s the anchor text. 

On paper, it looks like we are honoring people at the same level, father and mother. Leviticus 19, when it has the same command, it changes the word ‘honor’ to fear, reverence. I think, again, it’s trusting awe, it reverses the order: your mother and your father. It’s a way of asserting an ideal, representing those who are at the head of the household. 

But the problem—scholars have long assumed that in a patriarchal society, wives, Israel’s wives, were little more than chattel property owned by men. Anthony Phillips’ assertion is typical, “They, women, had no legal status being the personal property first of their fathers and then of their husbands.” So, you move from one to the other when you get married, but it’s the same awful world to which, or into which, you are sentenced. 

But the arguments for this position are not nearly as convincing as they’re generally made out to be. In fact, if you read the text without your prejudices in advance, your colored lenses, if you read Deuteronomy, you would scarcely get that impression. Many, including evangelical scholars, highlight what they deem to be the contrast between Old and New Testament perspectives. And they go to Paul immediately – “In Christ, there’s neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female.” They’re all equal. It’s all the same. It makes no difference to God what gender you are, or social status, whatever. 

But as I read the text, I come to the conclusion that actually, the similarities and continuities are far more greater, far greater than the contrast. The New Testament does not create a different world from what is dreamt of in Deuteronomy. It envisions a different world from what is described in Israelite narratives. 

It is true that the Hebrew word ‘household’ is ‘house of a father’ by definition. Becky Josberger did her dissertation on that. And that biblical narratives are filled with men who treated their wives and daughters badly. Hence, my essay on Crimes Unspeakable: The Abuse of Women in the Book of Judges. It’s horrific. But more often than not, the narratives tell us how things were, not how they should have been. They talk about how they abused - men abused - their positions of responsibility within the household. 

When I read Deuteronomy, I discover that the problem is our vocabulary. And we talked about this earlier. The word patri-archy, ‘rule of the father,’ may reflect reality. Abraham treats Sarah in a couple of instances as if she’s mere property. Here, you’re my sister, go to Pharaoh, or go to Abimelech. And what does she do? She just gives in. Really? Patriarchy may reflect reality, but it does not reflect the Torah ideal, which is captured far better by the word ‘patricentrism.’ 

We witnessed the problem in the very shape of the Decalogue, which provides us with three anchor texts. 

Well, here the patricentric ideal of ancient Israel on the left hand, which has the energies of the father going out to all the members of the household. And of course, at this point it is the house of the father that is the family. I don’t have the house of the father and the mother; that would be assumed. But it is a patricentric world. 

But what happens in the narratives is this: it’s all about, all too often, it’s all about maintaining the status, the position, the honor of the head of the household. So, everybody beats to the drumbeat that the head of the household creates to make him look good in the community. What a guy. That’s what we want. Well, these anchor texts actually paint a different picture. 

And there’s another text within the Decalogue, “You shall not commit adultery.” I hear so often that the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are so focused on female adultery. Well, how about the Decalogue? We asked the other day, to whom is the Decalogue addressed? Who’s the addressee? This is not a female pronoun, “You shall not commit adultery.” In the foundational covenant document, there is the absolute taboo on male adultery. It starts right here. And this is all about the head of household behaving himself, not abusing the people around, either within his household or in the neighborhood. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” You shall not desire your neighbor’s. 

And in this case, we talked about this a little bit, in the way Deuteronomy rearranges these statements by raising wife to her own budgetary line item, he dignifies her and does not allow us to go to Exodus and treat this as an excuse for treating our wives as if they are just property, like the ox and the donkey, or male and female slaves. No, I think Deuteronomy is very deliberately dealing with that issue. 

In this book, The Gospel According to Moses, I have a fuller discussion of this topic under the heading, ”You Shall Not Covet Your Neighbor’s Wife: A Study in Deuteronomic Domestic Ideology.” What’s the vision for the family? In the book of Deuteronomy, we can find more information there. 

But I want to go to three case studies in our very brief discussion. It’s far too brief, and there are lots more texts that we can go. You can have Becky Josberger come and give you a few lectures on that. Her whole thing was about the role of the head of the household in Deuteronomy and what ideals drive the picture. 

Let’s go to chapter 21, verses 10 to 17. It’s a fascinating text. “When you go out to war against your enemies, and Yahweh your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive,” (notice it’s a military context) “and you see among,” who’s the addressee? It’s an ordinary Israelite who, in time of war, is taken from the farm and conscripted, and has to go and join the battle. And he goes out and fights. And there you win the victory. And you take captive the citizens. “And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife.” It’s like in that other text, I’d like to eat meat or I’d like to have a king. “Hey, I’d like that woman for my wife.” That happens. This is not a made-up scenario. It’s a very common scenario in the ancient and the modern world, too. You’d like to have her. He doesn’t tell her you can’t do that. What does he say? He continues.

“And you bring your home to your house, she shall shave her head and trim her nails.” Well, yeah, that’ll work. “And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that, you may go into her,” this means consummate the marriage, “be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her,” oops, didn’t turn out so well, “you must let her go wherever she wants. But you may not sell her for money, nor may you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.” It’s a remarkable text. It assumes that this is a part of everyday warfare when the victorious army, the soldiers, find, encounter women they would like to take home. 

Notice how he is to treat her. First, you may bring her home to your house, but you must give her an opportunity, ritually, to mourn the shift in identity. And that’s what the changing of the clothes involves. This is not easy for her. 

You may bring her home. She shall shave her head and trim her nails. Put on—take off the clothes. She is no longer part of that world. She’s in a new world. And she shall remain in your house. And lament her father and mother. What’s happened to them? Well, two possibilities. One, we won. We slaughtered all the population, but we spared beautiful women that we married. You must give her a whole month to mourn. That’s how long they mourn for Moses when he died. This is remarkable. Don’t treat her like dirt. Let her grieve. This isn’t easy for her either. Have a heart. Let her be. She’s just lost her mother and her father. Come on. She’s a victim, a casualty of war. Treat her as such. And after that, you’ve given her a long time to adjust, then she may be your wife. And you may go into her and consummate marriage. 

But then he says, “…but if you no longer…” He doesn’t say—this is not for life. He doesn’t, “Till death do us part.” He’s not talking about that. But he talks about a very real scenario when people from radically different cultural contexts, social contexts, marry. On the outset at the beginning, it looks so hunky dory, “This is going to be great, I like her; come live with me.” And it doesn’t work out so well. 

But notice the point of this text is to rein in the abuse of the man. Don’t you treat her like dirt. If you no longer delight in her, it does not give you license to mistreat her. And don’t blame her. You must let her go with full freedom. And she would probably be freer than any of the other captives who were taken and made household slaves. But you brought her in as your wife, you do not degrade her by using that to make a slave of her. “You may not sell her for money, nor may you trade her since you are the one who humiliated her.” 

So, this is not about abuse, this law is not about further abuse to women, it is to prevent further abuse to women. You must look out for the well-being of the next person. And even if this marriage doesn’t work out, that’s what you do. Get over self-interest in the interest of the other. It’s a remarkable story. I couldn’t believe it when I first encountered this. That’s an amazing picture. It’s nothing like the stereotypes that we hear about. Nothing like it. 

Case number two, chapter 22, “If a man takes a wife and goes into her and then rejects her,” oh, this is that Hebrew word for ‘hate.’ “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart. And the Lord blesses those who demonstrate love for Him. But to those who ‘hate’ him, He imposes severe consequences.” The word hate here doesn’t mean you’d like to beat up, and whatever; it means, reject. It’s the opposite of covenant commitment to. It’s rejection from covenant commitment. And so, this is divorce. That’s what happens in divorce. You have said, in their marriage vows, till death do us part. And then… 

Notice who is the problem here. It’s addressed to a man, or it’s about a man. If a man takes a wife, this is the “normal”. It’s a patricentric world. It’s never about a woman taking a husband. Never, not once. It’s always about the man taking. And don’t read violence into that. It’s simply a cultural thing where they find security in, the women find security in the male. And here there is a male who is offering that and he takes her. 

But then notice, “If he takes a wife and goes into her,” which is consummation of the marriage, “and then he rejects her,” notice, she’s not the problem. He’s the one who says it’s quits, it’s over, it’s done. 

“And he accuses her of misconduct,” this is a certain translation, “and brings a bad name upon her.” And of course, the moment there are accusations, it doesn’t say, “And she acts wrongly.” It says, ”He accuses her of misconduct.” And of course, you remember that scenario involving the administration of justice, there’s always a possibility that the accusation is false. And in this case, too. “He accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name on her, saying, ‘I took this woman and when I came near her, I didn’t find t in her evidence of virginity.’” The marriage is obviously compromised because she’s had sex somewhere before. 

“Then the father of the young woman and her mother shall get and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry and he hates her; and look, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I didn’t find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city.” And this crude. “Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because she has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days.” 

I mean, the guy’s looking like dirt. And the point of this text is to protect. I mean, he wants out of the marriage and he’s made an excuse - she wasn’t a virgin. Spoiled goods. Yeah. That’s what we’ve got here. And of course, if it turns out to be true, her fate in life is desperate because nobody else is going to want her either. 

This is a very serious, in that cultural context where the primary function of marriage is to have children. Did you hear that? It’s so hard for us to imagine this. In fact, the primary function of sex is to have children. Even harder for us to imagine that. But that is this world where you live on in your children. And if you bring this sort of shame upon a woman who will probably, because of the shame, never have children, it’s awful. “He may not divorce her all his days. She shall be his wife.” 

Well, of course. “Then the elders will take the man and whip him, and fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the woman because he’s brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel.” Why do they give the money to the father of the woman? The answer is actually quite simple, because so long as she was in his household, he was responsible for the integrity of the household. Everybody in the family was accountable to the head of the household, not as a matter of power, but as a matter of honor for everybody. The community’s well-being is at stake here, not just the head of the household’s honor. It’s not just his honor. But if she was, in fact, not a virgin, it’s… If one member of the household sins, everybody’s implicated in it. And so, the household’s family name is tarnished forever. And so that’s a part of it here. 

So, they fine him a hundred shekels, and this is to give—it’s compensation to the household of origin that has been besmirched by the accusation, not by the woman, by the accusation. He’s brought a bad name upon the virgin of Israel, an extension of the household. “And she shall be his wife. You may not divorce her.” 

But then, of course, these days we are objecting to the exactly that last line. Does this sentence her to a life of living with a man who doesn’t like her forever and ever? And of course, now you need to understand what this means. It may well be that this is not modern Western romance. But in the ancient world, the kind of romance that we write novels about was rare. It takes a kind of affluent world to have the luxury of romance as such a dominant matter, issue in marriage. 

In medieval and early modern times, at the top levels in the courts of Europe, there was all kinds of romance going on, hanky-panky of every sort. But the people at the bottom level, they don’t have time, nor energy, nor resources for that. They’re just trying to survive. 

So, in the ancient world, romance was not the basis of a marriage. It was the covenant commitment that we pledged to each other: I will be your husband and you shall be my wife. And love is then defined as: I will look out for your interests. Doesn’t mean it was always easy. 

And in this case, you can just imagine in the end, at the end of this whole procedure, who’s the guy with the egg on his face? It’s the guy. He is the one who has been dishonored. And they are saying, you cannot punish your wife because of your shame. You are bound to be her protector for as long as you live. You must take care of her. This is the community, and the community stands there as the witnesses and guarantors of his behavior after this. You will take care of her. It’s your obligation. You are the one who shamed her and now it’s your duty.

So, you know, legally, she is taken care of for as long as she lives. Does that mean her life is happy? No, life wasn’t always happy. It still isn’t always happy. But on the other hand, it was secure. It was secure. She had food, she had clothing, she had a house, she had a roof over her. He was obligated to care for her. She was prevented destitution, which is the lot of widows and of the fatherless. So, we need to understand it from their perspective, not from our Western romantic perspective. So, this is a surprising text and it’s hard for us to get into that picture. 

But now there’s case B… (That’s case A - the accusation turns out to be false.) Now, let’s go to, what if it is true? “But if it is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the woman,” you can’t prove she was a virgin, “then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house.” 

But now we have to remember. (I should have produced at this point already a slide of.) We must remember this text is not about the punishment. This text is about the crime. Israel is a theocracy. God is preparing a holy community governed by His principles. In Israel, the boundaries of spiritual Israel and the boundaries of physical Israel are to be coterminous. Within this world, this is what defines us. 

But of course, we are no longer there anymore, are we? We don’t live in that world. We don’t live in that world, and so we don’t stone women who do this. In the New Testament times they didn’t either. Remember the woman caught in adultery? They brought her to Jesus. I know this is John 8, it’s probably not Scripture. But in any case, it certainly fits that world. They bring the woman caught in it in adultery. There are lots of questions about it - where is the guy? If she’s caught in adultery, what about her? What about him? What? I mean, why did they bring only…? 

And of course, I think this is the part of the problem by the time you get to the New Testament. It’s much more misogynistic than the First Testament, the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day, much more misogynistic than at least the ideals of Deuteronomy, certainly. 

But in that case, what does Jesus do? I mean, He should pick up a rock and stone her because that’s what the law says, people caught in adultery, you stone. So, Jesus starts throwing. What does He say? “Let the person who’s without sin be the first.” 

But of course, it’s not quite that simple. We’re living in a different world. We are living in a world in which we are not a theocracy. We are a community, hopefully a theocracy. But we’re living in a Roman world where we Jews do not have the power of life and death over anybody which is why when they crucified Jesus, the Jews can’t do it themselves, they take him to the Roman officials. The sword has been put into the Roman’s hands. And so, you’ve got to live within the world in which you live. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus condones adultery. “Go, sin no more.” Shape up. Behave yourself. Act like an honorable woman from here on in. 

This is not about the punishment. It’s about the seriousness of the crime. And in another cultural context, it will be that seriousness will be preserved in a different way. So, we need to understand. 

It’s the same thing with a rebellious son. We don’t stone rebellious children. Sometimes we feel like it, but we don’t stone rebellious children. But we don’t reject the Scriptures because it tells them to stone them. That’s a different world. But rebellion, youthful rebellion, is as evil today as it ever was. It’s not the whole thing is thrown out because of the form of the punishment. 

And then look at it. “So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” No tolerance for this kind of behavior. It is an outrage. It’s abominable to God. “But if the thing is true, the evidence of virginity was not found.” That’s case two. 

Case three, 24:1 to 5, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some defect in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her…” And of course, again, hate here doesn’t mean he wants to beat her up and be violent to her. It means simply, “This marriage isn’t working, I’m out of here.” “He writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she’s been defiled, for that as an abomination before Yahweh. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that Yahweh your God is giving you.”

This is a part of the theocratic view, that triangle, everything is sacred. And if you defile your person, you defile the land, you defile everything around you. “The land that God is giving you for an inheritance.” 

Well, what’s the issue here? The critical question is ʿervaṯ dāḇār. And most of our translations, my New American translation, has “In his eyes because he has found some indecency in her.” Well, what is indecency? This is probably an ethical thing. She hasn’t behaved herself, and now he’s upset with her. Maybe it’s related to the other one, she’s not a virgin. She’s gone and messed with somebody else. Who knows? We don’t know if that’s what. 

But the interesting thing is that she finds no favor in his eyes. There’s a clue. She finds no favor in his eyes. Where’s the problem? It’s in his eyes. This is a graceless husband. And he doesn’t like her for whatever reason. The expression here is ʿervaṯ dāḇār, nakedness of a matter. I have no idea exactly what that means, but I don’t think it’s immorality. I don’t think it’s he discovered she’s been naughty. Where else do we have this kind of expression? “If a man goes and sleeps with his father’s wife, he exposes his nakedness,” you know, this kind of thing. 

I think what’s happening in here, and here’s where my colleague John Walton’s essay on this 20 years ago I think is spot on, this is not about a moral issue. I think it’s a flaw, physically. He discovers either, I mean, she may have menstrual issues, she may have fertility issues, there may be things, or we’re never going to have children. I think that’s what we’re after. He’s a graceless man, and he looks at the problem only through his own eyes, and he cannot imagine what she feels like and he doesn’t actually care. 

But he divorces her and puts her out and makes the world think she’s the problem. Oh, and then somebody else marries her and it doesn’t go much better; he rejects her. Is it because he discovered, “Yeah, what the other guy said about her. She’s a naughty woman.” 

Again, I don’t - it leaves far too much open. But he rejects her. Could it be again because she’s barren? Something, there’s a problem here. We cannot continue the family line. In my view, that’s what’s at issue here. We live on in our children, which is why the worst curse you can experience is, “May your name be forgotten and your seed perish.” Eternal life is thought of in terms of living on in the land through your children. 

So that when I was born as number nine of fifteen, I wasn’t a new life, I was simply an extension of my parents’ life. They live on in me. And by now, my grandparents’ two sides put together, we are 200 first cousins. Yes, you heard that right, 200. 106 on my mother’s side and 94 or 97 on my father’s side. But that counts us twice because we belong on both sides. But we can use those numbers, can’t we? I tell you my grandparents had an amazing afterlife. They live on in. People used to tell my dad, “You don’t have to do it all yourself,” fill the world, that is. But we’re not the biggest family in this clan on either side. So it is amazing. 

But in this case, I think it’s a matter of having children. What is marriage for? Sarah was barren. She had no children. That hurts. And for some of us, I mean, we talked about this at the table there the other day. You know, our oldest son is adopted. And I tell you, the first six years of our marriage, Mother’s Day for my wife was the hardest day of the year. It was. Because when you come from families where children are treasured. 

My father, later on in life, (earlier, we were far too poor ever to eat in restaurants; never did that) but later on in life, after he retired and was on pension, government pension, richer than ever in real life, we’d go home and he’d take us to the restaurant. And I’d never forget, as we were walking out of the restaurant, if he’d ever see a young couple there with a child in a highchair, he couldn’t resist going over to them and pinching the little child’s cheeks and looking straight in the mother’s or father’s eyes and saying, “Do you know you have the most wonderful treasure in all the world?” He always did that. I mean, he was all heart. He was all heart because children are important. No wonder the Psalmist says, “Blessed is the man with a full quiver.” You live abundant life. 

Well, here, the worst thing. “What’s wrong with you?” You’re under the curse. And so, he can’t shame her twice. You don’t go back to the woman whom you have humiliated because you’ve exposed, not necessarily a moral crime, but for a woman who wants to have children so badly, this is a shame. It’s a scandal. You can’t go back and set her up for mistreatment again. It’s to protect the woman, all of these laws. 

This is not an exhaustive list of texts. We can talk about the rebellious son and the involvement of the mother along with the father in court when they try. She’s there, too. We can talk about the Levirate marriage in 25. These are all about protecting the women. 

The case of a recently engaged man in the context of war for a calling up of troops. 

The case of the oldest son in a bigamous household. 

The case of the rebellious son. 

The vision of marriage and family life assumes clear boundaries between the roles and functions of husbands and wives and promotes the well-being of women by not forcing them to compete with men. We have no idea what kind of tension this has created in our world and I think only in the future will we know the consequences. 

The vision of appropriate conduct in the community by men and women is obviously not the view of relations between the genders that we understand, but it assumes and promotes an elevated view of women unheard of in the ancient world. This is so different from Hammurabi’s Law Code. It’s so different from anything you find anywhere. The men are to look out for the women, that’s what headship means. It doesn’t mean rule your household well. It means carry your household well. 

The high view of maternity and the bearing of children in this vision does not reduce women to sex objects but it celebrates their role in the preservation of the human race as the [royal] image of God. There is no higher honor than to have children. God uses us in the creation of images of Himself. But we don’t understand this. It’s such a foreign world.

But all of this to say that the ideal in Deuteronomy, seeking to protect the vulnerable, especially from the ogres, is such a dominant theme all the way through the book, whether it’s mistreating animals or mistreating slaves or mistreating servants. Have a heart. This is ethics with a heart. All right. 

Student: I think you answered the question, but I just want to confirm it - that the laws protecting women in Deuteronomy are unique or relatively unique compared to the ancient world. I mean, is this something that really is very unique to Israel? 

Dr. Block: The scenarios that Deuteronomy talks about are common all over the place. But the heart that is encouraged for men in particular, I don’t know anything like this. There could be some, but I don’t know everything. There are the people who know the laws better than I do. But when I read Hammurabi’s Law Code, I don’t see this compassion for a healthy community like this. I mean, the corporate good depends upon men behaving properly. That’s the bottom line. That is the bottom line. 

Whether it’s the king at the top or whether it’s the king in the household, it depends on men behaving good or bad. And the onus is always the burden, the responsibility for the health, is on the men’s shoulders. That’s patricentrism. It’s not patriarchy. You see the difference? It’s carrying the household, assuming they are your charge, not your kingdom, your charge. God has given you them to take care of on His behalf. But I find the tone is so different. So different. This is godliness. 

Fertility religion doesn’t worry much about this. Big families, big herds, big crops. That’s true, but it doesn’t matter how you get them. And the gods behave as badly as human beings do. That’s the problem. They don’t provide happy models of anything.