“Black and Beautiful” or “Black but Beautiful”?

Last week it was my time to organize the chapel services for the seminary community. Once a year a faculty member is responsible for planning and leading the chapel program. This time, I decided to do something different. I decided to arrange the Song of Songs as a play and perform it in chapel.

Song of Songs is mostly unfamiliar to Christians because they do not read it very often. When they do, they wrongly call it “The Song of Solomon” believing that Solomon wrote this beautiful song. In Hebrew, the title of the book is a superlative. The book should be translated “The song of all songs” or “The greatest song.”

Many Christians follow Jewish tradition by ascribing the authorship of the Songs to Solomon. In fact, a Jewish saying declares that when Solomon was young he wrote Proverbs, when he was in love he wrote Songs, and when he was old he wrote Ecclesiastes. None of these, of course, is true, but it serves to continue the idea that Solomon was the writer of these three Biblical books.

As for the canonicity of Song of Songs, the book had some problems in being accepted as part of the canon. The reason for this reluctance is because Song of Songs tells a story of love with graphic sexual language. Most people reading Song of Songs in English will not notice the sexual language because the writer used euphemisms to hide the sexuality of the dialogue between the woman and her lover.

Eventually, the book was accepted as canonical because it was interpreted allegorically. Under this interpretation, Song of Songs describes the love of God for Israel or the love of Christ for the church. However, when properly understood, Songs is a love story. The book describes in poetic form the love between a man and a woman.

Over the centuries, most readers of the book have struggled with the proper interpretation of this story of love. The traditional interpretation says that the book tells the story of two lovers: Solomon and the Shulammite. For the proper interpretation of the story, it is important not to confuse the Shulammite (Songs 6:13) with Abishag the Shunammite of 1 Kings 1:3-4. They were two different persons.

Under the traditional interpretation of the Songs, the book is telling the readers the story of Solomon’s love for the Shulammite. The traditional interpretation also implies that Solomon wrote Song of Songs in order to express his love for the Shulammite.

There is, however, a problem with the traditional interpretation. If the lover whom the woman loved was Solomon, then the reader must also assume that Solomon was a shepherd who took care of his flock. For this reason, it is very clear that Solomon was not the man the Shulammite loved.

A better interpretation of the Songs sees three lovers in the story: Solomon, the Shulammite, and the one she loved, the shepherd. Under this interpretation, Songs is a story about Solomon and not a story by Solomon.

This interpretation understands Song of Songs as a satire on Solomon. The story celebrates the victory of true love and tells of the occasion when Solomon’s desire to have another woman as a member of his harem was foiled by a peasant woman who refused to exchange the man she loved for the comfort of the palace.

Here was a man who already had “sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number” (Songs 6:8-9), but who wanted one more. But Solomon’s display of riches and might (Songs 3:6-11; 8:11) to gain the love of a peasant woman did not succeed. Solomon’s wealth and royal position could not convince the woman to accept the king’s advance and deny her love for the shepherd.

Song of Songs celebrates true love between a man and a woman, the kind of love that cannot be bought with money: “Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man offered for love all the wealth of his house, he would be utterly despised” (Songs 8:7).

Who was this remarkable woman, the Shulammite, who refused the wealth of Solomon and the enticement of royalty in order to remain true to her shepherd lover? The Bible has little to say about her. However, it is what she said about herself that has attracted the attention of many scholars.

She said about herself: שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה
English translations differ on the interpretation of her words:

The New Revised Standard Version: “I am black and beautiful.”

The Douay-Rheims Bible: “I am black but beautiful.”

The English Standard Version: “I am very dark, but lovely.”

The Jewish Publication Society: “I am black, but comely.”

The Septuagint (LXX): “I am black, but beautiful.”

The Shulammite words are addressed to the women of Jerusalem. Although the women do not respond, it is apparent that the women are looking at the Shulammite with disdain because of her appearance. She refers to her color and compares it with the tents of Kedar and the curtains of Solomon.

“I am very dark, but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon” (Songs 1:5 RSV).

She said that she had a dark complexion because she was exposed to the hot sun, since her brothers punished her by ordering her to take care of the vineyards:

“Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has scorched me. My mother's sons were angry with me, they made me keeper of the vineyards; but, my own vineyard I have not kept” (Songs 1:6 RSV).

The text does not say that her dark complexion was due to her racial background, that is, that she was an African woman. Her dark skin pigmentation was not a reference to a racial feature.

What the Shulammite was trying to say to the women of Jerusalem was that the exposure to the sun on her body made her to be darker than the women who lived in Jerusalem. She was dark because she did not protect her body from the intense heat of the sun.

The Shulammite’s words reflect the fact that peasant women who worked in the fields had dark skin because of the constant exposure to the sun, while the women who lived in luxurious houses of Jerusalem and those who lived in the palace were less dark and more white.

The woman explained her blackness by comparing it with the tents of Kedar and the curtains of Solomon. The tents of Kedar were bedouin tents made of black goat hair. Although the text does not clarify what was intended by “the curtains of Solomon,” they were probably curtains or wall hangings found in Solomon’s palace known by its beauty and artistic designs.

The reading of the Holman Christian Standard Bible tries to include both ideas in its translation, but in the process it diminishes what the Shulammite says about herself: “Daughters of Jerusalem, I am dark like the tents of Kedar, yet lovely like the curtains of Solomon.”

The reason for the punishment her brothers inflicted on her was because she did not keep her own vineyard. The symbolism behind the vineyard is probably a reference to her virginity, that is, that she gave herself sexually to her shepherd lover and as a result her brothers punished her for her indiscretion.

Thus, the Shulammite asked the women of Jerusalem not to pay attention to her black skin. In Hebrew the conjunction waw can be translated as “and” or “but.” Many people object to translating the Shulammite words as “black but beautiful” because such a translation may suggest that blackness is not beautiful. Critics complain that this translation may point to some kind of racial prejudice.

A careful look at the text reveals that the woman was explaining that although she had a dark complexion that she was beautiful. The reason she spoke about her dark skin was probably because it had become an issue in the minds of people who belonged to the upper class of Jerusalem.

So the questions must be asked: should we translate the waw as “and” or “but”?

A careful examination of the Shulammite words in light of her conversation with the women of Jerusalem reveals that the woman was defending her dark skin. In addition, verse 6 explains that her skin was dark because her brothers forced her to work in the vineyards and she was exposed to the hot sun. This is the reason she asks the women of Jerusalem not to look at her and her dark complexion with disdain.

The text has nothing to do with race, neither is the text saying that white skin is more attractive that dark skin. The problem is that society classifies people as either black, white, or brown. Since this woman was a Semitic woman, she probably had dark skin. She was not white. The Shulammite defended her dark skin not because she believed that it was ugly, but because her natural skin was not like that.

Thus, readers must conclude that the woman was unhappy about her dark skin because it was not her natural skin color but it was the result of being exposed to the sun for a long time. The proper translation of 1:5 should be: “I am black but beautiful.”

However, when we read the words of the Shulammite, we can say with assurance, that she was black and beautiful, for the woman herself speaks unashamedly about her beauty: “I am black and beautiful.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, Solomon, Song of Songs, Shulammite, Women

Not for Women Only

PRESS RELEASE




On Friday, April 23, 2010, the faculty of Northern Seminary are sponsoring a panel discussion entitled, "Not for Women Only: Affirming the Equal Calling of Women and Men to the Ministry of the Gospel." The event is scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at 9:00 p.m.

There is tension in scripture regarding the relationship of gender and ministry and all are invited to come and learn how others with a high view of scripture navigate these important questions.

Through panel discussion and the fielding of audience questions, members of Northern's faculty will 1) Present their own journeys toward supporting the equal partnership of males and females in church ministry and 2) Respond earnestly to audience questions.

Faculty participating in the discussion include: Jeff Hubing, Claude Mariottini, Ricky Freeman, Alistair Brown, Charlie Cosgrove, and Tracy Smith Malone.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Ministry, Women

The Mystery Women of the Assyrian Empire

Photo: A Clay Tablet with Cuneiform Writing

Credit: National Geographic News



National Geographic is reporting that archaeologists are translating clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform writing that describe everyday life in the Assyrian Empire 3,000 years ago. These clay tablets were unearthed in the summer of 2009 in an ancient Assyrian palace located in present-day southeastern Turkey.

One interesting set of information provided by the translation of these clay tablets is what the tablets reveal about a group of women working for the Assyrians. The following is an excerpt from the article:

Mystery Women

So far, the team has deciphered lists of names of 144 women on the tablets who were likely employed by the palace as agricultural workers or laborers at its granary.

Yet while the tablets were written in the Late Assyrian language, the women's names are not Assyrian.

That means the women may have been from local indigenous populations, or part of a mass relocation of people conquered by the Assyrians in another part of the empire.

"The Assyrians deported large numbers of people—hundreds of thousands—from one part of the empire to another in order to break up local power structures and to move agricultural workers where they needed them," he said.

"It's an intriguing possibility that these women may have been one group that was involved in these deportations."

The files can help explain how, as a political entity, the empire controlled and administrated their large territories.

"It will be very interesting to see what the role of women in this economy was, and also [perhaps] what the hierarchy was—were there Assyrian overlords, or was it all locally managed?"

The information above was provided by Timothy Matney, an archaeologist from the University of Akron, who is leading a team of archaeologists in the excavation of the massive mud brick palace, once inhabited by the Assyrian governor of the empire’s Tushhan Province. Read the article in its entirety here.

Further studies of these tablets may help scholars gain a better understanding of what life was like in the Assyrian Empire.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Assyrians, Assyrian Empire, Clay Tablets, Cuneiform, Women

Women, Paris, and Pants

There is a law is Paris, a law that was introduced in 1800, that says that if a woman wants to wear pants like a man, she must go to the Paris police station and obtain authorization to dress like a man.

The law forbidding a woman from wearing pants in the city of Paris has survived repeated attempts to repeal it. The law was changed in 1892 to allow a woman to wear trousers but only “as long as the woman is holding the reins of a horse.” Then, the law was changed again in 1909 to allow women to wear pants on condition that they were “on a bicycle or holding it by the handlebars.”

Recently, the Paris city council asked the police chief to change the law. He refused by saying that it was “unwise to change texts which foreseen or unforeseen variations in fashion can return to the fore.”

What can I say about this law?

I am sure that this Parisian law reflects an old Catholic interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5:

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”

Read my post on "Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5," Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

I wonder if the chief of police is as obtuse as those people who interpret Deuteronomy 22:5 as a prohibition against wearing pants.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Deuteronomy 22:5, Pants, Paris, Women

Biblical Feminism

Benjamin Ledford, a student at the University of Idaho discusses the theme of Biblical feminism in this video, which is a companion to his article, “Is God a Chauvinist?” which was published in the Argonaut, the university’s student newspaper.






Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Chauvinism, Feminism, Misogyny, Women

Is God a Chauvinist?

Benjamin Ledford, a student at the University of Idaho and a columnist for the Argonaut, the university’s student newspaper, has written an article dealing with the treatment of women in the Old and New Testaments.

The following excerpt is the introduction to the article:

One accusation often leveled at God and the Bible is that of oppressive paternalism. The Bible, so the argument goes, does not convey any unique “truth,” but was written by and for powerful, selfish men in a backwards, male-dominated time, and it reflects the views of those who were in control.

Of course, those who believe the Bible to be the word of God would disagree strongly, but setting aside the origins of the book, are the contents of the Bible chauvinistic or misogynistic? Does the Judeo-Christian tradition encourage the oppression of women?

If we want to know the answer, we will have to examine the Bible on its own terms. If we view it only from our own perspective, all we will find out is what we would have meant if we had written the Bible ourselves, which is really not at all helpful in understanding the book.

Ledford has written a good article and in general, I agree with most of his conclusions. Read the article in its entirety here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Chauvinism, Feminism, Misogyny, Women

Hypatia: A Woman of Renown

Judith Weingarten at Zenobia: Empress of the East, has an excellent article on Hypatia, a woman who was a philosopher, a mathematician, a lecturer, and an astronomer.

Hypatia’s life has been made into a movie. Below is a preview of the movie.






Visit Judith’s blog and read her post on this fascinating woman.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hypatia, Women

Phoebe: A Diakonos

Elizabeth McCabe of Hebrew Union College has a good article on Phoebe, a woman in the early church who appears in the New Testament as a deacon and as a leader of the church. Her article appears on the SBL Forum.

The following is an excerpt from the article:

Phoebe: A Diakonos

Of all New Testament women, Phoebe might be the most hotly debated in terms of her role in the early church. She is described in Romans 16:1 as a diakonos, which is generally masked in English translations as “servant.” However, diakonos is the same word that Paul uses to describe his own ministry (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25), but it is unlikely that this parallel could ever be gleaned from English translations alone.

What is more is that the title of Phoebe as a diakonos accounts for the “first recorded ‘deacon’ in the history of Christianity.” Phoebe is tied to a specific local church, the church at Cenchrea, which makes her appointment a local function. Furthermore, the combination of diakonos with ousa “points more to a recognized ministry” or a “position of responsibility within the congregation.” “Minister” would be an acceptable translation in this regard or perhaps more appropriately, “[kai] also a minister,”whereas “servant” would prove inadequate. If Paul were simply aiming to convey a sense of service to her local church, this “would have probably been expressed by use of ‘diakoneō’ (Rom 15:25) or ‘diakonia’ (1 Cor 16:15).”[2]

The alternate definition for diakonos, namely an “intermediary” or “courier,” is also appropriate here. Diakonos in this regard means “one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction.”[3] In terms of Phoebe, this distinction would classify her as the letter carrier to the book of Romans. In light of the fact that many letters did not reach their designated locations in antiquity, the appointment of a woman as the carrier of the book of Romans is noteworthy, particularly since Romans is arguably the most significant book in the New Testament.

Phoebe: A Prostatis

In addition to being identified as a diakonos, Phoebe is also identified as a prostatis in Romans 16:2. Because prostatis is a hapax legomenon, translations have often been at odds to define this term, most settling with “helper.” But is “helper” true to the nature of this position in antiquity? In determining the proper definition and connotation of prostatis, I will examine its verb form proistēmi in the New Testament to gain a better understanding of the semantic range of prostatis.

Proistēmi in the New Testament

The verb form of prostatis, proistēmi, occurs eight times in three different contexts in the New Testament. These contexts include church leadership (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17), household management (1 Tim 3:4, 5, 12), and the practice of good deeds (Titus 3:8, 14). For the purposes of this article, the first context, proistēmi in church leadership, will take priority in my analysis.

In 1 Tim 5:17, the term hoi proestōtes is used in describing the presbuteroi. This verse can be translated, “Let the elders who rule [hoi proestōtes] well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the Word and in teaching.” Hoi proestōtes is rendered by different nuances in translations, including “rule” (American Standard Version: ASV, English Standard Version: ESV, King James Version: KJV, New American Standard: NAS, New King James Version: NKJV, New Revised Standard Version: NRSV); “direct the affairs of the church” (New International Version: NIV, Today’s New International Version: TNIV); “do their work” (New Living Translation: NLT); and “well-leading” (Young’s Literal Translation: YLT). In whatever fashion, proistēmi is utilized, however, a leadership capacity is being conveyed. Some type of leadership position is in order, for proistēmi can be defined as “to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head (of),”[10] which are all perfectly appropriate here.

Romans 12:8 writes of ho proistamenos, which is used in describing the different gifts that are bestowed upon members of the body of Christ. It reads, “the one who exhorts, in exhortation, the one who gives, in liberality, the one who leads [ho proistamenos], in diligence, the one who shows mercy, in cheerfulness.” Every English translation surveyed conveys the idea of leadership for ho proistamenos: “he that ruleth” (ASV, KJV), “he who leads” (NAS, NKJV), “the one who leads” (ESV), “the leader” (NRSV), “leadership” (NIV), “to lead” (TNIV), “leadership ability” (NLT), and “he who is leading” (YLT).

Read the article in its entirety by visiting the SBL Forum.

An expanded version of McCabe’s article will appear in vol.1 of Women in the Biblical World: A Survey of Old and New Testament Perspectives (ed. Elizabeth A. McCabe; Lanham: University Press of America, 2009).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Deacon, Diakonos, Elizabeth McCabe, Phoebe, Prostatis, Women

Women Wearing Pants: The Consequence

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Sudanese woman, Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, a journalist and a former U. N. staffer, was facing 40 lashes or jail for wearing pants in public. The following is an excerpt from the report:

A Sudanese woman was convicted today of public indecency for wearing pants at an outdoor cafe and jailed for one month when she refused to pay a fine.

The case has stirred international outrage and spawned protests in Sudan over the Islamic-dominated government's treatment of women.

Lubna Hussein, a journalist and former U.N. staffer based in Khartoum, the capital, could have received 40 lashes with a plastic whip under Sudan's criminal code, which is based largely on Islamic Sharia law.

Instead, a judge ordered Hussein -- who stood before the court in the same pair of pants that she wore when arrested -- to pay a $200 fine. Hussein said she would refuse to pay, and was taken to a women's prison to serve a one-month sentence.

"If I paid, it would mean I'd lost the battle," Hussein said after the verdict was announced. "I would rather serve my time in jail."

Hussein was arrested earlier this year with a dozen other women, most of whom have since paid a fine or were lashed.

A similar fate could have happened to women in ancient Israel if Deuteronomy 22:5 taught that women should not wear pants in public. I am glad that Deuteronomy 22:5 did not teach that then and that it does not teach this now.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Deuteronomy 22:5, Pants, Women

Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5 - Part 2

Read Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5 - Part 1

In my previous post I discussed Kent Brandenburg’s attempt to prove that Deuteronomy 22:5 is teaching that women should wear dresses and skirts and men should were pants. In the present post I will show that the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 deals with religious practices found in Canaanite religion.

As I mentioned in my last post, in order to support his position, Brother Brandenburg quoted several biblical scholars. In addition to Martin Luther and Keil and Delitzsch, he quoted Albert Barnes (1884-1885), The Pulpit Commentary (1897), Lange's Commentary (1884), Joseph Excell (1849), Vincent Alsop (mid 17th century), Matthew Poole (1560) and several recent commentaries.

However, what do all the authors and commentaries Brother Brandenburg cited have in common? Most of them were written before the rise of modern archaeology and the discovery of written material that clarify the religious and cultural practices of many nations of the Ancient Near East. In addition, none of these authors studied how the Hebrew word תוֹעֵבָ֥ה (tô`eba) is used in the book of Deuteronomy.

Let me begin with תוֹעֵבָ֥ה (tô`eba) in Deuteronomy. The noun occurs 117 times in the Old Testament and it is generally translated as “abomination.” The word is used to describe a sinful act on the part of Israel or an individual Israelite. The word appears several times in Ezekiel to describe an action that is cultically unacceptable.

In the book of Deuteronomy, the word tô`eba becomes almost a technical word that is used to describe pagan practices that are abhorrent to Yahweh. A few examples will suffice:

“When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations” (Deuteronomy 18:9).

“There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you” (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

“You shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 20:17-18).

“You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 23:18).

I could cite several other passages in Deuteronomy where the word “abomination” is used as a reference to a religious practice that existed in the religion of the Canaanites and several other nations in the Ancient Near East. The last quotation above, Deuteronomy 23:18, forbids an Israelite to “bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD” as a payment for a vow. Such an act was an abomination to the LORD.

The reference here is to the offering in the temple of the Lord of the wages received by the “harlots and the dogs,” that is, the female and male cultic prostitutes who offered themselves in the worship of Baal. Note the order of the words: the female is referred to first, then the male. This same order is also found in Deuteronomy 22:5: first the woman then the man (see below).

This is the reason Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits Israelites from wearing garments of the opposite sex because these were the special garments female and male cultic prostitutes wore in the service of Asherah (cf. 2 Kings 10:22; 23:7).

Archaeology has shown that the exchange of roles in pagan cults, that is, where male acted as female and vice-versa, was common in the Ancient Near East. A few quotes will suffice to prove this assertion:

Abraham Malamat, in his article “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mary Documents,” published in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn (New York: New Yourk University Press, 1991), p. 159, discusses the role of the assinnus. According to Malamat, the assinnu was “a male prostitute.” Malamat said that this cultic functionary “served in the temple at Mari and prophesied in the name of the goddess Annunitum, apparently while disguised and acting like a woman, perhaps like a modern-day transvestite.”

In a review of Louis Crompton’s Homosexuality and Civilization (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2006) published in The Yale Review of Books 7, vol. 2 (Spring 2004), Margaret Fox wrote:

Crompton quotes the King James translation of a verse from the Holiness Code in Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Crompton speculates that Levitical hostility toward homosexuality arose from the desire to keep the worship of Yahweh distinct from the cultic practices of other cultures in the Ancient Near East, in which transvestite priests often played religious roles.

Theodore Burgh, in his book Listening to the Artifacts: Music Culture in Palestine said (p. 69) that in ancient Mesopotamia, transvestites, men dressed like women, played and danced in the cult of Ishtar, performing erotic dances and pantomime.

Cyrus Gordon, in his book The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997), p. 160, wrote:

Another biblical law that now can be explained through recourse to the Ugaritic texts is the prohibition against transvestism in Deuteronomy 22:5. This act is described in the Epic of Aqhat as well. After the hero is slain, his sister Pughat seeks revenge against Anat for the murder. To do so, Pughat disguises herself as a male, replete with rouge (the coloration of males, especially warrior heroes), man’s clothing and weaponry. The Israelite reaction is to forbid transvestism, another aspect of Canaanite society that they found reprehensible. Again, one needs to place this in its proper context. No doubt the average Canaanite male or female dressed in proper fashion throughout most his or her life. But since Canaanite epic literature describes transvestism in a noble manner, we may conclude that this act not only was practiced but also was countenanced. A close reading of the biblical prohibition reveals that the female is referred to first then the male follows. This runs counter to most laws in the Pentateuch, which either are addressed to male solely, or are addressed to male first and female second. This is not coincidental; rather it suggests an even closer connection with Pughat’s action detailed in the Epic of Aqhat.

The temple functionaries known in Canaanite literature as qedeshim and qedoshot were male and female cultic prostitutes who engaged in sexual acts in the Canaanite cult in order to elicit rain and fertility from their gods. In his religious reforms, Josiah, king of Judah, “broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah” (2 Kings 23:7).

The Biblical text is very clear: the qedeshim and the qedoshot, the male and female prostitutes were inside the Lord’s house in Jerusalem and there the women wove hangings for the Asherah. This type of ritual drama that took place in the temple was unacceptable to the Israelites. This is the reason the Israelites rejected bestiality, homosexualism, transvestism, and temple prostitution and declared these practices to be an abomination to God.

The Biblical text was not written in a vacuum. The Biblical text was written within a historical and cultural context. When the Biblical text is divorced of its cultural and historical contexts, as Brother Brandenburg has done in his study of Deuteronomy 22:5, the text is made to say that which it never intended to say.

Brother Brandenburg wrote: “Our country practiced the pants as male dress and the dress or skirt as the female dress.” But Deuteronomy was not addressing a cultural issue in “our country” in the twenty-first century or in any other century. Deuteronomy was addressed to Israel as it struggled with Canaanite culture. Deuteronomy was written to address the many religious problems that were plaguing the worship of God, problems that compromised Israel’s uniqueness as a chosen people and problems that undermined Israel’s mission to the nations.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is not prohibiting women from wearing pants. In fact, the word “pants” does not even appears in the Bible.

Well, that is not totally true. The word pants appears twice in the Bible: “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God” (Psalm 42:1 NIV). But these are pants of another kind.


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Deuteronomy 22:5, Pants, Transvestism, Women

Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5 - Part 1

My post on Transvestism in Ancient Israel generated much discussion about the issue of women wearing pants. Several readers, in private communication, called my attention to two posts (here and here) by Kent Brandenburg in which he challenged my conclusion that Deuteronomy 22:5 deals with pagan practices. Deuteronomy 22:5 reads: “A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”

In my post, I wrote the following:

Although scholars have rejected the anti-transvestism law of Deuteronomy 22:5 to be a ban on Canaanite practices, I take the view that this Deuteronomic prohibition is a protest against the immoral practices of Canaanite fertility religion.

In reply to my post, Brother Brandenburg wrote:

They simply speculate the intention of the biblical text. God prohibits women from putting on the male garment and men from putting on the female garment, but instead the intention was to avoid Canaanite worship rituals.

He also wrote:

Deuteronomy 22:5 isn't hard to understand. . . . The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. . . . We see nothing in the verse about Canaanite worship or women in the military or transvestism. It is about as straightforward as it can get.

Brother Brandenburg concludes:

I've dealt with the interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5. Now I will show you that women in dresses and skirts and men in pants is how that it has been practiced.

Our country practiced the pants as male dress and the dress or skirt as the female dress. Those were the designed distinctions. None other served as the distinction between the genders. They were erased by the culture because the culture didn't care to keep those distinctions any longer, despite what God had said. They were replaced by nothing.

To prove his argument, that Deuteronomy 22:5 teaches that women should wear dresses and skirts and that men should were pants, Brother Brandenburg quotes several biblical scholars and their comments on this text.

Brother Brandenburg begins his argument by quoting Martin Luther: “When the devil has persuaded us to surrender one article of faith to him, he has won; in effect he has all of them, and Christ is already lost.” When the issue of whether or not women should wear pants becomes an article of faith then we have enthroned a cultural practice into the realm of church doctrine.

Brother Brandenburg then quotes several biblical scholars on this issue. I will cite Keil and Delitzsch as an example. They wrote:

As the property of a neighbor was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothes peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. There shall not be man's things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman's clothes.

The distinction between the sexes is established by God and taught in the Bible. When God created human beings, he created them male and female. God blessed them and told them to increase and multiply. This is the reason that in the sexual act, a man joins his wife and they become one flesh.

Homosexuality, both male and female, violates this created order because it destroys this divine distinction between the sexes: homosexual relations do not include a man and a woman. The people involved in a homosexual relationship cannot procreate and they do not become one flesh.

Although sexual distinction between the sexes was established by God, Deuteronomy 22:5 is not teaching that women should wear dresses and skirts and men should wear pants.

There are several Egyptian monuments showing Semites (probably Hebrews or Hapiru) entering Egypt. The image below shows Hebrew men and Hebrew women pictured on monuments.
















It is clear from the image above that none of the Hebrew men were wearing pants. In addition, both men and women are wearing robes and in the image some of the robes of the men and women are identical in color and style.

In addition, on the various monuments of other nations of the Ancient Near East, men of various nations and different cultures are portrayed: none of the men are wearing pants.

In the image below, a representation of the obelisk of Shalmaneser III, Jehu, king of Israel appears bowing before the king of Assyria. Neither Jehu nor the Assyrians are wearing pants.








In the image below, several Hebrews are represented on the obelisk of Shalmaneser. The image shows that the men are not wearing pants.

















If Brother Brandenburg is correct, that Moses ordered men to wear pants, then all of these Hebrew men were violating God’s command. The truth is that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not teaching that women should wear dresses and skirts and men should wear pants.

A closer look at the monuments gives evidence that this statement is true.


Next: The Canaanite connection. Read, Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5 - Part 2

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Deuteronomy 22:5, Pants, Transvestism, Women,

Jesus Wore Pants

According to Pastor Steve Anderson, Jesus wore pants because Deuteronomy 22:5 says that it is an abomination to God for a man to wear women’s clothing. This is what the Bible says about wearing women’s clothing:

“A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Now, listen to this “amazing” sermon on Deuteronomy 22:5:




Pastor Steven Anderson is wrong in his interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5. I have already written a post on Deuteronomy 22:5. In a future post, I will address again the issue of women wearing pants. I will also respond to another erroneous interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5 written by Dr. Kent Brandenburg.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Deuteronomy 22:5, Pants, Wearing Pants, Women,

The Law of the Hebrew Slave

>Part 1: The Status of Women in Israelite Society

Part 2: The Deuteronomic Concern for Women

Part 3: The Tenth Commandment (Deuteronomy 5:21)

Part 4: The Law of the Hebrew Slave

In my study of the Deuteronomic concern about the status of women in Israelite society during the seventh century B.C., I have attempted to demonstrate that the book of Deuteronomy revises several laws in the Covenant Code in order to provide some relief to oppressive situations faced by women in Israel.

In the present post, I want to study how the book of Deuteronomy deals with the Law of the Hebrew slave in Exodus 21:2-6. The law of the Hebrew slave in the Covenant Code reads as follows:

When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, "I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person," then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life (Exodus 21:2-6).

This laws is designed to regulate the treatment of Hebrew slaves in Israelite society. The proper understanding of this law requires some identification of the terms used in the text.

Hebrew Slave. The word “Hebrew” is related to the word “Hapiru” (also “Habiru”). The Habiru was not an ethnic group, but the word was used as a pejorative designation to classify a group of people in the Ancient Near East who lived on the fringe of society and who were considered social outcasts.

In the Old Testament the word “Hebrew” is used to differentiate Israelites from Egyptians (Exodus 2:6; 3:18) and Israelites from Philistines (1 Samuel 4:6; 13:3). In the Old Testament the word is used mostly by non-Israelites to describe an individual Israelite. The Israelites used the word to describe themselves to outsiders. The expression “Hebrew slave” was used to designate an Israelite citizen who was sold into slavery (Jeremiah 34:9).

In Israel, many Israelites became slaves because of poverty and the inability to pay their debts (see Amos 2:6-8). Many situations contributed to the impoverishment of people in Israel: heavy taxation, high interest on loans, bad crops, and natural disasters.

A Free Person. The word “free person” (חָפְשִׁ’ hopshî) is a technical term, probably related to an Ugaritic word that means “a free commoner.” In the Ancient Near East, the hopshî was an individual whose social status was between a noble and a slave. The word appears sixteen times in the Old Testament and it is generally used to refer to a person who is freed from slavery.

The law of the Hebrew slave in the book of Exodus has several stipulations:

1. The law stipulates that a male Hebrew slave shall be released after six years of labor.

2. After six years of work, that is, in the seventh year, he shall go out a free person, without debt.

3. If the slave comes in single, he shall go out single.

4. If the slave comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.

5. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone.

The law stipulates that if the slave’s master gave him a wife and children were born of this union, only the male slave was to go free in the seventh year, because the woman and her children belonged to the master. The woman was a perpetual slave and considered to be property of her master.

The only way the slave could keep his wife was to renounce his right to go free at the end of his time of servitude and remain a permanent slave in the house of his master.

The Book of Deuteronomy revises the law of the Hebrew slave in the book of the Covenant to allow the woman to be released with her husband. The revised law reads as follows:

If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed; you shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your wine press; as the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. But if he says to you, `I will not go out from you,' because he loves you and your household, since he fares well with you, then you shall take an awl, and thrust it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your bondman for ever. And to your bondwoman you shall do likewise. It shall not seem hard to you, when you let him go free from you; for at half the cost of a hired servant he has served you six years. So the LORD your God will bless you in all that you do (Deuteronomy 15:12-18).

The law of the Hebrew slave in the book of Deuteronomy is a radical revision of the law that appears in the Book of the Covenant. The revised law allows the female slave to be released together with her husband. The book of Deuteronomy is indicating that through marriage, the wife of the slave has now become an integral part of his life. In addition, the book of Deuteronomy added another stipulation to the revised law. When the slave was released at the end of his time of service, the master should be generous with his former slave and provide him with provisions to help him and his family to begin a new life after their release.

At the end of the law (v.17), the author of Deuteronomy again emphasizes the female slave should enjoy the same benefits as the male slave: “You shall do the same with regard to your female slave.” The reason for this injunction is that the female slave is also “Your brother,” that is, she is a kindred of her master. Thus, the intent of the Deuteronomic law was to place the two sexes in a position of equality.

In addition, the law also favored the woman since it limited the power of a father to sell his daughter as a perpetual slave. The law in the Covenant Code reads as follows: “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do” (Exodus 21:7). Daughters were sold by impoverished parents in order to pay family debts. However, when a woman was sold as a slave, she would “not go out as the male slaves do.” The revised law of Deuteronomy is an effort to protect and support the rights of women as full citizens in Israel.

The Deuteronomic law appeals to the experience of the oppression in Egypt to motivate the master to be generous in the manumission of the Hebrew slaves. The word “Hebrew” serves to develop solidarity between the master and his slaves since in the memory of Israel both the master and his servants were slaves in Egypt.

These charitable innovations reflect the Deuteronomic tendency to be interested in the plight of the downtrodden. This “social idealism” present in the laws of Deuteronomy is part of the humanitarian concern that became the hallmark of the Deuteronomic reformation.

To be continued.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Deuteronomy, Hebrew, Slaves, Women

The Tenth Commandment (Deuteronomy 5:21)

Part 1: The Status of Women in Israelite Society

Part 2: The Deuteronomic Concern for Women

Part 3: The Tenth Commandment (Deuteronomy 5:21)

In my study of the Deuteronomic concern for the status of women in Israelite society, I will discuss a few of the laws enacted in the book of Deuteronomy that seek to improve the legal rights of women in Israelite society in the seventh century BCE. Today I will continue my study with a review of the Tenth Commandment. When we study the Tenth Commandment as it appears in Exodus and in Deuteronomy, we can see an important change of attitude toward the status of women in Israelite society.

In the Tenth Commandment, as it appears in Exodus, it is clear that the woman is included in what belongs to a man, that it, she is considered part of his property:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor (Exodus 20:17).

The “house” is not merely the dwelling of a man, but his entire household, as in Genesis15:2. In Exodus the idea of the “house” includes the wife, the male servants, the female servants, cattle, and whatever else a man may possess (“anything that belongs to your neighbor”).

Although the wife was part of a man’s house, the wife was not considered an absolute property of her husband, debased to the level of a slave as female servants were. The woman had rights as a wife and as a mother. In the home she probably supervised servants, educated children, and participated in the religious life of the family.

In Israel, most marriages were sealed with the gift of the mōhar. There is much question whether the mōhar, the bridal price which a man gave to the father of the bride, was actually a purchase by which a woman became the possession of her husband. Whether the mōhar was considered the price paid for the bride or a compensation that contributed to the union of two families, it is possible that in many situations, the mōhar was considered a purchase, which served to promote the idea that the woman was the husband’s property.

According to Exodus 21:7, a man could sell his daughter to a man, but in this case she became a concubine and not a slave. Rachel and Leah complained that their father Laban had sold them to Jacob. They said: “Does he not regard us as foreigners? Not only has he sold us, but he has used up what was paid for us.” However, if they were sold to Jacob, Laban’s action may not represent an Israelite practice but it may reflect a Mesopotamian marriage tradition (see Genesis 29:26).

The mōhar, the bridal price was paid by Shechem to marry Dinah, Jacob’s daughter. When Hamor and his son Shechem went to Jacob and his sons to ask permission for Shechem to marry Dinah, Shechem told Jacob: “Let me find favor in your eyes, and I will give you whatever you ask. Make the price for the bride and the gift I am to bring as great as you like, and I'll pay whatever you ask me. Only give me the girl as my wife” (Genesis 34:11-12).

The versions differ in their translation of mōhar:

NRSV: “The marriage present.”
NIV: “The price for the bride.”
ESV: “The bride price.”
HCSB: “The compensation.”
ASV: The dowry.”
GWN: “The price paid for the bride.”

Since Shechem had to pay the mōhar and give a gift to the family, it is clear that the mōhar was the price he had to pay to obtain Dinah as his wife.

In the Covenant Code, the mōhar was also the price paid by the man who seduced a virgin. The man who violated the virgin must pay the “bride-price” (mōhar) and take the woman as his wife (Exodus 22:16-17). When David planned to marry Saul’s daughter, he was told that “the king wants no other price for the bride (mōhar) than a hundred Philistine foreskins.” Although the request was unusual, David had to pay what Saul requested as a mōhar before he could marry Michal. When Abraham sent his servant Eliezer to find a wife for Isaac, Eliezer gave Rebekah’s family expensive gifts (Genesis 24:53) probably as a mōhar, even though the word is not used in the text.

In the book of Deuteronomy, however, the attitude toward women changes. The book of Deuteronomy’s revision of the Tenth Commandment separates the woman from a man’s property in order to give proper attention to the rights of the woman:

Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor (Deuteronomy 5:21).

The Book of Deuteronomy demonstrates more respect for women in general for it emphasizes the rights of women as persons of worth, not as mere property of their fathers and husbands.

The fact that the writer of Deuteronomy placed the woman first reflects the desire to emphasize that the woman was not to be considered the property of her husband. In addition, while the book of Exodus uses the same Hebrew word hāmad (חמד) to describe coveting a man's wife and his possessions, the book of Deuteronomy uses two different words for coveting: hāmad (חמד) is used to describe coveting the wife and ’āwāh (אוה) is used to describe coveting a person’s property, as if to emphasize that the two desires are completely different.

This concern for the dignity of Israelite women is characteristic of the book of Deuteronomy, and it is consistent with the author’s desire to actualize Mosaic laws in order to correct social problems prevalent in Israelite society in the late seventh century B.C.E.

Walter Kaiser, in his book Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996) said that since the Ten Commandments were written “by the finger of God” on Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 9:10), the Exodus version of the Decalogue was the original and that the wording of the commandment in Deuteronomy is a free restatement of the Exodus commandment (p. 173). Kaiser wrote:

This allowed Moses to present the commandment with some modifications and updating of the situation in light of their pending entrance into the land of Canaan, while still adhering closely to the original form. In fact, these differences are very slight and of very little consequence except as viewed against the challenges that present themselves in entering into the land.

I do not believe that “these differences are very slight and of very little consequence.” In his commentary on Deuteronomy 1-11 (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1991), Moshe Weinfeld wrote:

The Deuteronomic version inverted the order of these two commandments. Unlike the Exodus version, which has “house” before “wife,” Deuteronomy puts first “wife” then “house” and devotes to the “wife” a separate command, which suits the general tendency of this book. Deuteronomy gives special attention to women’s rights, and therefore he gives preference to the wife and reserves for her a separate injunction. By the same token she does not join the slave, the animal, and so on, contrary to the arrangement in the Exodus version.

I believe that the Deuteronomic sequence of “wife” and “house” is a radical shift in the view of the status of women in Israelite society. The Deuteronomic change reflects the increased concern for the status of women in Israelite society in the seventh century BCE and the recognition that women had legal rights as members of the covenant community. In future posts, I will discuss some of these rights.

To be continued.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Decalogue, Deuteronomy, Israelite Law, Ten Commandments, Tenth Commandment, Wife, Women, Women’s Rights

The Deuteronomic Concern for Women

Part 1: The Status of Women in Israelite Society
Part 2: The Deuteronomic Concern for Women

In Part 1 of my study on the plight of women in Israelite society, I wrote that “the status of women as persons of worth and dignity at times [is] betrayed by the social realities present in Israelite society.” In Part 2 of my study, I want to introduce how the reforms of Josiah and the book of Deuteronomy made an attempt at improving the status of women in Israelite society during the seventh century B.C.E.

The best effort to deal with the religious and social problems confronting Israelite society in the late monarchic period is found in the book of Deuteronomy. The book of Deuteronomy was an attempt at developing a special sense of social responsibility in the life of every Israelite for the poor, slaves, women, and for those in society who were underprivileged and did not enjoy the whole benefit of the law.

The book of Deuteronomy is considered by the majority of scholars to be a revision of the Book of the Covenant. The book of Deuteronomy revises old laws and introduces new ones in order to meet the needs of Israelite society in the latter half of the seventh century B.C.E.

The book of Deuteronomy is presented as an exposition of the Mosaic law revealed by Yahweh at Mount Sinai. According to the book, Moses introduced the laws of God to the new generation of Israelites in preparation for their entrance into the Promised Land. This exposition of the law was also an invitation to the people of Israel to dedicate themselves to the demands of the covenant Yahweh had established with them.

The degeneration of the religious and social life in the Northern Kingdom in the days of Amos and Hosea and the religious syncretism in Judah in the days of Manasseh promoted an abandonment of moral values and a neglect of the demands of the covenant and the ancient traditions of the nation.

In 622 B.C.E., during the renovation of the temple in the days of Josiah, king of Judah (640-609), the book of the law was found by the workers in the temple. The book found in the temple probably was an earlier version of Deuteronomy. The reading of the book affected Josiah immensely.

In a ceremony in the temple, the king invited the people to renew the covenant and to abide by the demands of the Torah of Moses. In addition to the religious reforms of the Israelite cult, there was also a reformulation of several laws to improve the plight of the destitute and the oppressed in Israelite society.

The book of Deuteronomy reflects the rise of humanism in Israel. Deuteronomy contains several new laws and many revisions of old ones dealing with the oppressed in Israel. These laws became necessary because of the changes brought by the monarchy and by the deterioration of the social structures in Israelite society.

Several aspects of the Deuteronomic reform affected women for the better. The reformulation of Mosaic laws in the days of Josiah also served to call the people who lived in the seventh century B.C.E. to hear the words of Yahweh again and to renew their commitment to the God of Israel.

The book of Deuteronomy emphasizes Israel's experience in Egypt. Deuteronomy reintroduces the laws and demands of the God who had redeemed a people from the house of servitude in Egypt to make them a special people with a universal mission. Israel was called to be a religious community where the justice of God would be manifested to the whole world.

Among the many theological emphases of the book, three deserve attention. The first was that Yahweh, the God of Israel, loved Israel with a special love, even when the nation did not deserve his love. Now Israel had to love God with their whole being (Deuteronomy 6:5).

Second, Israel had served other gods, but now Israel had to serve Yahweh exclusively (Deuteronomy 6:4). Deuteronomy emphasizes the singularity of Yahweh in the life of Israel. Finally, the book of Deuteronomy relates obedience to God to the daily life of each member of the community. Because Israel was united to God by the demands of the covenant, each member of the community had to treat another Israelite with justice.

Israel, as God's people, was a special people, a people separated from the other nations and as such, the daily life and the moral conduct among the members of the community had to reflect this relationship with God.

The demands of the covenant required personal integrity and social justice of each Israelite. The poor, the slaves, the orphans, the widows, and the other destitute persons in Israel became the beneficiaries of the changes introduced by the social reforms of Deuteronomy. In addition, there was a real effort to improve the status of women in Israelite society by emphasizing the dignity of women and by bringing them relief from some of the injustices allowed by older laws. This improvement of the status of Israelite women came by revision of older laws found in the Book of the Covenant and by the enactment of new laws directly affecting the lives of women in Israelite society.

In upcoming posts, I will demonstrate how the book of Deuteronomy is concerned with the oppressive situation of women in Israelite society. I will examine several laws and study how Deuteronomic laws revise and improve the laws in the book of Exodus to address some social injustices in Israelite society, especially injustices against women.

To be continued.

Next: "The Tenth Commandment (Deuteronomy 5:21)"

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Covenant Code, Deuteronomic Laws, Deuteronomy, Israelite Laws, Women

Is the Bible Sexist?

Is the Bible sexist? Not according to Bess Twiston Davies. Writing for the Time Online, she said that new research claims that the Bible’s negative stance on women is a myth.

She wrote:

New research into Biblical women shows that the majority receive positive or matter-of-fact write-ups. Words such as “blessed”, “righteous” “outstanding” and - of course - “beautiful” crop up in descriptions of 60 of the Bible's 175 female characters, according to research from The Bible Society.

Is the Bible sexist? Read the article and what it says about Eve and then decide for yourself.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Eve, Sexism, Women

The Status of Women in Israelite Society

The status of women in Israelite society is a highly debated subject in biblical scholarship. In some texts of the Old Testament women are presented as property of their fathers and husbands. The husband was a woman's "baal.” This Hebrew word was translated sometimes as "husband,” "owner" or "master.”

In the Old Testament, as well as in the Ancient Near East, a man could have many wives; multiple marriage was the evidence of a man's wealth and power. Few women were independent, for they needed their fathers and husbands to provide for them. In other texts women are portrayed as victims of men's brutality and inhumanity: women were bought and sold, raped, enslaved, murdered, and abandoned. Daughters were sold as slaves by their fathers (Exodus 21:7-11). A law in Leviticus 19:29 was enacted, forbidding a man from selling his daughter as a prostitute. The implication of this law was that some men had no reservation about selling their daughters when forced by poverty or when compelled by greed.

In other Old Testament texts, women are portrayed as persons with dignity. In Genesis 1:26-27 the woman was created in the image of God, although this passage reflects a much developed theology. This theology of womanhood, woman as a person equal to the man, created in the image of God, developed gradually in Israel and finds full expression in the priestly theology of the postexilic time.

In Genesis 2:18 , the woman is portrayed as companion to her husband, his ‘ēzer kenegdô, a helper to the man. The Hebrew expression, ‘ēzer kenegdô, does not carry the connotation of inferiority or subordination. The creation of the woman is the climax of the Yahwistic creation story in Genesis 2. The woman was created to be a companion to a lonely man, thus giving to both of them the possibility of community, commonality, and wholeness.

These two theological views of the status of women as persons of worth and dignity at times are betrayed by the social realities present in Israelite society. The status of women probably became more difficult as a result of a misinterpretation of Genesis 3:16, a text in which God says that the man is to rule over his wife as a consequence of her disobedience. If this was so, then men in Israelite society understood the text to describe the life of a woman as a person "under the curse." Phyllis Trible (God and the Rethoric of Sexuality [Overture to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) has said that as a result of the shared transgression of both man and woman, "oppression resulting from transgression is actualized by a design that emphasizes the man and minimizes the woman” (p. 128). Because of the social limitations imposed upon women, most women in Israel found their sense of worth, fulfillment, and personhood in being a mother and a wife.

In spite of the limitations imposed upon women, some women forged important places in Israelite society. Some, women, like Deborah served as a judge, others, like Huldah served as prophets. Some women served as queens and queen-mothers, thus exercising much power and authority in Israelite society. Centralization of wealth in the hands of a few families elevated the status of some women and enabled them to live a life of luxury and to exert power over men.

Over the centuries, Israelite society suffered many transformations. From a tribal community, in which people had much in common and where few inequalities existed, Israel became a state, with a monarchy and a royal family that consumed a large portion of the goods produced by the average Israelite. The growing number of civil servants forced the state to enact a system of taxation that served to create a class of rich citizens at the expense of Israelite farmers and villagers. These social, economic, and political changes in Israelite society served as a catalyst to impact the status of women in society and greatly affect their lives.

Over the years, many laws were enacted to provide some relief to the plight of women in Israelite society. The Book of the Covenant, also known as the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22-23:33), is the oldest code of law in Israel. The Book of the Covenant is a codification of ancient laws and traditions that attained its final form either at the end of the tribal confederacy or at the beginning of the monarchy in the days of David or Solomon. There are many laws in the Book of the Covenant that deal with social injustice and the plight of the destitute and the oppressed in Israel.

In a future post I will study some of these laws and how Israel made an attempt at dealing with the religious and social problems of Israelite society. Israelite laws reveal that there was an attempt to develop a special sense of social responsibility in the life of every Israelite for the poor, women, and for those in society who were underprivileged and did not enjoy the whole benefit of the law.

To be continued.

Next: "The Deuteronomic Concern for Women"


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Covenant Code, Israelite Laws, Poor, Women

Violence Against Women

Joan Smith, reacting to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement that sharia courts could rule on family issues in England, said that British women are already suffering because Islamic law. She also said: “Only someone as out of touch with modern Britain as the Archbishop of Canterbury could possibly think otherwise, or line up so willingly with the forces of reaction. Just because someone looks like an Old Testament prophet, he doesn't have to think and speak like one as well.”

In a very eye-opening article, Smith presents several cases of violence against women in England because of religious laws. Because Smith’s argument is important to understand the reason the Archbishop of Canterbury does not speak with prophetic voice, I have reprinted an excerpt of Smith’s article as it appears in The Independent:

There are moments when public debate in Britain appears to take place in a vacuum. As the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a convincing impression yesterday of a man suffering the torments of the Inquisition, the debate was moving away from his actual observations about Islamic law, sharia, to the question of his fitness (or otherwise) to hold his office. Rowan Williams claimed that his remarks about the unavoidability of adopting some aspects of sharia in this country had been misunderstood, prompting an interesting response from his critics: the cleric was a brilliant man, they said, but his utterances were simply too opaque for hoi polloi (especially the media) to comprehend. This prompts an obvious question – if no one understands what the Archbishop is saying, how do they know how intelligent he is? – but it also diverted attention from something much more important. Williams's clarification of his remarks seemed to suggest that he wasn't calling for a parallel legal system for Muslims, more a recognition of something that is already happening. Yet there has been a strange reluctance to ask a real expert who has seen the way sharia operates in this country: someone like Rahni Binjie, project manager of Roshni Asian Women's Aid in Nottingham.

I urge you to read the article in its entirety by clicking here.

After you read the article in its entirety, you will understand the meaning of Smith’s words: “Only someone as out of touch with modern Britain as the Archbishop of Canterbury could possibly think otherwise, or line up so willingly with the forces of reaction. Just because someone looks like an Old Testament prophet, he doesn't have to think and speak like one as well.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Abuse, Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, Sharia Law, Women