THE LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS CONCERNING

THE WIDOW IN THE PENTATEUCH

By Moses Maka Ndimukika

Sahmyook University, South Korea

Introduction

A concern for widows is deeply embedded in the scriptural

tradition. This is evident not only from the Pentateuchal

legislation which gives special consideration to this segment

of society, but also from the significant location of such

legislation within the ancient Near Eastern law codes.

In a patriarchal society such as that of ancient Israel, a

widow’s state was ignominious because of the social stigma,

the marginalization, the economic insecurities, and

vulnerability to exploitation and injustices that accompanied

her status.

The Pentateuchal legal injunctions sought to alleviate the

plight of the widow placing her assuage not only in the

precincts of the Law and established institutions but under

the superintendence of the king, and directly under the

administration of God himself.

This paper discusses the status of widowhood and the divine

superintendence and execution of justice that informs the

established legal structures for the alleviation of the plight

of the widow.

The paper commences by defining the term “widow,” and proceeds

to describe the plight of widowhood, and then embarks upon the

legal institutions established to alleviate the said plight.

Finally, the paper lays a case for the divine purpose in the

enacting, administration and execution of justice for the

widow within the established legal framework.

Meaning of Widowhood

The Hebrew word translated “widow” is almana [hn"m'l.a;] andit occurs fifty-five times in the Old Testament of which 21

are in the Pentateuch.1 The contemporary meaning of a “widow”1 Cornelius Van Leeuwen, hn"m'l.a; in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 1, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 1:413-415. Widowhood would not have been uncommon in Israel and in the ancient world generally because of the frequent wars that affected mainly the male population, the rampant diseases of old times, the regular drudgery that characterizes the male

as given by The New Oxford American Dictionary is that of “an

unmarried woman whose husband has died.”2 However, the Hebrew

substantive almanah, usually translated "widow," often does

not simply denote a woman whose husband is dead, but rather a

once-married woman who has no means of financial support, and

is therefore in need of special legal protection.3 Leeuwen

observes that “the Old Testament word not only evokes the

notion of bereavement from having lost a husband (2 Sam.

14:5), but at the same time, the loss of economic and social

species, and the potentiality of the wife surviving the her older husband,and the age differences at the time of marriage when a man was (and still is) usually older than the wife by an average of ten years. See also Daniel M. Carroll, “Widow,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament, Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003),890.An Israelite widow had no right of succession in the inheritance of her late husband. Under the heirs of a dead man, the chronological sequence of the succession of inheritance was as follows: son (s), daughter(s), brothers, father’s brothers, nearest relatives. The widow is not mentioned (Num. 27:8-11). The case of the widow, Judith, in the Apocrypha, who inherited rich possessions from her rich husband, has been identified as an abnormal exception (Judith 8:7). 2 Elizabeth J. Jewell, and Frank Abate, “Widow,” in The New Oxford American Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2001), 1928.3 Benjamin Zvieli, “Widow,” in Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 16, edited by Fern Seckbach (Jerusalem: Keter Press, 1982), 487-495. As per this definition, many “would-be-widows” who had indeed lost their husbands wereleft out of this classification because they were getting the support of anew husband through the custom of levirate marriage, or had an adult son to take care of them, or a father-in-law, or the biological father to cater for them. This means that once re-married or catered for, one ceasedto hold the status of widowhood. Anthropological studies underscore the anomalous situation of the widow as an unmarried, childbearing woman outside the patrilineal structure. See V. H. Matthews and D. C. Benjamin, The Social World of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 132-141.

protection and security.”4 The Chidden of a widow became

orphans.5 Thus, the almanot, as a class in Israelite society in

biblical times, were often considered as comprising not merely

women whose husbands had died but, rather, once-married women

who no longer had any means of financial support.6 In

Mesopotamia, the Akkadian equivalent term for widowhood, –

almattu – is also understood to refer to a woman whose husband

4 Leeuwen, NIDOTE, 1:413.5 Daniel M. Carroll, “Orphan,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: IP, 2003, 619-621. An Orphan (Hebrew ~Aty" yaṯôm), often referred more specifically to the fatherless, not more generally to one who had lost either mother or both parents. This definition accrues more from the patriarchal nature of family system in Israel and the ancient Near East. The word occurs about 42 times in the OT, 14 of which 30 instances occur with the word “widow” and 18 appears with the word “alien.” See Victor P.Hamilton, “~Aty (yaṯôm),” in NIDOTE, 2:570-571; and also Halmer Ringgren,

“~Aty" yaṯôm,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 6, edited by G.Johannes Botterweck and Halmer Ringgren (transl. by John T. Willis; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977), 477-481. Like the widow, the Bible is particularly concerned with the helpless of the orphan. God is depicted asthe father, helper, defender and executor of the justice for the orphans (Deut. 10:17-18; 16:11; 24:19-21; 26:12-13 cf. Ps. 10:14; 68:6). For a detailed discussion of the status of the orphan and the biblical and Rabbinic legislation concerning the orphan, see Yaakov Shavit, “Orphan,” in In Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 12, edited by Fern Seckbach (Jerusalem: KeterPress, 1982), 1478-1479; and Patterson, Richard, "The Widow, the Orphan, and the Poor in the Old Testament and the Extra-Biblical Literature," Bibliotheca Sacra 130: 223-34.6 Richard Kalmin, “Levirate Law,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, edited by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 296-297; see also Zvieli, “Widow,” in Encyclopedia Judaica, 487.

had died and who was left without any economic or social

support.7

Widows were of different categories depending on her state at

the death of her husband. There were widows of marriageable

Status. For such a category of widows, usually without

children, remarriage could be one of the remedies for the

problems associated with a permanent status of widowhood while

still of childbearing age.8 This option was possible through a7 See Godfrey Rolles Driver and John C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws

(Oxford: The Clarendon press, 1935), 225. Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/g/genpub/AFF6708.0001.001?view=toc [accessed on 13 Nov. 2012]. (According to the Assyrian Laws, even though a woman’s husband had died, but if she had sufficient means of survival to earn a living, she was not considered in the class of almattu. However, although they share much in common as far as the definition of a widow is concerned, the elaborate emphasis on the welfare of a widow and the vast array of laws and stations for justice and against injustices to a widow in Israel is unsurpassed anywhere in the ancient Near East. For a detailedexplanation of the prevalence of the term for “widow” in the ancient Near East (Sumerian-Akkadian, Hittite, Egyptian, Ugaritic and Phoenician), see Harry A. Hoffner, “hn"m'l.a; ʼlmānāh tWnm'l.a; ʼlmānûth,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 1, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Halmer Ringgren (transl. by John T. Willis; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977), 287-291.8 A levirate marriage is defined as the marriage between a widow whose husband has died without an offspring and the brother of the deceased or the immediate next of kin. For a detailed explanation of the custom of Levirate marriage, see, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, “Levirate Marriage and Halizah,” In Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 11, edited by Fern Seckbach (Jerusalem: Keter Press, 1982), 122-131. The leadership of a household was a male head called (Hebrew bêt ʼāb = “father of house”). The perpetuity of the family domain was determined patrilineally. Such a system was not meant to look down upon women, as won were at the same timeheld in high regard for their indispensable roles in childbearing, house and family administration and the education of children. See C. Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel, edited by L. G.

Kinsman redeemer (Ruth 3:13), a levirate marriage or marriage

to someone else beyond the immediate provisions of endogamy

(Deut. 25:5-10).9 Another category of widows was those with

children whose future was always determined by the approximate

age of the children at the time of the death of the husband.

Finally, there was the elderly widow whose permanent status of

widowhood was inevitable.

Therefore, a widow in Israel was understood to be a woman who

had not only lost her husband, but one who also remained

unmarried with socio-economic and legal constraints.

The State of Widowhood

In a society characterized by a patrilineal family system, the

loss of a head of a home left the widow in a precarious and

vulnerable situation. The death of a husband meant the loss of

a male protector, an important factor of her social identity

Perdue, et al, FRC, Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 1-47. 9 The ancient Near East also provided for the levirate system of marriage when the husband died and the widow needed to be taken over by the immediate next of keen for protection, care and provision of a progenyfor the lineage of the deceased person. See Middle Assyrian Laws §§A30, 33, 43.

and status.10 The widow was frequently placed alongside the

orphan and the landless immigrant and aliens (Ex. 22:21-22;

Deut. 24:17, 19, 20-21) and categorized among the poorest of

the poor (Deut. 24:17-21; Lev. 22:13; cf. Job 24:4; 29:12;

31:16; Isa. 10:2) in the social and economic structure of

ancient Israel. The fact that she was classed with the

landless stranger and Levite indicates that she was often

unable to keep her husband's land. With minimal, if any,

inheritance rights, she was often in an isolated situation

after the death of her husband. She had left her family, and

with her husband's death the bond between her and his family

was tenuous (Gen. 38:11).11

The social context of a woman whose husband had died also

acquired the connotation of a person living a marginal

10 Daniel M. Carroll R., “Widow,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003), 890-893. The Bible characterizes her plight with weeping (Job 27:15; Psalm 78:64), mourning (2 Sam. 14:2), and desolation (Lam. 1:1), poverty (Ruth 1:21; 1 Kings 17:7-12; Job 22:9) and indebtedness (2 Kings 4:1).11 According to Biddle, these three classes of people are often categories together in their order: alien/widow/orphan (Deut. 10:18; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19, 20, 21; 26:12, 13; 27:15; Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Ezek. 22:7; Ps. 146:9). Mark E. Biddle, Smyth and Helwys Commentary: Deuteronomy, edited by Scott R. Nash (Macon, Georgia: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 2003), 182.

existence in extreme poverty with a social stigma that was

deemed as some sort of curse.12 The widow reacted with grief

to her plight, and wore a distinct garb as a sign of her

status (Gen. 38:14, 19; cf. 2 Sam. 14:2). This appears to be

the case even in later times as shown in extra-biblical

literature (Judith 8:5-6; 10:3; 16:8).13

The plight was of the widow was made worse if, at the point of

the death of her husband, she did not have any child. This

meant that she was to be married to any of the husband’s

immediate next of kin to get a progeny for the deceased

husband in a provision called levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-

10; cf. Ruth 2-4), but sometimes the process was not as smooth

as was the case with Tamar (Gen. 38:6-28).14 Her crisis was

aggravated if she had no able-bodied children to help her work

12 Israel’s preoccupation with the belief that long life was a blessing from God (Gen. 15:15) and conversely that death before old age was a punishment for sin (Isa. 54:4; Ruth 1:13), probably accounts for the reproach and social stigma attached to the state of widowhood 13 M. L. Held, “Widow (in the Bible),” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, edited by Berard L. Marthaler (Washington D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2003), 712-713.14 See Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, “Levirate Marriage and Halizah,” In Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 11, edited by Fern Seckbach (Jerusalem: Keter Press, 1982), 122-131. The widow who brought her sons to manhood by remarrying or supporting herself was often honored by her name instead of the father’s being mentioned with the name of her son (I Kings 7:14; 11:26; Gen. 38:11; I Tim. 5:5).

the land of her dead spouse. To provide for her children, to

maintain the estate, and to continue payments on debts accrued

by her husband imposed severe burdens. Since she was in an

extremely vulnerable economic position, she became the prime

target of exploitation.

In general, the widow's inheritance rights were minimal. Some

scholars believe that Israelite widows could inherit land as

was the case with their Mesopotamian counterparts. But the

evidence is sparse. The general rule was that the land was

inalienably connected to the family of the male to whom it was

apportioned according to the clans and families.15

If no relative would marry a childless widow, she apparently

returned to her father's house (Gen. 38:11; Lev 22:13) and the

land and all property were disposed of to the husband's family

(cf. Ruth 4:1-3). But even with the returning to their

father’s house, widows who were daughters of priests could

return to their father's home and eat again of the holy food

of the priests (Lev 22:13).

15 Stephen G. Dempster, “Widow,” Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996).

Under the law, a widow is not considered suitable wife for the

high priest, but she may marry an ordinary priest (Lev.

21:14), although according to the Rabbinical literature, where

the priest has married a widow, and is thereafter appointed

high priest, he may retain her as his wife.16

The widow also fell among the category of people who did not

enjoy the full status of citizenship, because as a woman, she

derived her legal status before the law from her father, her

husband or her adult sons; and so where the orphans because

they were considered minors.17

The status of widowhood was so ignominious because of the

social stigma, the marginalization, the economic insecurities,

and vulnerability to exploitation and injustices that

accompanied her lot for the loss of her protector.

Laws and Institutions Concerning a Widow

16 Zvieli, “Widow,” in Encyclopedia Judaica, 487. Ezekiel (44:22), in his scheme of a hierarchy, forbade to the ordinary priest marriage with a widow, unless her first husband had been a priest; but his scheme was never accepted as law. According to Jewish customary laws, a widow who wasmarrying again was not as highly favored as a maiden because her value is deem to be one-half that of a maiden17 Mark E. Biddle, Smyth and Helwys Commentary: Deuteronomy, edited by ScottR. Nash (Macon, Georgia: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 2003), 182.

In the Old Testament, “the distribution of the term "widow" is

found approximately one-third of the time in legal texts, one-

third in prophetic texts, and one-third in wisdom and

historical literature. But the vast majority of the contexts

are legal in nature, either dealing with justice (the legal

protection of the widow) or injustice (the exploitation of her

status).”18

Since death was an inevitable human occurrence, it is not

surprising to find very explicit legal statutes guaranteeing

the rights and welfare of widows and their children.19 The

Pentateuch is replete with legislation that attempted to

provide a social security net for the widow:20 she was not to

be exploited (Ex. 22:21-22; Deut. 27:19);21 she was

specifically permitted to glean the fields and vineyards

during harvest time as the reapers were mandated to leave some

18 Leeuwen, NIDOTE, 1:531.19 Charles F. Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JNES 21: 129-39.

20 See Nathan Bill “Exodus, the Poor and Worship,” Mission Dei: A Journal ofMissional Theology and Praxis, MD2.1, Feb., 2011. Available at http://missiodeijournal.com/md-2-1 [accessed on 13 Nov. 2012].21 Albright, W. F. “The Ancient Near East and the Religion of Israel.”JBL 59 (1940), 85-112.

of the harvest in the field (Deut. 24:19-21; cf. Ruth 2);22

every third year, there was to be a special tithes to be

shared with the widows, and compliance was encouraged and

accorded by the promise of divine blessing (Deut. 14:28-29;

26:12-13);23 provision was to be made for her for the

participation in the sacrificial repast, and rejoice during

the religious feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:9-15);

her garment could not be taken as collateral for a loan (Deut.

24:17); and the levirate institution would not only provide an

heir for the land for childless widows, it would help them be

integrated back into society. If a widow had male children,

the land would pass to her sons when they reached maturity if

she was able to maintain the land and the sons survived. If

22 Henry H Shires and Pearson Parker, “The Book of Deuteronomy,” in The Interpreters Bible, vol. 2, edited by George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville, TN:Abingdon, 1978), 477.23 Tithe of every third year was to be given to the Levites, aliens, orphans and widows. This was a different type of tithes from the regular one which went towards support of the Levites as spelled out in Numbers chap. 18. The purpose of the triennial tithes in the local villages was communal cerebration with the Levites, who did not have property in Israel; the alien, who did not have citizenship in Israel; the widow, who did not have property rights in Israel, and the orphan, who was a fatherless minor. Eugene H. Merrill, “Deuteronomy,” In The American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 4, edited by Ray E. Clendenen (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994),241-242; Biddle, Deuteronomy, 255; see also P. K. Meagher and D. Dietlein, “Tithes,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, edited by Berard L. Marthaler (Washington D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2003),90-92

she had only female children, the land would be transferred to

them provided they married within the tribe (Num. 27:8-11).

The law of Israel treated the widow with some privileges, and

sought to indemnify her in some degree for the loss of her

natural protector, her husband.24 For instance, the some

property of a widow could not be attached for debt like

keeping her garment for a pledge (Deut. 24:17), nor turn back

and pick up dropped sheaves during harvest time (Deut. 24:19),

dropped fruit from olive trees (Deut. 24:20), or grapes that

have fallen off the vine (Deut. 24:21); for these must go to

the almanah and the other less privileged classes of people.

In later development of Jewish rabbinic jurisprudence, the

widow was accorded some rights, privileges and obligations.

For instance, the widow was generally entitled to receive the

same maintenance as she was entitled to receive during the

husband's lifetime. Such maintenance included clothing,

residence, use of household articles, and the like. Similarly,

the principle also applied that “she rises with him but does

24 Lewis N. Dembitz, “Widow,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 12, edited by Isidore Singer (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1906), 514-515.

not descend with him,” that is, that she was to be accorded

the same standard of maintenance she was entitled to during

her late husband's lifetime.25

At the same time, the legislation acknowledged the fact of the

vulnerability of the widow and many Old Testament texts

indicate that she was victimized repeatedly (Ex. 22:22-23; cf.

Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Ezek. 22:7; Mal. 3:5). Because of lack of an

immediate protector, the powerless and needy were constantly

susceptible to unscrupulous creditors or outright extortions

who victimized them, and even with the laid out measures,

their cries and appeals for justice fell upon deaf ears.26

In later times when Israel became a monarchy, the supreme

measure by which a ruler in Israel was to be judged was

whether such powerless ones were cared for (cf. Ps. 72:4, 12-

14; Jer. 22:16). It was intended at any rate to ensure that

Israel’s judges, when adjudicating the case of the widow and

those lacking socio-economic standing, would deliberate with a

strong sense of divine responsibility vested upon them by the

25 Zvieli, Encyclopedia Judaica, 16: 493-494.26 Merrill, Deuteronomy, 349.

divine. Thus the theocratic state would functionally serve as

a kind of surrogate family for the widow and the less

fortunate.

Widowhood and their welfare being an issue of the community,

the rulers and the gods was also a common theme in the ancient

Near East. The prologues and epilogues of some law codes

mentioned the monarch’s responsibility towards the widow as a

fundamental virtue of one’s reign.27 For instance, in the

prologue of the law code of Hammurabi, it is stated that he

was called to establish justice for the weak, and to protect

the widow. In the epilogue the defense of the weak is tied to

the sun god (ANET, 164, 178).28

Although there are similar concerns for the widow in ancient

Near Eastern texts, there does not seem to be the same

pervasive and comprehensive attitude toward the vulnerable.

27 In relation to the justice of the widow in the codes of the ancientNear East, Carroll explains that specific were targeted towards “defining and safeguarding the maintenance of these women and their children (e.g., Code of Hammurabi §§171-173, 176a-177; Neo-Babylonian Laws §§ 12, 13; Middle Assyrian Laws §§A28, 33-34, 45-46).” See M. D. Carroll, Widow,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 891.28 Coert J. Rylaarsdam, “The Book of Exodus,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, 12 vols., edited by George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1982), 1:1007.

Edgar contrasts the uniqueness of Israel concern for the weak

and vulnerable against that of the ancient Near East stressing

the immediate and dynamic role that the God of Israel plays in

the accomplishment of justice. “He is directly related to the

historical process and has not, like an absentee, entrusted

his work to an agent, such as Hammurabi, who can play an

independent role.”29

This difference is rooted in theological reasons. When Israel

was once in a powerless condition God had mercy on her and

delivered her from the harsh oppression of Egypt. She was thus

called to remember her liberation and to imitate her God who

was not only the father of the orphan, but the legal defender

of the widow and the guardian of her property, and the

sympathizer to the powerless (Ex. 22:21; Deut. 10:19; 24:18,

22; cf. Ps. 68:6; Prov. 15:25).30 All these categories of the

vulnerable and destitute among the settled Israelite community

29 Rylaarsdam, 1:1007.30 Carroll observes that “the protection of widows was a pervasive theme throughout the ancient world, and their care was usually understood to be fundamental commitment of the “gods” and was demanded of human rulers.” See Daniel M. Carroll, “Widow,” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP, 2003), 890.

are a historical reflection of the very nation of Israel in

Egypt.31 In Egypt, the children of Israel were aliens, slaves,

labourers under harsh circumstances, “widows” of some sort,

orphans, and much more. “That redemptive act defines the

divine character and also establishes the basis of the moral

imperative.”32 God does not want any Israelite to get back to

the situation of Egypt.

The motive clause is significant: the Israelites’ recollection

of their own historical experience of slavery, which amounted

to widowhood in that they were without legal, social and

economic standing, should motivate them in their own treatment

of the disenfranchised. The call to maintain justice

especially for those lacking socio-economic standing issues

not from a definition of quid pro quo, but an ethics of

reciprocity. This implies that ethical deliberation regarding

widows at its best begins with an appropriate attitudinal

posture, formed by experience and morality. Bruce’s words are

worth noting in this respect: “Such a radical divine

31 See Nathan Bill “Exodus, the Poor and Worship.32 W. Jansen, Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 51.

identification with human suffering and the plight of the

dispossessed at the heart of Israel’s birth story makes

understandable the constant return throughout the canon to

themes of God’s special regard for the powerless, the poor,

the oppressed, and the marginalized.”33

However, although all Israel’s concern for the less privileged

was not unique in the ancient Near East, her uniqueness and

convictions about the less privileged grew, not only out of

her historical consciousness of mistreatment in Egypt, but

also out of her distinctive theological self-understanding

which was shaped by the covenant relationship between her and

Yahweh.34 They were a special covenantal people unto the Lord,

different from any other nation (Deut. 14:29). They were God’s

representatives in the dispensation of justice. Therefore, the

33 Bruce C. Birch, et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 112.

34 Harold V. Bennett, “Injustice Made Legal: Deuteronomic Law and thePlight of Widows, Strangers, and Orphans in Ancient Israel,” The Bible in Its World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002). Bennett approaching the study onwidows and the less privileged from the critical law theory point of view,argues that the law was not designed to protect these groups; instead, itspurpose was to co-opt these social sub-groupings into a larger strategy ofsocial transformation. To him, morality and ethics are not necessarily based upon religious convictions, but are reflections of social and economic realities of the time. Such a thesis goes centrally to the ethos undergirding the spirit of this paper.

Torah charges Israel to emulate Yahweh and to remember her own

experience as the oppressed, powerless and suffering. This

charge constitutes a firm basis upon which Israel’s social

ethics is built. Theologically, Israel knows its God as

redeemer and liberator. To love Yahweh is to share his concern

and further his program of liberation and redemption.35

The Holy One of Israel describes Himself as the executor of

justice for the vulnerable (Deut. 10:18; cf. Ps. 146:9; 113;

Isa. 57:15). Whereas the offenders of many of the statutes and

regulations in Israel were supposed to be stoned directly by

the people (Ex. 21:12-29; 22:19; Lev. 20:2, 27; Num. 15:35;

Deut. 17:5; 21:21; 22:21), when it came to the defense and

execution of justice for the widows, and the orphans, God

directly intervened to execute justice: “You shall not afflict

any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way,

and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; and

my wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword;

your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless” (Ex.

35 See Michelle Tiffany Sanchez, “Widows, Orphans and Pure Religion,” Mutuality (October, 2006), 5-8.

22:22-24). It is remarkable that offences against this law are

not left to the discretion of the ordinary judges to be

sentenced; God reserves the punishment to himself, and by this

he strongly shows his abhorrence of the crime. It is no common

crime, and shall not be punished in a common way; the wrath of

God shall wax hot against him who in any wise afflicts or

wrongs a widow. There is also a curse against anyone who would

subvert the legal rights of the widow and the disadvantaged

lot (Deut. 27:19).36 The existence of widows was not

indicative of good times and the presence of many widows in

the land indicated God's displeasure and visitation of His

punishment upon the people (Ex. 22:24).

God’s defense of the widow and the vulnerable classes of

society, and his curse upon those who subvert their legal

rights was not a mere threat. This is evident in the case of

36 The Pentateuch enumerates a number of curses for various violationsand sins, but the series of curses given in the section of Deuteronomy against those who pervert the justice of the widow and the vulnerable (Deut. 27:15-26) are significant. Wright explains that the imprecations here, for a Hebrew, are the strongest possible way of expressing divine disapproval. The “Amen” from the community which concludes each imprecation is a generally known adjective which is used adverbially to express the strongest assent, “let it be so, assuredly, truly, verily.” See Ernest G. Wright, “The Book of Deuteronomy,” in The Interpreters Bible, vol.2, edited by George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1978), 492.

the plight meted out upon Tamar, the first widow recorded in

the Pentateuch (Gen. 38). When Judah's son Er died, leaving

Tamar a childless widow, Judah told Onan, his second born, to

live with Tamar as husband and wife so as to beget an

offspring for his dead brother (see Deut. 25:5–10). But Onan,

practiced evil towards Tamar with coitus interruptus, it is said

that “God put him to death” (Gen. 38:9-10). For this, God

punished him with death; and when Judah practiced trickery

with Tamar, God put him to shame and vindicated Tamar (Gen.

38:10-26).37

The story of Tamar is an account of the abuse of the levirate

custom by both brother and father-in-law, and also the

outworking of the sovereign provision of posterity. This widow

is a victim of circumstances, but whose behavior is

characteristic of self-affirmativeness and determination for

survival against societal odds. Tamar, a non-Israelite,

37 Donald E. Gowan, “Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament: The Caseof the Widow, the Orphan, and the Sojourner,” Interpretation 41 (1987): 341–353.

embodies well the ideals of God’s community norms in contrast

to the community elder, Judah, who should have known better.38

In the Pentateuch, the legal structures and framework were

intended to alleviate the plight of the widow. The established

laws institutions were to protect the widow against societal

exploitation and injustices. The Israelite society was

supposed to observe these injections with a theological and

historical perspective reminding themselves of Egypt and the

redemption thereof. The God of Israel, working through the

community, the judges and rulers instigated, administered and

executed blessings and curses in the practice of the justice

to the widow. Although God would work within the laid legal

structures for the justice of the widow, the powers of supreme

de facto rested in God himself.

Conclusion

The Israelite community, as well as the ancient Near East,

understood a widow as a woman whose husband had died and

because of remaining unmarried, was subjected to a life with

38 K. Van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).

no means of financial support, and is therefore in need of

special legal protection. Her condition was not only

economically and legally challenged but it also carried with

it a social stigma and exposed her to various societal vices

of injustice and exploitation.

The legal structure and framework upon which the alleviation

of the plight of the widow rested was the prerogative of God

which was vested in the legal system under the administration

of judges and rulers, but beyond which blessings (for

according due justice to the widow) and curses (for subverting

the legal rights of the widow) were in the hand of God.

Justice to the widow from an ordinary person, or any leader

was done in the surrogate capacity of God himself. God was the

instigator, the administrator, and executioner of the welfare

and rights of the widow and the less privileged lot of the

society.

References

Albright, W. F. “The Ancient Near East and the Religion of Israel.” JBL 59 (1940), 85-112.

Bennett, Harold V. “Injustice Made Legal: Deuteronomic Law and the Plight of Widows, Strangers, and Orphans in Ancient Israel.” In The Bible in Its World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.

Biddle, Mark E. Smyth and Helwys Commentary: Deuteronomy. Edited by Scott R. Nash. Macon, Georgia: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 2003.

Bill, Nathan. “Exodus, the Poor and Worship.” Mission Dei: A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis, MD2.1, Feb., 2011. Available at http://missiodeijournal.com/md-2-1 [accessed on13 Nov. 2012].

Birch, Bruce C. et al. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

C. Meyers, C. “The Family in Early Israel.” In Families in Ancient Israel. Edited by L. G. Perdue et al. FRC, Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997.

Carroll R.M. Daniel. “Orphan.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: IP, 2003. 1: 619- 621.

Carroll R.M. Daniel. “Widow.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003. 1:890-893.

Coert J. Rylaarsdam, Coert J. “The Book of Exodus.” In The Interpreter’s Bible, 12 vols. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1982. 1:1007.

Cornelius Van Leeuwen, Cornelius. “hn"m'l.a;” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. vol. 1. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren . Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. 1:413-415.

Dembitz, Lewis N. “Widow.” In The Jewish Encyclopedia. vol. 12. Edited by Isidore Singer. New York: Ktav Publishing House,1906.

Dempster, Stephen G. “Widow.” Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Books, 1996.

Driver, Godfrey Rolles, and John C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws. Oxford:  The Clarendon Press, 1935. Available at

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/g/genpub/AFF6708.0001.001?view=toc [accessed on 13 Nov. 2012].

Fensham, Charles F. “Widow, Orphan, and Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” JNES 21: 129-39.

Gowan, Donald E. “Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament: The Case of the Widow, the Orphan, and the Sojourner.” Interpretation 41 (1987): 341–353.

Hamilton, Victor P. “~Aty (yaṯôm).” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. vol. 2. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren . Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. 2:570-571;

Held,M. L. “Widow (in the Bible).” In New Catholic Encyclopedia. vol. 14. Edited by Berard L. Marthaler . Washington D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2003.

Hoffner, Harry A. “hn"m'l.a; ʼlmānāh tWnm'l.a; ʼlmānûth.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. vol. 1. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Halmer Ringgren. Transl. by John T. Willis; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977.

Jansen, W. Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994.

Jewell, Elizabeth J., and Frank Abate. “Widow.” In The New Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Kalmin, Richard “Levirate Law.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary. vol. 4. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Matthews V. H., and D. C. Benjamin. The Social World of Ancient Israel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Meagher, P. K., and D. Dietlein, “Tithes.” In New Catholic Encyclopedia. vol. 14. Edited by Berard L. Marthaler. Washington D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2003.

Merrill, Eugene H. “Deuteronomy.” In The American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of the Holy Scriptures. vol. 4. Edited by Ray E. Clendenen. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994.

Patterson, Richard “The Widow, the Orphan, and the Poor in the Old Testament and the Extra-Biblical Literature.” Bibliotheca Sacra 130: 223-34.

Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac. “Levirate Marriage and Halizah.” InEncyclopedia Judaica. vol. 11. Edited by Fern Seckbach. Jerusalem: Keter Press, 1982.

Ringgren, Halmer. “~Aty" yaṯôm.” In Theological Dictionary of the OldTestament. vol. 6. Eedited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Halmer Ringgren. Transl. by John T. Willis. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977.

Sanchez, Michelle T. “Widows, Orphans and Pure Religion.” Mutuality (October, 2006).

Shavit, Yaakov. “Orphan,” in In Encyclopedia Judaica. vol. 12. Edited by Fern Seckbach. Jerusalem: Keter Press, 1982.

Shires, Henry H., and Pearson Parker. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Interpreters Bibl. vol. 2. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1978.

Toorn, K. Van der. From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Wright, Ernest G. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Interpreters Bible. vol. 2. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1978.

Zvieli, Benjamin. “Widow.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 16. Edited by Fern Seckbach. Jerusalem: Keter Press, 1982. 16: 487-495.