I find it interesting that this day’s Old Testament reading deals in a large part with women when men are concerned.
Firstly, God gives explicit instructions on what a man was to do with a captive woman he desired to marry… right down to shaving her head and cutting her nails. But notice the restrictions on their marriage that exist; if the man doesn’t delight in her, then he has no obligation to continue their marriage. The only stipulation is that he not sell her. Sad and interesting.
Secondly, a man with more than one wife and in the situation where he hates one wife, but not the other, is not allowed to pass his inheritance to the firstborn of the wife he loves. The inheritance passes to the firstborn. Period. It is nice God makes a provision for children of a hated wife… at least once in scripture, we find a hated wife producing a firstborn male. Again, God points to the unshakable fact that the firstborn (especially male) is a special creation; the beginning of his father’s strength and chosen of the Lord. I have to wonder if female firstborns are special to God… it seems everywhere God speaks highly and possessively of firstborns, He is referring to males.
Thirdly, women are not supposed to wear men’s clothing. I don’t believe this means women shouldn’t wear pants or shorts, I believe that this literally means that a woman should not wear men’s clothing (i.e., clothing specifically created for men). Traditionally, pants have been the woman’s clothing; providing full coverage in every-day tasks.
Fourthly, when a man takes a wife, knows her, and then hates her and says she had been with someone else before him, the father of the woman is supposed to provide the proofs of her virginity – this is a white cloth from her wedding day which has been blood-stained during the consummation of that marriage ceremony.
Here’s the kicker… if the father produces the proof, the man is chastised and will not be able to divorce his wife for the rest of his life. However, if the father cannot produce this proof, the men of the city will stone her until she dies. Why? She played the whore and brought shame to all of Israel. Makes one wonder what today would be like if this penalty were still in effect.
Fiftly, men are not punished with respect to crimes committed on women if the woman is not promised or married to another man. In the case of adultery, upon discovery, the man and the woman were to be stoned until dead. If an engaged virgin is caught with a man in the city, both were stoned until dead. If a man forced an engaged virgin in a field, only he would be stoned because it was assumed the woman would have called for help.
The thing that really bothers me somewhat is the fact that if a man rapes an unengaged virgin, he doesn’t die for this. Instead, he pays the father a huge chunk of money and then marries the woman and will never be able to divorce her for the rest of his life.
I suppose this way of dealing with men/women issues relates to how women are seen with respect to men. A married woman is her husband’s property. Betrothal (or engagement) fall into the same kind of category; the woman is promised to the man and really all that remains before she becomes his is the wedding and consummation. When a man messes with another man’s property (i.e., his neighbor’s wife or almost-wife), he must pay the penalty of death.
Unengaged women still belong under their father’s protectorate and are therefore not considered as belonging to a man, therefore the man isn’t killed for defaming “un-owned” property.
