â€œYou shall not covet your neighborâ€™s wifeâ€: A Study in Deuteronomic Domestic Ideology

Posted Wednesday, December 06, 2006 by Charlie Trimm

Daniel Block presented this paper immediately after the previous paper on renumbering the ten commandment. He discusses the two versions of the Decalogue in Exodus and Deuteronomy. He sees Deuteronomy as giving a more humanitarian function to the Decalogue in two specific ways. One is the removal of the grounding of the abuse of women in the Decalogue (see the previous post). The second is how it sets the tone for the way the Law treats females (such as a concern for widows, manumission of female slaves, military exemption for new husbands, and the second-ranked wife). He has several interesting thoughts. He views the Torah as patricentric rather than patriarchal. The law is addressed to men who are heads of household (note Sabbath laws, for example), but there is no mention in the law (except for Genesis 3:16) of men having power over their household. The father was not the despot or the boss of the household, but the one who provided trust and security for them. The deuteronomic differences could be because Moses is quoting from memory (the Decalogue is in the Ark), but the longer differences must be intentional. We as evangelicals have been too quick in the past to simply harmonize differences rather than ponder why they exist. This paper is a good attempt to truly understand the differences within the framework of inerrancy.

Series: ETS 2006
God-Blogging
The Literary Function of Mark 15:34, the Cry from the Cross
The Bush Presidency
Numbering the Decalogue: A Textlinguistic Approach
â€œYou shall not covet your neighborâ€™s wifeâ€: A Study in Deuteronomic Domestic Ideology
Conditional and Hyperbolic Language in the OT Prophets: Where are we now?
The Old Testament as History

Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:02 PM

Brian wrote: Patriarchal Safety in Numbers Numbers 30:3-8 ³ If a woman vows a vow to the LORD and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father's house in her youth, ⁴ and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. ⁵ But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her. ⁶ If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, ⁷ and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. ⁸ But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound herself. And the LORD will forgive her.

This seems unambiguous that the patriarch of the house has veto power. Does this simply go beyond the scope of Block's paper? Did Block distinguish between "Statute Law" and "Case Law?" His statements have a mute ring of credibility.

Friday, December 08, 2006 12:28 PM

Charlie wrote:

A mute ring of credibility? It sounds like a nice phrase that I want to use, but what exactly does it mean?

Anyway, I'm not sure what Block would do with this. I think he would differentiate between authority and power, and put this into authority. At least he would say that this is for the security of the woman, not as an exercise in power. The head of the household is to help the people of the household not be foolish, which this commandment seems to be doing. I do not think he saw a difference between statute and case law as relevant to this issue.

He was also looking at Deuteronomy, so this could potentially be one of the places that was possible to be misread and so the Deuteronomic writer would change it.

Friday, December 08, 2006 9:30 PM

Brian wrote:

When muted something that looks like it should be credible no longer sounds credible.

Thank you for trying to defend Block, but I fail to see how authority is anything without power. I believe that a distinction is unworkable in the passage I presented.

I am also lost on what the Deuteronomic writer would change. Does this have to do with Numbers 30 or Block's hypothesis, trying to explain the differences between the two lists of commands? If so, Numbers 30 has significant bearing on the validity of his conclusions. Namely, if he concludes that the Torah did not grant men a patriarchal kind of authority/power then this passage must be dealt with. Otherwise his conclusion is incomplete.

Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:50 AM

Charlie wrote:

I am not sure what he would say, but I am having lunch with him this week so if I remember I will ask him. I will probably forget, but I will strive to recall it to mind.

As far as the changes he is talking about, he is referring to changes that the Deuteronimc writer would make to correct any passage that could be misinterpreted. In his paper, he only spent on time on Deuteronomy, so he did not discuss the previous texts. His main point was the respect that Deuteronomy has for women, and the power / authority comment was a sideline.

Sunday, December 17, 2006 9:30 AM

Charlie wrote: Well, it turns out I misquoted him. What he actually said was that Genesis 3 was the only place where the terminology of rulership was used to refer to the husband/father. This would explain how Numbers 30 then is not included. But what Numbers 30 does signify, in his thinking, is that the father is to care for his family by protecting them from foolish vows. The authority is not an end in itself, but is for the sake of his family. For an interesting article to demonstrate what Block is arguing against, see an article in the latest issue of JETS which claims that we need to recover the use of the word patriarchy and that complementarians are losing the battle because the complementarians are complementarians in word only, but are egalitarian in deeds.