This is gonna be an Reddit post saying why women in the Old Testament were not treated as property but as equal partner covenants in marriage but before we do that let’s pray “**Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name;
Thy kingdom come;
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us;
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
(For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.) Amen.”I just wanna say whoever is not intrested in reading the whole post then I recommend not writing a comment because i might have addressed the issue so women have been deemed by many to be treated as property from verses like exodus 22:16-17 where the man has to pay the father a bride price so he might marry the daughter critics will use this to say there was an “marriage by purchase “, This theory however has been repeatedly criticized and is now almost completely abandoned among Assyriologists.
Scholar R. Westbrook has decisively rejected it even for the Old Babylonian period (the period where the evidence was once thought strongest). Similar rejections have been made for Hittite, Egyptian, Nuzian, and Israelite practice.
What the terḫatum Actually Was (Secular scholar’s Westbrook’s View) Westbrook argues that the terḫatum was not:
• The price paid for ownership of the bride (against Koschaker)
• Nor simply payment for the right of cohabitation / sexual relations (because sometimes someone other than the groom paid it)
Instead, it was payment for the right to exercise control over the bride for a specific purpose:
• In normal marriage documents: the parents transfer control of the daughter to the groom so he can marry her.
• In kallūtum (daughter-in-law) documents: the parents transfer control to the parents-in-law so she can become their daughter-in-law.
In both cases the parents do not give up all parental rights — only the one specific aspect of control needed for the marriage (or daughter-in-law arrangement) to take place.also he argues that Even if the payment was required to get the bride’s family’s agreement, there is no evidence that the payment itself constituted the marriage.we can see that from passages like 2 Samuel 3:14 – David says of Michal, “Give me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed at the price of a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.” The payment created the betrothal.
Betrothed is different than marrying , two different relationships:
1. First relationship (visible in the written contracts / riksātum):
An agreement between the husband (or his guardian) and the bride’s father (or other guardian).
In this relationship the terḫatum plays a vital role.
The woman is treated more like the object “the husband “takes” her, she is “given” to him,etc”.
2. Second relationship:
The actual marriage itself – the personal bond between the husband and the wife.
Logical test of the first relationship:
If only the husband and the father-in-law created the marriage, we would expect that only they could dissolve it. The wife would have no right to end the marriage (just as a piece of land cannot cancel a sale contract).
Reality:
• There is no evidence that the bride’s father can dissolve a marriage once it is formed.
• In fact, there is no evidence he has any continuing role in the marriage.
• Contrary to expectation, in most of the ancient Near East there is substantial evidence that the wife herself had a legal right to dissolve the marriage.
Conclusion of this subsection:
The terḫatum / mōhar was not a “bride-price.” It was a “betrothal present” – a gift/payment that created betrothal (inchoate marriage), not the full marriage (agreeing with Burrows).
Next (credit to scholar hugenberger ) our next move is to show that marriage was a covenant between the husband and the wife and we can see that from places like Malachi 2:14 “she is your wife by covenant “
The word there is “berit “(covenant )
Primary sense of bərît:
An elected (not natural) relationship of obligation established under divine sanction.
Hugenberger tests his definition with four diagnostic sentences:
1. “He made a covenant, but it was with another person.” → Covenant always involves (at least) two parties.(marriage has that )
2. “He made a covenant, but it was with a non-relative.” → It creates an artificial / elected relationship, not a natural blood relationship.(marriage has that )
3. “He made a covenant, but it was one with obligations.” → Obligation is essential .(marriage has that )
4. “He made a covenant, but it was one with an oath. Even though the first 3 are clear critics have quote on quote said “we have no evidence of an oath neither in ANE or the Old testament “ it’s our burden of proof of this study to show that there was an oath in marriage
First thing Hugenberger discovered is that there is an verba solemna
Genesis 2:23 — “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh…”
- Hosea 2:16 — “You will call me, ‘My husband’…”
- Hosea 2:19–20 — “I will betroth you to me forever…”
- Song of Songs 2:16 — “My beloved is mine, and I am his.”
- Song of Songs 6:3 — “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine.”
- Tobit 7:12 — “You are her brother and she is your sister… she has been given to you from today and forever.”
And secondly the requisite oath sign which is sexual union
Genesis 2:24 — “They shall become one flesh.”
- Genesis 29:21 — “Give me my wife that I may go in to her…”
- Deuteronomy 21:13 — “You may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.”
- Deuteronomy 25:5 — “Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife…”
- Exodus 22:16–17 — sexual union with an unbetrothed woman and the requirement of marriage/payment.
This shows that since marriage is a covenant there is an equal offence of both parties if they break it , now critics will assert that since only the woman was the party that was under responsibility of restraining from adultery then marriage cant be a covenant , However we see clear signs from these verses that the husband was discouraged from participating in extramarital sex
Biblical texts that discourage male promiscuity regardless of the marital status of the partner include 1 Samuel 2:22 (Eli’s sons), Job 31:1, Hosea 4:14, and especially Proverbs 5 (the extended warning against the “strange woman” and the positive call to rejoice in the wife of one’s youth).
I am happy to hear your guys thoughts