Reinterpreting the Levirate Injunction in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and the Realities of Widowhood in Amike Aba,Ebonyi State

Abstract

This study examines the Levirate injunction in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and its implications for widowhood practices in Amike Aba, Ebonyi State. The aim is to explore how this biblical mandate aligns with or contrasts against contemporary widowhood experiences and challenges in the region. The study addresses the problem of widow marginalization, inheritance denial and social ostracization, which persist despite evolving legal and cultural frameworks. A qualitative research approach was adopted, utilizing the narrative and exegetical methods to analyse Deuteronomy 25:5-10 alongside relevant literature on widowhood practices in Nigeria. Findings reveal that while the Levirate law was originally intended to protect widows by ensuring economic security and family continuity, its interpretation and application in Amike Aba have been influenced by socio-cultural dynamics, often leading to adverse consequences for widows. Many face coercion, property dispossession and gender-based discrimination, highlighting the tension between biblical prescriptions and modern human rights principles. The study concludes that while traditional and religious practices shape widowhood experiences, there is a need for contextual reinterpretation of biblical texts in ways that promote gender justice. It recommends policy interventions, legal enforcement and community education to address the challenges faced by widows in Amike Aba.

Keywords

Feminism levites Deuteronomy 25 widows Amike Ebonyi

Introduction

Marriage is a social institution in which man and woman come together to form a home. It is divinely designed to be a durable and stable union between one man and one woman (Obiorah, 2016). The man leaves his parents and clings to his wife, and they form a bond that is stronger than any other existing before it. The bond is so strong emotionally and socially that separation or loss of a partner is always a disturbing experience. The demise of a partner in marriage plunges the surviving partner into widowhood. Widowhood is always a difficult experience especially to the woman. It is one of the most devastating experiences a woman can possibly go through. Chukwuma-Offor (2023) notes that widowhood represents a very difficult time in the life of a woman. According to Nwaoga et al. (2021), ‘Widowhood is an awful period for any woman whose husband has died’ (p. 6). It is one of the ‘most deeply distressing life event experienced by adults’ (Bennet, 2008: 438). It comes with some emotional, social, economic and psychological challenges, especially for the widow. This is a fall-out of traditional widowhood practices which a widow has to observe as she mourns her late husband. Some of these practices include stipulated wailing, isolation, dressing in mourning garments, ritual cleansing sex and levirate marriage.

Levirate marriage is a practice that requires the widow to be married to her late husband’s brother or close kin. It is an institution put in place to solve the problem of childlessness, which possess a significant challenge to a stable and happy family. According to Deuteronomy 25:5-10, levirate marriage was a practice in ancient Israel that required a man to marry his late brother’s widow with the aim of raising a son for him who will perpetuate his name and inherit his property. The practice is found in different cultures of the world. These include the Hittites, Punjab and Haryana of India; Igbo, Yoruba and several other tribes of Nigeria; the Nandi, Luo and Kembas of Kenya; the Supyire of Mali as well as other communities in Ghana, Bangladesh, Zambia, Uganda, Pakistan, South African among others (Abong’o, 2015; Adipo, 2019; Baloyi, 2015; Ogolla, 2014). The practice was strong in traditional African societies. This is connected to the fact that the African concept of marriage is a contract between the two families involved (Nwadialor and Agunwa, 2021) and that a woman is not married to her husband alone, but to his family and clan as a whole hence the appellation ‘our wife’ (Kisembo, Magesa and Shorter, 1977 cited in Nwadialor and Agunwa, 2021). Consequently, the care of the widow and that of her children rests upon the family. Levirate arrangement is carried out in the belief that the woman’s marriage is still alive, and she needs not be neglected.

The Levirate union, which was strong in traditional societies, is fast disappearing in Igbo societies including Amike Aba. Christianity, Western education and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) scourge have been adduced as reasons why this practice is on the decline. Although the practice is fast disappearing, the challenges of widowhood, which levirate institution was meant to deal with, are still very much around. In Amike Aba, many widows are left to fend for themselves and their children instead of taking care of them, which is the responsibility of their husband’s families, and the ones without male children are dispossessed of their late husbands’ properties. This exposes them to severe difficulties. In the face of this and the fact that increased awareness, by women, of their rights as humans, makes levirate marriage less fashionable in this contemporary milieu, this study is undertaken to find out the meaning of levirate injunction in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and what value it holds today in relation to challenges of widowhood in Amike Aba community, Ebonyi local government of Ebonyi State. The study employs literary criticism for the study of the text and descriptive approach for the analysis of widowhood practice. Data are gathered from primary source and secondary source. Semi-structured interview was employed, in which 25 persons from Amike Aba, 8 men and 17 widows, were interviewed, and secondary source consists of books, journals, bible software and Internet materials.

Understanding the Book of Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Torah (Pentateuch). The Torah refers to the first five books of the Christian and Jewish scriptures namely Genesis – Deuteronomy. These volumes have always been grouped together: A practice that dates back to the days of Ezra (Fulton, 2001). Blenkinsopp (1990) refers to Deuteronomy as ‘the five fifth of the Torah’ (p. 94). The title, Deuteronomy, is a combination of two Greek words, ‘deutero and nomos meaning second law or second reading of the law after the first reading at Sinai /Horeb’ (p. 1). Blenkinsopp (1990) states that the title is taken from the Septuagint (LXX) rendering of Deut 17:18-19, which contains an instruction to the king to produce a copy of this law which was to be read regularly and obeyed religiously. Smith and Clendenen (2003) observe that this instruction to make a copy of this law was erroneously rendered ‘a copy of this second law’ in the LXX. The Vulgate, following LXX, also rendered the instruction ‘Second Law’ (Smith and Clendenen, 2003).

In the Jewish tradition, the title is Dübärîmwhich means ‘words’. Hamlin (2003) notes that this comes from the first sentence of the book which begins with 'ëllehhaDDübärîm, ‘these are the words’. He further opines that this is more fitting as the book contains largely speeches attributed to Moses on ‘the other side of Jordan’. Weinfeld (1991) observes that the title, Dübärîm, follows the pattern in the rest of the Torah where the title is usually coined from the first word or words of the book and this is also found in Babylonian writings and thus, appears ancient.

Deuteronomy as the title, according to Blenkinsopp (1990), is not ‘entirely inappropriate since the Deuteronomic Law was intended to supersede the so-called covenant code’ (p. 94). Weinfeld (1991) also defends the title saying that Deuteronomy is a ‘revised or repetition of a large part of the law and history of the Pentateuch’ (p. 1). He further states that Deuteronomy constitutes a second covenant and therefore could rightly be considered to be second law. Although the title comes from a mis-reading of Chapter 17:18-19, it is fitting considering that the book contains largely instructions and laws for the people of Israel.

Deuteronomy represents authoritative instructions for Israel as they set to enter the promised land. Traditionally, the authorship of the entire Pentateuch is ascribed to Moses. This view has been challenged by critical scholars of the Pentateuch (Blenkinsopp, 1992; Driver, 1896; Merrill, 1994). It is possible that Moses may have provided the basic materials for the Torah, but the form in which we have it today may have emanated much later, possibly after, the exile (Brueggemann and Linafelt, 2012; Childs, 1979; Whybray, 1994). Furthermore, much of the materials found in the Torah draw from older traditions. Thus, the final form of the book must have been the work of a latter author(s) or redactor(s).

Literary Analysis of Deuteronomy 25:5-10

The book of Deuteronomy is the fifth volume of the Torah or Pentateuch. It continues the Sinaitic tradition. The Jews became a theocratic nation at Sinai when they entered into covenant with Yahweh and received the Law or Covenant Code through Moses. In the land of Moab, before entrance and occupation of the promised land, Moses rehearsed and expounded the Covenant Code. The code is expanded to cover almost every aspect of the people’s life, namely worship, kingship, holy wars, family and interpersonal relationship as well as commerce. Chapter 25 belongs to a block of materials, and Chapters 12–26 contain instructions relating to human conduct. Verses 1–4 provide for limitations to corporal punishment and humane treatment of work animals (Weinfeld, 1991). Verses 5–10 focus on levirate marriage. The rest deals with various issues ranging from immodesty and dishonesty to war with Amalek.

To structure a text implies recognizing the unique features of the text and organizing the information based in the features. This helps the exegete to easily base his exegesis on the key concepts of the text. Thus, the text is structured as follows: The first part (v.5) set the tone for the practice of levirate marriage; the second part (v.6) clarifies the reason and purpose for the practice and the last part (vv. 7-10) presents actions that can be taken against a brother-in-law who refuse to contract the levirate marriage.

Close Reading of Deuteronomy 25:5-10

Condition for Contracting Levirate Marriage (v. 5)

The passage begins with the phrase Ki-yëšbû 'aHîmyaHDDäw. Ki is a particle of conjunction that can be used in several ways. It could mean that, because, when and for. It is used to express causal clause, conditional statement and to present the basic case in casuistic law in which sense it appears in our text. Here, it is attached to the verb yëšbû, a qal imperfect verb in the third person plural, from the rootישׁב, which means to dwell or to sit. The keyword here is the adverb yaHDDäw, which depicts togetherness. The brothers have to be living together, and Driver (1896) suggests that living together refers to living on the same family estate. However, yaHDDäw could also mean together in a clan. This is because 'aHîm, which is rendered as brothers, could also mean fellow countryman or tribesman. Thus, Olugbemiro and Atoyebi (2016) note that the usage of 'aHîmin, the context of levirate law, ‘reflects the socio-cultural milieu of the Qibutsim, in which title to landed property is vested in the clan, and the clan, more often than not, serve as a socio-economic unit’ (p. 280). In such a society, exogamy is not really encouraged, which could result in the loss of family property to a stranger; that is, one outside the family or clan.

ûbën 'ën-lôas used in the passage literally means ‘and he has no son’. The dead man whose widow may enter levirate union must have died without a son. The emphasis is on בֵ֣ן (son). The LXX renders the word as σπερμα meaning ‘seed’ and the Vulgate agrees with LXX usage of seed (σπερμα) instead of son (ὑoις) (Olugbemiro and Atoyebi, 2016). It is important to note that there is no neuter gender in Hebrew, but there are words that represent ‘child’ יׇלׇד and ‘seed’ זׇרׇע, which could refer to either male or female. The usage of Bën appears deliberate owing to the Jewish society which put high premium on male children. The implication of this is that if he has a son with another wife, the law may not apply, but if he has daughters, it may still apply. The writer carefully avoided ambiguity by sticking with Bën instead of יׇלׇד or זׇרׇע, in which case any child would suffice irrespective of the gender.

lô-tihyeh 'ëšethammëthaHûcählü'îšzär This phrase literally translates as ‘she shall not become a wife of the dead man outside to a strange man’. The verb תִהְיֶ֧ה isqal imperfect third-person feminine singular from the root היה which means ‘to be’ or ‘become’. Attached to it is לֹא a particle of negation meaning no, not lô'-tihyeh as used in the text means ‘she shall not become’. The ‘she’ refers to, אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּ֛ת wife of the dead. 'ëšetis in construct relationship with hammët; the dead man, which shows belongingness. The term is also applied in the case of Ruth (Ruth 4:5). The widow shall not become or be known as the wife of the dead as long as there is a male in her husband’s clan who could perform the duty of a levir to her. This is because the term, wife of the dead seems derogatory and as well belongs to lower social stratum of the society, comparable to alien and destitute (Olugbemiro and Atoyebi, 2016). The dead brother needs not be considered totally dead because there is still a chance of raising a seed for him, and his wife should not be left destitute. This duty can only be performed by a close relative, and not by a stranger.

Husband’s Brother (yübämäh)

yübämäh from the root, ybm, means a husband’s brother, a near-kinsman who is in a position to perform levirate duties for his dead kinsman. yübämäh is a masculine noun in a construct state with third-person feminine singular suffix. In relation to the widow, it refers to her brother-in-law who is obliged or in the position to perform the duties of brother-in-law to her. The verbal root appears elsewhere in Genesis 38:8, and as in our text, it means to fulfil the duty of a brother-in-law or a levir, and this duty is essentially to raise a seed that will continue the name and patrimony of the dead brother.

This levir shall go in unto her and take her as wife. The construction, יׇבֹ֣א עָלֶ֔יהָ literally means ‘to come upon her’. It refers to the duty of the levir and implies intimate union or consummation of sexual intimacy. ‘To come upon her’, aside sexual intimacy, also connotes covering or protection. yäbô'`äleyhä is important in the context of levirate marriage as it indicates that the levir is not primarily meant to ‘enjoy sexual intimacy with the widow, but by implication, must provide social security which could have been provided by her husband if he were to be alive’ (Olugbemiro and Atoyebi, 2016: 29). This idea is also found in Ruth’s ‘Spread your wings upon your maidservant’ (Ruth 3: 9). Levirate injunction was not given primarily for sexual intimacy, but for social security and the provider of this social security has to be her husband’s brother, and not a foreigner, who must treat the ‘deceased’s widow as a husband’s brother’ (Driver, 1896: 282). Furthermore, the levir has to take the widow as wife, which goes beyond sexual intimacy. ûlüqäHählôlü'îššähwüyiBBümäh, ‘and he shall take her to him to wife’ emphasizes that though the levir’s main duty is to raise an offspring for the dead brother, it goes beyond that. The widow must be treated as a wife and must be cared for and protected along with her children.

Shall stand upon the name his dead brother (v.6)

Verse 6 outlines the major purpose of levirate injunction – to perpetuate the name of the dead man in Israel. haBBüKôr ’ašerTeleD ‘the firstborn which she shall bear’. The first born, haBBüKôr, is a masculine singular absolute noun, which literally means the first male child. The choice of the masculine form is in line with the usage in the Old Testament (Gen 41:51; 2Kgs 3:27; 2Chron 2:3), and thus should be understood as son against LXX’s usage of child in which case either a male or female would suffice. The understanding of a male child agrees with v.5 where the dead brother is presented as having died without a son. Hence, the levirate law text is to be understood in its cultural context. This first son shall be counted as the dead man’s son. הַמֵתאׇחׅיןעַל־שֵׁםיׇקוּם literally means to ‘stand upon the name of the dead brother’. The idea here is one of establishing the name of the dead brother, thereby perpetuating his memory among his people. The child may not necessarily be named after the dead brother, but he shall be reckoned as his son and shall be heir to his estate.

When the Brother-in-Law Does Not Wish to Enter the Levirate Union (vv. 7-10)

In the event that the levir does not wish to perform the levirate duty, the law prescribes an elaborate ritual called Hälicäh: The ceremony of the taking off of the levir shoe by the widow of a man who had died without an heir. Through this ceremony, he is released from the obligation of marrying her, and she becomes free to marry whoever she desires (Greenstone, 1906). The widow brings the matter to the notice of the elders of the city. hazzüqënîm, plural form of zäqën, does not necessarily mean men advanced in age, but mature men with legal competence, perhaps, a council of judges. This is the sense in which the word is used elsewhere in 1Sam 16:4; Exod 24:14; Josh 24:31; Judg 2:7. Elders of the city here means leading men of the city.

It appears that, for some reasons, men were at liberty to refuse the levirate arrangement. According to Hezser (2008), the Levirate Law text and the Tamar and Ruth narratives indicate that men in biblical times were not very keen to enter levirate union. This is because the practice seems disadvantageous to the man as the son he raises would bear another person’s name and inherit the property, which would otherwise, be theirs. Hence, ‘Deut 25:5-10 gives the woman some authority to fight for her right. It is her responsibility to declare to the elders the levir’s refusal to fulfill his duty’ (Obiorah, 2013: 21–22).

The widow brings a complaint to the elders against the brother-in-law who does not want to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her and says, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish his brother’s name in Israel; he is unwilling to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me’. The verb, më'ên is a piel perfect, third-person singular verb, which translates as ‘he refuses’. This is a refusal with intensity, that is he utterly refuses ‘to raise a name for his brother in Israel’; he will not be a husband’s brother to me. The word is used to register the fact that the levir does not wish to perpetuate the name of his dead brother. The elders of the city shall summon him and speak with him (v8). ‘. . . and speak with him’, wüdiBBürû, is a piel verb in third-person plural form with waw consecutive. It means the elders shall speak repeatedly or intensely with him on the matter. If after the interventions of the elders and he does not wish to perform the obligation, the Hälicäh ceremony is formally carried out to declare that the widow is free to marry any man of her choice. Josephus (quoted by Olagbemiro and Atoyebi, 2016) suggests that after the ceremony, she would be allowed to marry whoever she ‘pleases of such that seek her in marriage’ (p. 33).

The Hälicäh has to be done in the presence the elders of the city; this makes it authentic and official. The Hälicäh involves the widow pulling off the sandal from the feet of the recalcitrant levir and spiting in his face. Removal of sandal is significant; it signifies transfer of rights in a property deal (see Ruth 4: 7-8). In this case, the woman draws off the sandal because the levir would not perform his obligation and as such has lost whatever right he has over her and her dead husband’s estate. Driver (1896) succinctly put it thus, the sandal is taken as a

‘token of his renunciation of the right which the law gave him over his decreased brother’s wife, but it is removed not by himself, but by the woman, as an indication apparently that he allows an honourable privilege to be taken from him and voluntarily renounces a duty which affection for a deceased brother should have made dear to him’ (p. 283).

The woman follows up this act by spitting in the face of the levir. This signifies contempt, humiliation and is a legal gesture in the context of rejection of levirate duties (Keil and Delitzsch, 1900). It is a strong expression of disapproval, scorn and humiliation, which are not taken lightly in ancient Israelite culture (see Num 12:14, Job 30;10). The gesture is followed by a declaration: ‘This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house’. The Hälicäh ceremony is performed only in the case that a levir would not enter the levirate union. The ritual appears intended to publicly shame the recalcitrant brother-in-law, requiring the widow to spit on him and branding him as someone who declined to perform his duty by of a levir to her. Consequently, v.10 emphasizes the shame and ignominy that follows such a man since he does not wish to lay the foundation of a family posterity for his brother (Keil and Delitzsch, 1900). He will then be reckoned as a ‘barefooted fellow’, a kind of ridicule and miserable tag on him and his household (Keil and Delitzsch, 1900).

The exegesis of the text shows that levirate union was an injunction to the Jews which is only initiated at the death of a man without a male child. The first unit of the text sets the tone and the conditions that may warrant the practice and as well as the credentials of a brother-in-law who would perform the levir’s duty; he must be the brother of the dead man or his near-kinsman. The second unit specifies the purposes of levirate practice: to raise up a son who will perpetuate the name of the dead man and inherit his estate and provide social security and support to the widow and her children. The third part sets forth the Hälicäh ritual which frees recalcitrant levir from the levirate obligation and allows the widow to marry any man of her choice. It is the widow who initiates the process of Halicäh by reporting the matter to the elders and completing the ritual. Although the injunction is a law in Israel, it is difficult to practice; even ancient Jews found it so. The levir has the right to reject the arrangement provided he is willing to go through the Hälicäh ritual.

Widowhood Rites in Amike Aba

Widows in Igbo communities observe certain rites at the death of their husbands, which are sometimes harsh and discriminatory (Chukwuma-Offor, 2023; Korieh, 1996; Mathias, 2015; Oreh, 2014). Amike Aba, ritual shaving of hairs, dressing in some forms of mourning clothes, isolation, and sometimes, sleeping in the same room with the late husband’s corpse are prominent in the community. At the demise of the man, the widow is expected to cry loudly and bitterly to express her grief and inform others that her husband is dead. According to Janet Nwigo¹ (personal communication, April 3, 2024), at the death of her husband, she wailed loudly which attracted neighbours and passersby. She notes that tradition demands that she cry in that manner as a way of announcing the death of her husband. This seems to be the practice at the death of a married man in Amike Aba as other informants agree with this.

Women in Amike Aba observe ritual shaving of hair immediately after the interment of the remains of their husbands. This marks the beginning of the mourning period. The shaving of hairs is followed by change of clothing to mourning clothes once the body is committed to mother earth (OgbonneNwabali, personal communication, April 4, 2024). Many of the interviewees express this view. Traditionally, this is a mark of respect and honour to their departed husbands as explained by ChijiokeOfoke (personal communication, April 3, 2024).

Restriction of movement is another experience faced by Amike Aba widows. They are not allowed by tradition to attend social gatherings or visit friends. Evelyn Nwamgbada (personal communication, April 4, 2024) laments her inability to visit her good friend who lost a child because she is forbidden by tradition from visiting such places. This restriction period is not always specified; it usually lasts till the second burial is performed. OgbonnaNwiboko (personal communication, April 4, 2024) explains that the widow is not expected to appear in any social gathering till the mourning period is over and the second burial rites performed. The performance of the second burial frees the widow from all restrictions and whatever taboo placed on her by the death of her husband and guarantees her full integration into the community. It is, however, important to note that widows are not prohibited from carrying out economic activities within this period. They are allowed to buy and sell in the local market and go to farm but are not allowed to attend funerals and other social events in the community. Until the second burial is performed, she is unclean and the spirit of her dead husband’s spirit hovers around her and could harm her if she attends social events.

The second burial rite is always a time of feasting. The widow’s full integration into the society is, to some extent, tied to this rite. It is a ceremony in which the family of the dead man performs some rituals and entertains friend and well-wishers to signal that their brother and husband has successfully joined the guild of ancestors (NkwudaNworie, personal communication, April 5, 2024). The ritual involves the services of a diviner who will determine if the dead man’s spirit has finally joined his ancestors or whether further rituals are needed to send him home. Once it is determined that he has joined his ancestors, lavish entertainment follows. The second burial is determined by the financial strength of the family and their willingness to perform the rites. Thus, the widow’s restrictions could last a couple of years. This is very disturbing for widows who are poor. They remain somewhat social outcasts till their families are able to perform the rites. One of the informants, James Nwite (personal communication, May 4, 2024) explains that unless the second burial is performed, the widow is not allowed to socialize, remarry, or have sexual relations. Widow restriction in Amike Aba in only related to attending social events, remarrying and sexual activities unlike in some other Igbo communities where they are not allowed to trade in the local market (Madumelu, 2014).

Widow Disinheritance

Inheritance in Amike Aba is more of land for farming. The women in Amike Aba do not own property. The farmland belongs to the men and in the event of a man’s death, his son(s) inherit his estate. Where there are no sons, the deceased’s brothers take and divide his farmland among themselves leaving the widow without any means of surviving. A 49-year-old widow, Florence Nwamba (personal communication, May 4, 2024) explains that women are not factored into family matters when family inheritance is shared and when other important decisions are made. As a result of this, Amike Aba men appear to be in firm control of everything and determine the fate of the women with little or no inputs from the women folks, thereby displaying domination and superiority over the women.

Another widow laments that women are denied their rights including inheritance rights because they are not usually involved in decisions affecting them. The widow, therefore, is plunged into untold hardship as she has to fend for herself and her children in situations where there are no adult male children. NwovuIjeoma (personal communication, June 8, 2024) asserts that once the husband is gone, ‘evil men will use their position and status to deal with the widow for reasons best known to them’. NneOgbo (personal communication, May 31, 2024) recounts how she suffered severe hunger along with her children when her husband died. In a polygamous family, which is common in Amike Aba, co-wives and their children engage in struggle over limited resources of the household and the wife without a child or a male child becomes one with nothing to lay claim to. Once a man, who is the bread winner of his home, dies, his wife or wives are open to hardship. To fend for themselves and their children, many widows engage in manual labour, at quarry and construction sites, which are often times tedious and dangerous.

Levirate Marriage in Amike Aba

Levirate marriage is a reality in traditional Amike Aba society just as is obtainable in various African societies. The practice, no doubt, is on the decline, but it still exists in remote villages. In Amike Aba, the practice in a very small scale and is done secretly today. According to NneOgbo (personal communication, May 31, 2024), some men still insist on the widow marrying a man from among her dead husband’s relatives, but the practice is no longer widespread as it used to be. NwaobiaraAlagu (personal communication, May 31, 2024) explains that she has to accept the arrangement to enable her to have access to farmland. She lamented that the levir contributes little toward the upkeep of her children. To her, the levir’s purpose was to gain access to her late husband’s properties. Another informant, NwiteNgozi (personal communication, June 21, 2024), who already has two daughters before the demise of her husband, claims that she dreaded what would become of the future of her children. Such consideration made her accept the arrangement. It appears that women in contemporary Amike Aba community have a choice whether to accept or reject the arrangement. Economic considerations and social stigma that follow widowhood rank high among reasons for accepting the arrangement.

One thing that appears obvious is that Amike Aba women are not forced into levirate union. This agrees with the findings of Korieh (1996) who reports that a widow in Igbo society is not compelled to become involved in levirate marriage. This notwithstanding, the researcher thinks that there is a subtle coercion, which forces the widow into accepting the arrangement. For instance, when a widow is threatened with ejection from her late husband’s family, forceful taking over of landed property and being abandoned without assistance, her chances of opting out of the arrangement is severely diminished. This is a form of acceptance gained under duress because the power of the widow to make choices is limited by the looming hardship she will be subjected to if she opts out.

In Amike Aba traditional society, widows normally end up in levirate unions. This is because of the services the levir can offer the widow. These include bearing children (if she is still young), helping in cultivating farmland and harvesting palm fruits, as it is an abomination for women to carry hoes or climb palm trees in Izzi land. She also needs a man to speak for her when matters arise in the community (Nworie Mbam, personal communication, June 26, 2024). This view is collaborated by Nwabunike Joshua (personal communication, June 28, 2024) who outlines the benefits a widow stands to derive from levirate marriage to include bearing children, if she does not have children, being a guardian for the children and advocate for the widow in the gathering of kinsmen. Based on these, widows enter levirate union irrespective of their age and whether they have children or not. An elderly widow is, however, less likely to enter the arrangement if she has adult male children as she will easily receive these services from her children except sexual relations and bearing children. In addition, it is widely held in the community that young widows would not just value but need the advice of older man in managing her property and children upbringing. This, to some extent, undermines the worth of women in the society.

Levirate marriage is looked upon with distaste today. This was not the situation few decades ago; the situation is different today. The influence of Christianity, Western education and exposure are chiefly responsible for the decline of the tradition as explained by Nwabunike Joshua (personal communication, June 28, 2024). There are not many levirate marriages today; one has to search deeply to find one. Only two of the resource persons indicated that they are in the union. Many widows in Amike Aba do not remarry; they rather stay in their late husband’s family and continue to bear children. According to IjeomaNwangbada (personal communication, May 17, 2024), her father-in-law actually advised her to stay back and bear more children for the family. Those children are counted as late husband’s children. When asked whether the biological father of her children is her brother-in-law, she answered in negatively.

Many widows who were interviewed are like IjeomaNwangbada. They did not remarry but continue to have children in their late husband’s house. When asked why they chose not to remarry, some of them responded by asking ‘who wants to marry a widow?’ This implies that it is not so easy for the widow to attract suitors after the demise of her husband. In the absence of serious-minded suitors, the widow resorts to having lovers to satisfy her sexual needs and have more children if she so desire. According to John Nwakpa (personal communication, April 13, 2024), marrying a widow is not fashionable, only in few cases will a widow remarry. Men, he says will prefer to ‘befriend’ the widow rather than formally marrying her. A traditionalist, OgbonnnaNwaobasi (personal communication, April 6, 2024), says it is difficult for a widow to remarry because traditionally, the death of the husband does not necessarily end marriage as a woman is married into husband’s family, and there are traditional rites to fulfil before the widow can remarry. He, however, frowns at the practice of having multiple lovers by widows, which to him is debasing. In addition, widows with children, especially male children, consider the future of their children before considering remarriage. OgonnaNwanku (personal communication, June 8, 2024) says she cannot leave children to go into another family as she is unsure what will become of them. She dreads the possibility that her children would be neglected if she leaves them. Thus, concern for the future of children is another factor that determines the widow’s choice to remarry or not remarry.

Challenges of Widowhood in Amike Aba

Widows in Amike Aba are often neglected and abandoned in their plight. Uguru Felicia (personal communication, May 17, 2024) reports that the only support she receives from her husband’s family is the normal ‘good morning’ from those who wish to greet her. Rather certain demands are made from widows for their husbands’ funeral rites. This appears to be the experience of many widows as information from other interviewees suggest. After the funeral rites, the widow faces the world alone and has to, in most cases, cater for herself and her children alone. The demise of one’s husband creates such a huge emotional vacuum, and, in many cases, no one attempts to provide social and emotional support to the widow, who is in dire need for such.

Exclusion of women in family matters, especially as it concerns inheritance is another challenge faced by widows. The absence of the woman in decision making gatherings of the family and community disenfranchises her. Her rights and privileges may be denied or lost because she has no one to speak for her in such gathering. This is typical of patriarchal society where men dominate. A widow is socially seen as a house without fence. This means that her house is accessible to all and sundry because she lacks the security which a man offers. ChinyereNwankpu (personal communication, June 7, 2024) stresses that because of the demise of their husbands, widows occasionally face some form of harassment including sexual harassment. Some men in the community do pester them just to sleep with them. She recounts an occasion she received a male visitor in late evening who came to give her reasons why she should accept his advances. This happens because the man of the house is no more; the head of the woman is uncovered, and many widows have to deal with this form of challenges for a long period. Adipo (2019) captures this among the Luo tribe of Kenya. He states that unscrupulous men roam the villages looking for widows to co-habit with. They constitute what he calls ‘professional wife inheritors who gallivant from one funeral to the next in search of bereaved and vulnerable widow’ (np). It is not uncommon to see randy men pressuring widows for sexual relationship, and this they do with impunity because the house is without a man.

One significant challenge faced by widows is economic hardship. It is worthy to note that Amike Aba is largely a poor rural settlement with subsistent agriculture as the main economic activities. This, along with the fact that women do not hold land means that the women are generally poor. Thus, at the death of the husband and subsequent division of his landed properties among his brothers, a widow is faced with severe economic challenge. Taking away land from an Izzi man is akin to taking away his dignity, his pride and his life. The widow without any land to farm on is open to poverty and her self-worth is thereby diminished. Consequently, they give out their children as house helps while some succumb to pressures from men to enable them to sustain themselves and their children. A few women with Western education and means of livelihood tend to deal with this better than those who are full-time wives. Hence widows are seen in laborious jobs at construction sites, while others take to street hawking to put food on the table for their children.

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and Levirate Practice in Amike Aba

The levirate arrangement served several purposes in traditional societies, Amike Aba inclusive. The main purpose was to raise up a male child that will continue the name of the deceased. This is also the main purpose of the practice among ancient Hebrew. In Amike Aba, for instance, the levir must come from the deceased’s family, namely a brother or son of the deceased, and the children inherit along the deceased man’s name. Furthermore, the institution helped to continue the marriage as Amike Aba people do not consider death to be the end of marriage, thus even in levirate arrangement, the widow is often referred to as the deceased’s widow.

The Old Testament speaks of widows as vulnerable needing protection and assistance. Levirate marriage in Amike Aba community protects the widow from undue disturbance by men with ulterior motives. It further ensures that their husband’s property is not taken away from them. The levir marries the widow and manage her husband property till an heir comes of age to take over the deceased’s estate. It ensures that family property remains within the family. Among the Jews, family inheritance is not easily passed on to another family. Thus, levirate marriage is a means of taking care of the widow and ensuring that family wealth is not transferred to outsiders.

The levirate law text set out the conditions that would necessitate levirate arrangement. The main condition is that the man must have died without a male child. It follows that if the man has a male child through another of his wives, the arrangement is ruled out. In Amike Aba, the case is slightly different; a widow without a male child is expected to enter the levirate union for the purpose of bearing children for the name of her late husband. But the practice extends even to those widows with male children; the custom demands that a widow be married off to a levir whether there is a male child or not. Furthermore, the levirate injunction presumes that in a polygamous family where there are male children from other wives, the arrangement would be jettisoned but in Amike Aba, the oldest son of a polygamous man inherits his youngest wife (OgbonnaNwaobasi, personal communication). This practice is frowned at by the Old Testament as it is an abomination for a son to have canal union with his father’s wife or concubine. Amike Aba community needs to think about letting go of levirate arrangement where there are male children, not to talk of one of the sons taking any of their father’s wives. It is important to state that in no case can a son marry his mother.

In the text, brother-in-law seems to be restricted to blood brother, whereas in Amike aba, brother in-law extends to other families in the kinship system. The levir has to be a blood brother of the late man as the Judah/Tamar narrative of Gen. 38 suggests. Only in cases where there is no surviving blood brother that a near-kinsman is sought to take up the responsibility of a levir. This is buttressed by the Ruth/Boaz story. However, in Amike Aba, as well as other African societies, the widow has the right to choose among her husband’s kinsmen who would take care of her (Abong’o, 2015; Ademiluka, 2023; Baloyi, 2015; Ogolla, 2014). In both cultures, the normative duty of the levir is to sire children on behalf of his late brother who will continue his name and inherit his land and other property. Second to this is to assist the widow in taking care of her household. The practice ensures the survival of the family and retention of ancestral land within the family.

Many widows in Amike Aba who choose against levirate arrangement are often left without support. They go through untold emotional psychological and economic torture. In Hebrew society, levirate arrangement provides the widow with security. In Amike Aba and other cultures of sub-Saharan Africa, it ‘gives a deep sense of security in an otherwise insecure world’ (Ogolla, 2014: 290). The abandonment of widows to their fate in Amike Aba runs against the spirit of levirate law text. The widow is seen as vulnerable and open to exploitation. As such, she needs care and security. McKenzie (1965) opines that levirate practice may have induced the protection of the widow and the deceased property. Levirate injunction was given to protect the widow from oppression and exploitation. In case where the widow does not enter the levirate union, her welfare is still a concern to the Old Testament and as such should also be the concern of Amike Aba men.

HIV/AIDS pandemic is another hindrance to the practice of levirate marriage in Africa. In a bid to safeguard themselves, individuals develop cold feet towards the institution for fear of being infected with the virus. The prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS seems high in societies that practice levirate marriage and the danger of contracting the deadly virus is heightened by levirate marriage (Adipo, 2019; Kalinda and Tembo, 2010). Consequently, communities are no longer so keen about enforcing the tradition, especially where it is suspected that the deceased may have died of HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, the status of the levir or the widow with regards to HIV/AIDS is not always determined which makes it dangerous to partners in levirate marriage thereby discouraging the practice.

It is true that the practice of levirate marriage has almost disappeared in sub-Saharan Africa, but it is still practised in Amike Aba and some rural communities (Afolayan, 2011; Baloyi, 2015). Ezejiofor (2011) reports that ‘even nowadays, sometimes, if a man had no children or only one kid before his death, his relatives plead with the widow to marry one of them and produce more children’ (p. 152). Based on this, Ogolla (2014) concludes that for the practice to survive to this day means that it must have served several advantages to all the parties involved.

Recommendations

The practice of levirate marriage served several purposes in the context of Jewish and African cultures such as maintaining and keeping the name of the deceased alive among his kinsmen. Today it will be a tall order to encourage the practice of levirate marriage. In a cultural milieu like Amike Aba where perpetuation of a family line revolves along male children, couple without a male child should explore options such as adoption to solve the need for a male heir.

Widow disinheritance and dispossession of late husband’s estate is still with us today. These expose the widow to various forms of abuse and suffering. The levirate option was a means of handing these issues in the past. Today, women should be included in the sharing of family inheritance to give them a chance of a better living in the unfortunate event of widowhood. Men should draft their will to include their daughters as amens of dealing with disinheritance of their daughters.

No widow should be forced or pressured into accepting the levirate arrangement. They should be allowed to choose whether or not to engage in the practice. In the event that the widow decides against the practice, her choice should be respected with all dignity.

Poverty and overdependent on men are key among factors that may induce today’s women into levirate union. The society, policy makers and the government should think of formulating polices towards empowerment of women. Girl-child education should be made a priority. These will increase the bargaining power of women in the levirate arrangement. The society should set up a mechanism that will ensure that widows are taken care of. Skill acquisition for widows will go a long way in empowering them economically and socially.

All cultural barriers inhibiting widows from remarrying should be reviewed. Rather than living alone and resorting to having multiple sex partners or prostitution to meet up with economic, emotional and sexual needs, widows should seriously consider remarriage or remain chaste if they opt not to remarry.

Conclusion

Levirate marriage is a tradition that is found in several cultures of the world; the Jewish culture, Indian culture and African culture all have the institution. That the Hebrews practised levirate marriage is given credence by two narratives in the Old Testament, Judah/Tamar and Ruth/Boaz narratives. This institution is important to the Jews that an injunction is given on it in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. At the heart of the text is the desire to have a son that will perpetuate a man’s name such that his name is not blotted out from Israel, and that his inheritance, which is important to the Jews, remains within his family. Another subtle purpose is the care of the widow and the fatherless which is dear to the heart of Yahweh.

In Africa and especially in Amike Aba, the practice was common in traditional societies. But in recent years, the popularity of the institution has been waning. In Africa, the institution served similar purposes as in Hebrew culture. In Amike Aba, widows are expected to marry their brother-in-law or a close kinsman to raise sons that will bear the name of the late brother. The institution is rightly called institution of widow care by Tranzik (2021). Thus, in Amike Aba, widows remarry in their husband’s family to avail them the protection and assistance in farm work which the presence of a man affords. The study finds that, unlike Hebrew culture, widows with children including sons were still required to enter the levirate union, that in a polygamous family the eldest son of the deceased marries his youngest widows and bear children for him.

The institution is fast declining due to the influence of Christianity, Western education and increase in the economic empowerment of women. Although this is the case, the challenges of widowhood such as abandonment, deprivation, forceful take-over of late husband’s assets and unmet sexual needs are still a reality. These make the widow vulnerable and exposed to all forms of undue treatment, harassment and hardship. Therefore, widowhood practices that impinge on the widow’s human rights should be discouraged while her care should be a concern to the society.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Favour Uroko

1.

This name and others cited in this study are not the real names of the participants. For ethical reasons, they have been changed as they prefer to participate on the condition of anonymity.

References

Abong’o

(2015) ‘Wife inheritance’ and the fate of widows in Luo society in Kenya: a philosophical appraisal. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology 2(2): 209–222.

Ademiluka

(2023) Isupo: assessing the relevance of Deuteronomy 25:5 – 10 in the Nigerian context, with particular references to the Yoruba. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72(2): a7551.

Adipo

(2019) Widow inheritance: throwing out the baby with the bath water. Available at: https://www.theelephant.info/analysis/2019/8/29/widow-inheritance-throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bath-water/ (accessed 25 May 2024).

Afolayan

(2011) Widowhood practices and the rights of women: The case of south-western Nigeria. M.A. Thesis, The International Institution of Social Studies, Hague.

Baloyi

(2015) The Christian view of levirate marriage in a changing South Africa. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology 6(4): 483–491.

Bennett

(2008) Widowhood. In: Carr

(ed.) Encyclopedia of the Life Course and Human Development. London: Macmillan Publishers, 438–444. Available at: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~kmb/MyPublishedPapers/Bennett2008.pdf (accessed 15 July 2024).

Blenkinsopp

(1990) Deuteronomy. In: Brown

Fitzmyer

Murphy

(eds) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 94–109.

Blenkinsopp

(1992) The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday.

Brueggemann

Linafelt

(2012) An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

10.

Childs

(1979) Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress press.

11.

Chukwuma-Offor

(2023) Widowhood in some Igbo cultural societies: a neo leprosy. Nigerian Journal of Arts and Humanities (NJAH) 3(1): 1–10.

12.

Driver

(1896) A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy. In: Driver

(ed.) International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 434.

13.

Ezejiofor

(2011) Patriarchy, marriage and the rights of widows in Nigeria. UJAH: Unizik Journal of Arts and Humanities 12(1): 139–157.

14.

Fulton

(2001) Leviticus. Louisville, KY: West Minster John Knox.

15.

Greenstone

(1906) ḤALIẒAH ( ‘taking off’”, “untying”). Jewish Encyclopedia. Available at: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7105-halizah (accessed 30 July 2024).

16.

Hamlin

(2003) A Guide to Deuteronomy. London: SPCK.

17.

Hezser

(2008) The Halitzah shoe: between female subjugation and symbolic emasculation. In: Nahshon

(ed.) Jews and Shoes. Oxford: Berg, 47–63.

18.

Kalinda

Tembo

(2010) Sexual practices and levirate marriages in Mansa district of Zambia. Electronic Journal of Hunan Sexuality 13: 1–15.

19.

Keil

Delitzsch

(1900) Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on Old Testament Book: Deuteronomy (trans. Bolton

, et al). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

20.

Korieh

(1996) Widowhood among the Igbo of Eastern Nigeria. M.A. Thesis in the University of Bergen, Bergen.

21.

McKenzie

(1965) Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Simon and Schuster.

22.

Madumelu

(2014) Widowhood in Two Igbo Communities: A Contextual Manipulation of Patriarch. PhD Dissertation in the Graduate School, Stony Brook University, New York.

23.

Mathias

(2015) Widowhood practices in eastern Nigeria: a comparative study of Imo and Anambra states. Sociology Studies 5(3): 223–231. Available at: https://www.davidpublisher.com/index.php/home/article/index.?id=13534.html (accessed 21 June 2024).

24.

Merrill

(1994) Deuteronomy. In: Clendenen

Dockery

Mathews

, et al (eds) The New American Commentary. Vol 4. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers.

25.

Nwadialor

Agunwa

TVC

(2021) Ajadu nwanyi: widowhood issues and experiences in contemporary Igbo societies. SIST Journal of Religion and Humanities 1(3): 120–133.

26.

Nwaoga

Uroko

Okoli

, et al (2021) Widowhood practices and the Church in South-East Nigeria. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 77(1). Available at: https://journals.co.za/doi/full/10.4102/hts.v77i1.6528 (accessed 12 June 2024).

27.

Obiorah

(2013) Tamar’s determination for progeny in Genesis 38: an African perspective. DIWA – Studies in Philosophy and Theology 38/2: 91–112.

28.

Obiorah

(2016) Detachment as a prerequisite for a happy family: a study of Genesis 2:24. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 7(4): 526–532.

29.

Ogolla

(2014) Levirate unions in both the Bible and Africa cultures: convergence and divergence. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 410(1): 287–292.

30.

Olugbemiro

Atoyebi

(2016) Grammatical-Critical Implications of the levirate text of Deuteronomy in an African context. African Journal of Biblical Studies (AJBS) XXXIV(1&2): 23–48.

31.

Oreh

(2014) Igbo Cultural Widowhood Practices: Reflections on Inadvertent Weapons of Retrogression in Community Development. An Inaugural Lecture Presented at the University of Nigeria Nsukka. Nsukka, Nigeria: University of Nigeria Nsukka.

32.

Smith

Clendenen

(2003) Deuteronomy, book of. In: Smith BK and Clendenen ER (eds) Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 415–420.

33.

Tranzik

(2021) Levirate marriage throughout the ages. Available at: ius.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Tranžík-Jan-Levirate-marriage-through-the-ages.pdf (accessed 21 June 2024).

34.

Weinfeld

(1991) Deuteronomy 1-11. In: Albright

Freedman

(eds) The Anchor Bible. Vol 5. New York: Doubleday.

35.

Whybray

(1994) The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. London: Bloomsbury.