When a man succeeds his father—whether as the family head, the chief or the king—the process is often fraught with many complexities and controversies (Stayt 1931:196). To avoid conflicts, disputes and/or bloodshed between the factions of rival brothers of royal wives, some mechanisms are usually put in place to ensure continuity and consistency in the succession procedures and processes (cf. Van Warmelo & Phophi 1948:67). The Makhadzi is best fitted for the task within the royal family (Matshidze 2013:43; Rambau 1999:78; Stayt 1931:198). The Makhadzi is at the centre not only of approving the successor (the heir) who will continue the family lineage with integrity but also in giving direction, in terms of succession procedures and process to ensure that the customs (beliefs, norm, values and practices) are adhered to (Van Warmelo & Phophi 1949:1027).

In essence, the father’s senior sister (aunt, Makhadzi) plays a very crucial role in Venda life, sharing with her elder brother the privileges pertaining to the head of the family (Stayt 1931:174). She usually acts as regents in the Vhavenda tribal leadership. A regent is a person selected to act as a head of a state (ruling or not) when a ruler is a minor, absent, weak or dead. In essence, her social position is that of the chief as she rules together with chief (Stayt 1931:196ff). The tribal leader cannot arbitrarily take crucial decisions without consulting or seeking advice of Makhadzi and that of khotsimunene (father’s brother) (Buijs 2007:61; Rambau 1999:78). Normally, the succession is hereditary, passing from the deceased father to the oldest son of the senior wife. It is then the responsibility of the father’s oldest sister (Makhadzi) to approve and appoint the heir to the family or suggest a new heir if that son proves to be incapable.

‘[A]ll vital matters connected to the state must be referred to her [the Makhadzi]’ (Stayt 1931:196).

The Makhadzi is so highly regarded as the custodian of the indigenous customary laws (norms and values) that she can intervene, negotiate, mediate, counsel, reconcile marriages, families and relatives who are involved in conflicts or disputes to maintain family unity, integrity and stability (Matshidze 2013:28; Tamale 2005:9). The threesome leadership structure, namely, the tribal leader, Makhadzi (father’s sister) and khotsimunene (father’s brother) and the tribal leader’s senior sister (the khadzi) and his brother (the ndumi) as the royal family leadership in collaboration with the royal council do some check and balance regarding the power and authority to the help the traditional leader in reaching most decisions in mutual agreements or consensus (Stayt 1931:208). In the event of a deadlock, it is usually the Makhadzi who will have the final say as she is the respected women within the traditional leadership.

According to Rambau (1999:78), socially and traditionally the Makhadzi is like a mediator for the family where disputes arise between the husband and wife, the child and father, the bride and bridegroom, the father-in-law and mother-in-law. As a mediator she would listen to both sides and adjudicate on the matter and in most instances her decision is final. Family members in some cases would consult the Makhadzi in search for a wife as she was known for being very instrumental in arranging marriages of the preferred wife-to-be and avoiding intermarriages with girls with dubious life and family background (Van Warmelo & Phophi 1949:28).

The South African National Assembly of the Traditional Leadership and Government Framework Act and the Traditional Court Bill, B1 of 2012, Section 17 states that (Republic of South Africa 2003; Republic of South Africa 2009):

It is clearly articulated that the motive (positive intention) behind these South African legislations is co-operation (working together) of the modern and traditional leadership and courts system in democratic era to avoid the conundrum. However, a conundrum persists regarding the status and role of the Makhadzi in African tribal context of Vhavenda. Her status and roles are replaced by powers given to the South African democratic government officers in the performance of the traditional leadership and the traditional courts system at the local level in alliance with the South African democratic principles of governance. This is also evident when the royal family in collaboration with the royal council take decision about the successor. According to the South African legislations, they should inform provincial government about their choice of a successor and their motivations thereof. The new traditional leader is accessed (if it done correctly), approved and registered at provincial level. The date of installation is also required to be confirmed and regulated by the national and provincial legislation.

The Constitution of 1996 not only impacted the Makhadzi’s prestige and relevance in the South African’s new democracy but it also stripped the traditional leadership of its power and authority to carry out their functions for their subjects. The Traditional Leadership and Government Framework Act 41 of 2003, Section 13 is established to necessitate the good working relationship between the traditional and government leadership to avoid unnecessary tension between them. The Traditional Leadership and Government Framework Act 41 of 2003, Section 13 deals with the appointment of a regent when a successor to a traditional leadership position is still a minor. The royal family led by the Makhadzi should identify a regent to assume leadership on behalf of the minor. The incompatibility between the local municipalities and local traditional leadership creates tensions in many aspects, given the state of the South African legislation. For instance, in many local tribal areas, there are still questions regarding the custodianship and allocation of the residential, graze and arable land (Houston 1996:25f). It is this tension or gap that has necessitated this review, given the Makhadzi status, role her significant and relevant contributions which are not accommodates in the South African legislations.

The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 recognises the customary marriages. There are contestations and dichotomy regarding the customary and civil marriages. Without getting into the merits of the matter, this article highlights the fact that the South African legislation is silent on the status and role of the Makhadzi. She is known in the Vhavenda families and culture to be the legitimate custodian of the customary moral code (norms, values and practices), which are not only known and transmitted from the past generations but also carried over, held on, sustained and adhered to by the Makhadzi to be transmitted to the next generation. For instance, Makhadzi is instrumental in ensuring that the marriages are arranged, negotiated and concluded in accordance with the customary norms, values and practices to promote continuity of the family lineage. In the leadership context, Makhadzi ensures that the leader (chief) marries a woman from a noble family or another chief to ensure a noble offspring (son) (Van Warmelo & Phophi 1932:37). In that regard, Makhadzi used to be consulted, for her advice on and approval of a possible wife to marry and her family background (Stayt 1931:174) and thus the families suspected of witchcraft were avoided (Van Warmelo & Phophi 1949:27). In that way, most marriages among the Venda were culturally acceptable marriages by either being arranged or preferred. This article is not about the merit of these matters, but about the status and the role (influence) of Makhadzi in the Vhavenda culture. The following section compares and links the matrifocal role of the Makhadzi, the custom-carrier, within the traditional leadership and culture of the Vhavenda tribe to the role of the queen mother, Bathsheba within the ancient Israel. Despite the challenges within their respective patriarchal context, their respective matrifocal role has an influence in the building of their respective families and communities, and beyond.

Table 1 illustrates a sample of women who were and are still living in diverse patriarchal context: firstly, that they were in diverse socio-economic positions and conditions, for some were rich like the rich woman of Shumen (cf. 2 Ki 4:8–31) and some were widows, barren, prostitute, foreigners among others. Secondly, that they were distinct or noticeable above the rest of women in those times, for they cry or speak out. Some made a silent protest (cf. 2 Sm 21:8ff), some made a silent prayer (cf. 1 Sm 1:10ff), some spoke in different forums from private to public court of justice as indicated in Table 1. What is distinct about it, is that they took a bold step about their positions and conditions and refused to condone a status quo of the time but sought a change in their diverse ways, which caught attention of the biblical narrators. Thirdly, that they had a sense of progeny (seed or offspring), and legacy continuity which moved them to action in the time when their husbands or men seem to be ignorant or dormant as implied by the biblical texts mentioned in Table 1. Fourthly, that they sought restorative justice as their goal, and this is what this article is all about. Many examples can be used to argue this point including, (1) some women like Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba among others sought restorative justice for they gave birth to the heir or breadwinner with or without the knowledge that he will be God’s promised seed (offspring); (2) some women, like the two prostitutes and the two so-called ‘cannibal’ women, as indicated in Table 1, shows that despite their bad profile a women will still sacrifice in seeking restorative justice (and/or salvation) especially for her children; (3) some women, such as Rizpah show resilience even in silence in the face of unspeakable grief until it got to the ears of those in power (cf., Olojede 2013:767ff); and (4) some women like the wise widow of Tekoa, and the rich women of Shunem will seek restorative justice by fighting for the salvation of their living and/or the pronounced dead children (in sin) as indicated in Table 1. These cases can be well elaborated in the life of Bathsheba.

Bathsheba is the first official queen mother of the monarchy. She was the former wife of Uriah, who became David’s wife and Solomon’s mother. Bathsheba became active figure, when she serves as a queen mother, helping Solomon to succeed his father, David (1 Ki 1:11–22), otherwise she was a passive figure who watched her first child die as part of God’s punishment for adultery (cf. 2 Sm 11–12). This article highlight her role as the mother of Solomon not only to ensure that Solomon succeeds his father David, and to secure her status as the queen mother but also her sociopolitical and religious role beyond the court of justice. Bathsheba’s relationship with king Solomon paints her status and role as a queen mother and there are at least five ways among many that demonstrated it. Firstly, she interceded for him to succeed his father against his rivals and hence help in securing the Davidic dynasty (1 Ki 2:13–24). Secondly, she was his personal advisor and/or counsellor. Thirdly, she crowned Solomon upon his accession (Song 3:11). Fourthly, Solomon as the crowned king bowed to her and set a throne for her on his right hand (1 Ki 2:19), signs of respect and authority. The following sub-section discusses the three main ways among many that paint Bathsheba as one of the queen mother (the Hebrew, גְּבִיר, Gĕbîrâ) who was very influential woman in the Ancient Near East.

As an intercessor, queen mother, Bathsheba secures the nation by persuading David to consider the succession plan. This privilege belongs to the queen mother and not to David or priest or prophet. In fear for the lives of the royal family (cf. 1 Ki 1:12), Nathan understood this privilege and hence approached Bathsheba regarding Adonijah’s actions and insisted that she petitioned David to secure Solomon’s succession to save their lives and position (Bathsheba as queen mother under Solomon instead of Haggith under Adonijah) (cf. Rice 1990:11). Nathan could have understood that Bathsheba was crucial to make a petition to David for Solomon’s royal succession (cf. Lunceford 2009:67). As the queen mother, she was privileged to ensure that Solomon becomes God’s rightful and chosen successor of David and that she will place a crown on his head at his royal coronation (cf. Song 3:11; 1 Ki 2:13–18; Ackerman 1998:136). The normal procedure was that the first born succeeds his father. As David’s health was waning (1 Ki 1:1), his son, Adonijah, the oldest surviving¹ son, and Haggith stepped forward and gathered 50 soldiers around him for the coronation and declared himself as king and David did not question it (1 Ki 1:5f). There was an apparent tension in the house of king David. One of the clear signs was the tension between Adonijah’s followers and Solomon’s followers as Solomon and his followers were not invited to Adonijah’s coronation (1 Ki 1:9–10). Bathsheba intervened and put an end to the rivalry by ensuring that her son, Solomon, inherited, and kept the throne as the next king of Israel (1 Ki 1:15ff; Nowell 2008:8). Based on this story, the heir of David is the beloved of God who is destined to build a house for Yahweh (2 Sm 12:24; 1 Ki 6:11ff; Borgman 2008:137).

Bathsheba, as the queen mother showed her assertive, forceful, vigorous and intellectual persuasion as she craftily reminded David not only of the oath that he swore to Yahweh that Solomon, her son Solomon, would be his heir and his successor as the king of Israel, but also reminded David that when he dies, she and Solomon will be in danger of being killed (cf. 1 Ki 1:20; Brueggemann 2000:15; Cogan 2001:159f; Fretheim 1994:24; Fritz 2003:20; Klein 2000:59ff; Rice 1990:11f). She managed to remind David of his oath and hence he proclaimed Solomon as king, Adonijah and his followers made no claims to kill Solomon and his followers and acknowledging Solomon as the one of whom God approves for the throne (1 Ki 2:15).

Bathsheba is the first official queen mother of the monarchy. She was the former wife of Uriah, who became David’s wife and Solomon’s mother. Bathsheba became active figure, when she served as a queen mother, helping Solomon to succeed his father, David (1 Ki 1:11–22), otherwise she was a passive figure who watched her first child die as part of God’s punishment for adultery (cf. 2 Sm 11–12).

After Solomon’s succession, the narrative depicts Bathsheba as a counsellor to her son. One day, Adonijah approached Bathsheba with a request that he should graciously be given Abishag to be his wife. Abishag is a young woman who was chosen to inflame David’s passion in his old age, although he never had sexual intercourse with her. She was now a part of David’s wives. Bathsheba neither affirmed nor denied Adonijah’s request but agreed to go to Solomon with Adonijah’s request without questioning Adonijah’s intentions and ulterior motives (DeVries 1985:37; Hens-Piazza 2003:27; Jacob 2007:80f; Phillips 2008:171f; Sakenfeld 2003:77). Apparently, both Adonijah and Bathsheba were so naïve, for they knew what they were doing regarding the royal protocol (1 Ki 2:13). In her capacity, Bathsheba intentionally exposed Adonijah (Solomon’s chief rival) in that, she was literally giving Solomon a reason to justify why he should execute Adonijah (1 Ki 2:20; Cohn 2010a:95ff; 2010b:107ff) and hence Solomon understands such an intention (Andreasen 1983:189). He interprets Adonijah’s request not as a simple consolation, but as intent and attempt to lay claim to the throne (kingship) (cf. Rice 1990:23). He could not take his mother’s word but reacted violently not only to the opposing faction after his succession but also to the request of Adonijah and hence sentenced him to death for that petition (1 Ki 1:13ff; Jacobs 2007:80; Sweeney 2007:68). Adonijah was so terrified, assuming that he is going to killed and hence went to the sanctuary in the Temple (Brueggemann 2000:22).

Bathsheba, as the queen mother, entered in court, Solomon (1) rose to meet her; (2) bow down; (3) greet her; (4) set a throne; (5) on her seat (position); or (6) throne [כִסֵּא] on his right hand (1 Ki 2:19). All are symbolical. It reveals her position, paint a picture of her status as a queen mother, vested (delegated) with honour, respect, power and authority (Ps 80:18; 11:1). A common practice: the king will remain seated on his own throne when any person enters throne room (cf. Ackerman 1998:137; DeVries 1995:38; Lunceford 2009:68, 80; Walsh 1996:52).