• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat Women captured in war

D

DustinM

Member
Male
Deut 21

"10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 “She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her."

What do we do with a verse like this? Is the one flesh union of a woman taken in battle different than the one flesh union Jesus was talking about that man should not separate other than in the case of sexual immorality? Or is it not a "one flesh union" at all because the passage doesn't call it that?

There are clearly requirements for this type of union, some very specific ones, and yet the dissolution of it seems as simple as the man no longer was pleased by her, he could let her go and there's no issue with it. Was that merely because she was not an Israelite woman but a foreign wife?
 
DustinM said:
Deut 21

"10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 “She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her."

What do we do with a verse like this? Is the one flesh union of a woman taken in battle different than the one flesh union Jesus was talking about that man should not separate other than in the case of sexual immorality? Or is it not a "one flesh union" at all because the passage doesn't call it that?

There are clearly requirements for this type of union, some very specific ones, and yet the dissolution of it seems as simple as the man no longer was pleased by her, he could let her go and there's no issue with it. Was that merely because she was not an Israelite woman but a foreign wife?
Click to expand...
The man does not sleep with her during that month - he can only "go in to her" after a month. So she does not have a one-flesh union when he sends her away.

Think about what is actually going on here. The whole point is compassion. This is a woman who has lost everything - her family is dead, her home is gone, she's going to be distraught.

Sadly, rape is common in war - both past and present. A man has fought his way for weeks to a city, seen his friends die around him, thinks he could die any moment, is absolutely pumped full of testosterone and adrenaline - then he finds a hot woman in the rubble. What is the one thing he wants to do? Relieve his stress using her body. Get some pleasure out of the horrible situation. That is why men rape women during war. And this law is designed to prevent battlefield rape.

If God just said "no, you can't have any captive women", there would be no incentive to keep them alive. Either soldiers would ignore the law and rape them anyway, or they'd just kill them. Or abandon them to their fate - alone in the world, all their family dead.

This law leverages the soldiers natural desire for sex, and uses it to provide for women in a compassionate way.

This law says - "yes, you can have that hot woman - but you can't just have her today. Take her home. Treat her well. Give her a month to mourn her family. Let her get used to the complete upheaval of her world. And you take the time to decide if you actually want to have her. You can't have sex with her for a month, so you must take this time assessing her without having sex. Watch how she goes in your actual house. If you decide you don't actually want her in your home, then send her away - but you cannot sell her as a slave, you cannot mistreat her, you must just let her go wherever she wishes".

Now, I know it uses the word "humbled", but in this case I don't think that means that she has been humbled through sex - she's been humbled by being dragged off a captive and forced to live in your house for a month like a prisoner. That's rather humbling. It's even more humbling than sex.

The point of this law is to prevent battlefield rape and provide for the future security of women who survive war. It is not to allow abuse of women, but to reduce abuse of women - not to promote sex, but actually to reduce and regulate it.

It is specifically forbidden to have sex with this woman during this assessment period.
 
FollowingHim said:
The man does not sleep with her during that month - he can only "go in to her" after a month. So she does not have a one-flesh union when he sends her away.
Click to expand...
It never says that the decision has to be made at the end of the month, before consummation. You are adding that.
You are assuming that humbling has nothing to do with laying with her. Taking her as a slave and killing her family without preparing her to be a wife, you could still sell her.
So that isn’t the humbling being referred to. You are adding that in also.
 
steve said:
It never says that the decision has to be made at the end of the month, before consummation. You are adding that.
You are assuming that humbling has nothing to do with laying with her. Taking her as a slave and killing her family without preparing her to be a wife, you could still sell her.
So that isn’t the humbling being referred to. You are adding that in also.
Click to expand...
I am interpreting that passage in light of all other scriptures around sex, in a way that is consistent with the remainder of scripture. I am only "adding" what is clearly outlined elsewhere in scripture. This passage exists in the context of the entire Torah containing more instructions about marriage and sex, it does not stand alone.

We know, for instance, that if you sleep with a virgin woman you are obliged to marry her. There is no "unless she is a prisoner" clause in that statement. It therefore must apply in this case also.

Regarding the humbling - we know that it cannot be referring to sex, because it says "you have humbled her". It does not say "if you slept with her you have humbled her". This statement is applied both to the man who sends her away without sleeping with her, and the man who has slept with her. Both have humbled her. So the humbling cannot be the sex, it must be something that is universally applicable to all such situations.

I am then making assumptions about exactly what it is - it could be referring to her capture, the shaving of her hair, or a combination of things. We are not told this clearly. But as we are given no detail I think it's reasonable to conclude that it refers to the humiliating overall situation she finds herself in.
 
FollowingHim said:
The man does not sleep with her during that month - he can only "go in to her" after a month. So she does not have a one-flesh union when he sends her away.

Now, I know it uses the word "humbled", but in this case I don't think that means that she has been humbled through sex - she's been humbled by being dragged off a captive and forced to live in your house for a month like a prisoner. That's rather humbling. It's even more humbling than sex.

The point of this law is to prevent battlefield rape and provide for the future security of women who survive war. It is not to allow abuse of women, but to reduce abuse of women - not to promote sex, but actually to reduce and regulate it.

It is specifically forbidden to have sex with this woman during this assessment period.
Click to expand...

It appears the word used at least in Strongs Brown Driver Briggs for this chapter is grouped with more than a few others that *edit* are clearly sexual seem to be clearly the result of sex... so I don't think that interpretation makes sense. It makes far more sense that there just were different rules for foreign women taken in battle than free born Israelite women who became wives.

2 humble, a woman by cohabitation, Genesis 34:2 (J) Deuteronomy 21:14; Deuteronomy 22:24,29; Judges 19:24; Judges 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:12,14,22,32; Ezekiel 22:10,11; Lamentations 5:11.
 
Last edited:
DustinM said:
It appears the word used at least in Strongs for this chapter is grouped with more than a few others that are clearly sexual... so I don't think that interpretation makes sense. It makes far more sense that there just were different rules for foreign women taken in battle than free born Israelite women who became wives.

2 humble, a woman by cohabitation, Genesis 34:2 (J) Deuteronomy 21:14; Deuteronomy 22:24,29; Judges 19:24; Judges 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:12,14,22,32; Ezekiel 22:10,11; Lamentations 5:11.
Click to expand...
What word are you referring to? H6031, "ana", the word used in Deut 21:14?
This simply means to depress, put down, become low, be looked down upon. I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is a sexual term. Please clarify.
www.blueletterbible.org

H6031 - ʿānâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

H6031 - עָנָה ʻânâh, aw-naw'; a primitive root (possibly rather identical with through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows):—abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for )...
www.blueletterbible.org www.blueletterbible.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yan
FollowingHim said:
What word are you referring to? H6031, "ana", the word used in Deut 21:14?
This simply means to depress, put down, become low, be looked down upon. I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is a sexual term. Please clarify.
www.blueletterbible.org

H6031 - ʿānâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

H6031 - עָנָה ʻânâh, aw-naw'; a primitive root (possibly rather identical with through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows):—abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for )...
www.blueletterbible.org www.blueletterbible.org
Click to expand...

I misspoke, and edited, it's in brown-driver-briggs you see the grouping I posted.

In the very next chapter the same word is used to describe a man having sex with another man's wife, humbling her, and a man forcing himself on a virgin, humbling her... are you suggesting neither of those are sexual in nature and the humbling is some other thing?

It obviously can mean other things, but it's a wild stretch here to claim that it doesn't mean sex when it's directly after describing the man going into her and her being his wife... with 2 more verses about sexually humbling a woman just one chapter later, don't you think?
 
DustinM said:
Deut 21

"10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 “She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her."

What do we do with a verse like this? Is the one flesh union of a woman taken in battle different than the one flesh union Jesus was talking about that man should not separate other than in the case of sexual immorality? Or is it not a "one flesh union" at all because the passage doesn't call it that?

There are clearly requirements for this type of union, some very specific ones, and yet the dissolution of it seems as simple as the man no longer was pleased by her, he could let her go and there's no issue with it. Was that merely because she was not an Israelite woman but a foreign wife?
Click to expand...

Possible: Bonds/Slave Woman: a woman held in forced servitude (Covenant) No



Wife: Be a helper to your husband (Covenant) Yes
Unmarried Raped Woman: “the man who raped her is to give the young woman's father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife"
Concubine: a wife or sexual partner of secondary status (Covenant) No
Bonds/Slave Woman: a woman held in forced servitude (Covenant) No
Handmaiden: a female servant who serves her mistress (Covenant) No
 
FollowingHim said:
I am interpreting that passage in light of all other scriptures around sex, in a way that is consistent with the remainder of scripture. I am only "adding" what is clearly outlined elsewhere in scripture. This passage exists in the context of the entire Torah containing more instructions about marriage and sex, it does not stand alone.

We know, for instance, that if you sleep with a virgin woman you are obliged to marry her. There is no "unless she is a prisoner" clause in that statement. It therefore must apply in this case also.

Regarding the humbling - we know that it cannot be referring to sex, because it says "you have humbled her". It does not say "if you slept with her you have humbled her". This statement is applied both to the man who sends her away without sleeping with her, and the man who has slept with her. Both have humbled her. So the humbling cannot be the sex, it must be something that is universally applicable to all such situations.

I am then making assumptions about exactly what it is - it could be referring to her capture, the shaving of her hair, or a combination of things. We are not told this clearly. But as we are given no detail I think it's reasonable to conclude that it refers to the humiliating overall situation she finds herself in.
Click to expand...
Is there one place that says that it is ok to take a wife by force?
 
FollowingHim said:
The man does not sleep with her during that month - he can only "go in to her" after a month. So she does not have a one-flesh union when he sends her away.

Think about what is actually going on here. The whole point is compassion. This is a woman who has lost everything - her family is dead, her home is gone, she's going to be distraught.

Sadly, rape is common in war - both past and present. A man has fought his way for weeks to a city, seen his friends die around him, thinks he could die any moment, is absolutely pumped full of testosterone and adrenaline - then he finds a hot woman in the rubble. What is the one thing he wants to do? Relieve his stress using her body. Get some pleasure out of the horrible situation. That is why men rape women during war. And this law is designed to prevent battlefield rape.

If God just said "no, you can't have any captive women", there would be no incentive to keep them alive. Either soldiers would ignore the law and rape them anyway, or they'd just kill them. Or abandon them to their fate - alone in the world, all their family dead.

This law leverages the soldiers natural desire for sex, and uses it to provide for women in a compassionate way.

This law says - "yes, you can have that hot woman - but you can't just have her today. Take her home. Treat her well. Give her a month to mourn her family. Let her get used to the complete upheaval of her world. And you take the time to decide if you actually want to have her. You can't have sex with her for a month, so you must take this time assessing her without having sex. Watch how she goes in your actual house. If you decide you don't actually want her in your home, then send her away - but you cannot sell her as a slave, you cannot mistreat her, you must just let her go wherever she wishes".

Now, I know it uses the word "humbled", but in this case I don't think that means that she has been humbled through sex - she's been humbled by being dragged off a captive and forced to live in your house for a month like a prisoner. That's rather humbling. It's even more humbling than sex.

The point of this law is to prevent battlefield rape and provide for the future security of women who survive war. It is not to allow abuse of women, but to reduce abuse of women - not to promote sex, but actually to reduce and regulate it.

It is specifically forbidden to have sex with this woman during this assessment period.
Click to expand...
after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her."

I kind of agree with you, but I have to say this does not sound like it agrees with you.
the way it seems to say it is this "Have sex with her and if she does not please you let her go."

But if you Force Sex you Must Marry her.


Unmarried Raped Woman: “the man who raped her is to give the young woman's father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife"
or
Bonds/Slave Woman: a woman held in forced servitude (Covenant) No
 
steve said:
Is there one place that says that it is ok to take a wife by force?
Click to expand...

Yes: Unmarried Raped Woman: “the man who raped her is to give the young woman's father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife"
 
DustinM said:
Deut 21

"10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 “She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her."

What do we do with a verse like this? Is the one flesh union of a woman taken in battle different than the one flesh union Jesus was talking about that man should not separate other than in the case of sexual immorality? Or is it not a "one flesh union" at all because the passage doesn't call it that?

There are clearly requirements for this type of union, some very specific ones, and yet the dissolution of it seems as simple as the man no longer was pleased by her, he could let her go and there's no issue with it. Was that merely because she was not an Israelite woman but a foreign wife?
Click to expand...
Notice the woman didn't become his wife until after he went in unto her. If a man married a woman by making a covenant with her it would read like this: "and after that thou shalt make a covenant with her and be her husband and she shall be thy wife
 
DustinM said:
I misspoke, and edited, it's in brown-driver-briggs you see the grouping I posted.

In the very next chapter the same word is used to describe a man having sex with another man's wife, humbling her, and a man forcing himself on a virgin, humbling her... are you suggesting neither of those are sexual in nature and the humbling is some other thing?

It obviously can mean other things, but it's a wild stretch here to claim that it doesn't mean sex when it's directly after describing the man going into her and her being his wife... with 2 more verses about sexually humbling a woman just one chapter later, don't you think?
Click to expand...
I understand where you're coming from. But this word appears 84 times in scripture, and the vast majority have nothing to do with sex.

Let's consider a very relevant passage in the next chapter, Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

There are two different points made in v29. The man who has slept with her:
- Must marry her, and
- Must never divorce her

Firstly, if a man sleeps with a virgin, he must marry her. So if the man described in the previous chapter had had sex with the captured woman (and she was a virgin), he would be obliged to marry her. This is stated in the chapter immediately following it - it is the immediate context. Therefore, the man can only send away the captured woman before he has sex with her.

Secondly, if the man has forcibly taken a woman, then he is forbidden from abandoning her.

Could one chapter really say you can forcibly take a woman, have sex with her, then abandon her, and the following chapter say if you forcibly take a woman you must never abandon her?

I prefer to read scripture in a way that is internally consistent, and allow scripture to interpret and explain scripture.

This verse also uses the word "humbled". Interestingly, Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28 both describe sex with a virgin woman. But Exodus 22:16 appears to be describing any such sex (consensual or not), while Deuteronomy 22:28 is referring to a more violent subset of situations ("lay hold on her"). And only Deuteronomy describes the woman as having been "humbled" - Exodus does not. The word "humbled" again appears to be related to the wider circumstances, not just the sex itself.
 
Last edited:
FollowingHim said:
I understand where you're coming from. But this word appears 84 times in scripture, and the vast majority have nothing to do with sex.

Let's consider a very relevant passage in the next chapter, Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

There are two different points made in v29. The man who has slept with her:
- Must marry her, and
- Must never divorce her

Firstly, if a man sleeps with a virgin, he must marry her. So if the man described in the previous chapter had had sex with the captured woman, he would be obliged to marry her. This is stated in the chapter immediately following it - it is the immediate context. Therefore, the man can only send away the captured woman before he has sex with her.

Secondly, if the man has forcibly taken a woman, then he is forbidden from abandoning her.

Could one chapter really say you can forcibly take a woman, have sex with her, then abandon her, and the following chapter say if you forcibly take a woman you must never abandon her?

I prefer to read scripture in a way that is internally consistent, and allow scripture to interpret and explain scripture.

This verse also uses the word "humbled". Interestingly, Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28 both describe sex with a virgin woman. But Exodus 22:16 appears to be describing any such sex (consensual or not), while Deuteronomy 22:28 is referring to a more violent subset of situations ("lay hold on her"). And only Deuteronomy describes the woman as having been "humbled" - Exodus does not. The word "humbled" again appears to be related to the wider circumstances, not just the sex itself.
Click to expand...

Maybe because she as a Slave its not Rape and so it does not apply to a Raped Woman.
 
steve said:
Is there one place that says that it is ok to take a wife by force?
Click to expand...
As I read this passage, it is countering a great evil (battlefield rape), by allowing a non-ideal way to form a marriage which nevertheless makes sense in the far-from-ideal context of a brutal war. I see nowhere in scripture where seizing wives by force is promoted as a good thing - it appears in the historic record of scripture but is not praised.
 
FollowingHim said:
As I read this passage, it is countering a great evil (battlefield rape), by allowing a non-ideal way to form a marriage which nevertheless makes sense in the far-from-ideal context of a brutal war. I see nowhere in scripture where seizing wives by force is promoted as a good thing - it appears in the historic record of scripture but is not praised.
Click to expand...

It seems more like your personal views are in this more than you want to say.
When a man rapes a woman who is unmarried who is harmed? The Father and that is why He gets paid for the lost of His Daughter.
 
Another way to look at this is this.

I go to a girls Father and say I want her as my Wife and Her Father Approves and I am now Wed with her.
I now say I want (Sex) if she tells me No in G-ds Eyes She is a Sinner as she is mine and I Own Her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top