Meat Women captured in war

[The Revolting Man]

You agreed it might not apply, but then said "He clearly slept with her", which I took to mean that you actually believed it did apply. I may have misunderstood your meaning, feel free to clarify or not as you please.

It’s not an instruction on how to form a one flesh. Clearly I think they’re one flesh because I think they were scrumping. But again, this verse doesn’t directly address the issue.

Jacob and Leah would seem to inform the issue. That would be a more profitable discussion but then no one ever wants to talk about the most relevant verses. They always want to talk about the peripheries as if there’s some secret in there that will change the simple facts.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

It’s not an instruction on how to form a one flesh. Clearly I think they’re one flesh because I think they were scrumping. But again, this verse doesn’t directly address the issue.

Jacob and Leah would seem to inform the issue. That would be a more profitable discussion but then no one ever wants to talk about the most relevant verses. They always want to talk about the peripheries as if there’s some secret in there that will change the simple facts.

Sometimes we can take a verse on it's very clear meanings

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sometimes we can take a verse on it's very clear meanings

Not around here.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

Not around here.

There is nothing wrong with finding truth and always seeking it, but sometimes Truth can be so simple we overlook it.

 

[DustinM]

I think I know she was not a Believer! Did not Believe in G-d so as Paul said The Man was released from any obligations.
If this is true it validates Paul in his verse. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. This would be a New Testament Verse that could explain it.

As example a Man or Woman who was with a Non-Believe in Marriage would be like a Wall with One Side that is Strong and the Other Weak.

Maybe, if you take a woman in your house is a non-believer and she is unhappy you are free to let her go.

That certainly tracks with the not marrying foreign wives verses, Ezra 10 and the men all sending away their foreign wives and children, making a covenant with God to do it lawfully... all the way to Paul's advice that a spouse is not bound to an unbelieving spouse and can let them go. If the woman of war ultimately would not convert to worshipping the true God and stayed in her old pagan ways, then you could let her go wherever she wishes, it's not saying to send her away where it says that in other places.

I don't see much conflict in any of that, even if they had had sex, as Paul's advice was certainly to married/cohabitating people who were obviously having sex. Also let's just be honest, what are the chances the man does all of that with the captive of war + a month of waiting, and doesn't have sex with the beautiful woman he wanted? That's asking a lot of human nature to be ignored.

What God has joined together let not man separate is different than what man has joined together. So perhaps not all one-flesh unions are God joined unions, and not all marriages are either.

An Israelite man sending away (but no writ of divorce) his Israelite wife away for burnt toast, forcing her to marry another would be adultery, because God joined those two together and she is still joined to him when she cohabitates/sleeps with another.

One man commits adultery because she still belongs to the 1st man, the first man commits adultery on her behalf by sending her away without just cause.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think I know she was not a Believer! Did not Believe in G-d so as Paul said The Man was released from any obligations.
If this is true it validates Paul in his verse. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. This would be a New Testament Verse that could explain it.

As example a Man or Woman who was with a Non-Believe in Marriage would be like a Wall with One Side that is Strong and the Other Weak.

Maybe, if you take a woman in your house is a non-believer and she is unhappy you are free to let her go.

I must admit this is the most plausible argument against my proposal that anyone has raised - because it is based on another scriptural principle, not just the wording of the passage on captured wives. Not saying I agree (see below - Paul doesn't actually say we can divorce unbelieving wives, quite the opposite), but that it's worth pondering the nuance this adds to the situation.

We need to check what Paul actually says. (1 Cor 7:12-15)
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Paul does not say that we can divorce unbelieving wives. On the contrary, he says we should NOT divorce unbelieving wives (v12).

What Paul says is that if an unbelieving spouse divorces us (v15), we are free to let them go.

This is why Paul's instructions do not contradict Jesus' near-complete-prohibition of divorce. We are not to divorce, we are not to break the one-flesh relationship that God has made. However, if our spouse divorces us, that is a different matter - they are the one who is at fault, not us. Paul says that in this situation we do not need to feel bound to dispute the matter and try to bring them back. Because "God hath called us to peace".

Applying just this to the situation of the captured wife - the husband would be not to divorce her (after consummation) - but if she ran away would not be required to find her and bring her back, he could let her go.

That certainly tracks with the not marrying foreign wives verses, Ezra 10 and the men all sending away their foreign wives and children, making a covenant with God to do it lawfully.

That too is a passage I find very difficult. I must point out that it is important to notice that in Ezra 10, God never tells the people to put away their foreign wives. The people decide to as an act of devotion to God, and Ezra agrees, but we are never told that this is exactly what God intended for them to do. The thing that is problematic is that they appear to have put away all their wives based on their race, not their religious practices. Some of those foreign wives probably followed God, while some would have been pagan. It would make sense to put away the pagan wives on this principle - but to put away all of them comes across as over-legalistic. We are never told what God thought of this.

 

[steve]

Shoehorning this into a completely different circumstance, the situation of the captured wife - the husband would be not to divorce her (after consummation) - but if she ran away would not be required to find her and bring her back, he could let her go.

Fixed it for you.

 

[FollowingHim]

Fixed it for you.

I don't understand where you're coming from, By using the word "shoehorning", are you criticising @AbrahamSolomon for raising this passage and applying it to the question, or @DustinM and myself for adding our own thoughts on that passage? Or criticising the whole concept of using scripture to interpret scripture? Or just disagreeing with my specific interpretation?

 

[steve]

I don't understand where you're coming from, By using the word "shoehorning", are you criticising @AbrahamSolomon for raising this passage and applying it to the question, or @DustinM and myself for adding our own thoughts on that passage? Or criticising the whole concept of using scripture to interpret scripture? Or just disagreeing with my specific interpretation?

I am very much disagreeing with how you are forcing an interpretation on the slave wife situation.

 

[FollowingHim]

I am very much disagreeing with how you are forcing an interpretation on the slave wife situation.

I understand you disagree. I do not believe you have backed up your views on this matter sufficiently from scripture. But I have no desire to try and change your mind.

 

[steve]

I understand you disagree. I do not believe you have backed up your views on this matter sufficiently from scripture. But I have no desire to try and change your mind.

I believe that the story stands as read, it is a singular circumstance that shouldn’t be made to conform to other principles in scripture.
Forcing it to match up with other situations blurs Yah’s meaning (and the protection for that woman).

For the record, I don’t accept our understanding of the fact that a raped woman automatically becomes the wife of the rapist.
Something absolutely has to be wrong with that “truth”. Yah is very invested in protecting women, and that is beyond the pale, in my opinion. I just cannot buy it.
The blessing is that it is not something that we have to deal with all that often.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I believe that the story stands as read, it is a singular circumstance that shouldn’t be made to conform to other principles in scripture.
Forcing it to match up with other situations blurs Yah’s meaning (and the protection for that woman).

Amen, amen and amen.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

I must admit this is the most plausible argument against my proposal that anyone has raised - because it is based on another scriptural principle, not just the wording of the passage on captured wives. Not saying I agree (see below - Paul doesn't actually say we can divorce unbelieving wives, quite the opposite), but that it's worth pondering the nuance this adds to the situation.

We need to check what Paul actually says. (1 Cor 7:12-15)
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Paul does not say that we can divorce unbelieving wives. On the contrary, he says we should NOT divorce unbelieving wives (v12).

What Paul says is that if an unbelieving spouse divorces us (v15), we are free to let them go.

This is why Paul's instructions do not contradict Jesus' near-complete-prohibition of divorce. We are not to divorce, we are not to break the one-flesh relationship that God has made. However, if our spouse divorces us, that is a different matter - they are the one who is at fault, not us. Paul says that in this situation we do not need to feel bound to dispute the matter and try to bring them back. Because "God hath called us to peace".

Applying just this to the situation of the captured wife - the husband would be not to divorce her (after consummation) - but if she ran away would not be required to find her and bring her back, he could let her go.


That too is a passage I find very difficult. I must point out that it is important to notice that in Ezra 10, God never tells the people to put away their foreign wives. The people decide to as an act of devotion to God, and Ezra agrees, but we are never told that this is exactly what God intended for them to do. The thing that is problematic is that they appear to have put away all their wives based on their race, not their religious practices. Some of those foreign wives probably followed God, while some would have been pagan. It would make sense to put away the pagan wives on this principle - but to put away all of them comes across as over-legalistic. We are never told what God thought of this.

I see the war bond slaves possible disobedience or reluctancy to submit as why he is unhappy and her wanting to leave requirers him to release.
I agree completely that Paul said The Believer can't just walk away that is why they are The Strong part of The Wall and the other is The Weak side. But in Slavery the slave must be released so that is why he lets her go.

 

[FollowingHim]

For the record, I don’t accept our understanding of the fact that a raped woman automatically becomes the wife of the rapist.
Something absolutely has to be wrong with that “truth”. Yah is very invested in protecting women, and that is beyond the pale, in my opinion. I just cannot buy it.
The blessing is that it is not something that we have to deal with all that often.

I agree with you on that - hence why the father is is made the adjudicator of this.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

Could Rape mean taking a Girl/Woman without The Fathers Permission even if that Girl/Woman said (Yes) as
she does not own herself and is The Property of her Father and that is why her Father is paid for His loss and not The Girl/Woman.


And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife.

5 And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come.

6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him.

7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter: which thing ought not to be done.

8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.

9 And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.

10 And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.

11 And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.

12 Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.

13 And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:

14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:

15 But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised;

16 Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.

17 But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.

18 And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son.

19 And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his father.

20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,

21 These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.

22 Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.

23 Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of their's be our's? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.

24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.

25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.

27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.

 

[FollowingHim]

Could Rape mean taking a Girl/Woman without The Fathers Permission even if that Girl/Woman said (Yes) as
she does not own herself and is The Property of her Father and that is why her Father is paid for His loss and not The Girl/Woman.

Why are you trying to define the word "rape"? The word does not appear in scripture, so it doesn't help us interpret any of the passages we are discussing. I'm don't see how anything changes if we label what happened between Shechem and Dinah "rape", so I don't understand what your point is.

 

[Maia]

If we ever go into War and are part of a Nation who allows it and we see a sexy woman we can take her and if we are not happy with her we can let her go.

Moderator's note: @Maia vociferously disagrees with this post she responded to and expressed her opinion of the poster quite clearly. Unfortunately, the opinion did not comport with our forum rules so was deleted. I felt her objection deserved to be registered though so I hope this will suffice. Also, there were several responses to her comment that were within forum guidelines that would have had to be deleted if I had just deleted her comment. TRM

 

[steve]

Moderator's note: @Maia vociferously disagrees with this post she responded to and expressed her opinion of the poster quite clearly. Unfortunately, the opinion did not comport with our forum rules so was deleted. I felt her objection deserved to be registered though so I hope this will suffice. Also, there were several responses to her comment that were within forum guidelines that would have had to be deleted if I had just deleted her comment. TRM

Hopefully you will note his lack of support.
We are not all the same.

 

[Example of Sarah]

Moderator's note: @Maia vociferously disagrees with this post she responded to and expressed her opinion of the poster quite clearly. Unfortunately, the opinion did not comport with our forum rules so was deleted. I felt her objection deserved to be registered though so I hope this will suffice. Also, there were several responses to her comment that were within forum guidelines that would have had to be deleted if I had just deleted her comment. TRM

This is one where I'll agree with you, Maia.
I do belong to my husband, but I'm not disposable. I give thanks to God that I'm a wife to a man who is more David and less Nabal than what I've read here.

 

[IndianaLife]

Moderator's note: @Maia vociferously disagrees with this post she responded to and expressed her opinion of the poster quite clearly. Unfortunately, the opinion did not comport with our forum rules so was deleted. I felt her objection deserved to be registered though so I hope this will suffice. Also, there were several responses to her comment that were within forum guidelines that would have had to be deleted if I had just deleted her comment. TRM

Agreed.