Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Help

[dje101]

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall put off her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. RSV-2CE Ignatius

Two questions:

1. Is it God or Moses speaking in this section, as pretty much the whole book of Deuteronomy is in quotes. I’ve lost track of whether God is speaking of Moses.
2. If God is speaking, how do we reconcile the doctrine that divorce is against God’s will when he so willingly allows and instructs the men of Israel to pick a wife, have sexual relations with her, then let her go when he is no longer delighted with her?

 

[minkymurph]

Two questions:

1. Is it God or Moses speaking in this section, as pretty much the whole book of Deuteronomy is in quotes. I’ve lost track of whether God is speaking of Moses.
2. If God is speaking, how do we reconcile the doctrine that divorce is against God’s will when he so willingly allows and instructs the men of Israel to pick a wife, have sexual relations with her, then let her go when he is no longer delighted with her?

As a direct answer to your question I would say that it is neither God or Moses speaking. Remember the books of the bible are not in chronological order. It a compilation of inspired writings. The word ‘bible’ means little books. Deuteronomy may have been written a long time after Moses and the fact that the book of Deuteronomy records the death of Moses is strong indication he did not actually write it.

The Decalogue - Ten Commandments - was spoken by God. Deuteronomy was not. Deuteronomy is inspired. Inspired does not mean that by means of the Holy Spirit God put every single word into the mind of the author and then He/She robotically wrote it down.

Deuteronomy is an explanation of Divine Law. It is recorded in the bible that people did not fully understand the Law and came to Moses for advice. God directed Moses to appoint Judges to assist with explanation of the Law. This did not cease following the death of Moses or the death of the Judges he appointed. It continued because people needed it to in new circumstances and situations. Biblical scholarship indicates Deuteronomy was written by Ezra in either the post-exilic period, or during the exile.

None of this invalidates the book of Deuteronomy and it does not mean it comes from the Law Moses received. It means it needs to be read in context. The particular passage you have quoted here refers to women who have been taken captive as a consequence of war. Off the top of my head I would say it has something to do with giving them children who would take care of them because if they had lost their men as consequence of war, they would have no one to look after them. In addition, any children they did have would be cared for. Bear in mind the state and charities did care for widows and orphans when Deuteronomy was written. This Law would teach responsibility for women widowed and children left fatherless as a consequence of war. In His compassion, God did not compel men to remain married to women they did not love, or who did not love them and did not want to be married to them.

Don’t focus too much on the word ‘delight.’ There is evidence that this Law was as much for the woman as the man. I believe laws relating to rape indicate this. If a man raped a woman in ancient Israel, he had to marry her. However, the woman could refuse to marry him in which case, he was stoned to death. 'Delight, has to be seen in context. It important to consider the historical and socio-political backdrop to books of the bible in order to understand their meaning.

I would stress again this is an answer off the top of my head. I would need to do more research into the historical and socio-political backdrop of the Deuteronomy to give you a more in depth answer. I would be happy to do this if you feel it would be of benefit.

 

[dje101]

As a direct answer to your question I would say that it is neither God or Moses speaking. Remember the books of the bible are not in chronological order. It a compilation of inspired writings. The word ‘bible’ means little books. Deuteronomy may have been written a long time after Moses and the fact that the book of Deuteronomy records the death of Moses is strong indication he did not actually write it.

The Decalogue - Ten Commandments - was spoken by God. Deuteronomy was not. Deuteronomy is inspired. Inspired does not mean that by means of the Holy Spirit God put every single word into the mind of the author and then He/She robotically wrote it down.

Deuteronomy is an explanation of Divine Law. It is recorded in the bible that people did not fully understand the Law and came to Moses for advice. God directed Moses to appoint Judges to assist with explanation of the Law. This did not cease following the death of Moses or the death of the Judges he appointed. It continued because people needed it to in new circumstances and situations. Biblical scholarship indicates Deuteronomy was written by Ezra in either the post-exilic period, or during the exile.

None of this invalidates the book of Deuteronomy and it does not mean it comes from the Law Moses received. It means it needs to be read in context. The particular passage you have quoted here refers to women who have been taken captive as a consequence of war. Off the top of my head I would say it has something to do with giving them children who would take care of them because if they had lost their men as consequence of war, they would have no one to look after them. In addition, any children they did have would be cared for. Bear in mind the state and charities did care for widows and orphans when Deuteronomy was written. This Law would teach responsibility for women widowed and children left fatherless as a consequence of war. In His compassion, God did not compel men to remain married to women they did not love, or who did not love them and did not want to be married to them.

Don’t focus too much on the word ‘delight.’ There is evidence that this Law was as much for the woman as the man. I believe laws relating to rape indicate this. If a man raped a woman in ancient Israel, he had to marry her. However, the woman could refuse to marry him in which case, he was stoned to death. 'Delight, has to be seen in context. It important to consider the historical and socio-political backdrop to books of the bible in order to understand their meaning.

I would stress again this is an answer off the top of my head. I would need to do more research into the historical and socio-political backdrop of the Deuteronomy to give you a more in depth answer. I would be happy to do this if you feel it would be of benefit.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me, as well as the offer to do further research on the topic. However, with all respect, I am going to decline your offer to do the research. I am capable and eager to learn more, so I feel that I should be the one to do my own research. However, If you could just point me in a general direction of where to start, (as this will basically be my first endeavor into the socio-political backdrop of the Bible) I’d be most appreciative.

Thank you very much.

God bless

 

[Barbkw]

usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/intro.htm

 

[dje101]

usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/intro.htm

Many thanks Barbkw!!!

 

[minkymurph]

I truly appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me, as well as the offer to do further research on the topic. However, with all respect, I am going to decline your offer to do the research. I am capable and eager to learn more, so I feel that I should be the one to do my own research. However, If you could just point me in a general direction of where to start, (as this will basically be my first endeavor into the socio-political backdrop of the Bible) I’d be most appreciative.

Thank you very much.

God bless

Good for you! Doing the research yourself is much more fulfilling. The reason I offered to do research is because I was giving you an answer off the top of my head. Meaning I can’t really stand over any of it, I would have to check it.

If a Catholic approach to scripture is new to you and you want light reading, The Lion Handbook on the bible is good. It’s easy to read and easy to use for reference. (Don’t think you have to read any of the books I suggest cover to cover.) It gives a brief outline of the historical and cultural backdrop of the books of the bible in addition to a brief commentary. Another book I found useful was called something like ‘Scripture - Nourished by the Word.’ I thought I had it in the house but I can’t find it. It’s a small pocket book and an easy read. It outlines very simply approaches to interpreting scripture.

If you are looking for academic sources, an author called Barton has wrote extensively on the Old Testament. His stuff would be heavy going, but detailed and a recognized academic source. Jerome’s biblical commentary is also useful. It’s like an encyclopedia and a recognized academic source. You may be able to read some of it on-line on google books. Barton’s books can be bought cheaply on-line - Amazon for example.

I would also check out New Advent - the Catholic Encyclopedia which is on-line.

One last word - beware of internet sources. If I can be of any more help to you, contact me by private e-mail. Biblical scholarship is a particular passion of mine so I don’t mind at all.

Happy researching.

 

[francisca]

Two questions:

1. Is it God or Moses speaking in this section, as pretty much the whole book of Deuteronomy is in quotes. I’ve lost track of whether God is speaking of Moses.
2. If God is speaking, how do we reconcile the doctrine that divorce is against God’s will when he so willingly allows and instructs the men of Israel to pick a wife, have sexual relations with her, then let her go when he is no longer delighted with her?

God’s will is eternal love. Divorce paper is righteousness according to the law of moses. The law is to set borderline for a man for being a righteous person (according to the law) or an outlaw. This is a form of conformity from God’s side.

In some places in the bible God shows that He is willing to conform humanity. For an example: In the book of Samuel and the book of Kings is a story where the Israelites demanded for a human king just like other nations around them each had their own kings. Prophet Samuel told them that it was a sin to demand for a human king, because God was their king. Yet God said to the prophet that He would allow them to have a king. Then God chose Saul to become their first king.

 

[dje101]

Good for you! Doing the research yourself is much more fulfilling. The reason I offered to do research is because I was giving you an answer off the top of my head. Meaning I can’t really stand over any of it, I would have to check it.

If a Catholic approach to scripture is new to you and you want light reading, The Lion Handbook on the bible is good. It’s easy to read and easy to use for reference. (Don’t think you have to read any of the books I suggest cover to cover.) It gives a brief outline of the historical and cultural backdrop of the books of the bible in addition to a brief commentary. Another book I found useful was called something like ‘Scripture - Nourished by the Word.’ I thought I had it in the house but I can’t find it. It’s a small pocket book and an easy read. It outlines very simply approaches to interpreting scripture.

If you are looking for academic sources, an author called Barton has wrote extensively on the Old Testament. His stuff would be heavy going, but detailed and a recognized academic source. Jerome’s biblical commentary is also useful. It’s like an encyclopedia and a recognized academic source. You may be able to read some of it on-line on google books. Barton’s books can be bought cheaply on-line - Amazon for example.

I would also check out New Advent - the Catholic Encyclopedia which is on-line.

One last word - beware of internet sources. If I can be of any more help to you, contact me by private e-mail. Biblical scholarship is a particular passion of mine so I don’t mind at all.

Happy researching.

Thanks for the tips. I had also heard that the Navarre Bible is good because of the commentary they have. I was thinking about starting to get the set (I believe its one book to one book, except for the minor prophets)

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Some good answers here, but I would like to add that in Matthew 19, Jesus addresses something about the Law of Moses and divorce. Basically, He sets the record straight (so-to-speak), and basically tells us that not all of the Law was given to man by God, but that man had made some of it up to please himself. Jesus gave us the Law of Grace and Love, and instructs us to Love one another (even our enemies). I don’t think that this law in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 would be considered a very loving and merciful thing to do. So it is obviously just a man-made law.

 

[Cindy6789]

As a direct answer to your question I would say that it is neither God or Moses speaking. Remember the books of the bible are not in chronological order. It a compilation of inspired writings. The word ‘bible’ means little books. Deuteronomy may have been written a long time after Moses and the fact that the book of Deuteronomy records the death of Moses is strong indication he did not actually write it.

The Decalogue - Ten Commandments - was spoken by God. Deuteronomy was not. Deuteronomy is inspired. Inspired does not mean that by means of the Holy Spirit God put every single word into the mind of the author and then He/She robotically wrote it down.

Deuteronomy is an explanation of Divine Law. It is recorded in the bible that people did not fully understand the Law and came to Moses for advice. God directed Moses to appoint Judges to assist with explanation of the Law. This did not cease following the death of Moses or the death of the Judges he appointed. It continued because people needed it to in new circumstances and situations. Biblical scholarship indicates Deuteronomy was written by Ezra in either the post-exilic period, or during the exile.

None of this invalidates the book of Deuteronomy and it does not mean it comes from the Law Moses received. It means it needs to be read in context. The particular passage you have quoted here refers to women who have been taken captive as a consequence of war. Off the top of my head I would say it has something to do with giving them children who would take care of them because if they had lost their men as consequence of war, they would have no one to look after them. In addition, any children they did have would be cared for. Bear in mind the state and charities did care for widows and orphans when Deuteronomy was written. This Law would teach responsibility for women widowed and children left fatherless as a consequence of war. In His compassion, God did not compel men to remain married to women they did not love, or who did not love them and did not want to be married to them.

Don’t focus too much on the word ‘delight.’ There is evidence that this Law was as much for the woman as the man. I believe laws relating to rape indicate this. If a man raped a woman in ancient Israel, he had to marry her. However, the woman could refuse to marry him in which case, he was stoned to death. 'Delight, has to be seen in context. It important to consider the historical and socio-political backdrop to books of the bible in order to understand their meaning.

I would stress again this is an answer off the top of my head. I would need to do more research into the historical and socio-political backdrop of the Deuteronomy to give you a more in depth answer. I would be happy to do this if you feel it would be of benefit.

Hi I’m new here and I joined this forum to get answers about Deuteronomy. Specifically the passage mentioned here Deut 21:10-14. The issue at hand is is this Rape? Did the woman have a choice of marrying in this situation? After being taken captive in war did could she turn the man down or did she have to marry him. Or does it not really say anywhere in the bible? Also you mention If a man raped a woman in ancient Israel, he had to marry her. However, the woman could refuse to marry him in which case, he was stoned to death.

Where in the bible does it say this? Specifically that the woman could turn him down. I’m dealing with some Athiests in my family and truely am trying to defend the bible and they are trying to say that God allows Rape since this is God’s war. But basically they are trying to prove to me that that bible is not the word of God. So if I can show how the woman did have a choice in this and prove that God does not endorse a woman being taken against her will. You said you could do some research and if you could do that for me it would be great. I have been searching and searching for answers to this and cannot find them.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Hi I’m new here and I joined this forum to get answers about Deuteronomy. Specifically the passage mentioned here Deut 21:10-14. The issue at hand is is this Rape? Did the woman have a choice of marrying in this situation? After being taken captive in war did could she turn the man down or did she have to marry him. Or does it not really say anywhere in the bible? Also you mention If a man raped a woman in ancient Israel, he had to marry her. However, the woman could refuse to marry him in which case, he was stoned to death.

Where in the bible does it say this? Specifically that the woman could turn him down. I’m dealing with some Athiests in my family and truely am trying to defend the bible and they are trying to say that God allows Rape since this is God’s war. But basically they are trying to prove to me that that bible is not the word of God. So if I can show how the woman did have a choice in this and prove that God does not endorse a woman being taken against her will. You said you could do some research and if you could do that for me it would be great. I have been searching and searching for answers to this and cannot find them.

As I have pointed out in my response, the Old Testament states that a man can divorce a woman (Deuteronomy 24:1), but Jesus teaches us that this is not God’s law but it is a man-made law (Matthew 5:31-35). Your problem here in arguing with these people is that you are claiming the Word of God is a book. However, the Word of God, according to the very book you are defending is not ink and paper, He is living flesh. The bible does contain the word of the Lord, but not every single word in it is God’s Word. The book is not the teacher, it is a teachers aid.

 

[minkymurph]

Hi I’m new here and I joined this forum to get answers about Deuteronomy. Specifically the passage mentioned here Deut 21:10-14. The issue at hand is is this Rape? Did the woman have a choice of marrying in this situation? After being taken captive in war did could she turn the man down or did she have to marry him. Or does it not really say anywhere in the bible? Also you mention If a man raped a woman in ancient Israel, he had to marry her. However, the woman could refuse to marry him in which case, he was stoned to death.

Where in the bible does it say this? Specifically that the woman could turn him down. I’m dealing with some Athiests in my family and truely am trying to defend the bible and they are trying to say that God allows Rape since this is God’s war. But basically they are trying to prove to me that that bible is not the word of God. So if I can show how the woman did have a choice in this and prove that God does not endorse a woman being taken against her will. You said you could do some research and if you could do that for me it would be great. I have been searching and searching for answers to this and cannot find them.

There is a scripture and I think it is in Deuteronomy. I’ll look it up and get back to you in a couple of days.

 

[Cindy6789]

Thank You!

 

[Julia_Mae]

But basically they are trying to prove to me that that bible is not the word of God. .

You might reread Minky’s excellent post #2. The Bible is not the Word of God.

Sort of.

That is: every single word in it was not dictated by God nor is it all literally true.

Tell your atheists if every single Bible on the face of the earth winked out of existence tomorrow or was proven a huge hoax, it would not change in any way the fact that their lives are Eternal and God loves them. If they want to know God, they can go look on their own. .

The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with the Truth of God. Though we appreciate having some reference material.

 

[Julia_Mae]

We may be missing the point of the passage a bit since we are so far removed from those times. In war, as those who have been in such can testify, emotions run rampant over restraint.

Part of the spoils of the victor has always been raping whatever women of the enemy he could or wanted.

This passage imposes law in a situation by definition anarchic. No passions of war. You take her and she has the right to her sorrow. She also has a month to have a period, because if she he is already pregnant you want to know that.

Once the heat of battle had subsided and she has adjusted a bit, then you see her. It’s like the morning after a drunk: is she still delightful to you after a month of crying with her head shaved and wearing the common clothes of women you know, so she is no longer exotic? Do you really want to take her to wife?

While you cannot stop men from wanting what they want, you can guide them to at least some respect for the woman and themselves. In that month, he was not to lay eyes on her. Going in to her doesn’t mean blanket permission to have sex with her, he is to go into her to take her as wife. Unless he has no delight in her, in which case, she is to be returned home, fuzzy-headed but otherwise unharmed.

In terms of the time and culture, a very good law for women.

 

[minkymurph]

You might reread Minky’s excellent post #2. The Bible is not the Word of God.

Sort of.

That is: every single word in it was not dictated by God nor is it all literally true.

Tell your atheists if every single Bible on the face of the earth winked out of existence tomorrow or was proven a huge hoax, it would not change in any way the fact that their lives are Eternal and God loves them. If they want to know God, they can go look on their own. .

The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with the Truth of God. Though we appreciate having some reference material.

I can remember a my lecturer on the Old Testament, who is a priest, explaining different interpretations of the term ‘inspired.’

Some people understand the word ‘inspired’ to mean every single word of the bible is inspired. He asked if we thought the word ‘and’ is inspired, and what does the word ‘and’ tell us about God?’ I’m no expert in Hebrew, but as far as I know the indefinite article (and, the, a) didn’t exist in the Ancient Hebrew. The indefinite article was inserted when the bible was translated based on the translators understanding of the text.

As Catholics, we do believe the bible is inspired and contains divine truths. However, these truths are expressed in human language. We also know that the bible has been subject to human fallibility over the years through translation. That is why we attempt to discern the message the author is trying to communicate rather than one sentence, or one word. In addition, language changes over the years. Anyone who wants a funny explanation of this, here’s a link to a song called ‘silly slang’ performed by a guy called Eric Bogle.
youtube.com/watch?v=SOdHNGG9yWU

 

[minkymurph]

Here’s the scripture said I would look up regarding rape.

Deut 22:28
’ If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give 50 shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

Earlier verses in this scripture state if the woman who is raped is engaged, nothing is to be done to the woman and the man is to die.

Ex 22:16
’When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.’

One may ask why the penalty was death if you raped an engaged/woman, but not a virgin. Marrying a rapist also sounds abhorrent. My guess is is was to protect the unmarried woman and the child. If a married woman was raped and become pregnant, her husband would continue to care for her and the child. Perhaps there were men who would have divorced their wife if they were raped, depends on the man I suppose.

This would not be the case if a woman was not engaged. In this society, rightly or wrongly men married virgins. They did not want to marry a woman who wasn’t, even if it was a consequence of rape. In addition, there weren’t many single mums in Ancient Israel and a child born outside marriage, even as a consequence, would have been an outcast.

Marriages were also arranged, usually by the father who’s permission was needed and he was paid a dowry. Therefore, if a woman was raped the father made the decision whether or not she would marry. Perhaps some fathers would have forced there daughter to marry against her will, but others may not have. The daughter may also have wanted to marry.

 

[IndigoDreamz]

Here’s the scripture said I would look up regarding rape.

Deut 22:28
’ If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give 50 shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

Earlier verses in this scripture state if the woman who is raped is engaged, nothing is to be done to the woman and the man is to die.

Ex 22:16
’When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.’

We must get out of modern mind thought when looking 2,500yrs+ in the past…

1st, what is Marriage? Yes, a bride DOES become the property of the husband. Not that she is ‘less than’, but because of what the husband brings (many wives glorified or even brought down their husband). Men are made to do hard labor. The husband had duties to his wife- feed/ shelter/ protect/ respect/ provide for his wife & any children. For most- especially Jews- this was great responsibility as many were quite poor. What the wife owed her husband was herself. He needed to know the children was his. Because of the financial, emotional, & labor put into the marriage covenant, no other man had a right to her, nor did she have any right to break her husband’s trust.

If a man raped a women that was betrothed or married, that man took the ‘property’ of another man, as well as bringing dishonor to the women- thus, death sentence… However, if a man raped a women that was a virgin (not betrothed/ married), he took the property of the father (the bridal fee was actually security for the women, not a purchase price, so if he divorced w/o just cause, the women would have $$ to provide for her. The marriage requirement was because he took her virginity & thus may not be marriageable. So it was to protect the women, & insure she was cared for (why he would never be permitted to divorce her).

As we can see by all that is said regarding widows & the responsibility to care for those women…

One may ask why the penalty was death if you raped an engaged/woman, but not a virgin. Marrying a rapist also sounds abhorrent. My guess is is was to protect the unmarried woman and the child. If a married woman was raped and become pregnant, her husband would continue to care for her and the child. Perhaps there were men who would have divorced their wife if they were raped, depends on the man I suppose.

This would not be the case if a woman was not engaged. In this society, rightly or wrongly men married virgins. They did not want to marry a woman who wasn’t, even if it was a consequence of rape. In addition, there weren’t many single mums in Ancient Israel and a child born outside marriage, even as a consequence, would have been an outcast.

Marriages were also arranged, usually by the father who’s permission was needed and he was paid a dowry. Therefore, if a woman was raped the father made the decision whether or not she would marry. Perhaps some fathers would have forced there daughter to marry against her will, but others may not have. The daughter may also have wanted to marry.

 

[TimothyH]

Deuteronomy is a series of three speeches given by Moses before he died. Deuteronomy literally means “Second law.” The book is supplemental to and must be read in the context of the Book of Exodus.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 was spoken by Moses on behalf of God who had given Moses authority to speak in His name.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Deuteronomy is a series of three speeches given by Moses before he died.

21:10-14 are Moses’ words which he spoke on behalf of God who had given him authority to do so.

Deuteronomy literally means “Second law” and it should be read and understood in the context of the Book of Exodus.

-Tim-