DEUTERONOMY 21:10-14

Tim Zeak, in his blog titled “10 fatal flaws of the Bible,” points to the Old Testament passage below as an example of the unacceptable ethics taught in the Bible.

“When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives (v. 10), if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. (v. 11) Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails (v. 12) and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go into her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. (v. 13)”

    1. Zeak first annotates the phrase “go into her” as referring to rape.

    2. Next, his overall comment on these verses is “Rape and kidnapping were not only approved by the Bible, but they were expressly authorized as part of God’s Law.”

    3. Zeak also conveniently leaves out the next verse, which reads: “If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”

In marked contrast to Zeak's disapproving view of this passage, here is a selection of comments from knowledgeable scholars, beginning with those concerning the overall context and then zeroing in on the specific passage in question:

    “There was an ethos in Israelite law, clearest in Deuteronomy, that even in a matter where one had a legal right or claim, one had to act with consideration for the needs and feelings of the other party. Sometimes this ran counter to the whole custom of the ancient world.” (C.J.H. Wright)

    “The 'stranger' or 'resident alien' was to be treated as if he had been 'native-born' (Lev. 19:34) while the humane treatment demanded of female prisoners-of-war (Deut. 21:10-14) illustrates this same value for the human person even if there is a level of slavery still present.” (Kaiser)

    “It is...respect for life which informs the whole of [Deuteronomy] 21-22:30 along with the laws of the previous division.” (Mayes)

    “Because the weaker of society (e.g. foreigners [Exod 22:21], widows [Exod 22:22], women captured in war [Deut 21:14]) were often at the mercy of the stronger, God gave specific laws to guard against their abuse and oppression.” (Wegner)

    “The rules laid down for waging holy war are characterized by compassion and humanitarianism.” (Wakely)

Deuteronomy 21:10

Cousins says, “Here is another example of the higher status Deuteronomy gives women [compared to their treatment in comparable societies at the time]...It is significant that both here and in vv. 15-17 the rights of a husband are delimited. But v. 10 places the law in a holy war context (20:1) and the reference to woman in 20:14 which applies to a distant city, may explain why 7:3 is ignored.” Thus, this regulation applies only to the very narrow context of a Holy War expressly commissioned by God Himself, and the women involved are not to be Canaanites who might later pervert the purity of the Jewish religion.

Deuteronomy 21:11

“The law for marriage with a captive woman displayed a remarkable respect for feminine individuality.” (Harrison)

Talley explains, “A basic characteristic of the word [i.e. hsq 'desire'] is that it does not suggest a sudden surge of emotion; it presupposes not just an unconditional erotic attraction but also a reasoned and unconditioned decision.”

The word “wife” in this verse may indicate a full wife, a secondary wife, or a concubine – all of these were allowable during OT times.

Deuteronomy 21:12

The import of these purification rules is not known according to Cousins, but he points to other passages such as Numbers 20:29 and Deuteronomy 34:8 as perhaps providing hints.

Some scholars feel it is a total shedding of her former pagan identity prior to being fully accepted into Jewish society. For example, Alden says, “Shaving the hair of the head...[could] symbolize for the captive woman her removal from her family, nation, and religion, and her entrance into Israel.”

Deuteronomy 21:13

Massough and Verhoef clarify that the one-month mourning period was for the death of her parents during the war. But this is not the only possibility, as others point out:

    “At the worst, her father was slain in the war (20:13) and her mother, if she survived, would belong to another master.” (Thompson)

    Craigie adds that “although the mourning could indicate the death of the woman's parents in war, it may simply point to her removal by force from the parental home.”

    In either case, Thompson says, “Such kindly consideration is in marked contrast with the cruel treatment meted out to women captured in war among the neighboring nations, or according to the rules of the Holy War.” And Harrison states, “The humanitarian tone of this legislation is unique in the ancient world.”

The phrase “go into her” in this verse appears throughout the Bible and simply refers to having sexual intercourse, not specifically to “rape” as Zeak claimed. That particular definition is unlikely to apply here since the act occurs in the context of a legal marriage.

Deuteronomy 21:14

Finally, we come to this unprecedented regulation guaranteeing that the woman can go free if the man is no longer pleased with her. She is no longer considered his property in any sense of the word and has given up that right due to his actions. The reason given is that he has humiliated her. Sprinkle explains that “Heb. 'ana ['humiliate, violate'] is used of enforced marriages, simple adultery and rape; (cf. Deut 21:14; 22:24,29).”

Conclusion

Thus, to answer Zeak's argument, the following factors need to be taken into account:

    The regulations apply quite narrowly to Holy Wars instituted by God with nations outside of Canaan.

    Compared to the laws of neighboring countries during this approximate time frame, they are amazingly enlightened in their treatment of the weaker party. Among those laws protecting slaves enumerated by Haas are: (1) protection of runaway slaves from other nations from being returned to their masters, (2) circumcision for male slaves and ability to take part in the Passover meals and other forms of worship, and (3) total freedom if a master caused any permanent injury.

    By being accepted into Jewish life, the captive would have the chance for herself and her descendants to be part of God's people rather than perishing in a pagan country.

    As Kaiser says, “Old Testament morality does have its limitations, however, while contemporary ethicists must take the Old Testament seriously if they are going to properly represent the total canonical contribution to biblical or theological ethics, Old Testament ethics is not the final chapter in the canonical spectrum of concepts. This testament reaches out beyond itself for fulfillment in Jesus Christ and the New Testament.”

Finally, I find it interesting to compare these teachings back around 1000 BC with later practices. Within Judaism itself, the Dead Sea community wouldn't even allow these captured wives to touch or eat kosher food along with their husbands until seven years had elapsed so as not to contaminate it. (Averbeck)

And then there is the much more modern example of slavery in pre-Civil War American. Here I should point out here that Zeak ends his post by favorably citing Thomas Jefferson's highly critical attitude toward the Bible. Zeak's approval appears to betray a profound ignorance regarding Jefferson's own attitude toward slaves, especially woman and children. Jefferson's enlightened views included the satisfaction of his sexual desires through one of his female slaves, the pursuit of a reckless and hedonistic lifestyle fueled by his closet industry employing young boys over whom he placed a harsh overseer when they began to lag in their production. He also refused to emancipate his slaves when most of his slave-owner neighbors were doing it and urged him to follow. But we can't accuse Jefferson of being a “typical Christian hypocrite” since he never claimed to be a Christian at all, but a Deist (as were a number of other Founding Fathers).