• 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

I was thinking was there another time a Man had sex and a child with a Woman and she was able to just leave?

Yes and that was Abraham and Hagar a Handmaiden she was kicked out with her son.
Hagar did not cheat and there was no divorce and no Covenant, to me this is as close as I can think of.

Was Hagar his Wife? Was it a Marriage? Did they become One Flesh? Even if they did she was told to leave and she left.

Why? She was a Slave just like Women captured in war.



A quick backstory of how and why Hagar was become Sarah's Handmaiden.

Abraham went to Egypt lost his Wife Sarah's to The Egyptian Pharaoh.
Abraham cried to G-d and G-d forced The Egyptian Pharaoh give her back to Abraham.
The Egyptian Pharaoh said everything they touched let them have and let them go even their helpers.
Hagar was her Handmaiden given from The Egyptian Pharaoh as a Slave and so she was taken without choice.
Sarah told her "have sex with my Husband" and she did. When Sarah was unhappy they kicked her and her son out.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking was there another time a Man had sex and a child with a Woman and she was able to just leave?

Yes and that was Abraham and Hagar a Handmaiden she was kicked out with her son.
Hagar did not cheat and there was no divorce and no Covenant, to me this is as close as I can think of.

Was Hagar his Wife? Was it a Marriage? Did they become One Flesh? Even if they did she was told to leave and she left.

Why? She was a Slave just like Women captured in war.
Hagar was his wife (Genesis 16:3).
Her being sent away is a strange situation. It was clearly Sarah who wanted to send her away, not Abraham - but strangely God told Abraham to listen to Sarah and do as she wanted.
Note that we are not told that Abraham divorced her. Only that he sent her away, to make Sarah happy. He may himself have ended up travelling and visiting her as his wife from time to time. We do know that Ishmael remained in close contact with Abraham, as both Ishmael and Isaac buried Abraham together (Genesis 25:9). She may simply have lived in a different camp.
Even if she was truly divorced, this is a peculiar situation that is not one to build theology on.
A quick backstory of how and why Hagar was become Sarah's Handmaiden.

Abraham went to Egypt lost his Wife Sarah's to The Egyptian Pharaoh.
Abraham cried to G-d and G-d forced The Egyptian Pharaoh give her back to Abraham.
The Egyptian Pharaoh said everything they touched let them have and let them go even their helpers.
Hagar was her Handmaiden given from The Egyptian Pharaoh as a Slave
and so she was taken without choice.
Sarah told her "have sex with my Husband" and she did. When Sarah was unhappy they kicked her and her son out.
Where does that backstory come from? It is plausible that Hagar was acquired during their stay in Egypt, since she was Egyptian. But where do you get the details I have highlighted from? They do not appear in either the Bible or Josephus.
 
What would also be helpful is if you simply posted the ideas and made your case and didn’t just flounce through yelling “I know a secret, if only you could read my mind!” in a song song voice.
I know you want to appear to be wise so here is the specific instruction from the very Word of God to help you accomplish that goal. It won't be a secret to you or anyone else here. Here's what God says just for you. Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive. Just in case you missed the personal application from the other thread, I'll repeat Proverbs 18:2 for you here; A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart. Making a fool of yourself is one thing, but failing to heed the advice to stop is quite another. Take the advice Samuel has given and let's move on in intelligent discussion. Shalom
 
Humbled (hebrew "ana") can be used in relation to sex.

However, it usually does not refer to sex. Just taking the first few instances of the word in scripture:
Genesis 15:13 - the Egyptians would "afflict" the Hebrews for 400 years.
Genesis 16:6 - Sarah "dealt hardly with" Hagar
Genesis 16:9 - Hagar was told to "submit" to Sarah
Genesis 31:50 - Laban warned Jacob not to "afflict" his daughters
Genesis 34:2 - Shechem "defiled" Dinah. First time it is used in relation to sex - but even here the word does not mean sex!

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

So even here the word "ana" does not refer to sex. It refers to the fact that Dinah was humiliated and degraded by the sex that Shechem had with her.

To show this is not a one-off case, check 2 Samuel 13:14.
"Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced ("ana") her, and lay with ("sakab") her."
Again, "ana" does not mean sex. It is used to describe the humiliating circumstances of that sex. A different word is used to refer to the sex itself.

In total, it occurs 83 times in scripture. Only 13 times does it have anything to do with sex - and that includes the above verses, so even when it is used in relation to sex the word itself usually does not mean "sex".

Sometimes the word does occur alone, without a separate word for sex, but is clearly referring at least in part to sex. For example, Judges 20:5.
"And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced ("ana"), that she is dead."
Here "ana" certainly refers to the rape of this woman - but refers not just to the rape, but to everything they did to her, including whatever violence caused her to die. Sex is not lethal - but violence during sex may be. So the word refers to her being treated in a degrading, humiliating and abusive manner. We just know by the context that this treatment would have included (but not been limited to) sex.

So "ana" refers to anything humiliating. It is most commonly used to describe God "afflicting" his people as punishment for sin.

It never simply means "sex" - though it is sometimes used to refer to a set of activity that includes sex.

Back to Deuteronomy 21:14: The word "ana" cannot be taken as proof that this man has had sex with this woman. It simply means he has treated her in a degrading manner - which could involve many things. And in this case she has had many degrading things done to her that are clearly outlined - having her family killed, being taken captive, having her head shaved etc - plenty of things to satisfy the description of "ana". So the use of this word does not in itself imply anything more than these things - just as Genesis 16:6 does not imply that Sarah had sex with Hagar, only that Sarah treated Hagar in some sort of humiliating way.
Except that the “humbling” was accomplished by going in to her and being her man. Humbling may be a certain kind of sex but there are definitely verses (the war bride being one) where it is sex.
 
I know you want to appear to be wise so here is the specific instruction from the very Word of God to help you accomplish that goal. It won't be a secret to you or anyone else here. Here's what God says just for you. Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive. Just in case you missed the personal application from the other thread, I'll repeat Proverbs 18:2 for you here; A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart. Making a fool of yourself is one thing, but failing to heed the advice to stop is quite another. Take the advice Samuel has given and let's move on in intelligent discussion. Shalom
Okay. Here’s your intelligent discussion; you are the modern Pharisee, a puffed up pseudo-intellectual who makes null the Word of God with vain teachings of men. Mocking you is completely in line with the examples set by John the Baptist and Christ Himself.

I may be a fool but I’m a fool confounding the self deluded “wise”. Discuss.
 
Humbled (hebrew "ana") can be used in relation to sex.

So "ana" refers to anything humiliating. It is most commonly used to describe God "afflicting" his people as punishment for sin.

It never simply means "sex" - though it is sometimes used to refer to a set of activity that includes sex.

Sorry my original post(s) weren't clear on this, and I've edited one for clarity, I was not intending to imply that the word was sexual itself, but rather that in these cases it was the result of the sex, I can see now where your confusion stemmed from if you thought I was saying the word itself was sexual.

I don't think it's a good argument to say there's a lot of other verses where humbling isn't the result of sex, so we have to force that into the ones where it clearly is, merely because of one being the minority of instances, especially in this case where the humbling comes directly after the statement about him going into her and her being his wife.

To me it seems like you're trying to inject an alternate usage of humbling here to avoid the plain reading of the text which shows the man made her his wife, but has an ability to send her away, or "let her go", which is the point of my original question, I wasn't concerned with the morality of taking a woman captive after battle... I was curious as to why it was ok to separate this "one flesh" union merely for finding something displeasing in her at some point in contrast to Matt 19.
 
Last edited:

Genesis 12-13 KJV​


18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him
away, and his wife, and all that he had.
1 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his
wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south.
2 And
Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.

Pharaoh sent for Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me! Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?
Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her as my wife? Now, here is your wife; take her and begone!”
And Pharaoh put agents in charge of him, and they sent him off with his wife and all that he possessed.

From Egypt, Abram went up into the Negeb, with his wife and all that he possessed, together with Lot.
Now Abram was very rich in cattle, silver, and gold.


Abraham walk into Egypt broke and walk out with very rich in cattle, silver, and gold.


Just like when they left Egypt with Moses

The Israelites acted on Moses’ word and asked the Egyptians for silver and gold jewelry and for clothing. And the Lord gave the people such favor in the Egyptians’ sight that they gave them what they requested. In this way they plundered the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35–36).

That they later made a Golden Calf with.

(The Egyptian Pharaoh said everything they touched let them have and let them go even their helpers.)

15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had
sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

Hagar was his wife (Genesis 16:3).
Her being sent away is a strange situation. It was clearly Sarah who wanted to send her away, not Abraham - but strangely God told Abraham to listen to Sarah and do as she wanted.

I think it is strange to you because you view it from a Modern View and add Evil into places that might not be an Evil.
But you are treating this just like the Christians who say we can't have Multiple Wives, G-d tells us what to do if we go to War and Take a Female Slave as a Wife just like just like Polygyny why is G-d giving us "Clear Instructions" Just like

Exodus 21​

King James Version​

21 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

Male Slave
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
35 And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

Note that we are not told that Abraham divorced her. Only that he sent her away, to make Sarah happy. He may himself have ended up travelling and visiting her as his wife from time to time. We do know that Ishmael remained in close contact with Abraham, as both Ishmael and Isaac buried Abraham together (Genesis 25:9). She may simply have lived in a different camp.

Even if she was truly divorced, this is a peculiar situation that is not one to build theology on.

I think its linked to the other because they are both Slaves/Handmaidens/Bonds Slave.


9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.

12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.

16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow shot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.

17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.

18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.

19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.

21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.




Where does that backstory come from? It is plausible that Hagar was acquired during their stay in Egypt, since she was Egyptian. But where do you get the details I have highlighted from? They do not appear in either the Bible or Josephus.
 
Last edited:
I was curious as to why it was ok to separate this "one flesh" union merely for finding something displeasing in her at some point in contrast to Matt 19.
@AbrahamSolomon posted the passage I was looking for last night.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
I think the situation of the warbride and the woman bought to be a wife are rooted in the same principle, as an extra layer of protection for especially vulnerable women. They can’t be resold as slaves and they shouldn’t be held in bondage once their husband has essentially put them away.
 
@The Revolting Man and @AbrahamSolomon:
The woman bought to be a maidservant is specifically described as being "betrothed" to the master, or to the master's son. NOT married. A betrothed woman only has a covenant, it has not been consummated - she has not had sex yet and is not one flesh with her master.

The master can allow the betrothed woman's family to redeem her (give back the money he paid for her and take her home again), if when she actually comes into his house he changes his mind and decides she shouldn't be there permanently.

This passage does not even hint at provision for divorce of a married maidservant. It is specifically talking about a betrothed one.
 
@The Revolting Man and @AbrahamSolomon:
The woman bought to be a maidservant is specifically described as being "betrothed" to the master, or to the master's son. NOT married. A betrothed woman only has a covenant, it has not been consummated - she has not had sex yet and is not one flesh with her master.

The master can allow the betrothed woman's family to redeem her (give back the money he paid for her and take her home again), if when she actually comes into his house he changes his mind and decides she shouldn't be there permanently.

This passage does not even hint at provision for divorce of a married maidservant. It is specifically talking about a betrothed one.
I hate getting sucked into the word study trap but a quick check of Bible Hub doesn’t seem to support the “betrothed” interpretation. It just looks like it means that he’s chosen to take her.
 
To me it seems like you're trying to inject an alternate usage of humbling here to avoid the plain reading of the text which shows the man made her his wife, but has an ability to send her away, or "let her go", which is the point of my original question, I wasn't concerned with the morality of taking a woman captive after battle... I was curious as to why it was ok to separate this "one flesh" union merely for finding something displeasing in her at some point in contrast to Matt 19.
I understand where you are coming from. I am disagreeing with your presupposition - that this marriage has been consummated.

I am disagreeing with it solely because that interpretation is inconsistent with the following chapter. I am letting scripture interpret scripture and finding the interpretation that fits all scripture, especially the immediate context of this passage.

You need to explain Deuteronomy 22 in light of your interpretation of Deuteronomy 21. If there are inconsistencies, you should consider that your presupposition may be incorrect.

I know that v13 says "you may go in to her". I am interpreting v13 (you may marry her) and v14 (or you may send her away) as the two options available for the man to select from after a month. I am aware that they can be read chronologically as you are reading (v13 always happens before v14), but as such a reading is inconsistent with other scriptures I have to reject it.
 
I hate getting sucked into the word study trap but a quick check of Bible Hub doesn’t seem to support the “betrothed” interpretation. It just looks like it means that he’s chosen to take her.
Can you clarify how you came to that conclusion? The word used for "betrothed" is "yawad" (H3259), which means "to fix, appoint, assemble, betroth". It refers to an arrangement or agreement. It does not refer to consummation.

In other words, it is referring to a covenant.

Is a covenant marriage @The Revolting Man?
 
Can you clarify how you came to that conclusion? The word used for "betrothed" is "yawad" (H3259), which means "to fix, appoint, assemble, betroth". It refers to an arrangement or agreement. It does not refer to consummation.

In other words, it is referring to a covenant.

Is a covenant marriage @The Revolting Man?
What I read is that it just means he designated her to sleep with him after he bought her. If your definition of covenant is that broad then sure, it’s covenant.
 
I agree @The Revolting Man, he had designated her to himself. But that is all. She was only designated. She is not described as his consummated wife.
Please be consistent. If one flesh is marriage, she must have had sex in order to be married.
Can you find any evidence in these verses that she has actually had sex, and is actually married? Or are you just assuming that?

The implications of this are quite serious, so ponder it carefully. If you find that she truly did have a one-flesh union, that has very serious implications for everything that you have been arguing here in our whole wide-ranging discussion.

If she has a one-flesh union, but can be sent away simply because her master is displeased with her, then either:
1) All one-flesh unions are less permanent than Jesus taught, and may be broken on flimsier excuses.
or
2) One-flesh unions with "maidservants" are less permanent than one-flesh unions with "wives". In other words, the covenant / agreement that a woman has with her husband affects the seriousness of the marriage. This means:
2a) Marriage must involve both covenant and one-flesh, not one-flesh alone, and
2b) A covenant that gives the woman "maidservant" status rather than "wife" status overrides the one-flesh union's permanence, and allows more ready divorce. In other words, we can contract out of the words of Jesus regarding divorce if we use the right covenant.

This is a massive can of worms. I think it is a whole lot simpler and more logical if we conclude that she does not have a one-flesh union, only a covenant. But I am interested in your thoughts on that.
 
I agree @The Revolting Man, he had designated her to himself. But that is all. She was only designated. She is not described as his consummated wife.
Please be consistent. If one flesh is marriage, she must have had sex in order to be married.
Can you find any evidence in these verses that she has actually had sex, and is actually married? Or are you just assuming that?

The implications of this are quite serious, so ponder it carefully. If you find that she truly did have a one-flesh union, that has very serious implications for everything that you have been arguing here in our whole wide-ranging discussion.

If she has a one-flesh union, but can be sent away simply because her master is displeased with her, then either:
1) All one-flesh unions are less permanent than Jesus taught, and may be broken on flimsier excuses.
or
2) One-flesh unions with "maidservants" are less permanent than one-flesh unions with "wives". In other words, the covenant / agreement that a woman has with her husband affects the seriousness of the marriage. This means:
2a) Marriage must involve both covenant and one-flesh, not one-flesh alone, and
2b) A covenant that gives the woman "maidservant" status rather than "wife" status overrides the one-flesh union's permanence, and allows more ready divorce. In other words, we can contract out of the words of Jesus regarding divorce if we use the right covenant.

This is a massive can of worms. I think it is a whole lot simpler and more logical if we conclude that she does not have a one-flesh union, only a covenant. But I am interested in your thoughts on that.
Sophistry and obfuscation. I never cite this verse at all. It’s a very obscure exception.

That being said the vast majority of people reading that verse and the verses around it will assume that she was taken. But again, it changes nothing if she’s not.

Young women who’ve been bought with the intention of being slept with have additional protections. If that’s the extent of the passage then I’m fine with it. It’s not the extent. He clearly slept with her. But it’s a Law about how to treat a very specific kind of slave in a very specific kind of circumstance.

If your argument hinges on that then you don’t have an argument.
 
Sophistry and obfuscation. I never cite this verse at all. It’s a very obscure exception.

That being said the vast majority of people reading that verse and the verses around it will assume that she was taken. But again, it changes nothing if she’s not.

Young women who’ve been bought with the intention of being slept with have additional protections. If that’s the extent of the passage then I’m fine with it. It’s not the extent. He clearly slept with her. But it’s a Law about how to treat a very specific kind of slave in a very specific kind of circumstance.

If your argument hinges on that then you don’t have an argument.

I think this topic is a well done steak. 🥩
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. ✅

Edit: I can't ever go to War and neither can any of my sons and if I ever did have a Bond/Slave i'd still Love her as I will all my wives.
Treat all your Wives Good.
 
Last edited:
Sophistry and obfuscation. I never cite this verse at all. It’s a very obscure exception.

That being said the vast majority of people reading that verse and the verses around it will assume that she was taken. But again, it changes nothing if she’s not.

Young women who’ve been bought with the intention of being slept with have additional protections. If that’s the extent of the passage then I’m fine with it. It’s not the extent. He clearly slept with her. But it’s a Law about how to treat a very specific kind of slave in a very specific kind of circumstance.

If your argument hinges on that then you don’t have an argument.
"My argument" does not hinge on that at all. I am simply always seeking an understanding that is consistent with all scripture, and as such see no issues with this passage.

You are welcome to simply dismiss everything that appears to contradict your presuppositions as an "obscure exception". There is no need to justify your viewpoints to me or anyone else. I would prefer to understand the scriptures more comprehensively than that, and use all of what God has told us about marriage to find the sound universal truths behind it all.

I am however getting the feeling that I am more serious about the importance of the one-flesh bond than you are, as I am trying to preserve its sanctity in my understanding of all situations, while you appear willing to cast that principle aside when it suits.
 
"My argument" does not hinge on that at all. I am simply always seeking an understanding that is consistent with all scripture, and as such see no issues with this passage.

You are welcome to simply dismiss everything that appears to contradict your presuppositions as an "obscure exception". There is no need to justify your viewpoints to me or anyone else. I would prefer to understand the scriptures more comprehensively than that, and use all of what God has told us about marriage to find the sound universal truths behind it all.

I am however getting the feeling that I am more serious about the importance of the one-flesh bond than you are, as I am trying to preserve its sanctity in my understanding of all situations, while you appear willing to cast that principle aside when it suits.
Oh lord. I just said the passage didn’t apply to forming a one flesh relationship you drama queen.
 
Oh lord. I just said the passage didn’t apply to forming a one flesh relationship you drama queen.
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top