• 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

@AbrahamSolomon, your posts are not contributing to this discussion - which is why nobody has replied to you. Rather, they are making it difficult for others to read this discussion as they are interrupting the flow of the conversation. Please stop posting in this thread.
 
FollowingHim said:
@AbrahamSolomon, your posts are not contributing to this discussion - which is why nobody has replied to you. Rather, they are making it difficult for others to read this discussion as they are interrupting the flow of the conversation. Please stop posting in this thread.
Click to expand...

No. I really try to be nice and keep my cool. I really do and if you can add your left-wing ideas then what is your beef?
And that is being very kind to you.
 
FollowingHim said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that we are just sharing our ignorance here and I’m pretty much done.
According to the plain reading here, he only has to pay and be married if they be found. We both know that is problematic, so I have to assume that there are things here that we are assuming.

I do believe that Yah was providing a way of annulment if the slave taken as wife just remained bitter and vindictive.
Nothing is ever said about not being able to sell a slave that you had humbled by enslavement. Only if you had prepared her to be taken as your wife.
Chronologically, the statement that you may take her as wife occurs prior to the statement about setting her free if you find a problem with her, so I see your shoehorning the setting her free into the situation as out of sequence.
In my opinion you are taking a legalistic view.
 
steve said:
I think that we are just sharing our ignorance here and I’m pretty much done.
According to the plain reading here, he only has to pay and be married if they be found. We both know that is problematic, so I have to assume that there are things here that we are assuming.

I do believe that Yah was providing a way of annulment if the slave taken as wife just remained bitter and vindictive.
Nothing is ever said about not being able to sell a slave that you had humbled by enslavement. Only if you had prepared her to be taken as your wife.
Chronologically, the statement that you may take her as wife occurs prior to the statement about setting her free if you find a problem with her, so I see your shoehorning the setting her free into the situation as out of sequence.
In my opinion you are taking a legalistic view.
Click to expand...

steve said:
the statement that you may take her as wife occurs prior to the statement about setting her free if you find a problem with her, so I see your shoehorning the setting her free into the situation as out of sequence.
In my opinion you are taking a legalistic view.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that is what I said that was not adding to this post as @FollowingHim stated. :rolleyes:
But it is a good point. :oops:
 
steve said:
According to the plain reading here, he only has to pay and be married if they be found. We both know that is problematic, so I have to assume that there are things here that we are assuming.
Click to expand...
If they weren't found the issue would never come before a judge, same with any crime. I've never read more into it than that people who are caught doing wrong face justice, people who are not caught don't (in this life). I might be wrong but that's always seemed simple.
steve said:
I do believe that Yah was providing a way of annulment if the slave taken as wife just remained bitter and vindictive.
Nothing is ever said about not being able to sell a slave that you had humbled by enslavement. Only if you had prepared her to be taken as your wife.
Chronologically, the statement that you may take her as wife occurs prior to the statement about setting her free if you find a problem with her, so I see your shoehorning the setting her free into the situation as out of sequence.
In my opinion you are taking a legalistic view.
Click to expand...
It is possible that I am wrong and you are correct. However, there are more assumptions in the position that you are taking, because you have to assume exceptions to other scriptures that forbid divorce in similar circumstances.

I am simply trying to take a consistent viewpoint that conforms with all other scriptures. I am not trying to be legalistic, just trying to understand God's perspective on it by looking at it in the light of the remainder of scripture.
 
DustinM said:
It appears the word used at least in Strongs Brown Driver Briggs 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...
You might find it helpful to refer to Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament for better clarity in understanding this word. It is consistent with what Samuel has written. Shalom
 
DustinM said:
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?
Click to expand...
It is the same one flesh union. It is formed by the man going into her and becoming her husband.
DustinM said:
Was that merely because she was not an Israelite woman but a foreign wife?
Click to expand...
There is actually a corollary to this with an Israelite woman. The woman bought to be a wife but who then finds no favor can not be resold but must be let go. The war bride appears to be in the same category.
 
The Revolting Man said:
No. This is the exact opposite. He hasn’t humbled her until he goes into her and becomes her man. The humbling is the sex.
Click to expand...
Prove it with scripture alone. I don’t know, but I suspect humbled does not always mean sex, and always means humiliation or being brought low.

I’m interested to see your scriptural proof.
 
FollowingHim said:
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.
Click to expand...
Prove it with scripture. I’m not sure either way but I’m interested to see your scriptural proof.
 
AbrahamSolomon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sort of. In this scenario you go to the girl’s father, you kill him and every other man connected to him that you get to stand still long enough to stick your sword into, then you capture the girl, you shave her head, cut her nails and give her a few weeks to think about it all.
 
NickF said:
Prove it with scripture. I’m not sure either way but I’m interested to see your scriptural proof.
Click to expand...
Deuteronomy 22:24

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

I can keep going.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Deuteronomy 22:24

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

I can keep going.
Click to expand...
Please do. One single verse does not a definition make when there are dozens.
 
frederick said:
You might find it helpful to refer to Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament for better clarity in understanding this word. It is consistent with what Samuel has written. Shalom
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Sort of. In this scenario you go to the girl’s father, you kill him and every other man connected to him that you get to stand still long enough to stick your sword into, then you capture the girl, you shave her head, cut her nails and give her a few weeks to think about it all.
Click to expand...

Edit: I was talking about Rape vs Not Rape so I used a Woman who was not my Property vs a Woman who is my Property.
Not my Property a Crime of Rape vs My Property No Rape. The Victim was The Father Who lost a Daughter/Property.
But in the case of a Slave of War she was like a posted below Hagar and told to take off and not return. You can read my post later to see what I posted in full.


I was saying that even in a Marriage given by a father a Wife/Woman can't deny a Man/Husband sex it is our Right.

The case of the killed family is was taken without a Father and is his slave and so she would have less rights to say no.
But, it very well seems that after he has sex and she is his Wife in some kind of Marriage he can release her.

But, is The Reclassification of Divorcement that Yeshua said apply or not?

Moses give you a bill of Divorcement, but I said expect for a Woman cheating on you there is no excuse for it.

Maybe not because it's not a Covenant Marriage so there might not be a Covenant Marriage as I've stated in other forms of Marriage so there is nothing to break?

Side Note:

I am glad we are talking about this because it is helping me figure out how other forms of Wives Works.
 
Last edited:
NickF said:
Prove it with scripture. I’m not sure either way but I’m interested to see your scriptural proof.
Click to expand...
The Revolting Man said:
I’ve shown you that humbled can most definitely mean sex.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
The Revolting Man said:
Deuteronomy 22:24

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

I can keep going.
Click to expand...
Again this is a case where the humbling certainly involved sex. However, the word "ana" is used not to describe the sex itself, but the fact that by having sex with her, his neighbour's wife has been defiled and humiliated. He has defiled / humiliated / humbled his neighbour's wife - by having sex with her. But we only know he did it by having sex with her, because we are told that in v23 that the man "lay with" ("sakab") her.

We know this passage is about sex NOT because it uses the word "ana", but because it uses the word "sakab" (H7901).
The Revolting Man said:
Ezekiel 22:11
Click to expand...
While in that case "ana" is used to describe someone having sex with their sister - a form of sex that is itself "humbling" or humiliating, because it is sinful. It does not refer to normal sex, but to sinful, degrading sex.

Both are completely different situations to Deuteronomy 21:14, because that is talking about a woman being taken to be a wife. Sex with her is not humiliating or sinful - it's entirely wholesome. It is not the sort of sex that "ana" is used to describe on the rare occasions when "ana" refers to sex.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top