Deuteronomy

War and Women

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Pentateuch

Lesson: 66-110

Genre: Talk

Track: 066

Dictation Name: RR187AJ66

Location/Venue:

Year: 1993

Let us worship God. Blessed is the man who Thou chooseth and causes to approach unto Thee that he may dwell in Thy courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Thy house, even of Thy holy temple. Let us pray.

Oh Lord our God we give thanks unto Thee for the assurance of Thy government. For the knowledge that because our times are in Thy hands who doest all things well the future is always as bright as Thy promises. Give us grace therefore to walk in the knowledge that Thy will shall be done. And that our peace is in Thy will, not in ours. That our hope is in Thee, not in ourselves. Make us ever joyful in Thy kingdom. In Christ’s name, Amen.

Our scripture is Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Our subject: War and Women. Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

“When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”

We come to an unusual law that has a curious history, a great many Christians are embarrassed at reading this and yet as I have pointed out the higher critics who are cynical about the historicity of so much in the bible or most of it regard this law with respect. So this is an interesting fact. This is both a law of marriage and of war. Its purpose is to bring moral order out of the brutality of warfare. God is here saying I’m going to regulate this situation in such a way that I will limit the evil you are able to do. In every century and in this century the treatment of women during war and in the aftermath is a grim story of barbarism. This law is designed to prevent the misuse of captive or enemy women. It must be noted that the captive girl or women who is desired cannot be raped nor can she be made a concubine that is, a wife without a dowry. She is deliberately called a wife and must be treated as such. It is her standing under law. Now remember the difference. A concubine was a legal wife who was married but without a dowry. But a wife was one to whom the young man, the prospective husband, gave or to her father to be then transmitted to her a very sizable sum of money as her insurance against any misbehavior on His part. There is no stipulation of the amount but it was normally the equivalent of three years wages. Now this was a sizable capital and she is called a wife. No Canaanite woman could be married this law deals with non- Canaanites. The captive woman either trimmed her hair or shaved her head, according to some to indicate her changed status. Paring her nails was a ritual of purification as was also cutting the hair. She could not be treated as a concubine nor as a slave. If either during the month prior to marriage or after if the man decided not to marry or decided to divorce her, he had to treat her honorably. On top of that ancient Hebrew law forbade divorcing her when she was ill.

She was not to be sent away empty handed, the protection given to the captive girl was thus a deterrent to rash decisions before and after she was taken captive. The law prevented her from being used for merely sexual purposes. She was to be seen as a wife from start to finish. The relationship had to be a legal one. As [unknown] noted on divorce she does not revert to her former status but is given the freedom due to any Israelite woman. Well, if this is the law with regard to captive women, consider by analogy how the wife who was an Israelite under normal marital circumstances was to be treated. This law also makes clear that the purity of Hebrew blood was not a factor in the Old Testament. Moreover, whereas in modern Jewish practice the mother, the women, determines whether or not the child is Jewish in Hebrew practice the child’s status was determined by the father. If the husband rejected at some time later the captive woman or formerly captive woman he had to send her whither she will, provide the transportation. The determination rested with her, if there were children loss of them would be a deterrent to the husband, her freedom is insisted on by this law and this was a check on arbitrariness by the man. The bible recognizes only kind of lawful sexuality, within marriage. As Erdman noted and I quote:

“The regulation was designed to allow no other form of union other than that of lawful marriage.” Unquote.

With marriage the captive girl ceased to be a captive and became a wife in the covenant community. As Morecraft noted and I quote:

“This law limits a person in authority, that is, a head of a house, in his authority over his wife. Because men are sinners God gives laws to govern and to limit and to guide him in his use in authority lest he abuse it as a tyrant. Here we are taught that a husband is not to treat his wife as a slave or a thing to be used and discarded at will. Disregarding her personality, character, personhood and welfare, his headship is to be a loving headship.” Unquote.

The children went with the innocent party in a divorce. The captive girl made wife had all the rights of every covenant woman and the same standing in the law. The usual practice among other peoples in antiquity and more recently has been to regard all captive women either as slaves or as non-persons with no standing before the law. John Gill’s studies of Hebrew text indicated that the captive woman could be a widow or a virgin. The months delay thus was also to give time for her instruction in and conversion to the faith. The months delay would also give time to determine whether or not the woman was already pregnant. Calvin saw this law as a toleration on God’s part as well as a regulation. A very important aspect of this law is in the concluding words to the husband. Requiring that the captive woman made a wife had to be treated as any Hebrew woman, the law states that the reason for this is in verse fourteen: because thou hast humbled her. This is a term normally reserved for cases of rape and seduction. The capture of a woman and then marriage to her meant that she had to be treated well precisely because she was a captive woman originally. He had taken advantage of her, that increased her immunities against mistreatment of her. In Exodus 22:16 and 17 the seduced girl had to be given a dowry even if the father of the girl rejected the seducer as her husband. The term ‘humbled her’ is used in Deuteronomy 22:24 for a case of adultery. In Deuteronomy 22:29-30 it applies also to cases of seduction and no divorce is therefore allowed. At the very least in all cases where the term is used the law militates against the man.

Marriage normally is not to begin with a humbling of the woman and the man is penalized in all such cases. G. Earnest Wright was by no means orthodox, observed still, and I quote:

“There is no exact parallel to the law. Its thoughtful forbearance and consideration contrasts with the cruelty one otherwise associates with war.” Unquote.

Shaving or trimming the hair and pairing the nails was at times a sign of mourning, it was however also a ritual signifying conversion from one religion to another. Many Rabbinic commentators assumed that the month’s delay provided time for instruction which it did. A captive woman would logically be receptive to it because it would enhance her status. Moreover religious affiliations among pagans were not personal decisions. They were aspects of membership in a particular family, clan and city state. Give this fact conversion could both be easy and superficial although not necessarily so. In the marriage of Ruth, a non-captive girl but a foreigner, it was a profound and intense faith. Rules of warfare have never had much success. Least of all in times such as ours and the Renaissance, times of little or no faith. A people’s words mean little without God’s authority behind them. The remarkable fact is, is that in everything we know about Old Testament history this law seems to have been respected out of fear of God. There is another aspect to this law which must be noted. It stipulates marriage, not promiscuity where any women are concerned. The Bible very plain spoken tells us of the rapes of Hebrew women by foreign armies. At the same time while it is unsparing of Hebrew sins it does not record like offenses by Hebrew soldiers. Laws with respect to the treatment of women were too often capital offenses, an interesting fact about biblical law. For this reason even the very militant modernist commentators discuss this law with respect. It sets apart biblical law from historic practices and laws of various countries and at this point even the worst of cynics suddenly become respectful.

The amazing part is that this law which was intended to regulate an ugly aspect of war did work. There was enough fear of God in the people and in the teachings they had on this subject that this law was obeyed. And this is why your modernist commentators who have so little respect for the word of God are at this point very respectful and do appreciate what this law represents. Let us pray.

Our Lord and our God we thank Thee for this word. We thank Thee that Thy word is truth, that Thy word deals with every aspect of man’s life. That it is designed to prevent and to control sin. Make us faithful to Thy word in every area of life and thought, in Christ’s name, Amen.

Are there any questions now about our lesson? Yes?

[Question] When did they change the lineage from the paternal to the maternal?

[Rushdoony] That’s a question that I’ve asked myself and I haven’t been able to determine it. One rationale given for the change is that it occurred somewhere in the middle ages supposedly although we don’t know for sure and it was because of the prevalence of the rape of Jewish women. As near as I can determine this was not any more prevalent than it was say, the rape of any other women and women during wartime in the Middle Ages. So that it’s difficult to say exactly where it came in. But it represents a total shift in Jewish culture from the masculine to the feminine and it’s not surprising that even Jewish periodicals have a hard time, made a great deal about the power of the Jewish wife and the Jewish princess [unknown] and that sort of thing. Whenever it happened it did represent a real shift in perspective. Along with that there’s another aspect that is very interesting and no real reason can be given for it, the men having their head covered during religious worship, in the synagogue. And this is totally contrary to ancient practice. And as all of you know in the churches that do believe in head covering it is in terms of scripture, the woman whose head is to be covered indicating subjection.

Now I’m only guessing when I say this but possibly it goes back to the fall of Jerusalem in 66-70 A.D. Because the temple and synagogue instrument was the organ. And after the fall as a sign of mourning the Rabbis forbade the use of the organ because it was too joyful an instrument. And of course as soon as they were able to have their own buildings the Christians adopted the organ because for them it is a joyful instrument. So it could be by analogy the head was covered to indicate shame at having lost their city. As I say I’m just guessing, yes?

[Question] The rise of unmarried mothers in the United States might in this category fall into the area of the loss of masculinity by American men.

[Rushdoony] Very, very true, that is the tragic fact since World War Two. The dramatic loss of masculinity by men and comparably, in some quarters, the masculinization of women. And of course Isaiah dealt with that. He said that because of their degeneracy they were reaching a point where the wise men would refuse to rule over them, would refuse to hold office and women and children would rule over them. And that certainly fits our time in that the child in the non-Christian home has become a tyrant by law now you cannot lay a hand on him and in the non-Christian culture you have women governing men. The sad part to me is that too many so-called Christian men think that they have to prove their masculinity by pushing women around, by abusing them. And even among non-Christians you have a great deal of abuse. Our time has more wife beating and more husband beating than any other culture in history has as far as we know. It has a great deal of both and both indicate a radical impotence and inability to deal realistically with anything. Yes?

[Question] Did God merely forget [or forgive, can’t tell] polygamy in the Old Testament times or was that required?

[Rushdoony] The norm we have in Leviticus 18: I believe its verse 18, yes, Leviticus 18:18: neither shalt thou take a wife, or if you look at your marginal notes if you have a reference, it literally is a wife to another, rather than a wife to her sister, in other words take more than one wife to vex her and so on. Now, what this does is to forbid polygamy but God’s law at the same time regulates polygamy because it recognizes that the sin of men is such that he is going to do certain things, the norm is marriage. There is to be no sexuality outside of marriage. Therefore, there can be a permission not that it is in God’s sight right to a secondary wife. But that is not the law, the law actually governs such relations but the law also legislates also against them. Now the realistic fact is is that very, very few men in any society can afford more than one. It’s a fraction of a percent. And therefore it’s never been in so-called polygamous societies anything more than a very, very minor factor. If I may add a footnote there were only a handful of polygamous Arabs before oil was discovered [laughter]. Royalties from the oil companies made possible polygamy on the part of more than a few, although it’s still not that general, yes?

[Question] Could you speak a little bit about the policies of war in the War Between the States and were they following biblical war…or…it didn’t seem like that.

[Rushdoony] When that war broke out in 1860 both the North and the South were at a very low ebb religiously, very low ebb. We tend to think of the past century as on an even keel but it had dramatic ups and downs religiously. The war can be called as Otto and I have spoken about it more than once a Unitarian war because the Abolitionists were almost all Unitarians, the secessionists were almost all Unitarians[??} and in fact when Calhoun first propounded the doctrine it was not popular in the south because he was distrusted as a Unitarian. Well, during the war there was a major revival among the troops in the South, not in the North. So the war was in many respects quite ungodly in the conduct of troops on both sides. And some very evil things were perpetuated by both sides. Any other questions or comments?

Well if not let us conclude with prayer.

Our Father Thy word is truth and Thy word is indeed a light upon our way. Grant that in the light of Thy word a renewed, a revived Christian community may give this land a new birth of freedom. A new birth of justice. Grant us this we beseech Thee in Christ’s name, and now go in peace, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, bless you and keep you, guide and protect you, this day and always, Amen.