Biblical Law Allows Men to Take Captive Women as Wives

So the real point of conflict is not going to arise with this Bible character or that one, the ones who had concubines. The flattening is just starting with them. The discrediting just begins there. They are the Robert E. Lees in this little scenario. David the rapist is the Jeb Stuart in this game. The real issue is going to arise with what biblical law expressly allows. “And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 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. 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.” Deuteronomy 21:11–14 (KJV) So, hey. Is there a power dynamic here? The authority of Scripture is one of the “statues” that is going to have to come down. It is the statue they are actually after. In my little parable here, it is the Washington monument.

The required biblical treatment of a captive woman here is remarkable for the humanity it displays. Although a modern feminist would consider this a complicated form of rape, the legal protections for women—even women from alien, unbelieving cultures—are considerable. An Israelite man could not take a woman in the lustful aftermath of battle, he could not have what he wanted “right now,” and he had to respect her duty to mourn for her family. After a month had passed, he could marry her, but her status was therefore elevated to that of a true wife.