Ep. #235 – Debate: Is Deuteronomy 21 immoral? Harper v. DeRosa
Summary
Are the captive bride verses in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 an example of sanctioned immorality in the Old Testament? Are the passages the writings of mere men and not inspired by God? Dana Harper joins me to debate these issues.
Guest Bio
Dana Harper is a retired police sergeant with 35 years of municipal police service. He’s been married for 35 years and has two adult children as well as two grandchildren. He was a Senior Soldier in the Salvation Army for several years and tried to be a Christian; however, he always had some amount of doubt. Upon studying faith, science, and nature, he’s come to believe atheism is true.
Debate Format
- Opening Statements (8-10 minutes each)
- Open Dialogue (30-40 minutes)
- Closing Statements (1-2 minutes each)
Resources
Hard Sayings by Trent Horn
One Less God Than You: How to Answer the Slogans, Cliches, and Fallacies that Atheists Use to Challenge Your Faith
Ep. #226 – Did Moses Write the Pentateuch? w/ Dr. John Bergsma
Ep. #182 – The Book of Deuteronomy w/ Curtis Mitch
Debate Debrief and Further Resources
Dr. John Bergsma on Israelite Marriage – An Interview Hosted by Jake
Related Episodes
1st Dialogue with Dana Harper about my book One Less God Than You
2nd Dialogue with Dana Harper about the Gospels & New Testament
Shouldn’t the commandments of Deuteronomy 21 be understood within the Torah and Pentateuch’s greater commands regarding marriage? Genesis makes repeated demonstrations that marrying outside the faith leads to idolatry (i.e., Sons of God and Daughters of Men, Ishmael, Judah, Midianites and Numbers 25, etc.). The Torah prohibited intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land for that reason. Thus, why is it reasonable to interpret Deuteronomy 21 as permitting a Hebrew soldier to treat a woman of a conquered city or town in a slave-like way (forcing her to marry against her will), when he is explicitly prohibited from enslaving her? Especially when he is limited to one wife, absent the obligation of a levirate duty. Far more sensible and consistent is a reading that requires the woman’s consent to convert to the Abrahamic faith in connection with the marriage, and to then continue in the land as a Jew (this is in connection with the conquest after all). This is somewhat reflected in the life of Ruth later on. Having begun a Moabite, she ends a Jew.
Cutting her hair is a shedding of her glory associated with her prior people, culture, and god(s), so that she may grow a new glory associated with her new husband, people, and God. Compare this with the Nazerite vow. Where a man is permitted to grow his hair long for permitted purposes, becomes holy in pursuit of his vow, then cuts off his hair and gives it to God on the altar once his vow is completed. As a woman is the glory of the man, she maintains her glory without cutting her hair, unless circumstances such as these require her to do so.
These are some good points, Mark, thanks for the comment!
Re: “Especially when he is limited to one wife, absent the obligation of a levirate duty.”
Do you have sources on this? Regarding polygamy, I’m not aware of a specific prohibition against it, unless one wants to argue that’s the intention of Leviticus 18:18 (which is debated, but possible). In other words, I’d make a similar argument about polygamy, that God chose to *regulate* and *restrict* it before eventually abolishing it and restoring the true vision of marriage in the New Covenant.