> This was going to be my next post question! Because in v. 14, it says he can't sell her as a slave "since you have dishonored her."
Great question, glad you asked. The answer is no, "dishonor" doesn't mean "rape." The term is עִנִּיתָהּ, and it means "Abased; afflicted; oppressed; humbled." It has a variety of shades of meaning and is used in different ways to means different things. Generally in Hebrew it refers to what one does to his enemy.
- The discomfort Sarah inflicted on Hagar (Gn. 16.6)—She made her life miserable because she despised her.
- What the lawless do to the defenseless (Ex. 22.22)—taking unfair economic advantage of the widows and orphans because they were powerless.
- The pain inflicted on Joseph by his fetters (Ps. 105.18)
- What Egypt did to Israel (Ex. 1.11-12) in unfair labor practices and economic exploitation.
- The physical pain brought by war (Num. 24.24; Judges)
- What God does to His enemies—afflict them and conquer them. (God uses this affliction to bring his enemies to repentance.)
- The root may also be used to denote humbling. Pharaoh refuses to submit himself to the Lord (Ex. 10.3).
- It is used in case of rape in Dt. 22.29; Gn. 34.2. (Notice that neither of these uses as rape pertains to warfare.)
Here, however, it refers to the woman after she has grieved for a month, after he has married her, and then is not pleased with her. Therefore it means he humiliated her by taking her as a wife and then rejecting her with divorce. The Mosaic Law took very seriously the sanctity of marriage. If this man was going to dishonor her by divorcing her after bringing her back to his home and marrying her, there were to be conditions:
- He was to let her go wherever she wishes. He was not in control of her.
- He was not to sell her like a piece of property (chattel)
- He was not to treat her like a slave. She was not a slave, but rather his WIFE.
Daniel Block comments, "For women, few circumstances are more fearful than the conquest of their towns by a foreign army. This ordinance (Dt. 21.14) was designed to rein in the potential for male abuse of women in such contexts. This paragraph serves not as a legal provision for a soldier to marry a woman in circumstances where contractual arrangements with the bride’s family are impossible, nor as an authorization of divorce from a foreign bride—both practices are assumed—but as an appeal to Israelites to be charitable in their treatment of foreign women, who, through no decision or fault of their own, are forced to become a part of the Israelite community. Verses 10-13 call for the charitable treatment of foreign brides when they are first taken; verse 14 for their charitable treatment in divorce."
> So I was thinking rape might've been involved in quite a few cases.
Rape of women by Israelite soldiers was strictly prohibited. Though such things are unfortunately common in war, it was not to be the case for Israel. The Law of Moses built in protection and rights for such women, treating them with dignity and honor.