Is it Rape or Not

If the Law of Moses is read in the context of the customs of that time and place, it will be seen that it is an improvement in humane attitudes over those customs. The law of an eye for an eye, for instance, with its exactness of fit between punishment and crime, is a huge improvement over the habit of overkill in the taking of revenge that prevailed in that area at the time. This practice is demonstrated, for instance, in Jacob's sons' murdering of the whole family of Shechem for his rape of their sister, four hundred or so years before Moses. The Law of God tempers such excesses of revenge. Our modern sensibilities, educated in all the refinements of law acquired through some pains since then, would prefer that God eradicated every vestige of them, but God is wiser than we, and doesn't demand such perfections in such a context.Here is what the commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown has to say about this passage, my bolding added: There are further discussions of the particular requirements by other commentators which I can post if it seems useful. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In general, the Bible reflects the history of a gradual humanizing under God's Law of the customs that prevailed in most cultures, which had arisen as a result of fallen nature. Rape is an expression of fallen nature, and the Law of God opposes it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I thought the comment about the gorgeous dress interesting and odd. The online copies of the commentary don't have any notes on sources.

The idea being expressed on this thread is apparently that forced marriage is itself rape, since the passage is not talking about rape as such, without any legal protection whatever. If you want to judge an ancient culture by modern standards, that seems irrational to me, but there's no answering such a position if you want to insist on it.In Numbers 31 God was punishing the Midianites for leading Israel astray, specifically by sexual seduction. This is the reason for ordering the killing of the women who were the agents of this seduction, and God was angry with Israel because they did NOT do this. The punishment is limited to those who had had sexual experience as committers of this particular sin against Israel. According to the commentaries I've looked at, He permits the Midianite female children -- which most of the virgins would have been --to live because they did not participate in the sin. One commentator said also that they would not grow up, as males would, to be more of a danger to Israel through avenging their cultural heritage.Comment by David Guzik: Deuteronomy 21 then gives the law for dealing with women taken as captives that Israelite men want to marry, which would also apply to the Midianite women who were spared. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All the commentators I've looked at focus on the sin of the Midianites in seducing the Israelites, a sexual sin. There is no fancy hocus pocus about virginity going on, it's merely that virgins were free of the sin of seduction of the Israelites. This is the problem with reading such a passage out of context. You have to know the whole historical setting in which God orders this punishment of the Midianites, or you end up trying to abstract out principles that are not really general but only apply in this particular case.

Oh right. Better he screw her immediately without regard at all to the circumstances of her loss of her family, without taking the time himself to find out what his real feelings are, or hers -- and without marrying her at all. That WAS the norm of the times. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We have a historical and theological perspective which it appears others here lack. We understand the story in context of sin committed by the Midianites, their deaths as a judgment or punishment for that sin, but of course if you have no sense of sin it would be meaningless.

Sorry, then let me address it by saying that I agree that Deuteronomy 21 shows that rape was not being proposed in Numbers 31. Spared death, that's all that was meant or said. According to modern law, not ancient law.

I understand nonChristians taking such a stand against the God of the Old Testament since we are told that our fallen nature is at enmity with God, and certainly His punishments are particularly odious to us, but it makes me wonder when Christians do, since Christ IS that God. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are going to have to quote this. There is no such thing in the Bible as burning human beings as an offering to God, although there are reports of the heathen nations doing that. In any case I have no idea what you are referring to. Some of the Bible is simple historical reports that we trust as truthful reports because God oversaw their reporting. It certainly doesn't mean that God approves of everything that is reported. What exactly are you talking about.

I already answered this from various Bible commentaries. How did you manage to miss it? The virgins were not held to be guilty of the crime of seducing the Israelites into sexual misconduct.

It does no such thing.

Um, how about you go and talk to the various nations in 1500 BC about their practices with captives.

The problem here, as usual, appears to be with "rightly dividing the word of truth." God's Law was an improvement over ancient law, as has already been said. Nobody has defended ancient law as the gold standard of law. I've said ancient customs reflect fallen human nature, not the redeemed nature that God brings about. Ancient law and in fact most human laws reflect fallen nature to some extent. But I assume our laws now, after centuries of Biblical influence, are better than the old.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You missed a great deal apparently. The Old Testament was written in the context of ancient Middle Eastern culture, which of COURSE strongly influenced the attitudes of the various peoples, including the Israelites. God's Law was given into the midst of this cultural context, both reflecting what was God-given in it, and prescribing correctives to what was wrong with it. People here tend to make the mistake of attributing mere fallen human culture to God, and the other mistake of not reading His law in the context which it is correcting.