Hi Burgy.
This is a Note quoted in NET Bible, referring to Numb 31:17-18:
sn (31:17) The command in holy war to kill women and children seems in
modern times a terrible thing to have been done (and it was), and something
they ought not to have done. But this criticism fails to understand the
situation in the ancient world. The entire life of the ancient world was
tribal warfare, necessitating warfare. God's judgment is poured out on whole
groups of people who act with moral abandonment and in sinful pursuit. See
E. J. Young, My Servants the Prophets, p. 24; and G. Wenham, The Enigma of
Evil.
I am not happy with it, but I am not happy with your answer, either. I'll
keep thinking about it...
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of John (Burgy) Burgeson
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:39 PM
To: MckenNeil@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: cosmology & polygamy
Neil wrote: "You wrote 'I simply cannot claim that an edict to kill the
children and rape the young girls (as a god purportedly commanded Saul) can
possibly be reconciled with the Father God whom Jesus proclaimed.'
I would like to know where the Bible says God commanded the Israelites to
rape women and children."
----------------------
Fair question.
The edict was to rape the virgins and kill the male children. It is found in
Numbers 31:17-18. Another edict like it, although rape is not mentioned, is
in I Sam 15:3-9. That one specifically includes the killing of infants.
Other passages are in Joshua, perhaps a dozen of them.
Another one, Deu 22:28-29, says that if a man rapes a virgin, and is
discovered, she is obliged to marry him. Nice way to start a covenant
marriage! A chapter earlier, Deu 21:10-13, gives specific directions on
taking by force a captive "beautiful woman" after killing her parents. And
don't forget Deu 25:5, where, if you are a married lady, and your husband
dies, your brother-in-law gets to have sex with you independent of any other
ideas you may have.
There are possibly more -- but you get the idea.
Two positions seem clear to me. (1) the god who edicted those things is the
"real God." (2) the text represents what the ancient Hebrews THOUGHT that
God was telling them, but, in fact, they were mistaken.
As I said earlier, I cannot personally reconcile (1) with the Father God
that Jesus talked about in the NT. That there may be a third position than
the two above is possible; I have not thought of it.
Cordially,
John
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 21:33:21 EDT