Burgy has given what I consider to be an entirely inadequate answer to =
the various responses (David Campbell's, George Murphy's, Terry Gray's, =
and my own) to his second challenge. This is his claim that the God of =
the New Testament would not have said it was "OK to capture a young =
woman, forcibly rape her, and then, if she does not satisfy, turn her =
loose." No Christian ought to deny that, but that is not at all what =
Deut. 21:10 ff. is talking about. Deuteronomy 21:10 refers specifically =
to taking a captive as a wife. (Numbers 31:15-19, which is the passage =
we were talking about, should be understood in the same way, as I said =
in my post. Let me quote my previous response:
It is a gratuitous assumption by Burgy that it involved child rape. =
In some cases, particularly the young girls, it may simply have meant =
enslavement-we remember the Israelite maid who was captured and made a =
slave of Naaman's wife. =20
Third, while there can be no doubt that the good-looking older =
virgins were taken as wives, the practice of taking a captive woman for =
a wife was regulated and humanized somewhat by the Law: see Deuteronomy =
21:10-14. (While the second telling of the law in Deuteronomy followed =
the events of Numbers 31, the rules themselves may have been given to =
Israel beforehand. There's no way we can know for sure.) Like the =
regulation of divorce, rules governing marriage to captive women ought =
to be considered an accommodation to the hardness of heart of the =
Israelite men. The same could be said for rules governing slavery, and =
probably a number of other practices in the OT (and NT) as well. =20
The concept of accommodation to hardness of heart was taught by =
Jesus explicitly in the case of divorce. I see no problem here for the =
notion of inerrancy. Considering the great reservoir of unbelief in =
ancient Israel, such accommodation brought better treatment to wives, =
captive wives, and slaves than anything else would have; it shows the =
graciousness of God towards his fallen, still sinful people. This =
accommodation should not be confused with the notion that God =
accommodated his words to the limited, erroneous concepts of a =
pre-scientific people. That's an issue I'm not dealing with here.
Burgy also brings up a number of other verses from Deuteronomy 22. =
I (and many others) could answer them, but I suspect he would simply =
bring up more examples. Burgy, you have a tendency to shift to other =
passages when you can't adquately answer your critics. Stay on the =
point! For that matter, I again challenge you to respond to this point, =
quoted again from previous posts:
Burgy's view (if I understand it correctly) is that the biblical =
writers were moved (inspired) to write down an account of God's dealings =
with them, but that some of them just got God's will wrong: some of the =
words attributed to God just don't jibe with the character of God as =
presented in the New Testament and/or as intuited by a believer today =
who is indwelt by the Spirit of God.
On the contrary, like it or not, both OT and NT teach that the sins of =
the fathers are visited on the children. The principle that the sins =
of the fathers are visited on the children is also found in the NT, =
indeed, on the lips of Jesus himself: "And so upon you will come all the =
righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous =
Abel to the blood of Zecharian son of Berekiah, whom you murdered =
between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will =
come upon this generation." (Matt. 23:35-36). In the letter to the =
church in Thyatira (Rev. 2:18-29), God threatens to strike dead the =
children of "that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess." =
(Perhaps the "children" in v. 23 are spiritual children, but probably =
not; her devotees are rather "those who commit adultery with her.") =
Surely these words are entirely in the spirit of the OT when it calls =
for judgment on those who have sinned against God's people.
Tell us truly what you think: Were the NT writers just as prone to =
error as the OT writers? Did they get Jesus wrong? Or was Jesus =
himself in error, emptied full ethical wisdom by his kenosis? Have the =
courage of your convictions and tell us what you really belive here! =
And, tell us where you get the knowledge of good and evil to sit in =
judgment over Moses, the psalmist, the gospel writers, and even (if the =
gospel writers got it down accurately) Jesus himself. As I asked you =
privately, are you conducting your one-man Jesus Seminar in Colorado? =
These questions are straight and to the point. I trust your answers =
will be too.
Bob Rogland=20
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 13 2002 - 00:19:08 EDT