I'm sorry I couldn't reply sooner; I'm on jury duty through the end of =
the week.
This is my response to Burgy's post of July 20, in which he asks me to =
answer at least two of six questions he poses re: Deut. 21:10-14. Burgy =
considers these verses to be proof positive that we ought to consider =
these verses (and any others that don't suit our innate moral =
sensibilities) as the response of "inspired" men but not as representing =
the mind or will of God. This e-mail exchange has gone on too long. I =
give my answer below, but do not intend to continue the back-and-forth =
exchange of opinions. Burgy certainly will not change his mind, and I =
imagine the subscribers to this list are heartily tired of hearing his =
views and mine batted back and forth like a tennis ball. So, this is my =
last word on this topic. Burgy may have the last word if he wishes; I =
imagine he does.
Burgy's questions:
1. "The Bible is, many say, a book of ethics. Is there any person here =
who would say that the advice above outght to be given today to our =
soldiers who fight abroad? If not, why not?"
My answer: I can't speak for others-there may be some who would affirm =
that, but I certainly do not, as Burgy correctly surmises. There are =
several reasons why that command - it is not merely advice, but a =
command to those who are attracted to a female captive - should not be =
followed today. In the first place, Israel was a holy nation, God's own =
people constituted as a theocratic state. In spite of the claims of =
some Christian patriots, no nation, including our own, can be considered =
God's own people. In the second place, as I and several others have =
pointed out (apparently without sufficient clarity or persuasiveness), =
these commands should be viewed as an accommodation to the hardness of =
heart of the Israelites, like the commands regulating and ameliorating =
divorce and slavery. Jesus stated the principle with respect to =
divorce, but it is legitimate to extend it to other areas as the New =
Testament does, explicitly or implicitly. The Israelite captor was not =
permitted to rape the woman on the spot (a common practice in war time =
up to the present time). Indeed, he was to marry her the same way he =
would marry any other woman. Let's not forget that women had little or =
no say in any marriage in those days. Leah, Rachel, Abigail, and most =
other women whose marriages are mentioned in the OT seem to have had no =
choice in the matter. Rebekah and Samson's wife had, apparently, some =
choice - at least the right of refusal, it seem. I am not at all saying =
this was a good thing, but it was the normal state of affairs. The =
erstwhile groom, or perhaps more often his father, dealt with the father =
of the future bride. This practice still goes on in much of the world. =
Since the captive woman's parents had been slain (another issue), there =
was no one to speak for the woman. Again, this was not a practice that =
took the woman into account, and we rightly consider it sub-Christian =
(for the woman's right to make a choice see I Cor. 7:39). But Deut. =
21:10-14 gives the captive woman the same choices (i.e., none) and the =
same rights as an Israelite woman entering into marriage.
4. "As I understand your position, you would not preach the above, but =
you WOULD preach that these were God's Words for those days and that =
therefore women WERE property in those days and that God not only =
condoned that but commanded it and that the soldiers of that day WERE to =
follow those instructions and that God approved of their actions. Do I =
understand you corrrectly?"
My answer: No, you do not understand me correctly. Women were not the =
property of men as far as God was concerned, then or now. Genesis 3:16 =
states that a husband would rule over his wife, but that is a =
consequence of sin. None of the consequences of sin enumerated in =
Genesis 3 are good things; they are bad things. They are bound to =
occur, but Scripture uniformly presents them as bad things. Again, what =
God commanded was a limitation, amelioration, and regulation of the =
behavior of the victorious Israelite soldiers. The history of warfare =
up till the present day shows that the unrestrained behavior of soldiers =
towards the enemy's women is normally far worse than the scenario in =
Deut. 21:10-14. I have no doubt that not a few Israelite warriors =
chafed under the command that they could only have sexual relations with =
a captive enemy woman if they were prepared to marry her and treat her =
like an Israelite wife; probably not a few decided it was not worth it =
and left the women captives alone.=20
5. "The advice given above assumes that women are property. Is this an =
ethical stance anyone here would take today? Should women be regarded =
as property? If not, why not? Does God (today) regard women as second =
class persons? Did he so regard them at the time Moses made this =
speech?"
My answer: You are wrong; the advice does not assume that women are =
property. See the answer to 4, above. As for second-class persons, =
Galatians 3:28 answers that well enough. The OT makes the same point as =
well. To be sure, for the most part the fortunes of women were bound up =
with those of their husbands, but let's remember that when Joshua was =
allotting the land of Canaan to the tribes and clans of Israel, he made =
sure that the daughters of Zelophehad received an inheritance (Josh. =
17:3-4). =20
6. "The advice given above says to a young man that it is OK to capture =
a young woman, forcibly rape her, and then, if she does not satisfy, =
turn her loose. Your position is that God approved of this, at least at =
that time. I assume you do not think it would be approved (by God) =
today. When did he change his mind?"
My answer: Your characterization of the scenario in Deut 21:10-14 misses =
the mark entirely. Others have dealt with the question of whether the =
man would "forcibly rape" the woman by doing this. I view it as a =
forced marriage rather than a rape, and believe there is a difference; =
others may disagree. Forced marriages are a bad thing, like slavery and =
divorce, but an unwilling wife has the same legal rights as a willing =
wife. In Deut. 21:10-14 we find God writing those rights into law. =
And, as Paul Seely (I think) pointed out, most female captives would =
probably have viewed a forced marriage with the legal rights of a wife =
as better than any of the alternatives. Not the life they would have =
chosen prior to war, but the best life available given the defeat of her =
people. Again we have here a case of accommodation to the hardness of =
heart of the Israelites, who were just as sinful as you and I. =20
That's enough, I think. Again, I don't believe prolonging this exchange =
would be interesting or profitable to anyone and will not do so. Of =
course, Burgy, should you come out with some other outrageous ideas I =
will feel free to respond to them, and trust you will do the same with =
me. Iron does sharpen iron, and I think that the exchange has been =
useful up to this point. The last word is yours.
Bob Rogland
=20
=20
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C23284.A2EE6700
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I'm sorry I couldn't reply sooner; =
I'm on jury=20
duty through the end of the week.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>This is my response to Burgy's post =
of July 20,=20
in which he asks me to answer at least two of six questions he poses re: =
Deut.=20
21:10-14. Burgy considers these verses to be proof positive that =
we ought=20
to consider these verses (and any others that don't suit our innate =
moral=20
sensibilities) as the response of "inspired" men but not as=20
representing the mind or will of God. This e-mail exchange has =
gone on too=20
long. I give my answer below, but do not intend to continue the=20
back-and-forth exchange of opinions. Burgy certainly will not =
change his=20
mind, and I imagine the subscribers to this list are heartily tired of =
hearing=20
his views and mine batted back and forth like a tennis ball. So, =
this is=20
my last word on this topic. Burgy may have the last word if he =
wishes; I=20
imagine he does.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Burgy's questions:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>1. "The Bible is, many say, a =
book of=20
ethics. Is there any person here who would say that the advice =
above=20
outght to be given today to our soldiers who fight abroad? If not, =
why=20
not?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>My answer: I can't speak for =
others-there may be=20
some who would affirm that, but I certainly do not, as Burgy correctly=20
surmises. There are several reasons why that command - it is not =
merely=20
advice, but a command to those who are attracted to a female captive - =
should=20
not be followed today. In the first place, Israel was a holy =
nation, God's=20
own people constituted as a theocratic state. In spite of the =
claims of=20
some Christian patriots, no nation, including our own, can be considered =
God's=20
own people. In the second place, as I and several others have =
pointed out=20
(apparently without sufficient clarity or persuasiveness), these =
commands should=20
be viewed as an accommodation to the hardness of heart of the =
Israelites, like=20
the commands regulating and ameliorating divorce and slavery. =
Jesus stated=20
the principle with respect to divorce, but it is legitimate to extend it =
to=20
other areas as the New Testament does, explicitly or implicitly. =
The=20
Israelite captor was not permitted to rape the woman on the spot (a =
common=20
practice in war time up to the present time). Indeed, he was to =
marry her=20
the same way he would marry any other woman. Let's not forget that =
women=20
had little or no say in any marriage in those days. Leah, Rachel, =
Abigail,=20
and most other women whose marriages are mentioned in the OT seem to =
have had no=20
choice in the matter. Rebekah and Samson's wife had, apparently, =
some=20
choice - at least the right of refusal, it seem. I am not at all =
saying=20
this was a good thing, but it was the normal state of affairs. The =
erstwhile groom, or perhaps more often his father, dealt with the father =
of the=20
future bride. This practice still goes on in much of the world. =
Since the=20
captive woman's parents had been slain (another issue), there was no one =
to=20
speak for the woman. Again, this was not a practice that took the =
woman=20
into account, and we rightly consider it sub-Christian (for the woman's =
right to=20
make a choice see I Cor. 7:39). But Deut. 21:10-14 gives the =
captive woman=20
the same choices (i.e., none) and the same rights as an Israelite woman =
entering=20
into marriage.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>4. "As I understand your =
position,=20
you would not preach the above, but you WOULD preach that these were =
God's Words=20
for those days and that therefore women WERE property in those days and =
that God=20
not only condoned that but commanded it and that the soldiers of that =
day WERE=20
to follow those instructions and that God approved of their =
actions. Do I=20
understand you corrrectly?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>My answer: No, you do not understand =
me=20
correctly. Women were not the property of men as far as God was =
concerned,=20
then or now. Genesis 3:16 states that a husband would rule over =
his wife,=20
but that is a consequence of sin. None of the consequences of sin=20
enumerated in Genesis 3 are good things; they are bad things. They =
are=20
bound to occur, but Scripture uniformly presents them as bad =
things. =20
Again, what God commanded was a limitation, amelioration, and regulation =
of the=20
behavior of the victorious Israelite soldiers. The history of =
warfare up=20
till the present day shows that the unrestrained behavior of soldiers =
towards=20
the enemy's women is normally far worse than the scenario in Deut.=20
21:10-14. I have no doubt that not a few Israelite warriors chafed =
under=20
the command that they could only have sexual relations with a captive =
enemy=20
woman if they were prepared to marry her and treat her like an Israelite =
wife;=20
probably not a few decided it was not worth it and left the women =
captives=20
alone. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>5. "The advice given =
above assumes=20
that women are property. Is this an ethical stance anyone here =
would take=20
today? Should women be regarded as property? If not, why =
not? =20
Does God (today) regard women as second class persons? Did he so =
regard=20
them at the time Moses made this speech?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>My answer: You are wrong; the advice =
does not=20
assume that women are property. See the answer to 4, above. As for =
second-class persons, Galatians 3:28 answers that well enough. The =
OT=20
makes the same point as well. To be sure, for the most part the fortunes =
of=20
women were bound up with those of their husbands, but let's remember =
that when=20
Joshua was allotting the land of Canaan to the tribes and clans of =
Israel, he=20
made sure that the daughters of Zelophehad received an inheritance =
(Josh.=20
17:3-4). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>6. "The advice given =
above says to a=20
young man that it is OK to capture a young woman, forcibly rape her, and =
then,=20
if she does not satisfy, turn her loose. Your position is that God =
approved of this, at least at that time. I assume you do not think =
it=20
would be approved (by God) today. When did he change his=20
mind?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>My answer: Your characterization of =
the scenario=20
in Deut 21:10-14 misses the mark entirely. Others have dealt with =
the=20
question of whether the man would "forcibly rape" the woman by =
doing=20
this. I view it as a forced marriage rather than a rape, and =
believe there=20
is a difference; others may disagree. Forced marriages are a bad =
thing,=20
like slavery and divorce, but an unwilling wife has the same legal =
rights as a=20
willing wife. In Deut. 21:10-14 we find God writing those rights =
into=20
law. And, as Paul Seely (I think) pointed out, most female =
captives would=20
probably have viewed a forced marriage with the legal rights of a wife =
as better=20
than any of the alternatives. Not the life they would have chosen =
prior to=20
war, but the best life available given the defeat of her people. =
Again we=20
have here a case of accommodation to the hardness of heart of the =
Israelites,=20
who were just as sinful as you and I. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>That's enough, I think. Again, =
I don't=20
believe prolonging this exchange would be interesting or profitable to =
anyone=20
and will not do so. Of course, Burgy, should you come out with =
some other=20
outrageous ideas I will feel free to respond to them, and trust you will =
do the=20
same with me. Iron does sharpen iron, and I think that the =
exchange has=20
been useful up to this point. The last word is yours.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Bob Rogland</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> <BR> =
<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C23284.A2EE6700--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 00:17:56 EDT