This post deals with Burgy's third challenge to those of us who have a =
more traditional view of inspiration. Burgy asked how once can =
reconcile the supposed command of God to kill all the Midianites except =
the girls who had never had sexual intercourse, who were to be saved for =
the Israelite men, with the nature of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.
First, I reiterate that the annihilation of all the Midianites =
would have been just, an application of the principle that justice =
demands that we reap what we sow. It was the behavior of the Midianites =
at Peor that brought judgment on the Midianites. Prior to that time =
there was no problem with Midian. Moses's wife was a Midianite and =
Jethro, Moses's father-in-law, was a priest of Midian. Apparently Moses =
lived among Midianites without incident from the time he fled Egypt till =
God sent him back to Egypt to deliver his people from bondage. But =
think of what the Midianites (along with the Moabites) did at Peor. =
They seduced the Israelites into immorality and idolatry. Apparently at =
the instigation of Balaam (2 Peter 2:13-15) they sought an amalgamation =
of their own people with Israel. Nothing less than the survival of =
God's covenant people was at stake. If one who leads a child away from =
Jesus deserves death (Mark 9:42), what should be done with a whole =
people, men and women alike, actively bent on turning the believing =
community away from the one true God?
I have already covered the matter of children suffering for the =
sins of their fathers in my second post and won't add to that. I will =
comment on the command to spare the Midianite maidens. =20
First, in the light of the biblical principle that the sins of the =
fathers are often visited on the children, it was gracious of God not to =
include the girls in the annihilation. We could ask why he wasn't more =
gracious, sparing the little boys as well, but the question of how to =
justify the ways of God in showing mercy to some and not to others is a =
huge theological question, dividing Calvinists from Arminians and =
puzzling all of us. I'm just not going to get into that now. Still, =
lives spared are lives graciously spared, assuming that the girls did =
not face a fate worse than death. As to that, read on.
Second, 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 23:29:42 EDT