Midianite virgins

@RandalRauser

King David didn't have an affair with Bathsheba. He raped her. There is no willing consent when the king orders that a civilian wife be brought into his presence.

True. Of course, that's a narrative description, not a divine command.

Numbers 31 describes God commanding that all Midianite men, boys, and nonvirgin women be killed. That's genocide.

i) In context, I assume this wasn't a campaign to eradicate the Midianites as a people-group from the face of the earth, but at most the Midianite adults who are captured at this particular locality. Indeed, the virgins were exempted and there are further historical references to the Midianites in the OT. As one OT scholar has noted (in private email):

ii) There is some ambiguity as to who the Midianites were, and it has been suggested that they might not have been so much a distinct ethnicity as people who could either be associated or intermingled with various peoples, such as the Moabites, Amalekites, etc. It may be that they should be regarded as a confederation of different peoples as opposed to a single ethnicity.

iii) It is particularly directed against the Midianites on account of their attempt to corrupt the Israelites, as recounted in Numbers 25. Notice the association with the Moabites in this episode. Indeed, we can might well understand that this was not a matter of “ethnics,” but a matter of “ethics.”

iv) Because the concern in Numbers 31 is particularly against those Midianites who were involved in the Midianite/Moabite incident in Numbers 25, we cannot say the action was directed against all Midianites.

v) As well, we have to take into account what is certainly to be understood as the hyperbolic character of both the language and the narrative. Indeed, after this account, there are still Midianites who have to be contended with, as evidenced by the books of Joshua, Judges, Kings, and Isaiah.

"but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (v. 18) A terrified 13-year-old who saw her family killed doesn't consent. That's rape.

i) The statement in Num 31:18 is notably terse. Probably because it takes for granted the more detailed war bride context of Deut 21:10-14. In other words, they're not sex slaves. Rather, it was meant to be understood within the kind of framework envisioned in Deut 21:10-14.

ii) Likewise, isn't the tacit implication that Midianite virgins can be distinguished from Midianite wives because the virgins haven't reached sexual maturity, and so they're not yet eligible for marriage, but will be married off when they hit the age at which Jewish females usually got married?

iii) Is that an enviable situation for females to be in? Certainly not. But as I've mentioned before, these were warrior cultures. If the men are killed, the females are totally vulnerable. They can starve or turn to prostitution. Rauser fails to consider the plight of unattached females in the ancient Near East.

The commands doesn't represent an ideal. Rather, they address a situation in which some things have already gone terribly wrong. So this is damage control. I've discussed the dilemma in more detail elsewhere:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/02/when-bible-rubs-us-wrong-way.html

iv) What does Rauser think it was like to be a woman in a heathen culture like the Midianites? They were much better off becoming Jewish wives.

For a modern comparison, consider the forcible taking of young Chibok schoolgirls by Boko Haram in 2014. They didn't consent either.

Which piggybacks on his dubious interpretation of Num 31:18.

Christians need an honest conversation about biblical atrocities.

Rauser needs to have an honest conversion about why he pretends to be a Christian when he repudiates biblical revelation. He suffers from a makeshift position that isn't consistently Christian or secular. He abodes fanatical confidence in his moral intuitions, even though the Bible writers don't share his intuitions. So what makes his intuitions true?

Rauser suffers from a Messiah complex. His self-appointed calling in life is to single-handedly redefine Christianity along progressive lines. That's doomed to fail. It will never replace biblical Christianity. And his alternative is just a hodgepodge of secular humanism with some residual Christian motifs and paranormal anecdotes.