A passage that seems unconscionable.

[forrestkc]

There are some passages in the Old Testament that have always bothered me in terms conscience. However, there is one passage that specifically always really bothered me. That would be Numbers 31, verses 1

[spiritman]

There are some passages in the Old Testament that have always bothered me in terms conscience. However, there is one passage that specifically always really bothered me. That would be Numbers 31, verses 1

[CSLewis]

God needed to preserve the nation of Israel; because Christ was coming. Also remember the Bible is a bloody book and was written by a different people and time than we are today. There ideas of justice and mercy are different than today's western modern views. Please keep scripture in its historical context when interpreting it.

[forrestkc]

I understand what you guys are saying. I understand that prior to Christ, we lived under the law, not grace. I also understand that there are lots other violent passages in the Old Testament, but this one is above and beyond most of the others. I probably should have explained better my problem with it. Killing in a act of war is just something that happens during times of war. In the Old Testament times, things like stoning a sinner was not considered sinful or evil either (if the punishment was stoning). However, raping little virgin girls seems hard to reconcile. For me at least, it just seems kind of hard to understand why God would want the children of sinners raped. Do you kind of get what I mean?

[Floatingaxe]

Before Christ came, this is the way that God dealt with sin. This was before Grace, God is not only a God of mercy He is also a God of judgement. After the Christians get taken up in the Rapture, and the church age is over, then we will be in the Tribulation period, God will again be pouring out some of His Wrath. And when Christ comes to fight the anti-Christ, He will completely destory Him and his entire army. During this time Christ will rule with a rod of Iron. The Lord is not only merciful, but also just.

That's right. God did not show mercy toward sin...He couldn't. He is just and cannot abide it. He didn't abide it when it came to the mixture of the Israelites with "others". The Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, and the Midianite women were considered harlots, having tempted the men into unholy alliances. They couldn't be allowed to continue to taint. The female children were allowed to live. Israel was to be purged of these people as this generation was being prepared to leave the wilderness and enter the Promise.

[ayin jade]

Who said they were raped? Those girls could easily have been taken as servants or when of age, wives. The point was that they had not known men, and therefor were not carrying any child of midianite blood.

[firehill]

I understand what you guys are saying. I understand that prior to Christ, we lived under the law, not grace. I also understand that there are lots other violent passages in the Old Testament, but this one is above and beyond most of the others. I probably should have explained better my problem with it. Killing in a act of war is just something that happens during times of war. In the Old Testament times, things like stoning a sinner was not considered sinful or evil either (if the punishment was stoning). However, raping little virgin girls seems hard to reconcile. For me at least, it just seems kind of hard to understand why God would want the children of sinners raped. Do you kind of get what I mean?

Where are you seeing anything about 'rape' in the passage?

[CSLewis]

This stems from mysoginistic (sp?) culture who had a primitive view of sexuality. How do you think they found out who was or wasn't a virgin?

[Floatingaxe]

This stems from mysoginistic (sp?) culture who had a primitive view of sexuality. How do you think they found out who was or wasn't a virgin?

They knew---they were children. Why do you call God mysogynistic?

[forrestkc]

Who said they were raped? Those girls could easily have been taken as servants or when of age, wives. The point was that they had not known men, and therefor were not carrying any child of midianite blood.

Well it says, depending on the translation: "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

When taken in historical context, one would take that to mean, you can have the little virgin girls as spoils of war. So the logical conclusion is that they would marry them as soon as they could, and then sleep with them against their will.

It just seems like a passage that requires a lot of rationalization to be palatable to the conscionable individual.