(Judges 21:10-24 NLT) The Ten Commandments have always been for me somewhat disturbing. Why is it that stealing and saying naughty words are on the list but rape and child molestation are not. Then I came across this passage where it is obvious God id in fact not only condoning rape but actually instructing how to do it. Any thoughts?
Justification of Rape by God(Judges)
- Thread starter Sutra
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Judges 21:10-24 doesn't give instructions from God on how to commit rape. Anyone who actually reads the text, rather than quote mines the text can see that:
So (1) this was a command from the congregation of Israel, not from God.
So the first thought I have is that your questions look dishonest since even my 7 year old nephew, if he actually read the text, could get that distinction.
And (2) it doesn't give instructions on how to rape but on what they would have considered as "war-time brides." Again, just read the text in its context. Does it say they are looking to just rape the women? No… it says "What shall we do for wives for those who are left…" (21:7).
Remember that in those days they didn't have dating, they had arranged marriages. The women didn't get to choose their husbands. If the women would have been left alive in that period of time they would have either died from starvation or lack of protection from another warrior culture or they would have been made brides by some other culture or they would have simply been raped and killed. The congregation didn't give instructions to rape these women, but to acquire them as brides.
By saying that I'm not trying to condone the congregation of Israel in this instance. I don't think the Bible condones what they did either. You might say that the entire point of these narratives in Judges is to illustrate how wicked Israel has become.
This should be clear from both the broader context (Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes) and the immediate context (Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.).
(Oh... and concerning the 10 Commandments, they are a summary exposition of the law, based on the principle of love. If everyone followed the Ten Commandments they wouldn't need to specify "don't rape" since that would fall under "do not covet (that which you don't have)" or "do not commit adultery."
"So the congregation sent 12,000 of their bravest men there and commanded them..."
So (1) this was a command from the congregation of Israel, not from God.
So the first thought I have is that your questions look dishonest since even my 7 year old nephew, if he actually read the text, could get that distinction.
And (2) it doesn't give instructions on how to rape but on what they would have considered as "war-time brides." Again, just read the text in its context. Does it say they are looking to just rape the women? No… it says "What shall we do for wives for those who are left…" (21:7).
Remember that in those days they didn't have dating, they had arranged marriages. The women didn't get to choose their husbands. If the women would have been left alive in that period of time they would have either died from starvation or lack of protection from another warrior culture or they would have been made brides by some other culture or they would have simply been raped and killed. The congregation didn't give instructions to rape these women, but to acquire them as brides.
By saying that I'm not trying to condone the congregation of Israel in this instance. I don't think the Bible condones what they did either. You might say that the entire point of these narratives in Judges is to illustrate how wicked Israel has become.
This should be clear from both the broader context (Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes) and the immediate context (Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.).
(Oh... and concerning the 10 Commandments, they are a summary exposition of the law, based on the principle of love. If everyone followed the Ten Commandments they wouldn't need to specify "don't rape" since that would fall under "do not covet (that which you don't have)" or "do not commit adultery."
Last edited:
L
Sutra, your wasting your time here. go and find something constructive to do with your time.
Did you read the following verse in this passage?
Judges 21:25 "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
Sounds a bit like these days, alot of people follow their own desires and ways and don't really have Jesus Christ as Lord. They do their own thing. There is no peace like being in the will of God.
I
I'm new here but often I've asked many of the questions that are being marked down as 'time wasting'. Is it a requirement of christianity to not question things that we don't understand? By questioning that which doesn't sit well with me, am I essentially asking to be told to go find something constructive to do with my time as well?? Isn't the very act of questioning and attempting a greater understanding a constructive act?
C
It's not the act of questioning that is time wasting.
I have no problem with people who have questions.
And I'm usually willing to give people the benefit of the doubt with their questions, but I'm not going to be naive either. The person referred to Judges 21:10-24 and said that it was "obvious" that "God" was "actually instructing [people] how to [rape]."
That's not an honest reading of the text, as I demonstrated.
Anyone who actually reads the text wouldn't come away with that interpretation unless they had a major ax to grind and were looking for any excuse to attack Scripture.
So did Sutra even bother to read the text she referred to?
If so, then it looks like she is just grasping for excuses to attack Scripture... in which case it's a waste of time.
If she didn't bother to read the text she referred to then she is probably just parroting the objections of some village atheist on the internet... in which case it's still a waste of time because it would be clear that she isn't willing to put any thought into the issue herself (like actually read the Scripture reference to see if it says what the village atheist is claiming).
So it looks like these are just talking points against Christianity masquerading under the guise of questions to give them legitimacy.
(I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but it certainly appears to be the case, given the blatant error contained within the statement leading up to the question.)
I have no problem with people who have questions.
And I'm usually willing to give people the benefit of the doubt with their questions, but I'm not going to be naive either. The person referred to Judges 21:10-24 and said that it was "obvious" that "God" was "actually instructing [people] how to [rape]."
That's not an honest reading of the text, as I demonstrated.
Anyone who actually reads the text wouldn't come away with that interpretation unless they had a major ax to grind and were looking for any excuse to attack Scripture.
So did Sutra even bother to read the text she referred to?
If so, then it looks like she is just grasping for excuses to attack Scripture... in which case it's a waste of time.
If she didn't bother to read the text she referred to then she is probably just parroting the objections of some village atheist on the internet... in which case it's still a waste of time because it would be clear that she isn't willing to put any thought into the issue herself (like actually read the Scripture reference to see if it says what the village atheist is claiming).
So it looks like these are just talking points against Christianity masquerading under the guise of questions to give them legitimacy.
(I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but it certainly appears to be the case, given the blatant error contained within the statement leading up to the question.)
Ok first off I did not make myself clear and apologize for that. What I meant was that this is the word of God. No the previous lines do not say God told them to rape, the inference I was making is that the Jews are Gods people and the bible God's message. God then must approve of this behavior or he could have done to them what was done in the flood or Sodom.
Next war time bride and rape are in fact the same thing.
I have not insulted anyone here and by saying your 7 yr old can understand what I do not is just meant to be an insult. Seeking to understand that which you do not is a constructive way to spend your time, more so at least than reading a post to see how you can belittle the writer.
Next war time bride and rape are in fact the same thing.
I have not insulted anyone here and by saying your 7 yr old can understand what I do not is just meant to be an insult. Seeking to understand that which you do not is a constructive way to spend your time, more so at least than reading a post to see how you can belittle the writer.
C
I didn't say that my 7 year old nephew can understand what you can't.
I think you could understand it too if you took time to actually read it in context... that was my point.
That's why I said
Does that suggest you cannot understand what my 7 year old can? No, that's just your spin on my words.
I agree, but some questions point to the fact that the person isn't in fact seeking to understand anything. For example, I once heard someone ask the following question: "Atheists, is it true that you like to live in trees like monkeys since atheists believe we came from monkeys?"
Do you think that's an honest question?
Are they just a seeker seeking to understand that which they do not?
... Come on, we don't have to be naive and pretend that just because it has a question mark at the end of it that the person must be serious.
The fact that the Bible is the Word of God does not necessitate that God approves of everything that the Bible records.
Let's take this logic and apply it to another example, Anne Frank's dairy. In the diary she recorded the activities of Nazis, therefore she approved of the activities of Nazis.
Your logic about the Jews being God's people doesn't make it any better since the Bible also records the Jews rebelling against God. In fact, that is indicated in the very next verse of the passage you cited.
So it's still not clear whether you have actually read this passage or whether your just parroting what you heard someone else say.
Your trying to clean up your question and make it more legitimate, but it's not helping since the the very next verse would weigh against your suggestion.
If you apply this logic consistently you have to say that every time I do something bad that isn't immediately or visibly punished that God must approve of it.
You apparently aren't dead. Do you think this fact means God approves of everything in your life? If not, why would you think you can draw that conclusion concerning the Jews?
How?
I think you could understand it too if you took time to actually read it in context... that was my point.
That's why I said
"Anyone who actually reads the text..."
"if he actually read the text..."
"just read the text in its context..."
"if he actually read the text..."
"just read the text in its context..."
Does that suggest you cannot understand what my 7 year old can? No, that's just your spin on my words.
I agree, but some questions point to the fact that the person isn't in fact seeking to understand anything. For example, I once heard someone ask the following question: "Atheists, is it true that you like to live in trees like monkeys since atheists believe we came from monkeys?"
Do you think that's an honest question?
Are they just a seeker seeking to understand that which they do not?
... Come on, we don't have to be naive and pretend that just because it has a question mark at the end of it that the person must be serious.
The fact that the Bible is the Word of God does not necessitate that God approves of everything that the Bible records.
Let's take this logic and apply it to another example, Anne Frank's dairy. In the diary she recorded the activities of Nazis, therefore she approved of the activities of Nazis.
Your logic about the Jews being God's people doesn't make it any better since the Bible also records the Jews rebelling against God. In fact, that is indicated in the very next verse of the passage you cited.
So it's still not clear whether you have actually read this passage or whether your just parroting what you heard someone else say.
Your trying to clean up your question and make it more legitimate, but it's not helping since the the very next verse would weigh against your suggestion.
If you apply this logic consistently you have to say that every time I do something bad that isn't immediately or visibly punished that God must approve of it.
You apparently aren't dead. Do you think this fact means God approves of everything in your life? If not, why would you think you can draw that conclusion concerning the Jews?
How?
L
Hi Ivy, seeking is awesome, learning is awesome, questioning is great, but there are a few people that come through on the forums that arent here to learn our even discuss topics openly but are only here to slander the Word, and come against the Christian faith. They are the time wasters I am speaking about. They would be better off building a shed out the back yard and sitting in it arguing with themselves lol Hope you enjoy Christian Chat, it can be a great source for learning and a place to express what God has shown you. Ps. Question everything, so you know what you believe
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes(Judges 21:25).
This is at the end of the chapter,and as you can see it says that every man did what is right in his own eyes,which means they were not following the Lord,so do not say that God condones rape for they did what is right in their own eyes.
This was of their own doing and not the Lord.
The problem is that people do not fully understand the Bible and come to wrong interpretations of it.
Matt
This is at the end of the chapter,and as you can see it says that every man did what is right in his own eyes,which means they were not following the Lord,so do not say that God condones rape for they did what is right in their own eyes.
This was of their own doing and not the Lord.
The problem is that people do not fully understand the Bible and come to wrong interpretations of it.
Matt
You asked how forcing a woman to marry against her will is not rape. Are you telling me these men did not sleep with their wives? If they married against their will I doubt very much they would welcome going to the bed with them. That is rape.
I have in fact read the bible many times throughout my life. I quote that book because it is the authority. If I doubt that book I have to question my very faith. Questioning my faith does by no means say I have abandoned it. I put forth all these questions today because my spiritual advisor has not been able to answer them satisfactorily. Why it is being taken as a personal affront to your faith is somewhat telling.
I have in fact read the bible many times throughout my life. I quote that book because it is the authority. If I doubt that book I have to question my very faith. Questioning my faith does by no means say I have abandoned it. I put forth all these questions today because my spiritual advisor has not been able to answer them satisfactorily. Why it is being taken as a personal affront to your faith is somewhat telling.
God is a good God.God is a Holy God.God wants us to be holy as He is holy which He has shown us how to be holy when He appeared as Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ did not condone any sin and is sinless.
God does not condone rape for He is a holy God shown in the person of Jesus Christ.
God said be perfect in love in which love does not sin.
The Bible says love works no ill towards their neighbor;therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
That is the love that God wants us to have which rape is an offense towards a person so God would not condone rape.
God is holy in the Old Testament and New Testament and does not condone rape.
Of course it would shake someone's faith if God did condone rape for then He would not be a holy God that He claims.
Of course God is a holy God and does not condone rape and the Bible testifies of that.
God showed us how to love people when He appeared as Jesus Christ.Jesus Christ did not condone rape or any other sin.
Rape is an offense to a person and is not love and we have to be perfected in love to make it to heaven.
God does not condone rape.
Matt
Jesus Christ did not condone any sin and is sinless.
God does not condone rape for He is a holy God shown in the person of Jesus Christ.
God said be perfect in love in which love does not sin.
The Bible says love works no ill towards their neighbor;therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
That is the love that God wants us to have which rape is an offense towards a person so God would not condone rape.
God is holy in the Old Testament and New Testament and does not condone rape.
Of course it would shake someone's faith if God did condone rape for then He would not be a holy God that He claims.
Of course God is a holy God and does not condone rape and the Bible testifies of that.
God showed us how to love people when He appeared as Jesus Christ.Jesus Christ did not condone rape or any other sin.
Rape is an offense to a person and is not love and we have to be perfected in love to make it to heaven.
God does not condone rape.
Matt
C
By that logic all arranged marriages involve rape. And all societies today that still practice arranged marriages are involved in systematic rape. But in fact, just as is the case in arranged marriages today, the women most likely accepted the marriages. The alternative in that context would have been less desirable: all the men of their tribe had been killed. Had they chosen to live by themselves in the land, they would have probably been captured by the other neighboring warrior tribes and sold into slavery by them or been taken as wives by them.
Again, you're looking back at the issue with 21st century sentinemnts from a Western culture. Things weren't exactly peaches and cream back then. In many cultures if you didn't want your baby you would just leave it out in the sun to die or else the child could be burned to death as a sacrifice to a pagan god. Women were little more than property. These things are unthinkable in modern society because it has been Christianized.
So if your tribe is dead and you have the opportunity to acquire the status of a wife and citizenship of the conquering peoples then you're most likely not going to refuse that situation.
P.S. I haven't taken it as a "personal affront" and I don't see how I've indicated that it was taken as such. But I still find it odd that you can't explain how you arrived at the conclusion you did (God instructed the people how to rape) given what the passage actually says.
Again, you're looking back at the issue with 21st century sentinemnts from a Western culture. Things weren't exactly peaches and cream back then. In many cultures if you didn't want your baby you would just leave it out in the sun to die or else the child could be burned to death as a sacrifice to a pagan god. Women were little more than property. These things are unthinkable in modern society because it has been Christianized.
So if your tribe is dead and you have the opportunity to acquire the status of a wife and citizenship of the conquering peoples then you're most likely not going to refuse that situation.
P.S. I haven't taken it as a "personal affront" and I don't see how I've indicated that it was taken as such. But I still find it odd that you can't explain how you arrived at the conclusion you did (God instructed the people how to rape) given what the passage actually says.
Last edited: