The parallels between creation and the flood are considerable, but they do not end there, Noah, the chief figure in the flood story, is described as a “second Adam.” At creation, the animals are brought to Adam, in the flood story the animals are brought to Noah. “Pairs of creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark” (Gen 7:15). Note the similarity of language in the instructions God gives to Adam and Noah (Gen 1:26-30; 9:3-9). Noah’s diet is prescribed by God just as Adam’s was in the original creation.
Noah is described, therefore, as a second Adam, a new Adam. In fact, the very language of the Hebrew is parallel. The name “Adam” means “earth.” Using the very same Hebrew term Gen 9:20 says, “Noah, a man of the soil (adamah), proceeded to plant a vineyard.” Noah was a man of the earth. Was Adam a man of the earth? “And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.” (Gen 2:7) Furthermore, just as Adam fell into sin and shame by eating from the fruit of a tree (Gen 3:5-10), Noah shamed himself by drinking from the fruit of the vine (Gen 9:20-23). It says of Adam that when he ate the fruit, his eyes were opened (Gen 3:5,7). It says of Noah that after he became drunk, he awoke and he realized what had happened to him (Gen 9:24).
There are amazing and purposeful parallels between the story of creation and the story of the Flood. When the Flood is described, the language of Creation is used. When the new creation after the Flood is described, the language of Creation is used again. In other words, God used the language of the past to describe His working in the present (I apologize, Creation and Flood below should be side by side so you can see the parallels more easily, but my blog program can’t seem to do that):
Creation
Waters cover earth
Spirit overshadows waters
Waters divided
Dry land appears
Image of God
Dominion over earth
Fruitful and multiply
Adam
Formed from the earth
Put to sleep
Woman formed
Shamed by fruit of tree
Paradise
Tree of life
Test
Serpent
Covenant implied
The Flood
Waters cover earth
Wind blows over waters
Ark passes through waters
Dry land appears
Animals afraid of Noah
Fruitful and multiply
Second Adam (Noah)
Man of the soil
New earth formed
Shamed by fruit of vine
Covenant renewed
When you compare the two stories, it becomes evident that, in these two mighty acts, God was acting according to a consistent pattern. You could say that God’s actions in the creation story predicted His actions in the time of the Flood. Since God is consistent, His past actions are predictive of His future actions.
But while the pattern between the two accounts is plain, there are also differences between the Flood and the creation story. There is no serpent in the Noah story, no testing tree, nor a Tree of Life, and no woman plays a prominent role. So not all the elements of the creation story are repeated in the flood story. God is consistent, but not mindlessly so. God uses the language of the past to describe His later actions, but the correspondence is not point by point. God is consistent, but He is not predictable. We will see this pattern again in God’s third mighty act of the Old Testament, the Exodus.
Four Mighty Acts of God (Creation and the Flood)
When you look at the big picture of the Old Testament you discover that everything centers on four major acts of God, Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, and the Return from Babylonian Exile. Most of the prophecies in the Old Testament were concerned about one or more of these four great events. At first glance it may not appear that this process has much to do with Revelation. It will, however, provide the foundation upon which a sound understanding of Revelation can be based. We will begin at the beginning.
In the original Hebrew of Genesis the Flood (Gen 6-9) is described as an undoing of Creation (Gen 1-2). When you compare these two stories, you notice that the Flood is a piece-by-piece undoing of the creation. The destruction of the Flood is followed by a re-creation that puts the world back together again. While this is obvious to the reader of the Hebrew you can also see a lot through a closer look at the English text.
In creation, for example, God followed a process of separation and distinction. He separated the waters from the dry land (Gen 1:9). He used the atmosphere to separate the waters above from the waters below (Gen 1:7). And that’s not all. “God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.” (Gen 1:4) “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.’” (Gen 1:14) Separation and distinction, then, are the how of the creation process.
Now let’s compare the above texts with the way the Flood is described. “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month–on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Gen 7:11-12) According to this text, the waters under the earth came up and the waters above the earth came down. What God had separated in the creation came together and that which was distinct became unified again. The Flood was a reversal of the separation and distinction that took place at Creation.
“The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.” (Gen 7:20) In creation, the waters were separated from the dry land; in the Flood, the waters once again cover the dry land. In other words, the destructions of the Flood return the earth to the condition it was in before Creation: “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (Gen 1:2, cf. 8:1).” So the Flood is described as a bit by bit undoing of the Creation.
In Creation there were not only distinctions but also unities. These unities included the relationship between Adam and God, between Adam and Eve, and between the human pair and their environment. In the flood story these unities are also reversed. The Flood occurs because of a breakdown in the human relationship with God (Gen 6:5-7,12-13). People also begin to hate and murder one another (Gen 4:-8,23-24; 6:13). The environment falls apart and the human ability to control the environment is destroyed (Gen 6:17; 7:10-11,23). So, in the flood story, that which was separate in creation comes together and that which was united is torn apart.
The decisive point is this: the language of the flood story is the language of the creation. The flood story applies the very same language used in the description of the original creation. Then when the destruction of the Flood is over and the waters have gone down, Genesis 8-9 describes the re-creation of the world. “But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth and the waters receded.” (Gen 8:1)
With this “wind” (same Hebrew word as “spirit” in Gen 1:2) the process of re-creation after the Flood began. The language of this re-creation parallels the language of the original creation. Once again the dry land appears (Gen 8:13); there is a renewal of the seasons (Gen 8:22); and there is talk of human beings in the image of God (Gen 9:6). And this time the distinctions God has created are guaranteed: “I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Gen 9:11)
What I hope is clear at this point is that the language of God’s second mighty act–the Flood–is parallel to that of the first mighty act–the Creation. The Flood is the destruction of the original creation. God takes His own creation apart, much as a child might take a Lego creation apart piece by piece. He then rebuilds it piece by piece in the same language and style as the original creation.
The Patterns of Bible Prophecy
Prophets are making a comeback in today’s world. The National Enquirer tabloid is full of them. Perhaps you’ve heard of Nostradamus, the sixteenth century French physician and chef of Jewish heritage. Born to a father forced to convert to Catholicism around 1501, Nostradamus became renowned on account of predictions that seemed to come true a short time after they were made. Emboldened by his success at predicting the near future, Nostradamus tried his hand at predicting major events over the following two thousand years or so. He laid out his predictions in a thousand four-line poems or quatrains, divided into ‘centuries’ of a hundred each. Many of his predictions were even attached to specific dates.
The most famous of Nostradamus’ dated predictions was his prediction for the year 1999:
The year 1999, seven months,
From the sky will come a great King of terror,
To resuscitate the great king of Angoulmois;
Before, after, Mars will reign by good luck.
This language is clearly ambiguous. Many looked for its fulfillment in terms of a meteor shower or some other heavenly event. Most of these also anticipated that some significant conflict would break out during the year, if not in the month of July itself. But the date came and went and nothing of the sort was observed.
In the mid-60s I was aware of another alleged prophet named Jean Dixon. She claimed to have insight into detailed future events. Two of her predictions seemed verifiable enough that I made note of them and watched for the fulfillment. One of these predictions was that the unpopular views of Barry Goldwater (anyone remember him?), a losing Republican candidate for the presidency in 1964, would be vindicated within the next decade. I’m not aware that that ever occurred. Another prediction of hers was that the scrapping of a miniature military missile project would prove to be a huge mistake by the end of the 1970s. That missile was never missed as far as I know. The concept of prophets is something we’re used to. The concept of successful prophets is another matter.
One of the first things you notice about the Book of Revelation is its claim to be a written prophecy (Revelation 1:3 and 22:10). For those who know the Bible, that recalls the Old Testament, where there are many examples of prophetic writings: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and Malachi among others. The Bible contains many models of what prophecy is like. As we examine these models, we gain a clearer understanding of how to read the prophecies of Revelation.
The exciting thing about the Book of Revelation is that it makes a number of predictions about the future. Many of these predictions are still unfulfilled. This raises the question as to how we can accurately understand prophecies that are yet unfulfilled. What can we learn about our future from Revelation? How can we avoid the interpretive mistakes of the past? The only safe way to interpret unfulfilled prophecy is to understand how prophecy was fulfilled in the past. The Bible contains many prophecies that were already fulfilled within the biblical context. As we study these fulfilled prophecies, we can learn how to handle the unfulfilled prophecies of Revelation in a responsible way.
So in this series of blogs we will observe how prophecy works throughout the Bible. We will look at how the language used to describe the future compares to the actual events which correspond to that language. In this series of blogs, we are not looking at Revelation itself, but discovering the broad biblical groundwork for how Revelation should be understood. As we look at the entire Biblical witness, we will see patterns of prophecy that continue in the book of Revelation.
Conclusion of Women, War, and the Bible
Let me share a few practical thoughts that I take from the careful and painful study in how women were treated in ancient wars and how God implemented incremental, redemptive movement in the midst of ancient abuse and violence.
One question is at the forefront of a series like this. Based on what we have learned from the Bible and the Ancient Near East, how does God want us to handle challenging situations like Haiti, Ukraine and Israel/Gaza. In many ways our culture today is no better than that of the Ancient Near East. In spite of the advances made in the Geneva Conventions, war rape is still practiced today and, in the case of Hamas, it is even a subject of boast, a particular painful way to “even the score” with an enemy.
It is clear from the Scriptures that God does not approve of atrocities of war. He grieves the consequences of actions performed by His own people as well as their enemies. But the God of the Bible is realistic, even He can’t solve it all human injustice with a “snap of the fingers”. God’s actions in this world are constrained by the cosmic conflict. So if you are a person doing all they can to bring peace and reconciliation into this world, don’t blame yourself when things don’t seem improved. Even God does not get everything He wants. Many of our best efforts to make a difference in this world will not succeed and other efforts will result in only minimal success.
I think we can take two major lessons from the above studies. 1) When we do attempt to act redemptively, we are on the winning team, even when there is little visible improvement. God only asks us to do our level best, God will sort it all out in the End. The resolution of all the injustice in this world is not our responsibility. Something better is coming and God is the One who will see to it.
In the meantime, 2) There is something we can DO. Like God, we can work for incremental improvement. These small improvements may be disappointing to us, but they forecast that something better is coming. As an old Jewish proverb says, To save one person is as if you saved the whole world. Doing all that you can to implement change is God’s work. You are doing what God does, you are doing what God would do in your place.
The Bible often presents things that are less than ideal. Human hearts are hard. The Bible indicates that even God must be very patient with the human condition. When we mourn the situation, God mourns with us. When we work to make a difference, God works with us. When things don’t work out quite the way we had hoped, we can be patient, because God is also patient.
Revisiting Deut 21:10-14
I apologize for the long gap in time since the last blog. I have been occupied with many things. But I am determined to increase the pace and also catch up with your comments and questions.
With the previous blogs in mind, let’s revisit Deuteronomy 21:10-14:
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.”
When viewed in light of today’s ethical standards, the instruction here seems ethically deficient. But it was not written to our day, it was written to a much earlier time, with horrendous standards for the treatment of women in the context of war. In light of ancient war practices, the guidance Israel received from God in this passage can be seen as a remarkably redemptive advance on ancient practices.
First of all, allowance is made for the captive woman to mourn her situation. She is separated from her home, her family and familiar associations. It is highly likely that her parents were killed and even possible that she was forced to witness that. The cutting of hair, trimming of nails, and change of clothing were drastic acts typical of intense mourning. Although she is a pagan, the divine guidance gives voice to the woman’s pain. William Webb imagines the captive woman saying to herself: “My world is torn apart, joy and beauty are removed from me.” The actions described are a visible expression of the woman’s inner sorrow.
The text requires a month-long waiting period before the Israelite soldier can marry her and engage in sexual intercourse. One week was the norm for mourning in the Ancient Near East. Allowance for a month was an act of compassion toward the captive woman. Given the post-battle trauma of the situation, a month is not enough, but it is a clear advance over ancient practices.
The text requires the soldier to engage in an Israelite marriage covenant before he can have sex with her. Obviously, this means that there is no allowance for battlefield rape, as practiced by most ancient cultures. Marriage would provide the captive woman protection and benefits within Israelite society, regardless of how the marriage turned out (Exod 21:10-11). And should things not go well, the soldier is not allowed to sell her as a slave. She is a free, Israelite woman now. Such consideration for the position and feelings of the woman in such a situation is amazing in its context.
On top of that, the text shows a serious concern for the captive woman’s honor. She is not just a piece of property, to be used as the Israelite soldier wishes. If the marriage doesn’t work out, both the sex and the divorce dishonor her (she is no longer a virgin). This passage, read in its larger, ancient context, shows that God was deeply disappointed at the poor treatment of women in the ancient world (laid out in graphic terms in previous blogs).
As noted in the work of William Webbs, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 portrays an incremental, redemptive ethic. God is leading them in the right direction, as fast as they are capable or willing to go. God’s goal, in directions like these, is better treatment of captive women. Does Deuteronomy 21 reflect God’s ideal? Absolutely not. God’s ultimate ethic is far higher than what is expressed here. But We catch a glimpse of God’s ultimate ethic in the way Jesus treated women in the four Gospels. I think of stories like the woman taken in adultery (John 8:3-11) and Mary of Bethany (John 12:1-8). See also the story in Luke 7:36-50. God is leading the human race toward His ultimate ethnic, one small step at a time.
Israel, guided by God, treated women differently
In the previous blog, we outlined the horrific way that women were treated in ancient wars. How does Deuteronomy 21:10-14 represent God’s incremental redemptive ethic in its historical context? While the Bible does not categorically state that Israel did not mistreat women after battle, there are a number of facts that make clear that Israel, guided by God, was very different than the ancient war practices summarized in the previous blog.
First of all, Israel’s warriors were not allowed to have sex with anyone during a campaign, not even with their spouses. Note the incident of David visiting the High Priest at the sanctuary while on a military mission. 1 Sam 21:2-5: “And David said to Ahimelech the priest, ‘The king has charged me with a matter and said to me, “Let no one know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you.” I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here.’ And the priest answered David, ‘I have no common bread on hand, but there is holy bread–if the young men have kept themselves from women.’ 5 And David answered the priest, ‘Truly women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition. The vessels of the young men are holy even when it is an ordinary journey. How much more today will their vessels be holy?’” The bread of the sanctuary was holy, and it could only be eaten by holy people. This indicates the military activity was considered as holy, with specific sexual requirements for the soldiers.
A similar passage is 2 Samuel 11:10-11: “When they told David, ‘Uriah did not go down to his house,’ David said to Uriah, ‘Have you not come from a journey? Why did you not go down to your house?’ Uriah said to David, ‘The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.’” The presence of the ark with the army meant presence of temple. Israel’s soldiers were to behave on the battlefield the same way they would behave in the temple. Sexuality forbidden in temple context. God’s temple was to be very different than the pagan temples. There was no temple prostitution in God’s plan for Israel. Furthermore, the presence of the ark in battle meant Israel’s soldiers were allowed no sexual activity.
As we have seen previously, the temple and the battlefield were the places in the ancient world where women were most vulnerable to coerced sexuality. Yahweh specifically excluded these two domains from sexuality of any kind, much less coerced sexuality. Uriah the Hittite clearly understood that these rules applied to him, even though he was away from the battlefield. He was on a mission to communicate messages from his general to his king. That meant it would be inappropriate for him to have intercourse, even with his wife. This has profound implications for Deuteronomy 21:10-14. In light of these strictures, it would be fair to wonder if female captives were completely off-limits to Israelite soldiers. Deuteronomy 21 expresses God’s concession to ancient practices, providing a way forward for a soldier who took a liking to a female captive. In the next blog we will take a second look at Deuteronomy 21:10-14, with a deeper awareness of the context in which God was operating.
War Treatment of Women in the Ancient Near East
To understand Deuteronomy 21:10-14, it is important to set those instructions into the context of how women were treated in war in the Ancient Near East. As noted by William Webb, God was introducing an incremental, redemptive ethic into a very messed-up social situation. Deuteronomy 21 shines much more brightly when seen in the context of practices that the ancient world took for granted as normal. To make this point, it will be necessary to spell out what the Ancient Near East was like. Warning: What follows may be a little hard to take at times, but it is necessary to understand what God was doing in Deuteronomy 21.
Sexual violation of women was a common practice in ancient war. In fact, it was a central part of how they celebrated military victories. For those who are into football, it was a little like spiking the football in the end zone after a touchdown. You spike the football in the very territory that the opponent failed to protect. Sexually abusing captured women enacted an enemy’s defeat at the deepest psychological level. They were abusing the persons and property that the enemy had failed to protect. It was less about passion than about exerting dominance over the “property” of the enemy. Captured women were part of the “spoils of war”.
The Old Testament bears witness to this common practice. In Judges 5:28-30 (ESV), the mother of Sisera (Canaanite general) is wondering why his return from battle is delayed: “Out of the window she peered, the mother of Sisera wailed through the lattice: ‘Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?’ 29 Her wisest princesses answer, indeed, she answers herself, 30 ‘Have they not found and divided the spoil?– A womb or two for every man; spoil of dyed materials for Sisera, spoil of dyed materials embroidered, two pieces of dyed work embroidered for the neck as spoil?’” The word “womb” (Hebrew: rachamah) here is a reference to the female vagina. Ancient understanding of human anatomy was not precise. They knew that a man went into the same opening from which babies later came out. So the word for “womb” here is sexual slang regarding the opening to the womb. This text shows that sexual violation of women was a standard Canaanite practice at the time. So much so, that Sisera’s mother was OK with it. It would be a valid excuse for tardiness.
Further evidence for sexual violence after battle is found in Isaiah 47:1-3 (ESV), which speaks about the future fall of Babylon: “Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, put off your veil, strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your disgrace shall be seen. I will take vengeance, and I will spare no one.” This is a poetic description of a rape victim; on the ground, with private parts exposed. This is what would happen to Babylon’s women, when the city was conquered.
I share these texts only because they are necessary to fully understand what God was doing in inspiring texts like Deuteronomy 21 and preserving them for us to study. An even more graphic reference is found in Jeremiah 13:22 (ESV): “And if you say in your heart, ‘Why have these things come upon me?’ it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up and you suffer violence.” This text also refers to the future fate of Babylon. Sexual violence toward their women was an ancient metaphor for military defeat. After the battle, the skirts of Babylon’s women will be lifted up and they will suffer violence.
This prophecy is not an indication that God is pleased with such actions or determines that they will happen, it indicates that God knows what ancient human beings will do when a city is conquered. Women were treated so badly after ancient wars that when a city was about to fall, men often killed their own wives, so they wouldn’t have to endure what was coming. This reality became personal for me when I discovered that several aunts were teen-agers in Berlin in 1945. When the city fell to the Russians, they were captured as a group, confined to a basement and rotated among enemy soldiers for five full days, until they were able to escape. It is no wonder that the aunt I knew best hated men and hated God (knowing only the severe picture of God that so many Christians portray).
Today, soldiers who participate in such actions often try to hide that fact, they are deeply ashamed of what they have done. But the ancients were not ashamed of this, they bragged about it. They enshrined images of sexual violence in their war memorials, in their temples, and on their city walls. They included accounts of sexual violence in their war annals. To them, such behavior was as normal as breathing. They expected to do this, and they expected that it would be done to them in return. This was the world in which Deuteronomy 21 was written. This was the world of the Bible. The question we need to address next is whether Israel was any different than the pagan nations around them on this point. When God sent the Israelites into battle, how were they expected to behave toward women afterward?
The Big Principle: The Ideal and the Real
The work of William Webb and Gordon Oeste suggests a very important principle of interpretation, when it comes to the Bible. Since God meets people where they are, God’s revelations are couched not only in the language, time, and place of the biblical writer, they are accommodated to the understanding of those receiving the revelations. They are also limited in terms of what can be expected from the human response to each revelation. While the revelations of God sometimes express God’s highest and ultimate ideals, they often have to stoop much lower than that because of human limitations.
One way to express these two types of revelation are as the Ideal and the Real. God sometimes states His ideal and invites us to reach up toward it. But at other times God deals with the real, what human beings are capable of in a given time and place. Passages of Scripture like Deuteronomy 21:10-14 do not address God’s highest Ideals for the treatment of women in war, they are very much engaged in the Real. Regulating human wars is a divine accommodation, God ultimately does not want war at any time or any place. Regulating how human beings handle war is the Real. Beating swords into plowshares (Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3) is the Ideal. So regulating the treatment of women in war is an accommodation to human weakness, not an expression of the ideal way that God wants human beings to behave toward women.
The difference between the Ideal and the Real is easy to see in Matthew 19, a passage regarding divorce. First, Jesus states God’s ideal, in God’s perfect plan there is no such thing as divorce. “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”’? (Gen 2:24) So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:3-6, ESV. The ideal for marriage goes back to the very beginning of creation. The image of God includes both male and female (Gen 1:27). When the two are joined together in marriage, the image of God is complete. As Jesus notes, in what God has joined together there is no provision for divorce. That is the Ideal.
But that is not the end of the story. The Pharisees were puzzled why Jesus left some important marriage information out. “They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?’ (based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4) He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The Pharisees suggested a priority of Deuteronomy 24 over Genesis 2. But Jesus doubles down on Genesis 2. It is the expression of God’s ultimate will. God desires a universe in which there is no divorce. The reason Moses allowed divorce is because people’s hearts are hard. God meets people where they are. God’s revelation, therefore, can express both the Ideal and the Real.
We see this worked out, not only in the writings of Moses (Genesis [Ideal] and Deuteronomy {Real], but in Jesus, Paul, and Ellen G. White we well. In Matthew 19:3-6 Jesus states the Ideal and invites people to strive for that Ideal. But when confronted with the woman taken in adultery, He does not condemn her, but invites her to a renewed focus on the Ideal (John 8:3-11). Jesus affirms God’s ultimate ideal in principle, but is very merciful in the application of that ideal. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul six times asserts God’s ideal, but then goes on to moderate it with a “but if” (1 Cor 7:1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 13-15, 26-28, 39). He holds up a high ideal in principle, but in specific instances shows great flexibility.
Similarly, Ellen G. White has many statements on marriage and divorce that sound inflexible, yet in specific applications she can apply those statements in a very flexible way. For example, many have applied her strong statements against divorce as absolutes in every situation. But in specific instances, she can be quite flexible. There was once a church where a couple divorced and each married someone else in the same church. The rest of the church were pressuring them to divorce their second spouses and get back together so they could live out God’s ideal. When Ellen White was consulted, she instead said, “Leave them alone, they have suffered enough!” Not what I would have expected. Ellen White also counseled that people should not marry someone who is greatly different from them in age. But she came under criticism for encouraging her 41-year-old son Willie to marry her 22-year-old secretary. When confronted about this she responded, “Best decision Willie ever made!”
Inspiration lives in a tension between the Ideal and the Real. God’s ideal is to hold up the highest standards in human behavior. But people’s hearts are hard. And in specific situations God reaches down into the depths of human depravity and makes the most of messy situations. God meets people where they are. And sometimes they are in a place so far removed from His Ideal that He settles for the best they can do, seeking incremental improvements that bring them a little closer to the Ideal. This reality helps us understand what God is doing in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
The work of William Webb and Gordon Oeste
I have really appreciated the research done by William Webb and Gordon Oeste in the book entitled Bloody, Brutal and Barbaric? Wrestling with Troubling War Texts. It was published in 2019 by InterVarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, Illinois. The book is heavy reading and quite detailed, but I highly recommend it for those who are willing to put out the effort and the time to dig deeper into this topic. I will be sharing a number of insights from the book along with thoughts of my own in this blog and the ones that follow.
Webb and Oeste approach texts like Deuteronomy 21:10-14 from four perspectives. I will label these four with the capital letters A, B, C, and D, for easy comparison. The first perspective is to understand the reality of the times in which the Bible was originally written. The Bible is not directly addressing the issues of our times, it is addressing another world a long time ago. While human nature has not changed all that much in the last 3500 years, human culture and practice has changed quite a bit in more recent times. The Bible was not written to address our questions and concerns, it was written to address the world of the Ancient Near East. So “perspective “A: seeks to understand the wider world to which the Bible was written, as far as that understanding is available to us.
The second perspective, which I will label “B”, addresses the ethics of the Bible itself. In the Bible we see a God who understands human weakness, and does not expect His people to understand or practice the highest ethical levels that He is capable of. Instead, He encourages His people to “be all that they can be” in their fallen condition and in the context of a very messed-up world. The ethics of the Bible are, in a sense, “frozen in time”, God’s recommendations within a specific context, not God’s ultimate ideal. One of the key insights we learn from the stories of the Bible is how God meets people where they are. God encourages people to reach for the “ideal”, but is accepting of the “real” as humanity’s best effort. In Deuteronomy 21:10-14, we will come to see God “settling” for small, incremental improvements in His peoples’ understanding and practice.
The third perspective, which I will label “C”, approaches the Bible from the ethics of today. And while this may come as a surprise to some, the ethics of today are often better than whose of Bible times. Why would that be the case? In part, it would be the influence of the Bible as a whole on the culture and ethics of our world today. Whether or not people acknowledge it, we are living in the light of Jesus’ teachings and example, and the world is a much better place because of it. Given the influence of Jesus on our world today, the ethics of today can often seem superior to the ethics of the Bible, because we are reading from the perspective of a world that has gained much from the gradual influence of the Bible as a whole, when read in light of the life and death of Jesus.
The fourth perspective, which I will label “D”, reads the Bible in the light of God’s ideals and in light of the ethics of the final judgment. D discovers in the Bible the way that God always wanted to rule on this earth, but was not able to because of the hardness of human hearts. The final judgment will be a time when all the injustices of this world will be set right, and God’s true ethic will be clearly seen. Perspective D moves beyond God’s specific responses to specific situations to see the heart of God in the biblical text as a whole. The ethics of the final judgment will move far beyond the Geneva Conventions and other ethical advances of our time. But we are not there yet.
When you compare C (the ethics of today) with B (the ethics of the biblical text) the Bible often looks out of date. It can even seem repressive, a step back from what we know today to be right. But that is misreading the character of the biblical God, who steps into the sewer of human depravity to reach us where we are and take us a step or two in the right direction. He takes us no faster that we are able or willing to go. In so doing, He takes the risk of being misunderstood by later readers of the Bible. Instead, if you compare B (the ethics of the Bible) with A (the realities of the Ancient Near East) you will see in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 a tangible movement in a positive direction. It is an incremental, redemptive movement toward a better ethic that the ethic of the time. When we read the Bible in its original context, we will discover the goal of that strange text in Deuteronomy, better treatment of female prisoners of war. From our perspective (C) that step may seem too small, but it is a real step and led Israel to treat women much differently than their neighbors at the time did.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: How Israelites Should Treat Female Captives After Battle
Deut 21:10-14:
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.”
Are you OK with these instructions? Should we make this passage the law of the land today? After all, it’s in the Bible. And the kind of battle this passage is talking about is a God-directed battle. It is God who “gave” these captives into the hands of Israelite soldiers, so the instructions that follow the battle must represent His will in some way. One option many choose is to say, “If God says it, it must be OK.” But for me and many Bible-believing readers of the Bible, that answer is not good enough. We expect God’s actions and directions to be on a higher ethical level than our own.
There are at least five aspects of this passage that trouble me. 1) The description in this passage is all about the male soldier, the captive woman’s opinion about what is going on doesn’t count. She is treated as an object. She is “spoils of war”. She is treated as property, rather than as a person with thoughts and feelings. 2) The focus is entirely on her outward beauty, not her character or her personality. The Hebrew behind “beautiful woman” combines two Hebrew words that could be translated “beautiful in shape”. The soldier is not attracted to her as a “soul-mate”, it is all about her looks. The text as written seems to reduce women to the sum total of their physical attractiveness. 3) The captive woman gets one month to grieve the loss of her parents. Keep in mind that she has not only lost her parents, she has lost her home, her friends, and her neighbors. She is a victim of war trauma. She may have seen her parents killed with her own eyes. A month would not be nearly enough to get over all of that. 4) This ruling doesn’t require her to agree to the marriage (verse 13 uses the language of a marriage covenant). This is a “shotgun wedding”. What the captive woman wants or feels is not being considered. 5) The man is not required to gain her consent for sexual intercourse after the marriage. It is treated as normal that he can have that privilege once he has waited a month and gone through the appropriate ceremony.
If I’m really honest, many things about this text seem ethically deficient. At the same time, this passage is part of the Bible, the Word of God. Shouldn’t the Bible always encourage the highest of ethical standards? Atheists often point to texts like this as reasons to reject the God of the Bible. They see the God of the Bible as someone they cannot respect and, therefore, they assume or wish that the God of the Bible didn’t exist.
The problem is that people today tend to read texts like this through the lens of contemporary culture. We are all familiar to some degree with the the Geneva Conventions and the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts. Civilized people today are expected to treat captives in humane ways, and some of the actions recommended in Deuteronomy 21 could be prosecuted as war crimes today. But shouldn’t the Bible at least equal our ethical standards, if not exceed them? That is the challenge a passage like this poses for many readers today. I will seek to address issues like these in future blogs.