Well, it has been a while since this subject has been seriously dealt with.
Lots of emotive and sensational expressions, superimposing 21st century culture on the ANE.... not very practical in arriving at truth. Reviewing the Ancient Near East culture and the laws that God had regarding aspects OF THAT CULTURE, has certainly streghtened my faith.
If a person doesn't believe that God exists, or if he believes that God should not have any authority ..... nothing about God will ever makes sense because they deny him the very attribute embodied in any common definition of the word "God". These people see only themselves, they by definition, must be either lawless or a law unto themselves. Believers simply do not view the world in this way.
Also, the emotional sarcastic sympathetic responses here about how terrible it is for a woman to have a month to mourn the "murder" of her parents is unfounded because there was no murder. We have all watched heart-rending crime shows where one spouse murders the other spouse. In the sentencing phase, sometimes the children barter for mercy for the murdering spouse, reasoning that they would be deprived their only other parent.
Sometimes, the decision is to put the murdering spouse to death. This sends a powerful message to all, children included about the rule of Law. So, we have even in modern times a death occurring, legally, orphaning children. Perhaps those ancient children would think twice about making themselves a combatant against God, just as a modern child (and the larger society) may think twice about murdering someone. To allow one and deny the other is hypocritical. And I might add, a necessary construct to one who would on the one hand assume God's existence while at the same time deny him legal authority, it being in itself an impossibility, unless you change the definition of the word God, which no one has attempted to do on this thread.
Again, this is just all non-sense to an atheist, or to someone who would deny God legal authority (which would divest him of his Godship by the way). To each his own.
Secondly, the example that Hint of Lime made in Isaiah reads thusly:
The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
2 Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles.
3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.
4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.
6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:
8 And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.
14 And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land.
15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.
19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
It is easy to see that God raised up other Gentile nations against Babylon. The statement about their wives being ravised was a prophetic declaration of what was going to happen, not a mandate. This practice of raping and pillaging was common among gentile nations who were not subject to the stringent laws that God placed upon his covenant people, as I have pointed out in my first response.
Thirdly, The only one on this thread who has even attempted to cite a credible source that would characterize God as someone who commissioned rape, is Leoleia. She quotes someone named Harold Washington, whoever that is. His argument seems to be that for a woman to wait a month in no way mitigates or guarantees her consent in the marriage.... thus making this a form of "rape" to modern sensibilities.
He misses the point that (a) the woman was under a righteous death sentence, and was spared. (b) She might very well enjoy engaging in a society that afforded her rights that she may have never had otherwise, especially as her only other altenative to immediate death. (c) She could of course choose to carry out the original death sentence placed upon her by God.
Again, if a person divests God of legal authority, this will sound like nonsense. But, as I have already pointed out, it deepens the dissonance of, on the one hand assuming God has Supreme Legal Authority enshrined in the common definition of the word "God", and at the same time making him subject to their own notions about justice. Indeed, aside from the specific judgment on an enemy nation hell bent on the destruction of God's covenant children, there is the condemnation of sin we are all under. Under the Law, no one deserves to draw another breath .
Now to specifically address Leolaia's cut and paste (by the way there is nothing wrong with that per se) :
Warfare for the purpose of seizing women, however, does appear in biblical narrative (Judg. 21:8-12),
Judges 21
8 And they said, What one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up to Mizpeh to the LORD? And, behold, there came none to the camp from Jabeshgilead to the assembly.
9 For the people were numbered, and, behold, there were none of the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead there.
10 And the congregation sent thither twelve ° thousand men of the valiantest °, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.
11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.
12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead ° four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Again, once a person is familiar with ANE culture and the harsh realities in that time period this makes sense. Women died in childbirth at an alaming rate and this was always a threat to the survival of a people in those times. So, this would (a) help the nation of Israel and (b) offer an alternative to someone under RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT an alternative to immediate death. In no possible way could this be construed as RAPE, except by the most injudicious superimposition of modern life (which I might add denies legal authority to God). This shows a dangerous level of either ignorance or bias on the part of Mr. Washington, whoever he is.
Another point of his:
and in Ugaritic epic (KTU 1.14-16), where the hero Kirta stages a military expedition to capture a woman from a neighboring city. Rape has accompanied warfare in virtually every known historical era. 94
Here Mr. Washington makes a logical fallacy assuming that since violent rape occurs elsewhere, then it must also occur here. This is a non-sequitur as the laws pertaining to societal absorption of captives previously elaborated upon are simply ignored. Again a gross display of either ignorance or bias.
Hence biblical commentators sometimes regard Deut. 21:10-13 as a prohibition of rape on the battlefield. 95 This is not the case, however. The law governs conduct after the victorious completion of combat: "and the Lord your God gives them into your hands" (21:10b).
Let's look at that:
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies , and the L ORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive ,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful ° woman , and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife ;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house ; and she shall shave her head , and pare her nails ;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house , and bewail her father and her mother a full month : and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband , and she shall be thy wife .
The 1st bold words are what Mr. Washington erroneously assumes to mean violent battlefield rape. However the very text he cites includes the words AFTER THAT, (the one month cooling off period) to indicate when MARRIAGE and consumation of that union could legally take place !!
My initial post from the article I referenced deals specifically with the phrase "God hath delivered them into thine hands" . To state that this means violent battlefied rape is a charge so utterly ridiculous that it literally defies almost any possible reconciliation with Mr. Washinton to sanity ...especially in light of all the applicable Laws he chooses to strategically ignore.
Would Mr. Washington also claim that this identical phrase means that David and the Israelites wanted to commit Sodomy with Goliath 1 Samuel 17 ?
This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.
47 And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you into our hands.
Mr. Washington engages in fantastic conjecture to say the least.
ISN'T THERE ANYONE HERE THAT CAN PRODUCE EVEN ONE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR WHO WILL STAND BY THE CHARGE BROUGHT BY "ON THE WAY OUT" - GOD COMMANDS RAPE ??
Because, I'd really like to personally interview such a person.