I'm writing this as a survivor of rape and a Christian of 43 years, and while your exegesis of the passage was greatly appreciated, what struck me most was your gentle but unflinching perspective of the general horrors of rape. You were neither dismissive nor lugubrious, just pastoral, empathic, and humble. I love your ministry, and today was probably the best example of why. Thank you, brother.
As a student of military history, when you read the scripture from Deuteronomy I was honestly amazed at how generous it is. That people find this problematic just shows their lack of familiarity with war. Rape has always been and even is today one of the main elements of war, and follows naturally from dehumanizing the enemy. To protect women from that to the extent that Jewish law did is honestly a miracle. Praise God!
Do you really believe the Israelites didn't pillage, slaughter, and rape just like the other tribal nations? What did they teach you about the subjectivity of historical accounts written by the victors?
What Imperial Japanese soldiers did in Nanking, the Philippines, and other places are relatively recent examples that are beyond sickening. But this sort of thing goes back to the Sack of Cremona…at least the written records that are honest. It’s very likely that as long as there was war; there was rape.
@@EnglishMikeIf you really look into the history you’ll see Israel was set apart and kind compared to other ancient kingdoms and cultures. Even those other cultures admitted r*pe, slavery, etc and even celebrated it, by depicting it in art, money, etc. In comparison the Israelites were much different. They did battle and pillage but during battle sexual acts were not allowed and they took that very seriously. Where other ancient cultures openly admitted it (because there was no reason to hide it) and celebrated it so why would just Israel lie about it? That really doesn’t make much sense, especially in the historical context and the fact back then it wasn’t frowned upon, but openly accepted as a part of life.
It's generous to force women into marriages with the soldiers that have slaughtered their families in which they'll be subject to domestic and sexual violence?
Gavin, it was excellent running into you out at the park last week. Sorry I was so awkward. I was just shocked to run into you in the flesh. 😅 Especially considering I’ve listened to a lot of your videos out at that park and then there you were. Seriously appreciate your efforts in this front and the topics you address and the approach you take. Blessings!
Hi Gavin. I'm an atheist, but I enjoyed listening to your analysis of this verse. I didn't agree on every point, but it seemed like a much more 'adult' way to deal with the subject matter than the way I've heard some apologists try explain away the unpleasant aspects (according to how we view things today) of certain Bible verses. Interpreting the verse in a historically cultural context made sense. I'm not looking to convert, but it's always interesting to learn more about how people of faith view things like this and this was an interesting insight, so it turns out an atheist can also enjoy your video ;) Take care
How is what Gavin said not explaining away the unpleasant aspects? This is classic apologetics, bending over backward as they strain towards an acceptable explanation.
@@juilianbautista4067no, he did watch the video and so did i. Justifying war crimes and shoehorning a Bronze Age book into the modern arena is the endless mental gymnastics of the apologist. Essentially advanced cope at this point.
After watching the Cannanite video, the only thing i really wanted from you was to have a reponse to this passage in Deuteronomy as well. Although i understand that these are opinions that you just pass on from other christian thinkers, it's really great because i lack the time very often to research these subjects in depth. I am soo happy you posted this because these are very sensitive areas in the Bible and you do a great job at researching, summarizing and giving us a reasonable response. God bless!
I've also seen some suggest that the Shaving of hair and cutting of nails was meant as a way of reducing the women's physical attractiveness, and thus further discouraging the captors from committing abuse.
I am very sure that that is a modern interpretation with no historical basis. Not sure about Ancient Near East region but in many Asian cultures, the "shaving of hair" was sometimes done as a sign of deep mourning and entry into a new life or new authority. We see this buy covering or uncovering of hair for married women. Regarding nails, it is doubtful that most women had long nails like today. The life was brutal back then and women had to do physical labors as well to survive and long nails would not have been practical. I think reading the bible from just the "sexual" side is not a good way. This passage is clearly a means as a mercy back then and entrance into the tribe of Israel.
@@thomasc9036 I agree reading our modern concepts of sexuality into the Scripture is problematic. As a literary teacher i read a lot of old literature from various cultures and time periods. Our western views on sexuality are so strange, unique and often extreem compared to even our own Western culture from 400 years ago. I think Atheist miss this point often. I see a lot of their arguments where it assumes modern morals or ideas that ancient people would not have considered or agreed with.
@@thomasc9036 “Regarding nails, it is doubtful that most women had long nails like today. The life was brutal back then and women had to do physical labors as well to survive and long nails would not have been practical.” Im wondering if that statement is shaped by a modern interpretation as well though. When I first read your comment off the cuff I agreed. Made sense regarding women’s fingernails and the sense we get of the harshness of pre-modern times naturally wearing their nails down. On a whim I started researching historical context for women in ancient times in regard to finger nail length and painting them. The overarching theme I’m getting a sense of as I read is that females in various ancient societies wearing long fingernails and even painting them was far more common than we imagine. Just wanted to throw that out there as I wasn’t familiar with this data either until I began looking into it.
In some ancient cultures, women dressed up so that they would be attractive to the victors. The Mosaic passage basically made the women take off their dress, so that they would be playing in front of the men who wanted to marry then for their excessive beauty.
The most remarkable part of this to me is the hair. 💇🏾♀️ If you wanted to lustfully violate them, you'd want them to keep their hair before violation. But the fact they were allowed to cut their hair as a sign of mourning (see Job 1:20) shows this was not about appealing to the men's lusts, but about protecting the women.
@@jeffbell7530 Where are you getting that idea? It explicitly says the opposite, "[14] But it shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; and you certainly shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as merchandise, since you have humiliated her."(21:14 NASB)
De Young is a fabulous scholar! I often listen to his explanation of various topics repeatedly, but haven’t encountered his approach to this extremely sensitive issue. Cheers!🇨🇦
I also would highly recommend his book or audio book on this! He discusses this and many other difficult passages in the Bible that a lot of critics of Christianity quote to us to discredit the faith.
@@BendyBeam I have Fr. De Young’s audio versions, even though I prefer written. I recently purchased his audio book, “God Is a Man of War: The problem of Violence in the Old Testament”. A fascinating book, but not something to read or listen to prior to bed, as I discovered. Nonetheless, he explores topics in a thorough manner and provides an analysis that many other authors, theologians, and scholars choose not to. Cheers!🇨🇦
Check out mike heiser. The new method scholarship uses to read bible in the context it was written is deeply helpful Exegesis is best if done this way. Exegesis within your culture. I.e. the rabbis during 1st 2nd century or the church fathers There good resources but they r not the context of the bible. There pulling meaning based on there culture.
Most pastors either gloss over or skip over these passages which is not helpful and it leaves us lay men and women scratching our heads so thank you. It helps - a LOT.
Talking about these difficult passages is great for Christians who struggle with them. Unfortunately I've noticed that non-Christians will never accept any explanation for these passages because they already have a hardened heart towards God.
@melodysledgister2468 Exactly and let's face it I think the father the lord the creater would rather us engage with these things I my self don't follow total depravity To me original sin is problematic I believe our sins our darkness is our own. But to come to that conclusion When I was like 5 or 6 The Sunday school refered to o.g. sin. To me as a kid my mind immediately reeled and went doesn't that mean that god put us in a no win situation. I stayed a believer. a few months ago I decided to court the question. And was shocked the amount of athiests that thought the same. So I began researching the doctrine It's new it started with augustine. Then I find free will. It holds that while we can do good things Tobe saved we must choose life in christ to truly do good It's the one thing I don't agree with western Christianity (but I won't be orthodox) But I would have never researched it withought research and praying And asking
@@melodysledgister2468but I guess I believe in the ancestral sin Kinda view. That we gain the ability to sin at the fall. We r not being punished for adam. I don't believe babies are sinful. Afterall they can't make a choice. To Choose christ. Our sins or ours.
I consider the possibility of a God, even the Christian God or any other representation of God. I also know that the stakes are high when it comes to God beliefs, in the sense that most believers are unable to consider that there might not be a God at all or that God is not like they perceive. I can read these explanations and can entertain the thought that they are correct, but likewise, are you able to consider that these explanations are excuses and that you are wrong about God?
I understand the necessity for free will in God's plan but hearing about all of the absolutely horrendous, evil things humans do to each other really leaves me scratching my head. Brutal rapes? Torture?? Sexual mutilation??? What an absolute f*cking nightmare of epic proportions. I'm having one hell of a time wrapping my little pea brain around this.
Yes, it does have epic proportions, and it's all part of God's great plan for the human race, that He put in motion in the Garden of Eden. Some apologists tell me that God expected mankind to sin, so that He could send His Son to die, and thus glorify Himself even more. Thus, the whole of creation reduces to a machine that tortures trillions of sentient creatures in order that God could cover Himself with glory. That all sounds like a great plan from a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God.
Very well articulated video as always. In regards to challenging passages, personally Romans 13 1-7 still bothers me and I would greatly appreciate listening to your perspective on which authorities are/are not covered.
I'm curious what difficulty you have with this passage? Is it because there is a conflict of interest with the governing powers and our Commitment to Christ?
I love the way you brought this to Jesus and how he came not to condemn but to save by his amazing grace. How God lifts up our head, restores us, clothes us with righteousness, honors us. So glad you rambled at the end!!
I love these videos. I understand other believers who may not need anything more than the weekly homily or training in their denomination's doctrine. The wonderful effect of engaging in the Word with a defense against the critic is that we are equipped to let our Sunday faith breathe freely in world we live in. We can't simply keep our faith closeted, assuming that our beliefs are oil to the world's water. Truth can withstand criticism. Many Christians find community in their lives in campus ministries, and those can be formative years. I can look back and say that the leaders of my campus ministry utterly failed by not giving its young members in their care this training. Greater confidence in Scripture, as well as engagement in the world as faithful Christians, makes our light brighter.
Thanks, Gavin. This was superbly handled and sensitively presented. War-rape is going on today - in Ukraine, I believe, and in those parts of Africa where Islamists hold sway. Our God is so kind and generous in these matters - a real lesson to all of us.
I am sure you were going to, but you forgot to mention Bosnia-Herzogovina 1992-95 when the Christian Serbs set out to ethnically cleanse the Bosnian Muslims. That also included all the above that you mentioned. My my my how we tend to look at the world through our holier than thou Christian ideals and actions !! "A real lesson to us all" ...........................................
A passage I've found to be difficult is 1 Kings 22:19-23, where we see God putting a deceiving spirit in the mouth of the false prophets. We're told in James that God does not tempt anyone, so I wonder how this specific story could align with that. Really appreciate your work and encouragement!
There isn’t a problem here brother. As theists, we believe that even evil spirits cannot do anything unless God allows or permits them to do something. You see this in Job for example. Therefore, God allows an evil spirit to entice Ahab because Ahab would rather listen to false prophets and have his ears tickled rather than listen to Micaiah who even reveals to him that they’re prophesying lies. But that’s not God deceiving. Not a single lie or word of deceit was uttered by God. He permitted evil spirits to do what they naturally do - lie and deceive.
I would advise reading something like Unseen Realm by Heiser as regards the 1 Kings passage. This is a divine council passage, very different from the pithy wisdom teachings of James (which is actually composed of re-contextualized parts of the Sermon on the Mount.) Very different genres, although calling God ‘the Father of lights’ does have a subtext of the divine council, because heavenly bodies were thought to be spiritual beings! James likes to make very sharp statements that prove his points, this is a rhetorical move and probably not to be taken 100% literally. (Consider how he articulates his ‘works are necessary’ argument - he is opposing an interlocutor who thinks they can assent to belief and never attend to changing their behavior…this is not in opposition to Paul, as is sometimes supposed.) God will indeed give people over to the powers and their own desires after a certain point, but generally speaking He wants people to resist evil desires. He is not the Father of temptation, or the cosmic tyrants (sin, death, and the enemy), rather, He uses them towards His purposes.
I appreciate what is a very respectful treatment of the text, and an excellent argument to invoke the context of that period. You've clearly spent a great deal of time wrestling with this topic and your response comes across as sincere and with a genuine desire to be truthful. That said, I do have a few objections that I would be interested to hear your take on: The passages you cite are open to multiple interpretations and may not necessarily reflect a universal or absolute prohibition on sexual activity during wartime. Have you adequately considered alternative understandings that arise from the complexities of biblical hermeneutics? One could argue that the practices described in Deuteronomy 21, such as marrying captive women after a waiting period and subjecting them to certain rituals, still perpetuate the objectification and subjugation of women. Despite framing these practices as protective measures, they inherently treat women as property to be acquired and assimilated into the Israelite community without adequately considering their agency or autonomy. Are there not serious ethical concerns surrounding the imposition of cultural norms and religious rituals on individuals who may not share the same beliefs or values? The argument you present justifies these practices based on the historical context of the ancient Near East, but it fails to address the moral implications of imposing such practices on individuals who may have their own cultural or religious identities. You do seem to cherry-pick certain passages to justify specific practices overlooking the broader ethical principles of equality, dignity, and autonomy that should guide our treatment of others. My concern is this simply perpetuates a harmful attitude toward woman. Lastly, as much as I appreciate your using Star Wars as an analogy, the analogy itself doesn't succeed in providing an equitable comparison. To me, the analogy fails because context for the movie can easily be inferred by the meta narrative of the genre of movies Star Wars is part of, in that the line between good guys and bad guys is drawn so clearly that one actually need not have additional context to grasp the shooting of the Death Star as an act of good triumphing over evil. One need not watch the movie from the beginning, ten minutes before or ten minutes after provide all the necessary context required. The context you provide is not attainable be simply reading Deuteronomy 20 or 22.
Great video, Gavin. I think what people often miss with the issue of consent is that the social psychology of people in the ANE is different than the psychology of people today. This isn't whataboutism when you take into account that God's grace does not eliminate human freedom, but brings it along and perfects it. Why is that relevant? When Jesus says "God gave you divorce for your hardness of heart", or God chooses to take Israel through a certain route because otherwise they would turn back to Egypt, we're taught that God actually works within the bounds of human freedom. He doesn't just zap people into new life. Even on the Reformed view, which Gavin (and I) hold, grace renews the will--it doesn't replace it. So if you have a society that's so thoroughly brutal like the ANE, women in the ancient world just accepted that, if their husband is dead, they need to find a spouse ASAP because otherwise they will die or live in destitution. And they have no father to regulate, so they're likely to latch onto a man as fast as they can in order to avoid poverty. We may rightly lament this state of affairs, but this isn't the same as "marital rape". God works within the depravity of the society so as to move them towards his ideal--even if at this stage, this (obviously) falls far short of his ideal--by moving them towards a step they might take from the muck of their society in the right direction.
Don't you think it's a little weird that this is the "best" outcome, though? Surely, you would agree god works towards the best outcome, so why did he even let things get that bad that such things were necessary? Of course, there were many actions god could have taken to better the situation that would not have impacted free will, but if you don't want to exercise your imagination, then I won't stop you.
@@WaterCat5 That's quite a different question though. The question I'm answering assumes that things have gotten that bad--and so why the laws are what they are in light of a culture that has gotten to that point. Now, why would God even let things get that bad? That question can be asked of any evil God permits. God hasn't told us why, so I don't think I can pry into the mind of God so as to tell you why. However, my not knowing why God has permitted this or any evil isn't itself an argument against the existence of God. One would have to show that there *couldn't in principle* be a good reason for God to permit this (or any evil). And I don't know how one would do that. I suppose one might try to say something like this: an omnipotent God can bring about any ends he wills, and an omnibenevolent God would opt to secure an end without evil. Hence, he should be able to bring about any end he seeks without evil. But God's omnipotence doesn't entail the ability to do the logically impossible. God cannot create a 5 sided square, for instance, since this is just a contradiction. One would have to show that there is no possible worth-while evil-permitting good--some good brought about through the permission of evil--that could justify God's permission of this or any evil. But again, how could one show that?
@@anglicanaesthetics Right, but the issue of it getting that bad in the first place is just as paramount as the actual events in that particular time. In order for the christian god to have the attributes most Christians claim he does, he must behave consistently through time. This suggests that he does not, which undermines the idea that he is consistent. If you wish to throw all uncertainty on the "mystery" of god, be my guest, but I can think of a lot of reasons why god should have intervened earlier and none of why he shouldn't have. Am I just to ignore all my reason? Even if I do not have absolute proof, I am not the one trying to assert god is all good. Merely showing that god is probably not good is already a great proof in my mind. I think an all good god would make sure we know of his goodness, so the fact that I can sincerely doubt it means such a being doesn't exist. So I do think a probabilistic argument has great weight, sufficient at least to force honest christians to acknowledge that a reasonable person could find their god to be most definitely not all good all the time, and Christians have no definitive proof otherwise. This is ultimately what I care about. Too many Christians like to say god is "obvious" and that his attributes are equally so. This is quite clearly not the case.
Thank you for this, Dr. Ortlund! It disgust me to the core to hear of what awful dehumanizing occurreds in the world. The abusing of the strength of a stronger party is simply inexcusable. I am infinitely grateful that you help show that the true God - the ultimate stronger Party - has always found such acts just as unspeakably disgusting as we all should. Thank God for His mercy on the weaker side; none of us would have any hope without it. As far as other hard passages go, I might appreciate your take on the 'Women be silent' type passages. I know our good friend Mike Winger also did a LENGTHY series about such passages but to hear your apolitic on it would be really helpful to my fellows who also find these passages worth conversation. Thank you, as always. God bless!
Thank you for your ministry; I've been both challenged and encouraged! Taking you up on your invitation, could you address the topic of head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)? Also, could you help unpack Paul's explanation involving "being baptized on behalf of the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:29? The Lord bless you and keep you!
Thank you, sir. I've been in a season of wrestling with the difficult passages of the OT, and their implications to the whole of my faith, and how it colors our understanding of the gospel and God's ultimate purpose. Deep dives like this are so very helpful in presenting a reasonable understanding, because they take into account the historical context and make VERY clear that we can't simply read the Bible through the lense of our current presuppositions which are, ironically, based on a world made possible by the transformation of it through the influence of the gospel itself. I find, sadly, that local churches don't usually have time or resources to go into these difficult verses, and that many in the church don't care to wrestle with them - understandable, in light of all the other things going on in life and the world, but I have found it essential to have what I feel called to have - a ready defense for the hope that is within me. I could say more. Maybe one day when we can chat in person. God bless you and your ministry, and thanks for taking the time to address these things in a gentle, clear, and loving fashion to all viewers, believer and non-believer alike.
@@Boundless_Border Sure. Primarily, the historical context in which the rules to the Israelites were given, and also how Jesus addressed the early history of the Jews and Jewish laws that were essentially transforming a primitive people into a future ideal, which is ultimately delivered not in the nation's obediance to the law, but in Christ. BUT ALSO - my comment on this video is more about the measured, gentle presentation of these ideas. Gavin is explaining why he believes this way of thinking, but isn't so conceited as to think he's dropping the mic on a subject. I appreciate the approach. I also just like not shying away from dealing with these difficult parts of the OT.
What a superb video! Thanks for this. So helpful, against the background of the larger culture. The question of the woman's consent is still a tough one - but as you say, arranged marriage is very common, singleness is close to a death sentence, and she is given full rights as an Israelite. Not a timeless moral principle - but a workable solution in that culture, and far better than the alternatives.
Hey Gavin, Some ideas for difficult passages are Joshua 7:24-26 and Numbers 16:25-33 which are two instances it appears God is implicated in killing children. The death of David’s firstborn could also be helpful to cover.
I don't see the Joshua passage as implicating God in the killing of children as it only implies Achan is stoned and burned to death. As for the other passage: absolutely is a tough one to tackle and does seem to implicate God's own hand and the power of punishment that does seem to affect children of unknown age(s).
Just those? What about Gen 7:21, Ex 11:5, Deut 20:16, Num 31: 15-18, Josh 6:21, 8:25, 11:12-15, 1Sam 15:3... and one could go on. "God" either massacres children directly (Gen 7, and again in Revelation) or directly orders it...not just "implicated in" it, but demanding it. You have one bloodthirsty god to discuss.
@@Revivalism23 I'm aware of what it is...doesn't change the basic problem though. The symbolism the writer revels in and celebrates so eagerly is the symbolism of bloodshed, massacre, and revenge. Falls right in line with the character of this "god" according to the bible, from beginning to end. It's the reason christians need professional apologists (or "excusegists"), there's just so much of this to try and tapdance around and interpret away.
Interesting stuff. I would like Gavin to look at Numbers 31:17,18 where Moses instructs the commanders to "Kill all the boys, and every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has not slept with a man"
This was helpful Gavin! Thank you! I would love a video that covers the final chapter of 1 John. I've been very confused about that passage for a long time.
I just finished Bloody, Brutal, and Barabric by Webb and Oeste. I highly recommend it. It's very accessible for a scholarly work, but be warned, it's a difficult read conceptually. It helped me more with these questions than anything else, so far.
Amazing! Would you do a video about the killing of boys and women in Numbers 31 and on Deuteronomy 20 10-18? Critics day that Ancient Near East rhetoric warfare can't be applied to that passage.
In Numbers 31 it seems like Moses was the one in the wrong, as there is no command from God for him to do so. This opinion has quite an ancient precedent, as it was held by some Rabbinical teachers as early as the 1st century AD.
I know this answer doesn’t satisfy nonbelievers, but speaking as a believer to presumably another believer, I am perfectly content with God taking anyone’s life at any time for any reason He judges fit. All life belongs to God and all life is ultimately reclaimed by God. It’s natural for us to desire and seek explanations though.
I'm hoping to do a separate video on this passage. I am currently researching and would be interested in any sources you have regarding that rabbinical teaching. thanks.
@@TruthUnites Thanks a lot, Dr. Ortlund, for what you do. Fun story. In my last year of high school, I got an excellent mark💯 in an essay thanks to a quote from you. So thanks a lot😚
Would be so great if you could respond to the videos from digital hammurabi (bowen and co) that they have on their channel objecting to your slavery/genocide/rape videos. They have legitimate good counter arguments and it wouls help alot to hear your push back.
Human nature can be dark and beastly. The Law of Moses restrained the extremes of human depravity while making practical concessions in certain areas because of the hardness of hearts. The Law moved humanity closer to the ideal.
As Jesus told us, not everything Moses gave to the House of Israel was the moral perfection of God (Matthew 19:3-8). He was designated the servant of God and delegated a job to do, and he did it. Moses made decisions and followed the advice of others (Exodus 18:14-26) and also taught the commands of God. But even the best of Moses, including the Decalogue, were not complete in righteousness (Matthew 5:21-47). Those who follow Christ, on the other hand, are called to live up to the moral perfection of God as closely as possible in this life (Matthew 5:48), relying on the indwelling Spirit to empower us for such love and good works, knowing that his grace covers us when we all fail.
The Matthew 19:8-9 verses are specifically talking about divorce. Trying to use it for anything else takes it out of context and it can become a tool that can allow someone to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws are “timeless” or not. That can have many unintended consequences.
I appreciate your concern for the dignity and respect for women, as well as your horror of the sexual assault. Too bad God didn’t feel the same way and simply outlawed this practice.
I really appreciate your delving into this. Would you be willing to compare/contrast the plagues of Egypt, especially the death of the firstborn with the same ethical rubric people tend to use for the Canaanite conquest? It seems the issue of harm to innocents applies even more to that. Surely if people want to judge Gods morality, it doesn't matter whether God orders an angel or the Hebrews to carry out his judgment?
As the Bible says "the fear of God is the beginning of the wisdom". Consider what you wrote. Before the 10th plague of Egypt, there was Noah's flood where God exterminated everyone including women and children because the sin filled the earth. There was the Tower of Babel and Sodom and Gomorrah. However, you seem to think somehow the plague is more relevant regarding" issue of harm to innocents applies even more to that"? God had done and commanded many terrifying things but it was always to sinful nations. We are so used to "loving and caring Jesus" (American version) that Jesus is coming back to judge the world...as in EVERYONE including Christians past and present. It's heaven or hell. Shouldn't that terrify you if you are a believer? Martin Luther once told Erasmus that "your though of God is too human". God's will to restore the creation from the sin by man, but will use HIS way, not man's.
I mean, if God is real, he doesn't need protection of h8s reputation, wouldn't you agree? Instead, this is historical context of an often criticized passage. If you think anything stated was false, bring some receipts. Otherwise, give people the benefit of the doubt on motivation like you would want.
@@Aesop531 Well apparently God doesn't need anything, if an omni God. But in the multi-religious world we live in, humans talking among themselves will need to make excuses for the God they worship. "If you think anything stated was false, bring some receipts" I'm not stating anything to be true or false. I'm saying that maybe God isn't all good and that possibility should always be left in the conversation. After all, if God is not an omni God at all, how hard is it for God to want its believers to think that it is?
@JohnCamacho Sure. But you agree that an explanation is not necessarily an excuse, right? My point is, an omni God can do what he wants because everything is his. Who can or should judge him? If we can give a pregnant mom total sovereignty over the baby in her womb (not sure where you stand on abortion) without question or judgment, how much more deference should we give to the creator of the universe and ourselves? Thus, any "excuse" is an explanation to help humans understand his character, not an apology or plea for acceptance. At least it shouldn't be.
@@Aesop531 "But you agree that an explanation is not necessarily an excuse, right?" Sure but even if an explanation is just an explanation it may not be true. Also, we don't ask for explanations of the positive passages, just the negative ones. "Who can or should judge him?" Anyone who is considering worshipping him "Thus, any "excuse" is an explanation to help humans understand his character," "His character" = the character believers are trying to promote. But to remind you that we don't know God at all. We have perceptions of God handed down to us. And not forgetting that God has chosen to not communicate with us. Wouldn't give us the time of day. How are we supposed to build trust and a relationship that way?
@@Aesop531 " If we can give a pregnant mom total sovereignty" I don't like human centered analogies mapping on to God situations because we have the narrative that God is perfect and all knowing. That makes those analogies fail. Women who want abortions for serious reasons - they were raped, particularly pre-teens or the mother's life is in danger - are doing so because they live far from perfect lives. But anyway abortion is a large topic and that's all the time I have today.
I've always struggled with the law about having a wife while in bond servanthood. I believe the passage was in Deuteronomy. It essentially commands that if a man acquires a wife and children while in slavery, once his term is complete, if he wishes to be with his family he must agree to lifetime servitude. Otherwise he can leave a free man and the children and wife are slaves of the master.
It's seems pretty self-explanatory. Enemies defeated and abused his people, including killing children. The psalmist wants God to mete out fair justice (or, understandably, revenge) against them. I don't see how modern folks that are aware of, for instance, the war in Gaza wouldn't understand the sentiment (for either side). Regardless, just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean God condoned it.
Hello Gavin, This is an excellent video! I would be really interested in a video on Genesis 1:6-8. It is one of the toughest passages for me with because both conservative and liberal interpreters seem to understand the "waters above" to be a heavenly sea that doesn't exist/no one in the modern world can believe in and have any intellectual credibility. I've read quite a bit about whether the Bible promotes "ancient cosmology," and it is troubling to me. Your videos have been a big help to me, and I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
I've heard it said by people who are supposed to be in the know, that the passage concerning the woman caught in adultery is an accretion that didn't exist in the earliest manuscripts. This was not something that I wanted to hear, but because the story is consistent with what I'd expect Jesus to say, I choose to regard it as true. It's too good not to.
Great video as always! Off topic question but do you think you'll ever do a video addressing the textual concerns for the woman caught in adultery passage?
Hey Pastor Ortlund, what about Judges 19:22-30? It's the story of a woman given as a concubine that eventually gets cut into pieces and shipped around Isreal... it always confused me even though I feel I understand on a basic level. Any thoughts? Thank you for all your work, and God bless you sir.
Much of Judges should be read in a descriptive and not prescriptive way in light of the repeated refrain of "In those days there was no king in Israel." and often combined with "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Judges seems to be a spiral down into depravity where the stories get more and more horrific and that story fits inline with that and does not seem to have God condoning the behavior of the "owner" of the concubines actions. We are also seeing a direct comparison of Israel's actions to basically their most evil and vile story of a depraved people without God: Sodom and Gomorrah.
@@LorenzoPelupessy yes, that is the same story. The why of cutting her up after she was abused and murdered was to inform and shame the twelve tribes for the depravity Israel had reached, but once again, none of that story is prescriptive (as in telling us what we should do, other than follow God) but rather is descriptive of showing the cycle of evil and depravity that Israel had reached that they would imitate the evilness of the cities that Israel held up as ultimate evil: Sodom and Gomorrah. No one, including the Levite, seems to be following God in that story so we should not really be taking his action of cutting up the concubine as indicative of something anyone should do but rather as being being indicative of the fallenness of Israel.
Thank you for tackling these issues that are seldom brought up and even when they are, not usually sufficiently explained from a scholarly perspective. You do such a thorough job going through the uncomfortable parts that are necessary to know. I've been reading Leviticus and the command in Lev 21:9 "If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire." was one among many challenging verses. I looked it up myself and it seems just command burning after her execution, but would like a more educated opinion on this take.
The Bible isn’t the Analects, it is not a collection of inspirational quotes. It contains real history, it is not a fairytale. It contains ‘hard sayings’ because humans are hard hearted creatures. Thank God for condescending to us while still pointing us towards something better.
Hey, Gavin, I recently saw your video on the Christianization of Scandinavia, and I was glad to see you defend the Christian historian as reliable. But that got me thinking, what about Eusebius? Do you consider him reliable, to at least an extent? I'd love to see you make a video on his work as well. Love your videos, God bless.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12, it falls along the same line as the passage in Deuteronomy 21, but I’d say it’s just as difficult, if not more. An atheist/agnostic friend quoted it to me my freshman year of college
Let me quote a footnote from the article in _Philosphia Christi_ "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?". dealing with that text: On the surface, Deuteronomy 25:11-12 appears to suggest that a woman’s hand must be cut off if she seizes the genitals of the man who is in a fight with her husband....However, a more plausible interpretation comes from Jerome T. Walsh. He makes an excellent case for depilation-“you shall shave [the hair of] her groin”-not mutilation. For instance the word translated “hand” here is _kaph_ -the “palm” of a hand or some rounded concavity such as a dish, bowl, or spoon or even the arch of a foot-rather than the commonly-used _yad_ (“hand”). To “cut off” a “palm”-as opposed to a hand-would be quite odd. Furthermore, the verb _qasas_ in the intensified piel form (ten occurrences) is rightly translated “cut off” or “[physically] sever.” However, here _qasas_ appears in the milder _qal_ form. Three other OT occurrences of qasas in the qal form mean “cut/shave [hair].” In our case, this would be the open concave region of the groin, and thus a shaving of pubic hair-a punishment of public humiliation not unusual in the ANE. (This form of humiliation is implied in 1 Sam. 10:4-5 [where “beards” is probably a euphemism for pubic hair]; cp. Isa. 3:17; 20:4; 20:4; Ezek. 16:37). Thus, the talionic punishment is public sexual humiliation (of the woman) for public sexual humiliation (of the man). See “You Shall Cut Off Her . . . Palm? A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 25:11-12,” _Journal of Semitic Studies_ 49 (2004): 47-8; also, Richard M. Davidson, _Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament_ (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 476-80.
It blows my mind that people miss that the laws followed by the Israelites were LIGHTYEARS more advanced and humane compared to the absolute BRUTAL world around them.
Because historians don't extrapolate the entire mores of tribal society warfare from a highly biased reading of one specific verse. I think you'll find that there is no actual historical evidence that the Israelites were any less brutal than average when conducting warfare in the region.
@@EnglishMikepossibly. But why is this relevant to the laws that God allowed Moses to implement? We outlaw murder and rape today, but both still occur on a frequent basis (not to mention people advocate for abortion). Does that disprove the moral value of our laws?
Forcing female captive to marry the same soldiers that just unalived their families is lightyears more advanced? It's no better than the world around them.
Read Ex. 21:7-11 in context. Yes, the word 'sell' is used but not in the modern context today. If she was truly sold as you insist would she have rights as we see in the passage. What we see being described is not sex slavery but an arranged marriage. "How is that any better?" Arranged marriages were the norm in Israel and infact many ancient cultures due to how much the family was valued which he mentions in the video, if you actually watched it . However, what differentiated Israel from other nations is that if it was to take place, both parties would have to consent (the bride and groom) like with Isaac and Rebekah. If either one later decided against it, then it could be called off like how Joseph wanted to 'divorce' Mary when he initially found out she was pregnant with Jesus not knowing how she got it. These same principles also applied to the foreign women whom they could marry only if they became Jewish through free will, not coercion (Ex.22:21; Ex.23:9).
@@TheEdBoys-j7m and sorry but even if there's more nuance or contrxt it's still full of immoral stuff. I'd just refer you to search for the episode of the Diablocritics responding to all the mental gymnastics on this video (they are more charitable than me and are actual scholars that understand the language and the context and the nations around and any details). For one I am not accussing the text of being bad or immoral on its own, it was a cultural context, my criticism has more to do with trying to spin things in a way to make it comfortable for people to say that an allmighty god would have written or commanded or even thought any of the attrocities in the bible.
@@DiegoJPintoSo they should leave the women out in the middle of a battle? It would not be wiser to lead her somewhere safe? You think women then and now think alike, but that is false. In Israel and other ancient cultures, family was considered a must have, something which Gavin brings up and you'd know that if you actually watched the video from beginning to the end. You use extreme feminist logic to try and disprove Gavin forgetting that women in ancient times wanted families similar to how men in the 70s (I'm not an American so I might misdated that) wanted mullets and were comfortable with arranged marriage, it was forced marriage that was not allowed. "But the Bible says 'If she dipleases you...' " The Bible still refers to men that way even when it involves both men and women; it's something we humans have been doing all the way from ancient times up until it was stopped in the modern era.(By that I mean the word 'men' meant both men and women). You think Ex. 21:12-13 refers solely to men? If a woman did it, it would be a shocker as the culture then would not believe a woman could do such but she would still be punished as a man would be, so if you're argument is that only men could divorce and women were men's property in Israel, then I'd advise you reconsider your opinions.
I always find your video to be pastorally sensitive and very thought provoking. You mentioned viewers giving you passages like this to talk through. What are your thoughts about the nature in which David took Bethsheba. Some would equate it with rape? Thoughts?
@@ChokeArtist411 Mosaic Law, also known as the Law of Moses, refers to the body of laws given to the Israelites through Moses in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (the Torah), particularly in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These laws encompass various aspects of religious, moral, and social life, and they include: 1. The Ten Commandments: Fundamental moral imperatives given in Exodus 20. 2. Civil Laws: Regulations for societal governance, justice, and interpersonal relationships. 3. Ceremonial Laws: Instructions for religious rituals, sacrifices, and worship. 4. Dietary Laws: Guidelines on permissible foods and dietary practices. 5. Purity Laws: Rules concerning cleanliness, health, and ritual purity. Mosaic Law played a central role in the religious and social life of ancient Israel and continues to be significant in Judaism today. It also influences Christian teachings, though the degree of adherence to specific laws varies among different Christian denominations.
Gavin, thank you so much for your thoughts! My question is, how do we distinguish something that is a “permitted due to the hardness of their heart” law and a timeless law?
I do ministry work in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. Many of my friends have missing/lost/murdered family members. It is utterly pointless to try and map 21st century Western sensibilities to cultures that take strife and warfare for granted; where you have no guarantee that you will live to age 60 (median age is 22), and you may never find a spouse. My friends have even excitedly circulated emails about a woman raped in warfare who met up a few years later with her rapist (and father of their child) and were able to reuinte, marry and become a family. Laying aside the question of whether or not the story is an urban legend.... Who the heck circulates emails like that?? I'll tell you who: my Congolese friends. And they're good with that. And if you don't understand that, you're right: you don't understand it. How much more different it is in the ancient world, where allegiances flip on a dime, and women dress themselves up when their husbands are off to battle so they'll be prized by the new victors. (And yes, that was a thing. Go look up why Queen Jezebel adorned herself when she knew the battle was over)
Have you ever considering covering Judaism and Islam in a video? I would be really interested in your biblical evaluation of both of them! I am noticing that there are many people converting from Christianity to islam here in Germany so, yea. Take care😊
Great stuff Gavin! Would there also be merit to commands from previous passages like Deuteronomy 10:19 about loving the foreigner and clothing them, and the waiting period for 1 month? I imagine that the celebratory r*pe that occurred were moments of heat and passion where the soldiers wasted no time in "celebrating". To give the mourning woman 1 month, the Israelite soldier would also be commanded to love her and clothe her. This completely takes away the "heat of the moment" lusts of that celebration and forces the Israelite soldier to "cool off", return to Israel, and continue his life as an Israelite, participating in the worship ceremonies and sacrifices where he can get his mind right and refocused on God. I would imagine that the Israelite soldier, after the conquering of a city, would see a pretty woman and had all of this in mind, knowing that she wasn't merely going to be some sort of fun prize for a time, but that he would really need to care for her, and that she owed him nothing even if he did separate from her because he would be the one who humiliated her. I could see the Israelite soldier thinking through that choice a lot more seriously because of all of that.
Hey, Dr. Ortlund Great discussion on the topic! I think you were very successful on your point. Question though, in your last video you mentioned this would include Numbers 31 (you said 21 but I think you meant 31). This seems to include several difficulties: It shows Israel killing every male among the little ones and most of the adult women. Those who are spared appear to be taken as plunder. Are you planning to address this in another video?
I appreciate Dr. Ortlund's taking on difficult topics like the Canaanite massacre and treatment of the women of a vanquished foe. I take his point about context; things were very different in ancient times. Dr. Ortlund tells us that the behavior of the Israelites in war seems to have been a notch or two above what was usual. Why is that fact so unsatisfying to me? The emotion I'm feeling is similar to the way I felt when, during the Civil Rights movement, well-meaning people would say, “Things are so much better now. We've made so much progress. You can't expect things to change overnight.” All the while people were being mistreated, exploited, and abused. The people Dr. Ortlund is examining are God's chosen people. Doesn't God have the wherewithal to mold the morality of the folks He's claimed as His own? Instead, we're supposed to be satisfied with half measures. I'm reminded of the phrase, “your God is too small.” (I think it was the title of a book in the 60s.) Instead of demanding more from His people, God actually participates in the carnage (e.g. wiping out the people before the flood and killing the first born in Egypt). I have been exhorted to focus on all the good things (improvements in the status quo, the mercy God often - but not always - shows, the grace bestowed on sinners through the death of Jesus). I guess I'm looking for consistency and not finding it.
@@anotherxredeemed Speaking as a wicked person myself, I'm very uncomfortable with (and more than a little confused by) the whole kill-the-wicked-people program. As Christians we're taught to see ourselves as fallen beings, incapable of making ourselves acceptable to God on our own. That's why we need Jesus. But before there was Jesus it seems like you became part of a righteous kill. Also, it seems like maybe some of those who were killed (like the first born of Egypt and the Canaanite cildren - assuming some were actually killed as the Bible says and their deaths weren't a just fiction of war rhetoric.) Was God morally wrong to kill the wicked? My concept of God doesn't permit His fallibility . . . but all those dead children!
@@anotherxredeemed Speaking as a wicked person myself, I'm very uncomfortable with (and more than a little confused by) the whole kill-the-wicked-people program. As Christians we're taught to see ourselves as fallen beings, incapable of making ourselves acceptable to God on our own. That's why we need Jesus. But before there was Jesus it seems like us wicked folks just became part of a righteous kill. Also, it seems like maybe some of those who were killed (like the first born of Egypt and the Canaanite children - assuming some were actually killed as the Bible says and their deaths weren't just a fiction of war rhetoric.) Was God morally wrong to kill the wicked? My concept of God doesn't permit His fallibility . . . but all those dead children!
@@anotherxredeemed Speaking as a wicked person myself, I'm very uncomfortable with (and more than a little confused by) the whole kill-the-wicked-people program. As Christians we're taught to see ourselves as fallen beings, incapable of making ourselves acceptable to God on our own. That's why we need Jesus. But before there was Jesus it seems like us wicked people just became part of a righteous kill. Also, it seems like maybe some of those who were killed (like the first born of Egypt and the Canaanite children - assuming some were actually killed as the Bible says and their deaths weren't merely a fiction of war rhetoric.) Was God morally wrong to kill the wicked? My concept of God doesn't permit His fallibility . . . but all those dead children!
Hey Gavin, I really appreciate your treatment of this. I very much wish the atheist critics would attempt to put themselves in the position of those in the ancient world before simply jumping on perceived opportunities to blast the Bible. That said, I do have a question about a bothersome passage. In Ezra 10, in an act of penitence, the Israelites agree to send away the foreign women they married, along with their children. This seems to be a punishment that falls on the women and children for the sins of the men. On top of that, leaders such as Moses never seemed to face any consequences for marrying foreign women. I know this comment comes a bit late, but if you happen to see it, I would love to hear your thoughts on the passage.
" I very much wish the atheist critics would attempt to put themselves in the position of those in the ancient world before simply jumping on perceived opportunities to blast the Bible. " - well rejoice, for Digital Hammurabi, Jennifer Bird, Kipp Davis, and Dan McClellan (not an atheist) just did a two hour video (find it on any of their channels) dismantling Gavin's many takes in this video. It does not go well for Gavin.
Do you think Numbers 31:17 was an exceptional case of executing female prisoners of war? “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.” Numbers 31:17 ESV
based upon my understanding, it seems to be that it was a very specific case wherein they were to destroy the moabites, partly for divine judgement against their wicked culture but also due to the sexual immorality and idolatry into which moab had just recently brought Israel into.
I’m also curious what it means when the prisoners set aside for YHWH were given to the Levites. How is this distinct from temple slavery (I know some scholars view it as a possibility) Num 31:47
Gavin, thanks for taking time to address this passage, as it has been one that has been incredibly troubling to me. (Psalm 137:9 is another). I would like to hear a Christian apologist deal thoroughly with the issue of *consent*. I don’t think merely pointing out that ancient cultures didn’t value the consent of women excuses the way the Bible falls into similar cultural patterns. Do you believe in the value of consent? And if so, is there a consistent Biblical basis for this? (I think the Bible is multi-vocal, and does not consistently give women equality or agency in many respects). I don’t think this is an abstract question, because Sheila Gregoire and others have shown that the conservative evangelical culture is very weak in its teachings on consent. (And I can add my own anecdotal experience to this).
Also! Another passage that would be awesome to speak on is deuteronomy 22:25-29 on the allowing of rape for engaged/unengaged. I have not seen an easily understood well done treatment of this
@tundmeista99 My bigger concern I think was with the qualification for the woman who did not cry out. But I think that is just a way of saying was it consensual or not, and I believe that God is trustworthy enough to not set women up to be abused
Thank you for this video! Can you do a deep dive into Numbers 31? It indicates that male children were to be killed, and that the virgin women were to be “kept alive for yourselves” (vv. 17-18). I had an atheist confront me with this text once and I couldn’t give him a good answer. I admit it has troubled me, so some help would be greatly appreciated!
love all your videos. Question: Are you familiar with the book "Bearing False Witness" by Rodney Stark? Reading it and wondered about it and if I should get the "The Rise of Christianity" by Stark also.
I'm writing this as a survivor of rape and a Christian of 43 years, and while your exegesis of the passage was greatly appreciated, what struck me most was your gentle but unflinching perspective of the general horrors of rape. You were neither dismissive nor lugubrious, just pastoral, empathic, and humble. I love your ministry, and today was probably the best example of why. Thank you, brother.
As a student of military history, when you read the scripture from Deuteronomy I was honestly amazed at how generous it is. That people find this problematic just shows their lack of familiarity with war. Rape has always been and even is today one of the main elements of war, and follows naturally from dehumanizing the enemy. To protect women from that to the extent that Jewish law did is honestly a miracle. Praise God!
Agreed. What the Russians did in wwii as they pushed through Germany would be a recent example…
Do you really believe the Israelites didn't pillage, slaughter, and rape just like the other tribal nations? What did they teach you about the subjectivity of historical accounts written by the victors?
What Imperial Japanese soldiers did in Nanking, the Philippines, and other places are relatively recent examples that are beyond sickening. But this sort of thing goes back to the Sack of Cremona…at least the written records that are honest. It’s very likely that as long as there was war; there was rape.
@@EnglishMikeIf you really look into the history you’ll see Israel was set apart and kind compared to other ancient kingdoms and cultures. Even those other cultures admitted r*pe, slavery, etc and even celebrated it, by depicting it in art, money, etc. In comparison the Israelites were much different. They did battle and pillage but during battle sexual acts were not allowed and they took that very seriously. Where other ancient cultures openly admitted it (because there was no reason to hide it) and celebrated it so why would just Israel lie about it? That really doesn’t make much sense, especially in the historical context and the fact back then it wasn’t frowned upon, but openly accepted as a part of life.
It's generous to force women into marriages with the soldiers that have slaughtered their families in which they'll be subject to domestic and sexual violence?
Gavin, it was excellent running into you out at the park last week. Sorry I was so awkward. I was just shocked to run into you in the flesh. 😅 Especially considering I’ve listened to a lot of your videos out at that park and then there you were.
Seriously appreciate your efforts in this front and the topics you address and the approach you take. Blessings!
so great to meet you man! thanks for saying hi! Very cool we are nearby -- hopefully our paths will cross again. Take care.
Hi Gavin. I'm an atheist, but I enjoyed listening to your analysis of this verse. I didn't agree on every point, but it seemed like a much more 'adult' way to deal with the subject matter than the way I've heard some apologists try explain away the unpleasant aspects (according to how we view things today) of certain Bible verses. Interpreting the verse in a historically cultural context made sense.
I'm not looking to convert, but it's always interesting to learn more about how people of faith view things like this and this was an interesting insight, so it turns out an atheist can also enjoy your video ;)
Take care
How is what Gavin said not explaining away the unpleasant aspects? This is classic apologetics, bending over backward as they strain towards an acceptable explanation.
Thanks so much for watching and the kind comment! I am so glad when we can talk across our differences.
@@EnglishMikewrong. And obviously you either didn't watch the video or have poor comprehension.
@@TruthUnites Our differences are what makes the debate interesting ☺️
@@juilianbautista4067no, he did watch the video and so did i. Justifying war crimes and shoehorning a Bronze Age book into the modern arena is the endless mental gymnastics of the apologist. Essentially advanced cope at this point.
After watching the Cannanite video, the only thing i really wanted from you was to have a reponse to this passage in Deuteronomy as well. Although i understand that these are opinions that you just pass on from other christian thinkers, it's really great because i lack the time very often to research these subjects in depth. I am soo happy you posted this because these are very sensitive areas in the Bible and you do a great job at researching, summarizing and giving us a reasonable response. God bless!
Difficult to discuss but you balanced very well sharing the needed details while omitting the un-needed details. Well done.
Thanks -- that is a tough balance that I tried to get -- glad it came through.
I've also seen some suggest that the Shaving of hair and cutting of nails was meant as a way of reducing the women's physical attractiveness, and thus further discouraging the captors from committing abuse.
yes, I recall reading that too -- some see it as kind of a "cooling down" time to ensure good motivation for marriage. Thanks for mentioning.
I am very sure that that is a modern interpretation with no historical basis. Not sure about Ancient Near East region but in many Asian cultures, the "shaving of hair" was sometimes done as a sign of deep mourning and entry into a new life or new authority. We see this buy covering or uncovering of hair for married women.
Regarding nails, it is doubtful that most women had long nails like today. The life was brutal back then and women had to do physical labors as well to survive and long nails would not have been practical.
I think reading the bible from just the "sexual" side is not a good way. This passage is clearly a means as a mercy back then and entrance into the tribe of Israel.
@@thomasc9036 I agree reading our modern concepts of sexuality into the Scripture is problematic. As a literary teacher i read a lot of old literature from various cultures and time periods. Our western views on sexuality are so strange, unique and often extreem compared to even our own Western culture from 400 years ago. I think Atheist miss this point often. I see a lot of their arguments where it assumes modern morals or ideas that ancient people would not have considered or agreed with.
@@thomasc9036 “Regarding nails, it is doubtful that most women had long nails like today. The life was brutal back then and women had to do physical labors as well to survive and long nails would not have been practical.”
Im wondering if that statement is shaped by a modern interpretation as well though. When I first read your comment off the cuff I agreed. Made sense regarding women’s fingernails and the sense we get of the harshness of pre-modern times naturally wearing their nails down. On a whim I started researching historical context for women in ancient times in regard to finger nail length and painting them. The overarching theme I’m getting a sense of as I read is that females in various ancient societies wearing long fingernails and even painting them was far more common than we imagine. Just wanted to throw that out there as I wasn’t familiar with this data either until I began looking into it.
In some ancient cultures, women dressed up so that they would be attractive to the victors. The Mosaic passage basically made the women take off their dress, so that they would be playing in front of the men who wanted to marry then for their excessive beauty.
The most remarkable part of this to me is the hair. 💇🏾♀️ If you wanted to lustfully violate them, you'd want them to keep their hair before violation. But the fact they were allowed to cut their hair as a sign of mourning (see Job 1:20) shows this was not about appealing to the men's lusts, but about protecting the women.
Yes, but this applied only to the attractive ones. The rest go into slavery or are killed. Read the rest of the chapter.
@@jeffbell7530 Where are you getting that idea? It explicitly says the opposite, "[14] But it shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; and you certainly shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as merchandise, since you have humiliated her."(21:14 NASB)
Fr.Stephan de young’s book “God is a man of war” has helped me a lot in these areas.
De Young is a fabulous scholar! I often listen to his explanation of various topics repeatedly, but haven’t encountered his approach to this extremely sensitive issue.
Cheers!🇨🇦
I also would highly recommend his book or audio book on this! He discusses this and many other difficult passages in the Bible that a lot of critics of Christianity quote to us to discredit the faith.
@@BendyBeam I have Fr. De Young’s audio versions, even though I prefer written. I recently purchased his audio book, “God Is a Man of War: The problem of Violence in the Old Testament”. A fascinating book, but not something to read or listen to prior to bed, as I discovered. Nonetheless, he explores topics in a thorough manner and provides an analysis that many other authors, theologians, and scholars choose not to.
Cheers!🇨🇦
I’ve heard good exegesis on this passage but none this good. Thank you for going so deeply into the historical context.
Check out mike heiser.
The new method scholarship uses to read bible in the context it was written is deeply helpful
Exegesis is best if done this way.
Exegesis within your culture. I.e. the rabbis during 1st 2nd century or the church fathers
There good resources but they r not the context of the bible.
There pulling meaning based on there culture.
Great video, thanks for putting it all together. God bless in Jesus name!
Thank you for engaging these difficult topics brother.
Most pastors either gloss over or skip over these passages which is not helpful and it leaves us lay men and women scratching our heads so thank you. It helps - a LOT.
Talking about these difficult passages is great for Christians who struggle with them. Unfortunately I've noticed that non-Christians will never accept any explanation for these passages because they already have a hardened heart towards God.
I get your point, but “never” is a strong word. God can get them, too, just like He got us.
@melodysledgister2468
Exactly and let's face it I think the father the lord the creater would rather us engage with these things
I my self don't follow total depravity
To me original sin is problematic
I believe our sins our darkness is our own.
But to come to that conclusion
When I was like 5 or 6
The Sunday school refered to o.g. sin.
To me as a kid my mind immediately reeled and went doesn't that mean that god put us in a no win situation.
I stayed a believer. a few months ago I decided to court the question.
And was shocked the amount of athiests that thought the same.
So I began researching the doctrine
It's new it started with augustine.
Then I find free will.
It holds that while we can do good things Tobe saved we must choose life in christ to truly do good
It's the one thing I don't agree with western Christianity (but I won't be orthodox)
But I would have never researched it withought research and praying
And asking
@@melodysledgister2468but I guess I believe in the ancestral sin
Kinda view. That we gain the ability to sin at the fall.
We r not being punished for adam.
I don't believe babies are sinful.
Afterall they can't make a choice. To
Choose christ.
Our sins or ours.
I consider the possibility of a God, even the Christian God or any other representation of God. I also know that the stakes are high when it comes to God beliefs, in the sense that most believers are unable to consider that there might not be a God at all or that God is not like they perceive.
I can read these explanations and can entertain the thought that they are correct, but likewise, are you able to consider that these explanations are excuses and that you are wrong about God?
@@r.a.panimefan2109 just a question about original sin....who created a system that fell because of one disobedient act?
Truth Unites is such a blessing. Love how you almost always manage to tie in a little piece of the simple gospel at the end of these deep dives 🙂
Excellent explanation to resolve our doubts about this controversial biblical passage
I understand the necessity for free will in God's plan but hearing about all of the absolutely horrendous, evil things humans do to each other really leaves me scratching my head. Brutal rapes? Torture?? Sexual mutilation??? What an absolute f*cking nightmare of epic proportions. I'm having one hell of a time wrapping my little pea brain around this.
Yes, it does have epic proportions, and it's all part of God's great plan for the human race, that He put in motion in the Garden of Eden. Some apologists tell me that God expected mankind to sin, so that He could send His Son to die, and thus glorify Himself even more. Thus, the whole of creation reduces to a machine that tortures trillions of sentient creatures in order that God could cover Himself with glory. That all sounds like a great plan from a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God.
Very well articulated video as always. In regards to challenging passages, personally Romans 13 1-7 still bothers me and I would greatly appreciate listening to your perspective on which authorities are/are not covered.
I'm curious what difficulty you have with this passage? Is it because there is a conflict of interest with the governing powers and our Commitment to Christ?
I love the way you brought this to Jesus and how he came not to condemn but to save by his amazing grace. How God lifts up our head, restores us, clothes us with righteousness, honors us. So glad you rambled at the end!!
I love these videos. I understand other believers who may not need anything more than the weekly homily or training in their denomination's doctrine. The wonderful effect of engaging in the Word with a defense against the critic is that we are equipped to let our Sunday faith breathe freely in world we live in. We can't simply keep our faith closeted, assuming that our beliefs are oil to the world's water. Truth can withstand criticism. Many Christians find community in their lives in campus ministries, and those can be formative years. I can look back and say that the leaders of my campus ministry utterly failed by not giving its young members in their care this training. Greater confidence in Scripture, as well as engagement in the world as faithful Christians, makes our light brighter.
Great comment!
Thanks, Gavin. This was superbly handled and sensitively presented. War-rape is going on today - in Ukraine, I believe, and in those parts of Africa where Islamists hold sway. Our God is so kind and generous in these matters - a real lesson to all of us.
I am sure you were going to, but you forgot to mention Bosnia-Herzogovina 1992-95 when the Christian Serbs set out to ethnically cleanse the Bosnian Muslims. That also included all the above that you mentioned.
My my my how we tend to look at the world through our holier than thou Christian ideals and actions !!
"A real lesson to us all" ...........................................
@@fentonpeter1582 I think you mean 'Christian' Serbs.
A passage I've found to be difficult is 1 Kings 22:19-23, where we see God putting a deceiving spirit in the mouth of the false prophets.
We're told in James that God does not tempt anyone, so I wonder how this specific story could align with that.
Really appreciate your work and encouragement!
Why not just accept the obvious reading that they don't align?
There isn’t a problem here brother. As theists, we believe that even evil spirits cannot do anything unless God allows or permits them to do something. You see this in Job for example. Therefore, God allows an evil spirit to entice Ahab because Ahab would rather listen to false prophets and have his ears tickled rather than listen to Micaiah who even reveals to him that they’re prophesying lies. But that’s not God deceiving. Not a single lie or word of deceit was uttered by God. He permitted evil spirits to do what they naturally do - lie and deceive.
I would advise reading something like Unseen Realm by Heiser as regards the 1 Kings passage. This is a divine council passage, very different from the pithy wisdom teachings of James (which is actually composed of re-contextualized parts of the Sermon on the Mount.) Very different genres, although calling God ‘the Father of lights’ does have a subtext of the divine council, because heavenly bodies were thought to be spiritual beings! James likes to make very sharp statements that prove his points, this is a rhetorical move and probably not to be taken 100% literally. (Consider how he articulates his ‘works are necessary’ argument - he is opposing an interlocutor who thinks they can assent to belief and never attend to changing their behavior…this is not in opposition to Paul, as is sometimes supposed.)
God will indeed give people over to the powers and their own desires after a certain point, but generally speaking He wants people to resist evil desires. He is not the Father of temptation, or the cosmic tyrants (sin, death, and the enemy), rather, He uses them towards His purposes.
2 Thes 2: 11-12.
This is ABSOLUTE GOLD!!! THANK YOU FOR THIS.GOD BLESS U
Go into preacher mode, Gavin, we're here for it.
I appreciate what is a very respectful treatment of the text, and an excellent argument to invoke the context of that period. You've clearly spent a great deal of time wrestling with this topic and your response comes across as sincere and with a genuine desire to be truthful.
That said, I do have a few objections that I would be interested to hear your take on:
The passages you cite are open to multiple interpretations and may not necessarily reflect a universal or absolute prohibition on sexual activity during wartime. Have you adequately considered alternative understandings that arise from the complexities of biblical hermeneutics?
One could argue that the practices described in Deuteronomy 21, such as marrying captive women after a waiting period and subjecting them to certain rituals, still perpetuate the objectification and subjugation of women. Despite framing these practices as protective measures, they inherently treat women as property to be acquired and assimilated into the Israelite community without adequately considering their agency or autonomy.
Are there not serious ethical concerns surrounding the imposition of cultural norms and religious rituals on individuals who may not share the same beliefs or values? The argument you present justifies these practices based on the historical context of the ancient Near East, but it fails to address the moral implications of imposing such practices on individuals who may have their own cultural or religious identities.
You do seem to cherry-pick certain passages to justify specific practices overlooking the broader ethical principles of equality, dignity, and autonomy that should guide our treatment of others. My concern is this simply perpetuates a harmful attitude toward woman.
Lastly, as much as I appreciate your using Star Wars as an analogy, the analogy itself doesn't succeed in providing an equitable comparison. To me, the analogy fails because context for the movie can easily be inferred by the meta narrative of the genre of movies Star Wars is part of, in that the line between good guys and bad guys is drawn so clearly that one actually need not have additional context to grasp the shooting of the Death Star as an act of good triumphing over evil. One need not watch the movie from the beginning, ten minutes before or ten minutes after provide all the necessary context required. The context you provide is not attainable be simply reading Deuteronomy 20 or 22.
Offtopic, but the video quality seems better in this one than in your previous ones. It is smoother.
Great video, Gavin. I think what people often miss with the issue of consent is that the social psychology of people in the ANE is different than the psychology of people today. This isn't whataboutism when you take into account that God's grace does not eliminate human freedom, but brings it along and perfects it. Why is that relevant? When Jesus says "God gave you divorce for your hardness of heart", or God chooses to take Israel through a certain route because otherwise they would turn back to Egypt, we're taught that God actually works within the bounds of human freedom. He doesn't just zap people into new life. Even on the Reformed view, which Gavin (and I) hold, grace renews the will--it doesn't replace it.
So if you have a society that's so thoroughly brutal like the ANE, women in the ancient world just accepted that, if their husband is dead, they need to find a spouse ASAP because otherwise they will die or live in destitution. And they have no father to regulate, so they're likely to latch onto a man as fast as they can in order to avoid poverty. We may rightly lament this state of affairs, but this isn't the same as "marital rape". God works within the depravity of the society so as to move them towards his ideal--even if at this stage, this (obviously) falls far short of his ideal--by moving them towards a step they might take from the muck of their society in the right direction.
Don't you think it's a little weird that this is the "best" outcome, though? Surely, you would agree god works towards the best outcome, so why did he even let things get that bad that such things were necessary?
Of course, there were many actions god could have taken to better the situation that would not have impacted free will, but if you don't want to exercise your imagination, then I won't stop you.
@@WaterCat5 That's quite a different question though. The question I'm answering assumes that things have gotten that bad--and so why the laws are what they are in light of a culture that has gotten to that point.
Now, why would God even let things get that bad? That question can be asked of any evil God permits. God hasn't told us why, so I don't think I can pry into the mind of God so as to tell you why. However, my not knowing why God has permitted this or any evil isn't itself an argument against the existence of God. One would have to show that there *couldn't in principle* be a good reason for God to permit this (or any evil). And I don't know how one would do that.
I suppose one might try to say something like this: an omnipotent God can bring about any ends he wills, and an omnibenevolent God would opt to secure an end without evil. Hence, he should be able to bring about any end he seeks without evil.
But God's omnipotence doesn't entail the ability to do the logically impossible. God cannot create a 5 sided square, for instance, since this is just a contradiction. One would have to show that there is no possible worth-while evil-permitting good--some good brought about through the permission of evil--that could justify God's permission of this or any evil. But again, how could one show that?
@@anglicanaesthetics Right, but the issue of it getting that bad in the first place is just as paramount as the actual events in that particular time. In order for the christian god to have the attributes most Christians claim he does, he must behave consistently through time. This suggests that he does not, which undermines the idea that he is consistent.
If you wish to throw all uncertainty on the "mystery" of god, be my guest, but I can think of a lot of reasons why god should have intervened earlier and none of why he shouldn't have. Am I just to ignore all my reason? Even if I do not have absolute proof, I am not the one trying to assert god is all good. Merely showing that god is probably not good is already a great proof in my mind. I think an all good god would make sure we know of his goodness, so the fact that I can sincerely doubt it means such a being doesn't exist.
So I do think a probabilistic argument has great weight, sufficient at least to force honest christians to acknowledge that a reasonable person could find their god to be most definitely not all good all the time, and Christians have no definitive proof otherwise. This is ultimately what I care about. Too many Christians like to say god is "obvious" and that his attributes are equally so. This is quite clearly not the case.
Love the new studio setup! Hope you guys are enjoying your new home and city.
This was an excellent way of explaining something extremely difficult to understand. Thank you.
Thank you for this, Dr. Ortlund! It disgust me to the core to hear of what awful dehumanizing occurreds in the world. The abusing of the strength of a stronger party is simply inexcusable. I am infinitely grateful that you help show that the true God - the ultimate stronger Party - has always found such acts just as unspeakably disgusting as we all should. Thank God for His mercy on the weaker side; none of us would have any hope without it.
As far as other hard passages go, I might appreciate your take on the 'Women be silent' type passages. I know our good friend Mike Winger also did a LENGTHY series about such passages but to hear your apolitic on it would be really helpful to my fellows who also find these passages worth conversation. Thank you, as always. God bless!
Thank you for your ministry; I've been both challenged and encouraged!
Taking you up on your invitation, could you address the topic of head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)? Also, could you help unpack Paul's explanation involving "being baptized on behalf of the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:29? The Lord bless you and keep you!
Thank you, sir. I've been in a season of wrestling with the difficult passages of the OT, and their implications to the whole of my faith, and how it colors our understanding of the gospel and God's ultimate purpose. Deep dives like this are so very helpful in presenting a reasonable understanding, because they take into account the historical context and make VERY clear that we can't simply read the Bible through the lense of our current presuppositions which are, ironically, based on a world made possible by the transformation of it through the influence of the gospel itself. I find, sadly, that local churches don't usually have time or resources to go into these difficult verses, and that many in the church don't care to wrestle with them - understandable, in light of all the other things going on in life and the world, but I have found it essential to have what I feel called to have - a ready defense for the hope that is within me.
I could say more. Maybe one day when we can chat in person. God bless you and your ministry, and thanks for taking the time to address these things in a gentle, clear, and loving fashion to all viewers, believer and non-believer alike.
May I ask what you found compelling? We don't have to discuss it but I'm curious about how you see this as an answer to what you were wrestling with.
@@Boundless_Border Sure. Primarily, the historical context in which the rules to the Israelites were given, and also how Jesus addressed the early history of the Jews and Jewish laws that were essentially transforming a primitive people into a future ideal, which is ultimately delivered not in the nation's obediance to the law, but in Christ.
BUT ALSO - my comment on this video is more about the measured, gentle presentation of these ideas. Gavin is explaining why he believes this way of thinking, but isn't so conceited as to think he's dropping the mic on a subject. I appreciate the approach. I also just like not shying away from dealing with these difficult parts of the OT.
@@Sklabah
Thanks for sharing. I'll leave it at that.
What a superb video! Thanks for this. So helpful, against the background of the larger culture.
The question of the woman's consent is still a tough one - but as you say, arranged marriage is very common, singleness is close to a death sentence, and she is given full rights as an Israelite. Not a timeless moral principle - but a workable solution in that culture, and far better than the alternatives.
So, as long as I act better than the culture that surrounds me, God will give me a pass? He might not be delighted, but his expectations are that low?
Hey Gavin,
Some ideas for difficult passages are Joshua 7:24-26 and Numbers 16:25-33 which are two instances it appears God is implicated in killing children. The death of David’s firstborn could also be helpful to cover.
I don't see the Joshua passage as implicating God in the killing of children as it only implies Achan is stoned and burned to death. As for the other passage: absolutely is a tough one to tackle and does seem to implicate God's own hand and the power of punishment that does seem to affect children of unknown age(s).
@@jonharris722 The Joshua passage says his whole family was brought out and later says the people stoned ‘them’
Just those? What about Gen 7:21, Ex 11:5, Deut 20:16, Num 31: 15-18, Josh 6:21, 8:25, 11:12-15, 1Sam 15:3... and one could go on. "God" either massacres children directly (Gen 7, and again in Revelation) or directly orders it...not just "implicated in" it, but demanding it. You have one bloodthirsty god to discuss.
@@njhoepner book of revelation is apocalyptic literature it's symbolic
@@Revivalism23 I'm aware of what it is...doesn't change the basic problem though. The symbolism the writer revels in and celebrates so eagerly is the symbolism of bloodshed, massacre, and revenge. Falls right in line with the character of this "god" according to the bible, from beginning to end. It's the reason christians need professional apologists (or "excusegists"), there's just so much of this to try and tapdance around and interpret away.
Numbers 31:18 is definitely a video I’d like to see. Thank you Gavin for all your work. God bless!
I second that passage. I always struggle when I read that chapter.
Interesting stuff. I would like Gavin to look at Numbers 31:17,18 where Moses instructs the commanders to "Kill all the boys, and every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has not slept with a man"
That one always puzzled me, too.
@@melodysledgister2468 Hope Gavin takes it up
This was helpful Gavin! Thank you! I would love a video that covers the final chapter of 1 John. I've been very confused about that passage for a long time.
I just finished Bloody, Brutal, and Barabric by Webb and Oeste. I highly recommend it. It's very accessible for a scholarly work, but be warned, it's a difficult read conceptually. It helped me more with these questions than anything else, so far.
Oh my gosh i read that his passage just again. I don’t know people come to such conclusions
Its a really pertinent video in so many ways and because people don't know how to consider this through, well done Gavin.
Elisha and the Two Bears (2 Kings 2:23-25)
Love you gavin❤
Amazing! Would you do a video about the killing of boys and women in Numbers 31 and on Deuteronomy 20 10-18? Critics day that Ancient Near East rhetoric warfare can't be applied to that passage.
In Numbers 31 it seems like Moses was the one in the wrong, as there is no command from God for him to do so. This opinion has quite an ancient precedent, as it was held by some Rabbinical teachers as early as the 1st century AD.
I know this answer doesn’t satisfy nonbelievers, but speaking as a believer to presumably another believer, I am perfectly content with God taking anyone’s life at any time for any reason He judges fit. All life belongs to God and all life is ultimately reclaimed by God. It’s natural for us to desire and seek explanations though.
I'm hoping to do a separate video on this passage. I am currently researching and would be interested in any sources you have regarding that rabbinical teaching. thanks.
I second this request. Would be good to hear about those passages.
@@TruthUnites Thanks a lot, Dr. Ortlund, for what you do.
Fun story.
In my last year of high school, I got an excellent mark💯 in an essay thanks to a quote from you. So thanks a lot😚
Would be so great if you could respond to the videos from digital hammurabi (bowen and co) that they have on their channel objecting to your slavery/genocide/rape videos.
They have legitimate good counter arguments and it wouls help alot to hear your push back.
Human nature can be dark and beastly. The Law of Moses restrained the extremes of human depravity while making practical concessions in certain areas because of the hardness of hearts. The Law moved humanity closer to the ideal.
As Jesus told us, not everything Moses gave to the House of Israel was the moral perfection of God (Matthew 19:3-8). He was designated the servant of God and delegated a job to do, and he did it.
Moses made decisions and followed the advice of others (Exodus 18:14-26) and also taught the commands of God. But even the best of Moses, including the Decalogue, were not complete in righteousness (Matthew 5:21-47).
Those who follow Christ, on the other hand, are called to live up to the moral perfection of God as closely as possible in this life (Matthew 5:48), relying on the indwelling Spirit to empower us for such love and good works, knowing that his grace covers us when we all fail.
The Matthew 19:8-9 verses are specifically talking about divorce. Trying to use it for anything else takes it out of context and it can become a tool that can allow someone to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws are “timeless” or not. That can have many unintended consequences.
Very helpful, as always. Difficult passages? How about the last few chapters of Judges…? 🤢
I appreciate your concern for the dignity and respect for women, as well as your horror of the sexual assault. Too bad God didn’t feel the same way and simply outlawed this practice.
I really appreciate your delving into this. Would you be willing to compare/contrast the plagues of Egypt, especially the death of the firstborn with the same ethical rubric people tend to use for the Canaanite conquest? It seems the issue of harm to innocents applies even more to that. Surely if people want to judge Gods morality, it doesn't matter whether God orders an angel or the Hebrews to carry out his judgment?
As the Bible says "the fear of God is the beginning of the wisdom". Consider what you wrote. Before the 10th plague of Egypt, there was Noah's flood where God exterminated everyone including women and children because the sin filled the earth. There was the Tower of Babel and Sodom and Gomorrah. However, you seem to think somehow the plague is more relevant regarding" issue of harm to innocents applies even more to that"? God had done and commanded many terrifying things but it was always to sinful nations. We are so used to "loving and caring Jesus" (American version) that Jesus is coming back to judge the world...as in EVERYONE including Christians past and present. It's heaven or hell. Shouldn't that terrify you if you are a believer?
Martin Luther once told Erasmus that "your though of God is too human". God's will to restore the creation from the sin by man, but will use HIS way, not man's.
Anyone can see how important it is to preserve God's reputation, by any means necessary
I mean, if God is real, he doesn't need protection of h8s reputation, wouldn't you agree? Instead, this is historical context of an often criticized passage. If you think anything stated was false, bring some receipts. Otherwise, give people the benefit of the doubt on motivation like you would want.
@@Aesop531 Well apparently God doesn't need anything, if an omni God. But in the multi-religious world we live in, humans talking among themselves will need to make excuses for the God they worship.
"If you think anything stated was false, bring some receipts"
I'm not stating anything to be true or false. I'm saying that maybe God isn't all good and that possibility should always be left in the conversation. After all, if God is not an omni God at all, how hard is it for God to want its believers to think that it is?
@JohnCamacho Sure. But you agree that an explanation is not necessarily an excuse, right? My point is, an omni God can do what he wants because everything is his. Who can or should judge him? If we can give a pregnant mom total sovereignty over the baby in her womb (not sure where you stand on abortion) without question or judgment, how much more deference should we give to the creator of the universe and ourselves? Thus, any "excuse" is an explanation to help humans understand his character, not an apology or plea for acceptance. At least it shouldn't be.
@@Aesop531 "But you agree that an explanation is not necessarily an excuse, right?"
Sure but even if an explanation is just an explanation it may not be true. Also, we don't ask for explanations of the positive passages, just the negative ones.
"Who can or should judge him?"
Anyone who is considering worshipping him
"Thus, any "excuse" is an explanation to help humans understand his character,"
"His character" = the character believers are trying to promote. But to remind you that we don't know God at all. We have perceptions of God handed down to us. And not forgetting that God has chosen to not communicate with us. Wouldn't give us the time of day. How are we supposed to build trust and a relationship that way?
@@Aesop531 " If we can give a pregnant mom total sovereignty"
I don't like human centered analogies mapping on to God situations because we have the narrative that God is perfect and all knowing. That makes those analogies fail. Women who want abortions for serious reasons - they were raped, particularly pre-teens or the mother's life is in danger - are doing so because they live far from perfect lives. But anyway abortion is a large topic and that's all the time I have today.
Gavin, you have been killing it lately with your videos!! So good!
This passage is VERY easy to defend, I released a video on this a few weeks ago.
You’re the best UA-camr.
Thank you so much for these last two videos! So helpful!
your arguments are really compelling, thanks.
The connection to God's heart and Jesus at the end is edifying, thank you for your work.
great explanation brotha 💪🏾
I swear if I could subscribe a thousand times I would
I’d love to see more content on problem texts. I found both these videos really insightful
I've always struggled with the law about having a wife while in bond servanthood. I believe the passage was in Deuteronomy. It essentially commands that if a man acquires a wife and children while in slavery, once his term is complete, if he wishes to be with his family he must agree to lifetime servitude. Otherwise he can leave a free man and the children and wife are slaves of the master.
Gavin, will you please address this very tough verse:
Ps 137:9?
I had a friend who walked away from the faith because of it…
It's seems pretty self-explanatory. Enemies defeated and abused his people, including killing children. The psalmist wants God to mete out fair justice (or, understandably, revenge) against them. I don't see how modern folks that are aware of, for instance, the war in Gaza wouldn't understand the sentiment (for either side). Regardless, just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean God condoned it.
Hello Gavin, This is an excellent video! I would be really interested in a video on Genesis 1:6-8. It is one of the toughest passages for me with because both conservative and liberal interpreters seem to understand the "waters above" to be a heavenly sea that doesn't exist/no one in the modern world can believe in and have any intellectual credibility. I've read quite a bit about whether the Bible promotes "ancient cosmology," and it is troubling to me. Your videos have been a big help to me, and I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
I've heard it said by people who are supposed to be in the know, that the passage concerning the woman caught in adultery is an accretion that didn't exist in the earliest manuscripts. This was not something that I wanted to hear, but because the story is consistent with what I'd expect Jesus to say, I choose to regard it as true. It's too good not to.
A expert analysis of the Book of Enoch please, love your channel
Way to bring it home to the gospel!
Much needed video. Thanks Gavin
Great video as always! Off topic question but do you think you'll ever do a video addressing the textual concerns for the woman caught in adultery passage?
Maybe an interview with Peter Gurry?
Hey Pastor Ortlund, what about Judges 19:22-30? It's the story of a woman given as a concubine that eventually gets cut into pieces and shipped around Isreal... it always confused me even though I feel I understand on a basic level. Any thoughts? Thank you for all your work, and God bless you sir.
Much of Judges should be read in a descriptive and not prescriptive way in light of the repeated refrain of "In those days there was no king in Israel." and often combined with "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Judges seems to be a spiral down into depravity where the stories get more and more horrific and that story fits inline with that and does not seem to have God condoning the behavior of the "owner" of the concubines actions. We are also seeing a direct comparison of Israel's actions to basically their most evil and vile story of a depraved people without God: Sodom and Gomorrah.
@@skyorricheggI think he/she is asking the reason why the woman was cut into 12 pieces lol
@@LorenzoPelupessy yes, that is the same story. The why of cutting her up after she was abused and murdered was to inform and shame the twelve tribes for the depravity Israel had reached, but once again, none of that story is prescriptive (as in telling us what we should do, other than follow God) but rather is descriptive of showing the cycle of evil and depravity that Israel had reached that they would imitate the evilness of the cities that Israel held up as ultimate evil: Sodom and Gomorrah. No one, including the Levite, seems to be following God in that story so we should not really be taking his action of cutting up the concubine as indicative of something anyone should do but rather as being being indicative of the fallenness of Israel.
Thank you for the section on the compassion of God.
Thank you for tackling these issues that are seldom brought up and even when they are, not usually sufficiently explained from a scholarly perspective. You do such a thorough job going through the uncomfortable parts that are necessary to know. I've been reading Leviticus and the command in Lev 21:9 "If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire." was one among many challenging verses. I looked it up myself and it seems just command burning after her execution, but would like a more educated opinion on this take.
The Bible isn’t the Analects, it is not a collection of inspirational quotes. It contains real history, it is not a fairytale. It contains ‘hard sayings’ because humans are hard hearted creatures. Thank God for condescending to us while still pointing us towards something better.
These “hard sayings” are God’s choosing, not man’s.
Hey, Gavin, I recently saw your video on the Christianization of Scandinavia, and I was glad to see you defend the Christian historian as reliable. But that got me thinking, what about Eusebius? Do you consider him reliable, to at least an extent? I'd love to see you make a video on his work as well. Love your videos, God bless.
This is one of the top atheist arguments against “Yahweh”.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12, it falls along the same line as the passage in Deuteronomy 21, but I’d say it’s just as difficult, if not more. An atheist/agnostic friend quoted it to me my freshman year of college
It is way less problematic from my pov. If anything I think its weirdly specific.
Let me quote a footnote from the article in _Philosphia Christi_ "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?". dealing with that text:
On the surface, Deuteronomy 25:11-12 appears to suggest that a woman’s hand must be cut off if she seizes the genitals of the man who is in a fight with her husband....However, a more plausible interpretation comes from Jerome T. Walsh. He makes an excellent case for depilation-“you shall shave [the hair of] her groin”-not mutilation. For instance the word translated “hand” here is _kaph_ -the “palm” of a hand or some rounded concavity such as a dish, bowl, or spoon or even the arch of a foot-rather than the commonly-used _yad_ (“hand”). To “cut off” a “palm”-as opposed to a hand-would be quite odd. Furthermore, the verb _qasas_ in the intensified piel form (ten occurrences) is rightly translated “cut off” or “[physically] sever.” However, here _qasas_ appears in the milder _qal_ form. Three other OT occurrences of qasas in the qal form mean “cut/shave [hair].” In our case, this would be the open concave region of the groin, and thus a shaving of pubic hair-a punishment of public humiliation not unusual in the ANE. (This form of humiliation is implied in 1 Sam. 10:4-5 [where “beards” is probably a euphemism for pubic hair]; cp. Isa. 3:17; 20:4; 20:4; Ezek. 16:37). Thus, the talionic punishment is public sexual humiliation (of the woman) for public sexual humiliation (of the man). See “You Shall Cut Off Her . . . Palm? A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 25:11-12,” _Journal of Semitic Studies_ 49 (2004): 47-8; also, Richard M. Davidson, _Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament_ (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 476-80.
It blows my mind that people miss that the laws followed by the Israelites were LIGHTYEARS more advanced and humane compared to the absolute BRUTAL world around them.
Because historians don't extrapolate the entire mores of tribal society warfare from a highly biased reading of one specific verse. I think you'll find that there is no actual historical evidence that the Israelites were any less brutal than average when conducting warfare in the region.
@@EnglishMikepresumably there is no evidence that they were less, more or equally brutal given how long ago such battles would have been.
@@EnglishMikepossibly. But why is this relevant to the laws that God allowed Moses to implement? We outlaw murder and rape today, but both still occur on a frequent basis (not to mention people advocate for abortion). Does that disprove the moral value of our laws?
Forcing female captive to marry the same soldiers that just unalived their families is lightyears more advanced? It's no better than the world around them.
Well, we are comparing their world to our lives A.D. -after Christ, Who brought us light.
The mental gymnastics are Olympic level on this one. I'm glad the diablocritics exists.
No
Read Ex. 21:7-11 in context. Yes, the word 'sell' is used but not in the modern context today. If she was truly sold as you insist would she have rights as we see in the passage. What we see being described is not sex slavery but an arranged marriage. "How is that any better?" Arranged marriages were the norm in Israel and infact many ancient cultures due to how much the family was valued which he mentions in the video, if you actually watched it . However, what differentiated Israel from other nations is that if it was to take place, both parties would have to consent (the bride and groom) like with Isaac and Rebekah. If either one later decided against it, then it could be called off like how Joseph wanted to 'divorce' Mary when he initially found out she was pregnant with Jesus not knowing how she got it. These same principles also applied to the foreign women whom they could marry only if they became Jewish through free will, not coercion (Ex.22:21; Ex.23:9).
@@TheEdBoys-j7m and sorry but even if there's more nuance or contrxt it's still full of immoral stuff. I'd just refer you to search for the episode of the Diablocritics responding to all the mental gymnastics on this video (they are more charitable than me and are actual scholars that understand the language and the context and the nations around and any details). For one I am not accussing the text of being bad or immoral on its own, it was a cultural context, my criticism has more to do with trying to spin things in a way to make it comfortable for people to say that an allmighty god would have written or commanded or even thought any of the attrocities in the bible.
@@DiegoJPintoSo they should leave the women out in the middle of a battle? It would not be wiser to lead her somewhere safe? You think women then and now think alike, but that is false. In Israel and other ancient cultures, family was considered a must have, something which Gavin brings up and you'd know that if you actually watched the video from beginning to the end. You use extreme feminist logic to try and disprove Gavin forgetting that women in ancient times wanted families similar to how men in the 70s (I'm not an American so I might misdated that) wanted mullets and were comfortable with arranged marriage, it was forced marriage that was not allowed. "But the Bible says 'If she dipleases you...' " The Bible still refers to men that way even when it involves both men and women; it's something we humans have been doing all the way from ancient times up until it was stopped in the modern era.(By that I mean the word 'men' meant both men and women). You think Ex. 21:12-13 refers solely to men? If a woman did it, it would be a shocker as the culture then would not believe a woman could do such but she would still be punished as a man would be, so if you're argument is that only men could divorce and women were men's property in Israel, then I'd advise you reconsider your opinions.
@@TheEdBoys-j7m not reading that. If you are interested check out the Diablo critics replying to this specific video.
Thanks!
I always find your video to be pastorally sensitive and very thought provoking. You mentioned viewers giving you passages like this to talk through. What are your thoughts about the nature in which David took Bethsheba. Some would equate it with rape? Thoughts?
Loved your close; GOD bless in the name of ✝Jesus Christ/Yeshua Ha Mashiach✝
“The law of the Lord is perfect”
“This is not ideal”
God's eternal moral law is perfect, not the Mosaic Law.
@@BornAgainChris what scripture characterizes any law as mosaic?
@@ChokeArtist411 the Bible and early church
@@Revivalism23 what verse?
@@ChokeArtist411 Mosaic Law, also known as the Law of Moses, refers to the body of laws given to the Israelites through Moses in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (the Torah), particularly in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These laws encompass various aspects of religious, moral, and social life, and they include:
1. The Ten Commandments: Fundamental moral imperatives given in Exodus 20.
2. Civil Laws: Regulations for societal governance, justice, and interpersonal relationships.
3. Ceremonial Laws: Instructions for religious rituals, sacrifices, and worship.
4. Dietary Laws: Guidelines on permissible foods and dietary practices.
5. Purity Laws: Rules concerning cleanliness, health, and ritual purity.
Mosaic Law played a central role in the religious and social life of ancient Israel and continues to be significant in Judaism today. It also influences Christian teachings, though the degree of adherence to specific laws varies among different Christian denominations.
Gavin, thank you so much for your thoughts! My question is, how do we distinguish something that is a “permitted due to the hardness of their heart” law and a timeless law?
I do ministry work in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. Many of my friends have missing/lost/murdered family members. It is utterly pointless to try and map 21st century Western sensibilities to cultures that take strife and warfare for granted; where you have no guarantee that you will live to age 60 (median age is 22), and you may never find a spouse.
My friends have even excitedly circulated emails about a woman raped in warfare who met up a few years later with her rapist (and father of their child) and were able to reuinte, marry and become a family. Laying aside the question of whether or not the story is an urban legend.... Who the heck circulates emails like that?? I'll tell you who: my Congolese friends. And they're good with that. And if you don't understand that, you're right: you don't understand it.
How much more different it is in the ancient world, where allegiances flip on a dime, and women dress themselves up when their husbands are off to battle so they'll be prized by the new victors.
(And yes, that was a thing. Go look up why Queen Jezebel adorned herself when she knew the battle was over)
Great video
Have you ever considering covering Judaism and Islam in a video? I would be really interested in your biblical evaluation of both of them! I am noticing that there are many people converting from Christianity to islam here in Germany so, yea. Take care😊
Great stuff Gavin! Would there also be merit to commands from previous passages like Deuteronomy 10:19 about loving the foreigner and clothing them, and the waiting period for 1 month? I imagine that the celebratory r*pe that occurred were moments of heat and passion where the soldiers wasted no time in "celebrating". To give the mourning woman 1 month, the Israelite soldier would also be commanded to love her and clothe her. This completely takes away the "heat of the moment" lusts of that celebration and forces the Israelite soldier to "cool off", return to Israel, and continue his life as an Israelite, participating in the worship ceremonies and sacrifices where he can get his mind right and refocused on God. I would imagine that the Israelite soldier, after the conquering of a city, would see a pretty woman and had all of this in mind, knowing that she wasn't merely going to be some sort of fun prize for a time, but that he would really need to care for her, and that she owed him nothing even if he did separate from her because he would be the one who humiliated her. I could see the Israelite soldier thinking through that choice a lot more seriously because of all of that.
Hey, Dr. Ortlund
Great discussion on the topic! I think you were very successful on your point.
Question though, in your last video you mentioned this would include Numbers 31 (you said 21 but I think you meant 31). This seems to include several difficulties: It shows Israel killing every male among the little ones and most of the adult women. Those who are spared appear to be taken as plunder. Are you planning to address this in another video?
This was very informative, thank you.
I appreciate Dr. Ortlund's taking on difficult topics like the Canaanite massacre and treatment of the women of a vanquished foe. I take his point about context; things were very different in ancient times. Dr. Ortlund tells us that the behavior of the Israelites in war seems to have been a notch or two above what was usual. Why is that fact so unsatisfying to me?
The emotion I'm feeling is similar to the way I felt when, during the Civil Rights movement, well-meaning people would say, “Things are so much better now. We've made so much progress. You can't expect things to change overnight.” All the while people were being mistreated, exploited, and abused. The people Dr. Ortlund is examining are God's chosen people. Doesn't God have the wherewithal to mold the morality of the folks He's claimed as His own? Instead, we're supposed to be satisfied with half measures. I'm reminded of the phrase, “your God is too small.” (I think it was the title of a book in the 60s.) Instead of demanding more from His people, God actually participates in the carnage (e.g. wiping out the people before the flood and killing the first born in Egypt).
I have been exhorted to focus on all the good things (improvements in the status quo, the mercy God often - but not always - shows, the grace bestowed on sinners through the death of Jesus). I guess I'm looking for consistency and not finding it.
good point
Are you saying that God is morally wrong to kill the wicked?
@@anotherxredeemed Speaking as a wicked person myself, I'm very uncomfortable with (and more than a little confused by) the whole kill-the-wicked-people program. As Christians we're taught to see ourselves as fallen beings, incapable of making ourselves acceptable to God on our own. That's why we need Jesus. But before there was Jesus it seems like you became part of a righteous kill. Also, it seems like maybe some of those who were killed (like the first born of Egypt and the Canaanite cildren - assuming some were actually killed as the Bible says and their deaths weren't a just fiction of war rhetoric.) Was God morally wrong to kill the wicked? My concept of God doesn't permit His fallibility . . . but all those dead children!
@@anotherxredeemed Speaking as a wicked person myself, I'm very uncomfortable with (and more than a little confused by) the whole kill-the-wicked-people program. As Christians we're taught to see ourselves as fallen beings, incapable of making ourselves acceptable to God on our own. That's why we need Jesus. But before there was Jesus it seems like us wicked folks just became part of a righteous kill. Also, it seems like maybe some of those who were killed (like the first born of Egypt and the Canaanite children - assuming some were actually killed as the Bible says and their deaths weren't just a fiction of war rhetoric.) Was God morally wrong to kill the wicked? My concept of God doesn't permit His fallibility . . . but all those dead children!
@@anotherxredeemed Speaking as a wicked person myself, I'm very uncomfortable with (and more than a little confused by) the whole kill-the-wicked-people program. As Christians we're taught to see ourselves as fallen beings, incapable of making ourselves acceptable to God on our own. That's why we need Jesus. But before there was Jesus it seems like us wicked people just became part of a righteous kill. Also, it seems like maybe some of those who were killed (like the first born of Egypt and the Canaanite children - assuming some were actually killed as the Bible says and their deaths weren't merely a fiction of war rhetoric.) Was God morally wrong to kill the wicked? My concept of God doesn't permit His fallibility . . . but all those dead children!
Can you please do a video on Numbers 31, where it explicitly says that the captured male children were killed?
Hey Gavin, I really appreciate your treatment of this. I very much wish the atheist critics would attempt to put themselves in the position of those in the ancient world before simply jumping on perceived opportunities to blast the Bible.
That said, I do have a question about a bothersome passage. In Ezra 10, in an act of penitence, the Israelites agree to send away the foreign women they married, along with their children. This seems to be a punishment that falls on the women and children for the sins of the men. On top of that, leaders such as Moses never seemed to face any consequences for marrying foreign women. I know this comment comes a bit late, but if you happen to see it, I would love to hear your thoughts on the passage.
" I very much wish the atheist critics would attempt to put themselves in the position of those in the ancient world before simply jumping on perceived opportunities to blast the Bible. " - well rejoice, for Digital Hammurabi, Jennifer Bird, Kipp Davis, and Dan McClellan (not an atheist) just did a two hour video (find it on any of their channels) dismantling Gavin's many takes in this video. It does not go well for Gavin.
Very well said. Everything was thoughtfully stated.
Do you think Numbers 31:17 was an exceptional case of executing female prisoners of war?
“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.”
Numbers 31:17 ESV
based upon my understanding, it seems to be that it was a very specific case wherein they were to destroy the moabites, partly for divine judgement against their wicked culture but also due to the sexual immorality and idolatry into which moab had just recently brought Israel into.
I’m also curious what it means when the prisoners set aside for YHWH were given to the Levites. How is this distinct from temple slavery (I know some scholars view it as a possibility) Num 31:47
An exception? When "kill everything that breathes" is commanded over and over again?
But there are lots of other Rape passages in the Old Testament in the same category as this verse, some even worse.
Gavin, thanks for taking time to address this passage, as it has been one that has been incredibly troubling to me. (Psalm 137:9 is another). I would like to hear a Christian apologist deal thoroughly with the issue of *consent*. I don’t think merely pointing out that ancient cultures didn’t value the consent of women excuses the way the Bible falls into similar cultural patterns. Do you believe in the value of consent? And if so, is there a consistent Biblical basis for this? (I think the Bible is multi-vocal, and does not consistently give women equality or agency in many respects). I don’t think this is an abstract question, because Sheila Gregoire and others have shown that the conservative evangelical culture is very weak in its teachings on consent. (And I can add my own anecdotal experience to this).
To go from that tolerance to Jesus’ advice to gouge your eye out if you even look at a woman with lust is amazing!
Also! Another passage that would be awesome to speak on is deuteronomy 22:25-29 on the allowing of rape for engaged/unengaged. I have not seen an easily understood well done treatment of this
@tundmeista99 I see, thank you!
@tundmeista99 My bigger concern I think was with the qualification for the woman who did not cry out. But I think that is just a way of saying was it consensual or not, and I believe that God is trustworthy enough to not set women up to be abused
Very well done. Thank you
Thank you for this video! Can you do a deep dive into Numbers 31? It indicates that male children were to be killed, and that the virgin women were to be “kept alive for yourselves” (vv. 17-18). I had an atheist confront me with this text once and I couldn’t give him a good answer. I admit it has troubled me, so some help would be greatly appreciated!
love all your videos. Question: Are you familiar with the book "Bearing False Witness" by Rodney Stark? Reading it and wondered about it and if I should get the "The Rise of Christianity" by Stark also.