(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
Numbers 31:17-18-Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
One of the arguments that is sometimes raised against the Bible is the claim that God ordered the Midianite baby boys to be murdered and the young women prisoners of war to be taken as sex slaves for the Hebrews.
Let’s study.
First, the events of this chapter are the result of what had happened shortly before. The women of Midian had attempted to seduce the Jewish men into abandoning Yahweh (the one true God).
Numbers 25:1-3-Now Israel remained in Acacia Grove, and the people began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab. 2 They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, and the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel.
These gods that the people of Israel began to worship were exceedingly wicked, and delighted in such things as child abuse and sacrifice. These gods are described in the Bible as being spirits that were originally created upright and good, but who chose to rebel against God. The Psalmist tells us:
Psalm 96:5 (Brenton’s LXX)-For all the gods of the heathen are devils (i.e., demons): but the Lord made the heavens.
These creatures had been appointed by God at the time of the Tower of Babel to guide the nations of mankind into serving Him, the one true God. However, at some point, they began to invite worship for themselves as they masqueraded as Deity. This is made clear from the Bible and from many non-inspired texts (some alluded to in Scripture):
“As was the case in Deuteronomy 32: 8, the Masoretic Text omits the divine beings associated with the nations. Deuteronomy 32: 8, 43 were both altered when the Masoretic Text was produced, ca. AD 100.2 Hannah’s remark represents the overwhelming scholarly consensus on the matter: “It seems safe to conclude that the original text of the Song of Moses (Deut 32: 1–43) affirmed a belief in heavenly guardians, whether lesser deities or angels, set over the nations as a kind of cosmic patron, although later editors sought to remove this.” 3 The point to take away should not be missed: Second Temple-period Jews would have been reading about gods allotted to the nations in their Old Testament. There are several indications in the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Ben Sira (or Book of Sirach; included in the LXX) that the Deuteronomy 32 worldview was part of Jewish theology. The seventeenth chapter describes humanity in general as God’s creation (Sir 17: 1–7) and then transitions to the Jew, with whom God entered into a covenant relationship and gave his laws (Sir 17: 12–14). Whether Jew or gentile, Ben Sira (Sir 17: 15–16) 4 describes God’s clear knowledge of human acts and thoughts and the divine retribution to be accorded to all men and women as they deserve. The Lord knows human “ways” because “they cannot be hidden from his eyes.” 5 Then, in verse 17 we read, “He [God] appointed a leader for each nation, and Israel is the portion of the Lord” (LES). The word translated “leader” is a participial form of the lemma hēgeomai, “to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide.” 6 In this particular passage and elsewhere in the LXX (e.g., Deut 5: 23; Josh 13: 21; 2 Sam 6: 21; 1 Kgs 16: 16; Ezek 43: 7) the term clearly denotes “high officials” or someone “of princely authority.” 7 Hannah comments of Sirach 17: 17, “This parallels exactly the original text of Deuteronomy 32: 8–9.” 8 As we noted in chapter 2, LXX material in Daniel 10 is divided. The Theodotion text of LXX Daniel 10: 13, 20 allows for a reading of divine beings being rulers of the nations, whereas other LXX texts do not. 9 As noted above, Sirach 17: 17 and Deuteronomy 32: 43 are clear instances of passages in the LXX outside Theodotion Daniel 10: 13, 20 that bear clear witness to the Deuteronomy 32 worldview perspective. The same is true in pseudepigraphical texts from the Second Temple period. DARK POWERS OVER THE NATIONS: The Pseudepigrapha Philo of Alexandria is also in line with this text of Deuteronomy 32: 8–9, writing that God “set boundaries of nations according to the number of the angels of God; and the portion of the Lord became his people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance, Israel.” 10 The Second Temple book of Jubilees makes certain statements in its retelling of Old Testament stories that collectively reflect the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. 11 As we saw in an earlier chapter, in Jubilees 10 the writer has God speaking to the archangels tasked with rounding up and ridding the earth of the demons that were the result of the Genesis 6 debacle (Jub 10: 4–5). The leader of the evil spirits, Mastema, requested that a certain number of the demons be permitted to remain on the earth under his charge. Specifically, we must recall that Mastema asked God (Jub 10: 8): Let them [the spirits] do everything which I tell them, because if some of them are not left for me, I will not be able to exercise the authority of my will among the children of men because they are (intended) to corrupt and lead astray before my judgment because the evil of the sons of men is great.” 12 God’s response was to allow a tenth of them to escape judgment (Jub 10: 6–11), but the demons left on earth “were restrained from following the sons of Noah” (Jub 10: 13). The idea that the demons were prohibited from harassing the “sons of Noah” is odd, as all humanity after the flood extended from the sons of Noah. Jubilees 15 may help explain the author’s thinking: 30 For the LORD did not draw Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau near to himself, and he did not elect them because they are the sons of Abraham, for he knew them. But he chose Israel that they might be a people for himself. 31 And he sanctified them and gathered them from all of the sons of man because (there are) many nations and many people, and they all belong to him, but over all of them he caused spirits to rule so that they might lead them astray from following him. 32 But over Israel he did not cause any angel or spirit to rule because he alone is their ruler and he will protect them and he will seek for them at the hand of his angels and at the hand of his spirits and at the hand of all of his authorities so that he might guard them and bless them and they might be his and he might be theirs henceforth and forever. (Jub 15: 30–32) 13 The key is verse 32. God did not allow “any angel or spirit” to rule over Israel—a clear reference to the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. Israel was Yahweh’s allotted inheritance (Deut 32: 9), but the other nations were put under the authority of lesser gods (spirit beings). This language, coupled with Jubilees 10: 1–13, where one-tenth of the demons sprang forth from the spawn of the Watchers, creates a subtle connection between the sin of the Watchers at the time of the flood and the incident at Babel. Scholars have taken note of this link: The evil spirits are not precluded from pursuing all of Noah’s children, at least not in the long run.… Jubilees wants to claim that national boundaries are essential for understanding the role of demons. Ultimately, the demons are precluded only from pursuing Israel.… Jubilees develops the link between demons and idolatry, and further links demons and idolatry to other nations. 14 Jubilees 15: 31 clearly says that God caused the spirits assigned over the nations “to rule so that they might lead them [the nations] astray from following him.” Hannah writes: “The nations are to be led astray from following God because of their sin at the Tower of Babel.” 15 While the theology of Deuteronomy 32 is affirmed, the second and third rebellions found in the Old Testament are thus conflated with Satan as the overlord. 16 The notion that the Old Testament does not include that God wanted the nations led astray is an inventive thought that makes God’s denunciation of the gods of the nations in Psalm 82: 2–5 duplicitous. The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90), a highly symbolic retelling of the history of Israel, also reflects the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. In his scholarly commentary on this portion of 1 Enoch, Patrick Tiller describes it as follows: [The Animal Apocalypse] is presented as an allegorical dream of the antediluvian patriarch, Enoch, in which he sees a story about bulls, sheep, various animals that prey on the sheep, and humans who interact in various ways with the sheep and bulls. Each element in the story is primarily a sign for some object of human history outside of the story. Cattle represent humans from the time of Adam to Noah, some of the early Shemites, and the restored humanity of the ideal future. Sheep represent Israel. Various unclean predatory and scavenging animals and birds represent the Gentile nations. Stars represent the fallen Watchers, and humans represent other angelic figures, except for the owner of the sheep, who represents God. 17 The important imagery is that the sheep represent Israel and the owner of the sheep represents God. In the Animal Apocalypse, the owner (God) puts18 the sheep (Israel) in the control of “seventy Shepherds, that is, to seventy angels, which, of course, recalls the seventy angels of the Angelic Patron Legend.” 19 God’s abandonment of his sheep (Israel) to the seventy shepherds corresponds to the Davidic monarchy in exile. 20 The period of the seventy shepherds is itself divided into four subperiods, the last of which ends with the dawn of the messianic age. 21 This is one reason why scholars refer to the allegory as an apocalypse. Many Jews of the Second Temple period, including the author of this portion of 1 Enoch, expected the messianic age to correspond with the ending of exile, still defined as Israel being in subordination to foreign powers. The seventy shepherds overtly represent the angelic patrons of the gentile nations. Their role is oppression of the sheep (Israel). The writer of 1 Enoch 85–90 cleverly subverts the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where Israel is Yahweh’s exclusive possession and the sons of God were allotted to the nations: In turning Israel over to the nations, God in effect turns them over to the nations’ heavenly patrons.… [T] he author of the Animal Apocalypse has taken the concept of the angelic guardians of the nations and stood it on its head, so to speak. Here the angelic patrons function not so much as guardians of the Gentile nations, although they are that to be sure, nor even as angels charged with leading the Gentiles astray, as in Jubilees. Rather, they function as a means of punishing Israel. 22 The enthusiasm of the shepherds for their task goes too far, however. As Stuckenbruck notes, “The shepherds become disobedient when of their own accord they exceed the limits set by God on the assignment.” 23 God responds by commissioning an angelic scribe to monitor the treatment of the sheep and to prevent the shepherds from killing too many of them (1 En 89: 59–64). This scribe’s activity is subsequently described in 1 Enoch 89: 70–71, 76–77; 90: 14, 17, 22.24 The commissioned shepherd-scribe has drawn a good deal of scholarly attention. Stuckenbruck remarks of this passage that “the angelic being appointed to monitor the shepherd’s treatment of Israel seems to presuppose a tradition that aligns the people of God with an angel.” 25 This, of course, reminds us of the way the book of Daniel describes Michael as Israel’s prince (Dan 10: 21; 12: 1). Hannah’s observation reflects the consensus of scholarly suspicion: “As the narrative proceeds, there are a number of clues that this angelic figure is probably to be identified with none other than the archangel Michael.” 26 The clues followed by scholars in identifying the shepherd-scribe as Michael include the fact that, as Michael does in the book of Daniel, 1 Enoch 90: 13–14 has the shepherd-scribe going to battle for the sheep (Israel) and that Michael is specifically named as the archangel “put in charge of the good ones of the people,” a common designation for Israel in the Septuagint. 27” (Michael S. Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, 160-167 (Kindle Edition): Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press)
These dark powers led the people of Israel astray from God through the seduction of the Hebrew men, by the Midianite women. We see another glimpse into the demonic plot behind these events by noticing that Balaam the sorcerer helped concoct it:
Numbers 31:16-Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
The Bible (like occultism) has always recognized the profound link between sex and the spirit world. As one researcher has noted:
“Sex is powerful. The chemicals released in the brain during sex are more powerful than heroin and cocaine and have a bonding effect. Sex has been an integral part of sorcery, magic, and idolatry since ancient times. Many still believe and practice sex magic as the ecstasy brought on at the climax of sex is thought to have the power to release the intention of a spell, blessing, or curse. Similarly, taboo or perverse sex is thought by some to have power in the spiritual world. Oracles and cult prostitutes were famous for their prophetic abilities which were tied directly to sex with the subjects of their prophecy. While some may dismiss these practices as superstitious, Israel’s history and the rest of the Bible teach that sex is indeed powerful and deeply spiritual. Sexual temptation is one of the enemy’s strongest tools, and he still uses it to lead astray. In today’s culture sex is not so strongly tied to religion. People have sex freely without considering anything spiritual happening or thinking that they are joining themselves spiritually to another person. They certainly don’t think that they are submitting to a demon’s desires. But this is where illicit sex led the Israelites. The Israelites could not conceive of a sexuality that was not tied to spirituality and worship.” (Jonathan Ammon, Balaam’s God: Prophetic Insights from an Infamous Life, 144-145 (Kindle Edition): Lowerlight Books)
Thus the events of Numbers 31 are framed in the context of very specific spiritual and carnal warfare, and the punishment issued was in the genre of judicial decree by the Almighty God. This was not an arbitrary event or a capricious ruling. The events of Numbers 25 could have destroyed the nation of Israel and led to the Messiah not being brought into the world to provide salvation for mankind.
Second, please notice that the command of Moses for the Hebrews to destroy the Midianites was obviously not understood literally. He was using military terminology of his day and age to give the idea that the the Midianites (and their gods) had been defeated in their plots against God. As Copan notes:
“In this way, Midianite seduction and Israelite treachery would come under God’s curse. Israel’s mission and identity were in grave danger of derailment. In response to this defiance, God brought death and plague to the Israelites for their treasonous activity. This challenging text involves not only Yahweh’s command to fight against the Midianite men but also Moses’s additional command to strike down women and boys. The traditional understanding is that this seduction was a particularly malevolent act—a defiant assault on Yahweh and Israel’s covenantal integrity and thus a threat to Israel’s mission to bring blessing to the world. This called for severe judgment against Midian, including the women involved in the seduction. Why the boys? This would prohibit their rising up in the next generation to attempt Israel’s overthrow. 19 This seduction was tantamount to an unprovoked attack of war against Israel—like the Amalekites (Exod. 17) and Kings Sihon and Og (Num. 21). And it was also tantamount to bringing a curse on Israel as the Moabite king Balak just solicited the pagan prophet Balaam to do (Num. 22–24). The Israelites weren’t the aggressors. So this particular command, which was not routine, had the very strong element of justice behind it. But let’s assume for the moment that we should take this in a straightforward manner—that the men, women, and boys were wiped out and that the young girls/ women not involved in the subterfuge against Israel assimilated into Israelite households. We apparently have no more Midianites left over. If so, this scenario brings some questions with it—yes, more indications of hyperbole. First, a generation or so later, “innumerable” Midianite soldiers on their camels rose up to fight against Israel (Judg. 6: 5). John Goldingay notes: “Midian’s appearing in strength later in the Old Testament . . . would be odd if they were annihilated in the wilderness.” 20 Second, a further indication of exaggeration is that every Midianite man was killed without one Israelite fatality (Num. 31: 49). This seems to be the reverse of the ancient Near Eastern trash talk of “There were no survivors.” In the case of the Israelite army, the equivalent trash talk was “Everybody on our side survived!”” (Paul Copan, Is God a Vindictive Bully?: Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments, 216 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic)
In another work, Copan provides other examples of hyperbole like this from around the time of Moses.
“But ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used “utterly/ completely destroy” and other obliteration language even when the event didn’t literally happen that way. Here’s a sampling: 5 • Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later fifteenth century) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC. • Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322–1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).” • The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (around 1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.” • In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II’s son Merneptah announced, “Israel is wasted, his seed is not,” another premature declaration. • Moab’s king Mesha (840/ 830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC. • The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701–681 BC) used similar hyperbole: “The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped.”” (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, 171-172 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)
So, the events described here are framed in the language of exaggeration. We also know this because the Midianites show up later in the Old Testament, a not so subtle hint that they were not annihilated!
Third, a powerful case may be made front the text here that the commands issued by Moses here in Numbers 31:17-18 were not issued by God, but by Moses himself (without Divine approval). Copan elaborates:
“In my estimation, scenario 2 makes better sense in light of the biblical text. As retribution against the Midianites for intentionally seducing Israel away from the Lord, he “commanded” (tsavah) Moses that Israel’s army fight against Midianite men: “[ Israel] fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man” (Num. 31: 7 NIV). But after all of this, Moses added his own command—to kill the women (nonvirgins) and young boys too (vv. 15–18). What are we to make of these two commands? Is Moses’s command simply an extension of what God commanded, or is something more going on? Though I can’t go into detail here, I will list a few considerations that have prompted various scholars to take this second alternative seriously. 21 First, the Israelite army had already completed their task, “as the LORD commanded Moses” (v. 7). Apparently, once they carried out the Lord’s order, that was it—mission accomplished. Second, this appears to be Moses’s command and not the Lord’s. After all, the Israelite army had already done what the Lord commanded. Moses’s additional command seems to be an instance of giving a nonauthoritative judgment. This is comparable to the prophet Nathan telling David to build the temple (2 Sam. 7: 3). But the Lord told Nathan that David would not build it, but rather Solomon. We have another instance of this in 1 Kings 13: 7–26, where one prophet clearly has a word from God and another prophet tests the first prophet with a merely contrived word from the Lord (v. 18: “He lied to him”; cf. vv. 21–22). As with Moses, Nathan, and the deceptive prophet, we have indications within these narrative texts that these prophets are going beyond what God has said. These are instances of occasional off-the-cuff, nonauthoritative prophetic assertions. As we’ll see, Moses is going beyond what God commanded rather than fulfilling what God commanded. Moses is reformulating what divine “vengeance” (neqamah) calls for (Num. 31: 2, 3). Third, nothing happened after Moses’s command was issued. The focus at the end of the chapter is on the distribution of material spoils and permission for Israelite men to take Midianite wives for themselves if they chose to (cf. Deut. 21: 10–14). But there was no actual implementation of those orders. As we saw with Achan and his family (Josh. 7), the Old Testament certainly doesn’t recoil from mentioning such things if they actually happened—including potential or actual judgments against women (e.g., Num. 5: 20–22; 2 Kings 11: 20)—but we just don’t see any mention of follow-through in this particular Numbers 31 passage. 22 Fourth, we’ve already seen how this kind of “total-kill” language doesn’t appear to apply in case after case. For one thing, the affirmation that “all” of the Midianite men were killed is itself simply another hyperbolic statement. And as we’ve noted, if all Midianite men, women, and boys were literally eradicated (with the rest assimilated into Israel), that pretty much eliminates the entire Midianite nation. But “elimination” clearly didn’t happen. The Midianites lived on for generations, including getting a mention in the apocryphal book of Judith (2: 25–26), whose events took place in the fourth century BC. Fifth, with Moses’s anticipated death (Num. 31: 2), in this one final act he appears to play a more transitional and secondary role here—in contrast to the increased role of the priesthood (cf. 25: 7–8; 27: 19–22; 31: 6, 21–24, 25, 31, 41, 47, 51–54). This fact is borne out as we look at the literary framework of Numbers 31. The key point is that the structure of Numbers 31 presents Moses’s command (v. 16) as an outlier—an add-on to what God had already commanded. 23 The basic literary arrangement of Numbers 31 focuses on two sets of divine commands, two acts of obedience, and two nonauthoritative extensions of those commands. Between the two sets of divine commands is the singular section on purification, which emphasizes the central role of the priesthood: 24 First divine command (31: 1–4): (1) The Lord commands Moses to avenge the people of Israel against the Midianites (vv. 1–2), and (2) so Moses commands Israel to “execute the LORD’S vengeance on Midian” (v. 3). First obedient response (31: 5–12): Phinehas the son of Eleazar the high priest goes—or perhaps even leads Israel—into battle with holy vessels from the tabernacle and trumpets in hand to sound the alarm (v. 6). Remember that Phinehas had been instrumental in bringing an end to the plague God had brought against the Israelites, who had sinned at Baal-Peor (Num. 25: 6–11). This Midianite seduction and Israelite treachery led to the command here to fight against the Midianites, and the priestly Phinehas played a central role in both events. And the Israelite army faithfully carried out what the Lord commanded (31: 7). First extension beyond the divine command (31: 13–18): Here Moses went beyond the Lord’s command, telling the officers and captains to kill the women and boys too (vv. 14, 17). This Mosaic “extension” isn’t attributed to the Lord, and there is no indication that the command was even carried out. In fact, Moses immediately shifts to the matter of purification (vv. 19–20). Also, in this “extension” section of the narrative, Phinehas the priest drops out of the picture. Purification (31: 19–24): We noted that Moses suddenly turns from his call for additional action against the Midianites to purification regulations. Then Eleazar the high priest addresses the army that his son had led into battle about the matter of purification. He notes that this is what “the LORD commanded Moses” (v. 21)—and he elaborates on what is required (vv. 21–24). Second divine command (31: 25–30): The Lord commands Moses to count and divide the plunder from the battle, and Eleazar is to work alongside Moses in executing this command (v. 25). Second obedient response (31: 31–47): Both Moses and Eleazar carry out the command to count and divide the plunder. Together “Moses and Eleazar the priest did just as the LORD had commanded Moses” (vv. 31, 41, 47). Second extension beyond the divine command (31: 48–54): The commanders and captains bring an additional gift to Moses—an act that wasn’t commanded by the Lord (v. 48; cf. vv. 52, 54). This parallels Moses’s “extension” beyond what God commanded and that was not explicitly carried out. By contrast, the officers’ gift that went beyond the Lord’s command was accepted by Moses. Then both Moses and Eleazar receive the gifts and bring them into the tent of meeting (vv. 51–54). Notice that throughout verses 25–54, Eleazar plays a prominent role. As Ken Brown observes concerning the first and second extensions of two divine commands here, “Whereas Moses alone spoke and acted in 31: 14–18 (despite Eleazar’s presence in 31: 13), Moses and Eleazar are together addressed by YHWH in 31: 26, together fulfill YHWH’s command in 31: 31, 41, and together accept the officers’ gift in 31: 51, 54.” 25 The first of these two scenarios is a bit more murky and less straightforward, involving the standard hyperbole we’ve come to see in other war texts. The second scenario seems better grounded from a literary and theological point of view.” (Paul Copan, Is God a Vindictive Bully?: Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments, 217-218 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic)
As others have noted:
“Wolterstorff ’s approach may also shed light on some other troubling texts, such as the apparent genocide of the Midianites in Numbers 31. After the Israelites “fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man” (Num 31: 7), Moses commanded them to “kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man” (Num 31: 17-18). Taken in isolation, this text affirms that every Midianite was killed and only female virgins survived so they could be assimilated into the Israelite community. However, read in its literary context, as part of a single narrative—a connected literary unit—similar textual features arise to those we identified as occurring in Joshua. First, Numbers 31 is one part of a broader context; it is both part of the Pentateuch and also part of a larger canonical sequence. The Pentateuch contains the Torah or Law. Normally in the Torah when Moses utters a command on God’s behalf the passage begins with “The Lord commanded Moses.” This preface is absent from the commands in Numbers 31. The passages merely state that God commanded them to make war on Midian. Numbers 31: 7 states, “They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man” (emphasis added). This suggests the Israelites fulfilled this command. Moses’s command to kill women and children occurs after this and appears to be on his own authority. 90 If one reads the laws of war that are elaborated in the book of Deuteronomy, which follows Numbers, God commanded Israel not to kill noncombatants, such as women and children. He condemns the kind of conduct Moses commands here.” (Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy Evans, Paul Copan, Holy War In The Bible: Christian Morality And An Old Testament Problem, 3758-3771 (Kindle Edition): Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press)
Finally, we need to remember that the taking here of these women was not as sex slaves. As another researcher has noted:
“It has been groundlessly asserted, that Moses here authorised the Israelites to make concubines of the whole number of female children; and an insidious objection against his writings has been grounded upon this monstrous supposition. But the whole tenor of the law, and especially a statute recorded in De 21: 10-14, proves most decisively to the contrary. They were merely permitted to possess them as female slaves, educating them in their families, and employing them as domestics; for the laws concerning fornication, concubinage, and marriage, were in full force, and prohibited an Israelite even from marrying a captive, without delays and previous formalities; and if he afterwards divorced her, he was to set here at liberty, “because he had humbled her.” Leviticus 25: 44 ; Deuteronomy 20: 14 ; 21: 10-14; 2 Chronicles 28: 8-10 ; Isaiah 14: 2” (Reuben Archer Torrey, Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, 1739-1740 (Kindle Edition): Obama, NE: Patristic Publishing)
As is the case with every attack on the Word of God, such fall short when the matter is carefully examined.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.