Southern Baptist Convention says "no" to women pastors

[IndigoChild5559]

Marriage, would be my understanding, for sure. That's why He emphasized chaste.

When you force a girl into marriage against her will, is this not a form of rape?

 

[DNB]

Cohen goes on to note (in note 52):

I do not know why the hew Jewish version omits for yourself; the Hebrew lakhem is unambiguous.That the intent of for yourself is sexual or matrimonial is obvious; ...​

So, for example, Sefaria renders Num 31:17-18 as follows:

​

וְעַתָּ֕ה הִרְג֥וּ כׇל־זָכָ֖ר בַּטָּ֑ף וְכׇל־אִשָּׁ֗ה יֹדַ֥עַת אִ֛ישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּ֥ב זָכָ֖ר הֲרֹֽגוּ׃

Now, therefore, slay every male among the noncombatants, and slay also every woman who has known a man carnally;​

​

וְכֹל֙ הַטַּ֣ף בַּנָּשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יָדְע֖וּ מִשְׁכַּ֣ב זָכָ֑ר הַחֲי֖וּ לָכֶֽם׃

but spare every female noncombatant who has not had carnal relations with a man.​

While the JPS Women's Commentary notes:

18. "spare." Litterally, keep alive for yourselves," that is, the surviving captives are to be saved for the Israelite warriors.​

Yes, but the stipulation to preserve the women who are chaste for themselves, does by no means imply for illicit purposes - the implication is for marriage. Virgins are considered in higher regard, and is why if a man can prove that his wife was not a virgin upon marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13–30) it was grounds for death.

But, if the text is ambiguous, are we to assume that God wanted the women to be treated like that of the Levite's concubine (Judges 19-21), for example?

God did not condone unbridled sex: adultery was a capital crime, Eli's sons were rebuked for their perversions (I'm not sure if the indignation is based on the fact that they served at the tent of meeting alone). In Genesis, a man and a woman are to become one.

I Imagine that there are more examples of God's disdain for sexual immorality, I can't think of more at the top of my head.

 

[DNB]

When you force a girl into marriage against her will, is this not a form of rape?

Pre-arranged marriages is a common custom among many cultures.
I say this as far as not receiving the consent of the children is concerned.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Pre-arranged marriages is a common custom among many cultures.
I say this as far as not receiving the consent of the children is concerned.

Whether something is common or not is irrelevant to its morality. Down through history, men have oppressed women. It should not surprise us, then, that men have made it okay for them to take a wife without the girl's consent. It doesn't make it less rape.

Did you know that 30% of German men think it is okay to beat their girlfriends? And that 34% of German men ADMIT to beating their girlfriends? Does the fact that this is common make it morally okay? Of course not. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/11/europe/germany-violence-against-women-study-intl/index.html

What is hateful to you, do not do to others. This is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary. Now go study the commentary. -- Rabbi Hillel

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Marriage, would be my understanding, for sure. That's why He emphasized chaste.

And how would you feel about being forced to marry someone who murdered your entire family? Ready and willing?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Pre-arranged marriages is a common custom among many cultures.
I say this as far as not receiving the consent of the children is concerned.

And how does being "common" make it moral? And if it is not moral, how could it be right for God to order it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, but the stipulation to preserve the women who are chaste for themselves, does by no means imply for illicit purposes - the implication is for marriage.

Leaving aside the wholly ignorant use of the terms chaste and illicit, it means precisely what Shaye JD Cohen indicates. The obvious advantage of a virgin is that any child born nine months later is certain to be the offspring of the virgin acquisition and an Israelite.

So, for example, Milgrom writes wither reference to the second verse:

18. spare Rather, "spare for yourselves"; that is, the virgins are to be kept alive as slaves or wives. Postexilic Judaism was violently opposed to intermarriage. -- JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, page 259​

​

The Jewish Study Bible adds: "Since lineage was determined patriarchally, they [i.e., these virgins] do not pose the danger of producing Midianite sons who can avenge their fathers."

 

[DNB]

Whether something is common or not is irrelevant to its morality. Down through history, men have oppressed women. It should not surprise us, then, that men have made it okay for them to take a wife without the girl's consent. It doesn't make it less rape.

Did you know that 30% of German men think it is okay to beat their girlfriends? And that 34% of German men ADMIT to beating their girlfriends? Does the fact that this is common make it morally okay? Of course not. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/11/europe/germany-violence-against-women-study-intl/index.html

What is hateful to you, do not do to others. This is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary. Now go study the commentary. -- Rabbi Hillel

The other option for the women was that they would be killed.
I don't mean to argue from the lesser of two evils, but just that there is a lot going on in that period, during the conquest.
Rape is far different than marrying, as a man is obligated to provide, and we hope, to protect.

I don't believe that one can take that passage given in question and construe that God mandated rape to His chosen ones, in the sense that we understand it now - as in the Levites concubine by the Benjamites in the Book of Judges.

 

[DNB]

And how would you feel about being forced to marry someone who murdered your entire family? Ready and willing?

When the other option is death, it may be more mitigating?
But, you are correct that this is an extremely harsh predicament, and I cannot explain the entire justification from a holy perspective on this matter.
My contention was that categorizing the mandate as rape, in the contemporary sense, was erroneous. The men must still provide for and protect their spouse.

 

[DNB]

And how does being "common" make it moral? And if it is not moral, how could it be right for God to order it?

That it's not as gruesome as @IndigoChild5559 was insinuating. Such a common practice within the culture where it takes place, is not perceived as cruel or macabre. Thus, such a mentality was probably the case during the conquest.
Yes, as you said before, it must be a very hard sell to persuade the women to embrace such an arrangement, when their entire family was just slaughtered by their prospective husband.
Again, times were different, and the vanquished were always subjected to extremely cruel punishments. This option may appear a lot more appealing under the circumstances?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That it's not as gruesome as @IndigoChild5559 was insinuating. Such a common practice within the culture where it takes place, is not perceived as cruel or macabre. Thus, such a mentality was probably the case during the conquest.
Yes, as you said before, it must be a very hard sell to persuade the women to embrace such an arrangement, when their entire family was just slaughtered by their prospective husband.
Again, times were different, and the vanquished were always subjected to extremely cruel punishments. This option may appear a lot more appealing under the circumstances?

And yet, from your very first post (7) you have been arguing that this was not a matter of culture but a matter of the word of God -- precisely what the Sourthern Baptist Convention is arguing. And I contend otherwise.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My contention was that categorizing the mandate as rape, in the contemporary sense, was erroneous. The men must still provide for and protect their spouse.

I cannot bring myself to be so unfeeling towards another, vulnerable human being as Christians seem able to do, just by citing the Bible. Whether this is "rape in the contemporary sense" or not, surely you must be able to empathetically understand it from the girl's perspective -- if you really try hard.

 

[DNB]

And yet, from your very first post (7) you have been arguing that this was not a matter of culture but a matter of the word of God -- precisely what the Sourthern Baptist Convention is arguing. And I contend otherwise.

I'm sorry, we have strayed so far from where my initial post was addressing.
It was your non sequitur that lead down here.
I hold 100% to my position in my first post - within the Church, solely men are leaders and figures of authority. This should extend also outside the Church, but to simplify, I'm addressing the OP.

 

[DNB]

I cannot bring myself to be so unfeeling towards another, vulnerable human being as Christians seem able to do, just by citing the Bible. Whether this is "rape in the contemporary sense" or not, surely you must be able to empathetically understand it from the girl's perspective -- if you really try hard.

I already said that, more than once.
There are many passages that seem excessively cruel, and out-of-character for a holy God. I do no blindly refuse to perceive these instances as they appear on the surface, but because of the isolated occurrences of these acts, they do not overwhelm the verses throughout the entirety of the Bible where God's wisdom and mercy are exemplified.

 

[DNB]

Leaving aside the wholly ignorant use of the terms chaste and illicit, it means precisely what Shaye JD Cohen indicates. The obvious advantage of a virgin is that any child born nine months later is certain to be the offspring of the virgin acquisition and an Israelite.

So, for example, Milgrom writes wither reference to the second verse:

18. spare Rather, "spare for yourselves"; that is, the virgins are to be kept alive as slaves or wives. Postexilic Judaism was violently opposed to intermarriage. -- JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, page 259​

​

The Jewish Study Bible adds: "Since lineage was determined patriarchally, they [i.e., these virgins] do not pose the danger of producing Midianite sons who can avenge their fathers."

That's speculation and a matter of exegesis. It's possibly a viable interpretation, but, again, entirely speculative, and counter arguments with just as much weight can equally be produced - with the Midianite race wiped-out, such an honour killing will bear very little significance to anyone still alive (only the virgins remained), consequently leaving both the widow and her offspring destitute.

Again, God had a high regard for one's virginity, and it was emphasized as in the case of Rebekah and Esther. And, even in the case of Tamar, Absalom's sister, who was destined to a life of a spinster due to the loss of her virginity.

Virginity was a coveted status in the eyes of prospective Israeli husbands, and other cultures it appears also.
Thus, offering a more substantiated explanation to the motive behind God's allowance of the Hebrew conquerors to take the virgins for themselves, as brides.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's speculation and a matter of exegesis.

Rubbish.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

@Sgt. Pepper you need to create a whole new thread on this, perhaps around the theme of "you can't get there from here."
It was an excellent post.

Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it.

To be honest, I prefer to reply to other people's threads rather than start my own, particularly when it comes to religious debates such as this one and the one I just responded to (read here). Religious debates like this one give me the opportunity to share what I've learned from extensively studying the Bible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The other option for the women was that they would be killed.
I don't mean to argue from the lesser of two evils, but just that there is a lot going on in that period, during the conquest.
Rape is far different than marrying, as a man is obligated to provide, and we hope, to protect.

I don't believe that one can take that passage given in question and construe that God mandated rape to His chosen ones, in the sense that we understand it now - as in the Levites concubine by the Benjamites in the Book of Judges.

The other option being don't kill them and treat them kindly, respecting their dignity.

The way I see it is that men wrote the texts, fallible men. Does studying these texts bring me closer to God? I believe yes. But you can't look at something that is immoral and say that is is moral, or try to make excuses for it. Even if it's in the Bible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The other option being don't kill them and treat them kindly, respecting their dignity.

The way I see it is that men wrote the texts, fallible men. Does studying these texts bring me closer to God? I believe yes. But you can't look at something that is immoral and say that is is moral, or try to make excuses for it. Even if it's in the Bible.

A very good post, thank you. Especially when you say "even if it's in the Bible."

The thing is, we can gain wisdom from many, many different sources -- sometimes even sources where wisdom wasn't the primary goal. The trick is to recognize that all of our writings, all of them, are by us, by humans. And there are and have been many wise humans, who can give us insights, new perspectives. We have artists and novelists and musicians that can do the same thing, and they can all be of inestimable value.

At the end of the day, what we take from all of that wisdom, art, fiction, music, philosophy, depends entirely upon us -- we must judge what feels right and wrong to us, and then act accordingly.

But it's still just us.

 

[DNB]

The other option being don't kill them and treat them kindly, respecting their dignity.

The way I see it is that men wrote the texts, fallible men. Does studying these texts bring me closer to God? I believe yes. But you can't look at something that is immoral and say that is is moral, or try to make excuses for it. Even if it's in the Bible.

Well, then it may appear that we have a fundamental discrepancy between our views of the Bible, as to whether or not it was written under the auspices of God?
At a minimum, I believe that the Torah, specifically Leviticus and Deuteronomy, were dictated by God to Moses. All the precepts, ordinances, injunctions and rituals were prescribed by God. Equally, were the territories that the Israelites were to conquer, and by what methodology that they were to do so.

So, yes, I feel obligated to try and harmonize the impeccable holiness of God, with the entirety of Scripture.
Thus, God did not mandate rape to the virgin Midianites, but to marry them. And, as cruel or unjust as this may appear to a modern reader, I trust that there is a sound justification to it.

Remember that initially, the whole race was destined to destruction due to their idolatrous practices - they caused Israel, through Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord.