This article features my email response on the topic of marriage in the Bible, addressing the sender’s arguments and questions. It seeks answers from a biblical perspective while also engaging with objections raised against the God of the Bible. The senders’ name will not be mentioned.
Hello,
I read your article about Numbers 31 and how you answer the “rape-justification” accusation in Answering Objections To Numbers 31:17-18.
Suppose the Hebrew soldier first married an 8-year-old Midianite female war captive, and only then had sex with her. What Mosaic law would he be breaking?
Does the Pentateuch condemn sexual activity within adult-child marriages equally as clearly as it condemns adultery and homosexuality?
Hello, this is AC,
I apologize for the delayed response. As the sole administrator of this site, I manage it alongside other endeavors. However, I want to take the time to respond to your email thoroughly. I appreciate you and thank you for reaching out with your concerns and critiques Senders’ name. The article Answering Objections to Numbers 31:17-18 is one of my earlier writings, and while it addresses key points, it may not cover every possible objection. Your input is truly appreciated.
Numbers 31:17-18 is often cited as referring to sexual assault involving young girls, but the text itself never states this. Such an interpretation is frequently read into the passage. However, when we examine the broader context of Numbers and the rest of the Bible (I’ll later explain why the use of hermeneutics is justified, depending on the angle of the objection.), it becomes clear that this is not the case.
Before addressing your fi rst two questions together, I want to emphasize that the Pentateuch is not merely a book of laws but rather wisdom literature designed to guide the Israelites. It presents various scenarios sometimes without the level of detail one might expect from legal codes offering principles that can be applied and expanded upon in different situations. Inspiring Philosophy has conducted extensive research and provided scholarly insights to help many gain a deeper understanding of these texts as I’ve explained it. This is knowledge that many are unaware of, but keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that the Pentateuch is not as linear as some might assume in its teachings and lessons. Instead, it provides a degree of fl exibility, allowing the Hebrews to interpret their own scriptures while remaining aligned with God’s moral path.
To both of your questions, you respectfully presented. The soldiers would be breaking Deuteronomy 21:10-14 as well as Genesis 2:18-24 (v.24), these passages focus on marriage specifically and hone in on age as well.
- 10 “If you go out to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God gives them over into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman and set your affection on her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 And it will be that, if you do not desire her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money; you shall not mistreat her because you have humbled her. – Deut. 21:10-14 (LSB)
- 18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the fi eld and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the fi eld. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the fl esh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And fl esh of my fl esh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one fl esh. – Gen. 2:18-24 (NKJV)
Let’s look at Genesis 2:18-24. This is not just a story of Adam and Eve, but was often seen as an illustrated standard for what a marriage should be. Eve must be of equal standing to Adam (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:2) in nature and both are referred to as adults. Adam is referred to as (ish) and Eve (issha). These words are never used to refer to children, the same goes for the LXX. This simplest form of what a marriage is and is supposed to resemble for the Hebrews. Anything deviating outside of this standard as Christians is what we would deem as sexually immoral. However, passages later on would be revealed in the Pentateuch to clarify more on Marriage. We must be careful not to make an argument from silence from what the Bible doesn’t say, but what it does say and emphasize that. This brings us back to the foundation of marriage in Genesis 2, where the fundamental principle for marital relationships is established.
Regarding both of your questions, as you respectfully presented them, the soldiers would have been violating Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Genesis 2:18-24 (v.24), which emphasize marriage and implicitly address age.
Looking at Genesis 2:18-24, this passage is more than just the story of Adam and Eve; it serves as an illustrative standard for marriage. Eve is depicted as Adam’s equal (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:2) in nature, responsibility (Genesis 1:28), and both are clearly presented as adults. Adam is referred to as ish (אִישׁ) and Eve as ishshah (אִשָּׁה), terms that are never used for children a pattern consistent in the Septuagint (LXX) as well. This passage establishes the fundamental model for marriage among the Hebrews.
Anything that deviates from this standard, from a Christian perspective, would be considered sexually immoral. However, later passages in the Pentateuch provide further clarification on marriage. It is important to avoid arguments from silence not focusing on what the Bible does not explicitly say, but rather on what it does say and emphasize.
For Deuteronomy 21:10-14 as I have mentioned briefly in my article under the title addressing Assumption 3. This passage actually tells you what to do in times of war which as we know was common in the ancient world and was bound to happen amongst nations. Deut. 21:10-14 addresses a common result of war when the Hebrews are the victors and that is the women (like the children) are integrated into the society of the victorious nation. They had no were else to go so often they would be classified in the sense as the “spoils of war.” This doesn’t necessitate a negative connotation, but was just another way of referring to what you have obtained from war. If the Hebrews ever won a war, Deut. 21:10-14 makes it clear that if a man sees a woman they find attractive. The man was to change her clothes, cut her hair (cutting hair wasn’t just a sign of morning but also to make her less attractive. Lest the man has any impure motives) and nails. Then she was to mourn for a whole month. Then after if he still wants her they are to get married and then they consummate the marriage. If he doesn’t want to be with her anymore he has to let her go where she wants and was commanded not to sell her for money like chattel. The text then mentions “…because you have humbled her.” – (v.14). The reason for this is because he cohabitated with her, but ended up not being with her in the end. Some translations might translate the word to humiliate. Which isn’t bad, because in some sense this would be humiliating to be with someone else this time just not to get married by the pursuing man.
The text assumes a lot, as if the reader should be aware about. For instance, the man can’t touch for a whole month. Which means he has to provide for her, food, water and shelter. Something the text doesn’t say but is assumed that the reader would understand this. Paul Copan highlights how human this practice was at this time.
In Deuteronomy 21:10-14, as I briefly mentioned in my article under Assumption 3, this passage provides guidelines for wartime conduct, a reality that was common in the ancient world. When the Hebrews were victorious in battle, women (like children) were often integrated into their society, as they had nowhere else to go. They were sometimes referred to as the “spoils of war,” though this term does not necessarily carry a negative connotation; it simply describes what was obtained in war.
This passage outlines a strict process if an Israelite man found a captive woman attractive. He was required to change her clothing, cut her hair (not only a sign of mourning but also to reduce physical attraction and prevent impure motives), and trim her nails. She was then to mourn for an entire month before marriage could take place. Only after this period, if he still wished to marry her, could they consummate the marriage. However, if he later decided he no longer wanted to be with her, he was commanded to let her go freely he was not permitted to sell her or treat her as property.
Verse 14 states, “because you have humbled her,” referring to the fact that they had cohabitated, yet he ultimately chose not to remain with her. Some translations render this as “humiliated her,” which is not inaccurate. However one could understand it with the context. That it would have been distressing for a woman to be taken in only to be sent away later, making it humiliating in this sense.
The passage assumes a great deal, expecting the reader to understand certain cultural norms. For example, the man was forbidden from touching her for an entire month, implying that he was responsible for providing her with food, water, and shelter though this is not explicitly stated in the text. Paul Copan highlights how, given the historical context, this practice was notably humane compared to surrounding nations. Why is all of this important? Just like we see in Numbers 31 there are captives, we see how the Israelites simple
Your question assumes that a specific law against parent-child marriage is necessary. However, even the sexual morality laws in the Pentateuch were often given in response to the sinful practices of other nations, outlining what Israel should avoid to remain set apart. These laws were meant to prevent the Hebrews from adopting those corrupt behaviors while also instructing them on how to live in a way that glorifies YHWH.
You will say we can learn what “the Jews” assigned as the minimum age of marriage by reading Ezekiel, but wait a minute…can the fact that most Christian scholars deny biblical inerrancy, make me reasonable to avoid using bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic, and thus justify my refusal to use something in Ezekiel to help interpret something in Numbers 31?
Ezekiel lived about 800 years after Moses. I’m not seeing why it is unreasonable to leave the views of Jews in 800 b.c. out of consideration when interpreting Jewish views that arose in 1500 b.c. Can you imagine using laws of modern day Germany to help interpret Germanic laws that were passed 800 years ago? This is senseless.
The objection to Numbers 31 is not merely about when the text was written but about the morality of the God of the Bible, making it an internal critique of Christian theology rather than a textual issue. Since the challenge is theological, it is entirely appropriate to respond with a passage from Ezekiel, despite the time gap between their composition. In the Christian paradigm, the same God who spoke through Ezekiel is the same God who spoke through Moses, making Ezekiel’s text theologically relevant to the discussion. Which is why I quoted it in my article in the first place. Which doesn’t make the usage of it “Senseless” as you say, but relevant to theological challenges.
If the challenge is not a theological critique of the Christian God, then I can agree with you, but that is not actually achievable when questioning a Christian belief about who God is or in this instance about God’s commands in a certain time period for a specific people (even though Num. 31:13-54 is descriptive text and not prescriptive text). In your email to me, you stated:
…the God of Moses did not think sex within adult-child marriages was sinful, even if the God of later Jewish prophets thought otherwise.
This means you’re questioning the morality of God in the Bible under a Christian’s theological understanding of who God is. Meaning it would be proper to appeal to later text to understand the morality of our God and what he believes someone should enter a marriage relationship. Even in the context of Ezekiel 16:1-14 it is dealing with God pointing towards the beginning of Jerusalem birth as nation, which didn’t start at the moment the text was written. So it is perfectly fine to go back or forward to understand what the Christian God (as you say) thinks.
That’s why I previously provided evidence of what the Hebrews were taught to do in regards to marriage (Adam and Eve). Just as a parent instructs their child to do what is right doesn’t mean that anything left unmentioned is permissible, the same principle applies here. Genesis 2:18-24 establishes the foundation of marriage as being between a grown man and woman. Based on these basic details, any deviation from that design would be sinful to keep it simple.
Thus it appears I’m reasonable, even if wrong, to demand a minimum age-of-marriage law directly from Moses, or else draw inferences that are consistent with Moses’ failure to condemn sex within adult-child marriages equally as explicitly as he condemned adultery…such as “the reason it’s easy to find Moses’ prohibitions on adultery, but impossible to find his prohibitions on sex within adult-child marriages, is because Moses prohibited adultery, but he didn’t prohibit sex within adult child marriages”.
It would be unreasonable, due to the fallacy of presentism, to impose a modern expectation of a specific marriage age onto ancient times. In that era, marriage qualifications were based on maturity rather than a fixed age. The biblical text consistently depicts marriages involving young adults or adults, never children and establishes a standard of two consenting adults before witnesses. Therefore, applying a present-day perspective to an ancient culture that operated under entirely different social norms is misguided. Your approach to the Bible lacks charity and demonstrates a limited understanding of the ancient context. As for your point about Moses not issuing a specific command, I have already addressed that earlier in my response, making further clarification unnecessary.
I do not say your take on these matters is unreasonable.
I’m only asking whether you can point to anything unreasonable in my take on these matters.
Of course, I’m in no way trying to justify pedophilia, I hate it equally as much as you do, but I’m also a bible critic, and it appears that I might be reasonable to criticize the bible this way: the God of Moses did not think sex within adult-child marriages was sinful, even if the God of later Jewish prophets thought otherwise.
Looking forward to your response.
Senders’ name
Thank you once again, Senders’ name. I truly appreciate you reaching out to me on this topic. I hope I’ve addressed your questions or objections, and I pray that our future discussions on the Bible are approached with even more charity. As a Christian, my faith isn’t shaken by these objections against the Bible even if there were no answers., but rather as 1 Cor. 1:23; 15:14-20. “we preach Christ crucified…and if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.” (NKJV). The key question is this: If Jesus truly rose from the dead, then Christianity is undeniably true. His resurrection validates Him as the Son of God, affirming that everything He said about Himself is indeed true. God bless you Senders’ name, keep searching.
