#858 Warfare in Ancient Israel (Pt. II)

Dr. craig’s response

---

A

Occasionally I will invite a specialist to write a guest Question of the Week to address a specific question. In order address Juan’s questions, I’ve invited Paul Copan, who has studied thoroughly the nature of servitude in the ancient Near East and written extensively on this fascinating subject to write a guest column. His answer, divided into two parts over two weeks, begins below.

Dear Juan,

Your question not only focused on a servitude text I am most often asked about (Leviticus 25), which I addressed in Part I of my response. You have also raised the most challenging text on Old Testament warfare (Numbers 31), which I’ll address here.

You ask:

1) Why do they kill all the males among the children and all the non-virgin women?

2) Why are virgins distributed as if they were booty? [T]his appears to be sexual slavery. Also, keep in mind that they would be forced to be with the men who killed their families.

As for your Question 1, there is an interpretive issue, but a bit of background is important here. The scene in Numbers 31 refers back to the covenant-breaking event at Baal-Peor in Numbers 25. There, through instigation of the pagan prophet Balaam (v. 16), Midianite women seduced Israelite men to break faith with Yahweh and to join themselves to the pagan god Baal through idolatry and sexual immorality. Furthermore, this covenant violation brought a plague—a divine curse—on Israel for this covenant violation. This was the very thing that Moabite king Balak desired when he hired Balaam to curse Israel, though God’s words to him spoke blessing on Israel (Num. 22–24). Israel’s breach of covenantal integrity with the God who brought them out of Egypt threatened to undermine its national identity and thwart its mission to bring blessing to all the nations (Genesis 12:1-3). Much hung in the balance. As Jesus later said, “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22): no Israel, no Messiah, no salvation. So a severe response to this Midianite subterfuge was appropriate.

We should add that the ethnic or tribal identity of the Midianites themselves was not at issue. Moses himself had married Zipporah, a Midianite woman (Exodus 2:15-21).[1] But because of this flagrant provocation by Midian, God’s call for “vengeance” was warranted: the Midianites “treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor” (Num. 25:18). God told Abram that he would curse those who cursed his offspring. In the particular case of Numbers 25, this curse through Midian’s spiritual and moral seduction of Israel would obstruct divine blessing from coming to the nations (Genesis 12:3).

As for the interpretive questions, we may be more familiar with the traditional approach to this text—that the Midianites were virtually wiped out by Israel in this battle. However, there are certain narrative tensions, nuances, and textual indicators that open up other interpretive angles and raise other questions. As I lay them out, I am summarizing what I write in my book Is God a Vindictive Bully?).

Angle #1: The first angle involves the use of a totalizing, exaggerated warfare language common in the ancient Near East. As many Old Testament scholars recognize, hyperbole was common in ancient Near Eastern war accounts, including the Old Testament:

“man, woman, young, and old” (even where there clearly were no women, elderly, and children present);

“no survivor”;

“utterly destroyed”;

“destroyed.”

Closer examination indicates that “utterly destroyed [haram]” often simply means decisive military victory over an army rather than fighting against civilians. Or sometimes haram is synonymous with exile (e.g., concerning the nation of Judah in Jeremiah 25:9-11). Deuteronony 7:1-4 refers to Israel’s “utterly destroying” the Canaanites, but then it goes on to prohibit Israel’s intermarrying with the Canaanites and making treaties with them. If the Canaanites were to be annihilated, why the further prohibition that assumes the Canaanites’ ongoing existence?

The book of Joshua fits precisely into the genre of your standard ancient Near Eastern war text. It uses that sweeping, totalistic language, though—unlike other ancient Near Eastern war texts—mentions the existence of lots of survivors. So even though Joshua does “all that Moses commanded” (Joshua 11:12, 15, 20), we read that these Canaanite tribes are still in the land and need be “driven out,” which is the primary command to the Israelites (e.g., Joshua 23:5-17). Notice that in the next biblical book of Judges, the first chapter repeatedly mentions that the Israelites “could not drive them out.”

It might be helpful to note that the “cities” of Canaan that Joshua was trying to clear (“drive out”) were essentially military and administrative centers rather than general population centers.[2] These factors and the hyperbolic warfare language used in the Old Testament raises all kinds of questions concerning what is actually happening. Something more is going on. Again, I refer you to the details in my Vindictive Bully book.

How does this relate to Numbers 31? The text mentions (a) adult males in the army as well as (b) boys and women who have had sexual relations with a man (Numbers 31:7, 17). According to traditional interpretation, this sweeping attack against Midian was to prevent a new generation of young men to rise up and continue the attempted overthrow of Israel.^[3] 

For the moment, let’s assume that men, women, and boys were truly wiped out in this retaliation and any others were assimilated into Israel through marriage. The conclusion to draw would be that no more Midianite nation remained and thus no remaining Midianite threat against Israel. However, we have indicators that hyperbole is rearing its head once again.

For one thing, within a generation or two later, “innumerable” Midianite soldiers fought against Israel and dominated them (Judg. 6:5). Old Testament scholar John Goldingay notes: “Midian’s appearing in strength later in the Old Testament . . . would be odd if they were annihilated in the wilderness.”^[4] Indeed, the Midianites lived on for generations; they are mentioned in the apocryphal book of Judith (2:25–26), whose events took place in the fourth century BC. Also, that every Midianite man was killed without a single Israelite fatality appears to be another exaggeration (Num. 31:49)—the flip-side of “we left no survivors” talk.

Furthermore, we actually don’t see that anything was done about the women and young boys. The focus shifts to how the material spoils from war are distributed amongst the Israelites.

Angle #2: Another approach to Numbers 31 has been suggested by some scholars—namely, that Moses gave his own unauthorized command (vv. 15-18) because the Israelite army had already done what God had commanded them. That is, God’s call for “vengeance” against the Midianites (31:3) involved a specific order for the Israelites to fight against the Midianite army: “They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man” (Num. 31:7 NIV). They accomplished their mission according to divine specification.

In this approach, it was Moses who added to his own injunction of the Lord to kill the women (nonvirgins) and young boys too (vv. 15–18).  As one looks at the structure of the chapter, this angle makes good sense of the biblical text.^[5]

Why think this is just Moses’s and not God’s command? First, the Israelite army already had clearly carried out the Lord’s specific command (v. 7). There is nothing slipshod in their obedience; they fully accomplished their mission. Second, Moses appears to give a non-authoritative order, much like the prophet Nathan’s urging David to build the temple (2 Samuel 7:3), which had to be rescinded. In both cases, we have off-the-cuff, nonauthoritative prophetic assertions. In this case, Moses reformulates 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. Deuteronomy 21:10–14). But, as we’ve seen, there was no actual implementation of those orders.^[6] Fourth, we have seen that the total-kill language used throughout the Old Testament is typically laden with hyperbole.

Finally, in light of Moses’s anticipated death (Numbers. 31:2), he plays a more transitional and secondary role here in the book of Numbers—in contrast to the heightened role of the priesthood at this juncture (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 very structure of Numbers 31 presents Moses’ command (v. 16) as an outlier—a superfluous command that goes beyond what God had ordered.^[7] As I note elsewhere, Numbers 31 focuses on

two sets of divine commands (vv. 1-4 and vv. 25-31);

two acts of obedience in response to the divine commands (vv. 5-12 and vv. 31-47), and

two nonauthoritative extensions of those commands (vv. 31:13-18 and vv. 48-54);

with two sections that are then bisected by a singular section on purification in order to emphasize the key role of the priesthood (vv. 19-24).^[8]

Again, I refer readers to the structural details of Numbers 31 that I outline in my Vindictive Bully book.

As for the second question, you ask whether the Israelites are treating marriageable young women as war booty. Is this nothing more than “sexual slavery”? And aren’t these women being “forced to be with the men who killed their families”? As I noted in my discussion on servitude and also war in the ancient Near East, here we must take into account the on-the-ground realities back then. But we can also note the redemptive, morally elevated situation of the Israelite law and worldview as it applies here.

Old Testament scholar Roy Gane observes that we are dealing with less-than-ideal circumstances in the ancient Near East. However, by taking prisoners of war into servitude or by marrying some of them, Israelites “allowed for their survival in conditions [in Israel] that were better than elsewhere.”[9] For one thing, rape was prohibited—indeed potentially capitally punishable—in Israel (e.g., Deuteronomy 22:25).[10] Sexual relations were prohibited outside of marriage, and this included war.

As I mention in the chapter on war rape (and other chapters) in my Vindictive Bully book, Israel stood out among the nations surrounding it. Those nations glorified war rape; war for them actually had a sexual undercurrent, and victory for one army inevitably brought sexual humiliation to the women of the defeated nation. And those nations boasted about rape after victory, graphically depicted in their annals and artistic representations of these battles. In addition, a common feature of ancient Near Eastern warfare was to take women prisoners of war as sex slaves in whatever temples cult prostitution was practiced; By contrast, Israelite men were to avoid sexual activity when they engaged in battle, and Israel’s literature makes no references to the sexual humiliation of females after battle. And cult prostitution was forbidden in Israel.

As something of a parallel text, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives us the legal protocol for Israel to follow concerning female prisoners of war. Though we may find troubling certain features about taking a bride after war (e.g., selecting a physically attractive young woman, giving her a month’s time of transition, making her shave her head and clip her fingernails), we can see much in this text that is redemptive. Gordon McConville writes that, in an ancient Near Eastern world of war, war rape, and prisoners of war, “the main concern is that the [female] captive [mentioned in this text] be treated with dignity”[11] Christopher Wright comments that this law clearly serves the interests of the female captive while the victorious soldier’s interests are being restricted. The woman is to be “accorded the full status of a wife,” “given time to adjust”; there is a “postponing sexual intercourse,” and—if, in the end, the soldier changes his mind—she is to “leave as a free woman.”[12]  This stands in strong contrast to the treatment of prisoner-of-war women in the surrounding ancient Near Eastern nations. In my Vindictive Bully book, I spend a couple of chapters examining the overall worldview differences found in Israelite law and the law collections of the surrounding ancient Near Eastern nations.

Furthermore, in an ancient Near Eastern setting, women who no longer have husbands due to divorce or death have no real prospects for getting on in life on their own. They were often left to grim prospects of destitution and social disconnection. And no social services or other support structures were available, even though Israelites were repeatedly called on to love and care for the orphan, widow, and alien (e.g., Deuteronomy 10:18).

When young marriageable women were incorporated into Israel after war, it was to take place through a formal wedding ceremony. There was to be a month-long waiting period. While critics may see a month as insignificant or even as an intolerably short period of time, the arrangement does indicate respect and honor. It affords the woman the opportunity to grieve (as marked by a shaven head, clipped nails, and plain clothing) and to come to terms with the loss of her former life, family, and culture.

Yes, the ancient Near East brings with it a host of lamentable circumstances—nations warring to survive, women inevitably left vulnerable and destitute in the wake of war and defeat. This applies when Israel defeats the Midianite army in response to Midian’s determined sexual and spiritual seduction of Israel at Baal Peor. Thus, we have non-ideal circumstances for a young Midianite woman. Yes, this would mean having a foreign Israelite husband whose army just defeated her nation and killed her people. But realistically, what would you recommend given the realities of war and the inevitable destitution and vulnerability of women in this ancient setting?

Given Israel’s elevated ethic—no war rape, no sex outside of marriage, special concern for the alien because Israelites had once been aliens in Egypt—it seems that the young woman stands a far better chance of being more kindly treated in Israel than in any other nation surrounding it.

Juan, thank you for raising these questions. I hope that, in offering a bit of ancient Near Eastern as well as biblical context for these passages, my responses have brought some clarity and illumination. On these and related questions, I would urge you to explore my aforementioned books on these topics.

 

Paul Copan
Pledger Chair of Philosophy and Ethics
M.A. Philosophy of Religion program at Palm Beach Atlantic University (West Palm Beach, Florida)