Carm Darn # 1: Matt Slick forgot to read v. 17

This is my reply to an article by Matt Slick entitled

Why does the Bible say houses will be plundered and wives ravished?

    "Anyone who is found will be thrust through, and anyone who is captured will fall by the sword. 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished," (Isaiah 13:15-16).

This is simply a prophecy about what will occur.  It is a proclamation about the coming judgment of how Babylon will fall to the Medes.  If someone comments about a coming war and then states that there will be children who will be destroyed, houses plundered, and wives raped, does it mean that the one who is saying it is approving of it?  It just means that the unfortunate reality of war and its horrible consequences are easily known and even predicted.

 I think Matt forgot to read v. 17, here it is:

 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold. (Isa. 13:17 NAU)

Here is it in context. It is perfectly clear from the immediate context that God is claiming to "stir up" the Medes to inflict atrocities like rape upon the Babylonians:

 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.
 19 And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride, Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.   (Isa. 13:13-19 NAU)

If this prophecy had instead said God would be "stirring up" the Medes to deliver gifts of food to the Babylonians, the Christian apologists would not see any problem in saying God caused the Medes to do this good work.  So it is clear that the linguistic gymnastics arise solely from the apologist's dislike of the idea that god causes rape, it does not arise from anything in the grammar or the immediate context. We call that superficial method of interpretation eisogesis.

Also, Matt Slick is a Calvinist, so he would have been more honest had he said that God causes people to make all the choices that they do, including the sinful ones, such as rape.  Because of his Calvinism, Slick would not need to read v. 17, God's causing people to sin is too clear from other scriptures, so Slick would simply read that bit of theology into this text even if v. 17 wasn't there.