Rebuttal to Brian Chilton's interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Brian Chilton has posted an audio message to his blog trying to refute the "rape" interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  See here.

 28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
 30 "A man shall not take his father's wife so that he will not uncover his father's skirt. (Deut. 22:28-30 NAU)

Chilton's motive is clear.  This passage is forcing the maiden to marry her sex partner.  If the passage is talking about "rape", then this makes God sound like a sadistic idiot.  Chilton is a Christian bible believer:  There is nothing bad about his god, end of story, have a nice day.  And that's all the presupposition he needs in order to become automatically suspicious of any bible passage that seems to imply God's morals are different than those held by modern-day Americans.

I'm a skeptic, and for the following reasons I'm "reasonable" to view Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to be addressing the issue of non-consensual sex or "rape".  I also challenge Chilton to a live in person or written debate on whether it is reasonable to classify the OT YHWH as  "good".

The following arguments are from a study I did years ago, and I will respond in a future post to Chilton's specific arguments.

(you need to remember that because reasonableness doesn't always demand correctness, you are not demonstrating this skeptical interpretation to be 'unreasonable' merely because you've proven that a different interpretation remains logically possible.  If you are going to uphold the negative inferences you always draw out of Psalm 14:1 and Romans 1:20, you must do more than show your view of Deut. 22:28-29 is possible, as "possible" isn't enough to show that the opposing view is unreasonable.  You must show that the skeptics who are interpreting Deut. 22:28-29 as addressing "rape" are "foolish" and "without excuse" for seeing rape therein).

First, commentators admit there is no agreement among commentators as to whether this passage addresses rape or merely "seduction": 

There is no agreement among commentators as to whether Deuteronomy 22:28–29 treats seduction (and is therefore an expansion of the case in Exod. 22:16–17) or rape. If the New International Version is correct in interpreting the passage as addressing rape, the monetary increase (fixed at fifty shekels) may be seen as a penalty exacted against the offender because he shamed her (v. 29). Whereas the former case (Exod. 22:16–17) would have been subject to conventional divorce procedure (Deut. 24:1–4), an additional provision is made for the woman’s economic security in the latter case: the man can never divorce her, whatever she does (Deut. 22:28–29). The concern for the woman is also reflected in the distinctions between the two rape cases described in Deuteronomy 22:23–27: the betrothed woman raped in the city would have been heard if she had cried for help, but the woman raped in the country is presumed to have cried out, whether she did or not. In the latter case, only the man is put to death.

Elwell, W. A., & Elwell, W. A. (1997, c1996). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology (electronic ed.). Baker reference library; Logos Library System.

Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

This means there is a stark possibility that the passage is not sufficiently clear as to render the 'rape' interpretation unreasonable.  It might be sufficiently ambiguous as to allow either interpretation to be reasonable. Christian professor Joe Sprinkle highlights commentator uncertainty in his 1997 JETS article on the subject:

Similarly Deut 22:28–29 describes a case of what appears to be rape 8 in which the woman is subsequently given to the offender as wife (after a fifty-shekel marriage gift/fine to the father). In such a case the man “cannot divorce her as long as she lives.” Again, were it not for the original offense it would be assumed that he could divorce her.
---fn.8. The usual interpretation of “seize” (tāpas) is that the text implies that the man seizes the woman by force and rapes her. G. P. Hugenberger (Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi [VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 255-260), on the other hand, argues that Deut 22:28–29 is a case of seduction rather than rape. One argument in favor of the seduction view is the expression “they are found,” which suggests that both the man and the woman are involved, whereas in the case of rape one would expect it to say “he is found.” Another argument is that it seems unfair to force the woman to marry her rapist, whom she may well hate. Against Hugenberger, however, it seems hard to reconcile this being only a case of seduction with the extremely high bride price of fifty shekels, in contrast with Exod 22:16–17 where no such high price is set and no forfeiture of the right of divorce is mentioned.

Old Testament Perspectives On Divorce  And Remarriage, Joe M. Sprinkle

JETS 40/4 (December 1997) 533 

 * Joe Sprinkle is associate professor of Old Testament at Toccoa Falls College, P.O. Box 800236, Toccoa Falls, GA 30598–0236. 

The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 1998 (electronic edition.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Second, the fact that I'm reasonable to view Deut. 22:28-29 as talking about non-consensual sex is proven from the fact that even conservative Christian commentators, whose love for god gives them high motivation to avoid any "god is immoral" implication, nonetheless insist this passage is talking about rape.  E. H. Merrill is an inerrantist, and writes as follows for the inerrancy-driven New American Commentary.  IF there was any grammatical justification for him to avoid the "god is immoral" implication and restrict this passage to mere seduction, he likely would have.  He did not, he candidly admitted this was violent coercion:

22:28–29 At first glance the next example, the rape of an unbetrothed girl, might appear to have been a lesser offense than those already described, but this was not the case at all. First, he seized (Heb. tāpaś, “lay hold of”) her and then lay down (šākab) with her, a clear case of violent, coercive behavior.

Merrill, E. H. (2001, c1994). Vol. 4: Deuteronomy (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 305). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The NET bible (“Our passion is to see every person become mature in Christ and competent to teach and train others.”) makes the rape connotation in 22:28 explicit, which this team of Christian scholars would hardly have done had the grammar and context reasonably indicated the virgin was willing: 

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered.

The ESV makes the rape connotation explicit: 

Deu 22:28 Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes51 her and they are discovered.
Deu 22:29 The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives. 

The Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint makes it clear this was rape: 

And if any one should find a young virgin who has not been betrothed, and should force her and lie with her, and be found, (Deut. 22:28 LXE)

ISBE agrees:

RAPE.
[חָזַק, chazak] = “to seize,” “bind,” “restrain,” “conquer, “force,” “ravish.” The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (Deuteronomy 22:25-29).

Orr, J., M.A., D.D. (1999). The International standard Bible encyclopedia : 

1915 edition (J. Orr, Ed.). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

Third, “seize” in v. 28 in the Hebrew is taphas and means “to lay hold of, weild”, it is the same Hebrew word used in Deut. 21:19 to describe the way parents of a rebellious son force him in front of the elders to receive the death penalty; the same Hebrew word used in Deut. 20:19 to signify how the Hebrews will capture a city after warring against it; also used in Deut 9:17 to describe how the angry Moses seized the two tablets of stone and smashed them.  It is also used in 1st Samuel 23:26 (capturing an enemy) and in 1st Kings 18:40 (Elijah commanding seizure of the Baal prophets for purposes of execution).

Fourth, the Greek word in the Lxx here is βιασάμενος, and means “to force, dominate”.  Friberg says it is “always with a component of force”, and all other standard lexicons agree: UBS says

“exercise force (if midd.) or suffer violence (if pass.)” citing Mt 11.12 and “enter by force (Lk 16.16)”.  LNIDA says “to experience a violent attack…”.  LSCOTT says “force, an act of violence…against one's will”.  THAYER says “to force, inflict violence on…”.  TDNT,  “The reference of the term is always to “forced” as distinct from voluntary acts. The middle means “to compel,” “overpower” (sometimes sexually), the passive “to be constrained.” BDAG, “to gain an objective by force” (citing Dt. 22:28).

In the NT, this Greek word appears in of Matt 11:12 where the kingdom of God is controversially said to suffer ‘violence’, and Luke 16:16, where people ‘force’ their way into it.  

Fifth, 22:28 further describes the sex act as “he has violated her”, the Hebrew word for ‘violated’ is anah, and while cognate usage is not dispositive, this word is used in at least 5 other OT passages where forcible rape is clear, making it reasonable to demand very good contrary evidence before we say Deut 22:28 is an exception to the rule: 

And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force (Hebrew: anah). (Gen 34:2 NAS)
It shall be, if you are not pleased with 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 (Hebrew: anah)  her. (Deut. 21:14 NAU)
But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me; instead, they ravished (Hebrew: anah) my concubine so that she died. (Jdg 20:5 NAS)
However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated (Hebrew: anah) her and lay with her. (2Sa 13:14 NAS)
Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's brother, responded, "Do not let my lord suppose they have put to death all the young men, the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead; because by the intent of Absalom this has been determined since the day that he violated (Hebrew: anah) his sister Tamar. (2 Sam. 13:32 NAU)
They ravished (Hebrew: anah )the women in Zion, The virgins in the cities of Judah. (Lam 5:11 NAS)

Sixth, 3rd century church father Tertullian thought this was about rape: 

The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement!

(Five Books against Marcion, Book 4, ch. 34,

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.).

Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Seventh, that 22:28 describes a virgin who was forced or raped, may also be inferred by noting that v. 29 requires the man to pay a specified sum for the bride price that is very high in light of average earnings of the average man in those days, while the price the man had to pay in the similar circumstance described in Exodus 22 was not specified:

Exodus 22:16-17	Deuteronomy 22:28-29
16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.  17 "If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.	28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,  29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a presumption attaches that the bride-price was left unexpressed in Exodus because the sexual situation in Exodus was less severe of a crime than the case described in Deut. 22:28-29. But even conservative commentators admit Exodus was talking about "rape", and since I'm a skeptic who doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy, I have no problems with the bible giving inconsistent solutions to the single crime of "rape":

In the event that a man raped a single woman, he was to pay the bride-price and marry her (Exodus 22:16–17).

Vos, H. F. (1999). Nelson's new illustrated Bible manners & customs : How the people of the Bible really lived (Page 104). Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson Publishers.

If a girl was already betrothed and was raped by another man she could not become that other man’s wife, as would normally be the case (Deuteronomy 22:28–29), because she already belonged to her husband–to–be. Such violation involved the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:23–27).

Gower, R., & Wright, F. (1997, c1987). The new manners and customs of Bible times. Updated and rewritten version of Manners and customs of Bible lands, by Fred Wright.; Includes indexes. Chicago: Moody Press.

   "Reasonableness" doesn't require that we check out the lexical meanings of the Hebrew words in question, otherwise, nobody would be reasonable to interpret the bible they way they do unless they first conducted a scholarly level inquiry into its original languages.  Ok...do you forbid sinners from accepting Christ until they do a scholarly study of 2,000 years of Christian differences on soteriology?  Are you suspicious that the salvation of biblically illiterate people who nevertheless "accepted Jesus as their savior"?  If not, then unless you wish to tell the skeptic they can safely delay the day of their repentance as long as they are studying the original languages of scripture, you are going to have to admit that conducting a scholarly study of the Hebrew words is not necessary, before the skeptic's interpretation can be "reasonable".

Eighth, D.L. Christensen in the Word Biblical Commentary considers this to be seduction, but he calls it "rape" and allocates the "seduction" classification to how the event is viewed "legally":

If a man rapes an unbetrothed woman in the city, it is considered seduction, requiring marriage and paying the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver (vv 28–29), as a dowry.

Christensen, D. L. (2002). Vol. 6B: Word Biblical Commentary : Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 523). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Let's consider some objections:  

God would never force a woman to marry the man who raped her
Let me guess...you were born and raised in a democratic nation where lots of people fight for individual rights, correct?  But apologists argue that this requirement was morally good because, in the ANE, if the woman's virginity was taken, her value was diminished in the eyes of her village, so that forcing her to marry the rapist was a loving way to ensure that she could have restored status in the community through marriage and child-bearing.  Some apologists will speculate the forced marriage forbade sexual relations, but there is no evidence that sexual relations in such marriages were forbidden.

The fact that Deut. 22:24 requires the woman to be killed and 22:28-29 doesn't, proves these are two different situations

I'm not seeing the argument.  Yes, v. 24 doesn't express or imply rape:

 23 "If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,
 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

In that in 22:24, the woman is to be killed because she did not cry out, implying she had consented, and yet it still says the man “violated” (anah) his neighbor’s wife.  Apologists will seize on this as if this less forceful sense of anah in v. 24 must be read back into the anah appearing in v. 28.  But there are several problems with this knee-jerk method of exegesis so common among apologists:  

---a) vv. 23-24 are missing the ‘seize’ comment that appears in v. 28, which is significant especially for inerrantists who think only one human being authored the entire book of Deuteronomy (why didn’t Moses assert in 23-24 that the man had “seized” the virgin, if Moses was willing to use that word later in v. 28?).  The implication is that the sex act in 23-24 was consensual, in which case it is for sheer grammatical necessity that the anah of v. 24 would take the nuance of positional disgrace or dishonor (i.e., the woman’s consent doesn’t negate the moral disgrace of the man’s initiating such act on a betrothed virgin, indeed, consenting extra-marital sexual relations are disgraceful);  

---b) context determines the precise nuance a biblical author intended for his chosen word, and since it was already shown that v. 28’s ‘seize’ (taphas/βιασάμενος) means rape, the anah of v. 28 is governed more closely by the other word in the same verse, than it is governed by the sense anah takes 4 verses earlier.  Yes, Moses could very easily be giving anah in v. 24 a nuance not quite as popular as the nuance of “force” that it takes in v. 28 and most other cases.  

---c) anah literally means “bowed down”, and since most agree that vv. 23-24 do not describe rape but consenting sex, the author could have simply been referring to the physical position the woman took in her choice to have extra-marital sex.

---d) I do not believe Moses is the only author of Deuteronomy, nor do I believe the redactors did a perfect job of making that book teach morals and laws consistently.  I accept a hypothesis that is taught in all but the must fundagelical bible colleges and seminaries:  the documentary hypothesis.  Therefore, I have no reasonable basis to worry that the way I interpret 22:28-29 might contradict what the same book says elsewhere about a debateably similar subject.  Bible inerrancy is so controversial even among those who espouse it, that it is reasonable to say it does not deserve to be exalted in our minds to the status of governing hermeneutic (i.e., automatically cite the interpretation's contradicting another part of the bible as the only reason needed to trash it and look for another).   It just might be more reasonable to view two passages in one book as contrary to each other, than to pretend that any harmonization scenario is going to be "better".

Finally, the fact that the slave-owner is the only person required to do anything to atone for "his" sin of sex with a slave betrothed to another man (Leviticus 19:20-22), when in fact it is clear the passage is addressing "rape" (and it is clear that this is adultery that would, absent the girl's slave status, be punishable by death) makes it reasonable for those who accept Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch to say the person who wrote out Deut. 22:28-29, also wrote Leviticus 19:20-22, and had a very low view of woman, and such a man wasn't likely to view "forced to marry her rapist" in the shocking horrifically unacceptable way that it is viewed by modern-day democratic American Christians.

Much more could be said, but "reasonableness" doesn't require anybody, whether Christian or skeptic, to knock the opposing interpretation all the way out of the ballpark.  How much scholarly study of Mormonism do you suppose the average Catholic and Protestant fundamentalist did, before deciding that it was a false form of Christianity?  Isn't it likely they did little more than read a book or two written by an anti-Mormon (i.e., the way most creationist Christians read a few blogs written by creationists and become certain that evolution is a lie of the devil?)

If you aren't going to label Christians "unreasonable" for reaching confident conclusions before they've conducted a thorough scholarly review, fairness dictates that you also refrain from labeling skeptics unreasonable should they reach confident conclusions before they've conducted a thorough scholarly review.

But if you are this objective, then you leave yourself no basis to insist that Psalm 14:1 and Romans 1:20 correctly broad-brush skeptics and atheists.  When you tangle with me, you soon find out that poets that lived thousands of years ago aren't exactly the best sources of information about today's unbelievers.  But you cannot really be blamed for being impressed with empty rhetoric.  Just look at the pastors of fundamentalist churches.  The pastor's deep bellowing or screechy voiced confidence makes their trusting congregation positively certain that they should babble incoherently...or adopt KJV onlyism...or accept 5-point Calvinism, or jump around the church in voo-doo like stupor, etc, etc.


Since apologists find life is easier for themselves by quietly deleting my rebuttals from their blogs, here's a screenshot showing I posted news of my rebuttal at Chilton's blog, just in case that post disappears.  If he chooses to ignore my rebuttal, it won't be because he "didn't know about it":

J. Warner Wallace denies the biblically proper response to mass-killing

This is my reply to a video by J. Warner Wallace entitled

How Should Christians Respond to Mass Shootings and Similar Events? (Podcast)

Posted: 30 Nov 2017 01:09 AM PST 

In this podcast, J. Warner Wallace is interviewed by Frank Turek on his CrossExamined Radio Show. They discuss recent shootings and terrorist attacks and talk about possible responses that Christians can offer. How can we respond to the problem of moral evil in general and issues related to violence and gun control?

There is no need, the bible makes it perfectly certain, at least for Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy, that when crazy people go on a killing rampage, it is because they are being caused to do so by the biblical god who used to cause crazy people to beat children to death, rape women, and force pregnant women to endure abortion-by-sword.  And no amount of trifling "God-works-through-secondary-causes-so-he-can-cause-evil-without-being-morally-culpable" bullshit can help the apologist save face:

 Isaiah 13:13-18 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.

Hosea 13:15-16 15 Though he flourishes among the reeds, An east wind will come, The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness; And his fountain will become dry And his spring will be dried up; It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.
 16 Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

Quite obviously, Christians who think God "would never" cause women to be raped and little kids to be "dashed in pieces", simply haven't read their bible.

Cold Case Christianity: Wouldn’t A Loving God Reform Rather Than Punish?

This is my reply to a podcast by J. Warner Wallace entitled

 Wouldn’t A Loving God Reform Rather Than Punish? (Podcast)  

Posted: 27 Jul 2017 01:47 AM PDT

In this blast from the past, J. Warner responds to a common objection to the nature of God: If God is all-loving, why doesn’t he “reform” people rather than simply “punish” them in Hell? How would you answer a skeptic who argues a God who simply punishes his children in Hell is sadistic and vengeful, unworthy of our worship? J. Warner responds to this objection and answers listener email related to the nature of “election”, and the evidence for “annihilationism.”

Wallace begins the podcast with intro music and intro speech that indicate he wants to the the center of attention.  And I've been accusing him of being the Arnie's Used Car Salesman of Christianity for years.

The intro also says one purpose of the podcast is to "engage" skeptics with the Christian world view, so my Christian readers should note the day i posted this rebuttal, and start counting the days, weeks, months and years that Wallace will let my rebuttal go by before he decides to live up to his promise to "engage" this skeptic.

At 4:30, Wallace invites the listener to come to his "blog", and says he would "love" to have the listener come over and join that conversation, but when one presses the "comment" button to comment on one his articles, one is taken to his Facebook page...and despite my never having violated any of Wallace's Facebook rules or Facebook's own rules, Wallace banned me several months ago from his Facebook page.

So I continue standing by my accusation that Wallace is a liar:  he says he wants to "engage" skeptics, and yet despite my never having violated any rules of conduct from Wallace or such rules required by Facebook itself, he still banned me, rather quietly, from his Facebook "blog", several months ago.  Wallace is thus a liar; when he says he would love to have the listener join his blog conversations, the unstated caveat is that you not know enough to substantially refute his beliefs.  Nothing spells "fake Christian employing typical materialistic political marketing strategy" quite like "let's ban our more informed critics, that will prevent potential customers from being dissauded from buying our product.".

And indeed, when one goes to Wallace's websites, one would think he is some ridiculous liberal who thinks God wasn't able to get His act together until Wallace began teaching Christians how to have a forensic faith.  It is not an exaggeration to say Wallace promotes his materials so relentlessly, he is making his apologetics fantasy more the center of attention than Jesus precisely because of his marketing pitch that you cannot really live up to what Jesus wants you to do without having the forensic faith that comes from purchasing Wallace's materials.

If Wallace is correct that the bible is the inerrant word of God, "sufficient" for faith and practice, then why does he so relentlessly promote, market and advertise his own opinions about what the bible means?  Why market so obstinately that today's Christians "need" his books?  If the Holy Spirit doesn't need his help, why does Wallace make it seem that he and the Holy Spirit entered a mutually beneficial marketing contract?

If we are correct to ask 1990's televangelists whether they think God cannot be activated until the evangelist recieves donations, aren't we correct to ask the same type of question of other Christians who use similar marketing gimmicks?  Sure, Wallace doesn't tell others to send in their last grocery money, but that hardly means he must be employing any more honest of a marketing ploy.  He still drowns himself in relentless ceaseless promotion of himself, and his books, and this degree of "look at me!!!" is not consistent with Wallace's alleged trust that the Holy Spirit doesn't need his help and that the bible is ALONE "sufficient' for faith and practice. 
 
Basically, the first 10 minutes of this podcast justifies more the interpretation that Wallace's first priority is Wallace, than the interpretation that Wallace's first priority is Jesus.

Wallace is never going to make God look good, no matter what excuses he puts forth to "explain" how a literal hell can be consistent with divine "love", because of one bible passage that I've been using to beat fundamentalists senseless for years, and they haven't moved even one single inch toward making this sadistic lunatic look "good", probably because common sense prevails over their theological delusions:

NAU  Deuteronomy 28:
 1 "Now it shall be, if you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
 2 "All these blessings will come upon you and overtake you if you obey the LORD your God:
 15 "But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
 16 "Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.
  30 "You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not use its fruit.
 41 "You shall have sons and daughters but they will not be yours, for they will go into captivity.
 53 "Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the LORD your God has given you, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy will oppress you.
 63 "It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it.

Notice, the bible teaches not only that God's curses will cause men to rape women (v. 30) children to be kidnapped by sick-minded pagans (v. 41), parents to cannibalize their own children (v. 53), but that God would be just as "delighted" to cause these curses to happen, as he is "delighted" to give prosperity to those who obey him (v. 63).

One fundamentalist breathed an ill-advised sigh of relieft by pointing out that nothing in the context indicates that God said this, it was only Moses doing the speaking.

I asked him which other statements Moses made about God, that this fundamentalist thinks are wrong.  He disappeared.

I can at least buy the notion that God hurts his kids in an effort to punish them or teach them, even if we today are enlightened and know that kids don't need to be abused to be disciplined.

What I cannot buy is that a god can be "good" while "delighting" to cause women who disobey the 10 commandments, to be raped.  Worse, v. 63 intentionally defines God's delight in inflicting such curses, as being the same type of "delight" he has to prosper those who obey him.  So if you think God is gleeful, happy and cheerful to grant you prosperity, you cannot subtract those emotions from him when you speak about him causing rape, kidnapping and parental cannibalism.

When you think of an ancient Hebrew woman being raped, you didn't envision God standing next to her and "delighting" to watch it, until just now, did you!

God's "delight" to cause rape rationally warrants the atheist to say "fuck you" to your bible religion and do more productive things like smashing beer cans on his forehead.

Who would you rather have babysit your kids?  Some spiritually dead dork who smashes beer cans on his head?

Or some bible-believing inerrantist who seriously thinks there are times when it can be good and moral to be happy cheerful and "delighted" to cause women to be raped, children to be kidnapped and parents to eat their kids?

Tough question, eh?  You need to weigh your pride against the obvious stupidity of allowing sadistic lunatics to babysit your kids, you cannot just suddenly give up your faith of 30 years, can you?

Go ahead, check all the Christian commentaries you please.  Let me know when you find exegetical and contextual argument that God's "delight" in v. 63 in inflicting such curses is something other than the happy gleeful cheerful "delight" this verse says he takes in prospering other people.

And if you are really stupid and insist that this is just Moses speaking with typical semitic exaggeration, let me know the critiera you use to figure out which extremist statements in the bible are mere exaggeration and rhetoric.

The Psalms magnify God and extoll his goodness like no other book in the world.  Are this book's extremist statements about God's eternal goodness also a case of mere Semitic exaggeration?  If not, why not?  Where is your sociological evidence that the only time ANE peoples exaggerated about their god, was when they were describing his wrath?

This is my reply to J. Warner Wallace's article:

 Why Would a Good God Behave So Badly?  

Posted: 16 Jun 2017 04:00 AM PDT

I have many unbelieving friends who laugh when I claim the God of the Bible is both all-powerful and all-loving. As they read through the Old Testament, they point to a variety of passages and episodes where God seems to be anything but loving. They cite passages, for example, where God seems to command the pillaging and killing of Israel’s enemies with great brutality.

they should have pointed out the passages where God specifies that he will take "joy" in causing men to rape women, and causing parents to eat their own children, such as:

 15 "But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

 16 "Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.

 30 "You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not use its fruit.

 53 "Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the LORD your God has given you, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy will oppress you.

63 "It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. (Deut. 28:15-63 NAU)

 "Delight" in both cases is the same word, whether in Hebrew or Lxx, so you won't be escaping this one on linguistic grounds.  And good luck finding a Christian commentary that provides any argument that might favor your position.  Indeed, if God really meant his threats to inflict horrific torments, to be taken seriously, then he does indeed delight to inflict such things no less than he delights to prosper those who obey.

 How can a God who would command the brutal destruction of Israel’s enemies be called moral or loving?

Easy, he isn't moral or loving in the modern American sense, he's only moral and loving in the ancient Semitic sense.

It’s easy for us to judge the words and actions of God as if He were just another human, subject to an objective standard transcending Him. But when we judge God’s actions in this way, we are ignoring His unique authority and power.

Not really, god admits in Genesis 6:6-7 he sometimes regrets his own decisions, so with precedent like that, you cannot dismiss the possibility that god is such an asshole in the OT because that was back when he had less moral maturity.  I don't believe in biblical inerrancy, so I couldn't care less that you can find another bible verse that says God is infinitely wise.  Inerrancy is so disputed even among spiritually alive people, that spiritually dead people are smart to dismiss it as speculative, and refuse to use it as tool of interpretation, and therefore, to insist we can know what Genesis 6 means without reconciling it with everything else in the bible.

While great work has been done by Paul Copan (Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God), describing the proper context of these passages in the Old Testament,

I've already refuted them; their exegesis of 1st Samuel 15 (where King Saul is dispossessed by God precisely because Saul did not completely destroy the kids as the ban had required) is foolish, and completely ignores the reason why those kids were ordered killed:  their great-great-great-great grandfather Amalek had attacked the last of the Israelites as they exodused from Egypt, an event that took place more than 400 years before Saul's time.  That is, the reason that current generation of Amalekite kids was ordered slaughtered is not because they were obstinately holding on to parts of the promised land God wished to give to Israel, but because they were corporately guilty of an ancestor's sin.  In which case they wouldn't stop deserving death merely because they fled the land. 

and by Clay Jones (Killing the Canaanites: A Response to the New Atheism’s “Divine Genocide” Claims), describing the view God held toward the sin of Israel’s neighbors,

"Genocide" merely muddies the waters.  The problem is that this god gives every appearance of thinking his plan for Israel to go around killing off pagans is his "best" plan, when in fact he could have achieved his goal without causing children to suffer, by waving his magic wand. And his employment of an imperfect plan argues there is no god to discuss, this is just godless ancient Hebrews who are mischaracterizing their military strategies as if they were commands of God.  NOthing more significant than the modern fundie who justifies his bombing of an abortion clinic by saying "God told me to do it".

I would like to add the following observations about the nature of God as we consider His actions in the Old Testament:  God is the Greatest Artist If you and I were in an art class together and I suddenly grew frustrated with my sketch and decided to destroy it, you wouldn’t complain in the least.

That's because destroying inanimate objects doesn't create suffering of live creatures. 

If I stepped over to your easel and destroyed your sketch, however, you would certainly complain that I was doing something unjust. You see, the artist has the authority and right to destroy his or her own work.

You also have the right to burn all of your house and possession to the ground as long as you don't do it for a criminal or illegal reason.  But if you did that once per year, people would still conclude, with rational justification, that you were crazy, despite the fact that you had the "right" to do it. 

The art belongs to the artist.

And according to Genesis 6:6, the artist often screws up.  It could very well be that God today, if he exists, thinks similarly to Genesis 6:6, that is, that he regrets having been such an asshole in the OT.  Once again, that bible verse and its likely meaning will not go away just because you presuppose bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic, and you think we need to reconcile Genesis 6:6 with the rest of the bible.  Bible inerrancy, for reasons already staed, does not deserve to be exalted in our mind to the status of governing hermeneutic.  Therefore, you cannot get rid of the imperfect God that verse tells about, by smothering it with something else in the bible.  And even if bible inerrancy were true, you don't know whether Genesis 6:6 should be interpreted in the light of other bible verses, or if the other bible verses declaring God infinitely wise, need to be interpreted and delimited in the light of Genesis 6:6.

If there is a God, all of creation is His handiwork. He has the right to create and destroy what is His, even when this destruction may seem unfair to the artwork itself.

Exactly why there is no rational reasoning with Islamic extremists.  YOU might not think it fair to be injured in a suicide bombing, but Allah does.  So there's no rational reasoning with you, your religious belief becomes more important to you that common sense once you get to thinking God wanted something done a certain way.

  God is the Greatest Physician If you or I suffered a snake bite on our elbow and were miles from the nearest hospital, a doctor might advise us (over the phone) to tourniquet the arm to save our life. In doing so, we would surely sacrifice an otherwise healthy hand to prevent the venom from spreading to our heart. But the doctor understands that this drastic action is required to prevent our death.

That's because the doctor is not an all-powerful genie who can cure us with a wave of his magic wand.  Your God is.  Now back to your "his-ways-are-mysterious" excuses.

You and I might not agree with the plan, or like the outcome, but the doctor knows best.

 But the doctor of Genesis 6:6-7 admits to regretting his own decisions, so it's far from rock solid that because God is God, his choices are beyond criticism.

The treatment plan belongs to the doctor. If there is a God, all of us are His patients. He has the wisdom and authority to treat us as He sees fit, even when we might not be able to understand the overarching danger we face if drastic action isn’t taken.

Such as when a little girl dies from an STD she got due to an adult man raping her.  The truth is that your god has far more in common with fairy tales than reality, the arguments for God's existence are less than convincing and suffer the fatal religious language objection, and for these reasons, we are rationally justified to limit how often we entertain your trifling excuses, as often as we are justified to limit the extent to which we entertain Mormon apologetics. But clearly, you aren't arguing to convince skeptics, you are building your argument on presuppositions you share with other Christians.

  God is the Greatest Savior If you and I live as though our mortal lives are all we have, we’ll often become frustrated that our lives seem to be filled with pain and injustice.

Too many Christians have complained that their lives seems to be filled with pain and injustice, for you to pretend that becoming a Christian will fix that attitude.

But the Christian Worldview describes human existence as eternal.

Unfortunately, the OT contains statements that cannot be reconciled with that idea, according to other spiritually alive orthodox people such as 7th Day Adventists, which means you are a fool to expect spiritually dead atheists to figure out who is right in this in-house Christian debate.

We have a life beyond the grave.

Not if the best that can be argued toward that end is J.P. Moreland's ridiculous The Soul: How We Know It's Real and Why It Matters.

We live for more than 80 or 90 years; we live forever, either with God in Heaven, or separated from God for all eternity. If there is a God, He is certainly more concerned about our eternal existence than He is about our mortal comfort.

If he was as concerned about our eternal well-being as you say, he'd likely be doing ALL that he could to save us, not just the minimal bit he says is sufficient to compel faith.  When our kids are drowning, we don't do what we think is minimally sufficient to save them, we do all that we can until we either save them, or find that our best efforts weren't good enough.  I don't ask you whether God thinks He's done what is "sufficient" to make the gospel believable.  I ask you whether God is doing his "best" to make the gospel believable.  Could God have provided more convincing evidence than what 2,000 years of church history gave us?  He apparently doesn't mind violating freewill, how blown away do you suppose the Israelites were when they saw the wall of water on either side as they passed through the parted Red Sea?  God is NOT doing his "best" to convince unbelievers, hence, he is less concerned with saving unbelievers than you say.   And quit pretending that your view is "the" Christian view.  5-Point Calvinists quickly insist that God never wished to save those who end up in hell.

His plans are grander than our plans. His eternal desires are greater than our mortal desires.

They are also occassionally errant, Genesis 6:6-7, and the "anthropomorphism" interpretation cannot be sustained by anything in the grammar, immediate context, or larger context, hence such interpretation is likely false.

 If there is a God, He is more concerned about saving us for eternity than He is about making our mortal lives safe.

Spiritually alive Christians known as Calvinists refuse to classify all unbelievers as loved by God, the way you do.  Don't expect spiritually dead atheists to correctly figure out which of you got it right.

  Christians understand that there have been times in the history of humanity when God’s chosen people (those who placed their trust in Him) were in great eternal spiritual jeopardy from those who surrounded them. God understood the risk as the Great Physician and often prescribed drastic action to cut off the threat.

He could have used his telepathic tractor beam powers and stirred the hearts of whoever he wished away from whatever sinful goal they were trying to achieve.  God has that kind of power according to Ezekiel 38:4.

God had the authority as the Great Artist to destroy what was His in the first place,

And as noted before, if you employ your "right" to destroy your stuff too many times, most people will conclude, with rational justification, that you have mental problems.  So god's having the "right" to destroy his people, doesn't insulate him from a justified charge of being the sadistic lunatic he is.  Deut. 28:63 

and He also had the wisdom and compassion as the Great Savior to do what was necessary to protect the eternal spiritual life of His creation.

Then he failed, since he could very easily have made the gospel far more believable in past centuries, to those who rejected it and apparently went to hell, and he could have achieved that goal without violating their freewill...unless you think a jury's freewill is violated when the prosecutor's evidence is absolutely unassailable?

If God failed to act in these situations, we would hardly call him all-powerful and all-loving.

There's plenty of biblical passages that cannot be reconciled with the others that teach God is all-powerful and all-loving.  God can defeat wooden chariots but not iron chariots in Judges 1:19 (inerrantists are forced to read their speculations into the text in order to "reconcile" this with other bible passages nabout God's omnipotence, and yet you shall not add to his word, Proverbs 30:6.  And I don't care what you say, burning your daughter alive because she had premarital sex (Lev. 21:9), or putting children to death by burning because they helped their father steal a wedge of gold (Joshua 7:15) has about as much chance of being reconciled with any rational understanding of love, as beating them to death does.