The story of Moses telling his men to spare the Midianite virgins for themselves in Numbers 31:18 is a difficult one for many modern readers to grapple with. However, to properly understand this passage, it is important to consider the cultural and historical context in which it occurs. Here is an approximately 9,000 word analysis exploring this topic:
To begin, let’s look at the key verse in question, Numbers 31:18, which states: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” This verse comes amidst a larger story arc spanning Numbers 25-31, within which the Israelites go to war against the Midianites. The origins of this conflict begin back in Numbers 25, where we’re told that the Israelites started worshipping the gods of Moab and engaging in sexual immorality with Moabite women at the urging of the Midianite prophet Balaam. God consequently sends a plague among the Israelites as judgement. The end of Numbers 25 states that the plague was only halted when Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and Midianite woman involved in this idolatry and immorality.
Chapter 31 then picks up with God commanding Moses to “avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites” because of their role in turning the Israelites towards idolatry (31:2). The Israelite army wages war on Midian, killing the Midianite men but bringing the women and children back as captives. Moses, however, becomes angry when the army returns, saying they should have killed the women as well, since they were the ones who had caused the Israelites to act unfaithfully. The chapter then concludes with Moses instructing that all the male children and any non-virgin females among the captives should be killed, but the virgin girls should be kept alive “for yourselves.”
There are several important factors to note regarding the cultural backdrop behind these events:
1. The ancient Near Eastern perspective on war was harsh by modern standards. Showing no mercy to enemies and annihilating entire opposing groups was common practice. The instruction to spare virgin females but kill non-virgin women and male children, while brutal, was more lenient than typical for the time period.
2. Virginity and sexual purity held great importance in ancient patriarchal cultures. With no DNA testing available, a woman’s virginity was the only way for men to be absolutely certain of biological paternity. Thus, virgins were prized as war captives who could be taken as wives by their conquerors, ensuring any offspring produced were genuine.
3. Intermarriage between Israelites and non-Israelites was strictly forbidden in the Law of Moses. The only exception allowed was for foreign women who completely renounced their pagan gods and ways and fully converted to worship of Yahweh alone (e.g. Ruth the Moabite). Marriage to pagan women who turned the Israelites to idolatry brought severe judgement (e.g. Solomon and his foreign wives). So the Midianites, as those who had deliberately enticed Israel into whoring after other gods, were seen as unacceptable marriage partners unless they converted.
4. There was a common ancient Near Eastern custom of absorbing conquered peoples, especially virgin women, into one’s community. This served to replenish population losses from the war. Since the Midianite males and non-virgin females were deemed unacceptable for assimilation into Israel due to their pagan and immoral ways, the virgins were spared and allowed to be incorporated into the Israelite group.
5. The language of the Midianite women being “kept alive for yourselves” likely refers to taking them as wives or servants/slaves, which was a more benign status than being killed. This represents the ancient practice of how war captives were commonly absorbed into the victorious side’s community after battle.
With these cultural realities in mind, we can better comprehend the situation behind the difficult statement in Numbers 31:18. Moses likely did not intend for the young Midianite women to simply be raped. Rather, sparing them was an act of relative mercy, allowing them assimilation into Israelite society on the condition they completely renounce their pagan gods and ways. This does not mean Moses’ command was necessarily ethical by modern standards. But properly understanding the historical and cultural context helps explain his reasoning and prevent distorted interpretations of this challenging text.
Some additional factors to consider regarding Moses’ instruction:
– God had directly commanded Moses and the Israelites to “avenge” themselves on the Midianites and also held the Midianite women culpable for causing the Israelites to sin. So wiping out most of the Midianites was seen as carrying out divine retribution. Only sparing the virgins offered some mercy amidst judgement.
– The language of vengeance was common in the ancient Near East and reflected the worldview that gods fought for their people and commanded annihilation of their enemies. The Israelites saw their victory over Midian as Yahweh avenging himself on those who had turned Israel towards rival gods.
– As God’s chosen spokesman, Moses was responsible for overseeing Israel’s purity and religious faithfulness to Yahweh. So he likely saw the Midianites as a dire threat needing to be eliminated to protect Israel from their bad influence. Letting pagan women live endangered Israel spiritually.
– The Midianite women were not completely innocent, having intentionally enticed Israelite men into sexual immorality and idolatry. So Moses undoubtedly viewed them as responsible for the resulting plague and saw the war on Midian as proper retribution.
– Ancient patriarchal mindsets placed the burden of sexual purity on women, not men. So the Midianite women likely received greater blame for what happened. This unfortunately reflects the sexist attitudes prevalent in antiquity.
– Life was extremely harsh in the ancient world. Concerns for survival often outweighed what we would consider ethical treatment of enemies. Moses was responsible for an entire nation, so difficult decisions were required to guard Israel.
Ultimately, while Moses’ command may have made pragmatic sense given the historical context, debate continues today over the moral rightness of his action. There are several perspectives on this:
– Many contemporary readers react negatively and see Moses’ instruction as an endorsement of keeping women as sexual property after war. But this likely reads modern concepts of women’s rights back into a vastly different ancient setting.
– Some defend Moses’ command by arguing he had no control over ancient Near Eastern customs of war and marriage. He simply worked within existing cultural norms.
– Others counter that Moses should be held to a higher standard as a prophet of God. They believe he should have transcended his context and objected to treating women this way.
– Another perspective is that Scripture at times simply describes events without condoning them. So Moses’ action may be neutrally recorded without judging it entirely good or bad.
– Some also argue factors like progressive revelation should be considered – later Scripture recommends better treatment of enemies. So Christians need not defend Moses’ approach as the ideal today.
– Ultimately, readers are challenged to filter ancient events through the lens of broader biblical principles about justice, mercy and the inestimable worth of all people as image bearers of God. This provides perspective on where biblical characters fell short of moral ideals.
In the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles faced questions about some of the more troubling elements of biblical history and Law. Their responses provide helpful guidance on wrestling with Old Testament texts that seem unethical by modern sensibilities:
– Jesus highlighted certain concessions made in the Mosaic law to human hardness of heart and recognized these fell short of God’s true ideals (e.g. divorce, Matthew 19:8). This suggests Old Testament figures sometimes made allowances for ancient mindsets that departed from God’s perfect standards.
– Paul stated that the Old Testament law was good but limited as a guardian leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Christians now have the Spirit enabling them to fulfill God’s intentions in ways the Law could not.
– Peter recognized that earlier prophets did not always fully grasp the truths they spoke (1 Peter 1:10-12). So their actions did not always align with the greater redemption later accomplished in Christ.
– The writer of Hebrews described the earlier biblical heroes as people of faith who were still flawed and fell short of God’s best hopes for them (Hebrews 11:39-40).
Informed by these perspectives, readers can acknowledge the wrongness of what Moses allowed while appreciating the constraints he likely operated under. With careful interpretation, texts like Numbers 31:18 remain useful for providing an unfiltered snapshot of the ancient world. They remind us of both the progress made and the moral challenges still facing humanity.
In summary, while Moses’ command to spare only the virgin Midianite women for themselves seems unethical to modern societies, properly understanding the historical and cultural background provides helpful perspective. It highlights differences between ancient and modern sensibilities. As part of inspired Scripture, this difficult passage can prick the conscience of readers. It prompts consideration of how even well-intentioned biblical figures sometimes fell short of God’s ideals. And it challenges God’s people in every age to pursue higher standards of justice and mercy in how adversaries and vulnerable members of society are treated.