The Cost of Purity: How Legalistic Love Objectifies and Undermines True Intimacy

Legalism at the Heart of Purity and Courtship Culture

The purity movement and its associated courtship culture began with an earnest desire to protect young people from sexual sin and offer a clear framework for both moral growth and healthy relationships. Over time, however, that noble intention gave way to a rigid set of externally imposed rules. Prominent figures like Bill Gothard, Paul Washer, and Joshua Harris (who later divorced his wife and renounced his faith) advocated for a perspective in which any form of dating or emotional intimacy outside an approved, divinely sanctioned courtship was not only considered risky but inherently sinful. Paul Washer’s assertion that "recreational dating is heretical [and] not scriptural" encapsulated this all-or-nothing approach, effectively turning a heartfelt journey of discipleship into a strict checklist of dos and don’ts. Biblically, while there is a call to live a life that is "pure in heart" (Matthew 5:8), the New Testament also emphasizes grace, forgiveness, and the transformative power of God’s love—not a transactional accumulation of "merits" that qualify one for the ideal marriage. Rather than treating moral behavior as a form of spiritual currency that guarantees divine rewards, the New Testament invites believers into a dynamic relationship with God marked by vulnerability and authentic growth. In contrast, the legalistic system inherent in purity culture reduces righteousness to a tally of prescribed rules rather than celebrating the genuine renewal of the heart. (1)

Having experienced purity culture firsthand, I observed how symbols of commitment—rings, contracts, and commitment cards—were used to convert personal purity into a transactional asset. These tokens reduced the pursuit of a transformed heart and genuine intimacy to a set of external validations, where one’s eligibility for a divinely rewarded future depended entirely on meeting rigid standards. Not only does this approach run counter to Scripture’s caution against making vows (Matthew 5:33-37), it also burdens young believers with fear, shame, and the unrealistic expectation that their moral worth is quantifiable.

The Promise of Purity as a Form of Prosperity Gospel

An especially troubling aspect of the purity movement is its striking parallel to the prosperity gospel. In conventional prosperity teachings, material or personal blessings are seen as rewards for faith and obedience. Similarly, purity culture presents the attainment of a "pure" lifestyle as a kind of investment into one’s future—if you remain sexually and emotionally untainted, God will reward you with the perfect spouse and an impeccable marriage. This incentive structure effectively commodifies purity: it turns the pursuit of sexual abstinence and carefully regulated emotional boundaries into a merit-based system where relational worth is earned.

Joshua Harris, whose 1997 bestseller I Kissed Dating Goodbye influenced an entire generation, encapsulated this worldview by promising that steadfast purity would lead directly to a successful, sanctified marriage. Over time, however, Harris and others have been forced to reckon with the practical and emotional toll of this approach, as well as with narratives of broken relationships and disillusionment. The notion that purity is a "pay-to-play" system—if you are pure enough, you will eventually receive a reward—is not only theologically questionable but also potentially damaging psychologically. It shifts the focus from sincere emotional growth and genuine relational investment to a rigid performance metric that, if unmet, brands one as "damaged goods" for life. (2)

The Problem of "Emotional Purity" and Its Consequences

A central tenet of the modern purity message is the concept of "emotional purity." Advocates argue that young men and women must vigilantly guard their hearts—not just their bodies—by suppressing any form of budding emotional intimacy that might lead to sin. According to this doctrine, permitting a friend or a potential romantic interest to "claim a piece of your heart" imperils your future capacity to love your eventual spouse fully. This teaching, which equates emotional vulnerability with the loss of one’s capacity for authentic love, encourages a view of the heart as a finite, fragile commodity that must be budgeted and safeguarded at all costs.

In practice, such teachings create a paradox. On the one hand, they seek to protect emotional integrity by discouraging what is perceived as reckless attachment. On the other, they enslave young people to a fear-based model where authentic emotional expression—the very foundation of intimacy—is devalued. The call for "emotional purity" reinforces a rigid, transactional view of human relationships in which any deviation from the ideal is seen as catastrophic. As critics from sources like Kindred Grace have pointed out, this approach not only stigmatizes normal emotional development but also mistakes emotional risk for moral failure—a miscalculation that can leave lasting psychological scars. (3)

Social and Relational Implications

The legalistic demands of purity culture have far-reaching consequences. Young people raised within this framework are often pressured into premature commitments, leading many to marry early—or, in some cases, to settle for the first promise of romance that appears "safe" or sanctioned by their community, even if that partner does not represent the best fit for a lifelong commitment. This rush to wed can result in relationships that are emotionally underdeveloped, fraught with unrealistic expectations, and, in some instances, even abusive. When a marriage is viewed as the ultimate reward for having adhered to purity rules, love becomes objectified. A spouse is no longer appreciated as a complex, co-evolving partner but is reduced to the "prize" for having maintained a certain standard—the equivalent of a spiritualized version of objectification, one that substitutes a contractual reward for the messy, often challenging process of genuine relational growth.

Moreover, when young individuals internalize the idea that any deviation from prescribed emotional and sexual behaviors permanently mars their eligibility for a healthy marriage, the resulting feelings of shame and inadequacy can lead to further relational and mental health difficulties. The steep cost of such rigid rules is evident in stories of those who, after years of self-imposed isolation and fear of vulnerability, find themselves ill-equipped to engage in the messy, real work of sustaining a marriage. This legalistic mindset not only misses the broader biblical narrative of redemption and grace but also risks perpetuating cycles of emotional dysfunction and interpersonal abuse. (4)

Reclaiming a Biblical Understanding of Grace and Relationships

A balanced reading of Scripture suggests that while purity is indeed important, it must be understood within the broader context of God’s grace and the redemptive work of Jesus. The Bible commends a transformation of the heart—not strict adherence to a set of legalistic norms—and sees marriage as a sacred, covenantal relationship where mutual vulnerability, forgiveness, and growth are more vital than any externally imposed standard of purity. By reducing courtship to a series of checklists and rewarding adherence with an objectified vision of an ideal marriage, purity culture not only strays from the heart of the gospel but also risks creating a system that commodifies personal relationships. In contrast, biblical love is about seeing each other as whole human beings in need of healing, grace, and constant renewal—a dynamic far removed from the transactional mindset promoted by the purity movement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the modern purity movement and its associated courtship culture represent a legalistic distortion of biblical ideals. By teaching that both physical and emotional purity are prerequisites for a "reward" marriage, influential figures transform intimate, evolving relationships into a meritocratic game. This approach mirrors aspects of the prosperity gospel by suggesting that meticulous self-discipline will guarantee divine compensation in the form of the perfect spouse. However, rather than fostering genuine, nurturing intimacy, these teachings can lead to alienation, premature commitments, and even abusive dynamics. Ultimately, such a view not only misrepresents the biblical call to holiness—which focuses on inner transformation rather than rule-keeping—but it also objectifies relationships, reducing the deeply spiritual gift of marriage to a mere prize for personal purity.

Further Thoughts: This critique invites us to reconsider how we interpret biblical calls to purity in a way that honors the complexity of human emotion and relationships. For those involved in pastoral care, youth ministry, or theological scholarship, it is imperative to balance moral guidance with a robust understanding of grace, recognizing that authentic intimacy—romantic, emotional, and spiritual—requires risk, vulnerability, and a continual process of growth rather than a preordained, reward-based system. The challenge is to reclaim a narrative of love that does not condition the sacred promise of marriage on human perfection but opens it to the messiness, beauty, and redemptive power of genuine human connection.

Servant Leadership, Not Shelter: A Biblical Approach to Authority

Introduction

Bill Gothard’s (the founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles/IBLP) “Umbrellas of Authority” promises a divine shelter—a protective canopy under which believers are assured safety and order. However, a closer examination reveals tensions between this promise and the biblical call for dynamic, accountable, and servant-led leadership. Yet beneath this appealing metaphor lies a tension with Scripture’s call for dynamic, accountable, and servant-hearted leadership. In what follows, we will critically unpack this teaching, examining how its rigid model of uncritical obedience clashes with the biblical vision of mutual responsibility and transformative grace. By deconstructing its assumptions and exploring alternative, biblically grounded images of community, we invite readers to reimagine authority in a way that truly reflects the balance of freedom and accountability found in the Gospel.

I. The Theological Premise of “Umbrellas of Authority”

Bill Gothard’s framework presents authority as a divine “umbrella” under which believers find protection, safety, and order. According to this teaching, as long as one remains beneath the licit human authorities—whether in the family, the church, or other social structures—one is safeguarded from the attacks of evil. Proponents argue that by obeying God-ordained human authority, chaos and spiritual harm can be prevented. However, a closer examination of Scripture reveals that while the Bible indeed teaches respect for leaders (e.g., Hebrews 13:17, Ephesians 5-6), it does not support a formulaic guarantee of protection that unconditionally elevates any human authority to a near-sacrosanct status. Instead, Scripture consistently portrays authority as being contingent upon servant leadership, accountability to God, and mutual submission among believers. (1)

II. Biblical Accountability Versus Uncritical Submission

At the heart of the “Umbrellas of Authority” concept is the assertion that stepping outside the confines of one’s designated area of authority exposes one to spiritual attack. Nonetheless, the Bible does not advocate for blind or uncritical submission when leaders fail in their duties. For instance, the New Testament calls on elders to shepherd the flock with humility and casts severe warnings against abuses of power (1 Peter 5:2–3; 1 Timothy 5:20). Gothard’s model, by contrast, risks establishing a rigid hierarchy that minimizes the importance of legitimate grievance and accountability. When authority is perceived as an impermeable shield, any dissent—even if based on genuine spiritual or moral concern—is often misattributed to a lack of submission. This creates a milieu where error or abuse is not adequately addressed, betraying the biblical call for leaders to be both servant-hearted and accountable to the larger body of Christ. (2)

III. The Danger of Misapplied Complementarianism

While proponents of Gothard’s teaching might appeal to biblical passages endorsing complementary roles within the family and church (such as Ephesians 5 and Romans 13), the “Umbrellas of Authority” concept stretches these passages into a dogmatic formula. In contrast to the intended biblical meaning—which emphasizes order, mutual care, and the ultimate authority of Christ—the teaching risks reducing complex human relationships to a simplistic “chain of command.” This not only distorts the biblical vision of a community of believers who mutually serve one another, but it also devalues the biblical mandate for discernment. Instead of fostering a healthy dynamic in which leaders are to be lovingly corrected when they err, the teaching can inadvertently become a tool for perpetuating dysfunctional or even abusive leadership structures.

IV. Scriptural Foundations for a Dynamic Understanding of Authority

Scripture welcomes a view of authority that is dynamic and relational rather than static and authoritarian. Jesus himself demonstrated a model of leadership that was about service, sacrifice, and mutual accountability—not an aerial command system that isolates believers under an unchallengeable umbrella. The metaphor of the “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12–27) richly illustrates this point. In this analogy, every member is interconnected and indispensable; leadership is exercised through love, care, and collaboration rather than enforced obedience. Accountability flows in all directions—upwards to Christ, laterally among peers, and downward in the nurturing of those still growing. This model emphasizes that true protection and spiritual safety come not from an imposed structure, but from a community that reflects the self-giving love of its Savior.

V. An Alternative Analogy: The Body, the Tree, and the Tapestry

Rather than viewing Christian life as a shelter under an impermeable umbrella of authority, believers might better conceive of their communal life through alternative analogies:

1. The Body of Christ: Just as the human body is composed of many different parts that rely on each other for proper function, the Church is a dynamic system where each member—regardless of rank—is essential. In this model, every believer is simultaneously a leader and a follower, accountable to Christ and to one another, thereby preserving both freedom and discipline in Christ’s service.

2. A Tree with Intertwined Roots: Imagine a tree whose strength and vitality depend on its intertwined root system. In this analogy, Christ is the root source of life, and all believers are connected in a mutually supportive network. When one branch suffers, the entire tree is affected, and mutual care propels the community toward holistic health rather than blind deference to a singular branch of authority.

3. An Intricate Tapestry: Consider the Church as a masterfully woven tapestry, where each thread contributes to the integrity and beauty of the whole design. No single thread dominates; rather, every strand—whether leader or follower—plays a vital role, with texture and pattern emerging from their interdependence. This perspective underscores that authority, when rightly understood, is a shared and evolving responsibility, inviting every believer to contribute to the common good.

4. The Home as a Microcosm of the Kingdom: Biblical authority within the family mirrors these organic, interdependent models. In the household, leadership is not a static, handed-down command but a living, relational mandate. Parents serve as servant-leaders, modeling humility, love, and accountability while engaging in open dialogue with their children. In this setting, authority is exercised through a commitment to mutual growth and thoughtful correction—ensuring that every family member contributes to the health and flourishing of the whole. This model reflects the Gospel’s call for balanced, servant-hearted leadership that prepares each individual to one day guide others with wisdom and grace.

By adopting these analogies, Christians can cultivate a more balanced understanding of authority—one that embraces biblical principles of mutual responsibility, accountability, and the transformative power of Christ’s love. This alternative approach not only retains the value of structured leadership but also safeguards against any misuse of authority that might compromise the freedom and well-being of the community.

In summary, Bill Gothard’s “Umbrellas of Authority” teaching, while rooted in an attempt to order human relationships, strays from the biblical call to servant leadership and mutual accountability. Instead of offering a rigid safety net that risks covering up abuses or neglecting the need for corrective accountability, a model of Christian community—as illustrated by the body of Christ, a tree, or a tapestry—affirms that true spiritual protection arises through shared responsibility, discernment, and the redemptive love of Christ.

Was Homosexuality Mistranslated in the Bible?

Introduction: Addressing the 1946 Homosexuality Translation Claim

The claim that "homosexuality" was an invented term first introduced into the Bible in 1946 has gained traction among cultural commentators and theologians. This argument, often associated with the documentary 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, suggests that the term’s inclusion in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was a mistranslation of the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi. (1) Proponents of this theory argue that these words refer specifically to exploitative relationships, such as pedophilia or temple prostitution, rather than consensual same-sex partnerships.

However, a thorough linguistic and historical analysis demonstrates that this claim does not hold up under scrutiny. Not only were monogamous homosexual relationships known in antiquity, but early Jewish and Christian writers consistently opposed both male and female same-sex relations, irrespective of whether they were exploitative or consensual. Furthermore, the assertion that Jesus was pro-LGBTQ simply because he did not explicitly condemn homosexuality relies on a flawed logical framework.

Understanding the historical, linguistic, and theological context surrounding this issue is essential for a faithful interpretation of Scripture. This article will examine the Greek terminology, historical evidence, early Jewish and Christian perspectives, and Jesus’ teachings while incorporating expanded scholarly sources for a well-rounded response.

Linguistic Analysis: Greek Words in Biblical Context

Arsenokoitai: A Closer Look at Meaning and Usage The Greek word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοίτης) appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The term is a compound of arsēn (male) and koitē (bed), strongly indicating sexual relations between males.

While arsenokoitai is rare in Greek literature, scholars widely believe it echoes the prohibition found in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. The Septuagint’s rendering of Leviticus 18:22 reads:

"καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός"
(Kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gynaikos), meaning "And with a male, you shall not lie as with a woman."

The structural similarity between arsenos (male) and koitē (bed) suggests that Paul intentionally borrowed from the Old Testament Greek phrasing, reinforcing that arsenokoitai refers broadly to male same-sex relations rather than exclusively exploitative cases.

Malakoi: Effeminacy and Moral Weakness In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul also condemns malakoi (μαλακός), a word often translated as "effeminate" or "soft." While in some contexts malakoi refers to physical softness, its placement alongside arsenokoitai suggests a moral weakness related to indulgence in sexual immorality.

Historical Context: Same-Sex Relationships in Antiquity

Same-sex relationships existed in antiquity in various forms:

• The Sacred Band of Thebes – A military unit composed of male lovers, demonstrating that same-sex relationships were bonded by loyalty and commitment.

• Emperor Hadrian and Antinous – Hadrian’s mourning of Antinous after his death illustrates that same-sex romantic relationships were acknowledged at the highest levels of society.

• Greek and Roman Literature – Authors like Plato (Symposium) and Aristophanes (Thesmophoriazusae) examined same-sex attraction beyond temple prostitution or coercion.

These examples show that homosexual relationships were well-known in antiquity, countering the claim that biblical prohibitions only addressed abusive or transactional relationships. (2) Despite the presence of committed homosexual relationships, biblical authors consistently opposed all forms of same-sex relations based on divine moral principles rather than cultural ignorance.

Expanded Jewish Commentary:
Early Jewish writers also reinforced the Christain position against same-sex relations. Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, condemned homosexuality in his writings, describing it as unnatural and contrary to divine order. Rabbinic traditions within the Talmud further illustrate how Jewish thought treated same-sex behavior as inconsistent with God’s design.

Early Christian Thought: Continuity of Biblical Teachings

Early church fathers upheld biblical prohibitions against same-sex relations:

• John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans) – Interpreted Romans 1:26-27 as condemning homosexual acts as unnatural and inherently sinful.

• Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus) – Warned against violating natural sexual roles.

• Augustine (City of God) – Viewed same-sex relations as distortions of God’s intended order.

These writings demonstrate continuity between biblical teachings and Christian doctrine.

Jesus and LGBTQ: Addressing the Logical Fallacy

A common argument suggests that Jesus was pro-LGBTQ because he never explicitly condemned homosexuality. However, this is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy that assumes absence of evidence equates to endorsement.

Scriptural and Cultural Considerations

1. Jesus Affirms Male-Female Marriage –
   In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus explicitly refers to Genesis, affirming male-female marriage as God’s design.
   
   

2. Jesus Did Not Explicitly Address Every Sin –
   Jesus never directly condemned bestiality or incest, yet no one assumes he approved of such behaviors.
   
   

3. Jewish Cultural Context –
   Homosexuality was widely rejected in 1st-century Judaism, making explicit condemnation unnecessary. (3)

Theological Reflection: Balancing Truth and Grace

While Scripture speaks clearly on the issue of homosexuality, Christians must approach the conversation with both conviction and compassion. Upholding biblical truth does not require hostility toward individuals who identify as LGBTQ. Instead, believers are called to extend grace while affirming God’s moral standards, pointing to redemption and restoration through Him.

Conclusion: Preserving Biblical Integrity

The claim that "homosexuality" was an invented term first introduced into the Bible in 1946 fails to stand up to linguistic and historical scrutiny. Faithful interpretation requires engaging with Scripture honestly, considering linguistic nuances, historical context, and theological consistency.

In today’s culture, biblical integrity matters more than ever. While modern debates attempt to redefine scriptural teachings, the Christian response must remain grounded in truth while extending Christ’s love to all people.

Sex Slavery and the Bible

    Did the Old Testament Law allow for men to buy and sell young women for use as sex slaves?

    According to some skeptics, the Bible says just that in Exodus 21:7-9 which reads as follows:

    "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." ~Exodus 21:7-9 New Living Translation (NLT)

    If one were to take this passage at face value without understanding the cultural context, it would be easy to mistakenly assume that this passage is speaking about sex slavery. However, this is simply not the case. The first and foremost reason being that both prostitution and the act of selling one's daughter into prostitution were specifically condemned by the Hebrew Law. (Leviticus 19:29, 21:9, Deuteronomy 23:17)
    
    Since prostitution was forbidden under Jewish Law we must therefore ask several questions of this passage. 

    First of all, the English translation of verse eight speaks of a broken contract. Yet no contract is mentioned in the preceding verses. This, of course, raises the question of what contract has been broken? Furthermore, why does the breaking of this unspecified contract allow for the woman to be returned to her father's house? If this woman is a sex slave, as the skeptic claims, then why can't her owner sell her to a foreigner when he is finished with her?
    The answer, while obscure in English translations of the Bible, is quite obvious in the Hebrew text. In the original langue this passage says that by purchasing the woman as a slave, the man has "betrothed her to himself."  (יְעָדָ֖הּ) This means that the woman was sold as a slave with the expressed intent of marriage. Being betrothed to a man is not the same as sex slavery. Neither is marriage to a slave woman.
    According to the very next passage (Exodus 21:10) a slave-wife (concubine) was entitled to the same rights and privileges of a free-born woman. The one exception being that the children of a slave-wife did not have an automatic share of their father's inheritance, while those children born to a free woman did.

    The case of Abraham and his many sons is a great example of this cultural practice. Issac was born of Abraham's free-born wife, Sarah, while Ishmael was the child of Abraham and Hagar—Sarah's maidservant. Abraham also had six more sons by a slave-wife named Keturah in Genesis 25:1-6. Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, but Isaac was his heir because he was born of a free woman. That said, if a man wanted to pass on his inheritance to the son of a slave-wife then he would have to publicly name that child as his heir. Which was not uncommon. 

    In the case of Exodus 21:7-9, if a man bought a young woman as a slave-wife but did not marry her himself,  he was then required to give her in marriage to his son or to another servant within his household within seven years. Otherwise the woman's father could buy her back at that time. (According to the the Jewish Laws recorded in Exodus 21:2-3, every seventh year all Hebrew slaves would be freed, and all of their debts would be canceled). This is why a slave woman would not be freed at the end of the six year period as the men were; because she was expected to be married to a member of the household by that time.

    In the culture of ancient Israel, it was considered a public disgrace for a woman of marrying age to remain unmarried. This is why the man was required to allow the woman to return to her father if he broke his contract to marry her. If he failed to do so and kept her as a servant in his household, he would be condemning her to a life of shame. Furthermore, he himself would be disgraced for failing to find her a suitable husband, thus breaking his pledge to her father. The original Hebrew actually accuses the man of treachery and deceit (בְּבִגְדוֹ־) if he did not marry the woman he purchased. In this way, the purchase of a young woman from her father was not unlike the practice of paying a dowry for her betrothal, and showed the serious intentions of the husband-to-be. 

    That being said, the man in this scenario also had the ability to choose to marry the woman himself or to give her in marriage to another man within his household (ie. his son) if she did not satisfy him.

    It is important to note here that the Hebrew word translated as "satisfy" or "please" in some English translations does not imply anything sexual. It simply means that the man likes the woman. Or, to phrase it another way, she is pleasing in his eyes. This does not mean that the man got to sample her sexually before deciding whether or not to marry her. Such practices were not only condemned by the Old Testament Law but would also have prevented the man from giving her to his son (or anyone else) as a wife. (Leviticus 18:8, Deuteronomy 22:28-30)
    Furthermore, the language used in this particular case implies the negative; that the woman is displeasing (רָעָ֞ה) in the eyes of her master rather than pleasing. That is to say, the woman is so disagreeable that marriage to her would result in nothing but misery on the part of the man who married her.

    To summarize: what this passage is really saying is that if a man found himself in a position of financial desperation and could no longer provide for the members of his family, he could sell his daughter as a servant with the understanding that the man who bought her would marry her himself. If the man found that he did not really get along with the woman, then he had seven years to find her a husband within his household. If the man failed to do so, then the girl's father reserved the right to buy her back again once his debts had been canceled. The man who paid for the woman's hand in marriage could not keep her as a servant, nor could he sell her to someone else if he failed to uphold his end of the bargain. In this way, the act of selling ones daughter as a servant was a desperate father's final attempt to insure that she would be provided for when he could no longer insure her well-being. 

    Another passage commonly referred to by skeptics seeking to support their position on sex slavery in the Bible is Numbers 31:25-50, which details the division of plunder after a battle between Israel and Midian. 
    In verse 35 we find 32,000 virgin girls listed among the spoils taken by the Israelite men. Were these women taken as sex slaves by the victorious Israelites? What about those women given to God as His share (Numbers 31:36-40)? Were these virgins brutally sacrificed to the Hebrew God as some skeptics claim?

    As with the previous case, the truth becomes apparent when we examine the context of this passage. The first question we should ask ourselves is: why did the Israelites go to war against the people of Midian in the first place? Both Israel and Midian were descendants of Abraham. (Genesis 25:1-6) Moses himself was married to a Midianite (Exodus 2:11-22) and  clearly had no quarrel with his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. (Exodus 18) Why then did Moses suddenly decide to go to war against his family's kinsmen?
    The answer can be found a few chapters earlier in Numbers 22-25, which recounts Israel's journey through Midian and the land of Moab. Numbers 22:1-7 introduces us to Balak, the king of Moab, and describes how both he and his people were filled with terror at the arrival of the Israelites in their land. In an attempt to destroy Israel, Balak and the elders of Midian sent messengers to enlist the help of the sorcerer Balaam, hoping that he would be able to place a curse on the people of Israel. However, we read in Numbers 23-24 that God prevented Balaam from cursing Israel. Instead, God caused the pagan sorcerer to pronounce blessing after blessing upon His people.
     Having failed to curse Israel,  Balaam instead persuaded the women of Midian and Moab to seduce the Israelite men in Numbers 25 so that God Himself would strike Israel for their sin. As Balaam predicted, the sexual debauchery of Israel caused the Lord's anger to "blaze against His people," resulting in a plague that killed some 24,000 Israelites. This is why Israel went to war against Midian in Numbers 31.

     Realizing this, we must ask the obvious question: would the Israelite men be willing to indulge themselves in sexual sin with Midianite captives when it was sex with the women of Midian and Moab that had caused the plague in the first place? 24,000 of their kinsman had just died as a result of God's wrath, so the possibility of this seems remote. Furthermore, we must also consider Moses's statements concerning ritual purification after the battle as recorded in Numbers 31:18-19.
    According to Leviticus 15:16-18 sexual intercourse would cause both men and women to become ceremonially unclean. This means that the men would not have been able to have sex with the captive women, since they were required to purify themselves and their captives for seven days.

    We must also realize that in most ancient near-eastern cultures women were married off as soon as they reached puberty. This meant that if a girl was prepubescent, she was in all likelihood still a virgin. Additionally, married women in the near-east also wore veils or other special headwear while unmarried women did not. The same can be said of temple prostitutes who wore distinctive clothing, jewelry and hairstyles to represent their status as holy vessels of the gods. This meant that it would have been easy for the Israelites to recognize who was a virgin and who wasn't. If a captive girl was under the age of twelve or was not wearing a veil or the attire of a temple prostitute, then it was safe to assume that she was a virgin.
    Thus it can be concluded with a high degree of certainty that most, if not all, of the virgins given to the Israelite men were children under the age of twelve, as these would have been the obvious virgins among the captives and would not have been involved in the plot to lead the men of Israel into sexual sin. (Which was the entire reason why Israel went to war against Midian in the first place.) This fact combined with the Hebrews' stringent laws on sexuality (Exodus 22:16-17, Leviticus 18, 20:10-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14,  22:13-30) and the fair treatment of slaves (Exodus 21:1-11, 16, 20-21, 26-27, Leviticus 26:35-55, Deuteronomy 15:12-18) makes it highly unlikely that these children were ever used as sex slaves. If anything, they would be wards in the care of their master until they were old enough to work as servants in his household.

    One final point worth mentioning here is the issue of whether or not some of the captives taken from Midian were sacrificed to the Hebrew God. As mentioned earlier, some would claim that Numbers 31:36-41 says just that. However, human sacrifice—especially child sacrifice—was  condemned by the Law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:9-12) This means that these young girls were not sacrificed to God. Rather they were given to God as servants to the priests in the tribe of Levi. Again, this is apparent in the original Hebrew which states that the virgins set aside as the Lord's share, or "tribute" (הַמֶּ֥כֶס), were part of the "heave offering" (תְּרוּמַ֣ת); the portion of the sacrifice reserved for the priests or otherwise set apart for holy use. (see Leviticus 7:14, 31-34, Numbers 18:19)

    In closing, it is clear from the cultural, historic, and textual context of the passages in question that sex slavery, rape, and prostitution were never permissible under Old Testament Law. However, it is fair to point out that sinful man is not above misusing God's Word to justify actions that are contrary to the Scriptures' intent. The people of Israel themselves would violate God's Law time and time again throughout history, as would countless others. 
    That said, in order to violate God's Law, one must first divorce Scripture from its context. Once this is done, it is easy to twist God's Word to justify every whim of man's sinful heart. That is why it is so important to understand Scripture in its entirety; to view the Bible through the lens of the culture and history of those to whom it was originally written, and to understand the languages in which the Scriptures were originally penned. To do otherwise is to resign oneself to an interpretation of Scripture limited only to a superficial understanding, rife with misinterpretation and misunderstanding. In this way, the skeptic is no better than the man who distorts the Scripture to justify immorality. Both choose to ignore those portions of Scripture that conflict with their presuppositions and as a result, both are misinformed. One uses Scripture to justify the very evil the Scriptures condemn. The other uses Scripture to accuse the Scriptures of supporting what the Scriptures actually condemn. In both cases truth is lost.
    Therefore it is the responsibility of the individual to take the time to study the Scriptures for themselves so that the lies of those who misuse God's Word can be exposed and refuted.



   

See Also:

Slavery and the Bible: Is the Bible Racist?

   

Women and the Bible: Is the Bible Sexist?