I was - and remain - outraged at the suggestion by US Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who in a debate said this:
"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
I expressed my outrage on facebook, linking to an article and providing this highly witty comment (I'll admit that I do say lots of things on facebook - where I've met almost every single one of my 1300+ friends in real life, that I wouldn't actually say if I was posting it on this blog as a first-instance): "Seriously? If you think rape is a gift from God, (a) you don't understand the Bible, and (b) you don't understand how to be a politician. So, either way, you should've just stayed home and STFU."
A Christian friend challenged me and said that what Mourdock said was Biblically accurate. I disagreed, pointing out that evil is the antithesis of God and therefore God cannot intend for it to happen. First, the friend said, that Mourdock wasn't saying the rape was intended, but just the conception. This is nonsense to me. You cannot intend the conception of a child through rape without intending the rape itself. For God's intention to be for conception through rape to occur, then God must intend the rape. My friend again said Mourdock's position was biblical - that God is sovereign and therefore intends all that happens in the world, including things we perceive as evil.
The challenges came with a reference to Genesis 50:20, in which Joseph - yes, the one of the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat - was addressing his brothers, who had thrown him into a pit to die. Joseph was rescued from the pit and through a series of circular twists and turns ended up in a position of great power in Egypt. After his father's death, Joseph's brothers wrote to him begging forgiveness. According to Genesis 50, starting at verse 19, They went to him and "threw themselves down before him. 'We are your slaves,' they said. But Joseph said to them, 'Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children. And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them."
When I've previously studied this passage, I have always thought of it as a foreshadowing of the type of forgiveness lavished on mankind for our own sinfulness. It resembles the crucifixion of Christ and the forgiveness that is redeemed through that.
My friend must make similar connections because he also pointed to the crucifixion of Christ as evidence that God sometimes "intends" what we would call evil to happen. My friend said, in part, "Genesis 50:20 says God INTENDED. It doesn't say that God fixed the problem that Joseph's brothers caused. God also INTENDED for Jesus to be murdered. It was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Man is not sovereign, God is." He then challenged me - and others I had tagged into the conversation who are trained ministers or who work in ministries - to explain how we could say God doesn't intend for rape to happen with this one, very clear verse.
Now, I will set aside the idea that Jesus was "murdered" - because I think that's such a rare and unique thing that any comparison to what happens to us human beings is out of line. But also no where in the Bible is the word "intended" used in context of Jesus's crucifixion. How do I know this? Because after this friend's challenge, I went through every instance of the Bible - using the New International Version as my text - to determine what it meant in Genesis 50:20 that God "intended" what happened to Joseph. My friend wanted a Biblically based discussion and I wanted to know the actual answer - was I wrong? Did God intend rapes? What does it mean when we say God "intends" something? I started writing this initially as a facebook comment, but realized that that was insane and it is way too long to even try to be included on facebook. So even though I don't intend for this blog to be all about my religious beliefs, I am going to use this space now for a little biblically exegesis on the question of "Does God intend rape?"
When I read the very verse that was pointed to - Genesis 50:20 - I did so only after praying for a while and thinking about what my assumptions were. Because even though I'm relatively certain the inverse is not true, when this friend raises an issue of Biblical interpretation, I do tend to sit and pray about it to determine what I feel the Holy Spirit is telling me. And on this, when I opened Bible Gateway and read the verse, I felt an immediate sense that the two "intendeds" were not the same, and that within the God "intended" was a Romans 8:28 understanding, not that God required it or ordered it, but rather than he used it and utilized it. I then went and read the entire passage in context and felt this even more clearly. Then I took the NIV Study Bible from my shelf to see what it says and it says this as the note to this verse: "God intended it for good. Their act, out of personal animosity toward a brother, had been used by God to save life -- the life of the Israelites, the Egyptians and all the nations that came to Egypt to buy food in the face of a famine that threatened the known world. At the same time, God showed by these events that his purpose for the nations is life and that this purpose would be effected through the descendants of Abraham." Within the note, I see that the learned scholars who put together the study Bible also found a difference in the "intended" of mankind and the "intended" of God.
But I was having difficult pinning down exactly what that difference was that I felt - at least with just one verse. I was still unsatisfied and went back to Bible Gateway and did a search for "intended." Many of the results appeared irrelevant (i.e., Numbers 35:23; Deuteronomy 19:19; 1 Samuel 14:4), and I initially dismissed them. But I did come back to them as I was writing this very long comment. And when I thought about what they say about "intended." What does the word mean? It is clear it is the thing that is desired but not necessarily the thing that is to come. Intended does not mean ordered; it means a desired outcome. Numbers 35:23 is in the context of handling problems and crimes within the community. It starts at 22 and continues through 25: "But if without enmity someone suddenly pushes another or throws something at them unintentionally or, without seeing them, drops on them a stone heavy enough to kill them, and they die, then since that other person was not an enemy and no harm was intended, the assembly must judge between the accused and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send the accused back to the city of refuge to which they fled. The accused must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil." So clearly in this context, "intended" means something desired or planned with a desire of its realization. Because something occurred that was not intended to occur, it is not as abominable as the very same result with a different planning or desire.
Deuteronomy 19:19 comes in the context of the settlement of disputes within the community. The Word says "If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime . . . [t]he judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother." Clearly, in this context, "intended" is not "ordained" or "ordered." It could be said that "intended" here means to have a desire and to take actions to realize that desire, or to "plan" based on contingent factors, perhaps while taking actual steps to realize that plan. We know this first because it was by a human and second because the very thing desired is not the thing the witness receives.
And in 1 Samuel 14:4, it says "On each side of the pass that Jonathan intended to cross to reach the Philistine outpost was a cliff; one was called Bozez and the other Seneh." But then it goes on to discuss the conversation between Jonathan and his armor-bearer. In it, Jonathan says "we will cross over toward them and let them see us. If they say to us, 'wait there until we come to you,' we will stay where we are and not go up to them. But if they say, 'come up to us,' we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the Lord has given them into our hands.'" So even though Jonathan intended - or desired and took actions to ensure - to cross over the cliff, He did not fully do it until He had received a signal from God. Had he not received that, Jonathan would have stayed on the other side of the cliff. His intention was not an order. This has a similar understanding in 1 Samuel 20:33 "Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David."
When just the previews came up, I thought there might be an outlier. 2 Chronicles 32:2-3: "When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him." When you read it in context, though, it is clear that Sennacherib had not yet gotten to Jerusalem and was not yet waging war. He was fighting in other places and so Hezekiah and the men of Jerusalem took actions to make it harder for Sennacherib to wage war. Before Sennacherib was able to really wage the war he intended against Jerusalem - he had laid seige but had not waged war - Hezekiah and Isaiah son of Amoz prayed to heaven. "And the Lord sent an angel, who annihilated all the fighting men and the commanders and officers in the camp of the Assyrian king." So, again intended was not ordered or required or forced into happening, but was akin to desiring while taking steps to realize those desires.
And Acts 12:4, "Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover." The "him" was Peter, but of course the Angel of the Lord came and broke the chains the night before Herod intended for the trial. And 2 Corinthians 1:17 "Was I fickle when I intended to do this? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both 'yes, yes' and 'no, no'?" Again, intended means planned or an expressed desire. Similarly, Acts 20:7 and John 6:15 and John 12:7 discuss intentions as plans that humans make.
The reason I originally thought these verses did not apply was that they referred to men and not God. And again, when I read Genesis 50:20, I felt an immediate difference in the purpose of the words when used to describe Joseph's brothers and when used to describe God. So I started off initially looking just for verses that related to times when God "intended" things.
Hosea 2:9: "'Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens, and my new wine when it is ready. I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her naked body." Hosea is a bit confusing, and it was more confusing when I went to the introductory note and found that one of the debates over Hosea comes in Chapters 1-3 as to whether the story of Gomer is literal or allegorical. So I was a little concerned that this particular verse again wasn't about God's intentions. But Hosea 1:10-2:1 is an introduction to the section titled 'Israel Punished and Restored' and it says this: "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called sons of the living God.' The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited and they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great was the ay of Jazeel. Say to your brothers, 'My people,' and of your sisters, 'My loved one.' And then it goes on to talking about the rebuke of Israel. So, Hosea 2:9 comes in that context of rebuking of Israel's ways. And after discussing Israel as an adulterer, Hosea 2:7-8 says "She will chase after her lovers but not catch them; she will look for them but not find them. Then she will say, 'I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now.' She has not acknowledged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and the oil, who lavished on her the silver and gold-- which they used for Baal." Now clearly the reference to Baal means that this is about Israel's turning away from God and then attempting to turn back not out of love for God but out of dissatisfaction with the other things she had found. Perhaps a bit of boredom but also a bit of 'eh, this isn't really working out for me, so I might as well try it again with that other guy.' And that's where Hosea 2:9 comes in, with the relevant "I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her nakedness." So God had intended for Israel to be protected and covered, and yet in response to her wickedness, he was not going to give her that protection. He had planned and desired for her protection, but in response to the daily goings on, he was withdrawing that protection and was not following through on his own intentions.
Jeremiah 18:5-10: "Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, 'Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?' declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if a another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." So in this chapter, it is clear that the word "intended" is not used as a synonym for "ordered" or "required" or "forced." The good God provides is contingent upon the choices of man. And the destruction God could order is contingent upon the choices of man. According to these verses, God allows for his relationship with mankind - with Israel specifically in this chapter - to develop with some give-and-take, some back-and-forth between them. God does not force a particular avenue on man and may intend or desire or plan the realization of one thing but ultimately responds to human actions with another.
And Romans 2:1-6: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forebearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.'" Again, the word "intended" here is clearly not a synonym for ordered or forced. Rather it is referring to the way in which God uses things for His good purposes. There is an interplay between God's desires and the free will of mankind.
Romans 7:7-12: "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "you shall not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but the commandment cam, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." So, again, intended is used here as the thing from God that is supposed to bring about good but that we can allow to bring about evil. It is the good that was desired by and planned by God but not the evil that resulted.
2 Corinthians 7:8-9: Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, discussing previous communications they had had (at least the letter in 1 Corinthians) and their response to his rebuke for their wayward actions. "Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it -- I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while -- yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us." Again, God intended for something and used things around to realize it, but he did not force them to repent.
That's every instance in which the word "intended" is used in the Bible. 17 uses of the word in 16 verses, starting with Genesis 50:20 and ending with 2 Corinthians 7:9. Ten verses referring to human intentions and 7 referring to times in which God "intended" something (as noted above, Genesis 50:20 includes the word "intended" as something from both man and God). I also looked up the word "intend" and "intention" to see if there was anything that would add to what is outlined above - either changing my beliefs or altering them. I found nothing. And after prayerfully considering what they mean, these are my conclusions:
When man intends something, it is a planning and desire to bring it about, that may or may not be successful. Man's intentions can be for good or for evil. They may or may not come into being, and they won't know what occurs until after it is done. When God intends something, though, it is only for good. It is also not an ordering or a forcing, but the word "intended" throughout the Bible is used as an expression for His wish for goodness. His actions, however, work in conjunction in a give-and-take with mankind. He responds to our responses to Him and His callings.
Taking it back to Joseph, God did not require or force Joseph's brothers to throw him in a pit to die. It's not even clear that God wanted that. It is clear, however, that God's intention for good was to use any evil done against Joseph to realize a greater plan.
Now, I have to address an additional two points. First, I realize that this very discussion elicits a distinction between Calvinist and Arminian beliefs within Christian doctrine. For those unfamiliar with Christian splits, consider the difference between Calvins and Arminians to be similar to the difference between Shiia and Sunnis: the basic tenants and scriptures are the same, but their interpretation over the years has led to some doctrinal splits on what exactly is meant by God's word. Calvinists believe in predestination; Arminians do not. My friend is a Calvinist and I am an Arminian. But I am an Arminian because when I go through the Bible, I see all sorts of verses like those outlined above that point me regularly to the position that God is good and gives us free will. Our relationship with Him is one that involves His calling us to goodness, but not forcing us on a path, and responding regularly to what do. It's a relationship of give-and-take, not one of forcefulness and pain.
So does God intend rape? I again answer, unequivocally, no.
Rape is, by its nature, a forceful imposition and a denial of choice or consent. It is the stripping away of love and security. It is the opposite of God. And God does not intend the opposite of himself. God intends evil things to be used for good - this is the promise of Romans 8:28 ("And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.") - but that is substantially and unalterably different from God intending the evil thing itself. Evil exists in this world. God gives us free will and a knowledge of sin, but that does not mean that God intends for sinfulness and evil to exist or to occur.
I believe that God can use even the most evil of evils - rape, murder, oppression, genocide - for good, but I don't think that means He ever wanted, desired or intended for those things to happen. I have known women who set up counseling centers and grief or crisis hotlines as a response to their sexual assault. I've known war veterans who come back and reinvest in their community in reaction to losing a friend overseas. And I've known a few hundred human rights activists who have responded to evil in their lives with compassion and a dedication to fighting for the underdogs of our world. These are the good that comes out of evil.
But, that does not mean that every consequence of evil is intended and good, and no where in the Bible have I found any support that the consequences of evil are always good. So sometimes, I think, a child conceived will be a good that comes out of it, but not every child conceived is something God intends to come about - either before or during or after the rape. And we should not assume to know the thoughts of God for each individual case; there does not seem to be a blanket rule on this issue - at least no where that I've found in the Bible.
Now, I have a final question to be posed to those who would simultaneously agree with Mourdock's assertion that God intends rape - and the conception that sometimes occurs thereafter - but who still fight against abortion. This is a serious question, not just a rhetorical one to win the argument: how do you reconcile a belief that God intends the evil of rape while still fighting against abortion as some special evil that needs to be eliminated? If you believe God is sovereign over all - and therefore anything that is done is something God intends to do be done - would that not also include abortion? Would God's sovereignty not also include sovereignty over when abortion occurs and why and in what circumstances and by whom? Why must you fight against abortion if it is part of God's intention and sovereignty?
