The same could be said about literally anything in the Old Testament.
No. The 10 Commandments were not rules for camping around Mount Zion, but for everlasting (earthly) existence.
But I looked it up, there are in fact general laws of war later in Deuteronomy 20.
Winning over far distant people: Kill all males, let women and children alive and take them (with cattle).
Winning over near-distant people (most influential, most sinful, especially here the women too, who don't take religions of their husband) (namely:the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites): kill all,
what odem has
These act on Midianites was before and cannot put clearly in one of this category:
- not one of the Canaanites people mentioned in Deuteronomy
- but similar wickedness of the women like the Canaanites
- the Israel soldiers left the women and children alive first
- Moses told them not to because of their sinfulness
- leaving the virgin children alive was a concession by Mose to the rule above to kill everyone
So, how does "take the women" has looked like, which was commanded for winning over far distant people:
I also quote here a general commentary (Knowledge Commentary by Zuck & Walvoord):
Family laws (Deuteronomy 21:10-21)
(1) Marrying a captive woman (21:10-14) 21:10-11. An Israelite was permitted to marry a beautiful woman from the captives of a particular battle. This assumes the battle in question was against one of "the cities that are at distance" (20:15), not a city within the borders of Palestine. Therefore the prospective wife would not have been a Canaanite woman (cf. the prohibition against marrying a Canaanite man or woman, 7:1, 3-4)
If an Israelite soldier genuinely desired one of the captives he could have her only trough marriage. This helped protect the dignity of the women captives and the purity of the Israelite soldiers. Israelites were not to rape, plunder, or otherwise mistreat captives as other armies of the ancient Near East did.
21:12-14. A soldier's marriage to a foreign captive could not take place immediately. The prospective wife was first prepared psychologically for her new life as an Israelite. This was accomplished by shaving her head, trimming her nails, having a change of clothes, and mourning for her parents for one month. The mourning may indicate either that her father and mother had been killed in battle or that she was now separated from them by her new marriage. The other rituals mentioned may also have symbolized her mourning for cutting herself off from her former life.
The full month allowed the captive woman a proper amount of time for mourning, and it also gave prospective husband opportunity to reflect on his initial decision to take her as his wife. For with a shaved head she would be less attractive. The phrase If you are not pleased with her may refer not to some trivial problem in their relationship, but to the new wife's refusal to accept her husband's spiritual values. In this case the husband could dissolve the marriage by giving up all rights over her. By forbidding him to treat her as a slave, even though she was dishonored through the divorce, the woman still retained a measure of dignity. This law underscored the value of human life, it cotrasted with the terrible treatment of war captives commen throughout the ancient Near East.
You can argue that, since virgin children had no deep ingrained old culture to shake off, therefore they could be married immediately but I doubt so strongly, when you see the compassion in the law with the captive women.
It is clearly not rape.
Girls could in fact already be given in marriage long before actual physical maturity, perhaps even as young as five years old (cf. Lev. 27:5), and it did happen that marriages were already consummated with prepubescent girls
That it happened doesn't make it acceptable. There is also evidence that pork was eaten in Israel, although it was an abomination to God.
The female children are spoils of war, after the Israelites were commanded to kill everyone else, including children and the elderly. It is incredibly obvious the Israelite men were permitted to marry or rape them. Even if marriage is implied, it was still forced upon them against their will and would still be considered rape by modern definitions.
Forced marriage is possible, but these girls/women had no other options either since all males were killed. And see above.
In the end, God stands above the law. When he commands to kill a person or a group (in wartimes) it doesn't justify daily murder and when he would have commanded rape for a special occasion doesn't justify daily rape. Especially since there are clear laws against rape in Deuteronomy.
