Tough Passages #13: No Hand, No Pity (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Tough Passages #13: No Hand, No Pity (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Editor’s Note (October 2021): I don’t know if I buy this explanation myself anymore. I think I still stand behind most of the other articles in Tough Passages, but this one might just need to be a shruggie and a promise to look into it more. Thanks for being respectful in the comments.

In “Tough Passages,” we’re looking at the difficult verses in the Bible that are often brought up by secular people as reasons the Bible doesn’t make sense, and discovering how they actually reveal the character, love, and glory of God in a beautiful way.  Last month, we looked at a rather unsavory law from Leviticus.  But for our first post in 2017, we’ll be looking at a somewhat strangely specific law from Deuteronomy.

The Verse

“When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12, ESV

The Secular Response

If people were better Christians, we’d have a lot more handless people walking around.

Ivana Wynn, ranker.com

Our Reply

First, let’s dispense with the idea that this is something that could ever happen accidentally. While the ESV says “siezes,” and the KJV says “taketh,” the original Hebrew is much stronger: the word used actually has a connotation not just of grabbing someone, but of doing so in battle, with the intent of seriously injuring them.

So this isn’t just some accidental brush of the woman’s hand. This is a malicious strike intended to injure the man to the point where he cannot have children any longer.

But it goes further than that.

Remember all the way back in May, when we examined a verse about how men who were castrated weren’t allowed into the Temple? That law comes not too long before this one, so this one must be read in light of the one that came before it. The woman in this scenario isn’t just hoping the man she is fighting will be unable to have children anymore; She’s flat-out saying that she doesn’t want to worship with him in the Temple any longer. She’s saying that he deserves to be treated like a foreigner. “You don’t deserve to be a part of this nation.”

Let’s stop here and look at the verse again, just to get our feet back on solid ground.

In this situation, the woman comes upon her husband fighting another man in a public place. Furious, she decides that he’s not worthy of worshipping with the other Jews anymore, and she makes up her mind that she really wants to hurt this guy. Bad. She runs in to the battle, grabs the man in a very sensitive area, and squeezes. It’s starting to seem a little less innocuous, isn’t it?

Let’s go deeper, the verses immediately preceding this Tough Passage talk about the law God put into place to protect women in the case they were widowed. Again, we need to read this verse in light of that one; so maybe it’s referring to a case where the woman is trying to keep her husband from dying so that she doesn’t have to rely on God’s law; selfishly saying that she values her own comfort as worth more than the man’s standing before God, and that she doesn’t find God reliable enough to trust, even though He has proven Himself over and over again.

This particular law would be an outlier in the Torah law as the only infraction for which physical maiming was required. and even though there is some speculation that the ancient Hebrews would have understood (and the Lord intended) the penalty differently than you or I read it today*, it’s important to weigh the gravity of that choice: rely upon God in all your uncertainty, love Him whole-heartedly, and continue to love others as you love yourself. The consequences for not doing so are grave.

• • •

Next month, we’re looking at whether or not people with deformities can come before God.

Thanks for reading Redeeming Culture; we hope you stick with us. If this isn’t a satisfying answer to you, please comment below. I’d love to talk it out.

Want to write for Redeeming Culture? We would love to have you!

* Some scholars say this means that she should pay a fine that would hurt her as much as the loss of her hand, or that it meant her palm was to be cut. In any case, there is no evidence that this punishment was ever carried out.

88 comments

Its real simple … Old Testament Law is very similar to Sharia Law … Both Islam and Christianity came from the same very small region on the planet so they are ‘Sister’ Religions …

So in other words it’s all man made and that explaination up there is doing the most extreme mental gymnastics to justify a cruel and stupid law. If and if and if

Why does this apply only to a woman? What if a man damages his opponent’s genitals? Would lex talionis require that he be injured in the same way?

Theologians try to get God off the hook and make him look loving.The real question to ask is whether God wrote the bible with people’s help or ,did people write the bible with God’s help.Deut 25 ;11 is evidence to support the latter.In my opinion ,God didnt write this,Moses did and I think Moses wrote a lot of stuff ‘without’ God’s input.

Moses didn’t write anything in the Torah. For one, scholars have noted the differences in language between Moses’ time and Torah’s is like Shakespeare and ours, more different actually. German theologians noticed two voices and two versions on the same story, eg: Noah’s arc. Check it out: 40 days/140 days. A dove/a crow

Nothing to do with God. We have been given free will and we can use it properly or misuse or misuse it. Either way that has nothing to do with Krishna or God. If we didn’t have been given free will everyone would also complain about it. Suffering is the result of past misused free will which resulted in some bad activity. It’s called karma and the law of God. An eye for an eye and in this case a ….

This all sounds so wierd.
Must have been piles of chopped off hands lying around. The woman was only trying to help!
I think the Old Testament can turn alot of people off!

Yeah… I’m really not convinced. I think I’ll stick with the secular argument, but thank you for presenting your POV.

Don’t worry, Your husband will be beat to death, but my law will take care of you as a widow. This is some mafia Peaky Blinder type stuff. Sorry we killed your husband, we will find work for your kid and give you a wage for the trouble.

Your interpretation (defense) of this scripture makes me want to avoid all Christians forever. What a pathetic joke!

I’m sorry to hear that. And honestly, I don’t even know if I buy this explanation anymore. I’m still a Christian, but this doesn’t strike me as correct any longer.

@ David… It came across as more factual than trying to figure it out in my humble opinion.

My Bible says it is under “Miscellaneous Law”…

That is enough for me to conclude that when the law became a curse, maybe it was talking about stuff like this. If my wife assists me in a fight that I was losing and punches some dudes in the baby maker… I might take her to the nearest dinner and massage and thank Our Creator for her non passive defense. in the Name of Jesus I hope I tried to turn the other cheek first… but I’d that fails she can act like she is trying to start a weed wacker with a messed up spark plug.

Shalom

Wow. Actually wow.

That’s how you talk your way around this particular one? Do you not find you are talking your way around lots of passages, because you obviously know the answer.. you are just trying to justify how you get there?

Not expecting a sensible or thought through reply btw.

I’ll be honest…I don’t know if I buy this explanation anymore. This was my best attempt years ago, but I honestly don’t know anymore.

Is it a matter of “Eve” like behavior, trying to control instead of trusting the Lord and her husband?

Stop trying to twist scripture around to justify it. This is some conspiracy far-reacing attempts to make the Bible seem a fraction less insane.

So… What if the husband kills the other man in the fight?

What if the fight always had that purpose?

The wife stop the fight, both man get to live, and one get injured in the genitals…

Are you telling me that she deserves a punishment for not letting anyone die?

I don’t believe this is the Author writing that he doesn’t believe what he wrote, when he wrote this article! Someone else is pretending to be the Author ! I feel that the Author gave a good explanation of the passage. There are some passages of scripture that I don’t understand, but I will still continue to trust God with all my heart, soul, and mind! God is sovereign, no matter what we believe down here!

No, it’s really me. You may notice that I have the [AUTHOR] tag here in the comment section, and I have added a clarifying paragraph at the top of the article. I’m also working on a follow-up. I haven’t abandoned my faith in the past four years, but I have learned and changed a lot.

It’s a lot simpler. This is tribal law that was meant for nomadic savages thousands of years ago. This law is about mutilating and disfiguring a woman for a mere gesture–a threaten to patriarchy. Your religion is barbaric, and fanatical Jews are just as bad as fanatical Muslims or fanatical Christians, or even fanatical Buddhists in some regions. Go fight your wars, impose your atavistic laws, and inflict your impotent rage amongst yourselves, and leave the rest of us alone. The world would be better off without you and you backwards religion.

I don’t even agree with my own explanation anymore, but your abusive reaction to me isn’t the best way to start a conversation. Want to try that again from the top?

Those are some wild mental gymnastics you’ve assembled to justify some heinous “laws”. Your god is garbage.

Wild mental gymnastics, yes. Garbage, no. To wit: I don’t buy this explanation myself anymore.

This is the stupidest apology I ever heard for stupid shit. Every sperm is sacred! What a mean, malicious broad to twist the balls of someone beating on her husband. I say give the ladies some knives and then he’d know for sure which guys were sterile. Go Jezebel! Go Delilah!

Don’t give up, David. You were trying to help people to believe instead of them getting hung up on strange verses that don’t make any sense to us. I have a feeling that a lot was lost in translation, and that all the things that seemed cruel will one day be corrected or clarified. We don’t have to know everything.

Regardless, a post that gets a lot of flack does not define you as a person.

Hello! Ive seen your recent responses… Please don’t be discouraged. I was losing my faith and I’ve just found you. I really think I was meant to tell you to keep studying the truth in Christ! I even feel crazy for saying that lol it’s not like me but seeing someone being discouraged after finding this verse specifically to rebuttal a TikTok just let me know I am meant to be here. Do not forget that this was written in the Old Testament and we as CHRISTIANS do not adhere to the laws written here i.e: mixed linens, no pork etc. Look into Non Literal Christianity!💙 God bless

This is so convoluted. Quantum Mechanics actually makes a lot more sense than this. Gonna stay an atheist.

David, I disagree with this completely. I will try to say why respectfully in the hope that you will address my individual points and tell me why I am wrong:

1. Why do you assume from the above verse that the fight between the two men is in a public place? If a man broke into my house and started beating me, do you think my wife is in the wrong if she defends me by grabbing my attackers balls?

2. Even in public, if a man starts beating on me, how is my wife in the wrong if she becomes furious on my behalf and intervene?

3. Why should the wife want to worship with a man who tried to kill her husband?

4. If a man is beating on me and trying to kill me, I don’t feel at all sorry for him if my wife causes permanent harm to his ability to have children. He shouldn’t have been trying to kill me. I care about my right to stay alive more than this man’s ability to have children.

5. Why is my wife wrong for trying to not become a widow? If my wife saved my life, I would be thankful. I would not let anyone hurt her for that.

Dear David , you keep on giving the same response. Why not try to give more insight into it then? It seems a bit lazy to only give the same response.
It helps to understand the scripture in context of the culture and law of the time. I disagree however that the woman is unwilling to accept her dependence on God. There must be more to this.

It’s definitely not laziness. I just don’t have the ability to make a follow-up post on this right now; largely because I don’t have the ability to figure out what I think right now.

David, I disagree with this completely. I will try to say why respectfully in the hope that you will address my individual points and tell me why I am wrong:

1. Why do you assume from the above verse that the fight between the two men is in a public place? If a man broke into my house and started beating me, do you think my wife is in the wrong if she defends me by grabbing my attackers balls?

2. Even in public, if a man starts beating on me, how is my wife in the wrong if she becomes furious on my behalf and intervene?

3. Why should the wife want to worship with a man who tried to kill her husband?

4. If a man is beating on me and trying to kill me, I don’t feel at all sorry for him if my wife causes permanent harm to his ability to have children. He shouldn’t have been trying to kill me. I care about my right to stay alive more than this man’s ability to have children.

5. Why is my wife wrong for trying to not become a widow? If my wife saved my life, I would be thankful. I would not let anyone hurt her for that.

It’s under the title of ‘Preserving The Family Line’ so maybe something having to do with affecting or maybe even injuring the life force(sperm) in the man’s testes? That chopping off your woman’s hand to state that that is a bigger offense than the quarrel with the other man because you want to preserve the family jewels.

Sorry I may have got it wrong but I guess if she is helping out the husband by squeezing the life out of the opponents testes’ it is deemed appropriate for the opponent to take brutal force and strike her hand off because she wants to prevent that man’s family lineage from coming to be. Like premeditated murder on her part.

I completely disagree with the author’s rebuke of the secular argument.

In general, the blind spots and myopia that people allow themselves to have in the name of ‘faith’ are so sad.

Really, God was vague? God left it open to interpretation? God thought it would be a good idea for it to be translated into different languages and for the message to get confused?

Or perhaps there is another explanation…it’s all an attempt to control to society and not actually from ‘God’?

@David Atwell: I know we disagree here but I wanted to say thanks for being so courteous and taking the time to respond to everyone. I hope you find your answers.

Why not remove this article off of Social Media, instead of responding to the negative comments? Why leave it posted on Social Media? Why give the enemies of Christians/God something more to run with.

I try to avoid removing my mistakes from the internet. God is powerful enough to withstand His enemies, and I think the discussion held here is still worthwhile.

There are all types of Christianity. This is not a reflection on Christianity but of on Mosaic Law. The explanation given is good and an honest review of it definitely sheds more light. Many Christians have many ways of looking at things for instance some would say that this law is the “civil law” of the time which was barbaric in the culture. There were not long term complex developed prisons, jails etc. Don’t use current culture to judge the past. Its bigoted. All Christians do not accept the OT specifically because of these issues. Wrong or Right many paint Christians with too broad a brush. Even academia is aware of the issues of judging one culture with another cultures viewpoint. Those overly critical of such things show their religious bias as an academic professor would quickly put them in their place.

oh…Marcionites…christians who have a hard time with the OT. There are also gnostic Christians and Christians too numerous to post here. Those overly critical of a religion are only showing their very narrow view and limited education in such matters. Open your minds and learn about the complexity of culture and religion instead of using your antireligious biases to view an issue. I pity the uneducated academics not bright enough to realize culture, religion, and the understanding and expression of how God works in the world change. The religious bigots of yesterday are clearly being replaced by an antireligous bigotry of the modern world.

People go to court sometimes and say “I killed him ,but it was self defense” a man’s private part is one of the most sensitive part of the body,u don’t need a weapon to kill a man if u are going for his private part.u are not just attempting murder,u are about to end his generation, unless he decides to adopt .so I think the bible is preaching self defense and by the way grabbing a man’s D**k is never an option when separating fight wether a woman or a man separating the fight ,

I found your explanation really understandable about why such a law came to exist. I wouldn’t shoot your theory down.

Also, it’s funny that no one commented until 3 years later and now all of a sudden it’s got all this interest? I’m here because of a mémé I saw about it! Lol

But the real question is how often did did the wife a fighting man run in and touch his dick, that there needed to be a law against it?

Solas- alone

I was searching a completely different subject/scripture and found attack there using the scripture from Deuteronomy as the weapon.

I found your research interesting. But many of the hateful comments sad and concerning. Especially the comment of quantum mechanics directing Denis to atheism odd since I’ve been studying quantum physics and the beginning of science as defined by James Gates starting Newton, through Maxwells equation, Einsteins theories, up to contemporaries such as Francis Collins genetics 🧬 and all of these great minds would agree there is too much design to believe atheism. In fact many claim(ed) to be Christians. But all knew they’re was much they didn’t know. And they all were searching for truth.

Back to your Solas. I found the word for the first time on your homepage. After quick search one definition was alone.

That has been a topic satan has tried to convince me of, that I am alone in my beliefs as a Christian and my battles.

I’ll never forget the sad explanation by an elementary teacher that the slaves were kept in slavery by being divided. They held the majority yet felt weak.

We Christians are not alone. Science points to creation and the great minds know that. They also know creation needs a creator and some have joined their great mind with their heart and found God.

We are the majority. We know the end of the story. We stand in the truth of the creator.

Thank you for searching for truth. Remember those attacked in the name of Christ are on the right path.

I’m really not, though I understand why you think so. I don’t buy this explanation myself anymore, as noted above.

Having observed historical presentations on early societies, despite being simple in technology, there weren’t dumb. It is virtually impossible to castrate someone with a bare hand; so the whole “preventing him from attending temple” seems without merit. As sensitive as a mans privates are, they can take a serious beating and still function. As a baseball player I can attest to this most strongly.

Hey David,

Don’t be disheartened, you’re doing a great job and this is very important work you’re doing. There is a huge amount of context and culture surrounding these verses. What would have been intuitive and understandable to those reading this at the time will of course seem alien to us reading this now, thousands of years later. People who want to understand this will try to, those who don’t will not.

This was a very difficult verse for me too – but you’ve highlighted a key point for me here. Even when fighting your enemies, there are things you just don’t do.

For example if my pregnant wife was fighting with another pregnant woman, I would of course try to intervene to protect my wife. I may try to pull them apart, place myself between them etc – the verse isn’t saying “don’t intervene”. If however, I do this by kicking the other pregnant woman in the belly – this is not acceptable.

I think the principle here is that some things are sacred – such an attack is not just on an individual, but represents an attack on their future and their potential offspring. Even if practically that isn’t the case, that’s what it represents in the culture at the time – and people at the time would *know* the significance of this. An “eye for an eye” means not punishing a generation for the actions of an individual.

I’m sure plenty of us will say “I would do anything and everything to protect my loved ones” – and I fully get that sentiment. But this is also why verses such as “love your enemies” are actually even more radical. It seems completely bizarre to be contemplating the future well-being of my loved one’s assailant in the heat of a moment like this.

Even if the literal application of this still feels very challenging, there is a learning here that I wouldn’t have got otherwise. Thank you

Growing up, I was taught to believe that the Law of Moses and everything in it was specifically given to the Israelites by All Mighty God and should be regarded as such. If taken in that literal context, it’s really hard to justify.

On the other hand, it’s also possible that an incident happened when these people were forming their society – a fight broke out between two men, the wife intervened and the other guy got hurt. After that, all of the elders looked at each other and asked the question, what should we do if this happens again? I don’t know…think she ought to lose her hand??? Sure, that works. These people were trying to form a society from scratch and I think they were just trying to do their best. It’s a pity they brought along their prejudices against women, foreigners and LGBTQ communities.

I do believe it is a terrible mistake to consider this passage as something that came directly from the mouth of God All Mighty

I don’t know what to make of these bizarre passages from the Torah. I used to enjoy studying it but stuff like this just makes me wonder. But I appreciate your humble attitude David. I understand your attempt at trying to connect previous scripture passages… to try to see what the reason behind it might be I think some things may have just been what Moses thought was good. Not necessarily GOD’s idea.

i think that this passage is only trying to make 1 point. that it is moroly wrong for a women to touch a mans genitals that she is not married to. it dosen’t say she can’t hit him over the head with a rock which would do a lot more damage but through out the bible there are moral laws that are to be followed

Thanks for having the courage and integrity to admit that you’ve changed your mind. In all seriousness, that isn’t easy–I probably fail to be as open minded as you.

Of course I think this original analysis is wrong and bizarre.

I, for one, would rather my wife/friends/family grab someone’s balls than let me be beaten to death (or beaten at all).

The verse is about men afraid of their balls being hurt. I understand–I don’t want mine hurt either, and it’s a low blow to go for them in a boxing match/athletic competition with rules.

This verse is bizarre, and is the equivalent of saying instead of wearing a cup in a jockstrap during a football match, we should maim the wives of the opposing team if they get hit in the balls.

What?

Thank you for reminding us that such verses do exist and they are very difficult to explain. My late wife was the most ‘honest’ Christian I knew and I would not be reading these comments if she were with me because I would have accepted her personal female opinion on this verse either way as more reliable than any conclusion I might come to now as a single male again. We never discussed this verse and she may not have ever read it but I now see it as part of the much wider problem of balancing male and female points of view and wondering if a gender neutral Spiritual interpretation of any bible verses is possible or even desirable. I have two adult daughters who ask for my opinions occasionally on bible verse so I have taken to prefixing all my answers by saying this is my male viewpoint but your mother would have balanced it with her own female viewpoint and the truth is somewhere in the middle ! Alternatively I might say “Ask your husband and balance his opinion with your own!”. I’m not asking for more opinions but just pointing out that highly controversial bible verses can still lead to very valuable private discussions within a loving family context even when we can’t reach a conclusion that we all agree on. It is your honesty at acknowledging that a problem exists and it should not be simply ignored that my wife would have thanked you for. I am thanking you in her memory. Her name was RUTH and she loved a lot of old bible stories but this verse was not one of them!

So…I’ve pondered and thought about this…and know the differences between exegesis and eisogesis and yet there are some of the folks that will base their judgment of God based on the actions of man….but as we try to hear a still small voice amongst the noise of culture and all the while miss God yelling wake up while the “church” remains quiet fearing man more than. GOD Himself…there are times we take matters into our own “hands” and while the woman in question went a bit extreme in her “underhanded” rescue from her husband…we aren’t given all the information…it can be conjecture to put our own spins on things and while at one point in time…the culture had used the phrase…if you don’t have anything nice to say…don’t say anything at all. And now the culture can be a cancel culture of ..if we don’t like what you have to say…we’ll make sure you pay for it…as the truth rubs people the wrong way if they’re on the wrong side of it… getting back to the issue at “hand”. Hard to stop these dad jokes.. anyways… this seems to be a husband that may not be skilled in fighting and maybe he is…but the other man is besting him in skill/strength and tenacity. This woman that the two men were fighting could be the reason the fight started.. Whether the thought of losing her alleged lover on the side and being stoned along with as both parties were to be stoned…could be she was just trying to make it look like her feelings were for her husband to still provide for her…but maybe she had relations with the man that was comfortable enough with her approach to him while fighting with her husband to let her get a hand to such a place… why else would there be no pity shown her? Was this to maybe further persuade folks to not carry on with extramarital sexual escapades? OR… maybe the head of the household was potentially gonna lose honor by having a woman fight his battles. Does make you wonder why she didn’t pick up stones or kick the person…there was still the idea of going to the man’s seed spreading urine dispersing tools. Was this to say leave a man’s tools alone and let them stay where they are when they last used them?…..so the man doesn’t have to go looking for them …like hey…I was looking for my balls… have you seen them? Sorry John Bobbitt…man’s best friend found a part of you that your wife cut-off…. Regardless of all the wondering and wandering….people seem to get all wrapped up with the trappings of this world and satan will use all kinds of things to keep people from hearing the Gospel or sharing the Gospel or believing the Gospel as it is the only power unto salvation. Our feelings about God won’t change God as He is not clay and we are not the Potter… I do believe that there was some stuff behind the scenes that were going on and the law put in place was to try to keep people from behaving in ways that would not honor God and keep people from living “good” lives. Whether the attacker was in the wrong or not seems to not be the focal point in this discussion…. it is either how dare God or how dare man or how dare woman….and yet are we gonna fight evil on our own terms? The reality of the heart is at enmity against the Lord is strong and while we have either watered down the Gospel or replaced the Gospel with self esteem and pep talks and motivation speeches etc… the fact remains that Jesus died for the sins of the world so that all who believe would not perish…but would live…eternally. A bonus for trusting God to provide a way for us to be made right in His eyes by His work on our behalf as salvation is a gift and is not earned…battle isn’t against flesh and blood…but against the powers and principalities. There is a reason its in the Bible as far as these passages that have us question….but maybe they are to be a mirror to expose the darkness we have and to reveal that Jesus IS the Light that not only shows us our own faults…but guides us in sanctification to lead us in the world that would rather have its own way….

You cant just be going around and to taketh men by the balls and yanking. I can imagine the outerwear these men would have been wearing and for some men these things hang low and if in the midst of a fight these things could be out in the open flopping all over the place. So the husband is losing the fight over who knows what and who knows who started it, it seems irrelevant the purpose but what is not irrelevant is taketh a man’s free ball that i would presume is exposed and yanking and seizing it with all her might. This might not only permanently cause this man to never have children but also may lose him his life as I’m sure the momentum is swinging or shifted to the husband and he may never swing or need to shift agsin. ​He’s potentially losing his balls and maybe his life and all she loses is her hand? She’s getting off easy seeing he may never get off, for lack of a better term, or possibly breath again. It’s the mens score to settle. Not for some crazed ball grabbing groping tugging yanking woman or another man to interfere.

What is she was tired of being raped by her brother or father had no way of speaking a language and wanted to say I chose him? Christians are sick. Spousal abuse and invest people still stand up for. Nowadays we send people like you to prison 😀

Is this a biblical blue law?… (this is not the first time I’ve visited this verse this week)

In light of the verses proceeding this on the topic are on laws concerning Levirate marriage,
“that is marriages in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow; a practice by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage is forbidden, a practice known in many societies around the world” *.

Matthew Henry has a more plausible explanation, on befitting Yahovah’s chosen:

“A law for the punishing of an immodest woman, Deuteronomy 25:11,12. The woman that by the foregoing law was to complain against her husband’s brother for not marrying her, and to spit in his face before the elders, needed a good measure of assurance but, lest the confidence which that law supported should grow to an excess unbecoming the sex, here is a very severe but just law to punish impudence and immodesty. 1. The instance of it is confessedly scandalous to the highest degree. A woman could not do it unless she were perfectly lost to all virtue and honour. 2. The occasion is such as might in part excuse it it was to help her husband out of the hands of one that was too hard for him. Now if the doing of it in a passion, and with such a good intention, was to be so severely punished, much more when it was done wantonly and in lust. 3. The punishment was that her hand should be cut off and the magistrates must not pretend to be more merciful than God: Thy eye shall not pity her. Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he commands us to cut off the right hand that offends us, or is an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes.”

This is from his Complete Commentary of the Bible which he started in 1708 unto his death in 1714. He completed the OT, the Gospels, and Acts. The Commentary was completed by his contemporary peers.

One must run this stuff to ground in defence of our faith see 1 Peter 3:15-17

* As defined by Wikipedia

This is insane, and your explanation makes no sense. Bible thumpers use a lot of “let’s infer” and “let’s think about what this might mean”. That’s how you managed to twist the words in the bible, which are barbaric, outdated, and out of fashion, and make people believe that the book actually contains logical and coherent life advice.

“The woman in this scenario isn’t just hoping the man she is fighting will be unable to have children anymore; She’s flat-out saying that she doesn’t want to worship with him in the Temple any longer.” She’s saying, she’s saying. Where did you get this from? She never said anything. The verse only has the woman doing one thing: grabbing the genitals. From the story, you elaborate a complicated story about the woman’s motives, what she’s trying to do, how much she hates the man, and how much she hates god’s law. You have built an entire house starting only with a brick.

It is disheartening to think people actually read this and go “oh yeah, that makes sense. I’m convinced. Praise the lord!”

I think the best “defense” from some secular arguments such as this one is to acknowledge that the Bible was written thousands of years prior and handled by so many people that sometimes certain parts won’t make sense to us ever. And that’s not the end of the world.

It’s already amazing enough that a book from 2000+ years ago makes us much sense as it does.

Take a book in actual English from 1800 and try to read it. We’d barely understand all of it. Language and meaning evolves a lot.

So we’ve tried our best to understand the meaning behind it and certain passages. But some will have been lost to time.

Your explanation and mental gymnastics do make sense. It’s just that it’s very sexist and very male focused. But then we have to admit that a lot of ancient times were too. So it would make sense.

It was a very male centered time and the man’s line was super important. Important to politics, culture, and more.

Personally I think the passage is essentially saying, “If your husband is fighting with a man and you chose to castrate him that’s a very low blow and a cheap shot. So don’t do that”. We have to remember that at the time there were kings and kingdoms and a whole bunch of killing off lines after a war and etc. So it’s just a simple law that says to hit a guy there in order to defend your husband while he’s in a fair fight is mean spirited and cowardly.

It might feel like a random law but maybe at the time some woman famously did it to some guy and it created a big uproar. And this was just the religious sect at the time going “no, don’t do that, that’s not civil”.

Going from “it means she intentionally grabbed it” to “she wanted to leave him sterile” is already a gigantic stretch. But even if you were right, cutting someone’s hand because of that is barbaric. That’s why we don’t do it anymore.

So if a man jumps in to save his wife’s life, he’s a hero. If a woman jumps in to save her husbands life, she “selfishly doesn’t want to be a widow”.

Got it.

I’m pretty sure this isn’t what God is saying. What woman would jump into a fight with a much bigger person just to humiliate him? That doesn’t make sense. The passage clearly says it’s to save her husband. You are speculating a lot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *