Cut off her hand...

[fizzyjoe]

I agree, which is why I find it so hard to understand why God would allow such commands into his law. It would be different if God himself had a slightly more casual attitude to the law, along the lines, look this is a guide, guys, kind of rule of thumb, so feel free to interpret it loosely! But this is not God’s attitude. The law was treated as the very words of God and the scribes ensured that not a single letter or dot was missed. So, the command to cut off a hand was binding, so was stoning animals. It is, frankly, shocking.

Well most of the commandments were "by God" so reflecting that he was very "serious" and "strict" when he put them into order, I mean cutting off a hand was only one commandment that was "severe" another one that stresses God's past "severity" concerning his commandments was no "working" on Sabbath days not even forbearing people to "pick up sticks" with the consequence being "death" God back then was that way particularly because he was dealing with a "rebellious people" who were constantly mocking him and turning from him

 

[Scrobulous]

I believe the "apparent" cruelty of God in these matters, as well the Flood, and the Multiple decrees to slaughter EVERY man, woman, child, and infant, and in some cases animals, of certain people groups, makes no sense, and can actually trip up Christians, UNLESS we view them in light of Genesis 6.

In Genesis 6 we see fallen angels mating with human women creating a hybrid race of people. In extra-Biblical texts, that ARE mentioned in the Bible, we see that animals ALSO were "mixed" creating unnatural hybrid animals.

The DNA of these abominations continued in some of these people groups. Thus God ensured that this particular sin, carried forth by DNA, was not mixed with the people that would bring forth the Messiah.

God took incredible seriousness ANY attempt to either destroy, like in the case of the woman grabbing the man's genitals, or CORRUPT the seed by which His Son would come.

Interesting post. But...
Grabbing a man’s genitals is not the same as destroying the messianic line!
This is a woman trying to get a man who is attacking her husband to stop fighting. With the eye for eye law in operation, this seems the safest means of achieving her objective. It is clear that such a law stems from a misogynistic culture, my question is why God would endorse it.

 

[Scrobulous]

To grab the man by his private parts may indicate the woman being fully aware of her incapacitating the man, thereby giving her husband the advantage over his adversary. Unfair to say the least.

But worthy of cutting her hand off?

 

[Scrobulous]

God is going to cast unforgiving sinners into the eternal Lake of Fire where they will be tormented Day and Night forever and ever..

It seems to me that some people don't understand how Perfect God is and how evil their sins are.. Cut of her hand... Why would a Perfect God not cast her into the eternal lake of fire the moment she committed the offense? Surly one sin, just one sin is enough for a Perfect God to be justified in doing so... Why didn't God destroy both Adam and Eve the moment they gained the knowledge of good and evil?

He is long suffering towards us.. That's why..

Why is grabbing a man by the genitals a sin at all, in these circumstances? She is trying to save her husband and stop a fight. What should she do? Punch him in the face? Tickle him? Are these sins too? Are they worthy of an amputation?

 

[Scrobulous]

Well most of the commandments were "by God" so reflecting that he was very "serious" and "strict" when he put them into order, I mean cutting off a hand was only one commandment that was "severe" another one that stresses God's past "severity" concerning his commandments was no "working" on Sabbath days not even forbearing people to "pick up sticks" with the consequence being "death" God back then was that way particularly because he was dealing with a "rebellious people" who were constantly mocking him and turning from him

A very good point. But this is not a crime against God. She is simply defending her husband. It is a squabble that’s all. Cutting the poor woman’s hand off is totally disproportionate.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Why would God command to stone a bull that has gored someone to death?
"If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.
Exodus 21:28‭-‬29 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/exo.21.28-29.NASB
An aggressive beast like an ox is a danger to the whole village.
The reason for stoning is that God didn't want the meat to be eaten, because it killed someone. Stoning to death would blood shot the meat rendering it inedible.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Many of the laws God imposed on them was so that they would not do those things. It's not worth losing a hand over just because your husband and some lumox what to brutalize each other. Let them take their pounding for being stupid. The eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth rule is gonna come into play if they do each other harm. And is it worth having your teeth knocked out because you were mad enough to punch someone in the mouth? These were meant to be behavioral deterrents.

 

[luigi]

But worthy of cutting her hand off?

Let's look at the people of the Exodus at the time.
They were the Egyptians slave class, mostly uneducated and riotous.
Until "Thou shalt not kill", they had no compunction not to kill.
Two men fighting would often lead to the others serious injury, if not death.
For anyone then to intervene, would make the quarrel two against one; and leading more likely to the single individuals possible death.
The interferes hand as a penalty would then have kept many who would have interfered, from interfering.

 

[fizzyjoe]

Why is grabbing a man by the genitals a sin at all, in these circumstances? She is trying to save her husband and stop a fight. What should she do? Punch him in the face? Tickle him? Are these sins too? Are they worthy of an amputation?

I can hardly even believe you even asked that...
Sin by definition is anything "opposite" of God that a person does, meaning that even if God is not involved right then in the circumstance that it "offends" God.
For instance the sanctity of "marriage" is "by God" making the husband and wife as "one flesh" meaning that if either person does anything to "betray" each other God is offended.
In the circumstance you outlined the action is done to rescue her husband from being smote that's pretty much "encouraging adultery" if one tries to say it's not a sin, so long as it is done to "protect" is "confusing" right and wrong also it is not made clear whether the husband was in a "life threatening" circumstance so it's kind of an insult to her husband not trusting in his strength to defend himself.
No matter how a sin is masked as if it isn't sin it's still sin, whether a lie, a cursing, a betrayal, it's a sin one can not do "right" and "wrong" at the same time lest they be a hypocrite and it's not without "consequences".
Cutting off hands has been used in several countries for "stealing" one hand per theft it's not pretty but, it's an abrupt way to stop wrong doing and have people "think" on their actions obviously God found this sort of transgression to be "abominable" otherwise he wouldn't have made such a grim consequence for it.

 

[maxwel]

Verses like this in the OT make me think if they are inspired by God or just allowed by Moses (like divorce, as Jesus said).

I would guess the second.

I think you are presuming a dichotomy which isn't necessarily in the text.

There is nothing in the text to establish that this allowance by Moses is not also from God.
God often makes special allowances for us that take into consideration our propensity for sin.
The prime example of this is the cross itself.

You are making a presumption which is not necessitated by the text, and which most would feel is at odds with other scripture.


...

 

[fizzyjoe]

A very good point. But this is not a crime against God. She is simply defending her husband. It is a squabble that’s all. Cutting the poor woman’s hand off is totally disproportionate.

It was in his law to Moses so of course it was a crime against God, it's similar to a king making decrees that his subjects must obey lest they be punished with a dire consequence.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

One time a long text ago there was this fellow who was fighting with another fella, and the second fella's saw the fight and decided to run up behind the fellow's left side and kicked him in the crotch. The fellow turned with out looking and punched his assailant right between her eyes. He didn't know it was a woman or who it might be. He knew someone just kicked him so he hit them; before anyone could say a word or intervene. Her head snapped back she reeled back and bounced off the adjacent building and she slid down the wall like a rag doll. Everyone froze even the fella who hit her; he realized he just hit a female. Everyone was thinking that she may not be ok. Even her brother was petrified in horror and could not pick himself up off the ground. As she raised her head up every one gasped in fear at the sight of her face. She had a black and purple lump near the size of a baseball right in the middle of her forehead and two black eyes.
I'm thinking God had prevention in mind. Let two men pummel each other for stupidity sake, but don't allow a woman to be hurt in their foolishness.

 

[PennEd]

Interesting post. But...
Grabbing a man’s genitals is not the same as destroying the messianic line!
This is a woman trying to get a man who is attacking her husband to stop fighting. With the eye for eye law in operation, this seems the safest means of achieving her objective. It is clear that such a law stems from a misogynistic culture, my question is why God would endorse it.

Misogynistic culture? By who's reckoning? Yours? Today's World?

God was very specific, and Israel had disastrous consequences, from taking the wives and mixing their seed with certain women of other Nations. The reason for this is clear. Through Israel the Messiah would come. So again, any attempt to damage or corrupt His Chosen people's seed would by necessity be harshly dealt with.

Protecting the posterity of the man was of paramount concern for God. It doesn't say this woman would have her arm chopped off for stomping on the guy"s feet, or biting his had, or a thousand OTHER ways she could have interceded in the fight. The decree is specific to damaging his genitals, that carry his seed.

 

[trofimus]

I think you are presuming a dichotomy which isn't necessarily in the text.

There is nothing in the text to establish that this allowance by Moses is not also from God.
God often makes special allowances for us that take into consideration our propensity for sin.
The prime example of this is the cross itself.

You are making a presumption which is not necessitated by the text, and which most would feel is at odds with other scripture.


...

You are right there is no dichotomy. The verse could also be inserted much later, neither inspired, nor by Moses. Or it could be inserted later, inspired, but not by Moses. Or it could be authentic, but not inspired. Or it could be authentic and inspired. There are many possibilities. The name "Moses" does not have to refer to one person, but can just name the group of books, like "isaiah" was used for several prophets.

Regarding the rest:

And they said, “Moses permitted to write a roll of divorce, and to send her away.”

5But Jesus said to them, “He wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart; 6but from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female.’a 7‘On account of this, a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,b 8and the two will be for one flesh.’c Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Mark 10

I think that Jesus says just it - its not of God, its just of Moses. Its even wrong as Christ said in verse 9.

 

[Scrobulous]

I can hardly even believe you even asked that...
Sin by definition is anything "opposite" of God that a person does, meaning that even if God is not involved right then in the circumstance that it "offends" God.
For instance the sanctity of "marriage" is "by God" making the husband and wife as "one flesh" meaning that if either person does anything to "betray" each other God is offended.
In the circumstance you outlined the action is done to rescue her husband from being smote that's pretty much "encouraging adultery" if one tries to say it's not a sin, so long as it is done to "protect" is "confusing" right and wrong also it is not made clear whether the husband was in a "life threatening" circumstance so it's kind of an insult to her husband not trusting in his strength to defend himself.
No matter how a sin is masked as if it isn't sin it's still sin, whether a lie, a cursing, a betrayal, it's a sin one can not do "right" and "wrong" at the same time lest they be a hypocrite and it's not without "consequences".
Cutting off hands has been used in several countries for "stealing" one hand per theft it's not pretty but, it's an abrupt way to stop wrong doing and have people "think" on their actions obviously God found this sort of transgression to be "abominable" otherwise he wouldn't have made such a grim consequence for it.

Of course, once the offence is in the law, then it is a crime against God, but I am asking why this is in the law at all. Of course you can say, because God put it there and there is then no argument. But why would he have such a law? That's what we are discussing. Other guys here have made the point that these were barbarous people and God had to establish the principle of holiness, so what seem like trivial offences bring such harsh penalties. Got that! But there is usually a logic and a sense in what God does. He has to make the link between sin and death. But here the issue is a woman protecting her husband and stoning a poor bull for being a bull. I can't see what God is up to here.

 

[fizzyjoe]

One time a long text ago there was this fellow who was fighting with another fella, and the second fella's saw the fight and decided to run up behind the fellow's left side and kicked him in the crotch. The fellow turned with out looking and punched his assailant right between her eyes. He didn't know it was a woman or who it might be. He knew someone just kicked him so he hit them; before anyone could say a word or intervene. Her head snapped back she reeled back and bounced off the adjacent building and she slid down the wall like a rag doll. Everyone froze even the fella who hit her; he realized he just hit a female. Everyone was thinking that she may not be ok. Even her brother was petrified in horror and could not pick himself up off the ground. As she raised her head up every one gasped in fear at the sight of her face. She had a black and purple lump near the size of a baseball right in the middle of her forehead and two black eyes.
I'm thinking God had prevention in mind. Let two men pummel each other for stupidity sake, but don't allow a woman to be hurt in their foolishness.

A plausible perspective but, also there is the other factor if she were brought up before the people, being married they might have done worse to her like stoning for such an action, either way God made such commandments so that everyone would "know" just what the consequence was for actions so that there wouldn't be so much of "speculation" when said actions happened and less fighting over what should be done unto the person.

 

[maxwel]

How very odd.

We sit in our modern time, in our modern culture, with minds that are both finite and corrupted by sin, within a culture that is corrupted by sin, and we look back at God's ancient commands to Israel, and declare, "THAT IS UNJUST!"

And we presume this based on what?

What?

We presume our great ability to judge based upon what?


Upon what do we presume to make such judgements?

- Upon some mysterious moral perfection we claim exists in our fallen and corrupt minds?
- Upon some mysterious moral perfection which bubbles up from our utterly corrupted modern culture?
- Upon our perfect ability to understand ancient times and culture removed from us by thousands of years?
- Upon our perfect ability to understand the infinite mind of God with our own finite and corrupted minds?

Just how exactly do we presume to judge an ancient law from God?



Perhaps we should start by simply accepting it.

A. If we presume, with our corrupted minds, that that this law is wrong... we learn nothing.
B. If we presume that God knows what he's doing... we can then study, and move forward along this Biblically faithful presumption, until we gain some ACTUAL UNDERSTANDING of the law's purpose.



Perilous

To study God's precepts by first presuming they are wrong... would seem a perilous position.


...

 

[fizzyjoe]

How very odd.

We sit in our modern time, in our modern culture, with minds that are both finite and corrupted by sin, within a culture that is corrupted by sin, and we look back at God's ancient commands to Israel, and declare, "THAT IS UNJUST!"

And we presume this based on what?

What?

We presume our great ability to judge based upon what?


Upon what do we presume to make such judgements?

- Upon some mysterious moral perfection we claim exists in our fallen and corrupt minds?
- Upon some mysterious moral perfection which bubbles up from our utterly corrupted modern culture?
- Upon our perfect ability to understand ancient times and culture removed from us by thousands of years?
- Upon our perfect ability to understand the infinite mind of God with our own finite and corrupted minds?

Just how exactly do we presume to judge an ancient law from God?



Perhaps we should start by simply accepting it.

A. If we presume, with our corrupted minds, that that this law is wrong... we learn nothing.
B. If we presume that God knows what he's doing... we can then study, and move forward along this Biblically faithful presumption until we gain some ACTUAL UNDERSTANDING of the law's purpose.



Perilous

To study God's precepts by first presuming they are wrong... would seem a perilous position.


...

Amen, yes because if one just presumes that God is wrong about something then they may never come to find any truth in his word, sure we want to "understand God" but, a big first step is "accepting" and "trusting" that he knows what he is doing not "speculating" if if if if if...

 

[Locoponydirtman]

How very odd.

We sit in our modern time, in our modern culture, with minds that are both finite and corrupted by sin, within a culture that is corrupted by sin, and we look back at God's ancient commands to Israel, and declare, "THAT IS UNJUST!"

And we presume this based on what?

What?

We presume our great ability to judge based upon what?


Upon what do we presume to make such judgements?

- Upon some mysterious moral perfection we claim exists in our fallen and corrupt minds?
- Upon some mysterious moral perfection which bubbles up from our utterly corrupted modern culture?
- Upon our perfect ability to understand ancient times and culture removed from us by thousands of years?
- Upon our perfect ability to understand the infinite mind of God with our own finite and corrupted minds?

Just how exactly do we presume to judge an ancient law from God?



Perhaps we should start by simply accepting it.

A. If we presume, with our corrupted minds, that that this law is wrong... we learn nothing.
B. If we presume that God knows what he's doing... we can then study, and move forward along this Biblically faithful presumption, until we gain some ACTUAL UNDERSTANDING of the law's purpose.



Perilous

To study God's precepts by first presuming they are wrong... would seem a perilous position.


...

Nothing God ever does is unjust. We don't understand and may be even have questions. I at least know that God is soveriegn, and we are corrupt. There is no thing that God may do that is injustice. Even if from our perspective we think it is horrible.
David himself knew that it is better to fall into God's than to his enemies. His punishment may seem harsh but it is for our good.

 

[garee]

In Deuteronomy 25 we have the following:
11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

When reading the OT law, it is important to realise that although, by our standards, the events are pretty barbaric, we are dealing with divine judgment and being educated to understand the deadliness of sin and God’s attitude towards it. Genocide is a last resort and the means by which God judges the nations of the middle east. There are indications, Gen 15:16 that God waits generations before judging in this way. We are, in fact, instructed to love the law and to dwell on it night and day Ps 1:2.
It seems to me that the law is an imperfect means of structuring a society along godly lines, but in spite of all this, the above command strikes me as utterly disgusting.
I am appalled too, at commands to stone animals, like bulls who gore people to death. Stoning is a means of killing so painful, slow and disgusting, that surely no merciful God could condone it. Why the cruelty?
I have to say such things really upset my faith.
Does anyone have a view on this?

I would suggest first of all they are ceremonial laws as shadows having to do with the suffering of Christ beforehand . One of the many places that I would suggest as my opinion that without parables Christ spoke not, hiding the unseen spiritual understanding from natural man.

The first example using hand cut off, "hand" I believe from comparing the spiritual understanding to the same or faith to faith hand is used to represent the "will".

It I believe had to do with the spiritual seed, Christ seeing the genealogy called the generation of Christ as new creatures the Son of man Jesus the end of the genealogy had not yet come . God was protecting His seed as he did with Onan or the reference in Genesis 6 . The mingling of believers as sons God led by the Spirit of God, with unbelievers as daughters of men not born again daughters born of God as in unevenly yoked.

Animals, clean and unclean were used in ceremonial laws as shadows also .Again a picture of the gospel in respect to the suffering of Christ before hand and glory that did follow the first resurrection. (1 Peter1:11)

It would appear from my perspective God used them in various parables to emphasize we walk by faith the unseen, as in God is not served by human hands in any way shape or form neither does he live in temples made with human hands . He is not made up of the rudiments of this world that he calls corrupted.

To emphases that I would offer he gives us a parable in Exodus and an example in Numbers to show outwardly that he is not served by human hands in any way shape or form. Using the unclean to represent natural man (no faith) and the clean that would represent the redeemer.

Exodus 13:12-14 King James Version (KJV)That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord's. And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.
And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:

The example below I would offer is a picture or parable of God defending the integrity of His words from false prophets, bringing false prophecy. Declaring the will of man and not the hand of the lord, the word of God's will.

And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.But the angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again. And the angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay. Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face .Numbers 22

Balaam was proved to be false prophet going when not called to go. God sent a unclean animal to represent a unbeliever to emphases to Balaam...….. not your will be done, but mine. It would look like he was forgiven and sent off again with the witness of God not seen. The holy place of God.

And Balak said unto Balaam, Did I not earnestly send unto thee to call thee? wherefore camest thou not unto me? am I not able indeed to promote thee to honour?And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.Numbers 22:37-38