Cut off her hand...

[PS]

PS I think you got some of your verses wrong. For example, I cannot find strangling in that verse.

You would need to refer back to the 7th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin.

The 227th mitzvah is that we are commanded to execute by strangulation1 those who transgress certain mitzvos. The source of this commandment is G-d's statement2 (exalted be He), "He shall be put to death."3 In our list of the prohibitions we will point out which mitzvos are punishable by strangulation. The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 7th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961587/jewish/Positive-Commandment-227.htm

For that, you can add this to the list.
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Lev 20:9 KJV)

 

[Scrobulous]

Why are people worrying about the amputation of a hand when there is all this?

The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning — Deut. 22:24 (She is to die because she did not cry out for help)
The courts must carry out the death penalty of burning — Lev. 20:14
The courts must carry out the death penalty of the sword — Ex. 21:20
The courts must carry out the death penalty of strangulation — Lev. 20:10
The courts must hang those stoned for blasphemy or idolatry — Deut. 21:22
Bury the executed on the day they are killed — Deut. 21:23
Not to delay burial overnight — Deut. 21:23
The court must not let the sorcerer live — Ex. 22:17
The court must not kill anybody on circumstantial evidence — Ex. 23:7
A judge must not pity the murderer or assaulter at the trial — Deut. 19:13
Not to kill the murderer before he stands trial — Num. 35:12
Save someone being pursued even by taking the life of the pursuer — Deut. 25:12
Destroy the seven Canaanite nations — Deut. 20:17
Not to let any of them remain alive — Deut. 20:16
Not to kill the murderer before he stands trial — Num. 35:12
Save someone being pursued even by taking the life of the pursuer — Deut. 25:12

The Law of the old testament is very severe and to modern readers, seems utterly brutal. As many have pointed out on this thread, modern culture with its faux sensitivity does not take sin in the least bit seriously and therefore completely misunderstands God. God is holy and hates sin in direct proportion to his love of humanity. Sin destroys man and this angers God. God is uniquely placed to understand the damage sin causes and He doesn’t compromise with it. But this is secondary: Primarily sin is an offence against God, who is completely pure in a way we cannot imagine. Even the smallest sin is unacceptable. This is why man and God are separated.
To bridge the chasm between God’s holiness and man’s wickedness, the law, which represents a reduced requirement of holiness and is, in effect, a compromise, was introduced to give man some understanding of God’s position on sin. This was necessary, since man is spiritually blind. The brutality of the law is deliberate. It is there to convey the severity of sin and the desperation of our position before God.
The law is however, designed to show justice. The law cannot be arbitrary, so the issue of the hand in Deut 25:11-12 is critically important.
We can understand that gross sins that set man on a downward spiral to depravity; sins like beastiality, incest, murder and so forth are met with horrific penalties - and they had to be. The law also deals with judgment. God used Israel to punish the surrounding nations and God punished Israel with terrifying judgments also.
But in Gen 18:25 Abraham pleads with God ‘shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ And this is where the cutting off of the hand comes in. Is seizing a man by the genitals to defend her husband from an assailant, worthy of amputation?
In the scale of punishments it is not the worst, but nor is the crime. That’s the point.

 

[PS]

The Law of the old testament is very severe and to modern readers, seems utterly brutal. As many have pointed out on this thread, modern culture with its faux sensitivity does not take sin in the least bit seriously and therefore completely misunderstands God. God is holy and hates sin in direct proportion to his love of humanity. Sin destroys man and this angers God. God is uniquely placed to understand the damage sin causes and He doesn’t compromise with it. But this is secondary: Primarily sin is an offence against God, who is completely pure in a way we cannot imagine. Even the smallest sin is unacceptable. This is why man and God are separated.
To bridge the chasm between God’s holiness and man’s wickedness, the law, which represents a reduced requirement of holiness and is, in effect, a compromise, was introduced to give man some understanding of God’s position on sin. This was necessary, since man is spiritually blind. The brutality of the law is deliberate. It is there to convey the severity of sin and the desperation of our position before God.
The law is however, designed to show justice. The law cannot be arbitrary, so the issue of the hand in Deut 25:11-12 is critically important.
We can understand that gross sins that set man on a downward spiral to depravity; sins like beastiality, incest, murder and so forth are met with horrific penalties - and they had to be. The law also deals with judgment. God used Israel to punish the surrounding nations and God punished Israel with terrifying judgments also.
But in Gen 18:25 Abraham pleads with God ‘shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ And this is where the cutting off of the hand comes in. Is seizing a man by the genitals to defend her husband from an assailant, worthy of amputation?
In the scale of punishments it is not the worst, but nor is the crime. That’s the point.

That is your explanation for the stoning, burning, strangulation, hanging, etc. by man, even though God who has power over fire, and pestilence and so able to administer justice on earth, said: “Vengeance is mine.”

Are you not concerned that those who condone and even command those things might face the consequences when they stand before the Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[presidente]

You would need to refer back to the 7th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin.

The 227th mitzvah is that we are commanded to execute by strangulation1 those who transgress certain mitzvos. The source of this commandment is G-d's statement2 (exalted be He), "He shall be put to death."3 In our list of the prohibitions we will point out which mitzvos are punishable by strangulation. The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 7th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961587/jewish/Positive-Commandment-227.htm

For that, you can add this to the list.
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Lev 20:9 KJV)

I have read that the Talmud allowed for strangulation in caaes where the type of death penalty was unspecified. Your quote from the early middle ages does not prove that the axtual Pentateuch requires strangulation

 

[presidente]

In New Testament times they apparently stoned adulterers.

We sgould realize how much God hates adultery. I live in a country where penalties (imprisonment) for crimes like this are till on the books but not enforced.

 

[LPT]

You messed the quotes up, and quoted me as saying something I disagreed with. I thought I'd point that out to prevent confusion to those following the conversation.

Nitpicking viper. That's a rather mean accusation. I have learned to be skeptical of assertions about Greek and Hebrew. And I studied linguistics and a bit of Semetic languages (as electives) as an undergraduate student.

I'm open to other interpretations. Not chopping a woman's hand or palm off sounds better to me. I'm not nit picking. I'm just pointing out how loosey-goosey this interpretation is. If you've got some evidence that cutting off the hip is an idiom for not being allowed to marry one's brother's husband if the husband dies, then you may have a good case.

But no reasonable person who just speaks English is going to read a sentence about chopping off a palm, or hip even, and conclude it is talking about not a widow not being allowed to remarry into her husband's family. We shouldn't make such a wild assumption about Hebrew without some evidence. If you have evidence for the interpretation, I'm ready to look at it. That would be very interesting. If not, why should we randomly make up stuff about passages and pass it off as exegesis?

Yea I saw that, I tryed to repair the quote but the five minutes was up.

I do apologize to You, for my rudeness yesterday, it was uncalled for.

The word is used multiple times in different parts of the bible in different ways depending on context. IMO I believe what I posted about the proper translation of the passages meaning is correct, but that is me. it is not a salvation base understanding to know, I believe it has deeper meanings then what is on the surface.

Again I do apologize for my actions.

 

[presidente]

Yea I saw that, I tryed to repair the quote but the five minutes was up.

I do apologize to You, for my rudeness yesterday, it was uncalled for.

The word is used multiple times in different parts of the bible in different ways depending on context. IMO I believe what I posted about the proper translation of the passages meaning is correct, but that is me. it is not a salvation base understanding to know, I believe it has deeper meanings then what is on the surface.

Again I do apologize for my actions.

How do get from cutting of the hip (a leap at that) to not being allowed to marry her husband's brother if she's widowed? I am asking, do you have any documented linguistic evidence for the leap here? Did you write the linked webpage? Do you know if the one who wrote it has some linguistic evidence? It could be a more reasonable argument if there is evidence that such an idiom existed. Otherwise, it looks to me like wishful thinking.

 

[presidente]

Why are people worrying about the amputation of a hand when there is all this?

The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning — Deut. 22:24 (She is to die because she did not cry out for help)
The courts must carry out the death penalty of burning — Lev. 20:14
The courts must carry out the death penalty of the sword — Ex. 21:20
The courts must carry out the death penalty of strangulation — Lev. 20:10
The courts must hang those stoned for blasphemy or idolatry — Deut. 21:22
Bury the executed on the day they are killed — Deut. 21:23
Not to delay burial overnight — Deut. 21:23
The court must not let the sorcerer live — Ex. 22:17
The court must not kill anybody on circumstantial evidence — Ex. 23:7
A judge must not pity the murderer or assaulter at the trial — Deut. 19:13
Not to kill the murderer before he stands trial — Num. 35:12
Save someone being pursued even by taking the life of the pursuer — Deut. 25:12
Destroy the seven Canaanite nations — Deut. 20:17
Not to let any of them remain alive — Deut. 20:16
Not to kill the murderer before he stands trial — Num. 35:12
Save someone being pursued even by taking the life of the pursuer — Deut. 25:12

Noting that I believe some of your assessments and claims here are not true, my question is do you have a problem with these verses? You don't have a problem with not killing someone on circumstantial evidence (your conclusion, not the wording of the passage) do you?

Some of these are case law. If a married or betrothed woman went along with fornication-- and if he were aggressive, just going along with it was not permitted-- there was a death penalty. Honestly, I do not have a problem with a society having a death penalty for adultery if there are two or three witnesses, personally. But back to the issue, one thing to realize is that these are examples cases that judges would have used. They would also have had to take into account if the girl were mute, and if the man had a knife to her throat.

For some laws, post exhilic Jews would interpret them so loosely as to do away with some of the more severe penalties. They basically argued it was impossible for the father and mother to speak with the same voice in the case of the rebellious son, so that they would never apply the death penalty. An eye for an eye became a law of compensation. I suspect they were a lot looser than was intended or the original application of such laws in the time of Moses. There was an actual account of stoning for gathering firewood on the sabbath, and since that did not fir the categories of what Jewish lawyers argued was forbidden, they had to come up with scenarios to make the man guilty, but some first century Jews would have stoned for Sabbath violations or for blasphemy. The lawyers who called themselves 'rabbis' were one niche of Judaism in the first century and their heirs took over what grew into so-called Orthodox Judaism after the temple was destroyed.

 

[LPT]

How do get from cutting of the hip (a leap at that) to not being allowed to marry her husband's brother if she's widowed? I am asking, do you have any documented linguistic evidence for the leap here? Did you write the linked webpage? Do you know if the one who wrote it has some linguistic evidence? It could be a more reasonable argument if there is evidence that such an idiom existed. Otherwise, it looks to me like wishful thinking.

From what Ive learned, the word in Hebrew is used in three different ways depending on context.

heel/foot or hand/palm or hip/socket.

 

[presidente]

From what Ive learned, the word in Hebrew is used in three different ways depending on context.

heel/foot or hand/palm or hip/socket.

Context here would lead to 'palm'. But if it meant hip, is there evidence that cutting off a hip was an idiom for a widow not being allowed to marry an in-law?

 

[LPT]

Context here would lead to 'palm'. But if it meant hip, is there evidence that cutting off a hip was an idiom for a widow not being allowed to marry an in-law?

I don't think the passages was meant the hip, there are other places the word/words are used differently in context. one place is

Genesis 32:25
And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

The passage about cutting off the hand doesn't say why the men were fighting, though it was probably over something important. something like the above in Genesis might have happpened even without the woman getting involve, but since she did than that wouldn't have had a chance to take place because she stepped in.

 

[presidente]

I don't think the passages was meant the hip, there are other places the word/words are used differently in context. one place is

Genesis 32:25
And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

The passage about cutting off the hand doesn't say why the men were fighting, though it was probably over something important. something like the above in Genesis might have happpened even without the woman getting involve, but since she did than that wouldn't have had a chance to take place because she stepped in.

Maybe it does not say what they might be fighting about because it is not important for the interpreter of the law to know such a thing.

 

[Doctor-Sphinx]

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 actually think it's disgusting a female would consider grabbing a guy "by the balls" in order to stop a fight. It is an insult on his manhood, and, once in her grip, it would be fairly easy for her to do anything she liked with him, even for her to go so far as destroying his testicles - an agonising and humiliating process for him, to be sure. And how could he even retaliate? For a man to destroy a woman's child-bearing ability, he would most likely have to kill her, as a woman's organs are well inside her body.

I think these days, we're actually desensitised to how painful and serious this kind of thing is for males, because masculinity is seen as a kind of impediment. We even ensure that most of our male animals are castrated and make jokes about this, and women who are known as "ball-breakers" are glorified. In reality, though, castration for a male is a fate worse than death. Not only is the pain excrutiating, the humiliation extreme, but it takes away a man's ability to do what God put him on this Earth for - to procreate. In the absence of any similar eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, ball-for-ball treatment of the woman, I see removal of her offending hand as the next best thing to punish her.

Stoning dangerous animals, also. No different to shooting them, in an age without guns.

I wouldn't let God's wonderful sense of justice appall you or upset your faith.

 

[garee]

I actually think it's disgusting a female would consider grabbing a guy "by the balls" in order to stop a fight. It is an insult on his manhood, and, once in her grip, it would be fairly easy for her to do anything she liked with him, even for her to go so far as destroying his testicles - an agonising and humiliating process for him, to be sure. And how could he even retaliate? For a man to destroy a woman's child-bearing ability, he would most likely have to kill her, as a woman's organs are well inside her body.

I think these days, we're actually desensitised to how painful and serious this kind of thing is for males, because masculinity is seen as a kind of impediment. We even ensure that most of our male animals are castrated and make jokes about this, and women who are known as "ball-breakers" are glorified. In reality, though, castration for a male is a fate worse than death. Not only is the pain excrutiating, the humiliation extreme, but it takes away a man's ability to do what God put him on this Earth for - to procreate. In the absence of any similar eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, ball-for-ball treatment of the woman, I see removal of her offending hand as the next best thing to punish her.

Stoning dangerous animals, also. No different to shooting them, in an age without guns.

I wouldn't let God's wonderful sense of justice appall you or upset your faith.

Hands are used to represent the will in the bible .

I think at times God can be like a mother bear robbed or her cub in order to protect the spiritual seed Christ.. The Son of God

Brings a new meaning to nasty.

Proverbs 17:11-13 King James Version (KJV) An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.
Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man, rather than a fool in his folly. Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.

 

[Journeyman]

Cutting off one sinful body part that's offensive to God is a good start, but Paul took the short cut when he crucified his whole body.

 

[Nehemiah6]

If you think about it, in a time of no anaesthetics, to cut off a poor woman’s hand for so trivial an offence. I cannot get my head around it.

This is where we need to set aside humanistic ideas and accept what is given as God-given. Chances are that because that punishment was so severe, no woman dared to do what is stated. So in fact no one suffered for that crime, and there is no record that anyone ever did.

It is just like a NO TRESPASSING sign on highly secured property where a strong electric current would kill someone. No one will dare to violate that command.

 

[Journeyman]

My ways are so much higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts--->Isaiah

Take for example your sited reference to genocide.....God commanded Joshua to kill everyone (men, women and CHILDREN) in Jericho.....and other cities.....we might look at that and be highly offended or think that this was and is barbaric....but in essence it shows great MERCY and love towards the Children....You might think that last statement = me out of my mind....

Why would I think the above......simple....Had the children grown up with the backgrounds of complete Idolatry that they had been ingrained with, they obviously would have been lost forever.....it is obvious that the bible teaches some sort of "safe under the blood" for children that have not reached the age where they are aware of sin and placed under the condemnation of God "David and his first born with Bathsheba" that died.....God, by instructing Joshua to kill even the children accomplished numerous things....

a. In all probability spared some from hell
b. In all probability spared Israel from revenge at a later time
c. In all probability kept idolatry from corrupting the truth at a time when it needed to flourish in the land
d. Etc.

The truth is...there are numerous truths, events etc. in the bible that are hard for us to grasp the reasoning behind such things, yet at the end of the day....we cannot even begin to second guess God because we are not qualified to do such, nor do we have that right...........

I think a good way to view OT commands to carry out genocide is in a spiritual sense.

Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. Isa.14:21

Sounds unthinkable, until we realize God is speaking of Satan (verse 12). And before coming to faith in Jesus, we were children of the devil. Thank God one of the Lord's servants came along and chopped us with the sword (the word of God).

Thanks for killing our old man Lord!