Did God command women's hands to be cut off without pity?

[Paidion]

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 NKJV)

This doesn't sound like the heavenly Father which Jesus described, when He taught us to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors. He indicated that if we do good to every one, we will become true children of God, and will be perfect.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your father who is in heaven; for he causes his sun to rise on the bad and on the good, and rains on the righteous and on the unrighteous....Therefore, you shall be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect. (Matthew 5:;43-45,48)

Can you imagine Jesus instructing His disciples to cut off a woman's hand? — He who wouldn't condemn the woman who was caught in adultery, and told her so, asking her to sin no more? Jesus is Another exactly like His Father. He is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3) so that He was able to say to His disciples, that he who has seen Him has seen the Father. So would the Father request such a harsh treatment of a woman, if Jesus would never do so, no matter what the woman did?

[steve7150]

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 NKJV)

This doesn't sound like the heavenly Father which Jesus described, when He taught us to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors. He indicated that if we do good to every one, we will become true children of God, and will be perfect.




Paidion,
There are a lot of verses in the OT where God sounds much harsher than in the NT, so i think verses like this have something to do with the preservation of Israel as a distinct nation so Christ could come later. The Israelites accepted the law, they knew what it was and they had accepted it. This law was indeed harsh and that's why it needed to be followed, but much of it was unique to Israel during that age.

[RICHinCHRIST]

[Jesus] is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3) so that He was able to say to His disciples, that he who has seen Him has seen the Father. So would the Father request such a harsh treatment of a woman, if Jesus would never do so, no matter what the woman did?

Are you therefore suggesting that God didn't really give that command to Moses but that Moses made it up? If so, are you then saying that Moses wasn't a true prophet?

[Paidion]

Are you therefore suggesting that God didn't really give that command to Moses but that Moses made it up?

No. I'm not suggesting anything. I have simply presented these facts for your consideration. I don't think Moses "made it up".

If so, are you then saying that Moses wasn't a true prophet?

Well, since it's not so, then I am not saying that Moses wasn't a true prophet. Notwithstanding, I am convinced that Jesus revealed the Father is He really is, a God of love, a God who does His best for every individual, a God whose intent is to save every individual. The only way I can make sense of the laws of Moses, such as the law I described, is to suppose that Moses sometimes misunderstood the revelation of God, even though Moses affirmed that Yahweh spoke to him "face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Exodus 33:11). One would think that if Yahweh spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend, then His words would reflect His true character.

What do you think, Rich? Would God really give such a command? Would Christ?

[RICHinCHRIST]

The only way I can make sense of the laws of Moses, such as the law I described, is to suppose that Moses sometimes misunderstood the revelation of God, even though Moses affirmed that Yahweh spoke to him "face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Exodus 33:11). One would think that if Yahweh spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend, then His words would reflect His true character.

I think your comment contains its own refutation. We must take Moses at his word that he really spoke with God face to face. Since he did, I believe that he did teach what reflected God's character. I would find it very difficult to make sense of how Moses could have misunderstood God when He had such direct contact with Him. I have often wondered why Moses spent so much time on Sinai. It must be because he was continually going over with God what God was telling him. How could he remember all of the Torah in just a few conversations? I believe Moses had frequent conversations with God and he was determined to make sure that every word God gave him was correctly passed down to the Israelites.

God emphasized the meticulous nature of how everything in the tabernacle was to be arranged:



Certainly, if Moses had to be incredibly careful to arrange such things in a specific way (which were merely shadows), wouldn't he also have been equally meticulous in the transfer of civil commands? Also, if Moses were to make a mistake on such a teaching, wouldn't God have just told him his mistake the next time they spoke face to face, whether on the mountain or in the tabernacle of meeting? To say Moses made a mistake, we would have to make one of the following assumptions: 1) Moses didn't really have direct contact with God. 2) Moses misinterpreted God after many conversations and meetings with Him. 3) God didn't care to correct him. I don't think any of those ideas are plausible.

What do you think, Rich? Would God really give such a command? Would Christ?

I believe God did give the command, and I believe it must have been for good reason. First of all, we must realize that this is a peculiar situation. If the people would obey a previous law, namely Leviticus 19:18, they would not even be fighting in the first place.

Also, the Proverbs say,

I don't think the woman should be meddling in a fight that is not her own. Now, it does seem harsh that she should lose her hand for trying to help her husband. But I suppose this may be a case for which steve7150's comments apply. Let's think about this. The law's consequences were not carried out unless one became a lawbreaker. I think if every woman in Israel heard this command in advance, they would make sure that they don't go and try to get away with attacking a man in this way. It could be that no woman ever experienced this amputation. It may have merely been a precaution against the society's moral degradation.

Paidion, this is not the only thing you must think Moses was incorrect on. A man was stoned for picking up sticks on a Sabbath. Surely Moses could not have misunderstood God on such an important Old Testament commandment. There are many things such as this that we must realize were for the moral and spiritual preservation of Israel, in a time when other nations could have easily infiltrated the people of God, whether by force from outside or by defilement from within. This comes with the territory when we consider the fact that God set Israel apart as a peculiar people. They were held to a very high standard, and the consequences were very great if they failed to avoid them.

Would Christ have given such a command? It depends. I believe He would have given the same command to Moses (because He is one in harmony with the Father). However, Jesus didn't seem to have held His followers to the same type of rulekeeping while He was on earth. Surely Jesus had very different ideas about the Sabbath than God did in the Old Testament. Is this a contradiction? I don't think so. I think the terms of the Old Covenant were very different than those of the new. Jesus' mercy toward the woman caught in adultery is surely an aspect of God's character, even though He maintains the right to kill anyone who commits adultery the moment they participate in the sin. In other words, Jesus' acts of mercy, forgiveness, and kindness do not 'cancel out' the right God has to holiness and justice. I believe we have to take all the Scriptures into account when we interpret God's character, not merely pick and choose ones which we prefer (I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm just stating a fact).

[Homer]

Would Jesus tell Joshua to kill all the people in the Land of Canaan and then join in and fight with them?

Would Jesus strike Uzzah dead for improperly touching the ark and do nothing to the Philistines who hauled it off? After all, Uzzah meant well.

Would Jesus strike Ananias and Saphira dead for lying to the Apostles?

Incorrect presuppositions lead to incorrect conclusions.

[Paidion]

Rich, I don't think an appeal to the fact that we are now in the New Covenant solves the difficulty. We are talking about God's CHARACTER here — His moral character. Does He make requirements of us that He doesn't practise Himself? Christ asked His disciples not to seek vengeance, but to love their enemies and do good toward them. But it's okay for God to avenge His enemies? If a human being did that, we wouldn't hesitate to call him a hypocrite. Indeed, that is exactly what the Pharisees, whom Jesus called "hypocrites" did. They were very diligent in enforcing the Mosaic law upon the people, but found ways to skirt it themselves. Jesus pointed out one example. The law told them to honour their parents (financially), but they said that if they told their parents that what would have been given to them was given to God, they wouldn't need to assist them financially.

So how can we truly be sons of our heavenly Father? Jesus indicated that we can be such sons if we do as the Father does, that is do good to all people, good and bad. Jesus also instructed us not to seek vengeance, to turn the other cheek, and to do good to those who persecute us. If we do these things, will this show that we are truly sons of God? Similar to God Himself in character? Or would we be similar to God in character if we cut off a woman's hands for defending her husband by grabbing the genitals of her husband's opponent? Would we be similar to God in character if we took revenge upon our enemies? If we killed a person for touching our fancy new car? If we killed all the people in a country in order to take over that country for ourselves?

One of Jesus's main missions while on the earth was to reveal the Father as He really is! If I must choose between the OT depiction of the Father, and the Father as Jesus revealed Him, I will choose the latter. That's because I am a Christian, a disciple of Christ.

Incidentally, Homer, Luke doesn't say in the book of Acts that God killed Ananias and Saphira. Could that be one of the "incorrect suppositions" to which you refer?

[Homer]

We are talking about God's CHARACTER here — His moral character. Does He make requirements of us that He doesn't practise Himself? Christ asked His disciples not to seek vengeance, but to love their enemies and do good toward them. But it's okay for God to avenge His enemies? If a human being did that, we wouldn't hesitate to call him a hypocrite.

Is God a hypocrite because he appoints goverment as His agent to wield the sword against those who do evil?

Romans 13:1-4
New King James Version (NKJV)

1. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

We are forbidden from doing certain things because it is not our place to do them. We are not capable of determining what is just, but God is, and though governments are fallible, they are much more capable than individuals who are blinded to justice by anger and a desire for revenge.

[steve7150]

One of Jesus's main missions while on the earth was to reveal the Father as He really is! If I must choose between the OT depiction of the Father, and the Father as Jesus revealed Him, I will choose the latter. That's because I am a Christian, a disciple of Christ.






Jesus referenced Moses and the law many times so he did'nt consider his revelation of God to contradict anything from the OT. In addition Jesus himself was probably "The Angel of the Lord" in the OT and involved in violence. The crux of this as i see it, is not just a few harsh commands here and there but the whole question of evil itself. Why would God allow evil or perhaps create it , either way he could stop it but he knows it leads to a greater good in the end. What about the flood, where if it was a worldwide flood many women and children were killed? Is this the same God Jesus revealed? Jesus thought so.
'

[steve7150]

Perhaps a negative aspect of the open theist position is that you can't simply believe that God allows or initiates things that seem repulsive, because you can rest on the belief he knows the end from the beginning.