The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

Practices Christian Living
#21

Why given all of the laws God could have spelled out in such detail did He bother with this one?

Was this happening all the time? Somehow I have a hard time imagining this ever actually happening. What if instead of grabbing she whacked em with a stick? Would that be OK?

It’s a hypothetical designed to make the infant nation of Israel ask themselves, “What principles is God trying to teach us from this one particularly strange instruction about how we should conduct ourselves in a righteous civil society?”

This was the purpose of all the laws. The Talmud, Mishna, Gemara, sages, and rabbinical schools throughout the ages show that this purpose was commonly understood. So, this school of thought argued with that school of thought about what God was trying to teach from any particular law.

This is what God intended - that through reasoning together while seeking God’s mind and heart the nation of Israel would bring heaven to earth (Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven).

So, what was God trying to teach from this particular instruction (teaching)?

I don’t know.

But I do know that if we were to sit down and reason together knowing that God is love and light and desires righteousness and goodness to prevail on earth as in heaven that in our common seeking we would learn much about God and each other.

It’s a terrific discussion question asked by God Himself designed to lead us ultimately to Him.

#22

Oh, and one other thing.

This is what Jesus was talking about when He told the religious leaders they tithed even down to a little spoonful of cummin but missed the weightier portions of the law.

They were trying to turn the laws into a finely granular set of rules that they could monitor and judge people by. Instead of discovering the very heart and mind of God and working to make that a reality on earth.

So focused on the rules were they that they missed God literally standing right in front of them.

Not much has changed in 2000 years.

#23

And yet one more thing…

Jesus said the law would stand forever and that He didn’t come to destroy it but to fulfill it.

I don’t think He meant the Pharisaical rule book would stand forever, but rather the eternal truths of relationship as practiced among the divine community in Heaven will stand forever. The same truths that the discussion questions of the law were designed to reveal.

So when confronted with the adulterous women what did Jesus do? Get out the rule book? No. He was the living breathing embodiment of the principles of divine communal relationship. He understood how to apply the principles of love, light, goodness, righteousness, justice, judgement, in every different and unique situation He encountered in a way that brought heaven to earth.

So, does God delight in having obedient people chopping a woman’s arm off? Of course not. Does He want us to conduct ourselves in a way that considers what this particular discussion question of the law is attempting to bring to light? Absolutely.

As Jesus proves, God Himself abides by the principles that His law is designed to reveal. Observing the law as a set of rules brings destruction and death. Observing the divine relational principles that the law illustrates (sometimes I think in very provocative and maybe even sarcastic ways) brings restoration and life.

I think I’m finally done now.

#24

I think you might be onto something davidbo.

When I see problematic* passages like this one one I try to ask “What is God getting at? What is He trying to reveal about His character … His glory?” I have the expectation that if I can understand the passage I can understand something deeper about God. *Please note that when I use the term problematic I mean it in the sense that I am having a problem understanding how it is compatible with the God I know to be one of love. The problem is in my understanding not the goodness of God.]

In this example I suppose we must consider the fact that God made a big deal about a man’s private parts in other ways. All we have to do is consider the significance of circumcision. Does it not seem odd that God would set apart His people through something like that? And it also seems peculiar that it is something that only affects men. But nevertheless, that’s how He did it.

With this in mind, a woman intervening in this manner must carry alot more significance than say, hitting the other guy on the head with a lamp. Matthew Henry, who I am not necessarily endorsing, nevertheless offers us some food for thought:

#25

That includes Moses, who wrote the Law in the first place.

#26

Because the Mosaic Law isn’t God’s Law, it is the Law of Moses. A law written for a Nation to keep it strengthened their nomadic times. Also, remember if Moses truly did receive the Laws and Commands of God, they were destroyed without witness or testimony of their authenticity and Moses had to write them out again and therefore his interpretation was written also within.

That is why Scripture ALWAYS calls them the Laws of Moses, not the Laws of God.

When speaking of the Law, Jesus never called it God’s law either.

John 8:17
In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true.

#27

So do you guys not accept the command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as from God?

#28

I accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

#29

Are you willing to answer the question?

#30

Sorry, I hope I didn’t sound too anti-thinking!

I think this story (and similar violent accounts) are being a bit misinterpreted. The problem with this sort of theologizing is that we tend to look at the OT accounts, from the perspective of NT revelation and modern sympathies. This is generally a good thing; I (probably more than most as a pacifist) proclaim that Yeshua is the only viable hermeneutic. But accounts of violence still stand as independent events prior to the future revelation of the express image of God in Yeshua. We should endeavour to observe these accounts in their own historical/cultural contexts, noting that ethics (and modern emotional attachments) weren’t the primary concern of the ancient Hebrews in these events.

I know it wasn’t addressed to me, but I’m willing to answer your question: No. God didn’t ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, He asked Abraham to sacrifice His promise. It was a standard religio-cultural expectation of all men to sacrifice their firstborn, just as one would sacrifice the firstfruits of the field and flock, as the fruits of the womb are equally a blessing from the Divine. God always had the first claim over the womb (this is why the firstborns were the family priests; and why they eventually became the national priesthood). So Abraham wasn’t concerned for his son (in the modern personalist sense) because sacrificing him wasn’t morally or culturally abhorrent, he was concerned that he might lose his promise – the offspring that would ensure his posterity as a Patriarch of a great nation, from whom all would be blessed. That was the context of the difficult decision Abraham had to make, and where he showed his remarkable faith. The commentary in Hebrews 11 (:17-18), makes this a bit clearer. The story shows that the Lord will provide, and that the Lord will deliver His promises. The story doesn’t intend to define Hebrew or Christian ethics. I think we need to be wary of extending accounts of sanctioned violence beyond their original intention and context, and ultimately, beyond the fullness of revelation in Yeshua. Our Yeshuan hermeneutic should recognize from where history had come (Eden and the Fall), and from where it was going (the final defeat of wickedness through humility and love at the cross).

#31

‘No problem’ WE ARE ALL BROTHERS. I have read and appreciated your posts long enough to know you are definitely not “anti-thinking.”

From roofus:

I’m not sure who you are referring to with “you guys” but I can speak for myself.

I do accept that the law in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 was given by God and was NOT a misinterpretation or inference construed by Moses. I just see i t as a difficult passage to reconcile with others expressions of God’s character and justice. I think it is valuable to see if we can alleviate this tension by digging into the passage a little more. In my mind, and I believe in the minds of others here, God is not on trial … but our understanding is. And that’s OK. Together we may be able to rectify that and learn more about God and the Bible at the same time.

You raise a relevant point about Abraham. Why is it Christians, of all stripes, do not balk at the Abraham/Isaac account as much as they do about other difficult passages? Perhaps because we have heard it so much and have been told so many times how it illustrates “faith” and the gospel. In a sense, we have been desensitized to a rather remarkable and potentially gruesome incident … that was orchestrated by God!! We have learned to recite “Well God can command what he wants and He does not have to conform to our standards and He does not even have to conform to precepts He has laid down for us to follow … because He is God and those precepts do not apply to His decisions.” This line of reasoning “works” for us when God issues a unique one-time order, as is the case with Abraham and Isaac. Situations like this do not rock our ethical boat.

But all that changes when God makes a law that seems “out of line”. No longer is this about a one-time command that was never intended to provide a specific example to follow (i.e. we are not supposed to bring our children to the alter and hope God stops us before we sacrifice them) but now it is about a law that supposedly IS intended to provide us with a framework for ethical living in society and for future laws. Here we expect every precept of God to line up with our biblically instructed concept of morality.

But maybe a similar thing is in operation in the Deuteronomy 25:11-12 as is in the case of Abraham and Isaac. Maybe there is such a thing as an “exceptional law” that should NOT necessarily serve as a model for other laws. Maybe God created this seemingly unfair law to guard against a specific danger that is extremely severe although we do not yet recognize how severe this danger is. Which of course renders this law not so “unfair” after all.