One of the most startling scriptures to our ears in this day and age is the law we find in Deuteronomy 25:11-2
“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.”
When we first read this passage we tend to shrink back in horror at a judicial outcome that reminds us of the excesses of King Leopold in the Belgian Congo. We then get a slight smile when we think about the odd detail and euphemisms employed, forgetting the horror of the last sentence. Finally we move on as quickly as possible, remembering what we have heard in the past: that either these laws reflect the society and the expectations in the context of the age in which they were given, or that embedded in this law is a teaching about the inviolable nature of a seed and its preservation at any cost regardless of circumstance.
Neither explanation sits comfortably with our understanding of Yahweh and his character. This passage catches us all out. We are inevitably drawn into the drama and horror, and – let’s admit it – the scatology, and miss the essential point. This law isn’t about secret parts and the cutting off of women’s hands. As the law itself declares at the very beginning, this piece of legislation has everything to do with “When men strive together”. This is the targeted behaviour which the law addresses.
As we reconsider the circumstances described in this law the less we can practically imagine these circumstances arising, or the possibility of dealing with such a remarkable set of circumstances through a judicial process. Try and imagine such a struggle and the practicalities of bringing it to justice and we can’t, in fact the circumstances seem intentionally absurd.
Furthermore, when we look elsewhere in the law we find no similar law. Why such specific and grotesque detail in this instance? There is no record in scripture of this law being implemented. Then, when we scan scripture we find one other instance where we are instructed to cut off hands, and are initially surprised to find that this is a commandment of Jesus in Matthew 5:30 “If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off…”
It is really of no surprise that Jesus shares a teaching technique with his Father.
“…the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” (Jn 12:49-50)
It isn’t a surprise to find that both the Father and the Son share a commandment that calls for hands to be cut off. In understanding the law of Deuteronomy 25:11-12 we have to reject the stodgy idea that Yahweh wrote the law with the blunt pencil of judicial penalty and that Jesus brought elegance to the teaching with pen and ink. We expect that the same elegance, inference, excellence, and spirit in the teaching of the Old Testament as we do from the New, and commonly the one assists us in understanding the other.
So, just as the concept of taking a knife and cutting off our hand is far from our mind when we hear the words of Jesus, so the commandment in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 has little to do with mutilation. It is one of many laws given specifically for teaching. It is not a judicial law. There was never an expectation on God’s part that the Israelites would cut off the hands of their women. The teaching is clear and centres around the initial provocation when men strive:
Do not fight because when you do you will harm those you love.
Broadening this concept to all the law, we note that there are a number of laws that can be considered teaching laws, rather than laws for judicial execution. Frequently, Jesus in his teaching gives us permission to understand these laws in this way. In fact, the inference in Jesus’ teaching is that it is a lack of spiritual discernment that leaves us wondering about things like stoning, executing family members, and trading an eye for an eye. Jesus didn’t invent these principles but did highlight how the majority had failed to discern his Fathers true intention behind such laws. Let’s consider a couple more.
We read in Deuteronomy 13:6-11,
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou has not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
Now, this law is about idolatry and we are perhaps slightly more comfortable as a reader with the rapid and unequivocal execution of justice prescribed here. However on a second reading we are startled at the complete lack of judicial process. A similar law a few chapters later details a similar situation, however the judgement on that occasion follows a thorough procedure – one which we can imagine would be robust enough to eliminate any injustice, and more than likely engage the parties in a remedial process:
And if it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth and that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (17:2-7)
This law imposes very high thresholds of procedure and certainty, and the need for multiple witnesses. Back in Deuteronomy 13 there is no process and just one witness. We also note a remarkable introduction to the law in Deuteronomy 13 which is a law that results in the immediate death without any judicial procedure for the culprit. It is a law couched in special terms that appeal to the hearer to think about his brother, but not just his brother, this is the son of his mother. It appeals to him to think about his wife, but not just his wife, this is the wife of his bosom. It appeals to him to think of his friend, but not just any friend, this is the friend which is as his own soul. This law is directed at our closest loved ones, and the instruction is to take them out and kill them. Did this ever happen? Would we actually execute such summary justice against our children and wife? The questions go further. How could this arise between two people so intimately connected? How could our closest loved ones suddenly and secretly become idolaters without us. Why is there no judicial process involved?
This is a teaching law which not surprisingly has a parallel in Jesus’ teaching in Luke 14:86 when Jesus says:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
These words of Jesus are not intended to be an easy directive from the Lord. They were intended to challenge the great multitude that followed him and they represent one of the Lord’s periodic reality checks on those who would follow him, like the call for true disciples to drink his blood. We know that Jesus doesn’t want all his disciples to simply hate their mothers. This is a call for disciples to be prepared to put the Lord before their mother if circumstances demand such action, but a far better option is to share the Lord’s service with our father, mother, wife, and children. Jesus words this challenging exclusion from discipleship based on the very worst circumstances and with strong hyperbole, yet we take up the challenge and receive the teaching for what it is. We do not respond by hating our loved ones.
The law in Deuteronomy 21 functions in the same way. The absence of any judicial process, the highly unlikely circumstances, the intimacy of the relationships, and the parallels with the teaching of Jesus all lead us to recognise this law as a law intended exclusively to teach:
Idolatry will take the life of the ones we most love. Never let the circumstances described in this Law arise.
Can we really imagine that this law is designed to cover the day when the wife of our bosom, or friend knit to our soul suggests we become idolaters and we march them to their death? No. This law is the Old Testament equivalent to Jesus’ directive for us to hate our mothers.
We don’t find any examples of the enactment of this law in Israel’s history, and nor would we expect it. And, although we don’t find a lot of working examples of the practice of law in scripture, we do find examples of respect for the judicial procedures outlined for laws that were intended for judicial execution. In the very same Deuteronomy 13 we find the following law in verses 12-15:
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
Once again we see in this law a repeated demand for certainty before proceeding with the judgement. This is a judicial law that addresses idolatrous rebellion. The circumstances described are such that we could almost say there is no need for procedure. The man is a man of Belial, he has already entered a city, drawn the people away, and declared his ambition to serve other gods. Yet the law insists that there is a thorough process of searching, enquiring, and asking diligently. We can see that this law could lead to the saving of the city, and possibly of the man labelled a man of Belial, if the accusations were false.
This same law comes into action in II Samuel 20. We do not see a strict judicial process here, but we do see that the processes outlined in Deuteronomy 13 represent the reasonable level of judicial procedure expected by Israelites. Perhaps the fact that this expectation had an impact on a man who was essentially a law to himself shows us the regard in which the procedures described in Deuteronomy 13 were held.
As in Deuteronomy 13, the rebel in II Samuel 20 is described as a man of Belial (v.1). He is a product of rebellion and is pursued by Joab to the extreme north of the country. On the way in pursuit of the criminal, Joab has no qualms about slaughtering his arch enemy Amasa in a brutal and treacherous manner (v.10). He arrives at the city of Abel, Bethmaachah, where the man of Belial has entered and taken refuge and immediately begins to lay siege against the city with the objective of wiping it out (v15). The situation is saved by a wise woman who calls out to Joab from the wall of the city and asks him a pointed question which revolves around the principles of justice laid out in Deuteronomy 13.
They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask at Abel: and so they ended the matter. (v.18)
There was an expectation that this threshold of investigation was met before administering justice and even Joab, whose disregard for justice is clear from the record of his life, succumbed to this appeal to the judicial principles found in the law. In our two laws from Deuteronomy that deal with idolaters and potential idolaters, these processes are evident in one and absent in the other. The one is a judicial law and gives the process for its execution. The other is a teaching law which describes a situation and a judgement which – as far as we are aware – never took place.
Let’s consider a further law found in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 –
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Once again we have here a very unlikely law. Those who are parents will attest that the likelihood of parents from any age taking their children to be stoned to death is slim. At times we would like to wring the necks of our children, but when we say that it is an expression of love rather than genuine desire to kill them – and this is perhaps reflected in this law. There is more of a process attached to this law – attempts to chastise, and the witness of both father and mother – but in the end the unlikely scenario of two parents surrendering their son to be killed because they had tried their best and had failed is an unlikely one. Perhaps we can imagine a very extreme circumstance that might conceivably lead us to think there could be a real application of this law, however, we don’t find one in scripture, and the examples we do have that match the conditions of this law have very different outcomes. Think about David’s response the Absalom’s rebellious and deceitful actions, or the father’s attitude towards his grossly wayward son in the parable of the prodigal son. Remember that the father in the parable speaks to us of our heavenly Father and his desire for his children. Did he really advocated a ‘3 strikes and you are out’ policy in Israel that saw parents taking their children to the death? No, this too in all its impracticality is a teaching law similar to the others we have seen:
Parents, a disregard for your children’s spiritual needs can lead to death. Don’t leave your intervention in their lives to this point when it is too late. In other words, Parents, never lets such a law be enacted.
Then we come to the stoning itself and what is perhaps the clearest teaching aspect of a shocking element of the law. While there are many laws which prescribe stoning as an outcome, there is a remarkable lack of instances of stoning recorded in Scripture. The only legal stonings on record are those which were carried out during the wilderness wanderings and at the specific instruction of God himself. The other accounts of stoning are all illicit (Naboth, Stephen, and Paul). The recorded legal stonings were directed by God as the judicial process had reached its end and the stoning option was one which the leadership felt uncomfortable in administering. This reflects the key teaching that we find in Jesus’ words when he said to those who asked about stoning the women caught in adultery in John 8:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Leaving textual questions to one side (textual critics suggest that these words don’t belong in John and to insist that they do is to demonstrate an ‘inertness of mind’) and receiving these words as teaching from our Lord as they rightly appear to be, we see in these words the unspoken principle behind all laws which call for stoning. The Lord gives us permission to insert these words in parenthesis into any law which calls for stoning as an outcome.
Jesus’ teaching didn’t overturn the law or invent new and unforeseeable understandings. He was bringing to the surface the underlying principles embedded in the laws when given. These principles had been lost in the days of Jesus but perhaps they were recognised in at least some of Israel’s history, given the general absence of reference to this chief judicial instrument.
This leaves us with one more law to consider. It brings us in a full circle to a law that is perhaps the easiest for us to understand as a teaching law, thanks to more teaching from Jesus. On several occasions we read in the law that a judicial outcome is to be:
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:24-25).
It sounds fair enough until we think about the literal application. The idea of taking a foot for a foot, or breaking a tooth as a punishment for having broken a tooth, or burning someone for having caused a burn seems pointless and counterproductive. On this occasion we can be confident of our doubts about the literal nature of this law as Jesus himself shows us that this law is intended to teach and not to inflict equal injury on the protagonists.
It is no surprise to discover the reference to the law of talion (eye for an eye) is used exclusively in laws dealing with conflict, generally physical. The law in Exodus 21 is once again prefixed with the condition “When men strive” (v.22) Once again, these laws are teaching laws, and there is no expectation nor record to be found in scripture of judicial dental work. There may have been similar laws among the ancient legislations of the nations around Israel, but their similarity in the laws of Yahweh does not mean that the laws given to Moses were simply duplicates in a world where people were always punished in this way. Any similarity was a challenge to the spiritual discernment of Israel.
The teaching that emerges from a law which says that after conflict the damage one has inflicted on the other will be inflicted on them as well is very clear: Do not fight. Nobody wins. This is Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:38-39. We are not to engage in conflict. It only has mutually destructive outcomes, including, as we learned in the first law we examined, hurting the ones we most love.
In conclusion, there are similarities between some laws and some of Jesus’ teaching. We see that both the Father and the Son in some instances employ a severe teaching technique which employs high levels of shocking hyperbole which demands of us a discernment based on our understanding of Yahweh and his character. Whether it be drinking blood or cutting off hands, both the Old and New Testament teachings demand of us the same level of spiritual discernment to arrive at the intended point. Yahweh in the Old Testament wasn’t a God who administered brutal laws to suit the times. He wasn’t a God who insisted on great and shocking punishment to reinforce principle. He is a God whose teachings are understandably reflected in those of his Son. Jesus on the other hand wasn’t the inventor of a new perspective on these difficult laws of his Father. He simply expounded what was always intended.
This is by no means a thorough analysis of this type of law – teaching as opposed to judicial – however, we see enough to tell us that the most difficult laws found in the Old Testament are there for us – and Israel of old – to exercise spiritual thinking, and ensure that such thinking intervenes well before the dreadful scenarios described become a reality.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One