NIV Deuteronomy 25:11 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.
KJV Deuteronomy 25:11 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: 12Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
If two men are fighting and a wife goes to assist her husband and accidentally grabs the other man by the penis or testicles, then her hand must be cut off. This is an example of a woman becoming defiled. Once again, the godly woman is nothing more than “pure” property of her husband. I included the King James Version because I think the phrase “taketh him by the secrets” adds a little humor to an otherwise evil law.
I don’t see how anyone could believe that a perfect God could create such a rediculous law.
Bible Verses Rarely Read on Sunday 
Thats because the religion of the ancient Israelites was nothing more than sex worship. Take a look at wikipedia and you will notice that the word for holy is very similar to the word for sacred prositute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-D-Sh
QDSh = Holy
קָדֵשׁ qadesh masculine (pagan ritual) male prostitute
קְדֵשָׁה qdesha feminine (pagan ritual) female prostitute
* Caleb (which means dog=male prositute) who helped Joshua to spy on Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caleb
* The Temple of Solomon had two obelisks outside it. As we know obelisk is a phallic symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaz_and_Jachin
* David was a musican which is another euphamism for male prositute in ancient times. He was also Saul’s sons lover.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/20.html#30
* Rahab was not a prositute but a priestess in the temple.
Hebrews 11:31
By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
Why remember a harlot ? however a priestess makes more sense.
By: mP on April 17, 2011
at 9:36 am
well, at least God hopefully spell. 🙂 jk
By: timoccc (@timoccc) on August 30, 2015
at 4:21 am
Obviously you’re too stupid to think why a perfect God would create such a perfect law. You’re the typical modern moron who thinks attacking a mans genitals is acceptable. This law is by far one of the best.
By: Alex on April 28, 2011
at 8:20 am
So why is there no law against a man damaging another mans bits ? Given most women are weaker, common sense must dictate that there is infinitely more possibility of damage by the man rather than his woman.
The law is far from perfect its about keeping women in their place.
By: mP on December 8, 2011
at 4:18 am
And you Alex obviously believe any woman who defends her husband deserves to have her hands cut off. Your god also I assume by your statement believes it is acceptable to call someone names if he disagrees with you.
If you honestly believe this is one of gods best laws I honestly feel sorry should you have a daughter that tries to break up a fight one day. I also hope the courts throw the book at you when you feel the need to cut off your daughters own hands.
This passage was written to “put women in their place.” It was written to show god was a loving god provided you was born with a penis since it does not say a guy can’t defend himself, only women. It was written back when women and children were considered property and second class citizens.
It does not go into the reason for the spat between the two men. Should someone break into my house and my wife comes to my rescue she should be given a medal, not physical disabilities like you would have.
I would encourage you to honestly search your own heart and ask yourself if you was being beaten on the street by a group of muggers and your wife tried to help the best she could would you want her hands removed with as much gusto as you put in your post?
By: Mike M on October 2, 2011
at 6:44 pm
The law of Moses placed limits on punishments. In pagan nations noblemen could crush the commoners under the hooves of their horses and the wheels of their carriages, and do no more than toss a few coins at them or their survivors. A commoner who brushed against or jostled a nobleman could be beaten to the ground or murdered on the spot. Hammurabi’s code put some limits on and gave some order to the law but maintained the status quo. Men could divorce or murder their wives, concubines and slaves on a whim, restrained only by the possibility that their wives’ relatives might retaliate. God, through Moses, made women’s lives of equal value to men’s without pretending that males and females are identical. Even slaves’ lives were protected by the law, a novel idea in that era that persists to this day in sharia law Muslim nations.
By: Gerald on October 12, 2017
at 12:00 am
I see this law would help in preventing sexual immorality since in this case the wife of the man is grasping ahold of the man who is not her husband private place. And this was not acceptable then and should not be now.
By: Patricia Loranger on February 5, 2024
at 12:17 pm
Should a man’s hand be cut off if he “grabs her by the pu$$y?”
Also, the verses in context describe accidentally grabbing it while defending her husband in a fight.
By: edhensley on February 17, 2024
at 1:13 am
Nowhere in the verse does it say her actions are accidental. On the contrary, it is clear that her actions are a deliberate and violent attempt to render her opponent infertile. This has absolutely nothing to do with her becoming “defiled” because she accidentally fondled some genitals.
The mosaic law prescribed punishments in an “eye for an eye” manner, and since she could not be castrated, she would be punished by other mean (which highlight the seriousness God places on treating reproduction in a dignified manner, along with its importance).
By: Allen on October 9, 2013
at 9:03 pm
Where does it say that her actions are a “deliberate and violent attempt to render her opponent infertile?”
Nowhere.
You are adding words to this verse in order to justify it, and by doing so YOU are ADMITTING that the literal meaning of this verse is IMMORAL and ABSURD.
By: edhensley on October 9, 2013
at 10:04 pm
The literal meaning does not imply anywhere what you are implying. I’m afraid the criticism you apply to my reasoning could equally be applied to yours.
By: Allen on October 9, 2013
at 11:17 pm
The law did not punish with such severity unless deliberate intent was identified (it was generally understood, and logically still should be, that accidents are to be handled with far less magnitude than those with intent).
I suppose I only looked at the Bible to try and find fault with it (which is understandable if one rightfully observes the wickedness associated with those who claim to claim to uphold it), I would probably also gravitate toward any conceived transgression with even considering any logic or historical context to the contrary.
By: Allen on October 9, 2013
at 11:24 pm
Again, you are dead wrong.
The PURPOSE of the women grabbing the genitals is “to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him” (KJV) or “to rescue her husband from his assailant” (NIV). NOWHERE is the purpose to make the other man infertile as you wrongly implied. You need to stop adding words and phrases to the bible that are not there.
By: edhensley on October 9, 2013
at 11:36 pm
Nothing is mentioned that states outright or infers or so much hints that her motive would be to sterilize the assailant. Nothing is mentioned that infers that she intended to do his genitals any actual harm. Just feeling a tight grip on a man’s testicles is very distracting, to say the least. The threat that he perceives, whether she intends to go any farther or not, that she may crush or twist them may be enough to induce him to give up.
It’s still a very serious matter for a woman to seize or strike a man’s testicles. Men will kill if necessary to defend our genitals.
Men then didn’t wear pants or underpants. At most they might have a loincloth. Their outer clothing in warm weather was usually a tunic (long shirt) or a skirt much like today’s minidresses and miniskirts. Their genitals just hung down in the open.
When men swore an oath, they lifted their skirts and held their scrotum (ballsack containing testicles) in their left hand and raised their right hand. When contracting each party lifted the other’s skirt and held his genitals, and clasped right hands. From these customs we have the terms testi-fy and testi-mony, the “testi” being related to the word testi-cle. Meaning to swear by one’s “stones,” “testa” being Latin for “stone.” A testa-ment is a promise or declaration that the statement is true. At-test – solemnly state.
Men’s genitals are “hands off” especially to women, whose gonads (ovaries) are tucked up inside. Women’s external genital accessories are relatively tender but being kicked or kneed, while painful, doesn’t threaten their reproductive faculties. Muslim women commonly have part or all of their external genital accessory parts removed, and if done neatly without infection does not impede their ability to procreate. Shitty thing to do, though.
By: Gerald on October 12, 2017
at 1:46 am
WordOrigins.org cites the Oxford English Dictionary as a refutation to your claim.
Does the word testify (with its associated forms like testimony and testament) come from testicle?
All these words come from the Latin testis meaning witness. The ultimately etymology of the Latin word is uncertain with the usual explanation being that the testes or testicles are witnesses to or prove a man’s virility. Some suggest that the Latin words for the witness and the reproductive organs are unrelated, with testa, meaning pot or shell, being the source for the latter.
The noun testament appears in the early 14th century. From Robert Manning of Brunne’s Langtoft’s Chronicle, written c.1330:
Þre þousand marke he gaf with testament fulle right.
(Three thousand marks [approx. two thousand pounds sterling] he gave with testament full right.)
The verb to testify appears in William Langland’s Piers Plowman in 1393 (the C text):
Meny prouerbis ich myghte haue of meny holy seyntes, To testifie for treuthe þe tale þat ich shewe.
(Many proverbs I might have of many holy saints, To testify for truth the tale that I tell.
The word testicle begins to appear in English medical texts in the early 15th century. From a translation of John Arderne’s Treatises of Fistula from c.1425:
His testicules war bolned out of mesure.
(His testicles were swollen out of measure.)
Folklore has it that ancient Romans would hold their testes while swearing oaths, hence the verb to testify. This is not true. The Romans did not swear oaths on their private parts.
(Source: Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition)
By: edhensley on October 12, 2017
at 11:36 am
The verbage actually indicates deliberation to harm with the phrases “reach out” and “seize”. Again, nothing about accidents or defilement of purity.
By: Allen on October 9, 2013
at 11:32 pm
The purpose of reaching out is NOT to make the other man infertile (that is NEVER stated in any translation). The PURPOSE is “to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him” (KJV) or “to rescue her husband from his assailant” (NIV)/
If you want to add words to the bible, then write your own translation. Until then STOP acting like what you think is what the bible says, unless you think you are god.
By: edhensley on October 9, 2013
at 11:39 pm
Look ed Hensley if you have a problem with this verse then take it up with God. It’s in plain simple to understand language. oh I forgot your one off those liberal Obama loving atheists who aren’t Christians like us godly folks. That’s what this is really about. If you accept the bible then you accept it cover to cover. You don’t just pick & choose what’s convenient to “contemporary” times. That whole “a woman wouldn’t be prosecuted today” is not the issue here. Intent doesn’t matter. If you & Mike were fist fighting today & a pregnant by-stander happened to be passing by & you get shoved into her & it caused a miscarriage you wouldn’t be prosecuted either but guess what? This is where you need to do some homework before uttering such nonsense, in Leviticus you would have been put to death! You see God’s law is different from man’s law. If the woman didn’t mis-carry, just sustained injury then in bible times you would have paid for the damages. You see God looks out for all people. He is just & fair. Not biased like man is. Say if a pregnant woman attacked you with a knife or a bat, gun & your wife or “husband”came to your rescue would any sane minded individual be thinking “oh the wife’s intent was to make the pregnant girl infertile!” Or abort the baby? Of course not! she just trying to get you out of harms way am I right? Of course I am. The wife in the bible squeezing testicles it’s just an example. If a man did the same thing his hand would be chopped as well. Your trying to make it an issue by accusing God & the bible as being somehow sexist. God values the sanctity of life. That’s the purpose of the verse. It’s the male equivalent of harming a pregnant woman. Besides you should know that squeezing a man’s testes can cause permanent damage to the reproductive system. Duh!! If anyone thinks the bible is old fashioned, out dated and hates women then look up Ephesians 5:25 about how men are top live their wife’s. But since you folks don’t think the bible is practical then maybe I should stop loving my wife then. Oh so now the bible is the book of wisdom since I mentioned that. I’m sick of everyone hating on God. Ed, just because you hate being born a man don’t mean everyone agrees with you. My wife agrees, she says you don’t owe anyone an apology for being born a man.
By: the true Christian on October 16, 2014
at 1:38 am
I stand by my blog post. If a woman is defending her husband against an attacker, she has the right to help in his defense, even if that means accidentally touching or purposefully squeezing his genitalia. Woman are usually smaller than men, and if they do not have a weapon then there only recourse is to use their fists, fingernails, etc, in defense of themselves or their loved ones.
You referenced Ephesians 5:25 “about how men are top live their wife’s.” I am not sure what you meant by that phrase, but I will post Ephesians 5:22-25 as another example about how women are subservient to men.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
By: edhensley on October 16, 2014
at 11:57 am
Tax money finances all the military activities so that weak bs about “I protect your rights to speak” doesn’t hold any water edhensly. And since when did you getting constantly beat up by girls protect my rights? If that’s the case then Ronald Reagan salutes you for taking a beating at the hands of your female colleagues. Do you have a pink heart? Or the medal of sissy? I can salute that for sure. Did you’re wife, sister or husband emasculate you when you were young? You seem traumatized. You really need professional help. I could suggest Jesus but you think he’s a fictional male chauvinist.
By: the true Christian on October 16, 2014
at 2:01 am
Causing violent harm to a man genitals, even if it is to help out her husband in a fight, is still causing violent to genitals no matter how you look at it. Anyone who does this is well aware of the harm they are doing.
By: Allen on October 9, 2013
at 11:42 pm
Why do you insist on accusing me of that which your argument is far more guilty?
By: Allen on October 9, 2013
at 11:44 pm
I have not had to backtrack on anything I have said because I have been reading the bible literally.
YOU have had to backtrack so that you are no longer claiming the purpose of the woman is to make the man “infertile” but is to cause deliberate harm.
I agree, grabbing another man by the testicles will cause harm! And it is legal in modern societies when a woman is involved with a male attacker.
Can you name me ONE CASE where a woman in the USA has been prosecuted for grabbing a male assailant by the testicles? Time for you to put up or shut up!
By: edhensley on October 10, 2013
at 12:03 am
If this situation arose in our courts, no woman would be found guilty of any crime for grabbing her husband’s assailant’s genitals. It is, in fact, COMMON in self defense classes for women to be instructed by policemen and other defense instructors about the effectiveness of a testicular squeeze (although, having taken martial arts and self defense in the Department of Defense, this is not an advisable first line of defense for other reasons).
By: edhensley on October 9, 2013
at 11:59 pm
Your illustration is irrelevant. I haven’t backtracked and my reasoning has not changed.
You, however, refuse to admit and continue to ignorant the lack of direct support for your initial argument.
Additionally, you recognized yourself that seizing a man’s genitals with your hands a rather poor method defense, especially if you are a woman and dont want to make such close, risky contact just to help out in a fight. Other means would make a whole lot more sense, right?
This means logically that what the woman in doing here is far more than just fighting. It is a specific action that can only be attributed to one thing.
By: Allen on October 10, 2013
at 12:22 am
All your claims are false.
You initially claimed that a woman’s hand was to be chopped off only when she tried to make an ASSAILANT infertile.
I correctly pointed out that the BIBLE says the purpose of the woman’s actions were “to rescue her husband from his assailant” (Bible’s words).
It is a FACT that YOU are altering the bible verses by stating the woman’s purpose was to make the ASSAILANT infertile.
You falsely claimed that I at least implied that the woman would have her hand chopped off because “she accidentally fondled some genitals” (your words). Nowhere did I use the word “fondle”.
It is a FACT that YOU altered my words and meaning by adding words I did not use.
Then you backed off your initial claim and stated that her hand should be chopped off when she because ‘the verbage actually indicates deliberation to harm with the phrases “reach out” and “seize”’ (your words). However, this is contradicted by the bible, which says the purpose of the woman is not to do harm (that may happen) but is “to rescue her husband from his assailant.” (Bible’s words contradicting you).
Also, it is not only permitted for a woman to grab an attacker’s testicles, she has the right to shoot and kill someone attacking her or her husband if it were deemed a threat to her husband or her life. I think even you would agree that shooting an assailant would make the assailant infertile. Yet, I bet you would not want to chop off the hand of a woman who shot and killed an attacker. Every state permits a woman to grab the testicles of an attacker. No state chops off the hands of women who do so.
I think this conversation should be brought to an end. However, I will address my parenthetical statement about attacking the testicles during self defense. I was a Department of Defense civilian overseas (protecting your right to write your nonsense) for 7 years, and I took classes in both martial arts and self defense from Army instructors, including military policemen. During one self defense class (with both women and men), a woman remarked that the best course of action against a larger male attacker would be a kick to the groin. The instructor implied that was not the best thing to do. He first noted that it was a “very small target area”, which made everybody laugh. But he pointed out how protected the testicles are, how men react quickly to blows in that area, and how a failed blow to the groin could enrage someone already attacking you. He then pointed out several other places that are better to attack, such as a proper kick to the knee. He did note that if a man is trying to rape a woman and his genitals are exposed, a testicular squeeze could be effective. All this was a bit much for my prior response, but since you seem to think my prior response somehow endorses the idea of chopping the hand off a woman who defends her husband against an attacker, I thought I would provide you with details of my self defense training years ago.
By: edhensley on October 10, 2013
at 7:28 pm
[expletive deleted] woman they are my property. like mules and pigs. [I hope you are being sarcastic about these verses.]
By: the man on April 30, 2014
at 4:28 pm
A reasonable and plausible gloss:
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“Then thou shall cut off her hand,…. Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate. Our Lord is thought to refer to this law, Matthew 5:30; though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it; so Jarchi; and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, “eye for eye”, Exodus 21:24; which they commonly understand of paying a price for the both, &c. lost; and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:
thine eye shall not pity her; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.”
For those who were unable to pay the fines imposed by the judges, they were commonly sold as slaves. For relatively small fines, no more than seven years; for large fines and damages, sold for life. Being a woman, her master would have the right to have sexual intercourse with her, and to beget children in her; her womb as well as her labor being enslaved.
These latter are not in the law but the law was considered to prescribe the maximum limit on penalties, not a fixed absolute, as explained following “Hammurabi’s code.”
By: Gerald on October 12, 2017
at 12:03 pm
Hello, I am a woman and a Christian. I was trying to make sense out of this verse my own self and found this blog. I agree with Ed’s reasoning on many levels, and am happy to know that some men really care about the plight that women had to face. But I also know that God is good and that we are all but “dust” so I have to accept by faith that He has reasons for putting these laws into effect. I do think most of the issues back then were due to Eve being the first one to disobey God’s command of leaving the tree alone. Then she not only disobeyed but convinced her husband, Adam, to disobey. This is my theory on why the curses for Eve were more severe and she lost her equality with Adam. However, when Jesus came and died for all of us, one of His goals was to destroy some of the former curses. Fortunately, today we have equal standing in many nations (not all), and I also believe that in Heaven there is no difference in the ranking of humanity whether by social status, gender, or race… I am just glad and feel very grateful that God spared me from living in those former days.
By: Karen on November 27, 2014
at 3:27 pm
You do realize, I hope, that you have just affirmed that the Bible argues for and justifies the inequality and denigration of women? That is, after all the whole point of this blog post. You’ve quoted and affirmed belief in the very stories used for millenia to justify the denigration of women, both in the Old and New Testaments. Paul in 1st Timothy 2:11-15 uses that very reasoning to argue that women are to be subordinate and submissive to men even after the curse was supposedly lifted by the sacrifice of Christ. And you are ok with this?
By: Mikel on November 27, 2014
at 4:37 pm
Women were unequal, this is true. I will not deny that. I don’t like it, but I also don’t like any punishment, yet people would not learn lessons without it. I believe by faith that God is good and His ways are not our own. But I’m not trying to “justify” anything. That is just my own personal view. You do not need to feel the same way as I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I also get why most do not feel this way, as I too have been angry at some of the scriptures, but again I live by faith. I did not live in those days so I cannot speak for how those women felt. Thankfully, I do not have to go through that. I personally would not have done well during that time. However, Paul was still speaking to men from that day so he had to be very cautious about his words. Most people totally miss another scripture Ephesions Chapter 5:21 that says “submitting to one another in the fear of God” which means husbands should also submit to the wife… I will leave it at that for now, but the only real commandment I think that means the most is that everyone should love one another. This is the best commandment. If everyone did this, the world would be a much better place for both men and women. In that sense, I love all mankind and only hope the best for everyone! Hope you have a wonderful Holiday season and wish you all the best in love and peace.
By: Karen on November 28, 2014
at 3:06 pm
Punishment for actual wrongdoing is one thing, but being punished merely for being born female because of what Eve supposedly did sounds incredibly unjust to me.
Just one more thing…why do you believe it in at all? Is it just because you were raised to believe it, or is there something else? Have you ever considered alternate belief systems?
By: Mikel on November 28, 2014
at 4:42 pm
Actually nothing was taken away or “lifted” with the sacrifice of Christ. He came to fulfill the laws not abolish them. Yes women are supposed to want to rule their husbands. That’s what the bible states. The “curse” was women would want to be in charge of their husbands yet the husbands would be in charge. Not only of them but the whole house. Is this sexist? In no way. Not only is he to rule over them but he is accountable for ALL of their sins! They will be to blame but he takes most of the blame. He is also told to put his wife on a pedestal and to treat them as he would Christ. That’s hardly sexist. Some of you are just pigs like the blogger and can’t stand religion. Religiphobes
By: chestypuller on February 2, 2016
at 9:45 pm
I’m a bit amazed how chestypuller can’t see that the idea of the husband putting his wife on a pedestal and taking blame for her actions IS sexist. It mythologizes and infantilizes her. We woman can take responsibility for our own actions, and we don’t need your pedestals.
By: Mikel on February 3, 2016
at 1:41 pm
The word is my previous comment should be “mythologizes” not “mythologies.”
By: Mikel on February 3, 2016
at 1:44 pm
“Denigration?” Degradation?
Recognition of women’s subordination to men, and wives to their husbands, doesn’t degrade, denigrate or de- anything women.
Does a private’s subordination to his superior officers imply his inferiority as a human being? His role in the military is just different from theirs. A woman’s role in life is different from men’s and a wife’s role in the family is different from her husband’s.
By: Gerald on October 12, 2017
at 2:16 am
It’s the very idea that women are subordinate to men that I am questioning. You seem to just assume it is normal and natural. There’s nothing natural about it, only that out culture has been ruled by men and freqently downgraded or totally ignored the contributions of women. I challenge you to question your assumption.
By: Mikel on October 14, 2017
at 1:29 pm
Lol yeah god was like “and I’ll spare this one and this one, and eh, not that one”… I understand completely how people find solace in believing there is something more out there that is waiting for them and loves them.. but c’mon.. How can a person say that they thank this god character for not being born in those times…. A person of true valor and strong faith would wish that they were able to trade places with the unfortunate…you know like this whole sacrificing thing? Can’t even follow the basic commandments…
By: NeuroticObservations on May 28, 2016
at 5:33 am
A reasonable and plausible gloss:
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“Then thou shall cut off her hand,…. Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate. Our Lord is thought to refer to this law, Matthew 5:30; though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it; so Jarchi; and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, “eye for eye”, Exodus 21:24; which they commonly understand of paying a price for the both, &c. lost; and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:
thine eye shall not pity her; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.”
For those who were unable to pay the fines imposed by the judges, they were commonly sold as slaves. For relatively small fines, no more than seven years; for large fines and damages, sold for life. Being a woman, her master would have the right to have sexual intercourse with her, and to beget children in her; her womb as well as her labor being enslaved.
By: Gerald on October 12, 2017
at 2:08 am
The subordination of women to men, and wives (including concubines and handmaids – any woman with whom a man had a lawful sexual relationship) to husbands, as children to parents, slaves to masters, subjects to rulers, is repeated in the New Testament well following Jesus’ DBR and ascension, and the beginning of the Church of Christ ten days later.
In the sexual relationship, the husband is as well the property of his wife, who has the right to natural sexual intercourse with her husband, following the counsel of the Word of God, and to food, clothing and other maintenance, and lastly but not least, his love. This should be a constraint on men having an excessive number of wives. Men like Gideon and Solomon could not possibly have provided all of their wives with a personal relationship.
By: Gerald on October 12, 2017
at 12:14 pm
The law is just and perfect. No woman should ever grab a man by the testicles! What do you suggest should be her punishment, a pat on the back?
By: Olusegun Esuruoso on December 24, 2022
at 5:24 am
I’m a bit amazed how chestypuller can’t see that the idea of the husband putting his wife on a pedestal and taking blame for her actions IS sexist. It mythologizes and infantilizes her. We woman can take responsibility for our own actions, and we don’t need your pedestals.
By: Mikel on February 3, 2016
at 1:41 pm
(Please delete this last comment — I reposted inside the comment thread where the discussion is happening.)
By: Mikel on February 3, 2016
at 1:46 pm
Lol! Clearly this was written for a very specific reason by a specific someone who had something like this happen to them… either they had power at the time or connections to the power that would include this ridiculously specific “law”.
It’s blatantly clear that this verse was written to fulfill some sort of agenda based on the political climate of that time period.
Religious leaders were essentially politicians of their time… Tis’ simply absurd how hard some of you are trying to justify this crap…
Don’t tell me oh it’s just a metaphor blah blah blah… maybe I’m god right now testing your faith.. lol infinite regress
By: NeuroticObservations on May 28, 2016
at 5:23 am
This quote is from the Old Testament. Deuteronomy means ‘second law’. It was the old law of the early Hebrews. God was very hard on these people because they were quite prone to being lead away into Pagan religions. A woman was not to lay hands on a man’s private parts because they are sacred to reproduction. Most commentaries reject the literal ‘cutting off of the hand’, but infer that the sin requires a substantial payment to the victim for the disgrace the woman put upon him. However; when Jesus came, he fulfilled the law in all ways. These kind of laws did not matter anymore because of Him. Our preacher has addressed these verses to show us what mercy and changes came from the Lord because of His sacrifice for us. And yes, Neurotic Observations, this verse was written to fulfill the agendas of the days. Their world was quite violent and cruel; however, like today, money made things all better.
By: Jan on November 29, 2016
at 10:50 pm
You and your preacher are perfect examples of moral relativism. Your morals and laws are dependent and relative to time, place, and individual groups of people.
By: edhensley on November 30, 2016
at 11:58 am
The penalties prescribed by the law could be ameliorated. The judges could reduce the penalty, impose a fine, or order the offender enslaved either for a term or for life as compensation to the victim. Only in the case of what we call “first-degree murder,” “with malice aforethought” (premeditated) was the death penalty absolute, for no amount of money or slavery could compensate a dead person for his(her) life.
For a woman to destroy a man’s genitals, thereby sterilizing him, is tantamount to murdering the children he might have begotten, and depriving his wife of the children she might have borne to him.
By: Gerald on October 11, 2017
at 11:28 pm
“Deuteronomy” is “the law restated,” or gone over again. In US law we have the legal compendium “Corpus Juris Secundum,” “Body (of the) Law Seconded.”
By: Gerald on October 11, 2017
at 11:19 pm
So if god knows all past and future he would have known the confusion this wording would have caused , women are even called fat cows , if you have illegitimate kids they are banned from church for a couple of generations, if I disobey good he will make my wife cheat on me , eating or touching pork is a sin , if your kids don’t listen you could stone them to death , its impossible not to sin now , something’s not right instead of feeling good reading the bible now I get confused and frustrated , the answers I read sound like bs !
By: Jekill on July 17, 2017
at 4:02 pm
God does not know the future as it does not exist, being an abstract concept. He knows what He will do, for no power is capable of preventing Him from carrying out His plans.
By: Gerald on October 11, 2017
at 11:31 pm
I have been looking for proof on the lying and the lamb laying together and find it quoted in newspapers from the 1800s has this been misquoted for this long? I will be looking for proof of these bible passages and make a video for YouTube .
By: Jekill on July 17, 2017
at 4:11 pm
This law emphasized the seriousness of damaging, or attempting to damage, a man’s ability to beget children. The penis and testicles are not a mere appendage for entertainment use. They are the organs that enable us to continue our kind.
Modern day advice to women to kick a man in the balls, or to grab, twist and yank, is what is pure evil. It’s also a good way for a woman to turn unwanted male attention into her killing.
By: Gerald on October 11, 2017
at 11:15 pm
I am a Christian woman who’s husband is gravely sick with diabetes. For this reason there has been no sex in our marriage union for many years. Taking hold of a man’s testicles and penis is in fact no different than taking hold of a woman’s breasts. Both is a sexual behavior and leads to having sex. The harsh command of cutting off a woman’s hand if she grabs the private parts of a man who is not her husband was put into force to keep sexual immorality out side of the camp.
By: Patricia L. Loranger on February 24, 2018
at 11:14 am
It is commonly taught in self defense courses that squeezing a man’s testicles can cause pain. These verses make it clear that a woman’s hand should be cut off even if she is defending het husband. These verses are ridiculous.
By: edhensley on February 24, 2018
at 11:55 pm
It is an act of great wickedness for a woman to grab a man by the testicles. The severing of the hand was to serve as a warning to other women never again to do such an evil thing
By: Olusegun Esuruoso on December 24, 2022
at 5:22 am
did anyone ever read the whole bible instead of just badmouthing words that you can’t even understand??
By: anonymous on June 19, 2018
at 7:29 pm
Yes. I read it twice, once including the apocryphal books or Deuterocanon (i.e. 1 Maccabees), books considered sacred by non-Catholic and non-western Protestants (i.e. the Book of Enoch), and other books considered sacred by early Christians (i.e. The Acts of Paul and Thecla).
By: edhensley on June 19, 2018
at 8:48 pm
Go understand why women were hated in ancient times. They are more prone to commit sins. Moreover, situations back then are dictated by the sin committed by adam and eve and the person who wrote the bible may not have meant this kind of explanation, they are fond of phrases with deeper meaning that time anyway. God can hold a grudge too you know but he also is a God that cannot interfere if there are sins committed left and right. He sees a bigger picture than humans do. There are also laws situations where if a woman is defiled by a man then his family will suffer for it. Its been some time by I remember reading a part where a prince defiled a woman that why her brothers killed all the man inside that city.
By: anonymous on June 19, 2018
at 7:37 pm
The woman who does such a thing is abusing her immunity. If a man struck a pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry, he would liable for the miscarriage. Since early pregnancy is not visible, a man in a fight would have to presume that every married woman is pregnant. Therefore, he is effectively forbidden to strike her even if she grabs his genitalia and squeezes with all her might. For this reason, the Law prescribes that she is to lose the hand with which she engaged in such perfidy.
By: myth buster on November 27, 2019
at 10:25 pm
This is not a ridiculous rule created by a perfect God. Perfect are his ways and perfect is every word that he speaks.
I know you intended to mock these verses but there is a reason why Perfect God created a perfect rule.
By: Vikram Singh on July 11, 2021
at 1:45 pm
Cutting off the hand of a woman who is defending her husband in a fight is ridiculous.
By: edhensley on September 7, 2021
at 9:34 pm
So, are you taking your place as God, cause He is all knowing…we aren’t!
By: Susan on November 24, 2021
at 8:36 pm
I am not taking the place of god, because I really exist.
By: edhensley on December 20, 2021
at 2:01 pm
Ridiculous how? God does not try to please women the way 21st century society does. Why ever should a woman grab a man by the testicles? The act itseif is exceedingly evil and deserves an equal retribution. God honours men, feminised 21st century doesn’t.
By: Olusegun Esuruoso on December 24, 2022
at 5:18 am
Hi, I am the only queen of the south in the new testament covenant not old, perfectly sane, one day somethings of what your teaching happened to me, having worked in two nursing homes taking care of men and women who wear pants, that was the only so-called work a woman could find in I guess no man’s land Joliet, Illinois where i was married for some 8 years, my ex husband was a condemning you know what, lied in his divorce decree with the judge that both of us could get remarried that was in the divorce decree, his prison town really made my heart turn to not even respecting my true more bible believing family, as to not keep in contact with my real law enforcement family, he was never a good defined provider and really wasn’t innocent like he claimed to be wanting only to defile his marriage bed.to date he hides like most of the harlot tutu crowd Gangs, I dont, open rebuke is better than secret love, served my country the same way in 2001 war times, thanks for listening, happy New Year.
By: Cheryl on January 1, 2023
at 7:01 pm
my email should be published, the queen of the south shall rise scripture. About my secret last posting right on the mark about your topic too. Word of my testimony as an overcomer by the Lords blood way of putting words.
By: Cheryl Palmer on January 1, 2023
at 7:32 pm
Look, I doubt anyone will see this, since this is very old. But the truth is this an absurd interpretation. These sorts of laws were common to all people. Castration might get you the death penalty as a man. The ability to bear children is a huge deal, and grabbing a man by the privates can prevent that.
You added the word “accidentally”, that’s not there. And importantly, I don’t see how being punished for an action that’s trying to help your husband makes you your husbans’s property. It’s clearly indicative of the exact opposite. This is a verse that shows women are under universal honor rules that are not dependant on her husband.
For the second verse, women being subject to their fathers and not the husband is another example of the woman not being property. She is subject to protection by blood even when married off. Just as a man who still lived with their father would be. Which is not usual for the time by the way.
By: Otto Kreml on February 4, 2024
at 5:53 pm
Should we have a law that requires a woman’s hand to be cut off if she purposefully or accidentally touches the private parts of a man who is not her husband on purpose or accidentally?
By: edhensley on February 4, 2024
at 6:23 pm
Not us of course. But we are not an honor culture made up of 12 allied clans. We don’t have feuding, and so our legal system has an entirely different basis. this was not the universal law for all peoples for all of time, it was the law for Israel during this period. And I would further say that there was no better legal code on earth at the time. At least I have never seen it. Slaves in Israel had more rights than most citizens in other nations.
By: Otto Kreml on February 17, 2024
at 12:42 am
But you are admitting that our non-biblical humanistic legal system is better than the legal system of the bible, even if your unsupported claims about being the best “at that time” were true.
By: edhensley on February 17, 2024
at 1:15 am
I think a liberal legal system would have collapsed, become corrupt, and gridlocked. We have seen this process happen when western countries have tried to instill them onto islamic countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. The purpose of the government is to serve the people.
But I will say more generally that there has been moral progress since that time, absolutely. And so in that sense a liberal system is better as a goal. It just required a supporting moral/cultural/spiritual structure to be in place first, which wasn’t.
By: Otto Kreml on February 17, 2024
at 9:01 pm
Turkey is an Islamic country that practices western democracy. Islam never went through a reformation. We had to get rid of the authority of the church before we could set up a liberal legal system. The protestant reformation led to the enlightenment, which led to civil rights for almost all people (we are still working on that). The largest group of people supporting slavery all called themselves Christians. Read the book A Bible Defence of Slavery published multiple times, but lastly in my hometown of Louisville, KY, in 1851.
By: edhensley on February 19, 2024
at 12:05 pm
I think a modern legal system wouldn’t serve the people of that time, and would result in feuding and political violence.
By: Otto Kreml on February 19, 2024
at 11:16 am
I actually agree with the first half of that. I think that the bible quite is clear about the delineation between church and state. And it was constantine’s desire to use christianity as a tool to reform the Roman empire that led to the political power of the church. Though this is of course veering into different territory. I’m also not going to address the slavery thing for a combination of time, and not wanting to open the whole can of worms that is combating western historical centrality.
Türkey is probably the best example we have. Of course after the death of the acting strong-man Mustafa Kamal it suffered repeated military coups and is now suffering persistent hyper-inflation because the sitting president says that interest rates are un-islamic. So not an amazing example all things considered. Pakistan was also founded on some incredibly idealistic dreams of religious freedom and popular sovereignty, and well, it didn’t work out.
my broader point is that these systems require foundations. Imagine giving medieval peasants mechanized agriculture because it’s “better”. Well yes it’s better when it works. But mechanized agriculture wouldn’t work in the middle ages. That’s my point. As an example, you can’t have popular sovereignty without first having the concept of sovereignty in full generality. That’s why functioning democracies tended to form out of monarchies, and moments that attacked sovereignty in general (EG: French and Russian revolutions) didn’t actually achieve democracy.
going over the entire theory would be exhausting, but the fact is that the results of jewish society speak for themselves. Jews out preformed on everything from mathematical knowledge, to buisness, to surviving the bubonic plauge. Israel was widely renowned as being an incredibly high trust society, to the point that deals between jews commonly weren’t even verified. Records indicate that gems didn’t need to be appraised, or gold weighted. Which is pretty insane in my view. I personally have a hard time with explaining such an out-performance naturalistically.
By: Otto Kreml on February 20, 2024
at 6:00 am
Rabbinic literature, however, interprets the phrase as a reference to monetary compensation (b. Baba Qamma 28a):
This is in keeping with the rabbinic interpretation of the lex talionis,
While the rhetoric of “show no pity” strongly implies that the punishment is physical, the midrash uses this very phrase to “prove” that the punishment is monetary, by drawing a literary bridge to the talion law in Deuteronomy (Sifrei Deuteronomy 293):
Monetary compensation is also how Rashi and ibn Ezra understand the passage,[16]
By: Hi on March 26, 2024
at 7:23 pm
It shows thar they think the literal words of the Torah are immoral. It does not mention money at all.
By: edhensley on March 27, 2024
at 12:12 am