Bob Debates Keeping the Sabbath

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath

Strive is the translation of nawtsah which generally means something equivalent to the modern english "fight". It would not be unrealistic for someone coming in on a fight to misinterpret the activity and assume that someone was intent on doing more than drubbing someone.

You're twisting the verse (to your own destruction). The verse says, "the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him" not "who is trying to murder him." There is nothing in the verse that suggests she is not completely aware of the degree of lack of danger her husband is in of actually losing his life.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

You're twisting the verse (to your own destruction).

What a ridiculous assertion. :chuckle:

The verse says, "the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him" not "who is trying to murder him." There is nothing in the verse that suggests she is not completely aware of the degree of lack of danger her husband is in of actually losing his life.

And there is nothing in the verse to indicate that she would be aware of the degree of danger, merely that there was an assault on her husband - whom she would be expected to assist, if possible.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

...As it is, I don't see what crime the woman committed.

I would say she committed two "crimes":

1. She rebelled against the social order by daring to assault a man, i.e. she forgot her place as chattel property.
   
2. She potentially damaged the man's reproductive capacity, rendering him unable to participate in the ritual assembly, barring him from the grace of YHWH. (For Levites - Lev. 21:20) (For everyone else Dt. 23:21)

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010
Why you side with the SOB attacking the husband . . .

You're letting the attacker walk . . .

Please point out to everyone the part of the verse that says the woman's husband was an innocent victim. What part of the verse eliminates the husband as the one who did the attacking on an innocent man?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Please point out to everyone the part of the verse that says the woman's husband was an innocent victim. What part of the verse eliminates the husband as the one who did the attacking on an innocent man?

Wait, wait. Time out.

The lengths you're going to in defending the mutilation of a woman defending her husband just makes me shake my head, Jeff. You do realize that this is a law that cuts both ways, right? No pun intended. Let's assume you're right. Let's assume the woman is married to a real schmuck who's picking on somebody. Let's further assume that the victim of this bully gets the upper hand and out of nowhere, the wife hits him in the junk. Her hand gets mangled (or just chopped off, as opposed to your further squirming and "guess" that her hand is merely to be mangled beyond use).

But let's say it's NOT a fair fight, the husband is losing and getting beaten on. Heck. Let's say it's YOU, although for your bachelor self I know this might be a stretch imagining. Your wife's your only hope. She helps. She nails this guy right in the crotch, fight over. You win. But she still loses use of the offending hand. FOR WHAT?

"When men strive together one with another..."

True, no explicit explanation for who started the fight, why it started, etc.

"...and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him..."

Although THIS indicates that the husband needs help because a) he needs to be "delivered", and b) he's not the one getting hit.

"...and puts forth her hand, and takes him by the secrets..."

Wife intercedes. Chop the hand.

Explain what crime she committed here. And stop squirming.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

...Explain what crime she committed here. And stop squirming.

See my post.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Zakath

See my post.

Oh, I caught it, all right. :thumb:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

Oh, I caught it, all right. :thumb:

Now we'll see if Jefferson answers, or just fades into the ether... :think:

 

[Jefferson]

granite:

What if she disabled his testicles by shooting them with a gun? Would that be okay with you as well? If not, what's the difference?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Jefferson

granite:

What if she disabled his testicles by shooting them with a gun? Would that be okay with you as well? If not, what's the difference?

That was the sound of a theonomist squirming when confronted with the uncomfortable reality of his theology.

There is no difference. A wife is defending her husband. Your answer to that is mangling her hand. Deal with it, Jeff. This is your theology, and the implications of it. Reconstructionists and theonomists love case laws. Well, here's one to chew on.

I'd appreciate an answer to my most recent post to you (excluding this one, natch) as opposed to more hypothetical questions. Your turn.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010
Let's say it's YOU, although for your bachelor self I know this might be a stretch imagining.

You can't even imagine what a stretch that would be. Maybe in an alternate universe . . . but I still doubt it. If you ever learn that I've become engaged to be married, you have my permission to shoot me.

Your wife's your only hope. She helps. She nails this guy right in the crotch, fight over. You win. But she still loses use of the offending hand. FOR WHAT?

For using excessive use of force. Just as you don't have the right to kill someone for stealing your car, you also don't have the right to disable a man from having children and grandchildren just because he hit someone you care about. The woman could have simply hit him over the head with a bottle or something.

There is no difference.

So you actually think a woman would be justified for shooting a man in his testicles just because he was in a fist fight with her husband? And you call Biblical Law barbaric? Look in the mirror!

 

[Granite]

"For using excessive use of force."

What? Kicking a guy in the crotch is somehow excessive? So it's okay for the wife in this situation to bite him, or scratch his eyes out, but anything south of the border is off limits? Where do you get this idea? And where is its scriptural support? You just pulled this out of whole cloth.

"...you also don't have the right to disable a man from having children and grandchildren just because he hit someone you care about."

Sorry, but there is no indication that the blow struck to the guy's jewels is hard enough to prevent him from procreating. Is it a risk? Yes. Is it specifically mentioned in this passage? No. The wife doesn't even have the INTENT of preventing this attacker from having offspring (at least she might or probably doesn't; in any event such an idea isn't suggested in the verse). She's trying to defend her husband and stop the fight. It's not as though she's kicking the attacker when he's down.

Excessive force is a concept found NO WHERE in this passage. But, you're running out of options for defending state-sanctioned mutilation. So I understand the straw-grasping.

"So you actually think a woman would be justified for shooting a man in his testicles just because he was in a fist fight with her husband?"

If it was deliberate? Not sure. If the bullet just happened to lodge there? Who are we to judge? You're willing to risk mangling a woman's hand because her blow, in the heat of the moment, nailed her husband's opponent between the legs. Typical theonomy: long on punishment, short on mercy.

And you've yet to condemn the husband's opponent. Bizarre...

Another thought: if a MAN does this to another man, there's no scriptural proof that he loses a limb. But if a woman does it, she's crossing some kind of gender line. Convenient, but hardly fair.

 

[Zakath]

Jefferson is tap dancing very fast and furiously because he's on thin ice (how about that mixed metaphor!)...

Firstly, as granite points out, the text only refers to punishing women:

"When men strive together with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand and takes him by the secret parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall not pity."

Where is the parallel text for a similar situation for a man's brother, male cousin, son, or father intervening and grabbing the man's opponent by the genitals?

I'll give you a hint... there isn't one in the entire Tanakh. :think:



Secondly, does Jefferson believe that this particular law should be followed today if his beloved theonomy were in place?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010
Excessive force is a concept found NO WHERE in this passage.

Then what do you think is the purpose of the specified punishment? Sadism by God?

Typical theonomy: long on punishment, short on mercy.

It's merciful to that woman's future potential victims. Typical of you nicer than God Christians: Love the criminal, to hell with the victim.

And you've yet to condemn the husband's opponent. Bizarre...

Why should I? What part of the verse suggests the husband's opponent was the aggressor?

Another thought: if a MAN does this to another man, there's no scriptural proof that he loses a limb. But if a woman does it, she's crossing some kind of gender line. Convenient, but hardly fair.

The eye for an eye rule can not be applied directly in this case since the woman has no testicles. This law does, however, prevent her from mangling another man's testicles in the future.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath
does Jefferson believe that this particular law should be followed today if his beloved theonomy were in place?

Yes. Do you call that answer "tap dancing" Zakath?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Yes. Do you call that answer "tap dancing" Zakath?

Thank you for your decisive reply!

So you think women should be condemned for the action described in the scripture you cited but men should get a "bye"?

If so, how do you reconcile that with the NT text:

"Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
- Gal. 3:25-28

Your premise appears to violate two points:

1. Christians are no longer under the supervision or control of the law. So why are women judged under the mitzvot in your theonomy?

2. The freedom from the law applies equally to both men and women Christians. So why are women judged more harshly in your theonomy?

 

[Jefferson]

Zakath:

You apparently did not read my previous reply to granite. It answers your question. I'll quote it here:

The eye for an eye rule can not be applied directly in this case since the woman has no testicles. This law does, however, prevent her from mangling another man's testicles in the future.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Zakath:

You apparently did not read my previous reply to granite. It answers your question. I'll quote it here:

No, it does not answer the question. An eye-for-an-eye would be sterilization for both parties. It would not be exceedingly difficult to sterilize a woman either in that time or ours. The problem you are overlooking is that there is a greater issue involved... the issue of why it was such a terrible thing to happen to a man in ancient Israel...

And BTW, I raised two questions you only attempted to answer part of the second one...

 

[drbrumley]

Is this a case of moral vs. symbolic law? Interesting thread, have at it guys. i'll read the whole thing and attempt to respond.

 

[Flipper]

Yeah, also (as is more likely) what if she kicks him in the jewels? Most people would prefer not to close with someone probably stronger than they are in order to grapple with them, which is really what your biblical law appears to be talking about here. A kick is usually more effective and has the advantage of being a stand-off attack.

So how would you interpret that? Are we to follow the law to the letter or what? What if she headbutts or bites him there? Will you cut off her head?