Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not cutting off my wife's hand if she is helping stop a fight.
This is interesting. But if this is true, why has no translation whatsoever made the adjustment?According to Rushdoony's publisher, this is a mistranslation of the verse. I can't remember what they consider the proper translation, but they believe that there is no such law in the Old Testament.
EDIT: I found the Publisher's quote.
Publisher’s note:Dr. Rushdoony commented that the words translator and traitor have a common root, and that a translation of the Hebrew or Greek can fail to do justice to a text’s original meaning. He was not averse to adjusting his work in terms of the best conservative scholarship available. Three years after his death, a strong case for correcting the translation of Deuteronomy 25:12a was finally put forward. It is possible that Dr. Rushdoony would have embraced the newer translation and adjusted his comments accordingly. While we do not have the benefit of his having done so, given the time frame involved, the nature of the translation change is important enough to warrant mention here.The words “cut” and “hand” in the translation “cut off her hand” are somewhat unusual (“hand” in particular). The word normally used for “hand” is the Hebrew yad, used in verse 11 immediately before this verse, but in verse 12 we find the more rare word kaph. Kaph, derived from kaphaph (“curve”), denotes the bowl of a dish, or the leaves of a palm tree, or even the socket of the thigh (used twice in this sense in Genesis 32), as well as the palm of a hand. Recent scholarship points out that this word is a circumlocution for the groin. The word “cut” (kawtsats, from kawtsar) is used in Jeremiah 9 and 25 for cutting off the beard, being based on an Arabic root for cutting the nails or hair, in addition to other ranges of meaning (including the reaping of a field). In sum, a defensible translation for Deut. 25:12a, in lieu of “cut off her hand,” would be “shave [the hair of] her groin.” As Semitic scholar Jerome T. Walsh phrased it, “She has humiliated a man publicly by an assault on his genitalia (presumably without serious injury to them); her punishment is public genital humiliation, similarly without permanent injury.” This translation, as Walsh points out, reduces “the severity of the punishment from the permanency of amputation to the temporary humiliation of depilation.” Consequently, the punishment addresses both the principle of the lex talionis (proportionality of punishment) and “the shameful nature of the woman’s deed.” Had actual injury ensued, the assault would have been covered by the well-known biblical laws concerning compensation for injury rather than this passage.If Walsh’s thesis is borne out, there would remain no scriptural support for the idea that the Bible teaches mutilation as punishment anywhere. If Walsh’s view (despite very strong support on lexical and philological grounds) is ultimately rejected by conservative scholarship, the position Dr. Rushdoony advanced in the relevant two chapters of this commentary would stand as is. In either case, Dr. Rushdoony’s thesis that pity must always be subordinate to God’s law remains perpetually true: false pity always promotes lawlessness.[*]–––––––––––––––[*] For further research on the translation of this phrase, see the Journal of Semitic Studies 2004 49(1): 47–58, copyright 2004 by the University of Manchester: the article entitled “You Shall Cut Off Her … Palm? A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 25:11–12” by Jerome T. Walsh.Rushdoony, R. J. (2008). Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy (p. 426). Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books.
Just to be clear. I'm not making any claim as to its validity. It just got my interest sparked few years ago when I read the commentary. At first blush it sounds right because the cutting off of the hand sounds wrong. But what do I know?This is interesting. But if this is true, why has no translation whatsoever made the adjustment?
One of the difficulties is that Bahnsen treats the Torah like it is akin to a modern law code. It isn't. It has song, poetry, and story in it. The US Constitution does not. The Torah also doesn't address the most important issue in a desert/agricultural society: water rights. The Torah also has laws which aren't ceremonial or clearly political, but not entirely moral either. The "bitter waters" test seems to work only in the old theocratic society, but there isn't any textual reason why it is limited to that society and not applicable today (unless you want to argue that it is a primitive lie detector test).
And then there are laws which have no punishment attached, like don't boil a goat in its mother's milk.
And then there are laws which would be hard to apply. If you are defending your house and your wife grabs the guy's testicles, you got to cut her hand off.
And then there is the fact that most theonomists know zero about the historic Christian and natural law tradition.
The questions bubbling up in our society are answered in the Old Testament and we need to work hard to exegete those answers.
I know you weren't necessarily endorsing it, but it is an interesting note. The word choice is indeed intriguing there. I'm going to look more into it.Just to be clear. I'm not making any claim as to its validity. It just got my interest sparked few years ago when I read the commentary. At first blush it sounds right because the cutting off of the hand sounds wrong. But what do I know?
The latest revision of the ASV has a footnote regarding the possible mistranslation of this verse.
Ed
While I believe the word of God is sufficient for all things it addresses, it is simply not the case that all the questions in our society are already answered in the Old Testament. I can think of a number that aren't: transhumanism, artificial intelligence, parliamentary democracy, cloning, in vitro/utero fertilization, water rights, etc.
I think I already said this, but I don't understand why not being exhaustive is a deal breaker.
I haven't read the article so I probably shouldn't comment, but this translation of Deut 25:12 seems like a big stretch to me.I know you weren't necessarily endorsing it, but it is an interesting note. The word choice is indeed intriguing there. I'm going to look more into it.
To be fair, our brother never said the OT answers all modern society's questions. He just said it answers "the questions bubbling up." And it most certainly does. Regardless, we all, even Theonomists, recognize that the Law does not answer every question. But that doesn't mean that in the places which it does speak clearly it is inapplicable or invalid. It is all valid—and yes, in "exhaustive detail," a phrase Bahnsen spent hundreds of pages and multiple books fleshing out.The post to which I was referring said the OT answered all the questions in modern society. I pointed out that wasn't the case.
I suppose my question, then, would be: Who gets to decide what is a just recompense for any given crime, and how will we evaluate if they are just or unjust?The punishments will vary between place, station, and time, but THAT transgressions are to be punished (for example, adultery) should not be a matter of question for the Christian.
To be fair, our brother never said the OT answers all modern society's questions. He just said it answers "the questions bubbling up."
Daniel 4 arguably has something to say to transhumanism. I'm sure there are principles that can be applied to most if not all the situations you mentioned, at least at some level. I'm not necessarily defending the proposition that the OT speaks to every issue, but at least at some level there are principles we can apply to most aspects of life.While I believe the word of God is sufficient for all things it addresses, it is simply not the case that all the questions in our society are already answered in the Old Testament. I can think of a number that aren't: transhumanism, artificial intelligence, parliamentary democracy, cloning, in vitro/utero fertilization, water rights, etc.
An established church and a magistrate who work in tandem -according to place, station, and sphere of authority- to uphold the Law of God. So -for example- a magistrate calls for a council, and the church -according to the Scriptures- inform of his duty, and how to execute it. Even in the Old Testament, there was not a punishment regulated for every possible sin. Even then judges were required for discernment, judging, etc.I suppose my question, then, would be: Who gets to decide what is a just recompense for any given crime, and how will we evaluate if they are just or unjust?
Brother, with respect, I think you're being a little pedantic.Then he needs to clarify: does it answer just some questions bubbling up or any question that bubbles up. If he says it answers just some questions, then I don't see how anyone would disagree with that, which is why I read his meaning as "all" the questions.
This has more to do with process. I'm asking more of an epistemological and ethical question. In your scenario here, by what standard will the church council know their judgment is just?An established church and a magistrate who work in tandem -according to place, station, and sphere of authority- to uphold the Law of God. So -for example- a magistrate calls for a council, and the church -according to the Scriptures- inform of his duty, and how to execute it.
Because their judgment -according to the scriptures, and by way of general equity- will reward righteousness, and punish evil. I don't really understand what you're getting at. The "exhaustive detail" is not present in Scripture with regard to how every possible transgression is punished. Also, no correction or punishment doled out in this life will ever be perfectly just, except the one that was exacted upon our LORD Jesus Christ for the sins of His people. This, too, is by design.This has more to do with process. I'm asking more of an epistemological and ethical question. In your scenario here, by what standard will the church council know their judgment is just?
I'm just asking how they know the punishment dispensed will meet the crime without some external, objective and infallible standard. How will they know how to punish a rapist, for example? Do they give him 15-20 years in prison? Do they put him on a sex offender registry and call it a day? Or do they give him death? These three are markedly different punishments. Which is just? And how do we know?Because their judgment -according to the scriptures, and by way of general equity- will reward righteousness, and punish evil. I don't really understand what you're getting at.
Brother, with respect, I think you're being a little pedantic.
But if the qualifications are of the substance the position, and not merely accidental, then I am failing to see how these qualifications lead to the conclusion that Theonomy is false. The entire system of Christian theology is filled with qualifications. Unitarians say the same thing of Trinitarian theology: "too many qualifications."...when push comes to shove, theonomy starts its process of qualifications.
The external, objective, and infallible standard of guilt are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. The degree to which temporal punishment goes has not been given to us in exhaustive detail for every sin. There are sins that require death. Those are pretty clear. But the degree to which theft is punished, for example, is going to be a matter of debate, depending on the aggravations, circumstances, etc. This is why -even in Israel- they had judges. What you're asking for is not something God has given. He has given us a standard of righteousness, and the duty to work out judgments according to that standard, some more explicitly and immediately discernible than others. This is also why we often tell people on here to go to their session when seeking advice with regard to a crisis of conscience, or some other matter: Because many things have to be weighed, judged, and discerned.I'm just asking how they know the punishment dispensed will meet the crime without some external, objective and infallible standard. How will they know how to punish a rapist, for example? Do they give him 15-20 years in prison? Do they put him on a sex offender registry and call it a day? Or do they give him death? These three are markedly different punishments. Which is just? And how do we know?
I see. I have no objections to this.The external, objective and infallible standard of guilt are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. The degree to which temporal punishment goes has not been given to us in exhaustive detail for every sin. There are sins that require death. Those are pretty clear. But the degree to which theft is punished, for example, is going to be a matter of debate, depending on the aggravations, circumstances, etc. This is why -even in Israel- they had judges.
I forgot who originally said it, but I think it holds true that Theonomy is the doctrine that dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
Thanks Daniel,
I got that impression as well. Bahnsen tried to start the discussion and was more than willing to modify based on sound exegetical principles, but the conversation seems to have quickly become emotional and dare I say, hysterical (I'm reading the background of what happened at RTS).
Although I think you note this in your first paragraph, this seems to be a false dichotomy, as though we have to choose between 1) just civil laws and 2) just ecclesiastical censures. But God’s law requires both. You’re right: Theonomy at this point is perhaps wishful thinking. But Theonomy’s entire vision consists of societal transformation from the ground up. Theonomists have said in many places that these principles only work in a society that is already mostly Christianized (at least on the surface). So the work begins not with laws but with the church, family, and local community. But just because the greater society, for now, is resistant to such things does not take away from its validity or desirability.Bahnsen’s ethic—his view generally—requires the cooperation of the state to implement it, whatever the “general equity” of God's Law is deemed to require by the church. It appears to me that the phenomena of establishmentarianism (or any cooperation of the state with us) is far behind us, and I know of no state willing to enact a church’s moral judgments. “Theonomists” may say “what ought be should not be trumped by what merely is”—meaning the eternal should not be displaced by the temporal—yet when this happens just execution of God’s will but awaits the day of His Judgment.
In the meanwhile, here in Time (and in our 21st century), in His wise providence, the states—indeed, the coalition of the nations—“rage, and the people imagine a vain thing….The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Psa 2:1-2,3).
It would seem, in such extremity of lawlessness, the church, on its own in a revolting and mad conglomeration of satanically-infiltrated deteriorating cultures, would enact such “general equities” as spiritually mirror the actual penalties of God’s Law, such that the offenders know God’s judicial hand upon them—from the severity of excommunication (the spiritual death-penalty) to the lesser yet serious and weighty forms of church discipline.
To think in terms of the state working with the church in our time is to indulge in abstractions and wishful thinking. We are an intact kingdom and governmental entity as it is, kept so by the King of Heaven and earth.