Talk:Deuteronomy 25
The following is an inventory of the Scrolls found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Deuteronomy: 1Q4, 1Q5, 2Q10, 2Q11, 2Q12, 4Q28, 4Q29, 4Q30, 4Q31, 4Q32, 4Q33, 4Q34, 4Q35, 4Q36, 4Q38a-38b, 4Q39, 4Q40, 4Q41, 4Q42, 4Q43, 4Q45, 4Q46, 4QDeuteronomyT, 4Q122, 4Q364, 4Q365-365a, 5Q1, 6Q3, 11Q3 =29 copies of Deuteronomy
while the prefix “beth” generally has the meaning of the preposition “in”, when used with the noun for “face” it can readily mean “BEFORE”. And that is also the case here in Deuteronomy 25:9.
A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF THIS VERSE:
“Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit (on the ground) BEFORE HIS FACE, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.”
THE CORRECT MEANING OF THIS VERSE:
The general intent of this whole instruction was that an UNMARRIED brother of the deceased man would marry his widowed sister-in-law. Understand that God was not actively encouraging anyone to engage in polygamy. Rather than encouraging polygamy, polygamy is something that God “tolerated” (for lack of a better word) at that time. And the intent here was that an unmarried man would fulfill this duty.
We need to also understand that this instruction was not limited to immediate brothers, but included the looser meaning of “brother”, i.e. cousins and uncles in our terms. This becomes clear from the account in Ruth. Boaz was not the brother of Elimelech, but “a kinsman” from the clan of Elimelech (Ruth 2:1 and Ruth 3:2). And Boaz was most certainly not “the brother” of the deceased “Mahlon”; at best Boaz was an uncle of Mahlon, the deceased husband of Ruth. Likewise, the “kinsman” ahead of Boaz was also not a brother of Mahlon; he too was only “a kinsman”, i.e. a cousin or uncle (Ruth 4:1).
In other words, in recognition of the possibility that the actual brothers of the deceased man themselves might already be married, this custom provided for (unmarried) immediate cousins and uncles to also be eligible to marry the widow of the deceased man. It was still considered to be within the same family. And the firstborn child would theoretically be counted as a descendant of the deceased man (Deuteronomy 25:6). (I say “theoretically” because the Bible never presents Obed as a son of Mahlon, son of Elimelech; rather, Obed is always presented as a son of Boaz (Ruth 4:21; Matthew 1:5). It is the line of Boaz that has been preserved by Obed, not the line of Mahlon.)
When the brothers (or cousins and uncles) of the deceased man were themselves already married with children of their own, THEN taking their deceased brother’s or nephew’s widow as an additional wife could easily have had unintended consequences. Specifically, if the new wife did have some children, that might have the effect of diminishing the inheritance of this man’s own children, by some of his inheritance going to the firstborn child that would be reckoned to the deceased man. It was never the intention of this instruction to adversely affect the living because a relative (a brother, nephew or cousin) had died childless.
We see an example of this in Ruth chapter 4. Boaz informs his “kinsman” that he has the right to redeem Naomi’s property. Once this kinsman (likely an uncle or cousin of Mahlon) learned that he would then also have to marry Ruth, he said: “I CANNOT redeem it for myself, LEST I MAR MY OWN INHERITANCE”. He presented a very valid reason for not wanting to take an additional wife. Boaz knew this and Boaz had in fact COUNTED ON this reaction from his kinsman, since Boaz (he was still unmarried) was in fact very eager to marry Ruth himself.
When this kinsman then agreed to let Boaz redeem the property, it says: “so he drew off his shoe” (Ruth 4:8). No spitting of any kind is recorded here. This other kinsman was certainly not spit in the face by either Boaz or by Ruth (who wasn’t even personally involved in this whole incident). And IF spitting had been involved, then it would have been spitting on the ground in the presence of (i.e. before the face of) the individual involved. https://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=236
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Paul Copan, in his book, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, argues that this is a mistranslation. He points out that the word translated “hand” is actually the word for “palm,” and was also used to refer to the groin. He says the word for “cut off” is not the word for “amputation,” but the word for “cutting, clipping and shaving hair.” He argues that the punishment is a humiliation for the woman humiliating the man–that it calls for the shaving off of the pubic hair, not for the cutting off of her hand. He concludes, “There’s just no linguistic reason to translate the weaker form, i.e, “shave,” as a stronger form, i.e., “amputation.” In this particular case, we’re talking about the open concave region of the groin, and thus a shaving of pubic hair. In short, the woman’s punishment is public humiliation for publicly humiliating the man….” (P. Copan, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, pp. 121-122.) https://godswordtowomen.org/amputation.htm
God is arrogant and jealous God punishes people too harshly God is guilty of ethnic cleansing God oppresses women God endorses slavery Christianity causes violence and more
Copan not only answers God's critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-moral-monster.html
Paul Copan responds to the New Atheist stance that the God of the Old Testament is a “moral monster.” I agreed with only about half of Copan’s conclusions, but his book was well-written, informative, and fun to read.
Copan begins by attempting to make sense of the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. I loved the short discussion comparing the two times that God called Abraham: The first time to come to the promised land, the second time to sacrifice his son. Because of similar language, Copan argues that Abraham “couldn’t have missed the connection being made … God is clearly reminding him of his promise of blessing in Genesis 12 even while he’s being commanded to do what seems to be utterly opposed to that promise.” Outside of this, though, the Abraham/Isaac story is one of those sections of Copan’s book that just didn’t work for me. It doesn’t seem to matter how it’s explained to me, as soon as someone tries to pull this story down from the level of mythology and make me imagine it to be a true story that really happened, I start to feel queasy. I’d have a few choice words for God if he told me to kill my son. If Copan doesn’t mind, I’ll continue to classify this Bible passage as “storied theology,” where it’s much more palatable.
Copan spends several chapters talking about Israel’s slavery laws, and this section is superb. Was this law ideal? Certainly not. But there are three points I’d like to bring out here:
[1] We are discussing the Law of God, not what actually transpired among imperfect people. Yep, they kept slaves against the rules. The law was not faithfully followed. [2] Copan points out again and again that Israel’s laws were a great improvement over the surrounding nations. God held Israel to a higher standard. [3] Although this point gets little press time in the book, as the law evolved, it became more and more humane. Compare, for example, the Book of the Covenant, quoted by the Elohist in Exodus 21, with the Priesthood writings in Leviticus 19, and finally with the Deuteronomist’s instructions in Deut 22.
Yes, the Old Testament law seems archaic and brutal by today’s standards. Yet it’s clear Israel was learning and was trying to become Godly. Perhaps slowly approaching the standard God had in mind. Buy the book and, if you read nothing else, study chapters 11-14.
Next, Copan tackles what I feel are the most troublesome issues; genocide and ethnic cleansing. Particularly, the conquest of Canaan. Copan points out (rightly) that the Bible’s claims of utter annihilation are highly exaggerated, and that archaeological evidence hints that no such mass conquest took place. For the most part, Israel peacefully settled into Canaan without warfare and without driving out its inhabitants. But whether or not the conquest really happened, the fact remains that the Word of God graphically describes these holy wars in quite unholy terms, and claims that God commanded this inhumanity. Read, for example, Numbers 31:17-18, where God gives instruction regarding Midianite captives: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Copan tries to soften the command, explaining that the non-virgin women were seducing Israel’s men and the boys would grow up to become warriors, but nothing can soften that one.
Copan presents a word game at this point. Moses commanded the armies to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites and not to “leave alive anything that breathes.” Joshua didn’t do this; we have lots of evidence of Canaanite people remaining afterward. Yet if you read Joshua 11:12, it says Joshua did as he was told; he utterly destroyed them as Moses commanded. Ergo, since Joshua didn’t kill ‘em all, but the Word of God says he did what he was told, then we can apparently consider Moses’ original command as hyperbole…the rhetoric of war. God didn’t really sanction genocide.
Well, whatever. Copan’s next attempt to justify this evil by reminding us that God is the author of life and has a rightful claim on it falls flat for me. If any kids were killed, they would go straight to heaven anyway, he says. The danger of that kind of thinking hardly needs discussion!
Though well-researched and thought-provoking, I finished the book with the feeling that Copan tried his best to tackle an impossible topic. I think it’s a four-star attempt and a fun book; I can’t judge the loser of a debate merely because he was given an indefensible position, right?