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.