MUTILATION IN THE BIBLE

Danielle Candelora has a clever title to her article in BAR magazine concerning the practice of severing hands in the Ancient Near East: “Hands Off!” Archeologists have uncovered a dozen severed right hands buried in pits in the courtyard of the palace dating from the time the Hyksos were in control of Egypt (ca. 1650-1550 BC). And following that time in Egypt, one can see illustrated inscriptions in which great piles of hands are being counted in order to tally up the enemies killed in battle. There are also Egyptian accounts of the practice of soldiers presenting their ruler with such hands in order to receive appropriate rewards.

Then there are the prescribed punishments for crimes recorded in the Code of Hammurabi. According to that legislation there were three felonies which were to result in the loss of a hand: helping an escaped slave, medical malpractice, and striking one's father. Similar penalties of mutilation are found in the Assyrian Code. (Thompson) But what about such punishments being recorded in the Bible?

Of course there is the famous lex talionis (“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” – Deuteronomy 19:21). Whether or not that law was meant to always be taken literally, the intent was certainly that the punishment should match the crime, no more and no less. Only in that way could the community avoid the inevitable escalating blood feuds between tribes which could threaten to destroy the unity of Israel.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

But then we come up against this strangely specific piece of legislation involving a fight between two men in which the wife of one of them intervenes to save her husband by grabbing the genitals of his opponent. The punishment for such an action is for the woman to have that hand cut off.

Craigie points out that “for obvious reasons, given the different sexes of the persons involved in the incident, the lex talionis could not be applied literally. It may be that the very particular piece of casuistic law is intended as a example of how lex talionis was able to be interpreted when it could not be applied literally.”

DeSilva notes that “Deuteronomy 25:1-12 strings together three case laws in which the shaming of the offender is a prominent element of the punishment for specific infractions, making the treatment of the offender a deterrent to future infractions.”

And within this section, Ames states, “Structural and thematic affinities link vv. 5-10 and vv. 11-12, which together warn that neither man nor woman should endanger the production of an heir.” As a reminder, the earlier regulation in verses 5-10 makes a provision for a childless widow to have a child by her brother-in-law.

But why such a harsh sentence? Levinson points out, “Physical mutilation (characteristic in the Middle Assyrian Laws) is nowhere else prescribed in the general formula for talion (19:21; Ex 21.23-24; Lev 24.19-20). And Tomasino says, “While the penalty of maiming or disfigurement was common in ANE [i.e. Ancient Near East] law codes, this is the only case in biblical law (apart from the lex talionis, Deut 19:21) prescribing such a penalty.”

The reason for such harshness appears to be obvious to most commentators. Thus, Sprinkle says: “Not only a breach of modesty and an unfair 'blow below the belt,' this act threatened the man's ability to father children.” But he adds, without proof, “She could probably ransom her hand [i.e. by paying an appropriate fine].”

Similarly, Tomasino says, “It should also be noted that this severe penalty was not inspired primarily by excessive Israelite modesty; in a society where offspring were valued as highly as they were in ancient Israel, damaging a man's reproductive potential was one of the most heinous crimes.”

Albright and Mann remark, “Deut xxv 11-12 explicitly allows for the punishment of cutting off the hand, significantly in connection with an obscene act by a woman. Rabbinic literature [from a much later date] contains expressions denoting that certain acts by the hand deserve the punishment of mutilation.”

Judges 1:6-7

The tribes of Judah and Simeon enter into battle with the Canaanites at Bezek. The enemy leader Adoni-bezek is captured, and the Israelites cut off his thumbs and big toes. He admits that it is only appropriate treatment since had done the same thing to 70 kings he had conquered.

Webb: The enemy general is condemned out of his own mouth as a sadistic tyrant who has been treated exactly as he deserved (strict retributive justice), and his punishment is attributed directly to God...In terms of its function in the narrative, this brief speech offers us an apology (in the technical sense) for what is an undeniably gruesome punishment.”

Boling feels this was done “to prevent his ever taking up arms again, and in anticipation of his dispatch to Jerusalem for the purpose of instilling fear at Jerusalem.”

II Samuel 4:12

After Saul's death, two Israelites take it on their own to kill one of his remaining sons, cutting off his head and presenting it to David in expectation of a reward. But instead, David has them executed for such an act, cuts off their hands and feet, and hangs the body up for all to see. McKenzie notes that this sort of ritual execution was reserved for traitors. McCarter feels that David was performing this public act in order to dispel any feelings that he may have ordered the original murder himself.

Matthew 5:29; 18:8-9 and parallels

Jesus' command to cut off any member of your body which offends you or causes you to sin has been interpreted in several different ways by commentators who are rightly concerned at the apparent harshness of this teaching. First are those who take a “corporate” view of His words:

Hill feels that perhaps “the position of these sayings in this context reflects the early application of them to the excommunication of unworthy members (or false teachers) from the Christian body.”

And Horsley expresses the opinion that this is part of “A series of warnings addressed not to the individual but to the movement and its communities about internal discipline. Whoever causes a member to stumble in whatever way must be disciplined (perhaps expelled).”

Secondly are a number of scholars who feel that Jesus' teachings here, as often elsewhere, are to be taken as examples of hyperbole.

One such scholar is William Hendricksen, who states that “he exaggerates to make his point, this time by the use of a shocking but well-recognized metaphor of self-mutilation...(which is forbidden in Deut 14:1)...H.D. Betz provides ample evidence that in both Hellenistic and rabbinic literature 'exaggerated demands to cut off limbs from the body as a sign of seriousness about morality were commonplace.'”

And as to the metaphorical and corporate interpretation, Hendricksen has this to say in debunking that view:

“The whole warning is expressed in the second-person singular: it is for individual disciples to work out for themselves...This fact stands against the interpretation, suggested by the corporate concern of the discourse as a whole, that these two verses are speaking metaphorically of the need for the community to cut out from its membership those individuals who are causes of stumbling to others. Such a reading (which goes back to Origen) would follow well from vv. 6-7 [of chapter 18], but could hardly have been expressed in the singular and would be quite inappropriate to the parallel saying of 5:59-30.”

The bottom line is that Christians are certainly not left with any clear biblical teachings that would indicate God's approval of bodily mutilation of others or ourselves today.