Deuteronomy

The Limits on Pity

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Pentateuch

Lesson: 92-110

Genre: Talk

Track: 092

Dictation Name: RR187AX92

Location/Venue:

Year: 1993

Let us worship God. How amiable are Thy tabernacles oh Lord of Hosts, a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand. For the Lord God is a sun and shield, the Lord will give grace and glory, no good thing will He withhold from them that walk uprightly. Oh Lord of Hosts blessed is the man that trusteth in Thee. Let us pray.

Teach us oh Lord to trust in Thee, ever to be mindful that Thy ways are all together righteous and holy. Always to remember that the ends of the earth shall serve Thee and it is Thy will that shall be done. Teach us to rejoice in the face of all things and in everything to give thanks for this is Thy holy purpose for us. Bless us this day and always by Thy word and by Thy spirit, in Christ’s name, Amen.

Our scripture this morning is Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Our subject: The Limits on Pity. The Liits on Pity, Deuteronomy 25:11-12.

This is so important a text that we shall consider it both this Sunday morning and next week as well.

“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.”

This is a startling law because it is the only instance in biblical law where mutilation is mandatory. Although mutilation is common in pagan law it is normally banned in God’s law which means that this single exception requires careful attention. First of all we need to recognize the nature of the offense. Two men are fighting¸ no limitation is made about the cause, one man could be a thief or an enemy ravaging the country side behind the lines of battle. The assailant could also be a friend or a neighbor and the men are in a drunken brawl or some disagreement between them has led to the fight. The law applies whatever the cause may be.

Then second, where such incidence as this wifely intervention have taken place in various cultures the woman’s purpose is usually to end the fight by castrating or maiming her husband’s opponent. Such things are not normally written about or publicized but they occur and they are viscous to the extreme. The woman’s motive in taking part is not a friendly one. Such intervention has taken various forms, the use of hands, the use of blows with a stick or even a burning torch or a heavy iron stick or a burning stick pulled out of the fire. All forms of attack are covered by the text. This kind of thing is not uncommon in most of the world. Then third, in Exodus 21:18 following we have laws governing cases of assault. In all these cases damages are paid to the injured party. Besides being the only case where mutilation is required the offense is seen as a very, very serious crime, a serious offense. The man’s ability to have children can be affected by the woman’s behavior. If she is successful it will be. Even if this does not occur her offense still requires this heavy penalty. Fourth, some scholars have seen this act of the violation of a very sacred taboo. That was what Sir John Adam Smith wrote early in the century, he never said what the taboo was and where it existed because neither he nor anyone else could say. It is simply their belief that such statements are somehow good scholarship and science. Supposedly in an earlier state of mankind as man was evolving this kind of action was routine and there were taboos against it that developed. It’s all fictional; there is no evidence for it whatsoever. Still others, like H. Wheeler Robinson, a very important British scholar, have seen it as a typical case of feminine immodesty. Well it is hardly typical nor is such a statement good scholarship.

But this is not a case of immodesty. If we view it as such we miss the point, it is rather a case of lawlessness. We live in God’s creation and in His world of law, we have no right to set His law aside when our interests are threatened. It is easy to see in such a battle and in some cases a man’s life might be threatened and the woman’s intense fear and anger are aroused. But this gives her no right to do what under no circumstances is valid, that is, to strike a man’s manhood. Extreme conditions gave her no right to break the law of God, in Morecraft’s words faith requires staying within the law of God. Fifth this law is best understood in relation to Exodus 21:22-23.

“ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”

The law with respect to the woman in this text deals with a deliberate offense. In Exodus 21:22-23 we have an accidental abortion, two men are fighting and in the process a pregnant woman is so injured that a miscarriage follows. The man who falls or whose actions causes the miscarriage is liable even if there is a safe delivery of a live child. Death to either the mother or the child means a murder charge, life for life. These two laws, Exodus 21:22 following and Deuteronomy 25:11-12, our text, tell us how seriously offenses against life are regarded by God.

Sadly, the Rabbi’s reduced the penalty for the woman to a monetary fine. It is interesting that this text, the two texts, in Exodus and in Deuteronomy, which tell you the penalty for anything that endangers the life of an unborn child and the other, wherever a man’s procreative abilities are struck at have a tremendously important background. They are important in the prolife field, they have been important against abortion, and yet they are not considered now. And when in the beginning of the seventies I brought these texts forward to a scholar somehow he insisted it had no relevance. Sixth, the most common statement by commentators, older and recent, is that we have an offense against decency or delicacy and an example of female immodesty. All such comments are irrelevant because there is no higher law of decency, what we have here is God’s law, to violate God’s law is as high or low as one can reach. It is an offense against God who created life and who set all the boundaries of human action. The fact that God forbids such action is enough. It is absurd to bring in ideas of modesty, delicacy and decency. Such feelings cannot maintain a culture nor foster reformation. What is alone apiaceous is obedient faith. Many cultures that the bible has gone into have no feelings of immodesty that we can recognize and when someone is emasculated during a course of a fight everyone around roars with laughter, that’s been documented. God is dealing with the heart of the matter. Seventh, this law concludes with the statement, then thou shalt cut off her hand, thy eye shall not pity her.

Pity can become at times a deadly sentiment if we pity evil and are unwilling to see justice done. Early this year, 1994, some people were upset over the sentence of flogging meted out by the Singapore court to an American youth. Although 91% of Americans approve the sentence in one poll, a vocal 9% held that it was too harsh. The more important question was this: was it justified? It was a known penalty in Singapore for certain offenses. In Deuteronomy 7:16 God orders the conquest of Canaan to be unlike other campaigns, one of a radical nature, declaring:

“And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.”

The words pity and compassion are used interchangeably in the bible. They translate the same Hebrew and Greek words in most cases. Because God is the Lord and alone man’s savior His pity or compassion can give grace and salvation. No like saving power can accompany man’s pity or compassion and it is dangerous to think so. This means that man must only exercise pity or compassion under God. Not to do so is presumptuous and evil. We are, for example, to be compassionate towards widows and orphans. The parable of the Good Samaritan instructs us in the meaning of Godly compassion. God’s compassion is governed by His sovereign wisdom and grace, our compassion must be governed by His word and His law. In Zachariah 7:9-10 we are told:

“Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother:

10 And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.”

This defines compassion as God would define it. We cannot show pity or compassion where God’s law requires judgment. God ordains the limits on pity, not man; this seemingly minor text is a very important one and requires more attention because we need to recognize the meaning of pity as well as of judgment. Let us pray.

Our Father we thank Thee for Thy word, we thank Thee that Thy word governs us into the ways of justice, guides us into truth, strengthens us in our stand in a fallen world. Bless us this day and always in Thy service and in faithfulness to Thee. In Christ’s name, Amen.

Are there any questions now about our lesson? Yes?

[Question] Well no matter what the provocation if a man…[becomes unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] Yes. Yes, we now have a totally warped attitude towards offenses. A sentimental one. And in that instance, the feminists immediately rallied around Mrs. Bobbitt. The point is whatever either one or both had done should have been punished but what we had instead was a national pity party for her and a means for him to make some money in a few appearances he made. Yes?

[Question unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] That’s a rather different case and it was not a serious mutilation, it was a hurt that [unknown] let go promptly. But that’s a rather different type of case. Any other questions, yes?

[Question] uh, I’ve had discussions with people who genuinely feel that the death penalty is unjust, that justice has to be tempered with mercy and that people can change, etc. These are people who were standing outside of prison to San Quentin, I used to live over on [unknown] County and I was interested in the why these people would want to get out there and maintain this all-night vigil and so forth, prayer to executions. And most of them had purely political stance, I mean they were there simply to demonstrate solidarity with those people who were against capital punishment, they had no moral persuasion one way or another.

[Rushdoony] Well, your point is thoroughly valid. There have been numerous cases involving women where you would have thought the women would have rallied to the side of the woman but they did not because she was not a feminist. But in the Thomas [unknown] case where they had very little ground for rallying around Anita Hill, they did. And the pity with most of these people is for the victim, I mean for the criminal, not the victim. And you don’t see them protesting about the murder, only about the execution of the criminal. Do they demonstrate because the judge gives a light sentence? They do not. It’s only if the criminal is to be executed. So it’s a question of choosing of sides and they are even though they don’t admit it, on the side of the criminal. They want a universe in which man can get away with everything.

[Question] What is the genesis of this conference of victimhood from the true victim to the perpetuator?

[Rushdoony] It’s the sense of guilt men have. If people are guilty before God they don’t want to believe that God is a God of judgment, He has to be a God of love and therefore on the human level everything has to be love, not judgment. So that precisely because they are guilty you have to show more love to them, love has become the saving power, not God. So we’ve got to be nice to the bad people. So it becomes a matter of faith, what do you believe in, therefore your sympthaties are aligned to those who you favor and if it’s for the innocent victim, that’s one thing, but if you want a world in which you can get away with things then you’re going to be with the victim, ah, the criminal. Yes?

[Question unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] Very good point, yes! According to the Bible and the historic Christian stance the state is a ministry of justice. Beginning with Horace Man in this country the state has been seen as a ministry of salvation. Well if the state is the savior, for the state to act as a judge is terrible. We are moving as more than one people have said into a therapeutic state. The state is working to help us, to do what we need, and we’re going to take their castor oil whether we like it or not, it’s going to be rammed down our throats. So the concept of the state is radically different. We have completely warped and perverted the whole order of things in society.

This is why we have to see, as Christians, the state as increasingly the enemy, because the state is against the Christian faith. It is against what we regard as justice, it is against those who have been too successful. It is against the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur, is, in the French meaning of the word, one who forges ahead and enters an area, a discoverer, an explorer. We’re against all of those things now. So why should we be in favor of the innocent. We are against any separation between innocent and guilty. Niche summed it up and it wasn’t new with him, beyond good and evil. As you well know, Otto, this all came from Ralph Waldo Emerson. He did not like the distinctions, that’s why in that famous poem of his he celebrates Brotma because Brotma is the one who has all the contraries reconciled in himself and so we too are to accept all these things. Despite the outward form of good American moralist, Emerson was, as you pointed out, one of the most radical of men. So we’re trying to get to a state beyond good and evil and this is why the hostility, yes?

[Question] Have you heard the statement that cigarettes are now the new serial killer?

[Rushdoony] No I hadn’t, cigarettes are now the new serial killer. Well, I’ve never smoked, I never even tried it, it didn’t appeal to me, just as coffee I didn’t like the smell of the stuff. But I’ve always thought the hysteria about smoking is absurd. There are so many other things that are killers, are we going to go down the street and go after everyone who is overweight and follow them and make sure they don’t consume more than a rationed amount of food? The whole thing is becoming absurd.

Any other questions or comments?

[Question] They certainly gain a lot of power from it.

[Rushdoony] Oh yes they have, they have gained great power and it is the fault of the churches. When you realize that in both Catholic and Protestant circles now there are numerous books written which tell us that the bible does not condemn homosexuality or that feminism is biblical or that the bible really doesn’t tell us that Jesus rose again from the dead, now that’s deconstructionism at work! Well when the churches have led the way in that why shouldn’t the world be where it is? Well, let us conclude now with prayer.

Our Father, we thank Thee for the power of Thy word, for the power of Thy spirit, for Thy providential care and government. We thank Thee that according to Thy word Thou shalt cleanse the world of all iniquity in Thy own time. That Thy kingdom shall stand forth triumphant and that we Thy people shall rejoice in Thee throughout all time and eternity. How great Thou art oh Lord and we praise Thee. And now go in peace, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, bless you and keep you, guide and protect you, this day and always, Amen.