Answering Objections In Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy Verses Mentioned For Easy Navigation: Deuteronomy 1:1; 1:6; 1:13; 2:7; 13:9-10; 22:28-29; 25:11-12; 29:1-6

(Please be aware that this article will undergo frequent updates.)

Deuteronomy 1:1

Objection: How could Moses have written this when biblical criticism claims it was written centuries later (Deuteronomy 1:1)?

Response: Numerous arguments support Moses as the author of Deuteronomy. The book itself asserts its Mosaic authorship (Deut. 1:1; 4:44; 29:1), reinforced by Joshua (Josh. 1:7) and other Old Testament passages (cf. Jud. 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Neh. 1:7; Ps. 103:7; Dan. 9:1; Mal. 4:4). Deuteronomy is extensively cited in the New Testament, with phrases affirming Moses’ authorship (Acts 3:22; Rom. 10:19; 1 Cor. 9:9). Jesus Himself referenced Deuteronomy as authoritative (Matt. 4:7, 10; Mark 7:10; Luke 20:28). Geographical and historical details align with Moses’ knowledge, supported by scholarly studies (Meredith Kline, Eerdmans, 1963). Apparent references to a later period can be explained within the book’s historical context (Deut. 2:10-12). The last chapter, focusing on Moses’ death, may have been added by his successor Joshua. (Geisler & Howe, 2008, p.113)

Deuteronomy 1:6

Objection: How could any from the former generation be present when they all died in the wilderness? According to Numbers 26:64-65, all the unbelieving generation of Israelites died in the wilderness, with “not a man of those who were numbered by Moses” remaining to go into the Promised Land.

However, when Moses spoke to the people at the end of the wanderings he referred repeatedly to their being witnesses to what happened before the wanderings (cf. Deut. 1:6, 9, 14; 5:2, 5; 11:2, 7).

Response: First of all, in Deuteronomy, Moses is addressing the nation as a nation and, therefore, may not be making a distinction between individuals in the earlier period as opposed to those in the later period.

Second, there were a large number of women present who had personally remembered the things to which Moses referred. Third, both the Levites and those who were under 20 years of age before the 40 years were exempt from the general pronouncement that none of the men would enter the Promised Land (Num. 26:64). So also were Joshua and Caleb, who had been faithful spies (Num. 32:12). So there were plenty of people present who could witness to what Moses was saying, even though a whole generation of men (above the age of 20) had perished in the wilderness, as God had said. (Geisler & Howe, 2008, p.114)

Deuteronomy 1:13

“Did Moses appoint the judges or did the people?

PROBLEM: Exodus 18:25 declares that “Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people.” However, here Moses told the people to choose their own judges (Deut. 1:13).

SOLUTION: Both are correct, as is indicated only two verses later, where it says Moses “took the heads of your tribes… and made them heads [judges] over you.” – (Deut. 1:15) The people had chosen their leaders and Moses appointed these as their judges. So it is proper to speak of either Moses or the people as choosing the judges.” – Geisler, Norman L., and Thomas Howe. The Big Book of Bible Difficulties. Baker Books, 2008, p. 114.

Deuteronomy 2:7

“PROBLEM: Were Israel’s conditions in the wilderness comfortable or destitute? Many passages speak of Israel’s privations in the wilderness (cf. Ex. 16:2, 3; Num. 11:4-6). Yet here Moses declared that they “lacked nothing.”

SOLUTION: The passages are easily reconciled if it is kept in mind that their general state was relatively comfortable. They had ample food and clothes at all times. However, their murmuring and complaining brought acts of judgment from God which could be described as occasions of destitution. So, while the wandering Israelites “lacked nothing” in daily necessities, they certainly did not lack in plagues and punishment from the hand of God.” – Geisler, Norman L., and Thomas Howe. The Big Book of Bible Difficulties. Baker Books, 2008, p. 115.

Deuteronomy 13:9-10

Objection 1: This passage teaches that you can kill others from other nations that don’t believe in the God of Israel.

Objection 2: You can kill apostates that leave the God of Israel.

Response: Here is the full context of the passage before we answer.

“1 If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT AND REDEEMED YOU OUT OF THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. 6 If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; 9 but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do any such wickedness as this among you. 12 If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there, 13 that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. 16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; it shall be a heap for ever, it shall not be built again. 17 None of the devoted things shall cleave to your hand; that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show you mercy, and have compassion on you, and multiply you, AS HE SWORE TO YOUR FATHERS, 18 if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, keeping all his commandments which I command you this day, and doing what is right in the sight of the LORD your God.” Deuteronomy 13:1-18 (RSV)

As anyone carefully reading this text can see, the Lord was addressing the Israelites, the covenant community, NOT THE GENTILE NATIONS. God was telling the Israelites that if they were to worship other gods after all that God had supernaturally done for them then they would suffer the just penalty. So Zaatari is lying when he tried to distort this text to prove that God forced Israel to fight wars in order to convert people. That is the religion of Islam, not the true religion of God

“I want to emphasize that the requirement for the death penalty is specifically for those who actively entice others away from God, not for those who merely turn away from Him on their own. This distinction is important, as the two situations are treated differently.” – AC

In Numbers 25:1-6, the Israelites are lured by Moabite and Midianite women into idolatry and sexual immorality, participating in rituals that involved worshiping other gods (Baal). This act of unfaithfulness brings about a severe plague among the Israelites as a punishment from God. The situation escalates when an Israelite man and a Midianite woman openly engage in such practices, leading Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, to spear both of them in an act of zeal for God’s honor, which stops the plague (Numbers 25:7-9). This incident of seduction and idolatry ultimately leads to divine instructions in Numbers 31 for the Israelites to wage war against the Midianites as retribution for their role in leading Israel into sin and turning them away from God through these acts. Related article.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.” – Deut. 21:10-14 (NKJV)

Objection:
This passage teaches that God permits the rape of women during times of war, implying that such acts are non-consensual yet divinely sanctioned.

Response:
This objection rests on a misreading of the text and a failure to consider its immediate legal and moral context.

1. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 explicitly condemns rape and equates it with murder, clearly identifying forced, non-consensual sexual violence as morally evil and deserving of the highest penalty. By definition, rape is non-consensual, and the Torah treats it as a grave crime. This alone undermines the claim that Israelite law permitted rape in any circumstance, including wartime.

What is often argued is that Deuteronomy 22:25-27 applies only to betrothed women. This claim rests on the assumption that the Mosaic Law functions as a rigid, exhaustive code designed to regulate every possible circumstance in the same way. In reality, many Torah laws, especially those expressed through casuistic examples and embedded within narrative contexts, operate as judicial wisdom (for more on this, read this article), offering ethical guidance for adjudicating comparable cases rather than issuing narrow permissions limited to specific social categories.

Within this framework, the text makes a clear ethical judgment without being constrained to a single legal scenario. By directly comparing rape to murder, the law identifies forced sexual violence as an inherently evil act, establishing a moral principle rather than a situational loophole. The engagement status in the example explains the legal setting, not the ethical limits of the prohibition. When this literary and legal framework is properly understood, it becomes clear that the condemnation of rape in Deuteronomy 22 is principled and universal, not restricted to one case type.

2. The text does not speak to a modern audience but to an ancient one, and many objections fail because they import modern assumptions while ignoring ancient cultural signals. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 presupposes background knowledge the original audience would have understood instinctively, but which modern readers often overlook. Notably, the passage does not describe how the man initially engaged the woman at all. There is no depiction of sexual access, coercion, or physical force. Instead, the law immediately imposes a one-month waiting period during which the man must provide food, clothing, and shelter. This delay alone is difficult to square with the claim that the text endorses non-consensual sexual violence. If rape were permitted or assumed, there would be no reason to mandate restraint for an entire month. Further, the ritual actions described, shaving the head and trimming the nails, are not cosmetic preparation, but recognized ancient signs of mourning. These acts function to suspend sexual interest and reduce immediate attraction, serving as an additional safeguard against impulsive or exploitative intent during a period of emotional vulnerability. The law also explicitly addresses the outcome if the man ultimately decides not to continue the relationship. He is prohibited from mistreating, enslaving, or profiting from the woman once she is released. This raises a critical question for the objector: if the passage were truly unconcerned with the woman’s dignity or consent, why include a prohibition against mistreatment at all once the man’s desire ends? Taken together, the law assumes responsibility, restraint, and moral accountability. It regulates desire rather than licensing abuse, integrates mourning practices rather than sexual access, and explicitly condemns post-rejection exploitation. When these cultural and textual details are taken seriously, the claim that Deuteronomy 21:10-14 permits rape collapses under the weight of the passage’s own internal logic.

3. The passage assumes that the audience understands it is addressing the man as the pursuer, and it therefore employs colloquial, directional language rather than spelling out every moral prerequisite. This can make the text appear, at a superficial reading, as though the man is permitted to act unilaterally. In reality, the language presumes socially understood norms of conduct without needing to restate them explicitly. A modern analogy helps clarify this. When a father tells his son, “When you go out and find yourself a good woman, you take her on dates, and one day you marry her,” no reasonable listener understands this as permission to kidnap or coerce a woman. The statement does not detail consent, mutual agreement, or courtship etiquette, not because those elements are absent, but because they are naturally assumed and implied within the cultural framework of the speech. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 functions in the same way. It speaks from the perspective of the man’s responsibility and initiative, not to grant absolute power, but to regulate his behavior within understood moral boundaries. The law constrains the man’s actions through delay, mourning practices, provision, and a prohibition against mistreatment if the relationship does not continue. The absence of an explicit discussion of consent is not evidence of coercion; it reflects ancient colloquial framing, where ethical assumptions are embedded rather than exhaustively spelled out.

4. Do you go into her and then marry her? No. The sequence in the text makes clear that “go in to her” presupposes marriage rather than precedes it. The phrase functions as a euphemism for marital consummation, not a description of premarital or coercive sex. This is explicit in the wording: “that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife” (Deut. 21:13). The grammar links sexual relations to an already established marital relationship. In other words, the act occurs within the covenantal bond, not as a step taken prior to it. The text does not envision sexual access followed by a later decision to marry; it assumes marriage as the moral and legal framework in which intimacy occurs.

5. What does letting her go mean, since you have humbled her? Letting her go does not imply that she was raped or discarded after sexual exploitation. The phrase “because you have humbled her” reflects the ancient recognition that marriage itself permanently alters a woman’s social status, especially a former captive. The man’s responsibility arises not from committing sexual violence, but from having taken her into his household and bound her to himself. If he later chooses not to remain married to her, he is forbidden from treating her as property, selling her, or forcing her into servitude. Releasing her means restoring her freedom with dignity and legal protection, precisely because his prior actions of marriage and incorporation have affected her life and standing.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Objection: The Old Testament of the Bible doesn’t explicitly denounce rape. Instead, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, it stipulates that if a man is caught committing rape, he must pay 50 shekels of silver.

Response: Avery head representative of his ministry God Logic Apologetics, beautifully broke this topic down on his YouTube channel

Typically, those raising this objection have not thoroughly reviewed the preceding context or possibly are relying on a flawed translation. The NIV rendition of this passage is notably deficient and the most commonly used for this objection.

Condemning Rape

The preceding verses of Deut. 22:28-29 condemn rape, punishable by death in verses 25-27. Which is said to be on the same equivalent as murder.

“25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.”  Deuteronomy 22:25-27 (25, 26, 27)

The word for rape in verses 25 is different than the word for seize or to manipulate in verses 28 in the Hebrew. They are used differently in the context. The first one is used for rape and the other is used to show that the man seduced the woman. This is why it says that “he seizes her” because the man is the pursuer. They both consented despite this because “they were found out.”

Premarital Sex Punishment

• “28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NKJV (28, 29)

The bolded verse you’ve just read unequivocally reveals that both parties were found out. It illustrates that the verse pertains to consensual premarital sex, not rape. According to verse 29, the man must take responsibility for his actions towards her. This cultural context values and safeguards the sanctity of females’ virginity. You also see this law mentioned first in Exodus 22:16-17 refers to a case where a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and has sexual relations with her. In this case, the man must pay the bride price and marry her, unless the father refuses.

Two Different Context for Two Different Words

• Verses 25 (Interlinear), the word is וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־ (wə·he·ḥĕ·zîq-). Which means to To fasten upon, to seize, be strong, obstinate, to bind, restrain, conquer

This is used negatively by forcefully mishandling someone without their permission.

• Verses 28 (Interlinear), the word is וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ (ū·ṯə·p̄ā·śāh). Which means to manipulate, seize, chiefly to capture, wield, to overlay, to use unwarrantably.

This is used to seize the opportunity to sleep with a consenting woman.

The reason some translations use “humbled” while others say “humiliated” is that, even today, being caught in premarital sex can be socially embarrassing or degrading. In biblical times, this was even more significant due to the cultural emphasis on purity. Since the man is typically seen as the initiator in such situations, it was often assumed that he led her to the point of engaging in premarital sex. This dynamic places the responsibility and the resulting shame on him, reinforcing the sense of humiliation or degradation experienced by the woman.

God Logic, Avery, explains Deuteronomy 22:28-29 on his video thoroughly. Here is another article. In addition to this, I will provide biblical scholar Paul Copan’s detailed exegesis of the passage below. Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Baker Books, 2011, pp. 118-119.

—————————————————————————-

Was Rape Allowed?

The following comes from, Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Baker Books, 2011, pp. 118-119.

Some critics say that the law of Moses permits the rape of women or may seem to care but with little concern for the victim’s well-being. We should note two related passages. The first is Exodus 22:16–17:

If a man seduces (pathah) a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.

Extending and expanding on the discussion of Exodus 22:16–17, Deuteronomy 22:23–29 (which can be divided into three portions) reads this way:

If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city [i.e., where her screams could be heard], and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (vv. 23–24)

But if in the field [i.e., where the girl doesn’t have much chance to be heard] the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. (vv. 25–27)

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes (tapas—“takes/catches”—a weaker verb than “forces” in v. 25) her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (vv. 28–29)

Upon closer inspection, the context emphasizes the protection of women, not the insignificance of women. We should first distinguish among three scenarios in the Deuteronomy 22 passage:

1. Adultery between two consenting adults—a man and an engaged woman (v. 23), which is a violation of marriage (“he has violated his neighbor’s wife”).
2. The forcible rape of an engaged woman (v. 25), whose innocence is assumed.
3. The seduction of an unengaged woman (v. 28), an expansion on the seduction passage of Exodus 22:16–17.

Bride-Price?

In each case, the man is guilty. However, the critics’ argument focuses on verses 28–29: the rape victim is being treated like she is her father’s property. She’s been violated, and the rapist gets off by paying a bridal fee. No concern is shown for the girl at all. In fact, she’s apparently forced to marry the man who raped her! Are these charges warranted?

Regarding verses 28–29, various scholars see Exodus 22:16–17 as the backdrop to this scenario. Both passages are variations on the same theme. Even if there is some pressure from the man, the young woman is complicit; though initially pressured (seduced), she doesn’t act against her will. The text says “they are discovered” (v. 28), not “he is discovered.” Both are culpable. Technically, this pressure/seduction could not be called forcible rape, falling under our contemporary category of statutory rape. Though the woman gave in, the man here would bear the brunt of the responsibility.

As it would have been more difficult for a woman to find a husband had she been sexually involved with another before marriage, her bride-price—a kind of economic security for her future—would have been in jeopardy. The man guilty of statutory rape seduced the unengaged woman; he wasn’t a dark-alley rapist whom the young woman tried to fight off or from whom she tried to run away. This passage is far from being demeaning to women.

Both passages suggest two courses of action:

1. If the father and daughter agree to it, the seducer must marry the woman and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. The father (in conjunction with the daughter) has the final say-so in the arrangement. The girl isn’t required to marry the seducer.
2. The girl’s father (the legal point person) has the right to refuse any such permanent arrangement as well as the right to demand the payment that would be given for a bride, even though the seducer doesn’t marry his daughter (since she has been sexually compromised, marriage to another man would be difficult if not impossible). The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. In this arrangement, she is still treated as a virgin.

Again, we don’t see a lack of concern for the woman. Her well-being is actually the underlying theme of this legislation.

Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Baker Books, 2011, pp. 118-119.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Objection: In Deuteronomy 25:11-12, a wife is punished by having her hand cut off for intervening to defend her husband during a fight by grabbing the other man’s genitals. The punishment seems harsh and disproportionate, as she was simply trying to protect her husband from an attacker. It raises questions about fairness and justice, as it penalizes her severely for acting in defense of her spouse.

Response: Now this answer is really simple had the person learned to read the context or give the passage a little bit of thought. There would be no need to raise such an objection. First I want to point to the previous context in verses 5-10:

• 5 “If brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, then the wife of the one who died shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And it will be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he stands and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And in Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’ – Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (LSB)

In the previous context, the emphasis is on the significance of lineage, highlighting how husbands played a crucial role in continuing the family line, preserving the family’s unique characteristics and legacy. Throughout the Bible, the term “name” is used to convey more than just identity; it encompasses nature, presence, power, authority, and distinctive traits.

Old Testament Examples

Name as Nature and Character: Exodus 34:5-7
Name as Presence: Exodus 23:21; 2 Samuel 6:1-2; Deuteronomy 12:5, 11

New Testament Examples

Name as Characteristics and Reputation: Matthew 1:21; Revelation 3:1
Name as Presence: Matthew 18:20
Name as Authority and Power: Philippians 2:10; John 14:13-14; Acts 3:6; Acts 4:12
Name as Identification with the Character of Christ: Colossians 3:17

So verses 5-10 stresses the importance of preserving the lineage of the husband (man), when it comes to their name. If you go further back in to the context you will see Deuteronomy 23:1 which says:

• “No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of Yahweh.” (LSB)

“This section deals with the sanctity of the Israelite community and is divided into two subsections. Vv. 1-6 list the groups that are not allowed in the assembly, and vv. 7 – 8 list the groups that are allowed.

The first group Moses deals with includes one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off (v. 1). Someone who is emasculated either has testicles that have been damaged or has his male organ removed. This genital condition, which could be caused by genetics, accident, or intention, represents that which is not complete and damaged and thus not whole. This probably refers to a man who was made a eunuch in pagan religions, though it could include someone injured in an accident.

A man in this condition was not allowed to enter the assembly of the LORD. The pagan practices of making men eunuchs was associated with the rule of tyrants. Emasculation would eliminate incentive for eunuchs who were made high-ranking officials to attempt to ascend to the throne, since they would not be capable of producing an heir to the throne. God had created a system of self-governance, under His law, where men were to love and serve one another. The practice of creating eunuchs was part of the pagan system of tyranny, where the strong exploited the weak. This vestige was to be given no honor in Israel.

The phrase the assembly of the LORD occurs six times in this section. Although it can have various meanings, here it refers specifically to the people who gather before the Suzerain (Ruler) God at the tabernacle (or later the temple) for a worship service. This has a similarity to the Greek word “ekklesia” often translated “church” in the New Testament. “Ekklesia” means ‘gathering’ or ‘assembly.’” – 

• John A. Martin, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Victor Books, 1985, commentary on Deuteronomy 23. (Found on thebiblesays.com)

Considering all this, it becomes clear how crucial it was for men to be active representatives of their families and members of God’s assembly. When the woman attacked the man’s genitals, it was a deliberate attempt to harm his ability to participate fully in the community, not just physically but socially and spiritually. It raises the question: why would she target his genitals specifically, instead of any other means of attack? She likely understood the importance of a man’s role in the assembly, which was not just religious but a fundamental part of their cultural life. She knew what she was doing and did it anyway.

“The first consequence of the brother’s refusal was that the brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot (v. 9). This had the effect of degrading him publicly. It is also possible that the act of removing the sandal off the brother-in-law’s foot symbolized the removal of any and all claims he might have to the dead brother’s estate. Because the sandal was connected to the land, removing it removed his claim to the land of the wife’s household (Ruth 4:7-8).

Then, after pulling the sandal off the man’s foot, the widow would spit in his face. This would be done to insult him and this would show utmost contempt (Isaiah 50:6; Job 30:10). In this case, the penalty fit(s) the offense. The brother-in-law offended his brother’s widow by refusing to marry her. Now, the widow responded by humiliating and insulting the man, thus afflicting him with the same degree of shame. Through the tenth commandment prohibiting envy, God desired to build a culture of mutual care and generosity in Israel.

In Israel the man would be known as the house of him whose sandal is removed (v. 10). This nickname would continue to hurt the man’s reputation in Israelite society because he had allowed his brother’s family name to disappear in Israel. This was considered shameful conduct. Thus the shame would continue, again perpetrating a culture of generosity and care, rather than of greed and envy.”

• thebiblesays.com

The website TheBibleSays.com is managed by a team of contributors and editors who aim to provide comprehensive and accessible biblical commentary. Their goal is to enrich personal Bible study by offering verse-by-verse explanations, historical context, and practical applications. Key contributors include individuals with academic backgrounds, such as David Anderson, PhD, the President of Grace School of Theology, and Joey Willis, Director of Student Development at The King’s College. These contributors provide a solid scholarly foundation for the content, making the site a reliable resource for understanding the Bible in its historical and textual context.

In conclusion, The woman’s attack on the man’s genitals was not random; it was a calculated effort to undermine his ability to fulfill his role within the community. In ancient Israel, a man’s presence in the assembly and his ability to carry on the family lineage were vital aspects of his identity and social standing. By targeting his ability to procreate, she sought to inflict the maximum damage to his reproduction organ, reputation and societal role. This action aimed to strip him of his place in the community, both as a representative of his family and as a participant in religious and social life.

Here is another perspective by biblical scholar, philosopher, and theologian Paul Copan in his book Is God A Moral Monster? (pp. 121-123). Pleas read this article for a further explanation.

Video Explanation

“I will link more additional sources related to this topic later in another article” – AC

Deuteronomy 29:1-6

Consider if you reference Genesis 15:1-7 or Jeremiah 32:26-27. It illustrates that the Word of the LORD is indeed the LORD who pledges an heir for Abram (Abraham) and promises to enlarge his descendants. The passage explicitly identifies him as YHWH; Abram acknowledges him as YHWH and even the Word of the LORD itself confirms this in verse 7.

The Word of the LORD stands apart from YHWH, as seen in Zachariah 1:1-2; 4:8-9 and 1 Samuel 3:1-7, 21. This word of God is Jesus (John  1:1-14 & Revelation 19:13). So, why oppose the concept of the Trinity?

Objection: In Deuteronomy 29:1-6, Moses is indeed speaking on behalf of God, conveying His message to the Israelites. However, the statement “that you may know that I am the LORD your God” in verse 6 is a declaration from God Himself, emphasizing His authority and presence among the people. So, it doesn’t imply that Moses is God. Just as in Genesis 15:1-7 or Jeremiah 32:26-27, where the word of the LORD speaks to Abraham, it’s God communicating through Moses. By trinitarian Logic, this would mean Moses is claiming to be God.

Response: The person bringing the objections has just committed the “Equivocation Fallacy” and “False Analogy Fallacy”

Equivocation Fallacy

• Definition: The Equivocation Fallacy occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used ambiguously, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and another meaning in another portion. This ambiguity can lead to a conclusion that is misleading or unsound.
• Example: Someone might argue, “A bat is a mammal; therefore, baseball players use mammals to hit baseballs.” equivocating on the word “bat” which can mean both a flying mammal and a piece of sports equipment.

False Analogy Fallacy

• Comparison: Focuses on the comparison of two different things based on superficial similarities.
• Key Aspect: Misleading conclusion drawn from comparing things that are not truly comparable in relevant aspects.

To maintain logical consistency, one would need to assert that Moses is equivalent to God’s eternal word. God’s word created everything in life. Furthermore, the objector presupposes that YHWH solely refers to the Father, disregarding that God has always existed with His Word and Holy Spirit.

YHWH Alone Creates the earth and everything on it (Isaiah 44:24; 45:12, 18-22; Job 9:8). Which people will say is just the Father. However…

The Word of the LORD Creates life, made the earth and all the hosts. Making him the LORD of host as well.

• Psalm 33:4-6; Jeremiah 1:4-9; 32:17; Hebrews 11:3
• Bonus scripture. The LORD of host will send the LORD of host. Zechariah 2:7-13 (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

The inspired Scriptures further teach that Yahweh is actively sustaining all creation, that he is the One who is keeping it all together and guiding it along to accomplish all of his purposes:

• Nehemiah 9:5-6

We are to listen to the voice of God’s word. (Note: The word of God can mean commandments depending on the context, like in the verse below). This shows that his word is personified in the text and that the word speaks distinctly yet in one accord with YHWH.

• Psalm 103:20

The Word of the LORD comes from the mouth of God. (God doesn’t have a literal mouth). God’s word comes from him, showing that God’s word has always existed with him and is him. John 1:1-14. God’s word is exalted above his name.

• Matthew 4:4 (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3 & Isaiah 55:11)
• God’s word is exalted above his name. Psalm 138:2-4 (verses 2-4; cf. Philippians 2:5-8)