In certain Islamic countries, thieves and others are maimed, by cutting off their hand. Was such a procedure ever condoned or even enjoined in the Bible, under any circumstances? The passage in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states:

“If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.”

Was this command to be applied literally?

In a previous Q&A, we explained the meaning of the “lex talionis” in the Old Testament—the “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth” principle.

We pointed out the following:

“The ‘an eye for an eye’ principle is commonly known as the ‘lex talionis,’ which is Latin for the ‘law of retaliation.’ It is mentioned in the Old Testament in Exodus 21:23-27; Leviticus 24:18-20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Rather than requiring the literal maiming of a guilty person, this law has been correctly understood as requiring equivalent monetary compensation. The law made it also clear that victims were to be compensated fairly, as determined by judges and magistrates. Victims were not to resort to ‘self-help.’

“… the Church of God has taught consistently that the ‘an eye for an eye principle’ was not meant to be applied literally in the sense of maiming a person…”

In that Q&A, we cited numerous commentaries and Scriptural evidence for this conclusion. In addition, Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, explains on pages 400-401 (in discussing Leviticus 24:20): “… the earliest postbiblical Jewish sources already understood ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean monetary, and not literal, compensation.”

To include another statement, which we did not quote in the above-mentioned Q&A, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains, in discussing Leviticus 24:19:

“‘And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour’…. Does him any hurt or mischief, causes any mutilation or deformity in him by striking him: ‘as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him’: not that a like damage or hurt should be done to him, but that he should make satisfaction for it in a pecuniary way; pay for the cure of him, and for loss of time, and in consideration of the pain he has endured, and the shame or disgrace brought on him by the deformity or mutilation, or for whatever loss he may sustain thereby…”

With this background, let us review the passage in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Was this command of cutting off the woman’s hand to be carried out literally?

Some commentaries think so.

For instance, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes:

“This is the only mutilation prescribed by the Law of Moses, unless we except the retaliation prescribed as a punishment for the infliction on another of bodily injuries (Leviticus 24:19-20). The act in question was probably not rare in the times and countries for which the Law of Moses was designed. It is of course to be understood that the act was willful, and that the prescribed punishment would be inflicted according to the sentence of the judges.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible also allows for the literal application of this command, stating:

“‘Then thou shall cut off her hand’… Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action… though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it… and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, ‘eye for eye’, Exodus 21:24… and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:

“‘thine eye shall not pity her’; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.”

Other commentaries reject the view of requiring or even allowing a literal application of this command. The Soncino commentary states:

“The interpretation is that she has to pay monetary compensation for the shame she caused the man…Even if she be poor she must pay the fine.”

This has to be the right view. Since the “an eye for an eye” principle has been correctly understood as referring to monetary compensation, it would make little sense to inflict the punishment of maiming a woman for her immodest conduct in the heat of passion, while coming to the defense of her husband. This conclusion is even more compelling when considering the fact that Jesus used similar wording in the New Testament. He spoke of cutting off our hand which tempts us to sin, but He never meant this to be understood literally.

In the afore-mentioned Q&A, we explained this as follows:

“In the New Testament, Jesus Christ sometimes used figures of speech to stress a point, but He did not mean a literal application in those cases. For instance, He said in Matthew 5:29-30: ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you… And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you…’ Christ did not mean, of course, to apply this literally; rather, as the Lamsa Bible explains, these are Aramaic idioms, meaning that we are to stop envying [with our eyes] or stealing [with our hands]…

“Jamieson, Fausset and Brown clarify in their Commentary on the Whole Bible, that Jesus was not stating, in any way, that under Old Testament Law, offenders had to be maimed. Christ was addressing quite a different issue: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ i.e., whatever penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution–designed to take vengeance out of the hands of a private person, and commit it to the magistrate–was abused in the opposite way… [justifying in the minds of the people] a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament… (Prov. 20:22).’”

Jesus used similar wording in Matthew 18:6-9 and in Mark 9:42-48. In each case, He insists that we must refrain from using our hands for the purpose of sinning. Rather, we are told in James 4:8 that sinners must cleanse their hands. Paul explains in Romans 6:13: “And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.”

In Old Testament times, when dealing with carnal and unconverted people, a woman, seizing another man with her hand by his private parts (Living Bible: “grabbing the testicles of the other man”; New Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible: “seizing his genitals”), had to be fined to impress on her the need to refrain from using her hand in such an inappropriate way. Her hand was to be “cut off” figuratively, not literally; and compensation had to be paid for the misuse of her hand towards a member of the other man’s body which was to be treated with respect (compare the principle in 1 Corinthians 12:23).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In Acts 1:15, it says there were about 120 disciples.

In 1 Corinthians 15:6, we read that Christ appeared to 500 “brethren” or disciples.

Many commentaries suggest that the 120 disciples, mentioned in Acts 1:15, only refer to those in Jerusalem, and that the 500 brethren were living in Galilee at that time.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown states: “… the number … about an hundred and twenty—Many, therefore, of the ‘five hundred brethren’ who saw their risen Lord ‘at once’ (1Co 15:6), must have remained in Galilee.”

The People’s New Testament agrees, stating: “[They were] about an hundred and twenty. This was the number of disciples at Jerusalem, but not all who were then disciples. See 1Co 15:6.”

Wesley’s Notes add: “Who were together in the upper room were a hundred and twenty – But he had undoubtedly many more in other places; of whom more than five hundred saw him at once after his resurrection, 1Cor 15:6.”

On the other hand, Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles, thinks there were only 120 disciples at that time: “There were only 120 pledged to Christ and it is very unlikely that any of them had even been outside the narrow confines of Palestine in his life. Since there were about 4,000,000 Jews in Palestine, this means that fewer than 1 in 30,000 were Christians… If ever anything began from small beginnings the Christian Church did.”

Does 1 Corinthians 15:6 support the idea that Christ had more than 120 disciples at the time of Acts 1:15? Does the reference of 500 disciples in 1 Corinthians 15:6 refer to the time prior to Acts 1:15, or does it describe a subsequent event?

In the New King James Bible, Paul says in 1.Corinthians 15:3-8:

“For I delivered to you first of all which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,  and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then [Greek ”eita”] by the twelve. After that [Greek: “epeita”] He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that [Greek: “epeita”]  he was seen by James, then [Greek: “eita”] by all the apostles. Then last of all [here, the word for “then” does not appear in the Greek; it says, and last of all] He was seen by me also…”

This passage does not have to set forth a time sequence of events or appearances, but it could refer to a list of important events, without setting forth a time sequence.

The Greek word “eita” means “afterwards” or “furthermore.” Compare Hebrews 12:9, where it does clearly NOT describe a time sequence. There, it just sets forth an additional thought or argument.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible  #1534, defines “eita” as a “succession in time or logical enumeration,” and gives alternative renderings such as “then, moreover, furthermore.”

The word “epeita,” Strong’s #1899, is defined as “after that,” and it is stated that it is derived from “eita” and “epi.” The Greek word “epi” (Strong’s #1909) is defined as “superimposition of time or order.”

In Hebrews 7:2, the word “epeita” (rendered as “then” in the New King James Bible) clearly does not describe a time sequence of events. Another example is James 3:17, where an enumeration of important characteristics is being given.

Another example is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (“Then we who are alive…”). One of our Q&A’s addresses this passage. It shows that the word “then” in that context does not refer to a time sequence of events, as these events, as described, will occur simultaneously.

What Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is important proof that Christ was resurrected and that He manifested Himself to the disciples, in bodily form, after His resurrection. He lists different occurrences, not necessarily in time sequence, but perhaps in an order of logical enumeration.

But even if a time sequence is described here, we need to consider the following:

The manifestations of Jesus Christ after His resurrection, as listed by Paul, are by no means exhaustive. He does not list the appearance of Jesus to Mary and the other woman; or to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, when He appeared to them in “another form” (Mark 16:12). In fact, the Bible does not report anywhere else most of the occurrences which Paul lists.

We do not read anywhere else that Jesus appeared to Peter or Cephas [Aramaic name for Peter] alone or at first, and only then or “afterwards” to the twelve. In fact, the Bible states elsewhere that Christ appeared to the women and then to Peter and the other nine apostles, but “doubting Thomas” was not present. Then He appeared to the eleven—not the twelve, as Judas was dead and was not replaced yet by Matthias. THAT appearance [when the apostles had again reached the number twelve] could have only taken place AFTER the event described in Acts 1:15. Even though Matthias had been with Christ and the apostles from the beginning, so had Barsabas (Acts 1:21-23). But Matthias was not an apostle then; it was determined by lot that he should become an apostle and he was then “numbered with the eleven apostles” (verses 25-26). So when Christ appeared to the twelve apostles after His resurrection, it must have occurred after Matthias had become an apostle—that is, after the events described in Acts 1. See also Matthew 28:16 and Mark 16:14-18, where Christ appeared to the “eleven apostles” after His resurrection, to give them “the great commission.”

Likewise, Christ’s additional appearance to Peter alone must have happened on a different occasion—not, when He appeared to the eleven or the twelve or all of the apostles–and the Bible does not tell us, when exactly it occurred. As an additional consideration, note what the apostle John said about his own recounting of the life of Christ:

“And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31).

We also do not read elsewhere that and when Christ appeared to the 500 brethren; or when He appeared to James, the half-brother of Christ (even though we might conclude that THAT appearance to James did occur in fact prior to the events in Acts 1:15; compare our free booklet, “Jesus Christ—a Great Mystery.”). We are also not told when He appeared to ALL the apostles [obviously referring to more than just twelve, but at the time of Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:6), we only read of eleven apostles, so, as mentioned, the appearance to TWELVE apostles and to “ALL the apostles” (apparently including James at that time) must have taken place AFTER the events in Acts 1:15].

We therefore conclude that some of Christ’s appearances, which are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, must have occurred AFTER His ascension and AFTER the event described in Acts 1:15, when about 120 disciples are listed and when Matthias is chosen as one of the apostles, replacing Judas.

Paul is also saying that finally, Christ appeared to him. We know, of course, that He appeared to Paul (then Saul) on his way to Damascus many days after His ascension and the event in Acts 1:15. However, when Christ spoke to Paul on his way to Damascus, the Bible does not tell us that Christ manifested Himself to Paul. We read in Acts 9:3-4 that Paul saw a light which blinded him, and that he heard the voice of Christ. Also, Acts 22:1-21 recounts Paul’s experience in a little more detail; compare in particular verses 6-11. Paul recounts his experience again in Acts 26:12-19, specifically stating that it was a “heavenly vision.”

In addition, Paul was in a “trance” when Christ communicated to him on another occasion (Acts 22:17). This seems to be indicating that Paul saw Him on that occasion in a vision as well (as Stephen did prior to his death, when He saw Christ together with the Father, Acts 7:55-56). We also read that Christ appeared to Paul at one time in another vision (Acts 18:9). [He even saw the third heaven in a vision, compare 2 Corinthians 12:1-4; and John saw the glorified Christ and God the Father in a vision, while on the isle of Patmos, Revelation 1:9-20; 4:2-3].

But we also read in Acts 23:11 that “the following night the Lord stood by” Paul and encouraged him. On that occasion, the way this is worded, it does not say that Paul saw Christ in a vision [compare again by contrast Acts 18:9]; rather, the implication is that Christ seemed to have manifested Himself to Paul at that time (as angels also manifest themselves to man at times, without being recognized by man as angels, Hebrews 13:2). We also recall that Christ, prior to His birth as a human being, manifested Himself on several occasions to man, appearing as a man. He appeared as the high priest Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:1-8); He appeared with two angels to Abraham; and He spoke to Moses who even saw His glory, but only from behind.

In addition, Paul’s reference in 1 Corinthians 15:6 might not have been to any of his VISIONS, during which he saw Christ, as the other occurrences that he mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 were clearly not “visions” either, but “bodily” manifestations of Christ. Rather, Paul, in mentioning Christ’s appearance to him, might have referred to his lengthy stay in Arabia when he was apparently personally instructed by Christ. In our free booklet, “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” we state regarding Galatians 1:11-14:

“‘(Verse 11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.’ That is, the gospel of the Kingdom of God is not invented by man. It is a message from God the Father that has to be revealed. In Paul’s case, Christ taught him directly, as is stated in verse 12—apparently, while he lived in Arabia (see below, in verse 17).

“Paul states in Galatians 1:12… ‘For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ…’

“Paul goes on to say… ‘Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus…’

“It appears that Paul was instructed personally by Jesus Christ, when dwelling in Arabia (verse 17)…”

In light of all the foregoing, it appears that the list in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 does not necessarily set forth a time sequence of events, but even if it does, it is not compelling to conclude that Christ manifested Himself to 500 brethren prior to the event in Acts 1:15. It is plausible that some of Christ’s appearances, including His manifestation to all of the twelve apostles and even to ALL the apostles (more than twelve), and His manifestation(s) to Paul, as well as His manifestation to 500 brethren, occurred after the event described in Acts 1:15, so that the implication is that at the time of Acts 1:15, there were only about 120 disciples who were loyal to Christ.

But we know that subsequently, the Church grew tremendously (compare Acts 2:41, stating that on the Day of Pentecost alone, about 3,000 “souls” were added), but we are also told that later, many fell away from the faith, and the warning remains for us today that prior to Christ’s return, a falling away from the truth in God’s Church is still to occur.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link