What in the world is the reasoning behind Deuteronomy 23:1?

The reason for the exclusion of emasculated persons from the congregation of Jehovah, i.e., not merely from office (officio et publico magistratu, Luth.) and from marriage with an Israelitish woman (Fag., C. a Lap., and others), but from admission into the covenant fellowship of Israel with the Lord, is to be found in the mutilation of the nature of man as created by God, which was irreconcilable with the character of the people of God. Nature is not destroyed by grace, but sanctified and transformed. This law, however, was one of the ordinances intended for the period of infancy, and has lost its significance with the spread of the kingdom of God over all the nations of the earth (Isaiah 56:4).
http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-1.htm

So if a guy has an accident, or is born that way, he’s just SOL?

@Dutchess_III Perhaps, although I believe it was a short-lived rule referencing eunichs in that period of time from what the rest of the article says. Maybe ask @Dominicx of some of the other biblical scholars.

But circumsicion is ok?!?

No one can accuse the Bible of being logical or consistent.

What was the context of the fb post; defending it, arguing against ?

It’s a rather obscure text to be finding on fb since it was intended for the Israelites of THAT period of time. Obviously it has little relevance to anything now.

Why is it even considered important, (or is someone just nitpicking to pass the time of day)?

I don’t understand the relevance, and I keep seeing 23:1 stickers on cars around my area. Any clue what that’s about or is it referencing Psalms 23:1?

*Just looked it up and facebook is referencing the Lord’s Prayer in Psalms 23:1. Are you sure it was Deuteronomy?

Oh, someone paraphrased it and thought it was funny, so I looked it up @Buttonstc.
Did it apply if a person had their finger cut off or something?

Well, someone who is sterile can not have sons, e.g. males to inherit property or to become soldiers to ravage the lands. Worthless to ancient society, in other words.

The Hebrew law makes a ton of distinctions along gender lines. Could be that eunuchs (who are certainly the target of this injunction) don’t fit nicely into this gender duality, so let’s just count them out.

There is (surprise!) a good deal of disagreement about exactly what this verse is excluding them from. Some commentators insist that it’s not a blanket exclusion from the community at large, but a prohibition from serving in temple functions. Isaiah (can’t remember the verse) does make room for eunuchs in God’s scheme.

That’s just sad. Can you imagine the censorship of handicapped people?

No, it didn’t mean fingers :)

To briefly answer your question:

Many parts of the OT are involved with health codes, purity codes, etc. which are clearly intended for THAT people in THAT period of time. They are not universal (applicable to all people everywhere) nor for all time.

One quick example would be the prohibition on eating pork. Back in those times it could be life saving (if not cooked properly Trichinosis results) but is largely beside the point nowadays.

I realize that many people enjoy making fun of believers with all kinds of weirdo OT verses which, out of their proper context, sound pretty ridiculous (hence my Q about its appearance on fb.)

What they choose to forget is that only the most ardent of KJV-only fundamentalist Bible literalists try to defend them.

They are largely irrelevant to serious thinking believers who have learned not to respond to the hi jinks of OT- baiters.

So, for the poor soul living in THAT time period, yes, he was basically SOL.

Nowadays, totally irrelevant. So, since we don’t live in that time period…

I was thinking of @KNOWITALL‘s comment when I asked about fingers ”…is to be found in the mutilation of the nature of man as created by God, which was irreconcilable with the character of the people of God.” A missing finger could be considered a mutilation.

Thanks for the answers guys. Man, I’m glad I didn’t live in those times.

Well, if you follow her link, the beginning of the page is full of FAR better translations written in much clearer modern English which make it clear precisely what that one verse refers to and that it doesn’t extrapolate to all types of disabilities.

Besides, that particular section quoted is, after all, from one or another Bible commentary (there are numerous) which is basically the opinion of whoever wrote that particular commentary.

So, regardless of whether or not ONE person thinks it applies to other handicaps, it’s crystal clear that this verse limits to the male reproductive organs.

I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but there are enough cases of people trying to insist that the Bible says this or that when the context makes it clear. No sense adding to the confusion with what one Bible commentator might think might be implied.

(And thorn in mud and loli’s explanation is quite succinct and right on point.) No need to try to add what is not there.

They tooked away one of my tags :(

I’m with @ragingloli on this one. A man who can’t procreate is unnatural and impure and can’t contribute to the tribal struggles for ova and loot.

I think they were scared that it was contagious.

I suppose the opposite is also true.

The congregational leaders must have been the biggest dicks.

ROFLLL!! Wonder if that had anything to do with Obama getting elected!

Was somebody checking at the church door?

loll! Well….it was a “small town” so….

I guess it makes them slightly closer to being females, and we all know what to think of those.

Stones??? I would be interested in what the original word used was. What about balls, nuts, plums, rocks, bollocks, nads, gonads, sack, nuggets, Cracker Jacks, kerbangers, marbles, tenders, cullions, bells, pelotas, nutsack, bollocks, family jewels, gems, cojones, junk, package, manjigglies, man tonsils, knackers, cods, love spuds, hanging brain, ornaments, two veg., crips, meatballs, Reece’s Pieces, weights, dumbbells, truffles, package, huevos, water balloons, Itchy and Scratchy, Beavis and Butthead, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, easter eggs, fiery coals, jellybeans, two amigos, maracas, yam bags or giggle berries.
Didn’t any of these come closer than “stones”?

Hey…I didn’t write it! :) And don’t forget privy member!

@rojo You forgot yarbles (see A Clockwork Orange).

The real good news is that modern Christians, at least the ones I know, sort of don’t want to talk about Deuteronomy, and are pretty comfortable just ignoring it.

Why talk about something which is largely irrelevant nowadays?

And it also seems to be the OT book most favored by recreational Bible-bashers trying to bait a discussion. Largely a waste of time imo.

@Buttonstc “Why talk about something which is largely irrelevant nowadays?”

There are many bible literalists out there, and they’re having a major impact on what’s being taught in public schools. It’s very relevant to point out things that seem to contradict a literal reading of the Bible.

I’m all too well aware of the Bible literalists, unfortunately. But this passage from Deut. Is not high on their priority list :)

@Buttonstc That’s the point. They’re happy to decimate public education standards by quoting some passages as being God’s word, but happily turn a blind eye to other passages that are harder to explain. Discussing passages like this are very relevant.

Well, I guess we just have different points of view. I don’t think that this particular passage is that hard to explain and it was put up on fb as a form of derisive finger pointing so if I had encountered it there, I wouldn’t have given it the time of day.

But that was not the intent of Dutchess who was genuinely curious. But that’s not the typical reason why most people dredge up the dregs of Deut.

Damn!
I mean Yarbles!

Only big cocks allowed through the pearly gates, those angels like em with plenty of girth…randy bastards.

You mean garbled yarbels @rojo. If yer yarbels are garbled you just have to stay outside. I don’t care if it’s raining.