That I may Know HIM - A Devotional

Day 27: When Wives Meddle in Men's Matters

Day 27: When Wives Meddle in Men's Matters

-------------------------------------------------------------

In Deuteronomy 25:4, the Bible states, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” (NIV).  About 1,450 years later, Paul refers to this regulation twice in the New Testament (as if once was not enough) and states :

For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward (1 Timothy 5:18).

9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? (1 Corinthians 9:9-11).

Paul pointed out that this instruction about animals was merely a prefiguration of the minister who treads grains in the vineyard of God. “Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written.” God was thinking ultimately about man, not animals.

Seven verses later in the same book of Deuteronomy, we come upon another instruction about how wives ought not to meddle in the affairs of men, no matter how aggrieved they might have been.  Like the earlier commandment about oxen which, according to Paul, had a relevance beyond its time and immediate referent, this also, to my mind, has a value larger than merely stated. 

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity (Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV).

Should not a wife defend her husband?  If the husband has been provoked enough to engage in a fight, is that not enough provocation also for her?  What if the husband had even been fighting to defend her?

No matter her grievance, no matter the matter, she is not to stretch her hand beyond limits to another man, otherwise, she forfeits that hand altogether.  How dare she violate his holy sanctuary?  She has stretched forth her hand to threaten that which makes the man a man.  She has threatened to castrate him, to reduce him from man into a mere thing; to make him, as the Americans would say, a sissy, which is what in Nigeria we would call “woman wrapper.”  For such a woman, the law says, “you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”

If the matter is so serious when a woman “reaches out” to seize a stranger by his private organ, how much more when she actually does that to her own husband? The Bible does not discuss that case, but perhaps then, she would forfeit both hands and both legs.  What does this teach us?  The lesson, to my mind, is that there are limits the woman cannot cross in her dealings with men, no matter her grief. Even in traditional African culture, a woman who disrespects men in public is often considered an embarrassment to her own husband, “if she has any,” they would stress. If a woman assaults another woman, it could be dismissed as “women's matter,” but if she verbally or physically assaults a man publicly, she stigmatises herself.

Paul addressed similar concerns in his days, as when hestates, for example,

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law (1Corintihans 14:34).

Theological volumes have emerged over the ages on what he could or could not have meant, and some have not forgiven him for his position.  What is the divine caution behind these limits?  Several indications, even in the Scripture, would suggest that God is careful not to allow the conditions that could warrant calamities like that first female blunder in the Garden of Eden. In other words, it is actually a protective law.

Once upon the Garden of Eden, a strange guest came making unlawful proposals.  The wife, rather than tell the Stranger, “Sorry, my husband will answer you on this matter; it was he that heard God first hand, not me,” usurped the place of spokesman and head of that family unit and spoke for everyone, unsent.  She put them all in trouble.  Who knows, perhaps it is in precaution against that scenario that God begins to place public limits on the characteristic restless hand and lips of the woman. It is said that a woman speaks about 50,000 words a day, and the man just about half as much. 

There are men's matters into which a woman should never meddle in certain ways, even though she might claim, “I am involved.”  If she breaks the boundaries, she loses her hand. 

This passage speaks of a physical judgment that would come upon the wife who breaks the bounds.  Veritably, the principle is also applicable spiritually.  If that be true, one wonders how many handless wives there are in our society, especially in the Church of God! To be without a hand is to be handicapped. To be handicapped is to struggle; it is to do with difficulty what others do with ease. To be handicapped means to be deformed even in looks. Who wants to marry a handless, handicapped, deformed woman?  Who wants to keep her for a wife?  In other words, such a woman ultimately loses her natural beauty, through her public relational indiscretion.  We can then see the mysteries behind a number of broken marriages: somebody breaks a spiritual law and deforms herself.

She that has an ear…

Does this limit the woman in the exercise of her civil and administrative authority over a man?  No.  The scripture at stake addresses a private, domestic dispute.  It is not about a dispute between a female boss and her insubordinate male.  Civil authorities are recognized by God (Romans 13:1-5), whether the leaders are male or female. A man who loses his potency in such a fight should have himself to blame.

He that hath an ear…