Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by mattrose » Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:55 pm

I am still primarily in the 'eventual extinction' camp (though I see no solid reason to reject the idea that those in hell will be able to repent and exit hell prior to their extinction), but I found a great PROOF TEXT for eventual restoration today. I have never read it before with HELL in mind. Nor have I noticed another author using it to settle the debate b/w eventual extinction and eventual restoration (after all, proof texting is bad!).

BUT if we DID proof-text, this would be a great verse for the eventual restoration position

2 Sam 14:14b
But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by steve » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:44 pm

Yes, it is a great verse for that (It is included in a list of such verses on p.251 of my book). Of course, one can argue against it, that the woman speaking the words was not an inspired prophetess, and may have been expressing her own faulty view of God. Nonetheless, the view of God she expressed seems to have many scriptures in its favor (see the others in the list). The woman is, in any case, said to be a "wise woman" (2 Sam.14:2). This could be seen as a biblical endorsement of her insights.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

The Best Proof Text

Post by Paidion » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:32 pm

The Best Text Concerning Correction After Judgment

I think I have posted this a while ago, but I thought it might be appropriate to post it again in this thread:
I consider the following to be the best text in the Bible concerning the correction of the unrighteous after they are judged!
The Lord knows how to deliver the devout out of trial, but to reserve the unrighteous for a day of judgment, to be corrected. (2 Peter 2:9)
Here is an interlinear for your consideration:
οιδεν—κυριος— ευσεβεις εκ πειρασμου ρυεσθαι— αδικους
knows the Lord- devout—out of trial—— to deliver-unrighteous

δε -εις —ημεραν κρισεως—— κολαζομενους τηρειν
but into a day—- of judgment to be corrected to keep (2 Peter 2:9)

The whole strength of this “proof” lies in the translation of the lexical form of κολαζομενους, that is, “κολαζω” as “to correct”. I realize that some may object to this translation, but the Online Bible Greek Lexicon gives the primary meanings of “κολαζω”as:

1. to lop or prune
2. to chastise, correct, punish

Abbott-Smith's A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament gives the meanings:
1. to curtail, dock, prune
2. to check, restrain
3. to chastise, correct, punish
William Barclay wrote:The word for punishment is kolasis. The word was originally a gardening word, and its original meaning was pruning trees. In Greek there are two words for punishment, timoria and kolasis, and there is a quite definite distinction between them. Aristotle defines the difference; kolasis is for the sake of the one who suffers it; timoria is for the sake of the one who inflicts it. Plato says that no one punishes (kolazei) simply because he has done wrong - that would be to take unreasonable vengeance (timoreitai). We punish (kolazei) a wrong-doer in order that he may not do wrong again (Protagoras 323 E). Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 4.24; 7.16) defines kolasis as pure discipline, and timoria as the return of evil for evil. Aulus Gellius says that kolasis is given that a man may be corrected; timoria is given that dignity and authority may be vindicated (The Attic Nights7.14). The difference is quite clear in Greek and it is always observed. Timoria is retributive punishment. Kolasis is always given to amend and to cure.
So originally, "κολασις" (kolasis) was used to reference to the pruning of trees, shrubs, or vines with a view to correcting their growth by shaping them. Later it was used figuratively with reference to the correction of people, e.g. Children. To translate the word as “punish” is correct as long as it is understood to be reformative rather than retributive. In English, “punish” may have either connotation, although it is more often taken in the latter sense, or in the sense of administering a penalty.

In Greek, the word “τιμωρεω” has the meaning “to punish” in the retributive sense. Indeed, every lexicon I have checked gives the primary meaning as “to avenge”. Strongs indicates that the word was derived from the two words “τιμη” (honour) and “οὐρος”(guard). Put them together, and you have the concept of a person guarding his honour through vengeance. In recording Paul's own words concerning his treatment of disciples of Christ prior to Paul's becoming a disciple himself, Luke wrote:
Acts 22:5 "as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished (τιμωρεω).
Acts 26:11 "and I punished (τιμωρεω) them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.
One of the best ways to get a sense of how a Greek word is used is to note how it is used in literature. The word is used in 4 Macabees 2:12 to indicate correction of children. No good parent punishes his children out of vengeance, but corrects them out of love.

4 Macabees is thought to have been written sometime between 100 B.C. to 100 A.D., that is, in the period in which the New Testament was written. It seems the author had been strongly moved by his reading of the deeds of Antiochus Ephiphanes against the Jews in 1 and 2 Macabees. So much of his “philosophical” thought and “devout reason” centers around the history he read there. In the following sentence he uses both “τιμωρεω” and “ κολαζω“ in a single sentence!

T
he tyrant Antiochus was both punished (τιμωρεω) on earth and is being corrected (κολαζω) after his death. (4 Maccabees 18:5)
The Judaistic belief at the time was that people's souls survive death. So the sentence seems to say that while Antochus's enemies got their revenge on him and his armies here on earth, God began to correct his soul after death. The author apparently held that post-mortem punishment was remedial. Otherwise he would not have chosen the word “κολαζω” but would have maintained the word “τιμωρεω” for his punishment after death, too.

Here is an example from the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel 43:10-11:
And you, son of man, show to the household of Israel, the house, and show its appearance and its arrangement,that they may cease from their sins. And they shall receive their κολασις concerning all their doings, and you shall describe the house, and its entrances and its foundation, and all its systems, and you shall make known to them all it regulations and describe them in their presence, and they shall guard all my righteous ordinances and all my commands and do them. (Ezekiel 43:10-11)
In this passage, God states His purpose in asking Ezekiel to show the house to Israel, namely that they may cease from their sins. He immediately follows this with “And they shall receive their κολασις concerning all their doings.” If God wants them to cease from their sins, and then gives them κολασις, is he punishing them retributively, or is He correcting them? The answer seems plain. Furthermore the conclusion of the matter is that the Israelites “will guard all my righteous ordinances and all my commands and do them.”

Surely this is reformation, and not mere revenge for their wrongdoing in the past.
Here is the Concordant translation of the verse in question:
The Lord is acquainted with the rescue of the devout out of trial, yet is keeping the unjust for chastening in the day of judging.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by mattrose » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:43 am

Thank for the replies guys!

Steve, I'm sorry I missed that reference in your book somehow :)

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by Paidion » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:47 am

Hi Matt. Steve wrote that "the woman speaking the words was not an inspired prophetess." Yet the text does affirm (both in the Hebrew and in the Greek) that she was a wise woman (Chapt 13 Verse 2). She stated that God will not take away life. Of course, that statement will have to be discounted by those who believe that God deliberately kills people.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by steve » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:20 am

those who believe that God deliberately kills people.
Those like Luke? (Acts 12:23)

I think Elijah (an actual inspired prophet) also held the view that God killed people (2 Kings 1:10), as did Isaiah (Isa.10:5-6).

Then there was that fellow that you think was so misguided about God—Moses. He thought God sent a great flood on the earth, killing everyone (Gen.6:13, 17—citing God's actual words to Noah)—and also that He rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19:24)—and that He killed Pharaoh's armies in the Red Sea (Ex.14:27)—and that He opened the earth to swallow Korah and his fellow rebels (Num.16:30-35).

Jesus seemed to take, at face value, the Genesis accounts of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:17, 29). He also indicated that God sent the Roman armies to wipe out Jerusalem (Matt.22:7).

We have, of course, discussed this a number of times previously. As I pointed out then, I do again: To say God would never kill anyone is to pit one's own sentiments against the inspired prophets (including Moses, the prophet more intimate with God than any other—Num.12:6-8), against the views of the man who wrote more than a quarter of the New Testament, and against the words of Jesus Himself. What authorities remain from which to draw a contrary position?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Does God Kill People?

Post by Paidion » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:55 pm

Steve, you wrote:
those who believe that God deliberately kills people.
Those like Luke? (Acts 12:23)
Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.

Luke himself affirms that it was the worms which killed Herod. How do you suppose Luke would know that God (or his angel) sent the worms? Could it have been his explanation of Herod's death since Herod was arrogant, and accepted worship as "a god and not a man"?
I think Elijah (an actual inspired prophet) also held the view that God killed people (2 Kings 1:10), as did Isaiah (Isa.10:5-6).
I don't doubt that Elijah was an inspired prophet. But inspired prophets sometimes make mistakes in interpreting events as being acts of God when they are not, and thereby speaking as the voice of God, especially in the days of ancient Israel when the revelation of God was far from complete, as well as the comprehension of His character.
Then there was that fellow that you think was so misguided about God—Moses. He thought God sent a great flood on the earth, killing everyone (Gen.6:13, 17—citing God's actual words to Noah)—and also that He rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19:24)—and that He killed Pharaoh's armies in the Red Sea (Ex.14:27)—and that He opened the earth to swallow Korah and his fellow rebels (Num.16:30-35).
Yes, Moses often understood destructive events as the work of God. He understood that God killed the man who steadied the ark, because he touched the ark. Oh yes, we justify God's supposed act, by saying the men should have been carrying the ark on staves rather than pushing it on a cart. If that were the problem, then why didn't God kill them all? Why just the one who steadied it?

And then, of course, inspired Moses gave the instruction to cut off a woman's hand— to show no mercy, if she grabbed the genitals of a man who was attacking her husband. This we accept without question; Moses was the inspired prophet. But then we complain that the Muslims are unfeeling and unloving people because they cut off the hands of thieves.
Jesus seemed to take, at face value, the Genesis accounts of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:17, 29).
You must have meant Luke 17:27
They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Jesus affirms that the flood occurred and destroyed "them all". He didn't say that God did it.
"but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven [the sky] and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:29)
Again, Jesus did not say that God caused this unusual rain of "fire" from the sky.
He also indicated that God sent the Roman armies to wipe out Jerusalem (Matt.22:7).
I don't think He indicated that. He gave a parable no doubt symbolizing God's servants the Jews, or at least the Pharisees, who would not come to the "wedding feast" (become disciples of the Messiah) so that God had to go out to "go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding," that is, invite gentiles to become disciples. As for verse 7, it is true that the ancient Hebrews killed God's prophets, and that the Jews in Jesus' day killed God's Son, but that God wreaked vengeance upon the Jews in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. in order to punish them for what the ancient Jews did to the prophets, and what the leaders in their day did to Jesus, by having the Romans isolate the city until many starved to death, and some ate their children, seems to me but an intepretation, and a horrible one at that, to ascribe such cruelty to God.

Many claim also that God caused the Jews in Hitler's holocaust to be killed in those horrific ways, torture and starvation and the gas chambers. Yes, in general the Jews didn't accept their Messiah when He came. Does that imply that they deserved such atrocities as were wreaked upon then in 70 A.D. and in the early 20th century? The Muslims don't accept Jesus as Messiah either. For them He is but another prophet of God. Why doesn't God wipe them out? Or the nations which persecute God's people and have them put to death. Does God just pick and choose?

Many in the middle ages were of the mindset that God kills people who don't toe the line. They carried out the same practice in their on form of Christianity. Catholics and Protestants, including Martin Luther killed Jews and Anabaptists in the name of God. They were merely imitating the practice of God's slaying of HIs enemies as they believed Him to do.

Many today who are of the mindset that God kills people. Whenever there is a great cataclysm in the world, they interpret it as God punishing some group of people. The occurence of major tsunamis has been so interpreted. The attack on the twin towers resulting in its collapse, has been interpreted as God punishing United States, etc., etc.

Jesus was the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), and He never put anyone to death, nor did He command His disciples to put anyone to death, but quite the contrary—to pray for their enemies and good to them. IN THAT WAY, they would be like the heavenly Father, who is "kind to the ungrateful and the evil people." (Luke 6:35). Never did Jesus say that the Father hated evildoers or killed them.
To say God would never kill anyone is to pit one's own sentiments against
1. the inspired prophets (including Moses, the prophet more intimate with God than any other—Num.12:6-8).
I've dealt with this one.
2. against the views of the man who wrote more than a quarter of the New Testament.
Do you mean the apostle Paul? Where did Paul affirm that God kills people?
3. and against the words of Jesus Himself.
No. Jesus never affirmed that God kills people. Rather He spoke of God's kindness even to ungrateful and evil people.
What authorities remain from which to draw a contrary position?
No other authorities are needed. Jesus and his apostles are suffiecient authority for me.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by steve » Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:58 pm

Paidion,

You wrote:
No other authorities are needed. Jesus and his apostles are suffiecient authority for me.
Since Jesus and the apostles never denied that God killed people, you clearly cannot have gotten your doctrine about this from them. If Jesus said that God is kind to His enemies, this is manifestly true. The Old Testament also affirms this. It also affirms that He is the judge of the earth, in agreement with Jesus (Matt.24:50-51; 25:31-46) and the apostles (Rom.2:5-10; 1 Cor.5:13; 1 Pet.1:17), and that He has sometimes exercised that office in executing those who deserved to be executed (There are those who are worthy of death, after all—Rom.1:32; Acts 25:11).

You are suggesting that you know God's actions better than did Moses (who spoke daily with God, face to face), than Elijah (whom, you must think, mistook a natural phenomenon for an act of God, simply because it came repeatedly at the prayer of the prophet), than Isaiah, than Jesus (Yes, Jesus, in confirming the flood and the destruction of the cities of the plain was referring to the stories as recorded in Genesis—since no other record of those things was available to Him or to His listeners), than Luke (who wrote one quarter of the New Testament, and clearly believed that the angel of the Lord executed Herod), or than the Book of Revelation (which everywhere ascribes the mortal judgments coming on the earth as being manifestations of the wrath of Jesus, "the Lamb"). You have no statement from Jesus or the apostles denying these things. It is your sentiments, not biblical exegesis that binds you to this unbiblical picture of God.

Since your position makes me curious, may I ask what is your interpretation, or explanation of the causes, of the following (since God, you believe, was not their author):

1) The banishment of Adam and Eve from to tree of life, a judgment causing their death (Gen.3:22-24);

2) The flood (which God told Noah was going to come from Him—Gen.6:13, 17)

3) The fire and brimstone from the sky (which two angels of God affirmed they were sent by God to bring down—Gen.19:13)

4) The opening, and subsequent closing, of the Red Sea (mistakenly taken, by all biblical writers, by all Jews and by all Christians, to have been God's doing);

5) The fire "from the Lord" that consumed Nadab and Abihu (Lev.10:2)

6) The opening of the earth to swallow Korah, et al (Num.16:32)

7) The hail that killed more Canaanites than did the armies of Israel, which the Bible says was cast down by Yahweh (Josh.10:11).

8) The supernatural strength given to Samson to kill three thousand Philistines in the demolition of the temple of Dagon (Judges 16:30)

9) The death of Uzzah, who touched the ark (your question about why God didn't kill the rest is not pertinent to the question of whether it was God who killed Uzzah, as the Bible affirms (2 Sam.6:7)

10) The death of 185,000 Assyrians at the walls of Jerusalem, which the Bible ascribes to the actions of "the angel of the Lord" (2 Kings 19:35)

11) The bizarre deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5)

12) The death of Herod which the scripture attributes to the stroke of "an angel of the Lord" (Acts 12:23)

13) The whole Book of Revelation, in which Jesus threatens to "kill with death" Jezebel and her children (Rev.2:23), and in which every calamity is described as proceeding directly from the counsel of heaven (e.g., 6:1-7; 8:5-6; etc.), including "the wrath of the Lamb" (6:16). Or are you wishing to be numbered with those who "take away from the words of this book" of whom Jesus says, "I will take away his part from the book (or the tree) of life"? (21:19)

These are sincere, not rhetorical, questions. I really think that, having made such audacious accusations against the writers of scripture, that you should provide godly, honest, non-agenda-driven, alternative explanations of all these passages. You should answer, additionally, the following:

A. Do Moses and all the Old Testament writers "take the name of Yahweh in vain" by attributing such actions to Him as you believe go against His nature?

B. Was Peter mistaken when he said that the Old Testament prophets did not speak from themselves, but only as they were "moved by the Holy Spirit"? (2 Pet.1:20-21).

C. Did Paul misdirect when he affirmed that all the Old Testament scriptures are profitable for Christian teaching? (2 Tim.3:16-17)

D. Was Jesus wrong when He said that David wrote Psalm 110 "by the Holy Spirit" (Mark 12:36)? The New Testament writers quoted Psalm 110 more than any other Old Testament passage. It is a short Psalm, but not too short to include the following actions, attributed to God (acting in the presence of Christ):

The Lord is at Your [Messiah's] right hand;
He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.
He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
He shall execute the heads of many countries.
(Psalm 110:5-6)

Since this Psalm attributes a great deal of killing to God, and since none less than Jesus declared that David wrote this Psalm by the Holy Spirit, it seems as if it is just as I said—you are standing against Jesus, as well as the rest of the Bible, by denying what the Law, the Prophets, the writings, and the New Testament all record and affirm. Is there no authority that would be capable of changing your mind?

Jesus said that He would cut certain people in two if He should find them acting in a certain way (Matt.24:50-51). Can you explain how Jesus came to be so mistaken about His own character?

With almost every prophet, apostle and the Messiah getting God's character so wrong, do you suppose it might be time for an improved version of the Bible, written by someone who sees things more accurately, like yourself? I fear my sarcasm may offend, but do you not see that it is the logical conclusion one must take, if your view of God is so much superior to that espoused by every biblical writer (see points 1 through 13, as well as points A through D, above)?

The Gnostics held a view similar to yours. They thought God's judgment actions were unworthy of the true Father of Jesus. They solved the problem differently from you, though. They said that the God of the Old Testament was not the true God, the Father of Jesus, but that it was the demiurge (or the devil), whom the Jews mistook for the true God. Jesus, however, insisted that the one He called His Father was one and the same with the one the Jews called their God (John 8:54). So, either the Gnostics were wrong, or else Jesus was.

P.S. The cutting off of a woman's hand is less severe than the death penalty. The thing about these Mosaic penalties that seems to be overlooked by those who criticize them as too harsh, is that these penalties are only affixed to crimes that are entirely voluntary (and thus 100% avoidable). The Israelite who did not wish to be put to death could simply avoid murdering, committing adultery, striking or cursing his parents, kidnapping, blaspheming Yahweh, worshiping idols, practicing witchcraft or perverted sex acts, or working on the Sabbath.

The obvious truth is that anyone who sincerely determined to do so, could avoid committing any of these acts. If we were in Israel, I am sure that you or I would find it easy enough to avoid these behaviors. A man who has no power to restrain himself in these crimes, even with the penalty of death hanging over his head, would be a man, apparently, that the world would be better off without. Imagine a world which allowed men to be at liberty who simply "couldn't help themselves" and had to murder, commit adultery, beat up their parents, kidnap other people's children, etc. If these men were unpunished, we would have to conclude the world to be ruled by a perverse ruler.

Likewise any woman, who for some reason cannot restrain herself from groping a man not her husband, has got problems requiring extreme remedies. I can easily avoid such behavior, and I think anyone could, if they wished to. If I could not restrain myself from grabbing other people's genitals, then you might be doing me a real service in removing such a pestilential hand! Even Jesus said that (Matt.5:30)!

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by Paidion » Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:38 pm

I fear my sarcasm may offend.
Dear Steve. Don't worry. Your sarcasm does not offend me. I understand why your position as so important to you that you are induced to use it.

I am well aware of the gnostic position. I do not subscribe to it, but at least they were aware that there was a problem—a contrast between the way Yahweh is described in the Hebrew scriptures and the way Jesus described His Father.

I can go through those scriptures you have now brought forth, but I have neither the energy not the inclination to do so. In any case, my explanations will be similar to those which I have already given.

Given your view, I ask you to explain a few simple facts about Jesus.

1. There is no record of Jesus having killed anyone while He walked this earth, nor even a record of Him having physically struck another human being.
2. Jesus always described His Father as loving. He never quoted a Hebrew Scripture which records that His Father killed anyone.
3. Jesus never asked His disciples to injure or kill anyone, but instructed them to love their enemies and do good to them. In that way, they would be "sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil." With your view, they would be sons of the Most High, if they drew out their swords and cut off the heads of their enemies—kill them just as you believe the Heavenly Father does.
4. If Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), then why are His heart and actions so different from that of the Father with regard to injuring and killing people. (I know you refer to Revelation to try to show that Jesus did it too or will do it in the future—Revelation, the writing of somebody named "John" who had a vision filled with metaphorical language which supposedly represents something in the past, or maybe the future—no one knows which, or what these visions represent. (And why did so many early Christians reject the book?)
5. Why did Jesus ask His disciples to love and do good to their enemies? Why didn't He instruct them to go out and get revenge on them, and kill them as God supposedly did according the the OT records?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Perry
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by Perry » Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:00 pm

Hi Steve,
steve wrote: Likewise any woman, who for some reason cannot restrain herself from groping a man not her husband, has got problems requiring extreme remedies. I can easily avoid such behavior, and I think anyone could, if they wished to.
That's not a very accurate depiction of the scripture to which Paidion refers.
Deut 25:11 “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, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”