oath: hand under thigh

[WordWolf]

I'm requesting the assistance of all those here who have their own Bible resources,

commentaries, and so on.

Genesis 24:2-3 (KJV)

"And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that rules over all that he had,

'Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:

And I will make thee swear...'"

Genesis 24:9 (KJV)

"And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him

concerning that matter."

====

Now, vpw taught that this meant that the man swearing put his hands on the external

reproductive organs, as many of you are aware. (He said the guy grabbed the

other guy's nuts when swearing.)

I've been doing some checking.

I can find references to the thigh ITSELF being symbolic of the 'power' of the

reproductive organ. (That is, that the actual, LITERAL thigh has that connotation-

not that the word "thigh" MEANS the reproductive organs.)

I can find a notice that a "few" (no names) modern readers think that the word

"thigh" should be translated as vpw did.

I can find a few anti-Christian websites that translate the verses this way.

I can find a note that John Calvin said (contemporary to his lifetime) that-in the East-

they STILL swear with the hand on the thigh in a few places.

(I can't find the references to it in use now.)

I can find references to people thinking that the word "testify" or "swear"

is connected to the word "testes", when the truth of the matter is that

the word "testari" is the origin of "testimony".

("Testari" meaning "third", as a "witness" is a "neutral THIRD-party".)

So, having exhausted most of my own resources,

I turn to you guys.

What do your resources say?

Is there actual merit in this claim?

Is this another case of "I found a secret which is the truth-we all have

secret knowledge!"

Is it another case of a man's obsession with his own reproductive organs?

[CoolWaters]

Did this Yahoo! search and came up with quite a bit of information. This site is very interesting, imo.

I'd never heard this in twi...but knew immediately from the title of the thread that twi would interpret the meaning to have sexual connotations. Duh me. Sigh.

[Nottawayfer]

All of this makes me think about VP's schpeel about Paul being a sex pervert and him running out of the church service for the audacity that the man had to teach such a thing!!! I wonder if that really happened, or did he make it up for class material?

There was definitely issues with TWI in the sexual category (i.e., masturbation the original sin; Eve was a lesbian; giving your Word and grabbing your crotch). I think there was common factor of error going on here.

[Radar OReilly]

Okay WW, I have a question for YOU!

WHY ON EARTH DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION????

ROR

oh, and another question.........how on earth did you get my private home email address to send your "all mailing" to? :blink:

[Cynic]

I can find a note that John Calvin said (contemporary to his lifetime) that-in the East-

they STILL swear with the hand on the thigh in a few places.

(I can't find the references to it in use now.)

I’m no pundit on Calvin (I’ve read more of Calvinists than of Calvin), but found the

following by doing a search in "The John Calvin Collection," by Ages Software. It is

a translation of what Calvin actually wrote. I'm actually a bit more interested in

what Meredith Kline and John Chrysostom might have written about this, but have

not found anything by them concerning this.

From Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis:

Put, I pray thee, thy hand. It is sufficiently obvious that this was a solemn

form of swearing; but whether Abraham had first introduced it, or whether

he had received it from his fathers, is unknown. The greater part of Jewish

writers declare that Abraham was the author of it; because, in their

opinion, this ceremony is of the same force as if his servant had sworn by

the sanctity of the divine covenant, since circumcision was in that part of

his person. But Christian writers conceive that the hand was placed under

the thigh in honor of the blessed seed. Yet it may be that these earliest

fathers had something different in view; and there are those among the

Jews who assert that it was a token of subjection, when the servant was

sworn on the thigh of his master. The more plausible opinion is, that the

ancients in this manner swore by Christ; but because I do not willingly

follow uncertain conjectures, I leave the question undecided. Nevertheless

the latter supposition appears to me the more simple; namely, that

servants, when they swore fidelity to their lords, were accustomed to

testify their subjection by this ceremony, especially since they say that

this practice is still observed in certain parts of the East. That it was no

profane rite, which would detract anything from the glory of God, we infer

from the fact that the name of God is interposed. It is true that the servant

placed his hand under the thigh of Abraham, but he is adjured by God, the

Creator of heaven and earth; and this is the sacred method of adjuration,

whereby God is invoked as the witness and the judge; for this honor

cannot be transferred to another without casting a reproach upon God.

Moreover, we are taught, by the example of Abraham, that they do not sin

who demand an oath for a lawful cause; for this is not recited among the

faults of Abraham, but is recorded to his peculiar praise. It has already

been shown that the affair was of the utmost importance, since it was undertaken

in order that the covenant of God might be ratified among his posterity. He was therefore

impelled, by just reasons, most anxiously to provide for the accomplishment of his object, by

taking an oath of his servant: and beyond doubt, the disposition, and even the virtue of Isaac,

were so conspicuous, that in addition to his riches, he had such

endowments of mind and person, that many would earnestly desire

affinity with him. His father, therefore, fears lest, after his own death, the

inhabitants of the land should captivate Isaac by their allurements. Now,

though Isaac has hitherto steadfastly resisted those allurements, the snares

of which few young men escape, Abraham still fears lest, by shame and

the dread of giving offense, he may be overcome. The holy man wished to

anticipate these and similar dangers, when he bound his servant to fidelity,

by interposing an oath; and it may be that some secret necessity also

impelled him to take this course.

From Strong's Hebrew Lexicon in a download on my computer of the OnlineBible, the word

translated "thigh" in Genesis 24:2 means:

03409...yarek yaw-rake’; from an unused root meaning to be soft; the thigh

(from its fleshy softness); by euphem. the generative parts; figuratively, a shank,

flank, side:— X body, loins, shaft, side, thigh.

The expression under consideration also appears in English Bible versions in Genesis 47:29.

(see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...=8;49;47;31;46; )

Edited May 31, 2006 by Cynic

[George Aar]

And then there's the thing about "testicles" and "testify" being from the same root word.

But, ... can we talk about that on a "family" forum?

Oooops, I see WW already coverd that...

(and well he should!)

[GT]

WordWolf,

Remind me to never to swear an oath with you. :)

Here's the best way to do it:

[socks]

Grab my nuts...

I'll swear.

(sorry, somebody had to...)

[bliss]

Here is what Dake's Annotated Reference Bible had to say:

[Put ... thy hand under my thigh] According to ancient Jewish expositors, putting the hand on the thigh (representing the organs of generation) was most sacred. According to Indian custom, the act was a sign of subjection (cp. Genesis 47:29-31). God touched Jacob's thigh when He changed his name as a sign of blessing (Genesis 32:24-32; cp. Genesis 14:22; Genesis 47:29-31).

[Rejoice]

WHAT????? VP taught that Paul was a sex pervert????

I must have been gone by then.....when in the heck was this??

[Vyctorya911]

I think the information in the link Cool Waters explains it pretty detailed & logically. It's the most reasonable thing I've seen.

Vyctorya

[Nottawayfer]

WHAT????? VP taught that Paul was a sex pervert????

I must have been gone by then.....when in the heck was this??

No, VP did not teach that Paul was a sex pervert. He attended a Sunday church service where the teaching he heard was blaming Paul of being a sex pervert. Remember his line in PFAL? When he left in the middle of the service, someone met him going out saying something to the fact that he wished he could stay for the rest of the service. VP replied something like it had been a disgrace for him to have been a part of this fellowship today.

Yeah, he left all high and mighty. I realize that Paul probably was not a sex pervert, but I bet that teaching hit VP right in the conscience bone (if the story is true). I find it hard to believe any of his stories were his own. I think he borrowed many.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Wayfer Not

[WordWolf]

WHAT????? VP taught that Paul was a sex pervert????

I must have been gone by then.....when in the heck was this??

No, that's not what was said....

All of this makes me think about VP's schpeel about Paul being a sex pervert and him running out of the church service for the audacity that the man had to teach such a thing!!! I wonder if that really happened, or did he make it up for class material?

There was definitely issues with TWI in the sexual category (i.e., masturbation the original sin; Eve was a lesbian; giving your Word and grabbing your crotch). I think there was common factor of error going on here.

Here's what happened...

vpw made a claim during the taped pfal.

That claim was one of the references to how bad Christian ministers are.

It was when he was covering Paul's thorn in the flesh.

He said that the conclusion he made was that whatever affliction the

minister had, he claimed Paul had-if it was a foot injury, he would say

Paul had a hurt foot.

vpw claimed he once attended a sermon where the minister said that

'Paul was a sex puh-vert--that he had a physical weakness for women.'

vpw claimed he stood up, said "Shut up!" and stormed out of the room.

So, vpw never said HE thought Paul was a sex puh-vert.

Edited May 31, 2006 by WordWolf

[WordWolf]

...He attended a Sunday church service where the teaching he heard was blaming Paul of being a sex pervert. Remember his line in PFAL? When he left in the middle of the service, someone met him going out saying something to the fact that he wished he could stay for the rest of the service. VP replied something like it had been a disgrace for him to have been a part of this fellowship today.

I think you confused this account with the OTHER account

where he talked about those evil "establishment" ministers.

The Paul was a puh-vert one, he stood up, said 'shut up!" and left.

End of story.

The OTHER one was where he AND HIS FAMILY attended a church

that had a guest speaker. The guest speaker basically said the

Bible was full of fiction and so on..

His son (Don) had more sense than he did, since he excused

himself not long into the sermon, saying he couldnt sit and listen

to this. Afterwards, vpw and mrs got up to leave.

An usher or whoever stopped him, and said they were sorry

he had to leave.

vpw supposedly replied

"Sir, it has been a DISGRACE

for me to have been here today.

Then I gave him one of my brochures for power for abundant living."

Two different stories.

Yeah, he left all high and mighty. I realize that Paul probably was not a sex pervert, but I bet that teaching hit VP right in the conscience bone (if the story is true). I find it hard to believe any of his stories were his own. I think he borrowed many.

I'd agree on that...

[WordWolf]

Okay WW, I have a question for YOU!

WHY ON EARTH DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION????

Honestly,

it's been on one of my "back burners" for some time now.

It came up in a discussion here quite some time ago,

and that wasn't the right time to question whether or not

it ever happened.

However,

something about it was particularly bugging me today

(no idea WHAT, but SOMETHING)

so I gave it my shot, then submitted the question

for everyone else.

For that matter, it reminded me of something else,

but one question at a time.

ROR

oh, and another question.........how on earth did you get my private home email address to send your "all mailing" to? :blink:

What???

Maybe someone's spoofed my address.

Check the GSC'ers who HAVE your address,

AND have mine, and have them do a virus test.

Can't be many of them-few have MINE.

[markomalley]

A note on the New American Bible for Gen 24:2-3 says the following: Put your hand under my thigh: the symbolism of this act was apparently connected with the Hebrew concept of children issuing from their father's "thigh" (Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5). Perhaps the man who took such an oath was thought to bring the curse of sterility on himself if he did not fulfill his sworn promise. Jacob made Joseph swear in the same way (Genesis 47:29). In both these instances, the oath was taken to carry out the last request of a man upon his death.

Another possibility that I read in a few other sources is that a person, in doing this, was swearing upon his future progeny, since "under thigh" is the source of those children.

In that context it makes sense.

Of course, TWI would assign some type of "sexual" connotation to this, vice a type of "procreative" connotation.

[T-Bone]

The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament editors Walton, Matthews & Chavalas offers this on Genesis 24: 1-9, swearing oaths: "An oath is always sworn in the name of a god…Sometimes, as in this case, a gesture is added to the oath. The gesture is usually symbolic of the task to be performed by the oath taker. For instance, by placing his hands inside Abraham's thigh [in the vicinity of or on the genitals], the servant ties his oath of obedience to the acquisition of a wife for Isaac and thus the perpetuation of Abraham's line."

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50 by Victor Hamilton comments on Genesis 24: 2: "…Abraham instructs his servant: Put your hand under my thigh, a prelude to the servant's act of swearing. thigh is undoubtedly a euphemism for genitalia, in the light of passages such as Gen.46:26 and Exod.1:5, where a man's children are said to come from his thigh. Holding Abraham's membrum in his hand, the servant promises to carry out Abraham's wishes. The significance of this procedure is uncertain. It is unlikely that this act should be read as a self-imprecation by the servant, calling down sterility on himself or extirpation for his children…R.D. Freedman has suggested that taking the membrum – now circumcised as a covenant sign – into the hand is a way of invoking the presence of God at this moment between master and servant. Or it may simply be a way in which the servant reassures Abraham that he will honestly and truthfully carry out his master's wish. One may discover some clue as to the significance of this act by comparing the only two episodes in the OT that connect oath taking with placing the hand under another's thigh: Gen.24:2 and 47:29. In both cases the one who asks another to place his hand under his thigh is elderly…In both cases the real concern of Abraham and Jacob is with family matters. Abraham desires the right woman for his son, and Jacob wishes to be buried with his ancestors…In touching the genitalia of Abraham and Jacob, the servant and Joseph are placing themselves under oath faithfully to expedite the last wishes of two elderly patriarchs on family matters."

And from The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament editors Walvoord & Zuck on Genesis 24: 1-9 a little variation on the meaning of the gesture: "...Eliezer's putting his hand under the patriarch's thigh [cf. 47:29] was a solemn sign that if the oath were not carried out, the children who would be born to Abraham would avenge the servant's unfaithfulness."

[edited by T-Bone - no one under 17 permitted to read this post]

Edited May 31, 2006 by T-Bone

[Kevlar2000]

Speaking as a notary public....

Thank God times and customs have changed. :)

Maybe it was just their way of saying, "I'm not jerking you around - and I can prove it!"

[WordWolf]

A note on the New American Bible for Gen 24:2-3 says the following: Put your hand under my thigh: the symbolism of this act was apparently connected with the Hebrew concept of children issuing from their father's "thigh" (Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5). Perhaps the man who took such an oath was thought to bring the curse of sterility on himself if he did not fulfill his sworn promise. Jacob made Joseph swear in the same way (Genesis 47:29). In both these instances, the oath was taken to carry out the last request of a man upon his death.

Another possibility that I read in a few other sources is that a person, in doing this, was swearing upon his future progeny, since "under thigh" is the source of those children.

In that context it makes sense.

Of course, TWI would assign some type of "sexual" connotation to this, vice a type of "procreative" connotation.

Well, that information is all part of the "one possibility."

Either the guy swearing did the grab, or he didn't do the grab.

So far, that argued AGAINST the grab.

[WordWolf]

The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament editors Walton, Matthews & Chavalas offers this on Genesis 24: 1-9, swearing oaths: "An oath is always sworn in the name of a god…Sometimes, as in this case, a gesture is added to the oath. The gesture is usually symbolic of the task to be performed by the oath taker. For instance, by placing his hands inside Abraham's thigh [in the vicinity of or on the genitals], the servant ties his oath of obedience to the acquisition of a wife for Isaac and thus the perpetuation of Abraham's line."

In other words, the IVP BBC is not taking sides on this one.

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50 by Victor Hamilton comments on Genesis 24: 2: "…Abraham instructs his servant: Put your hand under my thigh, a prelude to the servant's act of swearing. thigh is undoubtedly a euphemism for genitalia, in the light of passages such as Gen.46:26 and Exod.1:5, where a man's children are said to come from his thigh. Holding Abraham's membrum in his hand, the servant promises to carry out Abraham's wishes. The significance of this procedure is uncertain. It is unlikely that this act should be read as a self-imprecation by the servant, calling down sterility on himself or extirpation for his children…R.D. Freedman has suggested that taking the membrum – now circumcised as a covenant sign – into the hand is a way of invoking the presence of God at this moment between master and servant. Or it may simply be a way in which the servant reassures Abraham that he will honestly and truthfully carry out his master's wish. One may discover some clue as to the significance of this act by comparing the only two episodes in the OT that connect oath taking with placing the hand under another's thigh: Gen.24:2 and 47:29. In both cases the one who asks another to place his hand under his thigh is elderly…In both cases the real concern of Abraham and Jacob is with family matters. Abraham desires the right woman for his son, and Jacob wishes to be buried with his ancestors…In touching the genitalia of Abraham and Jacob, the servant and Joseph are placing themselves under oath faithfully to expedite the last wishes of two elderly patriarchs on family matters."

"Undoubtedly"?

I get suspicious when a minority position is irrefutable or unable to be doubted.

That usually means that further scrutiny shows it is an unwarranted assumption that someone's

trying to avoid defending by claiming it's unassailable.

I noticed that he can make no stronger case than anyone for the opposing POV,

and they didn't say theirs was "unassailable..."

And from The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament editors Walvoord & Zuck on Genesis 24: 1-9 a little variation on the meaning of the gesture: "...Eliezer's putting his hand under the patriarch's thigh [cf. 47:29] was a solemn sign that if the oath were not carried out, the children who would be born to Abraham would avenge the servant's unfaithfulness."

[edited by T-Bone - no one under 17 permitted to read this post]

So, he's supporting the minority position-no "grab" was involved.

Has anyone found support for vpw's and Victor Hamilton's position other than

"this undoubtedly means that"?

[CoolWaters]

A question...

Did/does anybody seriously think this refers to crotch grabbing...?

[WordWolf]

So, I take it,

NONE of our pundits can find anything substantive to support this beyond one

man's claim that "obviously it means this"?

[WordWolf]

This was another of the "everything's about sex and the sex organs" teachings that twi floated...

[johniam]

I'm wondering where the word 'swearing' in the bible ever got associated with current 4 letter words. At least nobody in TWI ever grabbed anybody's crotch to get ordained or anything...did they?????

[doojable]

Why is this here and not down in "Doctrinal?"