his son Absalom’s defeat and death.—2 Sam. 18:19-32; see CUSH No. 2.

CUSTODY

“[1] The care and keeping of anything; . . . [2] The detainer of a man’s person by virtue of lawful process or authority; actual imprisonment.”—Black’s, Dictionary of Law, 1933, 3d ed.

The Biblical law most clearly explaining the responsibilities of a custodian is outlined at Exodus 22:10-13, involving animals entrusted to another. This law, undoubtedly based on an earlier patriarchal law (Gen. 31:39), states: “In case a man should give his fellow . . . any domestic animal to keep, and it does die or get maimed or gets led off while nobody is looking, . . . the other is not to make compensation. But if they should for a fact be stolen from him, he is to make compensation to their owner. If it should for a fact be torn by a wild beast, he is to bring it as evidence. For something torn by a wild beast he is not to make compensation.”—Gen. 30:31; 1 Ki. 20:39.

When a shepherd or herdsman said he would keep or guard a flock or herd, he was indicating legal acceptance of the custody of these animals. He was guaranteeing the owner that they would be fed and not stolen, or else compensation would be paid. However, his responsibility was not absolute, for the above law absolved the guardian of liability in the case of an occurrence beyond normal human control, such as attack by wild beasts. To be relieved of the responsibility of custody, though, he had to submit evidence to the owner, as, for example, the torn carcass. The owner, on examination, was bound to return a verdict of innocence on the part of the custodian.

The same principle applied in general to any entrusted property, even in family relationships, i.e., the oldest brother was considered the legal guardian of his younger brothers and sisters. Hence, we can understand eldest son Reuben’s concern for Joseph’s life, as recorded at Genesis 37:18-30, when the other brothers spoke of killing him. “He said: ‘Let us not strike his soul fatally.’ . . . ‘Do not spill blood. . . . do not lay a violent hand upon him.’ His purpose was to deliver him out of their hand in order to return him to his father.” And when Reuben discovered Joseph’s absence, his anxiety was so extreme “he ripped his garments apart,” and exclaimed: “The child is gone! And I—where am I really to go?” He knew that he could be held accountable for the loss of Joseph. To escape responsibility the brothers shrewdly fabricated evidence to the effect that Joseph had been killed by a wild beast. This they did by soaking Joseph’s striped garment in goat’s blood. They then submitted this evidence to Jacob, his father and patriarchal judge, who absolved Reuben of any responsibility because he concluded that Joseph had been killed, as represented by Joseph’s half brothers.—Gen. 37:31-33.

At Galatians 3:19-25, a spiritual application of the terms “guarded” and “custody” is made. Paul says that the Law made transgressions manifest and that “the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin.” But he continues: “However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed.” He thereby emphasized how natural Israel was in spiritual custody, being guarded or kept by the Law, until the faith toward Christ arrived.

Custody as used by the Bible in the second sense means the detention of a person. An example is the half Israelite who abused Jehovah’s name while in the camp of Israel. After he transgressed the Law, the account states: “Then they committed him into custody till there should be a distinct declaration to them according to the saying of Jehovah.” (Lev. 24:10-16, 23) As a rule Israel did not commit criminals into any extended custody, because they were required to execute justice swiftly. (Josh. 7:20, 22-25) However, in this case, as well as the case of the sabbath breaker at Numbers 15:32-36, a clarification of the law was being awaited; but as soon as Jehovah’s saying on the matter was clear, the sentence was immediately executed. Similarly, Peter and the other apostles were committed into custody, though unjustly, pending trial before the Sanhedrin on the following day. (Acts 4:3; 5:17, 18) The Scriptures also take note of the fact that Jeremiah was unjustly put in custody, not merely being held for trial, but actually imprisoned.—Jer. 37:21.

CUTH, CUTHAH

(Cuʹthah).

Both “Cuth” and “Cuthah” refer to the same original home of a people moved by the king of Assyria to the cities of Samaria after Israel’s exiling in 740 B.C.E. (2 Ki. 17:23, 24, 30) The deportees from Cuthah and other locations were, however, plagued with man-killing lions and, on appealing to the Assyrian king for aid, were supplied with a priest formerly of the northern kingdom of Israel. Since the worship practiced in Israel had long been disapproved by God (1 Ki. 13:33, 34; 16:31-33), this priest’s services failed to produce genuine worshipers of Jehovah, so that “it was of their own gods that [the colonists] proved to be worshipers,” those from Cuthah continuing to serve their god Nergal. The race formed by the intermarrying of the ‘people of Cuthah’ and other nations with the remaining Israelites came to be generally called “Samaritan” or, according to the Talmud, “Cuthean.” This latter designation was apparently used because of the predominance of people from Cuthah among the original settlers.—2 Ki. 17:25-41.

The discovery of contract tablets at Tell Ibrahim, twenty miles (32.2 kilometers) NE of Babylon, containing the name Kutu (the Akkadian equivalent of Cuth), has led most geographers to identify Tell Ibrahim with the Biblical Cuthah. The indications are that Cuthah was at one time among the more important cities in the Babylonian Empire and was also probably quite extensive, as the mound marking it today is some sixty feet (18.3 meters) high and two miles (3.2 kilometers) in circumference. What is believed to be the site of an ancient temple dedicated to Nergal is pointed out amid these ruins in accord with the Biblical statement that “the men of Cuth” were devotees of that god.—2 Ki. 17:29, 30.

CUTTING OFF

[from Heb., ka·rathʹ].

In Israel, when used regarding a punishment for violation of the Law, it meant a cutting off in death. Some Rabbinical authorities believe that it merely constituted expulsion from the congregation of Israel, though they differ widely in opinion. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by J. H. Hertz (Soncino Press) says, on page 493: “In most of the offences mentioned, the penalty prescribed is death. With the remainder, the culprits were expelled from the Community and presumably from the country, since their presence contaminated the land.” The Soncino Chumash, by Dr. A. Cohen, comments on Leviticus 23:29, 30, which says: “Every soul that will not be afflicted on this very day must be cut off from his people. As for any soul that will do any sort of work on this very day, I must destroy that soul from among his people.” It gives the opinion of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: “There is a difference between this [latter] punishment and ‘cutting off,’ but I am unable to explain it.” Rabbi Rashi’s opinion is also given: “It implies that by ‘cutting off’ is meant ‘being lost’ (but recoverable).”

By examining the Scripture texts naming the offenses for which this punishment is prescribed it can be determined that it has reference to the death penalty, executed either by the authorities in Israel or by God himself. The crimes for which cutting off are prescribed are those of a most serious nature. They include disrespect of Jehovah (Israel’s God and King), idolatry, child sacrifice, spiritism, desecration of sacred things and disgusting practices,