In a recent argument with a fundamentalist, I argued that his positions of being pro war, pro death penalty (and more radically, pro assasination of doctors who perform abortions) :eek: were antithetical to Thou shall not Kill.
He argued that the true translation is Thou shall not Murder, being that some killing is justified such as in war. After some googling, I found several pages on this but nothing definitive. Seems that more than one war-happy Christian seems to embrace this translation.
Is this some sort of revisionist translating, or does God/ Jesus condone killing those who really deserve it.
Jesus is pretty clear on killing for any reason (including self-defense) being wrong.
One of the significant changes in the New Covenant was the departure from the Jewish “eye for an eye” principle- under a pure interpretation of the Gospels, the death penalty and war are Bad Things.
Of course, abortion is too, but it’s God’s job to take care of those pesky pro-choice types.
I believe that the original language does indeed use a word that means “murder” more than it means “kill.” But of course, “murder” is a socially defined and fairly arbitrary concept, and once you concede it as the dividing line, you are conceding that any killing can potentially be justified simply be redefining murder.
Maybe someone more learned in the Bible could fill me in on some other points. The guy in the OP mentioned that Jesus somehow granted powers to certain warriors to strike down untold enemies. This ring a bell with anyone?
I know the Bible is rife with contradictions, but I aways got the impression that Jesus was consistantly a turn-the-other-cheek sort of guy. He did drive out the money lenders, though without killing any of them, correct?
I figured, of all people, he’d be against the death penalty, having some rather unfortunate experience with that, himself.
St. Paul taught that the state was empowered by God to maintain public order, (Romans 13:3-5) and that therefore it could use “the sword” to punish evil-doers. Is that what you meant?
Jesus also told His disiples “let he who has no sword sell his coat and buy one”. Which is subject, as ever, to interpretation.
True, but there are several parables and teachings of Jesus where He mentions rulers executing people (Mark 12:9, Luke 19:27). And He never made any suggestion that the centurion whose favorite servant He healed was wrong to be a member of the military (Matthew 8:4-14).
Not really. The only person who Jesus guaranteed would go to Heaven was the penitent thief being crucified next to Him, who admitted that in being executed, the thief was getting what he deserved (Luke 23:42-44). No suggestion that execution was wrong or immoral.
According to rabbi Joseph Telushkin, author of Jewish Cultural Literacy, it’s thou shalt not commit murder. Most other Jewish scholars agree with that interpretation. Killing another human is not a good thing and should be avoided, but there are circumstances in which it is acceptable.
Semi Hijack
Telushkin also endorses an alternate interpretation of another commandment. He says it isn’t ‘thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain’, but ‘thou shalt not carry the name of the Lord in vain.’. This means the prohibition is not against 'goddamned hamsters!" and the like. The prohibition is against falsely claiming to do G-d’s work- many televangelists exemplify come to mind.
Taken as a whole the Old Testament rule seems to be that you shouldn’t kill within the group without the sanction of the elders. However you should always kill whomever God directs be killed.
Is there a bit in the Bible where Moses (I think) watched a great battle between his and another army fought viciously and God told Moses (or whoever) that if he kept his arms raised above his head his army would win?
Now when was the last time an army won a battle by calling the other side rude names?
I too would say that it is pretty clear according to the old testament that killing is not wrong in all cases. And I have heard from jewish scholars that the more accurate translation is “Thou shall not murder”. As I’m not a biblical scholar and do not understand the original language the passage was written in, I can only take their word for it.
Unfortunately (IMHO) the old testament also gives examples of killing that I personally would object to morally (Moses sending those who beleived in his god to kill all men, woman and children whom did not beleive, and many, many other such examples peppering the old testament).
The new testament shines a new light on the sibject, but it’s certainly not as cut and dry as some would like to beleive. Upon close examination you can see that although jesus attempts to change some of the teachings from the old testament, his basic views on the morality of killing are not much far off from the old testament teachings (seems natural to me as he was raised jewish).
Of course, I’m not christian, so I do not use an old book of mythology to guide my morals. And yet, I’m always suprised to see that I tend to hold much more peaceful tenets than some christians I know.
The most common reference as per the OP is the Ten Commandments (found in Exodus 20, and specifically Exodus 20:13). The most common and most popular reading comes from the King James translation: “Thou shalt not kill.”
However, while the KJV has great poetry, it’s not an accurate translation. The Hebrew text is lo tirtzakh, the verb from the root R-Tz-Kh which applies only to illegal killings. Hence “murder” is a far better translation. Ancient Hebrew has several other verbs that are used for killing – for instance, for killing in war, or for execution (killing in the administration of justice.) If the Commandment were meant to apply to any killing, the verb would probably have been taharog.
Also, you generally aren’t going to get too many Hebrew scholars replying on a Saturday…
I am a Hebrew / Bible scholar of sorts, and I would affirm what C K Dexter Haven wrote – generallly, RaTzaCh is illegal killing and HaRaG is killing in general. The OT is not entirely consistent in usage, but consistent enough to warrant this conclusion.
Though I am by no means a NT scholar or scholar of Christianity, I have never heard a responsible theologian claim that the NT in particular, or Christian theology in general, found all killing, including killing in self defense, immoral.
I was taught that the best translation is “you shall not kill someone for a prohibited reason.” That is, not all killing is OK, but some is. That fits pretty well with murder the way most people understand it.
“You shall not take the name of G-d in vain.” This is an admonition against vows and oaths that use the Holy Name. My honor and reliability towards someone else is mine, not G-d’s, and I have to stand behind it. Kinda like if you transgress against someone else, you have to ask forgiveness from that person, not from G-d.
“An eye for an eye…” Nobody gets this right. The full text does indeed say “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” The idea is not tit-for-tat. The idea is justice according to the severity of the crime. That is, a big punishment for a big loss and a small punishment for a small loss. It took Western Europe until the 1800s to figure this one out.
It does ring a bell, actually, but not a good one. Your friend didn’t happen to refer to the Phineas priests, did he?
Some of the extreme far right, often immersed in a sect known as Christian Identity, have developed the idea of the Phineas priesthood - that it is completely acceptable to God that they should kill people who in their view break God’s commandments.
The Phineas priests take their biblical authority from chapter 25 of the Book of Numbers:
Since the “sin” involved in this story is inter-racial marriage, you can see how it would have an attraction to the white supremacists. From there, it’s only a hop skip and jump in their twisted theology to expand the mandate of the Phineas Priests to include killing doctors who perform abortions, and also gays and lesbians. They view themselves as part of the “everlasting priesthood”, successors to Phineas.
Here’s an article from the Montana Human Rights Network which deals with the Phineas Priests:
Now, this is all Old Testament stuff, not tied to any action of Jesus, so it may not be what your friend was referring to. But if it is…
Second, the “sin” of the Israelite man, identified as Zimri in Nu. 25.14 could hardly have been that he had intercourse with a Midianite woman, since Moses himself was married to a Midianite woman (see Exodus 2:16 and following verses).
The sin was apostasy – the Hebrew term “harlotry” used in 25:1 is a term also used for going after foreign gods – as we see in the next verse.
The prohibition against marrying certain foreigners in Ex. 34:11 ff and Deut. 7:1-5 does not include Midianites. In addition, the reason is clearly given: not interracial marriage, but the threat of apostasy. Remember, Moses’ second wife was a Cushite (black African) – see Nu. 12.
Third, we should recall that Christian history is rife with murder (unjustifed killing) for the sake of the religion – the Crusades and the Inquisition come to mind. Paul’s overthrow of the OT law does not seem to interfered with human blood lust very much.
I don’t dispute any of that, Lynwood. I’m just stating the interpretation that the nutjobs who argue for the Phineas priesthood use to advance their twisted position. That’s why I put “sin” in quotation marks in discussing the passage.
