The 4th exception to killing???

[Grey Wanderer]

*edit* I'm adding my reply to this post here.



Christ does address murder though:

1 John 3:15
"Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."


Here, Jesus takes it from being strictly to an action to being a matter of the heart and really ups the ante for the Law, in my mind.

The "fulfillment" is referring to the Levitical/ritual law that I mentioned; the permanent aspects of the Law (those dealing with God's nature i.e. morality) are expounded upon, while the the more ritual/national Hebrew Law is fulfilled by Christ.

Matthew 5:16-18
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

The Law isn't GONE, it is just fulfilled.

Matthew 26:27-28
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Here is the declaration of the new covenant by Christ, the statement that the old Law has been fulfilled; the symbolism here is really immense and the article I linked to at the bottom goes into a lot of detail here.


The shift from the "eye for an eye" method of reribution happens here:

Matthew 5:37-39
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."


From here on out, the Law is totally dependant on LOVE, and not retribution.

To illustrate my point:

Romans 13:8-10

"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law."

Paul hangs the ENTIRE law on love here and elsewhere, and he knew the Law better than anyone; the shift is quite visible here.


Hopefully these give a little more clarity and context to my position; that there was a fundamental shift from the old Mosaic law to the new covenant of Christ. I'll add some more later, for now, I await Grey Wanderer's reply

It's still too round about to me to be a solid answer. He only says that to hate is to commit murder and murderers go to hell. Well, we already knew murderers went to hell in the laws/consequences of the afterlife and NOW we know that haters (sorry, had to use it) also go to hell in the laws/consequences of the afterlife. But still, there's nothing in any of your quotes where Christ reveals the laws & consequences of the land. In other words, discussing consequences BEFORE you die and are subject to final judgment. He explains to do nothing if someone slaps you, but do you really think that also meant you are to do nothing if they are trying to kill you? Kill your family? And if they do, there's no disclosure at all as to what their punishment would be, whether by relative's choice or the state's choice, other than they will go to hell. So are there no consequences for murders at all other than they will be denied eternal life in heaven ? Which of course is enough given the severity of that punishment, but were/are murderers really to have free reign to pillage all things from Christians, including their lives, until they die of old age because no one is supposed to do anything about it?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

It's still too round about to me to be a solid answer. He only says that to hate is to commit murder and murderers go to hell. Well, we already knew murderers went to hell in the laws/consequences of the afterlife and NOW we know that haters (sorry, had to use it) also go to hell in the laws/consequences of the afterlife. But still, there's nothing in any of your quotes where Christ reveals the laws & consequences of the land. In other words, discussing consequences BEFORE you die and are subject to final judgment. He explains to do nothing if someone slaps you, but do you really think that also meant you are to do nothing if they are trying to kill you? Kill your family? And if they do, there's no disclosure at all as to what their punishment would be, whether by relative's choice or the state's choice, other than they will go to hell. So are there no consequences for murders at all other than they will be denied eternal life in heaven ? Which of course is enough given the severity of that punishment, but were/are murderers really to have free reign to pillage all things from Christians, including their lives, until they die of old age because no one is supposed to do anything about it?

So I don't misunderstand the nature of your question, are you asking why Christ didn't detail judicial punishment for murderers? Because if that's the case, we are Scripturally mandated to abide by the authority of the law of the land we live in for that sort of thing.


Romans 13:1-7

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

 

[Grey Wanderer]

So I don't misunderstand the nature of your question, are you asking why Christ didn't detail judicial punishment for murderers? Because if that's the case, we are Scripturally mandated to abide by the authority of the law of the land we live in for that sort of thing.


Romans 13:1-7

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Yes sir, you understood my question perfectly and answered it spot on.

So with this, in your opinion, do you think the waters are murkier now as far as the govt being servants of God?
Examples: The abolishing of prayer in school and at school activities; the ban on displaying the 10 Commandments in courthouses back in '04 - '05.
I see a pattern of the govt separating from God more and more as the years go by. Over time, will God want us to believe in a government that doesn't believe in him?

Obviously this is all theoretical and if the govt went straight atheist, I doubt there would be some extreme uprising by Christians to overturn anything, but I'm just wanting to see this discussion to the end and tie up the final points.

I'm sure you can relate on that.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Yes sir, you understood my question perfectly and answered it spot on.

So with this, in your opinion, do you think the waters are murkier now as far as the govt being servants of God?
Examples: The abolishing of prayer in school and at school activities; the ban on displaying the 10 Commandments in courthouses back in '04 - '05.
I see a pattern of the govt separating from God more and more as the years go by. Over time, will God want us to believe in a government that doesn't believe in him?

Obviously this is all theoretical and if the govt went straight atheist, I doubt there would be some extreme uprising by Christians to overturn anything, but I'm just wanting to see this discussion to the end and tie up the final points.

I'm sure you can relate on that.

I'll answer you the best way I know how: that part of Scripture was written when Nero was in the process of systematically butchering, torturing and mutilating Christians. If Paul exhorts us to follow the government to that extent when Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned was in charge, my thought is that it doesn't matter at all the governments stance towards God.

There are other portions of Scripture that say the same thing, and none of them mention that if the government isn't "godly," then you don't have to obey them. The mandates are that we are obedient to authority until it comes between us and God; i.e. the Apostles being forbidden to pray or praise God.

 

[Grey Wanderer]

I'll answer you the best way I know how: that part of Scripture was written when Nero was in the process of systematically butchering, torturing and mutilating Christians. If Paul exhorts us to follow the government to that extent when Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned was in charge, my thought is that it doesn't matter at all the governments stance towards God.

There are other portions of Scripture that say the same thing, and none of them mention that if the government isn't "godly," then you don't have to obey them. The mandates are that we are obedient to authority until it comes between us and God; i.e. the Apostles being forbidden to pray or praise God.

It seems the contradiction even existed back then because God simply says follow the government because I established them and these authorities are my servants. Nero clearly met none of God's descriptions in the Romans passage. Especially the part "for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing".

It's a slippery slope.......

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Nero clearly met none of God's descriptions in the Romans passage. Especially the part "for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing".

I look at it slightly differently; Nero was a servant of God not because of any virtue on his part, but because he was an authority figure, period.

There's a passage where David is within striking distance of Saul, who has been hunting him for years, but he doesn't kill him, because "He is God's anointed," even though he had every right to kill him and was encouraged by his men to do so; all he did was cut a chunk of Sauls robe off and even that tore him up inside.

There is something about an authority figure that is inherently sacred; I think it's a reflection of God's authority (and I'm waxing a little poetic here) and by that virtue needs to be respected by us no matter who is in the office.

 

[Grey Wanderer]

I look at it slightly differently; Nero was a servant of God not because of any virtue on his part, but because he was an authority figure, period.

There's a passage where David is within striking distance of Saul, who has been hunting him for years, but he doesn't kill him, because "He is God's anointed," even though he had every right to kill him and was encouraged by his men to do so; all he did was cut a chunk of Sauls robe off and even that tore him up inside.

There is something about an authority figure that is inherently sacred; I think it's a reflection of God's authority (and I'm waxing a little poetic here) and by that virtue needs to be respected by us no matter who is in the office.

Guess it's a good thing I wasn't in 1940's Germany with this logic. This dilemma would seem a little harder then, I would imagine.


I thank you for your words, Rors.....I mean Walter.

You are an excellent discussion partner. I look forward to many more....

 

[thfdoc]

It is not just any citizen. It is someone designated "the Avenger of Blood." This, then is a state-approved assassin, and so covered in your third exception. In today's society, cold-blooded assassination is frowned on and the descendents of the "Avenger of Blood," military-trained snipers, need to be able to claim the self-defense/defense of others exception as well as the state-sanctioned execution exception.

Note: Even in Biblical times, there was a check on the Avenger's authorization in the establishment of the cities of refuge also mentioned in Numbers 35.

Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.
Numbers 35:11-13 (Emphasis mine)
​

I agree with this, very well put Ollie.

 

[Slaol121]

As I said before, the "Blood Avenger" was the next of kin & signified a traditional and legal vengence against someone who killed their family member. It was not a trained assassin.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"(Hebrew "go'el"): The Hebrew name for the clansman, "next of kin," upon whom devolved the duties: (1) of avenging, on the person of the murderer, the blood of a murdered kinsman—in this capacity the more specific term "go'el ha-dam" (blood-avenger) was generally used—and (2) of redeeming the property or the person of a relative that had fallen into debt.

Among Primitive Peoples.


(1) Among primitive peoples of low political development—such as the ancient Greeks, Germans, and Slavs, some North American tribes, the modern Sicilians, Corsicans, and Arabs—the clan or family had to assume the right to protect itself. One of the most important clan duties then was plainly for the nearest of kin to hunt down and carry out the death-penalty on a person that had slain a member of the sept or family. That this idea of family retribution—which even to-day is by no means extinct in some comparatively civilized communities—was also current among the ancient Hebrews may be seen from Gen. xxvii. 45, where the existence of the custom is clearly taken for granted. It appears, furthermore, from Josh. vii. 24, and II Kings ix. 26, that, in the most primitive period, such a vendetta was extended to the entire family of the murderer, as is still the custom among the desert Bedouins. The Hebrew religious justification for the system of family blood-revenge was undoubtedly the firm belief that God, in order to insure the sacredness of human life, had Himself fixed the deathpenalty for murder (Gen. ix. 5 et seq.; Lev. xxiv. 17). In the earliest times blood-money was not accepted either for murder or for excusable homicide. Such a payment would have made the land "polluted by blood" (Num. xxxv. 31 et seq.). Una venged blood "cried out" for vengeance to God (Gen. iv. 10; Isa. xxvi. 21; Ezek. xxiv. 7 et seq.; Job xvi. 18). The Avenger of Blood, then, was regarded as the representative, not only of the murdered man's family, but of Yhwh Himself, who was the highest avenger (Ps. ix. 13 [A. V. 12]).

Modification of the System.


Such a stern system, however, could not, of course, survive unmodified after the community had begun to advance from the purely savage state. Abuses of the privilege of blood-revenge must have soon become evident to the tribal chiefs, as one finds in Ex. xxi. 12 (compare Gen. ix. 6) that the commonly accepted formula that a life must be given for a life is modified by a careful legal distinction between wilful murder and accidental manslaughter. In order to establish a case of wilful murder, it must be shown that weapons or implements commonly devoted to slaughter were used, and that a personal hatred existed between the slayer and his victim (Ex. xxi. 12; compare Num. xxxv. 16; and Deut. xix. 4). The law enumerates three exceptions to this general principle: (a) The slaying of a thief caught at night in flagrante delicto is not punishable at all; but if he is captured by day there is blood-guilt which, however, is not liable to the blood-revenge (Ex. xxii. et seq.). (b) If a bull gored a human being to death, the punishment was visited upon the animal, which was killed by stoning. Its flesh in such a case might not be eaten. If gross contributory negligence could be proved on the part of the animal's owner, he was liable only for blood-money(Ex. xxi. 28). (c) Where the master kills his slave, the offense is punishable only when the latter dies at once, and then probably not by the death-penalty, as some of the rabbinical writers thought (Ex. xxi. 23).

Six Cities of Refuge.


The later codes develop at some length the very just distinction between wilful murder and accidental homicide ( see Murder). Six Cities of Refuge were appointed for the purpose of affording an asylum to the homicide, where he might be secure from the hand of the avenger (Deut. xix. 12) until the elders of the community of which the accused was a member should decide whether the murder was intentional or accidental (Num. xxxv. 9-34; Deut. xix. 1-13; Josh. xx.). According to the later procedure, at least two witnesses were necessary to establish a case of wilful murder (Num. xxxv. 30; Deut. xix. 15). In case, however, it was not possible to apprehend the murderer or manslayer, the adjudication might take place and a verdict be rendered in his absence.


It appears from Josh. xx. 4 that the elders of the city of refuge chosen by the slayer had the right to decide as to whether he should be permitted to have a temporary asylum or not. If the case were simply one of unintentional manslaughter the slayer was immediately accorded the right of asylum in the city of refuge, where he had to remain until the death of the reigning high priest (Num. xxxv. 25), whose death, in ancient Hebrew law, marked the end of a legal period of limitation (Num. xxxv.; Deut. xix.; Josh. xx.). If the "go'el ha-dam" were to find the slayer of his kinsman outside the limits of the city of refuge, he had the right to kill him at sight.

The Family Executioner.


In a case in which the verdict against the slayer was one of wilful murder, the murderer incurred the blood-revenge without any restrictions. If he were already in a city of refuge, the elders of his own city were obliged to fetch him thence by force if necessary, and to deliver him formally to the Avenger of Blood, who thus became little more than a family executioner (Deut. xix. 11 et seq.).


Two very important restrictions should here be noticed: ( a) Although the entire family or gens to which the murdered man belonged were theoretically entitled to demand the blood-revenge (II Sam. xiv. 7), still, in the practise of later times, only one member—for example, the next of kin, who was also legal heir—might assume the duty of carrying it out. According to the later Jewish tradition, when there was no heir, the court had the right to assume the position of the "go'el." (b) The law expressly states that the blood-revenge was applicable only to the person of the guilty man and not to the members of his family as well (Deut. xxiv. 16; compare II Kings xiv. 6). This is a most significant advance on the primitive savage custom that involved two gentes in a ceaseless feud. Anent this advance, it is interesting to note that, in the time of the kings, the king himself, as the highest judicial authority, was entitled to control the course of the blood-revenge (II Sam. xiv. 8 et seq.).
It is difficult to decide exactly how long the custom of blood-revenge by the "go'el" remained in vogue among the Hebrews. According to II Chron. xix. 10; Deut. xvii. 8, the law of Jehoshaphat demanded that all intricate legal cases should come before the new court of justice at Jerusalem. It is not probable, however, that this regulation curtailed the rights of the "go'el ha-dam," which must have continued in force as long as there was an independent Israelitish state. Of course, under the Romans, the right of blood revenge had ceased (John xviii. 31).

The Redeemer of His Kinsmen.


(2) As indicated above, the term "go'el" had also a secondary meaning. From the idea of one carrying out the sentence of justice in the case of blood-shed, the word came to denote the kinsman whose duty it was to redeem the property and person of a relative who, having fallen into debt, was compelled to sell either his land or himself as a slave to satisfy his creditors (compare Lev. xxv. 25, 47-49). It would appear from Jer. xxxii. 8-12 that the "go'el" had the right to the refusal of such property before it was put up for public sale, and also the right to redeem it after it had been sold ( see Ruth).


From the Book of Ruth (iv. 5) it would appear that the duty of the nearest of kin to marry the widow of his relative in case of the latter's dying without issue was included in the obligations resting upon the "go'el"; but inasmuch as the term is not used in the passage in Deut. (xxv. 8-10) in which this institution is referred to—the obligation resting upon the brother to marry his deceased brother's widow—the testimony of so late a production as Ruth can not be pressed. The usage in the book may not be legally accurate.


From this idea of the human "go'el" as a redeemer of his kinsmen in their troubles, there are to be found many allusions to Yhwh as the Divine Go'el, redeeming His people from their woes (compare Ex. vi. 6, xv. 13; Ps. lxxiv. 2), and of the people themselves becoming the "redeemed" ones of Yhwh (Ps. cvii. 2; Isa. lxii. 12). The reference to God as the "go'el" and as the one who would "redeem" His people was applicable to the relationship between Yhwh and Israel in the exilic period, when the people actually looked to their God to restore their land for them, as the impoverished individual looked to his kinsman to secure a restoration of his patrimony. Hence, of thirty-three passages in which "go'el" (as a noun or verb) is applied to God, nineteen occur in the exilic (and post-exilic) sections of Isaiah—the preacher par excellence of "restoration"—for example, in xlviii. 20, xlix. 26, lii. 9, lxii. 12, etc. See Asylum;Cities of Refuge; Job; Murder. "


​

Fascinating stuff.

 

[Grey Wanderer]

FANTASTIC SLAOL!!!!

Thanks so much for that awesome piece of info!

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I should clarify that obviously, in cases such as Hitler, that's not a godly authority, and should be resisted; in fact, there's a famous German pastor who did just that. That falls under our responsibility to stand up for social injustice as Christians.

 

[Slaol121]

FANTASTIC SLAOL!!!!

Thanks so much for that awesome piece of info!

You know, I had never really thought about the "bood avenger" in scripture before this thread was started. It is a really interesting topic.

To me, this concept really helps explain a lot of the verses regarding Cain and Abel.

 

[Armistead14]

We have to remember that the Levitical law was given to the Jews ONLY...It was cultural based on keeping them a seperate nation from others, to insure their survival and keep them dependent on God. Many of these laws seem cruel to us today. Just look at some of them..If a woman saw her husband attacked and tried to help him by grabbing the attackers testicles...she would be put to death.

Most nations were founded on people resisiting and refusing government...like America.

Obvious they're times we're to resist the government..Take the last days, the government by law will require you to take the mark, christians and those seeking christ are told to refuse it

 

[Grey Wanderer]

I should clarify that obviously, in cases such as Hitler, that's not a godly authority, and should be resisted; in fact, there's a famous German pastor who did just that. That falls under our responsibility to stand up for social injustice as Christians.

Agreed. So in your opinion, where's the line of "social injustice", that once crossed, permits Christians to stand up and what type of actions should they do once they stand up?

 

[Grey Wanderer]

You know, I had never really thought about the "bood avenger" in scripture before this thread was started. It is a really interesting topic.

To me, this concept really helps explain a lot of the verses regarding Cain and Abel.

Glad I got your interest on the "bood avenger" j/k

It's fascinating to me as well.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I can't recall the exact verse, but I believe it's stated in Scripture that any government that forbids the preaching of God's word, harms children or anything along those lines is one in which Christians have a Biblical mandate to stand up to. To simplify, any government obviously violating people's basic human rights on a large and continuous scale. Hitler did all that and much more; had I been alive during that time my duty as a Christian would have been to both resist his regime and assist those affected by it.

What type of actions? Well, here it gets a little muddy. We have the Biblical example of Peter, who chopped off the ear of a Roman trying to arrest Jesus and was rebuked BY Jesus; but we also have the example of Jesus storming the Temple to clear out the moneychangers. We also have Peter and John refusing to stop preaching; but we also have Paul's example of submitting to the Roman authorities and going to prison and suffering punishments many times. So I don't think there is one blanket statement I cold make that answers that, honestly. It depends on the situation at hand.

However, going by my opinion is a different story. If I saw someone assaulting a woman or child in any way, I would intervene with deadly force. If someone broke into my house, I would intervene with force, probably not deadly unless it was really called for (that's another example of a Biblical law; self-defense). I believe the spirit of Biblical law, if not so much the absolute letter, permits use of force in situations like that. I know these answers are a little flexible or squishy, but I don't think one giant statement can be made on this subject.

Sorry to not have the actual verses on hand, it's lame, but I know they're in there somewhere, I'll try and find them and edit them into my post.

 

[Grey Wanderer]

We have to remember that the Levitical law was given to the Jews ONLY...It was cultural based on keeping them a seperate nation from others, to insure their survival and keep them dependent on God. Many of these laws seem cruel to us today. Just look at some of them..If a woman saw her husband attacked and tried to help him by grabbing the attackers testicles...she would be put to death.

Most nations were founded on people resisiting and refusing government...like America.

Obvious they're times we're to resist the government..Take the last days, the government by law will require you to take the mark, christians and those seeking christ are told to refuse it

Ok. I'm kind of a novice on the sectioning off of laws so you're going to have to help me out with this one. :o

Weren't the 10 Commandments given to the Jews only as well? But we apply them to our lives? Which "law" was the standard for the world? I wouldn't think it would be just "the 10"??? Is it really that simple?

I'm confused because it seems that we get stuck in cherry picking the commandments that don't sound bizarre to us, but that kind of limits the laws' true intent if it's going to be subjected to our individual comprehensive abilities. "Lean not on your own understanding.", right?

Anyway, please elaborate since I (as usual) did such a good job on confusing myself.

 

[Grey Wanderer]

I can't recall the exact verse, but I believe it's stated in Scripture that any government that forbids the preaching of God's word, harms children or anything along those lines is one in which Christians have a Biblical mandate to stand up to. To simplify, any government obviously violating people's basic human rights on a large and continuous scale. Hitler did all that and much more; had I been alive during that time my duty as a Christian would have been to both resist his regime and assist those affected by it.

What type of actions? Well, here it gets a little muddy. We have the Biblical example of Peter, who chopped off the ear of a Roman trying to arrest Jesus and was rebuked BY Jesus; but we also have the example of Jesus storming the Temple to clear out the moneychangers. We also have Peter and John refusing to stop preaching; but we also have Paul's example of submitting to the Roman authorities and going to prison and suffering punishments many times. So I don't think there is one blanket statement I cold make that answers that, honestly. It depends on the situation at hand.

However, going by my opinion is a different story. If I saw someone assaulting a woman or child in any way, I would intervene with deadly force. If someone broke into my house, I would intervene with force, probably not deadly unless it was really called for (that's another example of a Biblical law; self-defense). I believe the spirit of Biblical law, if not so much the absolute letter, permits use of force in situations like that. I know these answers are a little flexible or squishy, but I don't think one giant statement can be made on this subject.

Sorry to not have the actual verses on hand, it's lame, but I know they're in there somewhere, I'll try and find them and edit them into my post.

No worries, my friend.

I'm right on track with you. Thanks (as usual) for your input.

 

[Armistead14]

Ok. I'm kind of a novice on the sectioning off of laws so you're going to have to help me out with this one. :o

Weren't the 10 Commandments given to the Jews only as well? But we apply them to our lives? Which "law" was the standard for the world? I wouldn't think it would be just "the 10"??? Is it really that simple?

I'm confused because it seems that we get stuck in cherry picking the commandments that don't sound bizarre to us, but that kind of limits the laws' true intent if it's going to be subjected to our individual comprehensive abilities. "Lean not on your own understanding.", right?

Anyway, please elaborate since I (as usual) did such a good job on confusing myself.

You're correct. As in anything doctrinal, many groups have different perspectives. The 10 commandments were for the Jews only, as was Levitical law. No where were any others taught to keep the Sabbath holy.

I think the confusion arises due to the few seemingly cultural laws in the 10 commandments mixed with moral commands. It's not that we pick and choose. Christ made it clear, love fulfills the law. Most of the commandments do relate to acts of love..love doesn't murder, steal, cheat, etx.. We don't obey commandments out of law, we obey them because they "do no harm" and fulfill the principle of love.

For the most part, many believe that God's moral law is written in the hearts of men.

 

[Grey Wanderer]

website glitched....