Thou shall kill....thou shall not kill???

[WhiteFaith]

the sixth commandment "Thou shall not kill"
Ok then...

I'll use one example, though there are more.

Deuteronomy 13

"6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you."

Telling us to kill those who worship other Gods..
So the commandment has exceptions?

i'm confused.

 

[HypnoToad]

If you have a Strong's Concordance, you'll find that different Hebrew words are used for "kill" in the commandment and in the Deut. passage.

The commandment is best translated as "thou shall not murder".

"Killing" is ending a life. "Murder" is unjustly ending a life. Use of capital punishment was not considered "murder" by God.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

HypnoToad is absolutely right on this. The Sixth Commandment is a prohibition against murder...not against capital punishment, killing in war, animal slaughter...

More controversially, the Sixth Commandment doesn't seem to prohibit abortion and honor killing.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Exactly what they said.

 

[Beasley]

Predating the Mosaic Law is Gen 9

"Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
6"Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.

Beasley

 

[ICaine]

What would Jesus say about this?

Didn't he stop a stoning from taking place?

John 8:7 (KJV)--So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

The mosaic law has no power after Jesus. What effect does Jesus have on the commandments with the mosaic law no longer affecting them? Are there still exceptions?

 

[HypnoToad]

What would Jesus say about this?

Didn't he stop a stoning from taking place?

John 8:7 (KJV)--So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

The mosaic law has no power after Jesus. What effect does Jesus have on the commandments with the mosaic law no longer affecting them? Are there still exceptions?

But WHY did Jesus stop the stoning? Because He was against capital punishment? Not really.

The stoning would have been illegal, by both Jewish and Roman law. By Jewish law, the man had to be brought as well, they only brought the woman. By Roman law, the Jews couldn't execute anyone without Roman permission, which there's no indication they had here.

Jesus would have sinned by allowing the execution.

Now, this doesn't mean we "have to" execute anyone. The NT does differ in this regard. The OT commands it; while the NT only allows it (we have the choice to not use it), and gives it's use to the discretion of the government.

 

[ICaine]

The stoning would have been illegal, by both Jewish and Roman law.

What does Jesus care about Jewish law? Didn't He come also to bring a new covenant, with new laws? The Jewish law was meant to be broken.

 

[HypnoToad]

What does Jesus care about Jewish law? Didn't He come also to bring a new covenant, with new laws? The Jewish law was meant to be broken.

Jesus came to "fulfill" the law, not break it (Mt.5:17). The old covenant was still in effect throughout Jesus' ministry. It would have been a sin for Jesus to break it.

 

[ICaine]

Jesus came to "fulfill" the law, not break it (Mt.5:17). The old covenant was still in effect throughout Jesus' ministry. It would have been a sin for Jesus to break it.

Very good point. I overlooked Mt. 5:17. The following is the best I can do to understand. Correct me where I am wrong.

There is a difference between the commandments and the mosaic code which the pharisees misinterpreted.
Briefly:
Is it wrong to murder? commandment says yes. mosaic law says to stone for such and such offense which is what some where doing when Jesus prevented a stoning (you suggest it was to prevent breaking Jewish Law). But he also broke Jewish law by violating the Sabbath, stealing corn (Luke 6:1-4) and eating without washing their hands (Mt. 15: 1-3). All these were nonsense laws that needed to violated in reverence to deeper laws.

Regardless, Jesus would not stone anybody because the greater command is to not kill, despite what lesser Jewish laws hold.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

The stoning would have been illegal, by both Jewish and Roman law. By Jewish law, the man had to be brought as well, they only brought the woman. By Roman law, the Jews couldn't execute anyone without Roman permission, which there's no indication they had here.

Jesus would have sinned by allowing the execution.

I'm not an expert in the law, but I question this. First, as I understand it, the Romans would not necessarily have interfered in a case like this.

Second, though there is no indication that they had permission to carry out the stoning, there is no indication that they didn't. The woman was taken in the act of adultery. But it may have been sufficiently long ago...the previous day evan...that the authorities had time to gain permission.

Since the woman was taken in the act, the man would not necessarily have to be brought. And it is possible that the man was not guilty of adultery. If the man was married and the woman was single, she would have been the adulterer. He would only have been guilty of fornication.

 

[HypnoToad]

But he also broke Jewish law by violating the Sabbath, stealing corn (Luke 6:1-4)

And if you read on, Jesus explains he broke no law here.

and eating without washing their hands (Mt. 15: 1-3).

This was not part of the old covenant, it was something Jewish leaders added in, it was not something God stated in the law. The pharisees even said it was "tradition" - notice they didn't say "law".

Regardless, Jesus would not stone anybody because the greater command is to not kill, despite what lesser Jewish laws hold.

Doesn't matter, the covenant was the covenant - it ALL had to be followed. The commandment was to execute adulterers, not execute them if you felt like it.

 

[HypnoToad]

Since the woman was taken in the act, the man would not necessarily have to be brought.

I'd like to know where you get this from. Looking at the passages in the law that address it, I don't find any where they are both caught and only the woman is to be executed.

And it is possible that the man was not guilty of adultery. If the man was married and the woman was single, she would have been the adulterer. He would only have been guilty of fornication.

Mt.19:9 - "whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery" - specifies that a married man sleeping with another woman is an "adulterer".

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I'd like to know where you get this from. Looking at the passages in the law that address it, I don't find any where they are both caught and only the woman is to be executed.

John 8:4 (KJV)
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

(Emphasis mine). The woman was taken in the act. Where was the man?

Mt.19:9 - "whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery" - specifies that a married man sleeping with another woman is an "adulterer".

This is Jesus, not Moses.

As I understand the adultery laws (and it has been a while since I did this research) they were designed to protect inheritance rights in a male dominant culture.

A man who slept with another man's wife adulterated the other man's marriage--sinning against the other man.

A married woman who slept with another man adulterated her own marriage--sinning against her husband.

But in the case of a married man who slept with an unmarried woman, the woman adulterated the man's marriage, but he adulterated no one's marriage.

To use a modern example, according the law of Moses, Monica commited adultery. Bill didn't.

 

[HypnoToad]

John 8:4 (KJV)
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

(Emphasis mine). The woman was taken in the act. Where was the man?

That's my point! They didn't bring the man.

This is Jesus, not Moses.

Doesn't matter, Jesus was explaining the law, not rewriting it. He points out clearly that a married man commits "adultery", whether the woman of his 2nd marriage was previously married herself or not is not specified, so her being married or not has no bearing on the man being an "adulterer".

 

[D.W.Washburn]

That's my point! They didn't bring the man.

They didn't need to. They had the evidence of eyewitnesses.

I would also assume that, since they are taking the woman to stone her, any trial she would receive has already taken place. The man, if he was tried at all, may not have been guilty of adultery.

Doesn't matter, Jesus was explaining the law, not rewriting it.

There were others who explained the law at that time. The guys with the stones in their hands, for example. They would have disagreed with Jesus. What you give is Jesus' explanation of the law. I don't have any problem with that. But Jesus, in his explanation and application of the Law was, I think, always stricter than his contemporaries. (The Sabbath law being the exception). Jesus was stricter than Moses.

As Christians we may find Jesus' interpretation of the Law somehow authoritative, but that doesn't mean he does not go beyond Moses.

Do you think that Moses had "lust in the heart" in mind when he chiseled the adultery commandment?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Doesn't matter, Jesus was explaining the law, not rewriting it. He points out clearly that a married man commits "adultery", whether the woman of his 2nd marriage was previously married herself or not is not specified, so her being married or not has no bearing on the man being an "adulterer".

We may be talking past each other here.

The crowd in the Temple were taking a woman to be stoned because of their understanding of the Law of Moses which may not have been the same as Jesus' understanding.

According to their reading, the woman may have been guilty of adultery and not the man. Thus, there was no reason for the man to be brought.

 

[HypnoToad]

They didn't need to. They had the evidence of eyewitnesses.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying they needed the man for "evidence" - they should have brought the man because it was the law to stone him as well, not just the woman.

I would also assume that, since they are taking the woman to stone her, any trial she would receive has already taken place. The man, if he was tried at all, may not have been guilty of adultery.

First, this is argument from silence. Second, if she was caught "in the act", it's impossible that the man wasn't caught in the act as well. There's no way for one to be guilty and the other not.

There were others who explained the law at that time. The guys with the stones in their hands, for example. They would have disagreed with Jesus. What you give is Jesus' explanation of the law.

Jesus is God, who could possibly be more authoritative on what the law means??

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying they needed the man for "evidence" - they should have brought the man because it was the law to stone him as well, not just the woman.


First, this is argument from silence. Second, if she was caught "in the act", it's impossible that the man wasn't caught in the act as well. There's no way for one to be guilty and the other not.


Jesus is God, who could possibly be more authoritative on what the law means??

As I said, my friend, we may be talking past each other. The guys with the stones may well have let the guy off the hook because according to their interpretation of the law, he may not have borne guilt.

Jesus, clearly, disagreed.

 

[HypnoToad]

Remember, though, the Pharisees were intentially setting Jesus up ("Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him," Jn.8:6). So we know there's something wrong with the situation from the start.