Thou Shall not Kill Or Murder

[Northman]

David slew Israel's enemies. That was what he was selected and anointed to do as King of Israel.
Paul did face death. He was imprisoned and beheaded.

I meant about when David specifically committed murder, when he slew his own man to get his wife.
Agreed that Paul did face death, but not for his hand in the killing of those not befitting a death penalty.

 

[Jim Parker]

I meant about when David specifically committed murder, when he slew his own man to get his wife.

Yeah. That's what Psalm 51 was about.
You are correct; David was not put to death for the murder of Uriah or for the adultery with Uriah's wife.
According to the law, he should have been put to death for both those violations.
I haven't got an answer.
To consider; who was going to put David to death when he had a personal body guard of his "mighty men" standing around him to protect him?
Of course, God could have vaporized him in an augenblik but God wasn't finished with him yet and we don't get to tell God what He should have done.

Agreed that Paul did face death, but not for his hand in the killing of those not befitting a death penalty.

Neither was Paul executed for anything befitting the death penalty.
Maybe, what goes 'round comes 'round?
Maybe Rome administered the justice which was proper for what Paul did without knowing that they were doing so.


iakov the fool

 

[MarkT]

You are mistaken. The law does not say "all killing is murder."
Num 35:22-25 However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him without lying in wait, or uses a stone, by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him, so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these judgments. So the congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge where he had fled, and he shall remain there until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.
So the Law makes a clear distinction between murder and manslaughter. The murderer is put to death but the manslayer is not.
A further distinction is made by God when He sends Israel out to make war on their enemies.
Deu 7:2 and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them.
Deu 20:16-17 But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you,

And the rest of Jesus' statement is: "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire."

It is the main point of the book of Esther.
All the Jews defended themselves from the attempt to exterminate them.
In the book of Judges, when Israel was attacked by their enemies, their Judges called for repentance and then they went out and slaughtered their enemies.
David, the "man after God's own heart" slaughtered the enemies of Israel.
Judith slew Holofernes to protect the Jews.
Jael slew Sisera the commander of the enemies of Israel.
None of these were considered guilty of murder.

So there is very definitely a difference between killing and murder.

The Jews were able to kill those who hated them because the King allowed it. Esther 8:11 So the Jews avenged themselves upon their enemies. I don't see self defence at this point. I see vengeance. Esther 8:13 There are many instances when God commanded the people to destroy the enemy. So if the King orders it or if God orders it, that's a different thing.

But Jesus referred to the law Mt. 5:21 and the law says if you kill someone with a weapon in hand by which a man may die, and he dies, you're a murderer. If you strike someone with a stone by which a man may die, and he dies, you're a murderer. If you strike someone with your hand in enmity, and that person dies, you're a murderer.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't see self defence at this point.

You don't see that the Jews taking up arms to defend themselves against those who were coming to kill them as self defense?
That is a perfect definition of self defense.

 

[Northman]

I haven't got an answer.
To consider; who was going to put David to death when he had a personal body guard of his "mighty men" standing around him to protect him?
Of course, God could have vaporized him in an augenblik but God wasn't finished with him yet and we don't get to tell God what He should have done.

The answer lies in 2 Samuel 12:13.

Neither was Paul executed for anything befitting the death penalty.

Of course. He was flat out murdered.

Maybe, what goes 'round comes 'round?
Maybe Rome administered the justice which was proper for what Paul did without knowing that they were doing so.

This stuff is tricky. While everyone can recognize that a host of people including figures like Moses and David did have consequences to suffer for disobedience, the statement from Luke 13:4 pretty much says nobody can know.

 

[MarkT]

You don't see that the Jews taking up arms to defend themselves against those who were coming to kill them as self defense?
That is a perfect definition of self defense.

Not really. Mainly because at this point the Jews were doing all the killing.

 

[Northman]

The Jews were able to kill those who hated them because the King allowed it. Esther 8:11 So the Jews avenged themselves upon their enemies. I don't see self defence at this point. I see vengeance. Esther 8:13 There are many instances when God commanded the people to destroy the enemy. So if the King orders it or if God orders it, that's a different thing.

I don't think you understand the story. The king in question is/was Persian. He was swindled into making a decree for the people in the empire to have a Jew-kill day. One of the Persian queens happened to be Esther, a Jewish woman, who helped convince her husband this was a bad idea. Due to some pride-kingly nonsense a king couldn't retract a decree, so the Persian king made another decree that the Jews were allowed to fight back. This has nothing to do with vengeance.

 

[Jim Parker]

This stuff is tricky. While everyone can recognize that a host of people including figures like Moses and David did have consequences to suffer for disobedience, the statement from Luke 13:4 pretty much says nobody can know.

Yeah. I think we sometimes try to put too fine a edge on it. We try to explain things down to the minute detail but just don't have enough information to do so. So, we're left having to put up with some ambiguity.

 

[Razeontherock]

The answer lies in 2 Samuel 12:13.

This is a significant part of the definition of theocracy. (Plus the King being surrounded by guards thing) In a secular government, God's forgiveness doesn't factor in

Of course. He was flat out murdered.

Repeatedly.
"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
2Co 11:25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned"

This stuff is tricky. While everyone can recognize that a host of people including figures like Moses and David did have consequences to suffer for disobedience, the statement from Luke 13:4 pretty much says nobody can know.

Generally speaking, God's forgiveness spares us from His wrath, not the natural consequences of our actions. This passage says nothing to refute that.

 

[Jim Parker]

Not really. Mainly because at this point the Jews were doing all the killing.

They were killing armed people who came to their communities and homes to kill them.
So, yes, really. That is an unambiguous, Biblical, example of Jews taking up arms to defend themselves against armed enemies who were intent on killing them and plundering their property.
Est 3:12-13 Then the king’s scribes were called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and a decree was written according to all that Haman commanded—to the king’s satraps, to the governors who were over each province, to the officials of all people, to every province according to its script, and to every people in their language. In the name of King Ahasuerus it was written, and sealed with the king’s signet ring.
And the letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their possessions.

Est 8:11 By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives—to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them, both little children and women, and to plunder their possessions,

Est 9:1-2 Now in the twelfth month, that is, the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day, the time came for the king’s command and his decree to be executed. On the day that the enemies of the Jews had hoped to overpower them, the opposite occurred, in that the Jews themselves overpowered those who hated them.
The Jews gathered together in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm. And no one could withstand them, because fear of them fell upon all people.

 

[Jim Parker]

Generally speaking, God's forgiveness spares us from His wrath, not the natural consequences of our actions. This passage says nothing to refute that.

Ah! Excellent point!

 

[Razeontherock]

The Jews gathered together in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm.

Is this the basis for 1 Tim 5:22 "lay hands suddenly on no man?" Bwahahaha

 

[Northman]

This is a significant part of the definition of theocracy. (Plus the King being surrounded by guards thing) In a secular government, God's forgiveness doesn't factor in

The point was that God's forgiveness of David pardoned him from the sentence of death, a legal matter. If I was a king or a president or whatever, I would most assuredly not implement a death sentence on someone who Jesus pardoned regardless of status. I would expect to face that at judgement if I did, not so much on earth.

Generally speaking, God's forgiveness spares us from His wrath, not the natural consequences of our actions. This passage says nothing to refute that.

Refute? What are you meaning? The passage merely identifies that imposed calamity is God's domain and that man/woman can't know it. As in the guy or girl that opens their mouth to say that someones cancer is due to sin is probably full of crap.

 

[MarkT]

They were killing armed people who came to their communities and homes to kill them.
So, yes, really. That is an unambiguous, Biblical, example of Jews taking up arms to defend themselves against armed enemies who were intent on killing them and plundering their property.
Est 3:12-13 Then the king’s scribes were called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and a decree was written according to all that Haman commanded—to the king’s satraps, to the governors who were over each province, to the officials of all people, to every province according to its script, and to every people in their language. In the name of King Ahasuerus it was written, and sealed with the king’s signet ring.
And the letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their possessions.

Est 8:11 By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives—to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them, both little children and women, and to plunder their possessions,

Est 9:1-2 Now in the twelfth month, that is, the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day, the time came for the king’s command and his decree to be executed. On the day that the enemies of the Jews had hoped to overpower them, the opposite occurred, in that the Jews themselves overpowered those who hated them.
The Jews gathered together in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm. And no one could withstand them, because fear of them fell upon all people.

Actually the decree allowed them to destroy, to kill and to annihilate their enemies. So they did all the killing that day. I see it as doing to the other guy what the other guy was planning to do to you.

I agree the enemy was planning to annihilate the Jews, but it didn't go down that way. Instead the Jews annihilated the enemy.

Hardly a case of self defence.

 

[WIP]

If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally, by accident. ie.
Deuteronomy 19:5
as when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he may flee to one of these cities and save his life;

There is a provision in the law for the man slayer.

But there is no provision in the law for killing with intent to harm. The law says if you kill someone with a weapon in hand by which a man may die, and he dies, you're a murderer. If you strike someone with a stone by which a man may die, and he dies, you're a murderer. If you strike someone with your hand in enmity, and that person dies, you're a murderer.

So it seems all killing, unless it is unintentional, is murder.

So I think the RSV is rightly translated “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ Mt. 5:21 RSV

What I'm reading is that you are not taking all of Scripture into consideration. I am not seeing how you are reconciling your theology with Numbers 35:22-25. From these verses, I read that murder requires previous intent and then, it is up to the congregation to make a judgment based on the evidence of witnesses, and not just one witness.

 

[WIP]

Actually the decree allowed them to destroy, to kill and to annihilate their enemies. So they did all the killing that day. I see it as doing to the other guy what the other guy was planning to do to you.

I agree the enemy was planning to annihilate the Jews, but it didn't go down that way. Instead the Jews annihilated the enemy.

Hardly a case of self defence.

Are you saying that unless I die in the process of defending myself, I am not truly defending myself? Please explain.

 

[Razeontherock]

The point was that God's forgiveness of David pardoned him from the sentence of death, a legal matter.

I don't see Scripture telling us that much. David was hunted by family and friends, and saved by the Lord. Had David been killed by Saul or his own son, it wouldn't have been a legal matter in the sense we have today.

While David was reigning securely, there was no one to impose a legal penalty upon him. This doesn't translate directly into our modern world.

If I was a king or a president or whatever, I would most assuredly not implement a death sentence on someone who Jesus pardoned regardless of status.

That assumes an awful lot, but ok.

Refute? What are you meaning? The passage merely identifies that imposed calamity is God's domain and that man/woman can't know it. As in the guy or girl that opens their mouth to say that someones cancer is due to sin is probably full of crap.

There are still natural consequences for our actions, and generally speaking God's forgiveness doesn't short circuit those. Getting cancer or having a tower fall on you isn't "natural consequences." It's superstitious to think that way and Jesus was addressing this.

 

[MarkT]

What I'm reading is that you are not taking all of Scripture into consideration. I am not seeing how you are reconciling your theology with Numbers 35:22-25. From these verses, I read that murder requires previous intent and then, it is up to the congregation to make a judgment based on the evidence of witnesses, and not just one witness.

I'm just looking at the law. I agree there must be intent.

Numbers 35:16-21 says if a man kills someone with a weapon or a stone in hand by which a man may die, he is a murderer. So using a weapon might establish intent.

And if he does it out of hatred or enmity, he is a murderer. Numbers 35:22-28 says if a man stabs someone suddenly or he throws a stone without enmity and he did not seek his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood. So there's a provision in the law for the manslayer.

Numbers 35:29-30 says if anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

The point is Jesus referenced the law and what the law said regarding killing. Mt. 5:21 So the word is rightly translated 'kill' and 'killing'.

Re. killing in self defence, I don't see any provision in the law like the provision for killing without intent.

 

[MarkT]

Are you saying that unless I die in the process of defending myself, I am not truly defending myself? Please explain.

Of course not. Explain what?

 

[Jim Parker]

I agree the enemy was planning to annihilate the Jews, but it didn't go down that way. Instead the Jews annihilated the enemy.

Hardly a case of self defence.

The Jews annihilated their enemies when the Jews' enemies showed up to kill them.
Exactly a case of self defense.
They killed the people who came to kill them.