Thou Shall not Kill Or Murder

[Razeontherock]

Was there an armed force? It's possible. But I think at this point they were the ones who were being attacked.

Yes, the Jews were the ones who were attacked. Even our Scriptures make that PERFECTLY clear.

 

[Razeontherock]

I agree it was killing and not murder only because it was the King's command. So the commandment is you shall not kill. Otherwise it is murder.

Not in the Hebrew it's not. Which means not in any respectable translation into English, either. And I still have my RSV which is my first Bible, and I treasure it.

 

[MarkT]

The Jews were allowed to attack ONLY an armed force that might attack them. (attack the Jews)

Esther 8:11 ...the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, o destroy, to slay, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them,

The Jews were allowed "to gather and defend their lives" and to slay "any armed force...that might attack them".
They were not allowed to go searching for enemies to kill.

The JEWs were being attacked.
They gathered together so as not for each family to have to face an armed mob.
When the people showed up to kill Jews, they got their butts kicked.
It was clearly self defense on the part of the Jews.

OK If that's the case that they could only attack an armed force that might attack them, then I agree. It was self defence.
But where does it say the Jews were attacked? Strange they would attack the Jews knowing the king's edict, the fear of the Jews being upon them. People even declared themselves Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them. ES. 8:17

 

[Razeontherock]

Strange, yes. The event is very strange, and celebrated every year; not because it's run of the mill!

 

[Jim Parker]

OK If that's the case that they could only attack an armed force that might attack them, then I agree. It was self defence.
But where does it say the Jews were attacked? Strange they would attack the Jews knowing the king's edict, the fear of the Jews being upon them. People even declared themselves Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them. ES. 8:17

 

[MarkT]

Not in the Hebrew it's not. Which means not in any respectable translation into English, either. And I still have my RSV which is my first Bible, and I treasure it.

In the past (Jesus' reference to the men of old) the congregation would judge what kind of killing it was not what kind of murder it was. So kill is the right word.

 

[Northman]

I wouldn't say that your answer is necessarily bad to say to a babe in Christ, or that's it's completely wrong.

It's just something I said about giving the basics of what is in scripture and nothing else. I don't think I'd change that approach no matter who critiqued it. Adding an idea that people are afraid of the king(which may indeed be and most times was true) as to that being the reason or part of the reason nothing happened to David would be to void God's statement to him through Nathan. To me that is super dangerous stuff.

So, who was going to kill David? That's a really big part of the story here.

I still don't understand why. None of that is written. What is written is 2 Samuel 12:13. The scripture says nothing about the cowering or anything you are talking about. Nobody would cower to administer any punishment anyway because God forgave David. The real task would be to come up with how God's forgiveness doesn't or shouldn't override the law He gave to Moses.

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

Here you rightly divide the Word, and you also give good exegesis, allowing the passage to speak for itself. These passages do nothing to mitigate the natural consequences of our actions, which include restitution for wrong doing.

-Jim said something about Paul's punishment coming in a round about way for something.
-I gave some examples of that concept being true but also gave examples of people being nothing but wrong when they lean on their own understanding as to when it happens.
What was the problem here? This was the beginning and end to that sub-part in our discussion. I wasn't refuting anything.

 

[Jim Parker]

I agree it was killing and not murder only because it was the King's command.

ANd how did it come about that the king gave such a command?
It was after Esther and Mordecai fasted and prayed to God that the king was open to make the decree for the Jews to defend themselves.

 

[Jim Parker]

It's just something I said about giving the basics of what is in scripture and nothing else. I don't think I'd change that approach no matter who critiqued it. Adding an idea that people are afraid of the king(which may indeed be and most times was true) as to that being the reason or part of the reason nothing happened to David would be to void God's statement to him through Nathan. To me that is super dangerous stuff.

I still don't understand why. None of that is written. What is written is 2 Samuel 12:13. The scripture says nothing about the cowering or anything you are talking about. Nobody would cower to administer any punishment anyway because God forgave David. The real task would be to come up with how God's forgiveness doesn't or shouldn't override the law He gave to Moses.
.

The story of David is troubling.
He's a "man after God's own heart" but he is also a warlord, a dangerous man to cross.
But, that is the case with every king up until just recently. Their position as the protector of the nation required that they be tough and even ruthless toward his adversaries.
David also failed to deal with his son Amnon who should have been put to death for raping his half sister. When Absalom kills Amnon, he does so because his father, king David, failed in his duty to uphold the Law of Moses. It is the same sin as committed by the high priest Eli who failed to properly punish his two sons.

It seems to me that David realized what a scoundrel he could be and sought God for mercy.

Your comments are very insightful.

iakov the fool

 

[MarkT]

ANd how did it come about that the king gave such a command?
It was after Esther and Mordecai fasted and prayed to God that the king was open to make the decree for the Jews to defend themselves.

Where does it say they prayed to God? What's your point?

 

[Jim Parker]

Where does it say they prayed to God?

Chapter 4

What's your point?

AH! I wasn't clear.
The point is that, as a result of Esther's and Mordecai's prayer and fasting, God intervened to give Esther sufficient influence over the king to induce him to make the second decree allowing the Jews to gather to defend themselves.

It is not stated in so many words but implied by the sequence of events in the story.
1. The plot to kill all the Jews is revealed to Esther.
2. Mordecai and Esther fast and pray.
3. Esther conceives of and carries out a plan to save the Jews.
4. The king agrees to allow the Jews to defend themselves.

Prayer and fasting is a common response of God's people to impending catastrophe.

 

[Razeontherock]

In the past (Jesus' reference to the men of old) the congregation would judge what kind of killing it was not what kind of murder it was. So kill is the right word.

Stop already. English didn't become a language until well over 1,000 years after the most recent Scripture was written.

 

[Jim Parker]

Stop already. English wasn't even invented until well over 1,000 years after the most recent Scripture was written.

Exactly the point.
Even the KJV (1611) is not modern English; it's Late Middle English and not spoken any more.

 

[MarkT]

Not in the Hebrew it's not. Which means not in any respectable translation into English, either. And I still have my RSV which is my first Bible, and I treasure it.

The commandment was, 'You shall not kill.' Ex. 20:13 This was written before murder was defined. So it can't be, 'You shall not murder.'

 

[jasonc]

Grasping at straws,in Hebrew what is that word literally? I bet it's murder.English isNT as exact as Koine Greek nor Hebrew .yet I believe murder is the better use

 

[Razeontherock]

The commandment was, 'You shall not kill.' Ex. 20:13 This was written before murder was defined. So it can't be, 'You shall not murder.'

If this was written before murder was defined, that's only because it was written before kill was defined, and millennia before English existed. Which is why intelligent discussion of the matter can only take place in view of the Hebrew; again, you need to re-read the thread beginning from post #1, and please stop beating your dead horse.

 

[Jim Parker]

The commandment was, 'You shall not kill.' Ex. 20:13

Actually, it says "Thou shalt not murder."
לֹא תִּרְצָֽח׃ ס
(ratsach)
רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, kill, (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).

This was written before murder was defined. So it can't be, 'You shall not murder.'

Murder vs. manslaughter is very clearly defined by Moses (Num 35) in the same law which recorded "Thou shall not murder."
So, obviously, it was defined at that time.

 

[MarkT]

Stop already. English didn't become a language until well over 1,000 years after the most recent Scripture was written.

I'm not arguing what the word is in Hebrew or Greek or Chinese.

Re. Mt. 5:21 In the past (Jesus' reference to the men of old), the congregation would judge (Jesus' reference to judgment), what kind of killing it was, not what kind of murder it was. So Jesus is building on that foundation. That's what they did. They judged what kind of killing it was.

 

[MarkT]

If this was written before murder was defined, that's only because it was written before kill was defined, and millennia before English existed. Which is why intelligent discussion of the matter can only take place in view of the Hebrew; again, you need to re-read the thread beginning from post #1, and please stop beating your dead horse.

Cain killed Abel, according to Genesis. Def. He shed his blood. Took his life. Moses came down from the mountain with ten commandments written in stone. What do you think it said? You shall not kill or you shall not murder? How would the Israelites have understood murder? Murder wasn't defined.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm not arguing what the word is in Hebrew or Greek or Chinese.

If you are not arguing what the word means in the Biblical languages then you are not arguing what the Bible says.

Re. Mt. 5:21 In the past (Jesus' reference to the men of old), the congregation would judge (Jesus' reference to judgment),

No, the "congregation did not judge."
The people appointed judges to judge.
Deu 16:18 You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment.

what kind of killing it was, not what kind of murder it was.

Not quite.
The judges would determine if the killing was a murder of a manslaughter.

So Jesus is building on that foundation. That's what they did. They judged what kind of killing it was.

Since what you described is not what they did in ancient Israel, Jesus could not have built on that non-existent foundation.
And, yes, the judges determined if the homicide was a murder or a manslaughter.

Also, Mat 5:21 is not the entire message. It is only a small piece of what Jesus said on the subject. The entire statement is:
Mat 5:21-26
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,[fn] and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’

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.

Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

I emphasized the words "but", which introduces the higher standard that Jesus set, and "therefore" because it introduces the point that Jesus wanted to make which is; to be reconciled to your brother before it escalates into something worse.

iakov the fool