Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Joker]

Why give a commandment and then make exceptions? God laid out in Exodus 20 that murder is wrong. Then he told his chosen people to go kill a ton of people who were living in the Promised Land. Why does God make a rule, and then tell his people to ignore the rule in a specific circumstance?

[jimwalton]

The Hebrew word in Ex. 20.13 is ratsach. It is generally interpreted as "Violent killing of a personal enemy; murder; slay; illegal killing inimical to the community; blood-vengeance killing; one who kills out of enmity, deceit, or hatred." Maybe if I quote a couple of smart guys it will help.

Brevard Childs: "The command forbids acts of violence motivated by hatred or malice, and rejects the right of a person to take the law into his own hands out of a feeling of personal injury."

Alan Cole: "The law clearly distinguished between planned and accidental or unpremeditated killings (Ex. 21.12-14). Certainly this command was never seen by Hebrews as ruling out the death penalty (Ex. 21.15), although this is usually expressed by a verb corresponding to 'put to death', not by 'kill'. Also, there were no pacifists in OT days. The prohibition here seems addressed in the first place towards killing of a 'neighbor', a member of the same covenant-community. In any case, the sanctity of life, as God’s gift, is established: hence 'blood-guiltiness' is an awful reality, from the time of Cain onwards (Gn. 4.10)."

Maxie Dunnam: "The prohibition is not against all killing, only unauthorized killing. (see Gn. 9.6; 1 Sam. 15.3; Lev. 20.10)."

So the law against murder is exactly what it sounds like: unjustified, premeditated killing with an immoral motive. It doesn't include self-defense (justifiable homicide), acts of just war, governmental executions in the name of justice, or involuntary manslaughter.

[Adverb]

> It doesn't include self-defense (justifiable homicide), acts of just war, governmental executions in the name of justice, or involuntary manslaughter.

There's enough wiggle-room in there to justify just about anything. Who decides?

[jimwalton]

> There's enough wiggle-room in there to justify just about anything.

It's no different than our word for kill. It can mean many different things, and is just a catch-all word for taking a life, not including anything about motive or situation. In this case, the word used, as I explained, seems to aim towards reckless and vindictive acts of violent hatred, and not towards all generalized acts of killing no matter what. It's more like our word "murder" than our word "kill." But that doesn't mean it has enough wiggle room to justify anything. The context is a code of law designed to enable Israel to be a community of God's people who reflect his character, prohibiting things that are destructive to a relationship with him and in constructive relationships with others in the community.

> Who decides?

Humans judiciaries do, just like in our culture. We have judges who specialize in understanding the law in both its intent and in proper ways to apply it. They are supposed to be people of integrity who honor what is right, understand their great responsibility, and apply the law both firmly and fairly. It was no different in ancient days, and in the days of the Bible (Gn. 9.6; Ex. 18.24-26). The politicians and judges were supposed to represent the will of God on earth, ruling in justice and righteousness. When the earthly judges messed up, God sent prophets to warn them and to give them a course correction (such as Isa. 1.23-28).

[Adverb]

> "Who decides?" Humans judiciaries do

Church-sanctioned judiciaries? Seems that'd be the only way to decide if the motive is "moral"

[jimwalton]

Believe it or not, and this may seem as a foreign concept to some, but truth is supposed to be truth no matter where it is found, honesty and integrity are supposed to be universal virtues, and judging with rightness and fairness is supposed to be the standard no matter what judiciary it is.

[Willie Henders]

> Also, there were no pacifists in OT days. The prohibition here seems addressed in the first place towards killing of a 'neighbor', a member of the same covenant-community. In any case, the sanctity of life, as God’s gift, is established: hence 'blood-guiltiness' is an awful reality, from the time of Cain onwards (Gn. 4.10)."

Based upon Old Testament scripture, do you believe that God needed man to kill the enemies of God and God's people or do you believe there are enough examples of God killing people with no assistance from man to justify a belief that God could do it Himself and never command a man to kill another man?

[jimwalton]

Good question. God doesn't NEED people to do his work, but the story of the Bible is that God involves people in his work at every level possible. A story like the flood (Gn. 6-8), Sodom and Gomorrah in Gn. 19 or Korah's rebellion in Num. 16 (esp. vv. 28-35) show us the God doesn't need humans for his work of judgment. But most of the stories of the Bible show that God chooses to include humans so that we have "equity", so to speak, in our relationship with God. We are participators with him. Kings were expected to be his representatives for legislation and warfare; priests were expected to mediate his presence to the people; prophets were his mouthpieces to communicate his word; and normal people were to live as his co-regents on the earth, filling the earth, ruling it and subduing it with responsible stewardship as God would act himself.

[Willie Henders]

> warfare

God ordering men to kill other men is the part I have trouble understanding, especially when paired with the concept that God was trying to civilize His people.

Imagine a large kindergarten school consisting of several different kindergarten classrooms. You, as Principal, pick one classroom as your favorite and call them your people. All the other classrooms, you view as unruly savages so you have no use for them.

You want to nurture your people and teach them your high moral standards. You decide you need to separate them from the other classrooms so they can develop into fine ethical adults. In your school, you have literally hundreds of options for keeping the "bad" classrooms separate from your people.

The option you choose is to tell your people to slaughter all the other children in the other classrooms so they won't be able to be a "bad" influence on your people.

How is this choice consistent with your plan to nurture and civilize your people to develop them into fine ethical adults?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your questions. I enjoy conversation with you. Your story is nice, but not true to the situation of the Bible. Let me posit a substitute.

Imagine a large kindergartens school consisting of several different kindergarten classrooms. You, as Principal, find one where the people are different from the others. They have an orientation towards the right, and they are good kids, distinctively different from those in the other classrooms (Gn. 4.26; 6.9; 12.7). You recognize that these kids are trainable, and you initiate the program of training.

You want to nurture your people and teach them your high moral standards. You decide you need to separate them from the other classrooms so they can develop into fine ethical adults, and so you pull them out of that building (it's a detrimental environment) to educated them elsewhere. They are gone for a long time.

When it's time for them to return, they approach the school. There are hate posters plastered everywhere. The teachers are all dead. Murder and rape are rampant. It's the drug capital of the region. It's the Lord of the Flies times 100. The situation is hopeless. It doesn't do any good to get a bullhorn and call out, "Hey everybody, let's be nice!" You call the SWAT team, the DEA, the National Guard, AND the local police, and you take the school out. That's what needs to be done. The situation is hopeless, the kids are incorrigible, and to ignore it because "we're just supposed to love each other" is morally and judicially irresponsible.