Today I am marking the occasion of my one thousandth post with something I have been sitting on for a while.
For some time the use of the phrase "Thou shalt not kill", by persons promoting an agenda or way of life outside of religion has really bothered me. And the people I often see using it fall into one of two groups.
Group A - The "I really hate religion, because the rest of the coffee house revolutionaries hate religion, but we will use religious words to shame those stupid superstitious believers to support our cause" (anti-capital punishment, animal rights and/or anti-military)
Group B - Members of religious communities, groups or organizations that have been duped by or sympathetic to Group A.
Now the problem really is not that they use the phrase per se, but that they use it out of context and out of time; for the phrase had a different understanding by people in the time which the phrase had been translated from the original text and in that texts original language. (btw, this is not relativism of the Bible, that will come in modern times)
The passage I am referring to is Exodus 20:13, in which we as lineal readers and the children of Israel in linear time are first made aware of the Commandment from God "Thou shalt not kill" and most people understood what it meant from the time of Moses leading his people out of Egypt to about the middle of the 20th century. Then comes modern and post-modern theological and linguistic relativism and people interpret this to mean what ever suits them; to someone who opposes capital punishment it means that criminals should not be executed for the most heinous crimes, to animal rights activists it means that people should not hunt or slaughter animals for food and to those who oppose the military or warfare it means that wars should never be fought, regardless of justification and in the most extreme cases those who mourn trees and plants that they claim humans have murdered.
This is where context and translation comes into play. The word for “kill” used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament is ratsach (raw-tsakh') a primitive root that means to kill a human, murder or manslaughter. It does not translate into “Thou shalt not kill animals for their tasty meat or hides for your use”, for it was understood that we had been given dominion over animals by God (Genesis 1:26) and that the people of the Old Testament and Covenant sacrificed animals to J*****h in the temples. So PETA can stop with this non-sense straight away.
Those against capital punishment say “you can do as you please with animals, but you must leave these criminals be"; well, the problem with that is that God had also covered the whole capital punishment thing early on in the Old Testament – “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Genesis 9:6) – “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” (Numbers 35-33). In fact in the Old Testament there are sixteen offences that where capital crimes punishable by death, the catch is God wanted the execution of law breakers to be carried out by duly constituted legal authorities, courts of law and governments and not by vigilantes or mobs.
There will be those who will say "capital punishment went out the window with Jesus and the New Testament"...ah not really. "And as for those who were against me, who would not have me for their ruler, let them come here, and be put to death before me." (St. Luke 19:27 - The Parable of the Pounds) and "Now what will the lord do to these workmen? He will come and put them to destruction and give the garden to others." (St. Luke 20:15-16 - The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen). Saints Peter and Paul deferred to the right of Civil Government to promulgate law and order, even unto their own executions. For a more concise and compelling arguments on this subject may I suggest this article here…
And as to the argument that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, prohibits warfare and combat, I don’t believe that it prohibits either. Starting in Genesis 14, when the Patriarch Abraham arms his men (all 318 of them) and conducts a guerrilla war against Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; they having attacked other nations in the region, including Sodom and in those attacks had captured plunder and prisoners, among them Lot, Abraham's nephew. So, early on in the Bible we have our first case of a “Just War” in freeing innocent civilians taken as plunder. In Exodus 15, Moses and the people of Israel sing unto the Lord and praised Him for personally destroying Pharaoh and the army of Egypt as it gave pursuit to return Israel to bondage...so God does have a use for war in the defence and liberation of his people.
Many may accuse me of being bloodthirsty, conflicted or un-Christian, but nothing can be further from the truth. I see what has been written and see the turmoil that our civilization has thrown itself into by abandoning these laws and commandments for some ideal of humanity, and those who consider themselves great humanitarians support the execution the most innocent and defenceless people (without the benefit of trial or advocacy), all the while humiliating, dehumanizing and devaluing their victims. I will not call names or cast epithets at these people as they do so unto others, neither shall I hold my tongue when I see something wrong happening (it's the Yankee in me), nor will I pretend to judge anyone for that is not my place, I am just using my God given right to voice my opinion.
Reference and Resources:
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07523&version=kjv
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7523.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2585
http://www.christendomisfightingback.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
†
Thank you for elucidating your thinking on this.
ReplyDeleteIf this is not too off topic: Were there any imprisonment type punishments in the Old Testament?
I am thinking that imprisonment is costly and maybe only wealthy societies can afford to use imprisonment as punishment for crimes.
Hi Perpetua,
ReplyDeleteImprisonment as we understand it, is a relatively modern concept. (i.e. penitentiaries and correctional facilities.)
For most of history, punishments has come in the form of capital, corporal, forced servitude or exile. Dungeons were used to hold prisoners until one of the afore mentioned punishments could be administered, if the prisoner survived holding.
You are correct in thinking that it is costly to imprison people and corrections departments all over the US have seen drastic cuts and changes in their budgets due to the economic down-turn.
Recidivism is another problem, for all of the time and effort that has been placed into reform and rehabilitation there is little return on expenditure.
Prisons have become retreats and learning centers for the criminal element. There are high rates of parole violation and failed re-entry as many have found a way of life in the criminal sub-culture.
Many states have adopted alternative sentencing guidelines and new community oriented correctional programs have been put in place. In most cases first time offenders are placed in diversion programs to curb overcrowding, this approach is seeing mixed results but proving more cost effective.
Hope this helped.