Thou shall not kill?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rose2020
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rose2020

Guest
Hello,

I had a question from my sister that I couldn’t answer properly. She asks me why I believed in the commandments, especially the fifth, if God told nations in the old testament to kill? Isn’t that a contradiction? I don’t believe so, but I couldn’t explain it fully.

Thanks
R
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.
 
Last edited:
Hebrew has two different words for “kill.” One of them, harag (הָרַג) covers a broad range of meanings. It can designate any kind of killing, though it is normally used only of killing a person, not of slaughtering an animal for sacrifice. The other word, ratsach (רָצַח) means, more specifically, “murder.” Killing an enemy in war is always harag, never ratsach. But ratsach is the word that appears in the Ten Commandments.

The Bible Hub website lists all the verses where each of the two words is used:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2026.htm

https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew/7523.htm
 
Last edited:
I had a question from my sister that I couldn’t answer properly. She asks me why I believed in the commandments, especially the fifth, if God told nations in the old testament to kill? Isn’t that a contradiction? I don’t believe so, but I couldn’t explain it fully.
Understanding Scripture fully can be a difficult task-varied as the bible can be-and that’s why we need the Church to decipher both Scripture and her lived experience, her Tradition, in order to know and correctly teach on God’s nature and will for man. And the Church teaches as has been posted above so far, among very many other things about faith and morals that may or may not seem to contradict personal readings.
 
Hello,

I had a question from my sister that I couldn’t answer properly. She asks me why I believed in the commandments, especially the fifth, if God told nations in the old testament to kill? Isn’t that a contradiction? I don’t believe so, but I couldn’t explain it fully.

Thanks
R
The distortion of the Old Testament depiction of God is probably the most common objection to God out there.
Your sister is objecting to a distorted view of God rooted in fundamentalism. Catholics do not read the scriptures in a rigidly literalist way. Her objection to distorted conceptions of God come out of a moral sense that is well tuned. So good for her. Not so good to have a limited sense of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Right, but the objection is not to just war theory. Most everyone gets that.
The (rightly founded) objection is to the God who
told nations in the old testament to kill
BartholomewB’s language meanings are very informative and convey the relative meanings used. That will not really answer the objection for most people.
 
Last edited:
Have you read the Bible? Like actually read it beyond the lectionary? Because He’s definitely done that, and it is consistent with both testaments.
[/quote]

Right I will read the bible some more thanks.
If you’ve read the bible with the mind of the Church you probably know that we (Catholics) don’t do fundamentalism. Obviously these passages document God ordering genocide, and anyone who can read can see that battles took place, and killing, and the command of God to slaughter children.

Do you know what fundamentalism is in regards to scripture? Can you explain it in your own words?

Do you have a comment on the specifics of Pope Benedict’s Verbum Domini, secs 42 and 44? Do you trust P Benedict?

and God bless you we are accomplishing nothing other than edifying those who are reading, and that’s all that matters.
 
Last edited:
But they did kill innocent people sometimes when they conquered a group. They also started fights and didn’t just fight out of self defense
 
But they did kill innocent people sometimes when they conquered a group. They also started fights and didn’t just fight out of self defense
So there are always the two cases and the Jews were know to make errors:
  • following commands of God,
  • disobeying commands of God.
 
40.png
Rose2020:
Hello,

I had a question from my sister that I couldn’t answer properly. She asks me why I believed in the commandments, especially the fifth, if God told nations in the old testament to kill? Isn’t that a contradiction? I don’t believe so, but I couldn’t explain it fully.

Thanks
R
The distortion of the Old Testament depiction of God is probably the most common objection to God out there.
Your sister is objecting to a distorted view of God rooted in fundamentalism. Catholics do not read the scriptures in a rigidly literalist way. Her objection to distorted conceptions of God come out of a moral sense that is well tuned. So good for her. Not so good to have a limited sense of Scripture.
I was going to correct you, goout, and say that not all Catholics read the bible that way. But (name removed by moderator) has saved me the trouble.
 
To me, the commandment is related to humans avoiding evil. Taking a person’s life is evil. On the other hand, God can give life and can take it away, so of course He is above this commandment. This is why Abraham intended to follow God’s commandment to kill his own son.
 
“Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I’ still think so now that we are at peace. It is no good quoting ‘Thou shaft not kill.’ There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major- what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken, What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage - a kind of gaiety and whole-heartedness.”

Mere Christianity, Book 3, Chapter 7. C.S. Lewis
 
You are correct, goout; most people will not be satisfied by BartholomewB’s very informative answer. But that’s only because most people don’t bother to learn about the basic elements of their Faith and because the Church apparently has better things to do then insist on correct English meanings in the Bible, even where dogma is concerned.
Most Catholic versions of the English Bible teach people that it’s OK for a man to divorce his wife and marry another if his wife, for example, acted lewdly. Matthew 19:9 NAB. What Our Lord actually said, of course, was that only in the case of an invalid first marriage may people divorce. NAB Revised.
But kill/murder, lewd conduct/invalid first marriage, what’s the difference for most people, right?
 
“Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I’ still think so now that we are at peace. It is no good quoting ‘Thou shaft not kill.’ There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major- what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken, What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage - a kind of gaiety and whole-heartedness.”

Mere Christianity, Book 3, Chapter 7. C.S. Lewis
And the Church clearly teaches that moral evaluation of killing takes into account the circumstances. Lewis is of course assuming that wise judgement here.
And one of those circumstances is the relative innocence of the one being killed. That status helps determine whether a killing is justified or if it is murder.

In the context of the OP, those justifying the literal command of God to kill small children are left with the odd position of claiming those children are literally guilty and deserving of death.
Out of all the ways to comprehend and appreciate this passage, defaulting to the guilt of children must be the least justifiable.
To put this fundamentalist way of reading the passage ahead of all other contexts is disturbing to say the least.
 
Last edited:
The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture
  1. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations . The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres.
I’ll let Pope Benedict reply. Any comments?
 
How about here. Any comments?
The “dark” passages of the Bible
  1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history . God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.
 
The claim that authoritative Catholic tradition accepts that God is capable of commanding genocide is NONSENSE and this claim not supported at the highest levels of the Magisterium, as indicated in the two posts above.
 
Last edited:
You have not provided titles of the documents you so liberally cherry-picked and quoted, so they can safely be ignored as insignificant.
 
Last edited:
You have not provided titles of the documents you so liberally cherry-picked and quoted, so they can safely be ignored as insignificant.
The links to the references were posted already two previous times.
So you can ignore them if you prefer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top