Most English-language Bibles translate the Hebrew word as “murder”, but several use the word “kill”.
How did 1st century Christians interpret this commandment? I understand there are other ways to translate it.
Here is a link to a book that tackles the subject: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Joan_of_Bark said
Thanks for that. It would make sense within the context of Old Testament theology and history.I’ve also seen it interpreted as “thou shall not stalk and kill”.
Welcome Joan! Great name.
Moderns tend to think more abstractly than the ancients who thought very concretely. Advising Israelites not to butcher each other like sheep or cattle might be the best sense of it. Am I going out on a limb to suggest a hint of opprobrium against ancient near eastern customs of human sacrifice? The practice is universally condemned in the Hebrew Bible but you don’t condemn practices that aren’t taking place.
Robert said
Joan_of_Bark said
Most English-language Bibles translate the Hebrew word as “murder”, but several use the word “kill”.
How did 1st century Christians interpret this commandment? I understand there are other ways to translate it.
I don’t know of any 1st-century Christian interpretations of the commandment not to kill, but there is a broad consensus among early Christians against killing (eg, participation in the military or state-sponsored execution). ** you do not have permission to see this link ** lists a number of quotations to this effect, mostly based on the teachings of Jesus. The only one that seems to touch on the commandment is from Lactantius, an instructor of Constantine’s son (240–320):
“For when God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those beings which are esteemed lawful among men. . . . Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all, but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.”
That is a formidable catena presented at that page; clearly there was a pacifist element in early Christianity; though I find it suspiciously one sided. While it goes into the fourth and fifth centuries, certainly by that point there were notable voices (say, Augustine) that distinguished killing in war or in executing a capital sentence duly imposed by the proper judge from murder (though Augustine famously denied a right to kill in self defense).
And I’m curious how the voices there quoted understood rom 13:4 or even lk 23:39-43.
…a broad consensus among early Christians against killing (eg, participation in the military or state-sponsored execution).
…opposition to participation in the military was not based purely upon opposition to killing. There was also the problem of cultic and symbolic obeissance to the emperor and the civic gods that was part of military service.
Not to be overly judgmental since who among us is without sin of course, but perhaps we should note the irony that it is our current crop of evangelistic inerrantists, loudly encouraging the rest of us to take the Bible literally, who are the most nationalistic and militaristic of believers. I hate to disparage such deeply held convictions but I’m beginning to suspect there is a disconnect somewhere.
Robert said
Porphyry said
Robert said
Joan_of_Bark said
Most English-language Bibles translate the Hebrew word as “murder”, but several use the word “kill”.
How did 1st century Christians interpret this commandment? I understand there are other ways to translate it.
I don’t know of any 1st-century Christian interpretations of the commandment not to kill, but there is a broad consensus among early Christians against killing (eg, participation in the military or state-sponsored execution). ** you do not have permission to see this link ** lists a number of quotations to this effect, mostly based on the teachings of Jesus. The only one that seems to touch on the commandment is from Lactantius, an instructor of Constantine’s son (240–320):
“For when God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those beings which are esteemed lawful among men. . . . Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all, but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.”
That is a formidable catena presented at that page; clearly there was a pacifist element in early Christianity; though I find it suspiciously one sided. While it goes into the fourth and fifth centuries, certainly by that point there were notable voices (say, Augustine) that distinguished killing in war or in executing a capital sentence duly imposed by the proper judge from murder (though Augustine famously denied a right to kill in self defense).
And I’m curious how the voices there quoted understood rom 13:4 or even lk 23:39-43.
. . . . Another point which I intended but then neglected to mention is that opposition to participation in the military was not based purely upon opposition to killing. There was also the problem of cultic and symbolic obeissance to the emperor and the civic gods that was part of military service.
That makes a lot of sense. Perhaps not exactly the same point, but parallel: The idea of bloodshed making one ritually unclean extends up to the modern period. All through the middle ages, even while the inquisitions were sentencing people for capital crimes and the church was clearly teaching the liceity of killing in war, self-defense, or capital punishment, there were numerous canons prohibiting cleric from shedding blood (even in these otherwise licit ways).
I was thinking this was based on some law from the old testament priesthood, but then again, you had that whole episode with the Levites and the golden calf.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)