Was it ever permissible to kill people according to OT laws?

[powlette]

Simple question: was there ever a time when it was okay to kill people for the following reasons:

* Worshiping idols (Ex 22:20, Lev 20:1-5, Deut 17:2-7).
* Blasphemy (Lev 24:14-16,23).
* Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36).
* Practicing magic (Ex 22:18).
* Being a medium or spiritualist. (stoning) (Lev 20:27).
* Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deut 13:1-11, 18:20).
* Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deut 13:12-15)
* Giving one of your descents to Molech. Probably refers to human sacrifice and is not now commonly practiced in the west. (Lev 20:2)
* Non-priests going near the tabernacle when it is being moved. (Numb 1:51)
* Being a false prophet. (Deut 132:5, Deut 18:20, Zech 13:2-3)

We all agree it's not a good idea to kill a person for any reason today, but if you lived 2,000 years ago, would it have been okay to follow biblical law and put them to death?

And if not, I'm curious why these punishments were ever included in the bible if they weren't meant to be implemented?

[Buck shot]

I don't know where you live powlette but here in the states there are still crimes that receive the death penalty.

If we had lived during the time that God lead His people in the wildness, there would be no option. We would have had to follow through with the punishments God had laid out.

I think you already knew the answer.

[powlette]

I don't know where you live powlette but here in the states there are still crimes that receive the death penalty.

If we had lived during the time that God lead His people in the wildness, there would be no option. We would have had to follow through with the punishments God had laid out.

I think you already knew the answer.

I live in the states as well and I know that there are crimes in some states that are punishable by death. I figured saying that killing someone was wrong wouldn't be a controversial statement on a Christian message board, but I guess I was wrong.

So just to be clear, if you lived in the year 0, or even the year 200 which was still before the canonization of the NT, then you would have no choice but to kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath?

[dljc]

So just to be clear, if you lived in the year 0, or even the year 200 which was still before the canonization of the NT, then you would have no choice but to kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath?

Actually there was one case where a person said a few things, did a few things on the sabbath that the pharisees didn't think anybody should be doing. They had Him scourged and crucified by the Romans. Maybe you've heard of Him, His name was Jesus.

Mark 14:55-64
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.

57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,

58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

59 But neither so did their witness agree together.

60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

[EF Hutton]

Simple question: was there ever a time when it was okay to kill people

I would say that there was never a time when it was okay to kill someone. The world in it's infancy had no real concept for law, only lawlessness. Earliest of men were definitely savages and this is who "laws" were applied to. In the time period you chose to ask about (2000 years ago) man had advanced alot but still had no respect for tolerance. I would say that they then may not have been savages, but they still had not arrived. The question itself is interesting but the question itself resist any responsibility for who we use to be as "early man". We have to view ourselves, not just of our present generation, but of all generations before. It has to viewed as one event. Think of it this way: In a timeline scenerio- from the first man, to the ones being born today, is just one child. One child being reared up trained and taught and maturing from wrong to right(eous). That's actually what is going on in life. So it's not prudent to look back unless we don't want to go forward. Christ's advent into the whole event of man came only after man ("or this one child") was trained for a time with laws meant to cull and prepare life it's self for Christ's advent. We all had to crawl before we walked. This advent abolished the cruelty that some laws imposed on the lost and gave man a giant leap from his childlike impression of justification to the more refined interpretation of it that we enjoy today. Sophistication, edification, morality, refinement and all other valuble aspects that man is today comes from God rearing up this "one child", which has progressed through time as many generations.

I guess what this is all trying to say concerning the right to kill someone is that, that is who we were back then and just because we can ask the question now does'nt necessarily give us any relevance to ask it as if we were not guilty of anything then. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy to do if we don't consider ourselves as one of the players.

[powlette]

I guess what this is all trying to say concerning the right to kill someone is that, that is who we were back then and just because we can ask the question now does'nt necessarily give us any relevance to ask it as if we were not guilty of anything. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy to do if we don't consider ourselves as one of the players.

I guess I don't understand. It was my understanding that the bible was the inerrant word of God and it very clearly prescribed the death penalty for the above infractions. This was God's law before the NT was written and you're saying that it shouldn't be applied, then why are these punishments written if we're supposed to know not to apply them?

It's been argued many times that there can be no morality without God. But here you're saying that in spite of God's clear intention for us, that we should have substituted our own morality for what's written in the bible if we lived during this time period.

[apothanein kerdos]

You're assuming again.

You're assuming that these punishments were followed all the time. You're assuming that because we view them as wrong now that they were wrong then. You're assuming the New Testament wasn't compiled until 200 years after Christ. You're assuming that people still didn't know the teachings of the New Testament prior to its compilation. You're assuming there isn't a hidden motive for God including these punishments in the Law.

So there are quite a few assumptions within your questions.

[powlette]

You're assuming again.

You're assuming that these punishments were followed all the time. You're assuming that because we view them as wrong now that they were wrong then. You're assuming the New Testament wasn't compiled until 200 years after Christ. You're assuming that people still didn't know the teachings of the New Testament prior to its compilation. You're assuming there isn't a hidden motive for God including these punishments in the Law.

So there are quite a few assumptions within your questions.

I didn't see an answer in there. Yes or no, was it ever allowable to follow the OT laws? And if not, why are they in there?

[apothanein kerdos]

I didn't see an answer in there. Yes or no, was it ever allowable to follow the OT laws? And if not, why are they in there?

My answer was that the question was flawed. It's built upon faulty premises - so no matter what answer is given ("Yes" or "No") it's going to be the wrong answer because the question itself is faulty.

[found in alaska]

Among the ancient Hebrews, the kings, high priests, and elders had the law enforcement responsibility. Individuals were appointed to apprehend and punish ...


http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880


The Mosaic Law is holy, good, and spiritual
It was, however, only temporary as the book of Hebrews so clearly teaches. As such, the Mosaic Law was designed to maintain a proper relationship between God and His people Israel (blessing versus cursing), but only until the coming of Messiah and the establishment of a New Covenant. The Law was never designed to be a permanent rule of life. It was merely a tutor or guardian to guide Israel in all areas of her life until Christ.

Recipients of the Mosaic Law
The Mosaic Law was a bilateral covenant made specifically for Israel alone to govern her life in the promised land. From the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen.12) we see Israel was a chosen nation, an instrument of God to become a channel of blessing to all nations. Yahweh was her Theocratic King who was to rule and guide the nation in her destiny that she might not become polluted or contaminated by other nations and could thus fulfill her purpose. For this the Mosaic Law was instituted to direct Israel as a nation in all spheres of her life—morally, socially, politically, economically and religiously.

By its very nature, the Mosaic Law was not to be, and could not be, obeyed to the letter by any other people in any other place as a rule of life. However, in the spirit of the Law it did set forth moral principles which were applicable and would bring blessing to all people anywhere and at any time when applied and used as a standard of right and wrong.

J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880

[Gulah Papyrus]

I'll answer it. Yes, there was an age when killing blasphemers was not only accepted, but necessary. But keep in mind that these laws only ruled over the descendants of Abraham...the 12 tribes. They weren't to be enforced outside of the 12 tribes, just Israel was required to live by Mosaic Law. Blasphemy there and then would be comparable to today's treason...which i believe can still result in capitol punishment?

So what is the problem?

[powlette]

My answer was that the question was flawed. It's built upon faulty premises - so no matter what answer is given ("Yes" or "No") it's going to be the wrong answer because the question itself is faulty.

Can you rephrase the question in a way that you would answer it? I don't know what premise you think is required to answer this question. It's a simple yes or no - either it was okay to kill blasphemers/witches/people_who_work_on_sundays according to the OT laws which existed before the NT, or it wasn't. And if this question can't be answered, then how could these laws be enforced?

[apothanein kerdos]

Can you rephrase the question in a way that you would answer it? I don't know what premise you think is required to answer this question. It's a simple yes or no - either it was okay to kill blasphemers/witches/people_who_work_on_sundays according to the OT laws which existed before the NT, or it wasn't. And if this question can't be answered, then how could these laws be enforced?

That's the point of the law - though it was enforced by audacious fellows at times, over all it wasn't normally enforced, mainly because everyone violated the law.

And that's really the point of the Law. It's to show us that we're all guilty and we all deserve death. Thus, Christ came into the world and took what we deserve. That's the point of the Law. Looking to the punishments, how it should be exacted, if it applies to today...all of that misses the point. The Law points to not only our need for a Savior, but to our Savior.

[powlette]

That's the point of the law - though it was enforced by audacious fellows at times, over all it wasn't normally enforced, mainly because everyone violated the law.

And that's really the point of the Law. It's to show us that we're all guilty and we all deserve death. Thus, Christ came into the world and took what we deserve. That's the point of the Law. Looking to the punishments, how it should be exacted, if it applies to today...all of that misses the point. The Law points to not only our need for a Savior, but to our Savior.

So God says, "here are laws which you cannot possibly live up to and if you violate them you deserve death". Then when you don't live up to them, he says, "see, you need a savior now because you didn't live up to my laws."

I take issue with this stance that people are born defective and commanded to be healed. I think it's rather cynical and inhumane.

[Dani H]

So God says, "here are laws which you cannot possibly live up to and if you violate them you deserve death". Then when you don't live up to them, he says, "see, you need a savior now because you didn't live up to my laws."

I take issue with this stance that people are born defective and commanded to be healed. I think it's rather cynical and inhumane.

What other standard would you suggest then?

"Hey, you guys need Me."

"We do? Based on what, exactly?"

"Because I say so."

Yea, that'll go over well ... it wouldn't with you, would it? You would find that arbitrary and insultive of your intelligence.

God has laid His requirements out in the open, for all to see.

If you wish to be a citizen of the U.S. of A., then it would behoove you to research the laws of the land and make sure you can abide by them.

Why would God's Kingdom be different? Is He not allowed to have standards? Can He not give people choices? Should He just let anyone into His presence, without any requirements, and let whoever do whatever, without any consequences? Should people be just permitted to treat one another any which way they please? That's silly. Any sub-bit of society (families, communes, and any congregation of people in general) at large has rules and standards that people are expected to live by. Where do you suppose we get that from? Thin air?

I don't know about you, but I would rather have lofty guidelines and firm boundaries than lawlessness and anarchy ... because people, left to their own judgment, can do some pretty nasty things to one another.

And we already err on the side of no killing. Which is why our prisons are overcrowded, full of violence, and more criminals with hefty records are roaming the streets than you can shake a stick at, and why crime is up everywhere instead of down. If there are no real consequences, then people obviously will push the envelope and try and get away with more and more abject behavior.

God makes His consequences fit our behavior. He really does. We like to coddle our sin because surely, we can't be all that bad. Yes, surely, we can. And we are. Day in and day out, throughout human history, in every nation, during every century since recorded history.

I'm glad you have such faith in people. I hope it doesn't fail you. I guess I'm more realistic about it based on evidence recorded everywhere. I've more faith in God's ability to restore a person and straighten them out using whichever means He deems necessary, than I do in people being "naturally" nice to each other.