Would you kill for god?

[McCulloch]

If you belive the bible, god has directed people to kill others, both individually (Abraham) and collectively (Joshua).
So, if god asked you to kill someone, would you?
How would you be sure that he really wants you to do it, after all he has asked it before of others?

[Squall]

Uh dosn't this thread already exist? I could have swore I was digging around some older threads and I came across a discussion on this before.

[QED]

[Cricket sound]

Not many people seem to want to answer this one. I think it's a good question though. How can anyone be sure that they know what god wants them to do? If the message isn't clear and repeatable what confidence can they have that they're not mistaken?

[israeltour]

In theory, my answer should be yes. That is, if God told me to kill someone, I should do it. Would I? Maybe not, because I don't know if I would really believe it's from Him. For example, I've been in church and been moved strongly to pray something out loud. However, I wasn't sure if I should, because it could just be my own emotions... then a moment later someone else prays out loud almost the same thing. This tells me I am capable of dismissing His voice.

Now, to answer this hypothetical, I had to set aside some beliefs I have which suggest that God will never ask me to kill someone:
1)As a rule, in scripture, God has only had Israel the nation kill other nations. He has never (to my recollection) had an individual kill another individual. It's always nation vs. nation.
2)Possible exception: God did tell Abraham to kill his son Isaac. But at the last second, God stopped him.

For these reasons, I believe God will never tell me to kill an individual. So, if I ever think I'm being told to do it, I will conclude that it's not God talking, and I won't do it. I realize I'm risking disobedience, but I'm disobedient when I speed, too, and I still think I'm going to Heaven. I am so sure God wouldn't ask me to kill, that I'll let someone else reap the rewards of that obedience.

[McCulloch]

I guess that my first response is whew I feel safe from you .
But, as you point out there is at least one known exception. God apparently did tell Abraham to kill his son Isaac and came to the rescue (but Abraham did not know that). You do not know if there are other unrecorded exceptions. It is very clear from scripture that not all that God has done has been recorded.

However the king of the children of Ammon didn’t listen to the words of Jephthah which he sent him. Then the Spirit of Yahweh came on Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over to the children of Ammon.
Jephthah vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, “If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”
So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Yahweh delivered them into his hand. He struck them from Aroer until you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can’t go back.”
She said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to Yahweh; do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, even on the children of Ammon.” She said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.”
He said, “Go.” He sent her away for two months: and she departed, she and her companions, and mourned her virginity on the mountains. It happened at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

One does have to wonder why God did not step in, in this case.

The children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years. But when the children of Israel cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised them up a savior, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. The children of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. Ehud made him a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length; and he girded it under his clothing on his right thigh. He offered the tribute to Eglon king of Moab: now Eglon was a very fat man. When he had made an end of offering the tribute, he sent away the people who bore the tribute. But he himself turned back from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, “I have a secret errand to you, king.”
The king said, “Keep silence!” All who stood by him went out from him.
Ehud came to him; and he was sitting by himself alone in the cool upper room. Ehud said, “I have a message from God to you.” He arose out of his seat. Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his body: and the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed on the blade, for he didn’t draw the sword out of his body; and it came out behind. Then Ehud went forth into the porch, and shut the doors of the upper room on him, and locked them.
Now when he was gone out, his servants came; and they saw, and behold, the doors of the upper room were locked; and they said, “Surely he is covering his feet in the upper chamber.” They waited until they were ashamed; and behold, he didn’t open the doors of the upper room: therefore they took the key, and opened them , and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.

God's holy assassin.

You shall not sacrifice to Yahweh your God an ox, or a sheep, in which is a blemish, or anything evil; for that is an abomination to Yahweh your God. If there be found in the midst of you, within any of your gates which Yahweh your God gives you, man or woman, who does that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, or the sun, or the moon, or any of the army of the sky, which I have not commanded; and it be told you, and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire diligently; and behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is done in Israel, then you shall bring forth that man or that woman, who has done this evil thing, to your gates, even the man or the woman; and you shall stone them to death with stones. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hand of the witnesses shall be first on him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.

This is clearly not nation against nation but nation against individual.

Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

For a more personal situation, who in these cases should be doing the putting to death? The parents, the community, the nation?

[israeltour]

I guess that my first response is whew I feel safe from you . But, as you point out there is at least one known exception. God apparently did tell Abraham to kill his son Isaac and came to the rescue (but Abraham did not know that). You do not know if there are other unrecorded exceptions. It is very clear from scripture that not all that God has done has been recorded.

Agreed.

...“If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

...and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can’t go back.”

One does have to wonder why God did not step in, in this case.

People are foolish, and God often doesn't stop it. He didn't stop Moses from killing that guard. Jesus didn't stop Peter from cutting off the centurean's ear. On the other hand, God saved foolish Lot from Sodom and Gormorrah, saved David from King Saul, and saved Joseph from his brothers. If you're going to wonder why God prevent something resulting from human foolishness, it should probably be Adam and Eve eating the Apple, which reduces to the good and evil arguments... the charter members to the human-fools club!

The children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years. But when the children of Israel cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised them up a savior, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed.

...Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his body:

... and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.

God's holy assassin.

True, nations are made of individuals, but this was a military assassination, not an individual vendetta.

If there be found in the midst of you, within any of your gates which Yahweh your God gives you, man or woman, who does that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God...

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death...

So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.

This is clearly not nation against nation but nation against individual.

True, but it's not an example of God personally telling someone to kill. Finding balance in the law requires judgement that may not be appropriate if you're personally ordered by God. Still, if you were to consider the law equivalence to a personal order...

Recall when a group of men brought a prostitute to Jesus and accused her of sin. Jesus said that he who was without sin could cast the first stone. They all left. Then Jesus said to the woman, "Neither do I accuse you." He did several things here: 1)He confirmed the law by inviting the men to stone her. 2)He showed the true standard of the law, that punishment should come from the blameless, and the men in this situation were not... they were hypcrites. 3)Jesus showed her mercy, after confirming she deserved to die.

Therefore, if Jesus can show her mercy, then I conclude that the death prescribed by these laws would be just, but that mercy may be appropriate as well.

BTW, this also brings up the theological point that Jesus made, that the entire law rests on loving God and loving your neighbor. When the criminal is your neighbor, and the accusers are your neighbor, how can you best love God and your neigbor? Not always an easy question to answer!

Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

For a more personal situation, who in these cases should be doing the putting to death? The parents, the community, the nation?

First, notice this also is not an instance of God personally ordering someone, but again let's assume the two were equivalent:

I think the "who punishes" depends on the government one has in place. For example, if the U.S. had such a law, then it would be the government. However, mercy should be also be an option, as described above. (I personally would prefer to see the concept of "mercy" replace jury nullification, but that's another whole ball of wax!)

[McCulloch]

...“If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

...and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can’t go back.”

One does have to wonder why God did not step in, in this case.

People are foolish, and God often doesn't stop it. He didn't stop Moses from killing that guard. Jesus didn't stop Peter from cutting off the centurean's ear. On the other hand, God saved foolish Lot from Sodom and Gormorrah, saved David from King Saul, and saved Joseph from his brothers. If you're going to wonder why God prevent something resulting from human foolishness, it should probably be Adam and Eve eating the Apple, which reduces to the good and evil arguments... the charter members to the human-fools club!

OK then one has to wonder why this tale was included without any indication from the writer that what he did was bad or that maybe he would have been better to break his foolish vow.

The children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years. But when the children of Israel cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised them up a savior, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed.

...Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his body:

... and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.

God's holy assassin.

True, nations are made of individuals, but this was a military assassination, not an individual vendetta.

So, if god asked you to carry out a military assassination rather than an individual vendetta, that would by all right.

If there be found in the midst of you, within any of your gates which Yahweh your God gives you, man or woman, who does that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God...

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death...

So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.

This is clearly not nation against nation but nation against individual.

True, but it's not an example of God personally telling someone to kill. Finding balance in the law requires judgement that may not be appropriate if you're personally ordered by God.

Is it reasonable to believe that god would at times instruct individuals to obey his just and holy law?

Still, if you were to consider the law equivalence to a personal order...

Recall when a group of men brought a prostitute to Jesus and accused her of sin. Jesus said that he who was without sin could cast the first stone. They all left. Then Jesus said to the woman, "Neither do I accuse you." He did several things here: 1)He confirmed the law by inviting the men to stone her. 2)He showed the true standard of the law, that punishment should come from the blameless, and the men in this situation were not... they were hypcrites. 3)Jesus showed her mercy, after confirming she deserved to die.

Therefore, if Jesus can show her mercy, then I conclude that the death prescribed by these laws would be just, but that mercy may be appropriate as well.

One of those really great teachings attributed to Jesus which is at odds with the older portion of the scriptures. This is not a problem to me, who believes the bible to be inconsistent, but it should present a problem to most christians.

BTW, this also brings up the theological point that Jesus made, that the entire law rests on loving God and loving your neighbor. When the criminal is your neighbor, and the accusers are your neighbor, how can you best love God and your neigbor? Not always an easy question to answer!

A new and unique interpretation of the law, brought forth by Jesus. Is there any validation of this interpretation before Jesus time or did god hide this idea from his people for centuries?

Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

For a more personal situation, who in these cases should be doing the putting to death? The parents, the community, the nation?

First, notice this also is not an instance of God personally ordering someone, but again let's assume the two were equivalent:

I think the "who punishes" depends on the government one has in place. For example, if the U.S. had such a law, then it would be the government. However, mercy should be also be an option, as described above. (I personally would prefer to see the concept of "mercy" replace jury nullification, but that's another whole ball of wax!)

I don't see room in the syntax of Exodus 21 for mercy. What exactly does "shall surely be put to death" mean? Does it mean "may be put to death, unless you don't really feel like it", or "shall surely be put to death if your government will do it for you, but if not, you really don't have to do it yourself". Yes, I know that Jesus contradicted this teaching, so bible believing christians have a choice of which biblical teaching to reject.

[israeltour]

...“If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

...and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can’t go back.”

One does have to wonder why God did not step in, in this case.

People are foolish, and God often doesn't stop it. He didn't stop Moses from killing that guard. Jesus didn't stop Peter from cutting off the centurean's ear. On the other hand, God saved foolish Lot from Sodom and Gormorrah, saved David from King Saul, and saved Joseph from his brothers. If you're going to wonder why God prevent something resulting from human foolishness, it should probably be Adam and Eve eating the Apple, which reduces to the good and evil arguments... the charter members to the human-fools club!

OK then one has to wonder why this tale was included without any indication from the writer that what he did was bad or that maybe he would have been better to break his foolish vow.

Of course, I don't know. But perhaps the writer was simply recording the historical facts and wasn't privy to the man's thoughts.

The children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years. But when the children of Israel cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised them up a savior, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed.

...Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his body:

... and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.

God's holy assassin.

True, nations are made of individuals, but this was a military assassination, not an individual vendetta.

So, if god asked you to carry out a military assassination rather than an individual vendetta, that would by all right.

Yeah.

If there be found in the midst of you, within any of your gates which Yahweh your God gives you, man or woman, who does that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God...

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death...

So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.

This is clearly not nation against nation but nation against individual.

True, but it's not an example of God personally telling someone to kill. Finding balance in the law requires judgement that may not be appropriate if you're personally ordered by God.

Is it reasonable to believe that god would at times instruct individuals to obey his just and holy law?

No, if Jesus died for our sins.

Still, if you were to consider the law equivalence to a personal order...

Recall when a group of men brought a prostitute to Jesus and accused her of sin. Jesus said that he who was without sin could cast the first stone. They all left. Then Jesus said to the woman, "Neither do I accuse you." He did several things here: 1)He confirmed the law by inviting the men to stone her. 2)He showed the true standard of the law, that punishment should come from the blameless, and the men in this situation were not... they were hypcrites. 3)Jesus showed her mercy, after confirming she deserved to die.

Therefore, if Jesus can show her mercy, then I conclude that the death prescribed by these laws would be just, but that mercy may be appropriate as well.

One of those really great teachings attributed to Jesus which is at odds with the older portion of the scriptures. This is not a problem to me, who believes the bible to be inconsistent, but it should present a problem to most christians.

Not at all. Jesus came not to change the law, but fulfil it. It was fulfilled by sacrifice, which God would accept for all transgressions of the law, for those repentant of their sinful ways. As a result, we are not bound by the law in any practical sense.

BTW, this also brings up the theological point that Jesus made, that the entire law rests on loving God and loving your neighbor. When the criminal is your neighbor, and the accusers are your neighbor, how can you best love God and your neigbor? Not always an easy question to answer!

A new and unique interpretation of the law, brought forth by Jesus. Is there any validation of this interpretation before Jesus time or did god hide this idea from his people for centuries?

What Jesus quoted is the Sh'ma, and it is still chanted by the Jews today. If you look at the 10 commandments, they can be reduced to loving God and loving your neighbor. No new ground here.

Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

For a more personal situation, who in these cases should be doing the putting to death? The parents, the community, the nation?

First, notice this also is not an instance of God personally ordering someone, but again let's assume the two were equivalent:

I think the "who punishes" depends on the government one has in place. For example, if the U.S. had such a law, then it would be the government. However, mercy should be also be an option, as described above. (I personally would prefer to see the concept of "mercy" replace jury nullification, but that's another whole ball of wax!)

I don't see room in the syntax of Exodus 21 for mercy. What exactly does "shall surely be put to death" mean? Does it mean "may be put to death, unless you don't really feel like it", or "shall surely be put to death if your government will do it for you, but if not, you really don't have to do it yourself". Yes, I know that Jesus contradicted this teaching, so bible believing christians have a choice of which biblical teaching to reject.

You're correct, the wording is harsh and doesn't appear to leave room for Mercy. All I know is, in practice, mercy is shown in the midst of judgement throughout the Old Testament. For example, while Aaron was forging the golden calf, God was giving Moses the 10 commandments which included not worshipping other Gods. Yet, at the same time, God also gave Moses instructions for purifying the head priest... perhaps even while Aaron was blowing it! No mention of mercy, but it was there. So once again, Jesus wasn't really introducing anything new... just forgotten.

[McCulloch]

Is it reasonable to believe that god would at times instruct individuals to obey his just and holy law?

No, if Jesus died for our sins.

So, now that Jesus died for our sins, we can continue sinning without fear of god's retribution. This forgiveness thing is great! Why haven't other christians explained this to me ?

Jesus came not to change the law, but fulfil it. It was fulfilled by sacrifice, which God would accept for all transgressions of the law, for those repentant of their sinful ways. As a result, we are not bound by the law in any practical sense.

So if we repent of our sinful ways then don't we stop sinning? Or at least try to not sin? And if to sin is to break god's law, then would we not still be bound to it?

BTW, this also brings up the theological point that Jesus made, that the entire law rests on loving God and loving your neighbor. When the criminal is your neighbor, and the accusers are your neighbor, how can you best love God and your neigbor? Not always an easy question to answer!

A new and unique interpretation of the law, brought forth by Jesus. Is there any validation of this interpretation before Jesus time or did god hide this idea from his people for centuries?

What Jesus quoted is the Sh'ma, and it is still chanted by the Jews today. If you look at the 10 commandments, they can be reduced to loving God and loving your neighbor. No new ground here.

And this Sh'ma is in the scripture where?

I don't see room in the syntax of Exodus 21 for mercy. What exactly does "shall surely be put to death" mean? Does it mean "may be put to death, unless you don't really feel like it", or "shall surely be put to death if your government will do it for you, but if not, you really don't have to do it yourself". Yes, I know that Jesus contradicted this teaching, so bible believing christians have a choice of which biblical teaching to reject.

You're correct, the wording is harsh and doesn't appear to leave room for Mercy. All I know is, in practice, mercy is shown in the midst of judgement throughout the Old Testament. For example, while Aaron was forging the golden calf, God was giving Moses the 10 commandments which included not worshipping other Gods. Yet, at the same time, God also gave Moses instructions for purifying the head priest... perhaps even while Aaron was blowing it! No mention of mercy, but it was there. So once again, Jesus wasn't really introducing anything new... just forgotten.

So the bible is contradictory. The law in Exodus is strict and its application is lenient.

[israeltour]

Is it reasonable to believe that god would at times instruct individuals to obey his just and holy law?

No, if Jesus died for our sins.

So, now that Jesus died for our sins, we can continue sinning without fear of god's retribution.

Paul asks a very similar question in Romans 6:15a, "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?"

Well, he answers the question, too in Romans 6:15b - 18, "Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."

And so I am to act in righteousness. Not out of obedience to the law, which I am technically freed from, but in obedience to righteousness.

The OT prophecies this in Jeremiah 31:31-34, "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, through I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

This forgiveness thing is great! Why haven't other christians explained this to me ?

If you're serious, that no Christian has explained this to you before, then they were remiss in my opinion.

Jesus came not to change the law, but fulfil it. It was fulfilled by sacrifice, which God would accept for all transgressions of the law, for those repentant of their sinful ways. As a result, we are not bound by the law in any practical sense.

So if we repent of our sinful ways then don't we stop sinning? Or at least try to not sin? And if to sin is to break god's law, then would we not still be bound to it?

Here's where you get into word games. One person will say their actions are no longer sinful, because they're freed from the law. Another will say they're still sinners, but their sin is forgiven. Both answers have grains of truth in them. Sin is "missing the mark". So my answer is that we continue to miss the mark, but the law written our heart combined with the Holy Spirit steers us back toward it again... and where the law says that our sin must be atoned for with a sacrifice, we have Christ to point to as that sacrifice. So, it turns out that one's attitude is not a cavalier "oh I can sin all I want", but "I want to live in righteousness"... and that's one way you can tell if someone is truly born again.

And this Sh'ma is in the scripture where?

In modern times, the Sh'ma is made up of Deut. 6:4-9, Deut. 11:13-21, and Num. 15: 37-41. Jesus was quoting specifically Deut. 6:5. However, to cover the gist of the totality of the law, He cited with it a similar verse, Leviticus 19:18 (loving your neighbor as yourself). So, I have to correct myself slightly, that only "loving God as yourself" was taken from the Sh'ma, but both verses are in the Law. Regardless, Jesus was breaking no new ground with His answer.

So the bible is contradictory. The law in Exodus is strict and its application is lenient.

That depends on your perspective. Part of the "strict" law was to give sacrifices, which is basically atoning for your sins... so however else one failed to follow the law, your sacrifices made you right with God again. So, is the law in some respect both strict and lenient? Perhaps at first glance. But, neglect that sacrifice and you won't be right with God. Thankfully, in a society where ritual sacrifice is outlawed, I have Jesus to thank for being that sacrifice, having first lived a blameless live, and then conquering His death through ressurection.