It has always been a mystery to me how a person can be anti-abortion and yet pro-death penalty, pro-war and anti-public health care.
In all four of those cases, innocent people die. Regardless of how fine we split the hairs on “thou shalt not kill” it seems clear to me that killing innocents is not within the realm of permissible human killing.
It seems a great example of how our political views influence our reading of scripture, rather than vice-versa. It also makes me admire the Catholic church for at least trying to be consistent.

Yes, i think Jesus goes beyond the OT Law. He does this explicitly when he says, “You’ve heard it said, ‘an eye for an eye’ but i tell you…”. If we are to bless those who curse us, and do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who persecute us, then it seems the plain teaching is that we respond to our enemies in love. i am amazed at Gandhi’s understanding of the transformational power of this kind of response as he writes it in Satyagraha. He believes this is the way to transform our enemies. It seems the Cross of Christ speaks the same language. i like what i once heard Tony Campolo say, “I think when Jesus said we should love our enemies, he probably meant we shouldn’t bomb them”. Let’s try something different and see what happens. i believe Jesus goes beyond “Thou shalt not murder”

Thank you, Scot.

Isn’t “murder” a mistranslation of sorts?
In my ESV bible it is noted that the Hebrew word also encompasses “causing human death through carelessness or negligence”.
Which would place manslaughter and perhaps some of the other things you cite in paragraph #2 as part of “murder” and not in the ambiguous area?

This attaches nicely to your question regarding the Holy Spirit. Jesus makes it plain that murder is not simply taking life indirectly or otherwise. Hating someone is equivalent to their murder. Many of us are as guilty as Dick Cheney, Che, Pol Pot, Charles Manson or any other famous person to whom various groups have attached the label of “demon” or “public enemy #1″.
That’s pretty humbling to know I’m on the same plain as Hitler, King David and Cain…

> “Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind.” But what about Jesus? What does he say?
So which is it? Did God not write the commandment you quote from Genesis? Or are you saying Jesus wasn’t God, that these are two different entities, with very different ideas about justice, talking? Or did God change God’s mind on this point?

“Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. This fundamental relationship anchors the command not to murder”
Well observed! I’ve started thinking that a Chrisitan can be a moral relativist, indeed it seems to me that morality is not rooted in some universal law, or norm, but derived out of love. Love is athe stadard of morailty. This also helps one deal with the Euthyphro dilemma I think. Although I’ve not fully worked it through.

In a perfect world (what a way to start an opinion!) I would trust our system of justice to determine guilt or innocence and, yes, I would find it a consistent ethic to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty for murder. To make the statement that “whoever sheds human blood, by other humans his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind” means that this action is taken as a community, making a clear statement about the wickedness of murder, and done with regret, not triumphalism. But, can I trust our system of justice to determine guilt or innocence? This really pulls the rug right out from under it for me.

Weighed in the scales you make it seem that pacifism and just war are balanced out in church history, as in some of the Reformers believed in just war and the Anabaptists did not. Isn’t it your impression that the anabaptist position is such a minority opinion through the wide sweep of NT interpretation in the church that it fights for air? It’s a real position and it has serious arguments to make. But it has never been widely held in the church (though Ben Witherington makes the case the early church fathers were largely pacifist – of this I am not sure). In seminary I wanted to write a paper on this for ethics class and the professor would not accept my proposal. He said the issue was essentially settled for just war and wanted me to choose something a bit more controversial. It also seems to me that pacifism is a piece with the “trajectory” model of interpretation. In this model we draw conclusions about where the New Testament teachings will lead even if they do not explicitly assert the conclusions we have reached, eg., slavery is not explicitly forbidden but NT principles will lead to the eradication of slavery. I think this is true enough, but it is a model that requires a high degree of checks and balances. I do not think pacifism is a conclusion that has enough support in the NT. I teach in college many wounded vets who are Christians who will live the rest of their lives paying a very severe price for their service. I think the church is ambivalent about how to honor soldiers and the profession of soldiering. I am actually researching how churches support and do not support vets at the level of other groups that gain more immediate attention – immigrants, AIDS victims, etc. Soldiering is one of those professions that will disappear in the fullness of the kingdom, along with physicians and lawyers. Since that is true maybe we even now feel the ambivalence of vigorous engagement with communities whose very existence symbolize the “now” of the “now-not yet” duality of the kingdom.

Tim @ 6,
Same God talking to 2 different groups at 2 different times. Or did Jesus not say “you heard this, but I’m saying this”?

Scot said, “I believe this is the plain teaching of Matthew 5:38-48.”
Actually, I agree with Scot on this issue in nearly all respects (and the potential quibbles aren’t worth getting into here). Still, the fact of such strong disagreement among Christians (perhaps especially “Bible Believing” Christians who most frequently cite “plain teachings” as their basis for their beliefs) is why I feel that appeals to “plain teaching” are best avoided.

Travis,
Thanks for your reply! It’s true that God of the bible sometimes tell people to do different things than others, for example: “Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales…” That’s not a statement of morality, just an dietary instruction to a specific group.
The problem is that the verse above isn’t merely an instruction. Instead, it is a moral proposition: Because human life is in the image of God, justice requires murder forfeit the life of the murderer.
That proposition can be true, or false, but not both, simultaneously, if wish to be rational. If God asserted both (earlier versus later), then God has changed his mind about a universal statement of truth. Or perhaps we’re saying God wrongly phrased a situational ethic (there is no absolute rule) as a universal, or the writer got it wrong?