|
|
|
SPECIAL TOPIC: MURDER (EXODUS 20:13)
I. Context
A. It needs to be remembered that even the commands that seem to
be of a social nature are really religious. God’s sovereignty
over creation and redemption are shadowed in these commands. The
command not to murder is, in proper focus, a word about the
image of God in every human being and God’s care and concern for
human life.
B. It needs to be remembered that each command
focused on the believing community. Its implications are as wide
as humanity!
II. Word Study of Significant Terms
A. “Murder”
1. This term rasah,
(79,
BDB 953, means taking a life. It is used only forty six times in
the OT. There are several other overlapping Hebrew terms used
hundreds of times.
2. The term (rasah) seems to have an
original limited meaning and an expanded meaning.
a. Originally it related to taking the life of a covenant
partner in a legal, premeditated way, often associated with “the
kinsman redeemer” or go’el. This usage involved
premeditation, but in a sense of legal revenge (cf. Num.
35:30-34; Lev. 24:13-23). In reality the Lex Talionis, “eye for
eye,” (cf. Gen. 9:5-6) was a way to limit revenge. Later, the
cities of refuge (Deut. 4:41; Josh. 20:3) were established so
that a covenant member who accidentally or passionately killed
another member of the community could flee the wrath of the
victim’s family.
b. Later the term came to refer to the motive or attitude behind
the taking of a life. The concept of“intentionality” becomes
uppermost (cf. Exod. 21:12-14; Num. 35:11,22; Deut. 28:24).
c. This distinction becomes significant in this command. It
seems in context to refer only to others withinthe covenant
community. It is related to the kinsman redeemer, or blood
revenge. However, the termis used in later passages which
reflect the Decalog, Hosea 4:2 and Jer. 8:9, to refer to a
murderer. This word relates not only to the law, but to the
motive. It expands from neighbor to fellow human being.
3. This term certainly does not relate to our
modern ethical issue of capital punishment or war. The Jews
never had a problem with community execution or holy war (or,
for that matter, unholy) (1) |
-
“everyone who is
angry” This is a PRESENT MIDDLE PARTICIPLE. This was the Greek
term for a settled, nurtured, non-forgiving, long term anger. This
person continued to be intensely angry.
-
“with his brother”
The KJV adds “without cause.” This is a Greek manuscript variation.
The addition is not in the early Greek manuscripts P67, !*, B, or the
Vulgate. However, it is in the uncial manuscripts !c, D, K, L, W, the
Diatesseron, and the early Syrian and Coptic translations.
-
“presenting your
offering at the altar” This strongly implies that Matthew wrote
before the destruction of the Temple by the Roman general Titus in
A.D. 70. Lifestyle love precedes religious acts! Relationships take
precedence over ritual. People are the top priority with God. Only
people are eternal.
-
5:24 “be reconciled to your brother” This is an
AORIST PASSIVE IMPERATIVE. Personal relationships are more significant
than (1) periodic ritual (v. 24) or (2) judicial decisions (v. 25).
-
“Unchastity” is the term porneia, as in
v. 27. This referred to any kind of sexual misconduct. This was often
interpreted as “fornication” or “unfaithfulness.” There were two
rabbinical schools of interpretation: (1) Shammai, who allowed divorce
for inappropriate sexual activity only (“some indecency,” Deut. 24:1)
and (2) Hillel, who allowed divorce for any reason (i.e., “she finds
no favor in his eyes,” Deut. 24:1). Divorce had become a major problem
within Judaism. Some scholars see this term related not to sexual
intercourse, but to incest (cf. Leviticus 18; I Cor. 5:1). Still
others think it relates to the issue of virginity discussed in Deut.
22:13-21. In the OT adultery affected family inheritance, which was
sacred and given by God (Joshua 12-24). The “Year of Jubilee” is an
illustration of this concern.
-
“makes her commit adultery” This is an AORIST
PASSIVE INFINITIVE. The PASSIVE VOICE is crucial in a proper
interpretation of “causes her to commit adultery.” The very act of
divorcing a wife caused the woman to be stigmatized by the community
as an adulteress whether or not she was guilty. The one remarrying her
also became stigmatized. This is not a dogmatic statement referring to
remarriage as being adultery (cf. A. T. Robertson in his Word
Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 1 p. 155).
It needs to be stated that this difficult subject of
divorce must be dealt with in context. Here it is a message to
disciples while in Matt. 19:1-9 and Mark 10:2-12 the setting is
Pharisaic trick questions. We must guard against forming our theology
on divorce by merging these contexts and claiming to have Jesus’
neutral theological views on the subject. (2)
Questions:
1. Did Jesus reinterpret the OT or change it?
2. Can one lose his salvation for calling another person a derogatory
name (v.22)?
3. What do vv. 23-24 say to our modern worship practices?
4. Is remarriage adultery?
5. Is swearing in court a sin?
_________________________________________
(1) Dr. Utley, Free Bible Commentary,
http://freebiblecommentary.org/pdf/EN/VOL01.pdf ,pp.
59-60.
(2) cf. pp. 65-66
|
|
