AFAIK killing in war is technically speaking not ok either but more like divorce i.e. something that should be repented. It's mostly conveniently forgotten though.Being ok with armed forces going to kill and not ok with capital punishment is odd in my mind.
Thank you.Byzantine historiography and the ideal of an operative "symphonia" of Church and state in the first millennium is interesting in regard to questions like this; cf. death penalty in the first millennium and e.g. it's appropriation in Justinian Code and its Christian predecessors, there was general contemporaneous acceptance in first millennium Christendom of some matters we would today find not only excessive but abhorrent. Emperor St. Constantine for example legislated a slave who had sex with a female master should perish by fire and the woman should also be executed; a child born of such a union should be stripped of all rank and inheritance.
1. The Emperor Constantine to the People.
When a woman is convicted of having secretly had sexual intercourse with her slave, she shall be sentenced to death, and the rascally slave shall perish by fire. Every facility for the proof of this crime shall be afforded all persons, any official can bring the charge, and even the slave-himself shall be permitted to testify concerning it, and if it should be established, he must be granted his freedom. Children born of such an union shall be deprived of all insignia of rank, and shall have nothing but their freedom, nor will they be entitled to receive anything from the estates of their mothers, as bequests under her will, either directly or through the intervention of others. Moreover, the intestate succession of the woman will pass to her legitimate children, or to her nearest relatives, or to those who are designated by law. All the property which the slave who was convicted may have been entitled to, and anything which could, under any circumstances, have been obtained by the children of this union, as belonging to the woman, can be claimed by the heirs above mentioned.
Given on the fourth of the Kalends of June, during the Consulate of Constantine, Consul for the seventh time, and the Caesar Constantius, 326.
My forgettable sense of humor: Constantine did not make edicts like this once he converted to Christianity.Byzantine historiography and the ideal of an operative "symphonia" of Church and state in the first millennium is interesting in regard to questions like this; cf. death penalty in the first millennium and e.g. it's appropriation in Justinian Code and its Christian predecessors, there was general contemporaneous acceptance in first millennium Christendom of some matters we would today find not only excessive but abhorrent. Emperor St. Constantine for example legislated a slave who had sex with a female master should perish by fire and the woman should also be executed; a child born of such a union should be stripped of all rank and inheritance.
1. The Emperor Constantine to the People.
When a woman is convicted of having secretly had sexual intercourse with her slave, she shall be sentenced to death, and the rascally slave shall perish by fire. Every facility for the proof of this crime shall be afforded all persons, any official can bring the charge, and even the slave-himself shall be permitted to testify concerning it, and if it should be established, he must be granted his freedom. Children born of such an union shall be deprived of all insignia of rank, and shall have nothing but their freedom, nor will they be entitled to receive anything from the estates of their mothers, as bequests under her will, either directly or through the intervention of others. Moreover, the intestate succession of the woman will pass to her legitimate children, or to her nearest relatives, or to those who are designated by law. All the property which the slave who was convicted may have been entitled to, and anything which could, under any circumstances, have been obtained by the children of this union, as belonging to the woman, can be claimed by the heirs above mentioned.
Given on the fourth of the Kalends of June, during the Consulate of Constantine, Consul for the seventh time, and the Caesar Constantius, 326.
You're wrong.My forgettable sense of humor: Constantine did not make edicts like this once he converted to Christianity.
Is there a thread on this topic here ? I did read Eusebius as a youth. and other items that do not jive post 312 may reflect what was necessary to keep together the empire.You're wrong.
Constantine converted in AD 312. The edict was given 14 years after that date by Emperor St. Constantine in AD 326. It remained in effect for centuries. It was retained in major revison of Roman Byzantine law in the sixth century Justinian Code. It was cited here merely as one random example from Byzantine law.
Don't get me wrong, when pressed I affirm and have defend on this forum the sainthood of Emperor St. Constantine.
Burning a criminal to death in a fire??...items that do not jive post 312 may reflect what was necessary to keep together the empire.
I was referring to AD 312 not being well publicized. Not that you are wrong.Burning a criminal to death in a fire??
IThis is inaccurate.prisons simply didn't exist in most societies. It's really expensive to keep a prisoner alive for years or even decades, and this is a price most historical societies known by humanity simply couldn't afford.
The 36 crimes are part rabbinical extrapolation. Jewish Encyclopedia list them as such.In the Old Testament although there are thirty six actions which have a judicial penalty of death [...]
-Thus, with reference to bigamy with mother and daughter the law reads (Lev. xx. 14): "It is wickedness" ("Zimmah hi"), and because elsewhere (ib. xviii. 17) the identical expression is used with reference to criminal conversation of man with female relatives of other degrees, rabbinic law affixes the penalty which the Pentateuch attaches to the former also to the latter (Sanh. ix. 1, 75a; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, ix. 17).
It's interesting how the argument of Shimon ben Gamliel lies on what penologists call general deterrance, rather than retribution (punishing people as they deserve) or specific deterrance (putting murderers away).Makkot 7a said:The mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin with the authority to administer capital punishments is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Since the Sanhedrin would subject the testimony to exacting scrutiny, it was extremely rare for a defendant to be executed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted trials in a manner whereby no person would have ever been executed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In adopting that approach, they too would increase the number of murderers among the Jewish people. The death penalty would lose its deterrent value, as all potential murderers would know that no one is ever executed.
Or is it "Thou shalt not murder"?"Thou shalt not kill."
It is murder rather than all killing that is proscribed by the sixth commandment.Or is it "Thou shalt not murder"?"Thou shalt not kill."
I do understand that "kill" means "murder".... in such a manner that killing in self-defense, etc. is permitted. Killing of animals for food, is permitted, etc.Or is it "Thou shalt not murder"?
What about Cain?It is murder rather than all killing that is proscribed by the sixth commandment.
“The sixth commandment forbids murder. The ethical theology that lies behind this prohibition is the fact that all men and women have been created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-26; 9:6). While Hebrew possesses seven words for killing, the word used here, rasah, appears only forty-seven times in the OT. If any one of the seven words could signify “murder” where the factors of premeditation and intentionality are present, this is the verb… Without exception, however, in later periods (e.g. Ps 94:6; Prov 22:13; Isa 1:21; Hos 4:2; 6:9; Jer 7:9) it carries the idea of murder with intentional violence. Every one of these instances stresses the act or allegation of premeditation and deliberateness –and that is what is at the heart of this verb. Thus this prohibition does not apply to beasts (Gen 9:3), to defending one’s home from night-time burglars (Ex22:2), to accidental killings (Deut 19:5), to the execution of murderers by the state (Gen 9:6); or to involvement with one’s nation in certain types of war as illustrated by Israel’s history. It does apply, however, to self-murder (i.e. suicide), to all accessories to murder (2 Sam 12:9), and to those who have authority but fail to use it to punish known murderers (1 Kings 21:19)” Kaiser, Walter C., Exodus, in Gaebelein, Frank E., ed., EBC, vol. 1, pp. 424f.
Genesis: 9 is interesting because it does *not* mention rasah/ratsach at all. In fact, this word doesn't appear in Genesis at all (though I'm not 100% certain about other forms); we have to wait until Exodus to read it. This suggests that the talk of blood is *not* being limited to murder. And, more importantly, this creates a problem for those "requiring" the blood: there is no exception carved out for them here, meaning it creates a cycle of blood-debt that cannot ever be broken. I look forward to hear your thoughts on this matter, particularly in the context of Patristic teaching.I will personally be in favor or returning to the traditional "God of primitive goatherders" mandate of Genesis 9:6.
Justice cannot be understood apart from the Cross. Jesus Christ did not come and beat up, lock up, or otherwise stop all those hurting the "innocents, widows, orphans, and helpless of society". Rather, he took their helplessness upon Himself, and ascended the Cross victoriously. Thus justice means something *very* different to the practicing Orthodox Christian, something that involves us taking upon the burden of the so-called perpetrator and victim both. We can't have an amorphous idea of God, and then project our own idea of justice upon Him as if He were a mere tool to see it carried out; St Isaac The Syrian hints at much the same thing, in one of the most famous saying attributed to him: "We know nothing of God's justice, only his mercy.".Justice is not worthy of the word the day it ceases to protect the innocents, widows, orphans, and helpless of society. Mercy which does not protect the innocent is a cruel mercy.
The death penalty has never been prohibited by the Church -or did you mean something else??In the killing of a human being via the death penalty in my understanding, is not permitted.
I agree 100% given the above qualification.What if we allowed the accused, as vile a criminal as they might be, live in prison, and he/she might repent and find God? Is that not worth allowing them to live? I agree in keeping society safe from known criminals. 100%. .
"St. Augustine, characterized the good Christian ruler as “slow to punish, but ready to pardon” (“City of God,” 5.24). He justified capital punishment when there was “no other established method of restraining the hostility of the desperate.” Then, he said, “perhaps extreme necessity would demand the killing of such people” (“Letter,” 134). Augustine recognized the state’s right to wield the sword, but he hoped that lethal use would be extremely rare. “As violence is used toward him who rebels and resists, so mercy is due to the vanquished or the captive, especially in the case in which future troubling of the peace is not to be feared” (“Letter,” 189).
"The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason." St. Augustine, City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21
https://angelusnews.com/voices/the-early-church-and-the-death-penalty/
So you are claiming Gen 9:6 mandates execution for accidental killing, not just for murder, simply because the word rasah (and/or its cognates) is not used in Genesis? This would put the Law of Moses in the role of contradicting or violating Genesis 9:6, since the Law precludes any penalty of death in the case of accidental killings.Genesis: 9 does *not* mention rasah/ratsach at all. In fact, this word doesn't appear in Genesis at all... This suggests that the talk of blood is *not* being limited to murder.
I can only speculate on this point until/unless I review the entire corpus; assuming the focus was on inheritance through the head of the household my guess would be no (please underscore guess).Was there a law that punished men for having sex with their female slaves?
The word translated "require" is דרשׁ/ἐκζητέω with meanings like 'care for', 'consult', 'look after', 'search for (lost cattle)' — Deuteronomy 22:2. The idea that it, in connection with blood, would mean to kill, hinges heavily on a particular take on Genesis 42:22, where Benjamin's life isn't particularly precious because, with Joseph gone he is the only son Jacob had with Rachel, but rather he is about to get killed and that's it.This suggests that the talk of blood is *not* being limited to murder. And, more importantly, this creates a problem for those "requiring" the blood: there is no exception carved out for them here, meaning it creates a cycle of blood-debt that cannot ever be broken.