Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

Taylor argues that even “Thou shalt not kill” doesn’t erase the Old Testament’s sanctioned violence because it addresses unlawful murder and sits alongside “eye for an eye”; how does that observation change the way you read commandments—especially when you’ve used a verse to settle a moral question quickly?

Another way to ask: Taylor says “Do not kill” is about illegal murder, and it sits next to “eye for an eye,” so it doesn’t erase Old Testament violence. How does that change how you read commands, especially when you use one verse to quickly answer a moral question?

Direct Answer Taylor’s point pushes you to read commandments in their full biblical context rather than using a single verse as a quick moral trump card. “Thou shalt not kill” cannot be used, in his reading, to erase the Bible’s own complexity about justice, punishment, and God-commanded warfare.

Support from Transcript:

He initially tried to use “Thou shalt not kill” as part of explaining away Old Testament violence, calling it one of his “good examples.”
He later admits that was too simple: the command was “clearly a reference dealing specifically with unlawful murder.”
He observes the same law context includes retributive justice: “the very Old Testament law that established ‘Thou shalt not kill’ also established an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
He concludes the broader pattern is unavoidable: “wars and battles were actually called for by a direct command of God.”
This realization is part of his larger move toward being “completely honest” with the text rather than reading it through “liberal glasses.”

Discussion Follow-ups What verses do you tend to quote as “case closed”? How might reading more slowly—looking for surrounding laws, stories, and God’s stated purposes—change your confidence or humility?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10