Biblical Distinction Between Killing and Murder

[Green Cochoa]

As other theological views build upon the essential foundations of the Biblical words themselves, it is important to carefully weigh and understand the manner in which the Bible speaks of killing and of murder.  The result of this study has a bearing on many other doctrines, including such topics as killing in war, the abortion of a fetus, capital punishment, and even the justice of God in punishing or destroying sinners.  While these tangential topics should be discussed more in depth in other threads, let this one address the foundational issues of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words themselves and whether or not the Bible has used various words for the express purpose of demarcating between acceptable forms of killing and prohibited forms.

[Green Cochoa]

Before getting into the Bible texts which use them, I will first post a table of all the Old Testament terms I could find, within a few hours of searching, at least, addressing any form of killing.  This includes an array of English terms like kill, slay, smite, put to death, slaughter, manslaughter, "surely die", and murder.  One might be surprised at the sheer quantity of Bible words for these concepts, as I was.  I had thought, when I began, that only a handful of such words existed in the Bible.  In fact, a significant portion of the Biblical vocabulary is devoted to this subject.  Because the list for "destroy" is so large by itself, I will separate it into its own table to post at a later time.  Obviously, these word lists are based on Hebrew words that have been translated as some form of killing etc. in English, but it is possible that the translation was not always entirely consistent with the Hebrew text.  In spite of this, I would prefer to trust the original translators unless it can be clearly established that they erred based on other Biblical evidence.  Let the Bible interpret itself!

[Green Cochoa]

	Strong's Number	Hebrew Word	Trans-literation	Word Count	Definition	KJV Translated Forms
1	H1986	הָלַם	halam	9	to smite, strike, hammer, strike down	AV — smite 3, break down 2, break 1, beat down 1, beat 1, overcome 1
2	H2026	הָרַג	harag	167	to kill, slay, murder, destroy, murderer, slayer, out of hand	AV — slay 100, kill 24, kill... 3, murderer 2, destroyed 1, murder 1, out of hand 1, made 1, put 1, slain 31, slayer 1, surely 1
3	H2027	הֶרֶג	hereg	5	a killing, slaughter	AV — slaughter 4, slain 1
4	H2076	זָבַח	zabach	134	to slaughter, kill, sacrifice, slaughter for sacrifice	AV — sacrifice 85, offer 39, kill 5, slay 5
5	H2179	זָנָב	zanab	2	to cut off	AV — smite the hindmost 2
6	H2490	חָלַל	chalal	141	to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin; to wound (fatally), bore through, pierce, bore; (Piel) to play the flute or pipe	AV — begin 52, profane 36, pollute 23, defile 9, break 4, wounded 3, eat 2, slay 2, first 1, gather grapes 1, inheritance 1, began men 1, piped 1, players 1, prostitute 1, sorrow 1, stain 1, eat as common things 1
7	H2491	חָלָל	chalal	94	slain, fatally wounded, pierced; (CLBL) profaned	AV — slay 78, wounded 10, profane 3, kill 2, slain man 1
8	H2717	חָרַב	charab	40	to be waste, lay waste, make desolate, be desolate, be in ruins; to be dry, be dried up; to attack, smite down, slay, fight	AV — waste 16, dry 7, dry up 7, desolate 3, slay 2, decayeth 1, destroyed 1, destroyer 1, surely 1, utterly 1
9	H2763	חָרַם	charam	52	to ban, devote, destroy utterly, completely destroy, dedicate for destruction, exterminate; to split, slit, mutilate (a part of the body)	AV — destroy 34, utterly 10, devote 2, accursed 1, consecrate 1, forfeited 1, flat nose 1, utterly to make away 1, slay 1
10	H2873	טָבַח	tabach	11	to slaughter, slay, butcher, kill ruthlessly	AV — kill 4, slaughter 4, slay 2, slain 1
11	H2874	טֶבַח	tebach	12	slaughter, slaughtering, animal	AV — slaughter 9, slay 1, sore 1, beast 1
12	H3766	כָּרַע	kara`	36	to bend, kneel, bow, bow down, sink down to one's knees, kneel down to rest (of animals), kneel in reverence	AV — bow 14, ...down 12, fell 2, subdued 2, brought low 1, couched 1, feeble 1, kneeling 1, very 1
13	H3807	כָּתַת	kathath	17	to beat, crush by beating, crush to pieces, crush fine	AV — beat 4, destroyed 3, beat down 2, break in pieces 2, smite 2, beat in pieces 1, discomfited 1, crushed 1, stamped 1
14	H4191	מוּת	muwth	835	to die, kill, have one executed	AV — die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10
15	H4223	מְחָא	mĕcha' (Aramaic)	4	to strike, smite, kill	AV — smote 2, can 1, hanged 1
16	H4272	מָחַץ	machats	14	to smite through, shatter, wound severely	AV — wound 7, smite through 2, pierce 2, strike through 1, pierce through 1, dipped 1
17	H4277	מָחַק	machaq	1	(Qal) to utterly destroy, annihilate	AV — smote off 1
18	H5060	נָגַע	naga`	150	to touch, reach, strike	AV — touch 92, came 18, reach 11, bring 4, near 4, smite 4, nigh 3, plagued 3, happeneth 2, strike 2, beaten 1, cast 1, reach up 1, brought down 1, join 1, laid 1, get up
19	H5062	נָגַף	nagaph	49	to strike, smite	AV — smite 27, put to the worse 5, smitten down 3, plague 3, hurt 2, slain 2, struck 2, stumble 2, beaten 1, dash 1, surely 1
20	H5221	נָכָה	nakah	500	to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill	AV — smite 348, slay 92, kill 20, beat 9, slaughter 5, stricken 3, given 3, wounded 3, strike 2, stripes 2, misc 13
21	H5307	נָפַל	naphal	434	to fall, lie, be cast down, fail	AV — fall 318, fall down 25, cast 18, cast down 9, fall away 5, divide 5, overthrow 5, present 5, lay 3, rot 3, accepted 2, lie down 2, inferior 2, lighted 2, lost 2, misc 22
22	H5315	נֶפֶשׁ	nephesh	753	soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion	AV — soul 475, life 117, person 29, mind 15, heart 15, creature 9, body 8, himself 8, yourselves 6, dead 5, will 4, desire 4, man 3, themselves 3, any 3, appetite 2, misc 47
23	H5362	נָקַף	naqaph	19	to strike, strike off; to go around, compass, round	AV — compass 7, go round about 3, go about 2, compass about 2, destroy 1, down 1, inclosed 1, kill 1, round 1
24	H5368	נְקַש	nĕqash (Aramaic)	1	(P'al) to knock (of knees)	AV — smote 1
25	H5606	סָפַק	caphaq	10	to clap, slap	AV — clap 3, smite 2, please 1, strike together 1, suffice 1, wallow 1
26	H6991	קָטַל	qatal	3	(Qal) to slay, kill	AV — slay 2, kill 1
27	H6992	קְטַל	qĕtal (Aramaic)	7	to slay, kill	AV — slay 7
28	H7523	רָצַח	ratsach	47	to murder, slay, kill	AV — slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + 0310 1, slayeth 1, death 1
29	H7819	שָׁחַט	shachat	81	to kill, slaughter, beat	AV — kill 42, slay 36, offer 1, shot out 1, slaughter 1
30	H8628	תָּקַע	taqa`	69	to blow, clap, strike, sound, thrust, give a blow, blast	AV — blow 46, fasten 5, strike 4, pitch 3, thrust 2, clap 2, sounded 2, cast 1, misc 4

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, thank you for the work that you have done in preparing and presenting the above post.

There is an aspect of the grammar of the family of languages from which Hebrew/Aramaic come from.  It is best seen in the actual characters as Green has listed them, rather than in their transliterated form in English.

In these languages, there is often a typical three (3) character root form of the word, typically of consonants.  Variations of that root form are made by the addition of vowels. 

Thus harag and hereg are both derived from the same root, but there are differences in meaning.

NOTE:  Some letters are transliterated into two English letters.  E.G.  ch & ph.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

We here in CA are very reluctant to interfere in the direction that a post goes.  I am  especially reluctant to do so.  I feel that often so-called tangential issues are introduced into a discussion and that it is proper to do so. 

Green has devoted some valuable time and effort in commenting on certain Hebrew & Aramaic words in the Old Testament.  After reviewing the post above, I have decided that as an exception to my standard policy, that post should not be posted here in this thread that Green has started and I have hidden it..

The author of that post is welcome to post it elsewhere.

   

[Green Cochoa]

This topic is for those who want real Bible answers to deep theological questions.  It takes study and time and effort.  The table did take a bit to put together, but it can now be a handy reference.  Using that table, we can now discern more easily the distinctions between killing and murder--but we need actual Bible texts to show this better.   We'll start with this one:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:17, KJV)

The "surely die" is actually translated from the repeated Hebrew word found in line 14 of the table:

14

H4191

מוּת

muwth

835

to die, kill, have one executed

AV — die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10

As this is the very first mention of death in the Bible, it holds deep significance.  The fact that it is twice repeated is indicative of its certainty.  It might even be translatable as something like "die the death."  In some Asian languages, words can be repeated for emphasis, whereas English grammar does not generally permit this, therefore one of the two was translated as "surely."  Notice in the table that this Hebrew word becomes "surely" 50 times in the KJV.  God's repetition of the word clearly puts an emphasis on the death.

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

What do you think about the possibility of it being translated as "die THE death?" It seems much more pointed to something specific by use of the word "the" if we were to go with that one.

The definite article is absent in the Hebrew here, but in English we don't say things like "die die."  I added "the" simply to accommodate English grammar, with no specific intention to make it the focus of the phrase.  To be honest, the phrase is likely untranslatable.  The translators, and I believe appropriately, selected "surely" to translate the intent of the phrase to the certainty of the death.  Remember Joseph's interpretations of the dreams of Pharaoh?  He said "And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." (Genesis 41:32)

If we use that as the Biblical definition of a God-doubled thing, then this "death death" or "die die" that we see in Genesis 2:17 is a death that is established by God, and God will soon bring it to pass.

[Kevin Straub]

Many well-meaning Bible preachers and teachers today will tell us about the “Sovereignty of God.” They will say that “He made all things--including us--and He can do as He pleases with His creation.” They sometimes will give us the impression, if not actually state outright, that God is above His law.

   Is this true? Are we to expect less of God than we do of ourselves? What do we think of human leaders who make laws which they themselves do not keep? If we are voters, we are eager for the next election to “kick those bums out of office!” They do not represent the morality and decency we expect even of sinful human beings. So how do we allow that God can, in righteousness, kill untold millions in Bible stories and, in the end, perhaps countless billions, in the tortures of a literal fire that He creates? Does the almighty “Sovereignty of God” doctrine somehow make it moral?

   Come, let us reason together:

 

“God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense” (3SM 217.2).

 

“Common sense” will tell us right from the start that God would keep His own law. But we have also the Word of God to sustain the fact of it. The keeping of Sabbath is a good example:

 

“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made” (Gen. 2:2).

 

God commanded us to rest. And He Himself rested. Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath,” also rested:

 

“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).

 

We would never have an argument about God’s keeping of the Sabbath, so this point need not be labored. Nor would we wish to say that He ever demonstrated that He was “above the law” in that He would have stolen from anybody. Or lied. He would never bow down to idols or commit adultery. Jesus kept sparkling fidelity to the commandment to honor one’s earthly parents:

 

“Every act of Christ's earthly life was in harmony with the precept He Himself had given, ‘Honor thy father and thy mother’” (DA 146.1).

 

Jesus, representing the Father in all things, said:

 

“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19).

 

In this, Jesus was telling us that everything (“what things soever”) the Father does, is what He does and not only this, but that He does them in the same way (“likewise”).

   So what about “Thou shalt not kill?”

   Jesus’ words in John 5:19 can be taken to also mean that if we see the Father destroy anybody, then Jesus also will destroy. This is where we have the real problem. We have read the Bible in numerous instances to say that God uses direct lethal violence to enforce His will. Yet Jesus was very much against the idea. When the disciples wanted to call down fire on the Samaritan village for being inhospitable, Jesus, with “pained” expression rebuked them by telling them they were running on Satan’s operating system and that God’s business was not of that order; He came to preserve life, not destroy it (see DA 487).

   Now, the Bible surely does say that God destroys. It also says that He rejoices in it. It says that He creates evil. It says that He hates:

 

“…so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you…” (Deut. 28:63).

“I…create evil…” (Isa. 45:7).

“…Esau have I hated…” (Rom. 9:13).

 

The Bible says that God does these things. This means that Jesus also does these things and, as we have seen, He does them exactly as the Father does them. So we have to find out how it is so, without making God to have a two-faced character AND without making the Bible contradict itself. This is the study of God’s character and how He deals with sin and sinners without using violence. It is also the study of Bible language and how it came to speak the way it does and what God has done to give us the keys to interpretation. These subjects will be covered further in this series, but what we want to understand right now is that God keeps His own law and that includes the sixth commandment, “thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13).

   It is often said that the commandment actually means “Thou shalt not murder” and that there is a difference between premeditated murder and lawful killing. Does the Bible make a distinction between types of killing in the commandment? The word itself does not reveal it. This is a human idea.

   The Hebrew word in the sixth commandment is “ratsach” and its definition includes both “kill” and “murder.” In Numbers 35:6 we have a manslayer, called also “ratsach” (a killer) who “killeth any person unawares,” (Num. 35:11). This is not a premeditated murder. Killing is killing. The word itself makes no distinction with regard to motive. That there would be distinctions between “kill” and “murder” in the Hebrew words is not even remotely accurate. There are many words for “kill”—11 of them—and they also mean “murder” and oftentimes are used in reference to God’s acts, as in Exodus 20:24, “harag” (to smite with deadly intent, kill, murder)

 

“And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless” (Ex. 22:24).

 

The same “harag” is used in Ex. 13:15, where it says that “the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt….” To assert or imply in any way that there is a valid appeal to the Hebrew to support a case for justified killing is unfounded. This approach to the sixth commandment is a manmade distinction. It provides the basis for the Christian to re-establish “eye-for-eye” principles; it legitimizes, for the Christian, involvement in the use of lethal force in human legislature, law enforcement, capital punishment, and war. But this realignment of Christian attitudes toward the use of violence came about under the “falling away” of primitive Christianity and is known as the “Constantinian Shift.” The early church was strictly against these things, based upon the teachings of Jesus. This changing of the law of God is justified by a selective application of varied meanings for the word “ratsach;” however, it is based upon a corrupt Christianity that takes us back to a false concept of the character of God in its assumption that God does in fact stand toward the sinner as an executioner, which is then read back into the commandment.

   Is this valid? Let inspiration say it straight:

 

“God does NOT stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown” (GC 36.1).

 

This statement is universal, applying to the “certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty” (ibid.).

Again, how is this punishment “meted” to the guilty? Inspiration declares, “I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord” but rather that the self-willed “place themselves beyond His protection” and after “repeated warnings if they choose their own way” He must let them have the results of evil (14MR 3.1). God does not kill them. He gives them up to outside forces. God is not above His law! This idea is absolutely against the Bible teaching. Rather, the law is a transcript of His character:

 

"Christ came to our world to represent the character of God as it is represented in His holy law, for His law is a transcript of His character. Christ was both the law and the gospel" (CTr 339.2).

 

God and His law are both eternal and the law has eternally governed the kingdom. Therefore, there has never been a time when there was no law or when God acted above His law.

 

"God and His law…[have ever] governed, and ever will govern, His kingdom.—Manuscript 42, 1900" (CTr 56.7).

 

To say that God can act above His law is entirely invalid, because sin is defined as the transgression of the law. God does not sin. For instance, the Scripture says that God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2).

   Neither can He steal, have other gods, or kill.

   God’s law is not arbitrary. This is an iron-clad principle. He did not sit down one day to think it up. It is what God is, and it was always there. His throne is founded upon it.

 

“The moral law…existed before man's creation, and will endure as long as God's throne remains. God could not change or alter one precept of His law…for the law is the foundation of His government. It is unchangeable, unalterable, infinite, and eternal (RH April 22, 1902)” (6BC 1097.1).

 

He can’t change His law any more than He can change Himself (Mal. 3:6). He is always entirely consistent in His character and perfect in keeping His own law.

   Why would we even want to see God as a killer? Our view of God shapes our own character. The maxim, “By beholding we become changed” is Biblical truth. Further, it is an inexorable law:

 

“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18).

 

“It is a law both of the intellectual and the spiritual nature, that by beholding, we become changed. The mind gradually adapts itself to the subjects upon which it is allowed to dwell. It becomes assimilated to that which it is accustomed to love and reverence. Man will never rise higher than his standard of purity or goodness or truth” (GC88 555.2).

 

   It is ever our aim to be like Jesus! Just as Jesus, who is the express image of the Father, never repays His enemies with fire on their heads, neither will we do it or even want to do it. We will stop seeing God as a pagan deity who executes vengeance in the human way—the way of active, punitive, direct retribution and deadly violence. God’s people will not be anxious for God to take revenge, as “Divine Proxy” for their own desire to avenge those who have done evil against them. For James tells us that “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (James 1:20; see also Rom. 12:20; Matt. 5:44).

   The gospel message is the goodness of God that leads to repentance and it includes the fact that God keeps His own law. Share the good news!

[Green Cochoa]

Now, going a little deeper, let's look at how that same Hebrew word מוּת "muwth" (H4191) is used elsewhere.  Remember, this is a death penalty established and pronounced by God, and therefore this death is not mentioned in the case of Abel who was murdered.  But it is the word used in Genesis 5:5 and onward for each of the "natural" deaths of Adam and his progeny.  For example, we can look at that first one:

Gen. 5:5    And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. H4191

So, to Adam were literally fulfilled the words God had spoken.

The first time we see the word used in a clearly active tense, however, occurs a few chapters later with Abraham:

Gen. 18:25  That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay H4191 the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Abraham, of course, was negotiating with God over the lives of his loved ones in Sodom.  Again, Sodom's doom was sealed by a pronouncement of God which the Bible story only hints at but which Abraham clearly understood.

With Abraham once again, God uses "muwth" (H4191) to pronounce a death penalty:

Gen. 20:3  But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, H4191 for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

Gen 20:7  Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely H4191 die, H4191 thou, and all that are thine.

[Green Cochoa]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Straub said:

The gospel message is the goodness of God that leads to repentance and it includes the fact that God keeps His own law. Share the good news!

Yes, God keeps His own law.  That is why Christ died on the Cross, accepting in Himself the penalty of the law, fulfilling it on behalf of those who should afterward accept His merciful offer of salvation.  God's law demands the death of every sinner, and Jesus subjugated Himself to that law in our behalf, taking the death that we deserve, because not even God's mercy could change His law that required this death.

[APL]

What is the penalty of the law? Is it a 1) killing, 2) a  murder, or 3) the inevitable result of sin?  It would be good to know as this death is a demonstration of what sinners will suffer as a result of the transgression of the law, i.e. sin, and how is God involved.

25 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

That is why Christ died on the Cross, accepting in Himself the penalty of the law

 

[Green Cochoa]

The word "muwth" (H4191) is by far the one most used in the Hebrew of all those posted in the table, of which it is also the one of both first and last mention in the Old Testament.  This makes understanding its usage foundational to a later comparison with other terms.  So far, we can see in its usage a death penalty.  This implies it is used in a legal sense (just death on account of sin).  It is not used in the case where Cain unjustly murdered Abel.  But it is used when God, who is always just, is said to have caused the death, such as in the following texts:

Gen. 38:7   And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew H4191 him.

Gen. 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew H4191 him also.

Taking account of the situations where a word is not used can help us understand its distinctiveness and the sense in which it is used.  Here is a verse that does NOT use "muwth" (H4191).

And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth (H2026) Cain, vengeance (H5358) shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill (H5221) him. (Genesis 4:15, KJV)

From the table:

2

H2026

הָרַג

harag

167

to kill, slay, murder, destroy, murderer, slayer, out of hand

AV — slay 100, kill 24, kill... 3, murderer 2, destroyed 1, murder 1, out of hand 1, made 1, put 1, slain 31, slayer 1, surely 1

20

H5221

נָכָה

nakah

500

to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill

AV — smite 348, slay 92, kill 20, beat 9, slaughter 5, stricken 3, given 3, wounded 3, strike 2, stripes 2, misc 13

This brings us back to Abel's murder, the one that occasioned this pronouncement by God:

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew (H2026) him. (Genesis 4:8, KJV)

As we can see from the table, this word "slew" might just as accurately have been translated as "murdered."  Since it can be applied more broadly, perhaps this word was used here to indicate that his guilt had not yet been established (innocent until proven guilty?).  For this reason, most translations say simply "killed."  The YLT uses "slayeth."  In any case, this is clearly not a death sanctioned by God, and Cain went down in the history books as the first murderer.

[Green Cochoa]

18 minutes ago, APL said:

What is the penalty of the law? Is it a 1) killing, 2) a  murder, or 3) the inevitable result of sin? 

None of those--the penalty of the law is death.  That law does not define how the death should occur, but because it is God's law it is reasonable to assume God will be the One to enforce it.

[APL]

29 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

None of those--the penalty of the law is death.  That law does not define how the death should occur, but because it is God's law it is reasonable to assume God will be the One to enforce it.

So then is it killing or murder or other? Can't we tell? Are you also saying that the penalty of transgression is an imposed penalty?  It is not intrinsic?  When see the death of Christ, we have to "assume" God killed/murdered/other Him?  Don't we know? 

[Green Cochoa]

16 minutes ago, APL said:

So then is it killing or murder or other? Can't we tell? Are you also saying that the penalty of transgression is an imposed penalty?  It is not intrinsic?  When see the death of Christ, we have to "assume" God killed/murdered/other Him?  Don't we know? 

You ask good questions, the kind of questions that are the very reason for the existence of this thread.  In order to find the answers, some depth of study into the Biblical text is required, as we certainly cannot trust the answers manufactured from personal opinion or from a surface reading.  Let the Bible answer the questions itself.

[APL]

55 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

You ask good questions, the kind of questions that are the very reason for the existence of this thread.  In order to find the answers, some depth of study into the Biblical text is required, as we certainly cannot trust the answers manufactured from personal opinion or from a surface reading.  Let the Bible answer the questions itself.

“God does NOT stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown” (GC 36.1).

 

Is that a surface reading or a very plain statement.  The existence of this thread is to justify God killing.  That is what it is all about.  It tries to take the 6th commandment and have it allow killing by trying to distinguish between different types of killing.  It is still killing.  Christ suffered the penalty of transgression, death.  What caused the death of Christ?  You say God is the one that enforces the penalty of transgression.  You say God is the one to be feared in Matthew 10:28, even though Ellen White clearly tells us that God is NOT the one to be feared.  Christ's death should give us the answer to how God is involved with the death of the wicked.  Did God in any way kill His own Son?  No, He did not. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

APL,

This is a Bible study looking at the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and perhaps Greek words for Biblical concepts.  Unless Mrs. White addressed a particular word definition from the Bible, I would appreciate keeping the focus where it is.  If you do not enjoy studying the Bible in depth, I am sure you may present your views in other threads.  There are plenty of other topics here in which to post regarding the secondary issues that these fundamental definitions inform.

Perhaps it needs to be said at this point that this study seeks to accept a plain "thus saith the LORD," just as the Bible itself and Ellen White encourage us to do, and Ellen White frequently told her listeners to go to the Bible for their answers.  APL, you are one who claims that Ellen White is a lesser light to that of the Bible, so I expect you should be happy to study here with the Bible as your primary support.  Ellen White did not write in Hebrew, nor in Aramaic, nor Greek.  She wrote in plain English.  But the Biblical words take more effort to understand on account of the language barrier.  That is the purpose here--simply to bring out the Biblical facts on these issues--facts that lie well below the surface, fossilized in their original languages. 

If you're ready to mine for these truths, bring in your excavating tools and we'll dig together.  Do you have some good interlinear references or a good Hebrew/Greek lexicon?  I would be happy to see more such resources brought to the discussion.

[Green Cochoa]

Getting back to "muwth" (H4191), another intriguing text appears later in Genesis which is worth considering:

And Reuben spake unto his father, saying, Slay (H4191) my two sons, if I bring him not to thee: deliver him into my hand, and I will bring him to thee again. (Genesis 42:37, KJV)

While of course Reuben is a sinful human, the concept he expresses here is clearly not that of murder.  No hatred for his sons is at all implied, and their grandfather, Reuben's father, would likely detest such an act.  The concept here is that of justice and fairness.  Reuben is willing to trade his two sons in exchange for his father's sheltered son if some misfortune prevented his keeping his promise.  In other words, the lives of his two sons are offered in surety, almost as a means of sealing a legal contract.

In the next book, another legal death penalty is imposed with the use of this word.

And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill (H4191) him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. (Exodus 1:16, KJV)

Pharaoh commanded this killing for political reasons, not because of feminist views, nor any kind of gender bigotry.  He simply did not want the Israelites to have a growing military power when he wished to continue enjoying their forced servitude as slaves.  Thus it was made a law, and the word selected to represent the legal nature of this death penalty was "muwth."

[Gregory Matthews]

Moderator hat on:  As I said in an earlier post:  Both the administrators and myself are very reluctant to restrict how a thread develops.   On a personal basis, I happen to believe that what one person calls tangential issues that distract from the central focus are actually appropriate for discussion.  Green and I may or may not agree on exactly what is central to the discussion and  what is tangential. 

Regardless of the above, in this thread, I am going to give Green considerable freedom to develop the discussion in the form and manner that he choses.  Green and I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree on doctrinal teachings and what is appropriate in the life, mission and ministry of a denomination.  You are likely to see me to strongly challenge him at times.  But, I con sider Green to be honest, sincere and a deep student of Scripture, regardless of whether or not I consider his conclusions to be  correct.

From this standpoint, I want Green to have the freedom  develop the discussion as he choses.  If he comes to me and tells me that a post is outside of the central focus that he wants for this thread, that it is distraction and hinders his ability to  present his case and requests my assistance in helping him to keep the focus on the manner in which this discussion develop, I am going to consider his request and as an exception to my general reluctance to intervene  I may intervene on his behalf.

What I would prefer to do is for you-all to follow the lead that Green takes and  the   focus of this discussion as he see it.

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

What I would prefer to do is for you-all to follow the lead that Green takes and  the   focus of this discussion as he see it.

Thank you, Gregory--I may take you up on your offer at some point.  I didn't ask for this kindness in supporting me, but I would be happy if people here would focus on a Biblical word study with me, to include the words I already posted in the table or any others that may be related to them which I may have missed (I won't claim it was a fully exhaustive list).  The goal is to essentially solve a crucial question with regard to the unity and/or contradiction of the Bible in having multiple standards regarding killing.  On the one hand, we see the KJV version of the Ten Commandments saying "Thou shalt not kill."  On the other hand, we see in the same book, only a few chapters later, a command to kill.

Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13, KJV)

And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. (Exodus 29:11, KJV)

The first command makes no distinctions as to what or whom should not be killed.  The second tells us to kill a bullock.  And there are other direct contradictions, if we accept their surface value, without going deeper to see the underlying Hebrew words with their actual meanings--lost in translation.  For those who might jump in saying that the obvious context in the Ten Commandments was that of dealings with people (humans), and not animals, I would invite them to consider the following.

And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:16, KJV)

Or the following:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; (Deuteronomy 13:6, KJV)

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; (Deuteronomy 13:7, KJV)

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: (Deuteronomy 13:8, KJV)

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. (Deuteronomy 13:9, KJV)

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Deuteronomy 13:10, KJV)

And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. (Deuteronomy 13:11, KJV)

This apparent incongruity can be partially alleviated by checking other Bible versions and finding the English rendering of the sixth commandment to be "murder" in place of "kill."  But what is the actual difference between killing and murdering?  Are they essentially the same, as some seem to believe and teach?  If so, does this not put God into a very awkward position?  In place of theologizing about it based on the wealth of human reasoning and opinion that exists on the topic, I simply want to get to the bottom of the matter--from the Bible itself.

Thank you to all who wish to take the journey with me in the same spirit of seeking for the truth as for hidden treasure.

[Samie]

KILL in Exo 20:13 is from the Hebrew xc;r

7523 xc;r' ratsach {raw-tsakh'}

Meaning:  1) to murder, slay, kill 1a) (Qal) to murder, slay 1a1) premeditated 1a2) accidental 1a3) as avenger 1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle) 1b) (Niphal) to be slain 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to murder, assassinate 1c2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) 1d) (Pual) to be killed

Origin:  a primitive root; TWOT - 2208; v

Usage:  AV - slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + 0310 1, slayeth 1, death 1; 47

 

KILL in Exo 29:11 is from the Hebrew jx;v

7819 jx;v' shachat {shaw-khat'}

Meaning:  v 1) to kill, slaughter, beat 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to slaughter 1a1a) beast for food 1a1b) sacrifice 1a1c) person in human sacrifice 1a1d) beaten, hammered (of shekels) 1b) (Niphal) to be slaughtered, be slain (of food or sacrifice) n f 2) (BDB) slaughtering 2a) word doubtful

Origin:  a primitive root; TWOT - 2362

Usage:  AV - kill 42, slay 36, offer 1, shot out 1, slaughter 1; 81

[Green Cochoa]

On 01/30/2017 at 1:22 AM, The Wanderer said:

I think Exodus 20:13 and 29:11 would better be classed as a paradox, rather than a contradiction as some would suggest. I would also note that Ex 20 is in regard to our human relationship and obviously, Exodus 29 is dealing with animals. I believe, to start with, that this distinction is very important to keep in mind.

The fact is, while the English words used may be identical in the KJV, the underlying Hebrew words are not the same.  This is why a study into the original helps us see the clear distinction between them.  We are not left to merely speculate as to why God appears to contradict Himself--He doesn't contradict Himself.

 

[APL]

43 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

The fact is, while the English words used may be identical in the KJV, the underlying Hebrew words are not the same.  This is why a study into the original helps us see the clear distinction between them.  We are not left to merely speculate as to why God appears to contradict Himself--He doesn't contradict Himself.

 

Hebrews 1:1-3

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

 

We go through many gyrations looking at Israel as the prime example of how we should behave today. Really?

 

Jeremiah 7:22-24

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

 

How does inspiration work?

 

There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures. The miracles of Christ are not given in exact order, but are given just as the circumstances occurred, which called for this divine revealing of the power of Christ. The truths of the Bible are as pearls hidden. They must be searched, dug out by painstaking effort. Those who take only a surface view of the Scriptures will, with their superficial knowledge, which they think is very deep, talk of the contradictions of the Bible and question the authority of the Scriptures. But those whose hearts are in harmony with truth and duty will search the Scriptures with a heart prepared to receive divine impressions. The illuminated soul sees a spiritual unity, one grand golden thread running through the whole, but it requires patience, thought, and prayer to trace out the precious golden thread. Sharp contentions over the Bible have led to investigation and revealed the precious jewels of truth. Many tears have been shed, many prayers offered that the Lord would open the understanding to His Word. {Ms24-1886}

 

The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. {Ms24-1886}

 

The stamps of minds are different. All do not understand expressions and statements alike. Some understand the statements of the Scriptures to suit their own particular minds and cases. Prepossessions, prejudices, and passions have a strong influence to darken the understanding and confuse the mind even in reading the words of Holy Writ. {Ms24-1886}

 

The disciples traveling to Emmaus needed to be disentangled in their interpretation of the Scriptures. Jesus walked with them disguised, and as a man He talked with them. Beginning at Moses and the prophets, He taught them in all things concerning Himself, that His life, His mission, His sufferings, His death were just as the Word of God had foretold. He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures. How quickly He straightened out the tangled ends and showed the unity and divine verity of the Scriptures. How much men in these times need their understanding opened. {Ms24-1886}

 

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. {Ms24-1886}

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions, but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost is imbued with thoughts. But the words and thoughts receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God. {Ms24-1886}

 

Jesus came to give us the right view of the Father. Jesus forbade all fighting and retaliation. This was not a new principle but the first principle. How God dealt with Israel does not show us God's ideal for man. Eye for an Eye, tooth for a tooth, was revolutionary to the Israelites. But is that what God really wanted? Was it God's ideal? NO! Jesus (God's) rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. No killing. No retaliation. That is the true view of the 10 Commandments, and the true nature of God's Character.

[Green Cochoa]

The KJV does have some consistencies which are commendable.  For the phrase "put to death" which has been translated from the original Hebrew, in virtually every single case it came from the Hebrew word "muwth" which we have been scrutinizing so far here in this topic.  Only one case appears to differ, and I believe that appearance is actually an anomaly with the representation of the translation because translators sometimes reorder words in the process and the word "muwth" occurs in the verse as well.

14

H4191

מוּת

muwth

835

to die, kill, have one executed

AV — die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10

So let us examine a few of the examples of God's usage of this word.

And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely (H4191) put to death (H4191): (Exodus 19:12)

He that smiteth a man, so that he die (H4191), shall be surely (H4191) put to death (H4191). (Exodus 21:12)

And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely (H4191) put to death (H4191). (Exodus 21:15)

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely (H4191) be put to death (H4191). (Exodus 21:16)

And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely (H4191) be put to death (H4191). (Exodus 21:17)

As we can see, these read much like the Ten Commandments: they are commands of God, commands that issue a death sentence for certain violations of the law.  Because God commands against murder (Heb. "ratsach"), these commands to "put to death" (H4191) which use a different word entirely obviously indicate a different concept.  We know that God would not contradict Himself, nor would He command something sinful; therefore, these commands were righteous and were to be obeyed even as the Ten Commandments themselves were to be obeyed.  The laws are not in conflict, but rather in agreement.

[Green Cochoa]

At this point, perhaps we could begin looking at other Hebrew words more closely.  Does God only command killing with the legal term "muwth" (H4191)?  Or are there other words used to command killing?  The answer is, yes, other words are also used by God to command killing.  Let us look at some examples of this.

• And thou shalt kill (H7819) the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. (Exodus 29:11, KJV)

• 29

  H7819

  שָׁחַט

  shachat

  81

  to kill, slaughter, beat

  AV — kill 42, slay 36, offer 1, shot out 1, slaughter 1

• And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill (H2026) the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:16, KJV)

• 2

  H2026

  הָרַג

  harag

  167

  to kill, slay, murder, destroy, murderer, slayer, out of hand

  AV — slay 100, kill 24, kill... 3, murderer 2, destroyed 1, murder 1, out of hand 1, made 1, put 1, slain 31, slayer 1, surely 1

• If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill (H2076) of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. (Deuteronomy 12:21, KJV)

• 4

  H2076

  זָבַח

  zabach

  134

  to slaughter, kill, sacrifice, slaughter for sacrifice

  AV — sacrifice 85, offer 39, kill 5, slay 5

Comparing each of the above usages of "thou shalt kill" with their Hebrew equivalents, we find them to refer to the concepts of sacrifice or slaughter in the case of the animal sacrifices instituted by God; and to killing or destroying in the case of one who commits bestiality.  In a very small minority (less than 2% apparently) of cases, the word "harag" (H2026) appears to have been translated as a form of "murder."  Is it possible that those translations were inaccurate?  Is it possible that to kill a person in this manner of "slaughter" would be "murder"?  Does God command murder here?  To answer these questions with greater clarity, let's look at those instances.

• He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the secret places doth he murder (H2026) the innocent: his eyes are privily set against the poor. (Psalms 10:8, KJV)
• For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers (H2026). (Jeremiah 4:31, KJV)
• Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer (H2026). (Hosea 9:13, KJV)

In each of these texts, it is easy to see why a more neutral word like "kill" might have been upgraded to "murder" during translation.  In the first text, the killing is of "the innocent" and the antecedent of "he" is "the wicked."  The next two are more general, and "harag" becomes "murderers" or "murderer" to represent a more abstract form of killing that the text is ambiguous about, with an unidentified killer.  Sometimes, in literary form, the use of underemphasis actually serves to emphasize something, and this may be the case here as well, particularly for the text in Psalms.  I think a strong case can be made that this word should not equate to "murder."