kland,

Admittedly, the Bible never says "murder = hateful killing" in so many words. But the Bible prescribes capital punishment for murder, and then distinguishes certain classes of killing from that, which are exempt from capital punishment. It's a very small step in logic, actually.

The Bible defines a "murderer" in Exodus. Your question shows that you need to review the tables I posted above, because they should be clear.



That defines three qualifications for "murder":

1) Killing on account of "hatred",
2) Premeditated killing (lying in wait), and
3) Killing because of "enmity" (synonymous with "hatred").

Any of those constituted "murder," and the murderer was to be put to death. But how could one put a murderer to death if all killings were "murder"? What would happen to the nation of Israel if they were commanded to kill murderers, and killers were automatically murderers themselves, so then someone else must kill the one who killed the murderer, and then someone would need to kill the "murderer" who killed the murderer's "murderer," ad infinitum? Of course, even one murder under such a circumstance would have required the death of all Israel!

Obviously, that is not the Bible's teaching. The Bible was clear that an avenger of blood or the city council and/or judges upon the testimony of at least two witnesses was required to put away evil from Israel by killing a murderer. One who had not committed murder, but had killed someone accidentally, was NOT to be killed. This, clearly, puts a difference between murder and killing. Those who did their duty strictly from a sense of duty and justice were not counted murderers, and they were not to be punished with death as were murderers.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Speaking of elsewhere, then it's not what the Bible says, but what Green says.


But anyway, what I hear you saying is that murder is a subset of killing:

1) Killing
2) Killing
3) Killing

Killing with hate or killing by lying in wait.

Would you agree that anyone who laid in wait to kill someone, that would be defined as murder?

If so, sounds like a possibility of distinguishing.

I take it you mean that going after revenge would not be the same as "lying in wait"?


Sounds like you are trying to be clear. That accidentally killing is not murder, but intentional killing is?

But then you negate yourself, as you are prone to do.

First you say accidental killing is not murder, but then you say planned intentional killing is not murder either?


I don't know what you are saying. You probably don't either other than what you say is right, the ambiguity of the situation to be solely determined by you. But would you say that one absolute unambiguous distinction you are trying to make is that anyone who lays in wait to kill someone is a "murderer"?

kland,

Perhaps a short table will help to clarify my understanding of the Bible's perspective.

Killing vs. Murder
Killing	Text	Murder	Text
Killing "any person at unawares"	Numbers 35:11	Killing "with an instrument of iron"	Numbers 35:16
As the "revenger of blood," killing the murderer "when he meeteth him," without hatred, lying in wait, etc.	Numbers 35:19-21	Killing by "throwing a stone wherewith he may die"	Numbers 35:17
Killing a neighbor ignorantly, such as when the ax head slips off the handle and strikes him while cutting wood	Deuteronomy 19:4-5	"But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.	Deuteronomy 19:11-12

... and those are just some of the examples of the distinction that the Bible makes between killing and murder.

Yes, murder is a subset of killing. Most people acknowledge that. Killing is broad, and can even include organisms other than humans. Murder is a specific type of killing, which the Bible defines as motivated by hatred (which can be further recognized by such things as premeditation, lying in wait, etc.).

An avenger of blood was to do his duty without hatred. It is not my understanding that he was permitted to pursue or chase the murderer to kill him. That would have been murder. He was only required to kill the murderer if he chanced to meet him. It was not his duty to seek the murderer to kill him. Doing so would have been an indication of hatred on the avenger's part, which would have made him guilty of murder himself if he killed the murderer in such a manner.

I think "fear" of dying was the major motivation for people to stay in the cities of refuge. No one would have wanted to chance upon the avenger and be killed. Of course, murderers were not permitted to stay in refuge. They were handed up to capital punishment. Only the "killers" (we would say "involuntary manslaughterers") were permitted to live in those cities--which became their jails.

Nowadays, involuntary manslaughter, or killing in self-defense, often doesn't even require prison time. It was different back then.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hmmmm..... Like with a sword?


I guess this is a case when I cannot figure out what you're saying. You seem to jump from one side to the other, negating what you just get through saying. Albeit, it does seem very supportive of showing your personal opinion, though.

Ok, let's go with this portion:
It's the avenger's duty to kill murderer, but they cannot pursue him.
He cannot lie in wait.
He was only to kill upon accidentally meeting him.
If he were to seek to kill, it would be considered murder.

Is that accurate of what you were trying to say?

Killing vs. Murder
Killing	Text	Murder	Text
Killing "any person at unawares"	Numbers 35:11	Killing "with an instrument of iron"	Numbers 35:16
As the "revenger of blood," killing the murderer "when he meeteth him," without hatred, lying in wait, etc.	Numbers 35:19-21	Killing by "throwing a stone wherewith he may die"	Numbers 35:17
Killing a neighbor ignorantly, such as when the ax head slips off the handle and strikes him while cutting wood	Deuteronomy 19:4-5	"But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.	Deuteronomy 19:11-12

Given just that, can a reasonable person conclude that the Bible makes a distinction between different types of killing?

GC, thank you for sharing the biblical distinction between killing and murder. I appreciate the chart. Thank you.

Green, does repeating what you said in any way answer my question? Shall we conclude you mean, "yes"?

Ok, let's go with this portion:
It's the avenger's duty to kill murderer, but they cannot pursue him.
He cannot lie in wait.
He was only to kill upon accidentally meeting him.
If he were to seek to kill, it would be considered murder.

Is that accurate of what you were trying to say?

That looks like what I remember the Bible saying on the topic, yes. I'm on the road right now, and as the bus ride is bumpy, it's harder to read, so I won't say I have caught every nuance of what you are summarizing on my behalf, but I think you've got it about the way I was saying.

The Bible passages on the topic have been posted in nice tables, with my comments beside them. If you look through those again, I think you'll see that this is indeed the Bible's teaching, not merely my opinion. If you have another view, please include the texts that you find to support it. I'm open to seeing other passages to compare with what I've found and posted already.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What is military action by the a 21st century country, say, the United States, against a foe - killing or murder? Is there lying in wait involved? Is there the throwing of iron, perhaps as a JDAM involved? Which is it?

I guess I would ask if the war is a righteous one. As I understand the Bible, righteous wars did not constitute murder when soldiers killed in battle. Unrighteous wars (like Hitler's genocide in WWII) would be equivalent to murder. Nowadays, people recognize this same distinction. America, for example, was not guilty of "war crimes" for defeating Hitler. Hitler and his troops, on the other hand, were very much guilty of "war crimes," and some are still being tried for their murders in our modern courts of law.

I believe that God sees it much as man does on this point. God at times commanded war, even genocide, for His honor and for the purification of sin from the world. Such would have been killing, but not murder. On the other hand, when men like Hazael ripped up women with children without just cause, or when Ahab stole the field from Naboth by force of arms, or even when David ordered Uriah to the front line and then had the troops retreat from him--all these were "murder."

The "lying in wait" is not applicable when we consider wars and battle tactics. Frequently, the defenders of their own territory entrench themselves and wait for the enemies to try to enter. That would be "lying in wait," but it would be to defend one's nation from a known threat.

Remember that a man was permitted to kill a thief who broke into his home at night without incurring the guilt of murder. A man may protect his household, and a nation may protect its people. There is no "murder" in this.

I will not venture to declare that all of our modern wars have been for righteous causes. Certainly, some were not--in which case, they would be murders, aka "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.