Biblical Distinction Between Killing and Murder - Take 2

A previous thread attempted to show that killing and murder were not the same thing. It tried to claim that God can kill and it would be "legal". The Law, the 10C says, "thou shalt not kill". The proponent on the other thread said that the KJV mistranslates this commandment, that it should be translated, "thou shalt not murder".

Here is different take on this subject:

Is the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Murder" (But Killing is Ok)?
By K. Straub
Mar. 28, 2015 Revision


It is a common argument that the word for "kill" in the commandment means intentional murder in a strictly illegitimate sense but this word is used also in other applications:
The manslayer in Num_35:6 (unintentional killer) is the same word ratsach H7523 It is also "the slayer," referring to the same guy, Num_35:11, etc.

The Hebrew ratsach means "kill" in a generic sense and in special contexts denotes intentional murder with nefarious motive. The folks who say that the commandment refers only to illegitimate killing with the implication that there is a legitimate killing, reverse this and say it means murder in a general sense and in special contexts denotes an unintentional killing or a termination of life with just cause. The latter can only be realized if it is God who somehow legitimizes it.

Capital punishment for murder is said to be a lawful killing but this does not bear investigation, because the same word--as used in the commandment--refers to both the murderer and the application of justice in the execution of the murderer:

Num_35:30  Whoso killeth any person, the murdererH7523 shall be put to deathH7523 by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

That there are 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 Exo_20:24, harag, H2026:

Exo_22:24  And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will killH2026 you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Again, H2026, harag, is listed not only under "kill" but also under "murder" in a Strong's search and God does it: Exo_13:15 :

Exo_13:15  And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slewH2026 all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

There are two other words listed for "murder" in the Hebrew. One is ratsach, as in the commandment and most often is translated as "slayer." There is nothing in the word to make one think there is a justified killing and an illegal killing. These arguments are without basis. The other word is used twice and is used to depict the strong vocalization of the slayer in the act of execution:

H7524
רצח
retsach
reh'-tsakh
From H7523; a crushing; specifically a murder cry: - slaughter, sword.

Psa_42:10  As with a swordH7524 in my bones, mine enemies reproach me; while they say daily unto me, Where is thy God?

Eze_21:22  At his right hand was the divination for Jerusalem, to appoint captains, to open the mouth in the slaughter,H7524 to lift up the voice with shouting, to appoint battering rams against the gates, to cast a mount, and to build a fort.

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 appropriates man's ways, which God "ordains" (so we don't wipe ourselves out in the first few generations) through the paradigm of "permissive will," to God's ways. This is a carnal anthropomorphizing which should not be done. That is, it provides the basis for the Christian to re-establish "eye-for-eye" principles as legitimate in God's realm; 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.

It has to be done this way because the interpreter is working within in a faulty paradigm of God which requires a private interpretation of Scripture to make it fit. If it were not for Christ's testimony, it may be somewhat excusable, because the Bible language portrays an apparently dichotomous God, who sometimes executes wrath by standing down or "giving over" to outside elements of destruction, while at other times He seems to go directly into the matter and "takes the case in hand" Himself. But if we examine what it means for Him to take the case in hand, we find that it comes back to the same thing, which is the hiding of His face, the withdrawing of His hand of sustenance and protection. Note:

God Himself will take the case in hand. His restraining power will be in a measure removed from the agencies of evil, so that a train of circumstances will arise which will punish sin with sin {PP 728.1}.

God's wrath and man's wrath do not function at all in the same way (Jas_1:20). When man executes wrath, he moves toward the subject in order to apply forces, whether physical or psychological, but when God executes wrath, He moves away from the subject, leaving them open to outside forces of destruction, which may come in various ways, sometimes even directly at the hands of Satan.

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown…. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty {GC 36.1}.

Throughout the Old Testament we have the language of God destroying, which happens in various ways, sometimes apparently by direct means. However, we must always apply the principle of "hiding of face," according to numerous and ample keys given within the pages of Holy writ itself, which define God's wrath, vengeance, judgment, etc., (see Deu_31:16-18; Isa_57:17, Psa_78:50; Psa_78:62, etc.)

Often "God works" through the course of nations that act the part of imperialist aggressors and do what they will do. God is not the agent of war, Satan is. The evil one delights in war. Our passage above shows this principle. Yet, the language used is that of God proactively manipulating the affairs of men to destroy, when the reality is that He is giving men over to their own devices, under the generalship of Satan.

Jer_51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device [is] against Babylon, to destroy it; because it [is] the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

So, coming back to the topic at hand we find that, in reality, the theme of a proactively destroying God is indefensible on the basis of a supposed distinction in the text of the sixth commandment Hebrew language between "kill" and "murder."

In our study of the Bible, we have only the context to determine that there are instances where apparently God kills directly, from which the student assumes there must be such a thing as righteous killing. We don't think to question the language or look deeper than the surface. We just glibly quip that annoying little ditty, "God said it, I believe it" without applying any (un)common sense to the matter wherein we might ask some legitimate questions.

So, if the language is to depict a killing God who does it by His own hand, by proactive exercise of powers or by fiat utterance of His word, why stop with only the sixth commandment? Why not the seventh, too? We can use the Bible language to determine that when God does or commands it, it is legitimate:

2Sa_12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 

By the same token, we can make God just in breaking the ninth commandment. When lying is done with the wrong motive, it is wrong, but when God does it or commands it, it is justified:

1Ki_22:20-23
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said to him, With which? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, You shall persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets, and the LORD has spoken evil concerning you.

We can readily see what kind of trouble we get into if we don't learn how to deal with the Bible language.

I have seen where this theology leads. On an Adventist discussion board, one participant stated:

There is a difference between "murder" and the lawful, moral taking of human life and when we understand the difference, we'll see the impossibility of God's murdering anyone (Anonymous Bible student).

Then the argument develops further, with an outrageous statement that "God is above law," is a law unto Himself in that "the only law He obeys is the law of His own Being."
God is not above His law! This is absolutely against the Bible teaching. We must bring the Word, rightly divided! 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.

They will have the effectual protection of His ever-loving care as long as they take their position on the side of God and His law, which ever has 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 (Num_23:19). Remember that Christ came to show perfect law-keeping. Did He ever act "above the law?" Is He our example? Is He writing the law in our hearts by the regenerating power of His Spirit? Does this not lead to the re-creation of us in the image of God? Would we also, therefore, be "above law?"

It was Satan who said that God made up a law to keep us down so that we wouldn't rise up to challenge His position; that He was holding out on us. It was advanced by that deceiver that there is innate righteousness in the heart and that following our own way would be a more exalted state. He invited us to be a law unto ourselves, where the only law we need to obey is the "law of our own Being," as in the New Age philosophy that we are all God. There is insidious deception that lies in this theology.

Another fundamentally flawed assertion is that God does not "owe humans an explanation of why He does what He does." That is not what God says. First, God sent Jesus to give us the full picture of Who He Is. That is why Jesus said that He and the Father are One and that whatever the Father does is what He does. He is the express image of the Father's character.

Come, let us reason together!

The philosophy of common sense is of far more importance…than the study of Greek and Latin {YI, June 30, 1898 par. 7}.

We are to be guided by true theology and common sense {CT 257.3}.

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense {3SM 217}.

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. LDE 241.

Christ suffered the penalty of transgression. What killed Him. That is how sinners will die. Christ is the answer.

God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man.

APL, I have two questions regarding your OP:

1. Other than your introductory sentence or two, is the entire post the work of "K. Straub" or have you also commented there?

2. Exactly who is "K. Straub"?

God does not work outside His law, which is a transcript of His character.

MM, APL is making the claim that there is no difference between killing and murder. Do you think he did a good job or a poor job in defending it? Because your quote does not to appear address any differences.

What part of God's law (of God's character) allows Him to withdraw His protection and permit evil men to murder innocent children?

The quote says God "can do infinite justice that man has no right to do". It would have been wrong for Noah to drown even one sinner. But God drowned millions of sinners with impunity. It is not a sin when God kills sinners. Nor is it a sin when God commands holy men and holy angels to kill sinners. The difference between God killing (or commanding killing) and sinners murdering is like night and day, like black and white.

See see the end of sinners as Jesus demonstrated on the cross, we can also study the Sanctuary for it tells us also. Psalms 73:17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.

While that may or may not be true as you intend, the question is: What does that have to do with making a distinction between Killing and Murder?

Killing is not murder when God does it or commands it done. Murder is killing not done by God or commanded by God. God "can do infinite justice that man has no right to do".

What Pharaoh has done, will be done again and again by men until the close of probation. God destroys no man; but when a man stifles conviction, when he turns from evidence, he is sowing unbelief, and will reap as he has sown. As it was with Pharaoh, so it will be with him; when clearer light shines upon the truth, he will meet it with increased resistance, and the work of hardening the heart will go on with each rejection of the increasing light of heaven. In simplicity and truth we would speak to the impenitent in regard to the way in which men destroy their own souls. You are not to say that God is to blame, that he has made a decree against you. No, he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth, and to the haven of eternal bliss. No soul is ever finally deserted of God, given up to his own ways, so long as there is any hope of his salvation. God follows men with appeals and warnings and assurances of compassion, until further opportunities and privileges would be wholly in vain. The responsibility rests upon the sinner. By resisting the Spirit of God today, he prepares the way for a second resistance of light when it comes with mightier power; and thus he will pass from one stage of indifference to another, until, at last, the light will fail to impress him, and he will cease to respond in any measure to the Spirit of God. {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 2}

So would you be saying the distinction between murder and killing is distinguished by who's doing it? That is, the definition is defined by regarding who does it.

The Bible makes a distinction between murder and killing. The laws of the land also make a distinction. It has to do with who does the killing and why they did it as to whether or not it is murder. If God does the killing it is not murder. If God commands someone else to kill it is not murder. If someone takes it upon themselves to kill another human being it is murder. If a soldier kills someone during the heat of battle it is not murder.

mm:The Bible makes a distinction between murder and killing.

So you have no argument against the OP. Just a statement of your belief...

mm:The laws of the land also make a distinction.

You mean the laws of the world trump the Law of God? I don't think so!

mm: It has to do with who does the killing and why they did it as to whether or not it is murder. If God does the killing it is not murder.

EGW: God destroys no man. Why do you continue to contradict what she states so clearly?

mm: If God commands someone else to kill it is not murder.

You continue to ignore the truth. You do not understand the Old Covenant. You ignore God's leading. Did Israel of old fight? YES. Was it ever God's plan that they fight? DO. There was no need, if they trusted God. The exit from Egypt proved this. But they did fight. Did they ever fully possess the land with all their fightight? NOPE.

mm: If someone takes it upon themselves to kill another human being it is murder.

Oh - so if the law of the land commands a person to be killed, then it is murder by this definition.

mm: If a soldier kills someone during the heat of battle it is not murder.

The fact is no man in his senses is ever free from personal accountability for his acts. He cannot shift the responsibility of his acts upon some other person, or upon an impersonal "Government." That which would be murder in one case, cannot be made lawful by being dignified with the title "war."

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. LDE 241.

Thank you for answering the question if there is a distinction between God and man. However, that was not asked.
You do understand that all you have done is give MM's opinion/distinction between Killing and Murder. It seems to me you are substituting words. For example, you could just as well say that when Joe spreads butter on bread, it is called "buttering his bread", but when Bob spreads butter on bread, it is called "planting his garden". An opinion of words, but not necessarily a distinction.

Yes, that's what's being asked here. Where? In APL's first post, it demonstrates there is no difference in the words used. Do you know of somewhere in the Bible where it does make the distinction? If so, could you show us?

Because so far, you have showed no distinction other than distinguishing who's doing the same thing.
"It would have been wrong for Noah to drown even one sinner. But God drowned millions of sinners with impunity."
It distinguishes who's doing it, and if it is right or wrong, but makes no distinction between murder and killing. It doesn't even talk about it.

How did God drown the antediluvian world? How did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was it execution? Nope. From Ellen White we know, but MM wants to remain blind to the truth. Why? Is it because you want to justify the military, which is an organized, state approved murdering machine? ISIS makes laws of the land and everyone is upset with them. But by MM's definition, what ISIS is doing is not murder. Is the U.S. any more moral than ISIS when it's military commits murder?

I just noticed, he made the qualification, "during the heat of battle".

Hmmmm....

If a soldier kills someone when there is not a "battle" going on, what is it?

If a soldier kills someone when it is not during the "heat", but maybe during a quieter time of battle, what is it?

If a soldier kills someone after the enemy has been captured and they are ordered to be executed, what is it?

Hmmm, indeed.

I think this is a case of MM making opinions on the fly.

Time for me to take a break.

Time to see God as revealed by Christ!

When critical questions about clearness of definitions being used are asked,
it's best to take a break.