Basically, I see an attempt to put those words in a "box" that is much too small for them.

Murder isn't just done out of hate, it is often done out of greed, for example the murder of Naboth was not done because of hate, but because of greed.

1 Kings 21:19 (Elijah goes to Ahab who has taken possession of Naboth's vineyard and says) Hast thou killed,ratsach and also taken possession? .. Thus saith the LORD, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.


"lack of love", yes,-- purely selfish reasons, yes, but not necessarily "hate".

Job 24:14 The murderer H7523 rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief

Psalm 94:6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder H7523 the fatherless

Why? To steal
For sport
Because their minds are twisted by evil.

Thus yes, to "hate" is preparing the heart to "murder".
But "murder" can originate from other sinful causes as well.

Does sin cause death and destruction or it is really God that causes it? Which? If we don't know, how can we have capital punishment which seals that person's fate? Who should cast the first stone? Green maybe?
Green - have you read the Bible as a whole? What about 1 Corinthians 10:10? What about Psalms 78:49? All the work of God, right? Private interpretation, right? I think not.

There may have been some hatred there.

Perhaps what I thought I had already made clear was not actually clear. If so, please pardon me for writing too indistinctly.

"Murder" (ratsach) in the Bible denotes ONE or BOTH of the following TWO things: 1) hatred; or 2) injustice ("without a cause").

Remember, God did not command punishment as a murderer for the man who killed a thief that broke into his home at night. This was self-defense, defending his family, not hatred. It was not "without a cause" either, for certainly, there was a cause.

Naboth's vineyard may not have been a case of hatred, though certainly Ahab had no love lost for Naboth, but it was primarily about injustice. Ahab had no right to do what he did. That is why it was "murder."

Remember, "murder" also included the man who allowed his dangerous bull out, resulting in someone's death--if that man knew that his bull had a temperament like that and would be dangerous. Even though the man did not himself kill anyone, he was a murderer. These commands were given just after the Ten Commandments, by God Himself. In a way, they can been seen as further elucidation on the meaning of those commandments.



Obviously, if the man's own son or daughter had been gored, as is mentioned above, the man would not have been guilty of hating them. Yet this was still a case of murder if it involved negligence on his part, i.e. it was "without a cause." He knew better than to let his dangerous bull have such an opportunity. It didn't have to happen. Still, on account of God's mercy, in such a case as this, the man was allowed to redeem his life by paying howeversomuch as might be required of him. Presumably, from the passage, if he could not pay, he was punished with death per the law.

So, no, hatred is not the sole indicator of "murder." "Without a cause" figures heavily in the equation as well.



Combined with the "be ye angry and sin not" (Ephesians 4:26) text, we know that sometimes there is "cause" to be angry, and one can in such cases be angry without sin.

In like manner, as other words for "kill" in the Bible bring out, there are times when there is just cause for doing so. As Dedication mentioned, Solomon tells us there is a time to kill. There is never, however, a time to kill without a cause. Since hatred does not provide a just cause, the better word for defining "murder" might very will be "causeless."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No there's not hatred written all over. The Bible says Cain was wroth because his sacrifice was not accepted. There's no mention in the Bible or even insinuated that Cain hated his brother previous to this incidence. And that's is the determined factor for being guilty of ratsach according to what Moses has defined in Dt 4:42; 19:4; 19:6; 19:11 and what Jesus said in Mat 5.

The discussion that took place in the field shortly after the incidence, we do not know what was said either. But the Bible tells us there were a discussion that took place, and then that led to the killing of Abel. Nor does the Bible tells us that Cain had pre-meditated to Kill Cain before their discussion.

Regarding, the Lord's warning in Gen 4:7 concerning Cain's "wroth" it was about the Lord not accepting his sacrifice. It had nothing to do with Abel. The Lord's warning to Cain was if he didn't overcome this "wroth" of his, that it would open up a door to some sin. That's all.

For sure Cain sinned by exploding in the field. For sure Cain on the heat of the discussion did want "to smite Abel" with "deadly intent." according to the proper definition of harag that Moses chose to define the incidence with. Moses chose that word instead of the other because he meant what that word means.

And harag does not mean "to kill" in the general sense like you(Green) tried to define it. muwth is the word to choose to express "to kill" in a generic sense for it only means "to die" and in the causatively form it means "to kill". So Green you need to be careful to not overwrite the Lord's definition of words with your own definition.

Green, you are adding things that is not said in the Bible. And then, if ratsach(with pre-hatred) was the case as you suggest it to be, then why the Lord protected Cain with a mark as someone not guilty of ratsach that can find protection in a city of refuge. Then we would have to accuse the Lord of not applying His own laws in this judgment of His. The judgment of the Lord on Cain further defines the nature of the killing.

To me all points that Cain was guilty of a harag(no pre-hatred) type of killing and not a ratsach(with pre hatred towards Abel)


I did not imply that Cain didn't slay Abel without violence.


It is true that in 1 Jn 3:12 John makes a link to Cain situation to the world. And I'm sure if Cain wouldn't of killed Abel that day in the field while arguing, Cain's sin that layeth at the door would of been a nurtured hatred towards Abel from that day forward. And that's what the World does to us.

The point here is, no where in the Bible says that Cain hated Abel before that incidence. And that's the marking definition of ratsach and what seperates it from the word harag. Moses used the word harag because it was a harag killing and not a ratsach. And a harag type of killing gets protection in one of the city of refuge according to the Lord's judgment laws. There were no city of refuge at that time, thus the Lord applied His own law by putting a marking on Cain to protect him.

I think it was more of an issue of rebellion against Jacob's righteous judgment than any righteous hatred for what had happened to Dinah. These "young" men -- 10 of them and I'm sure Simeon and Levi were already over 30 years of age, had their own opinion how things should be run, and it is natural for any young people to disagree with their parents. The fact they did not discuss their plan with Jacob beforehand shows that they usurped his authority by which they probably did beforehand also.

Simeon and Levi justified their rebellion by using one segment of the law (and not the whole). This is what I view the proper definition of legalism to be.

Jacob judgment, based on seeing Shechem's house wanting to amend for their wrong and his son heart's in the right place for wanting to take Dinah as a wife, was according to the Lord's whole precepts and laws. To pursue inter-marriage between the two families, the entire house of Shechem's did righteously to accept the God of Jacob as their Lord and worship only Him and undergo the ritual of circumcision. That was no small decision and probably based on what they probably heard about the Lord, maybe throughout the known historical stories of Abraham who was well known in Canaan. I don't think it was a rash decision on Shechem's house part.

Thus Simeon and Levi could not see all this good, nor wanted to pursue the righteousness of the Lord, nor sought Dinah's honor, for there was something else in the way -- Jacob's leadership. This is shown that they didn't want to submit to Jacob's judgment call. This whole ordeal had more to do with Simeon and Levi rebelling against their father's judgment than any righteous hatred resulting from the incidence.

And their argument of Dinah's honor being defiled was unbased and full of baloney for Dinah's honor would of been preserved by becoming a princess and wife and potentially the future queen of the royal family of Shechem. You cannot ask for better honor than that. However, because of Simeon & Levi slaughtering, they caused Dinah's remaining life to be in dishonor and robbed her from an honorable future.

No...I do not see that this whole thing had to do with pre-hatred towards Shechem's son. If it was, then only kill the son and not the whole nation. That show another problem -- is that Simeon and Levi were basically blood thirsty.

And again, if it was a case of hatred -- then the Lord and Jacob did not judge Simeon and Levi according to the law. The fact that the whole house of Jacob had flee to find protection elsewhere, further shows the judgment of the law for what type of "killing" it really was about. If it was a case of ratsach, the Lord wouldn't of left that pass without addressing it somewhere even in for generation to come. The case was closed and no prophecies relates to it to rectify the wrong that Jacob did there.


Moses used the correct words harag and not ratsach to described the incidence. I think we need to trust that Moses knew Hebrew better than us and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit accurately defined the situation by choosing the right words by which it is further seconded by the witness of the law of judgment.

I don't want to imply here that the Bible is without error. We all know that there are a few -- not much but a few. Thus its probable that Moses could of done an error by choosing the wrong words. I know it is not the case because in both of these cases (Cain and Simeon & Levi) is we have a witness of the law -- meaning how the Lord judged the situation. I don't know if this is the technical legal term for it -- "a case study" that defines how the law was applied for a particular case with the court's verdict(application of the law).

The Lord will always judge a matter according to His laws by which is His character. So the case studies are our second witness that testify the law used for the situation, and how the Lord's applies it by His verdict rendered.

In both cases, the judgment rendered in that case confirms the word Moses used is correct.

AV Isa 8:20 "To the law[Torah] and to the testimony[t`uwdah]: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."

t`uwdah ("attestation, usage") is used in two other places in the Bible. And only one of those defines the word.

AV Ru 4:7 "Now this [was the manner] in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave [it] to his neighbour: and this [was] a testimony[t`uwdah] in Israel."

Boaz was not the closest kin of Ruth(well Naomi); there was another but he only wanted to redeem the land and not marry Ruth to fulfill the Levirate law and to give an heir to Naomi eldest son who died childless -- thus he wanted to partially applied the law like a good legalist. Whereas Boaz wanted rightfully to fulfill the whole law. This is how Boaz won the case and that became a testimony[t`uwdah, a case study] of the Levirate law in Israel.

So case studies are very important to spot in the Bible. It tells us many things -- especially how the Lord applies His law. We learn a bunch of stuff(the law) from these.

Elle,

Before you can make such a strong assertion that Cain's killing of Abel could NOT have been "murder" (ratsach) and was only a "killing", you must establish that "hatred" is the only way for something to qualify as murder.

Here's what you are missing. Hatred is not the only criterion. Injustice is another one. Would you say from the Bible that Cain was justified in killing Abel? Was it a righteous killing? In modern terms, which would best describe Cain's killing of Abel:

A) Involuntary manslaughter (accidental killing)
B) Murder (intentional, unjust killing)
C) Capital punishment (justified according to the law)

(All of the above involve "killing", would you agree?)

It would be best if we can establish the clear meaning of "murder" before trying to set it apart from "killing." We cannot hope to establish distinctions between words when every word definition remains murky and indistinct itself.

We also need to agree on an essential principle here: that the Hebrew/Greek should be our final authority, not the English translation made of it.

Interestingly, the word "murder" occurs only 9 times in all the Bible in English (KJV). If we extend that to all possible forms of the word (e.g. murdering, murderers, etc.), we come up with just 37 uses in the KJV. Conversely, forms of the word "kill" occur 219 times in the Bible, and then we have other words like "slaughter," "slay," "slew," etc., which give us another 532 word usages in the KJV. So, with a total of 758 verses mentioning some kind of killing in the Bible, only 37 use the term "murder." That's less than 5%. Either murder was uncommon, or the translation of "murder" was simply uncommon in English and many more uses might be indicated in modern English. While I don't like the NIV "translation," it illustrates this possibility in having 75 verses, more than double the KJV, using "murder" in some form. The NLT increases the use of "murder" to 144 verses, nearly four times that of the KJV.

In the NKJV, also based on the Textus Receptus, and therefore a version I largely accept, the Bible states that Cain "murdered" his brother.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You may be giving Simeon and Levi too much credit in understanding the law, which wasn't fleshed out in great detail until hundreds of years later. It is possible that they were simply angry over what was done to their sister, and didn't consider her becoming a princess to be sufficient restitution for her rape.

The victims of abuse do not usually bother with using legalistic manipulation to justify their revenge.

Was not the 4 Deuteronomy texts enough that clearly defined what "murder"- ratsach is :

AV Dt 4:42 "That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live:"

AV Dt 19:4 "And this [is] the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;"

AV Dt 19:6 "Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he [was] not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past."

AV Dt 19:11 "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:"



For sure hatred is not the only criterion, but it is an important factor for a case of pre-meditative murder that deserves the death penalty as defined in Deut 19:11.

Another criteria that we haven't discussed is if the other (in this case Abel) provoke someone (Cain) to anger. The Bible is silence of what was discussed between Abel and Cain. Maybe Cain was trying to follow the Lord's instruction in Gen 4:7 to overcome his "wroth"(of his sacrificed not accepted) by talking to Abel (Gen 4:8). Then maybe Abel bragged about how good he is or ... whatever and provoked Cain with his words -- meaning he fuel the spark that Cain tried to extinguish.

We do not know what happened but if that sorta thing happened -- then Abel is responsible for Cain outburst of fire(Anger). This is taught in the laws of liability in Exodus 22:5,6; Ex 21:33,34 where liability is given to the one who caused the situation. Paul is applying this law by saying to the parents not to provoke their children to anger in Ephesians 6:4 & Colossians 3:21.

As we said we do not know what happened in that conversation, but the Lord knows. And how the Lord judged Cain tells us the nature of the crime by which Cain is guilty of. We see that the Lord gave protection to Cain and set him off as a fugitive. Exactly the judgment scenario for anyone that is innocent of a ratsach type of murdering and find refuge in one of the cities.

Cain received a judgment(Gen 4:11,12) because he was the first one to spill blood on the ground by killing Abel. He was cursed and the earth wasn't going to give him its strength, and he was to be a fugitive and vagabond in the earth.

No, not at all. Cain also shares responsibility in this crime, despite Abel might of fuel the spark to get Cain into a rage of anger. Cain went too far to strike him in the intend to kill him. That is Cain level of responsibility in this case. He was the oldest of the two, and he was his younger brother's keeper. Cain went too far in smiting his brother to death. He could of just given him just a good beaten. I'm not saying that this is the way to go, but better than to killing him.


I think it doesn't fit in any of these Babylonians terms and way of justice. I rather seek for the Lord's terms and His way of bringing justice.

The termed the Lord used was "harag"(striking with deadly intend but with no pre-hatred involved) and not a case of "ratsach"(striking with deadly intend because of pre-hatred)

The Lord way of bringing justice according to His laws was to put a mark on Cain for protection and let him be a fugitive and having to suffer the consequence that the ground no longer gives him this great & easy harvest he use to have.


Re-read the 4 texts quoted above that Moses has given us as definition and what Jesus says about the 6th commandment. That might help you.


Well, the Bible was not written in English nor does any of the many English translation fully and completely captivate the original text meaning. So isn't it obvious that we need to look at the original Hebrew and Greek words that the text was written in? And then what Strong and other scholars has defined these words to be, can be correct but they do disagree on some definitions and at times most are incorrect about the definition for their understanding of many text are limited. So their work can help us have a start on a definition; but this needs to be tested and we need to take a further step to extract the real definition from the context the word is employed in Scriptures....which requires the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand the text it is used in.