kland, This is why I was taking such pains to define the relationship between willful thoughts and acts. If you do not accept that a thought can be right or wrong, or that it would constitute an act, one which can be judged as right or wrong, then you will not see any difference between murder and killing.

The difference is made clear in the Bible: motive. What is your reason for killing? That makes all the difference. If one reads carefully regarding the system of "avenging" the death of a kinsman, the duty fell upon the nearest male kin to the one who was killed (note, even accidental deaths were grounds for avenging--thus murder is not required here). The one who executed the duty, however, was required to do so without hate.

Here is a Biblical representation of murder by motive:


Here are Biblical representations of murder by method:


And here are further instructions for the one upon whom the duty of avenger falls:

Isn't that cute?! This part: "...neither sought his harm...!" This commandment was to be carried out from a strict sense of duty alone, and not with emotion. If the avenger hated the one he was avenging, or if he planned the vengeance ahead of time (pre-meditated), then he himself became a murderer and would be worthy of death. Even though he carried out his duty faithfully, and did not hate the one he was killing, he was required to flee to a city of refuge and live there until the death of the high priest, or he himself could be avenged by the nearest of kin to the one he had killed. So, it was certainly a disagreeable duty in that sense. Few would voluntarily wish for a jail sentence.


This avengement system was actually God's way of maintaining a prison system. The avengers of blood were like the prison guards. It was the fear of them which would keep the killer from coming out. However, murderers, if proven to have been murder and not accidental manslaughter (or legitimate avengement), were to be delivered up by the elders of the city of refuge to the avenger, and put to death. So the prison system was only to keep the guiltless avengers or those who had accidentally killed someone.

God made it clear that the people were not to take pity on the murderer, but to carry out the capital punishment faithfully.

In other words, it was wrong to NOT cleanse the land of blood-guiltiness via capital punishment of the murderer.


I never said Moses was the government, so there is no need for me to try to find support for something I never said.

Regarding government's use of capital punishment, yes. It is right and proper according to the Bible. Just read the passages I quoted above. The government is in an impartial position more than a near kinsman would be. When the government carries out capital punishment, it is always at the mouth of at least two or three witnesses. The government does so without hatred, merely from a sense of duty in carrying out and upholding the law. The government takes time to hear both sides of the matter before reaching a judgment. It is just as fair, if not more so, as the system God had instituted.

Nevertheless, the real point is not the fairness. The real issue is that God has established governments and we are to respect them. Jesus supported this principle in speaking of rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. The Bible tells us we are to submit to those who have rule over us.

Are you judging motive here? Was the killer's motive entirely free from hatred? Was he the next of kin to someone whom the abortion doctor had murdered?

Even if the answers to both of those question are in the affirmative, it still does not make what he did correct. God has subjected us to the authority of government, which is to be respected. Jesus never went against the Roman government, even though the Jews wished very much that He would. The case of Mary Magdalene is a good example. The Jewish law had been trumped by the Roman law, and Jesus did not advocate stoning her when it would have been against the law.


I stand by those questions, and would like you to answer them.


Tom already pointed out where you made the distinction. The issue is an important one, which is why I focused on it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't want to get in the middle of your exchange with kland, GC, but I have a couple of questions to ask, just for the sake of clarification. kland has been asking you what the different is between murder and killing. I haven't seen that you answered this, except you said that the reason is important. Can you flesh this out please? What's the difference between murder and killing?

Second question is, we know that because of the hardness of their heart, Moses permitted divorce. Do you think it's possible that this other thing falls into this same category? If not, why not?

Ok, you seem to be saying the difference between murder and killing has something to do with the relationship between willful thoughts and acts.


Then you list:

Which seems to me you are saying that stoning someone is one thing that would be called "murder" regardless of motive.

But then you quote:

Which sounds like it is equating killing with murder.

So, before dealing with the rest, could you define the difference between murder and killing?

My impression is he (GC) would say that stoning someone was murder, if it was done with the wrong motive.

You are right. That is Biblical.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Kland, even in the courts of today we find the need to know "motive" for the case. If only the "act" was important, and not the "motive," are the courts wasting their time?

Suppose, for example, you were making repairs to the chimney on the roof of your house, and a gust of wind caused you to slip and grab for the chimney causing a loose brick which you had been repairing to drop and slide off the three-story home, striking the mailman on the head and killing him. Should you receive capital punishment?

If, on the other hand, you had been holding a grudge against the man, and waited in hiding atop your roof to drop the brick as he came--would that make a difference?

Even if you see no difference, kland, in these two scenarios, God does see a difference, and I am right glad that God is fair, in that he "is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," and has reflected this in the Word of God (see Hebrews 4:12).


In this portion, kland, frankly you are not arguing with me. You are arguing with the portions which you quoted, which are not my statements. I made no statements in the portions you are arguing with--those are pure quotes from the Bible. Therefore, if your argument is with the Bible, let the Bible answer your question. I recommend going to those passages and reading them in their full, original context. Especially for the first quoted portion, I think you need the context of the foregoing verses.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The answer to your first question is in post #123326. Yes, that happens to be the post right before your question.

The answer to your second question is no, I do not think this falls into the same category. Here is why. Divorce was not a commandment. Capital punishment was the law.

You could choose whether or not to seek a divorce, and there were regulations given for proper procedure and eligibility for such. But capital punishment was not of this class. It was commanded, not merely optional.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well, that post is what prompted my question.



That's not what my question was regarding. I was referring to the avenging law. The avenging law is not mandatory. It wasn't required that revenge be sought. If revenge was sought, there were certain rules to follow. I'm asking if God may not have given these rules to make the best of a bad situation, similarly to divorce.

Tom,

The avenging was also mandatory, but with a caveat--it was not to be executed as a premeditated, "lying in wait" act, nor through hatred. I suppose, on that technicality, it might require the avenger some time to compose himself before he could do his duty properly, without hate (forgive first?). Apart from this caveat, the duty itself was mandatory. Notice the wording here...

If the avenger did not chance to meet the murderer, I suppose from this commandment the duty was not required--for he was not supposed to plan it ahead, lie in wait, etc. However, if he met the murderer, he was required to perform this duty.

It seems to me that this was a requirement for one basic reason: to cause the murderer to be afraid and to seek refuge in one of the cities appointed as a city of refuge. Once in that city, it would be determined if his act was murder (requiring capital punishment) or if it was accidental manslaughter (requiring that he stay in the city until the death of the high priest). If the elders of the city determined it was murder, justice would be done, with the avenger of blood being first to participate. The guilt would be determined at the mouth of two or three witnesses.

If the murderer was not afraid, and was willing to meet his avenger boldly, then the avenger was duty bound to put sin away by executing justice himself, and no witnesses were required in this case. The murderer should have gone to the city of refuge.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, don't you think God's ideal will was revealed in Jesus Christ? What do you think God would prefer? That we forgive those who have done us wrong, or seek to kill them according to some rule? Don't you think God was meeting the Israelites where they were, and giving them rules to make their situation more tolerable?

Consider the rule "an eye for an eye." This was certainly better than "a life for an eye." But God's ideal will was revealed by Jesus Christ. Not "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth," but if someone strikes you on the cheek, turn your cheek.