Murder
MURDER
The designed and malevolent taking of human life, was by the original appointment of God, a crime to be punished by death. Cain, the first murderer, recognized it as such, Gen 4:14 . The ground for the death penalty for murder is the eminent dignity and sacredness of man as a child of God, Gen 9:5-6 . Like the Sabbath and marriage, it is a primeval and universal institution for mankind, and all nations have so recognized it, Mal 28:4 . The Mosaic code reenacted it, Lev 24:17 ; and while providing for the unintentional homicide a safe retreat, declares that deliberate murder must be punished by death, from which neither the city of refuge nor the altar of God could shield the criminal, Exo 21:12-14 Num 35:9-34 Deu 19:1-13 1Ki 2:5-6,28 -34. Death was usually inflicted by stoning, upon the testimony of at least two witnesses, Num 35:30 . If a corpse were found in the open fields, and the murderer could not be discovered, the town nearest to the spot was obliged to purge itself by a solemn ceremony, lest it should become liable to the judgments of God, Deu 21:1-9 .In various ways God is represented as specially abhorring this crime, and securing its punishment, Deu 32:43 2Sa 21:1 Psa 9:12 55:23 Hos 1:4 Jer 22:15 . Our Savior instructs us that one may be guilty, in the sight of God, of murder in the heart, without any overt act, Mat 5:21-22 1Jo 3:15 . Nothing is said especially in the law respecting selfmurder, and only the cases of Saul, Ahithophel, and Judas are described in the Bible, 1Sa 31:4 2Sa 17:23 Mal 1:18 . Of all murders, that of the soul is incomparably the most awful, Joh 8:44, and many plunge not only themselves but also others into the second death.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Murder
The prevalence of murder was one of the dark facts in the social and political background of the early Apostolic Church. Fanaticism of a fierce and ruthless type was in the air, and human life was frequently as little regarded as is normal under such conditions. The resentment of the Zealots against the authority of Rome was a persistent fact in the situation from the third decade to the final catastrophe in a.d. 70, and when cruelty and oppression were carried to excess by Felix it was inevitable that there should arise in opposition a body of extremists to whom murder was merely a detail in a policy.
Thus during the time of Felix and Festus there arose the Sicarii (see Assassins), whose Jewish patriotism took a murderous shape. Their weapons were daggers (sicae; cf. Latin sicarius, a murderer. The law passed under Sulla against murderers was Lex Cornelia de Sicariis). Armed with these, they moved with stealth through the crowds at festival seasons, seeking to remove their opponents by assassination. Then, in order to turn aside any possible suspicion, they gave way to loud expressions of grief. We find a reference to this group in Act 21:38, where the chief captain ( ), finding that St. Paul speaks Greek, asks: Art thou not then that Egyptian, which before these days stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins ( )? The Sicarii must have been the easy instrument at hand to every clever impostor, and the incident referred to here was the most notable example. An Egyptian Jew gave himself out as a prophet and held out to a crowd in the wilderness the alluring promise that the walls of Jerusalem would fall down at his word and so make the city theirs once more. Felix, however, put down the movement and took many prisoners. Josephus gives two accounts of this false prophet, in one of which (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xiii. 5) he says that the majority of the 30,000 followers were captured or slain, and in the other (Ant. XX. viii. 6) that four hundred were killed and two hundred taken prisoners.
That murder was not unknown even among those identified with the Church may be inferred from 1Pe 4:15, where the writer addresses a warning to Christians. They are not to resent the fiery trial, but to rejoice as those sharing the sufferings of Christ-only Let none of you suffer as a murderer ( ). In later days it was a commonplace of anti-Christian abuse to charge Christians with the horrors of child-slaying and cannibalism, but there seems to be no sufficient reason for reading into the passage quoted any reference to these charges. As C. Bigg has said, A Christian might quite well be guilty of murder. The times were wild, and conversions must often have been imperfect (International Critical Commentary , Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, Edinburgh, 1901, p. 177).
R. Strong.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
MURDER
The act of wilfully and feloniously killing a person upon malice or forethought. Heart murder is the secret wishing or designing the death of any man; yea, the Scripture saith, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, ” 1Jn 3:15. We have instances of this kind of murder in Ahab, 1Ki 22:9. Jezebel, 2Ki 19:2. the Jews, Mar 11:18. David, 1Sa 25:21-22. Jon 4:1; Jon 4:4. Murder is contrary to the authority of God, the sovereign disposer of life, Deu 32:39; to the goodness of God, who gives it, Job 10:12; to the law of nature, Act 16:28; to the love a man owes to himself, his neighbour, and society at large. Not but that life may be taken away, as in lawful war, 1Ch 5:22; by the hands of the civil magistrate for capital crimes, Deu 17:8; Deu 17:10; and in self-defence.
See SELF- DEFENCE. According to the divine law, murder is to be punished with death, Deu 19:11-12. 1Ki 2:28-29. It is remarkable that God often gives up murderers to the terrors of a guilty conscience, Gen 4:13; Gen 4:15; Gen 4:23-24. Such are followed with many instances of divine vengeance, 2Sa 12:9-10; their lives are often shortened, Psa 55:23; and judgments of their sin are oftentimes transmitted to posterity, Gen 49:7. 2Sa 21:1.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Murder
(Lat. homo, man; and caedere, to slay)
Homicide signifies, in general, the killing of a human being. In practice, however, the word has come to mean the unjust taking away of human life, perpetrated by one distinct from the victim and acting in a private capacity. For the purposes of this article, therefore, account is not taken of suicide, nor of the carrying out of the penalty of death by due process of law.
The direct killing of an innocent person is, of course, to be reckoned among the most grievous of sins. It is said to happen directly when the death of the person is viewed either as an end attractive in itself, or at any rate is chosen as a means to an end. The malice discernible in the sin is primarily chargeable to the violation of the supreme ownership of God over the lives of His creatures. It arises as well from the manifest outrage upon one of the most conspicuous and cherished rights enjoyed by man, namely the right to life. For the scope contemplated here, a person is regarded as innocent so long as he has not by any responsible act brought any hurt to the community or to an individual comparable with the loss of life. Homicide is said to be indirect when it is no part of the agent’s plan to bring about the death which occurs, so that this latter is not intended as an end nor is it selected as a means to further any purpose. In this hypothesis it is, at most, permitted on account of a reason commensurate with so great an evil as is the destruction of human life. Thus, for instance, a military commander may train his guns upon a fortified place, even though in the bombardment which follows he knows perfectly well that many non-combatants will perish. The sufficient cause in the case is consideration of the highest public good to be subserved by the defeat of the enemy. When, however, the untoward death of a person is the outcome of an action which is prohibited precisely because of the founded likelihood of its having this fatal result, then in the court of conscience the doer is held to be guilty in spite of his disclaimer of all intention in the matter. Hence, for example, one who fires a shotgun into the public thoroughfare, whilst protesting that he has no wish to work any mischief, is, nevertheless, obviously to be reproached as a murderer if perchance his bullet has killed anybody.
For the protection of one’s own or another’s life, limb, chastity, or valuables of some moment, it is agreed on all sides that it is lawful for anyone to repel violence with violence, even to the point of taking away the life of the unjust assailant, provided always that in so doing the limits of a blameless defence be not exceeded. It is proper to note (1) that the danger apprehended for oneself or another must be actual and even, so to speak, imminent, not merely prospective. Hence, the teaching here propounded cannot be adduced to justify the use of force for purposes of reprisal or vengeance by a private individual. This latter is a function belonging to the public authority. (2) No more violence may be employed than is required to safeguard sufficiently the goods already enumerated upon which an unwarranted assault has been made. The right of self-defence so universally attributed does not necessarily presuppose in the aggressor an imputable malice. It is enough that one’s life or some other possession comparable with life should be threatened outside of the proper channels of the law. One might, for example, kill a lunatic, or one crazed with drink, although there is no malice on their part, if this were the only effective way to head off their onset. St. Thomas is careful to say that even in self-defence it is unlawful to kill another directly, that is, to intend immediately the death of that other. His mind is that the formal volition of the self-defender should entirely be to preserve his own life and repulse the onslaught, whilst as to the loss of life, which, as a matter of fact, ensues, he keeps himself in a purely permissive attitude. This contention is combated by De Lugo and some others, who believe it to be right to choose expressly the killing of another as the means to self-defence. In conformity with the Thomistic doctrine is the axiomatic utterance that a private individual may never lawfully kill anyone whatever, because in self-defence one does not, technically speaking, kill, but only endeavours to stop the trespasser. Hence, according to the Angelic Doctor, it would follow that only by due operation of law may a human being ever be directly done to death.
Unlike other instances of damage wrought, the murderer cannot offer an adequate indemnity. For one thing, he cannot restore the life he has destroyed. There is no doubt, however, but that he is obliged to make good whatever expenses may have been incurred for medical attendance or hospital care, and this to the surviving heirs. He is likewise bound to furnish to the immediate relatives of his victim, such as wife, children, parents, the sustenance for which they depended on the latter. Should the murderer die before being able to satisfy these claims they pass as a burden to be met by the inheritors of his estate. It is not easy to determine what obligation, if any, the slayer has to the creditors of the slain; but it seems equitable to say that he must at least reimburse them whenever it is clear that his aim in the perpetration of the deed of blood was to injure them.
One who has killed another under circumstances that show his act to be a mortal sin whether he directly or only indirectly intended the fatal result, and whether he was the physical or the moral cause, contracts the canonical impediment known as irregularity. In ancient times many penalties, such as censures and the like, were levelled against those who procured the assassination of others. By this crime was meant the procedure of those who, by the payment or promise of a reward, explicitly commissioned abandoned men to put others to death. The text of the law denouncing this atrocity directly took cognizance of the case in which infidels were hired to do away with Christians. The excommunication imposed has since been removed, but other punishments remain in force. Thus, for example, a criminal of this sort could not invoke in his behalf the right of asylum; if he were a cleric he would be regarded as canonically degraded, and left to the disposition of the secular arm, so that he might be put to death without any actionable violation of the immunity proper to his state. Whether the actual assassin, who carries out the orders of his principal, is to be considered as included in the provisions of the law, is not certain.
IN CIVIL JURISPRUDENCE
According to its signification in jurisprudence homicide is “the killing of a human being by a human being” (J. F. Stephen, “Digest of the Criminal Law”, London and New York, 1894, 175; Wharton, “The Law of Homicide”, 3rd ed., Rochester, N.Y., 1907, 1), and may be “free from legal guilt” (Serjeant Stephen, “New Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 14th ed., London, 1903, IV, 37; Wharton, op. cit., 1). The very ancient Latin language expressed the act of killing a human being by numerous terms, but not by the term homicidium, which came into use at a comparatively late period (T. Mommsen, “Le Droit penal Romain”, French tr., Paris, 1907, II, 324-5). That it did not necessarily import the deed of a criminal Horace’s allusion to homicidam Hectorem (Epod., xvii, 12) indicates.
Homicide free from legal guilt was by the English law defined as either justifiable or excusable. Of justifiable homicide an instance is afforded by such “unavoidable necessity” as the execution of a criminal “pursuant to the death warrant and in strict conformity to the law” (Wharton, op. cit., 9). Instances of excusable homicide would be killing in self-defence or an accidental killing by a person doing a lawful act without any intention to hurt (Idem, op. cit.). But contrary to the legal doctrine which Sir William Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England, IV, 186) derives from Lord Bacon, modern English law does not seem to admit necessity of self-preservation as excuse for killing “an innocent and unoffending neighbour” (Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens, English Law Reports, 14 Queen’s Bench Division, 286). Homicide under circumstances rendering the act neither justifiable nor excusable is a crime of the class denominated felonies (Bishop, “New Comment. on Crim. Law”, Chicago, 1892, II, sec. 744). Felonious homicide, when imputed by law to the infirmity of human nature and deemed without malice, is termed manslaughter, being either a voluntary killing “in a sudden heat of passion”, or an involuntary killing “in the commission of an unlawful act” (Wharton, op. cit., 6). Felonious homicide when accompanied by malice constitutes murder, a crime committed “where a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being in the peace of the commonwealth or sovereign with malice prepense or aforethought, either express or implied” (Wharton, op. cit., 2). “The King’s peace”, Blackstone deems proper to specify, is so comprehensive that to kill “an alien, a Jew or an outlaw” (except an alien enemy in time of war) “is as much murder as to kill the most regular born Englishman.” But he adds that “to kill a child in its mother’s womb is now no murder, but a great misprision” (op. cit., IV, 198).
Murder in its most odious degree, according to Blackstone (op. cit., IV, 204), is what the former English law termed petit treason, the killing by an inferior of a superior to whom the slayer owed faith and obedience. This crime might, therefore, be committed by an ecclesiastic against his superior, by a wife against her husband, or by a servant against his master, acts which modern law does not distinguish from other homicides [op. cit., IV, 203, note to Lewis’s edition (Phila., 1897), 204] (Bishop, op. cit., I, sec. 611). Suicide is felonious homicide by the English common law (Wharton, op. cit., 587). But the ancient forfeiture of goods being now abolished, this offence is beyond the reach of human tribunals (Bishop, op. cit., II, sec. 1187). That a person shall be legally guilty of criminal homicide death must have occurred within a year and a day after the occurrence out of which an accusation arises (Bishop, op. cit., sec. 640). Although the criminal law of the States of the United States (except Louisiana) is based on the English common law, yet statutory modifications are numerous and important.
———————————–
RICKABY, “Ethics and Natural Law” (London, 1908); IDEM, “Aquinas Ethicus” (London, 1896); SLATER, “Manual of Moral Theology” (New York, 1908); BALLERINI, “Opus Theologicum Morale” (Prato, 1899).
JOSEPH F. DELANY/CHARLES W. SLOANE Transcribed by M.E. Smith
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Murder
(properly , which, however, is rendered “slaughter” in the Auth. Ver., from , to “kill,” ). The criminal law of the Israelites naturally recognised the distinction between wilful murder and accidental or justifiable homicide (Num 25:16 sq.), although in the legislative language itself the word is used for both kinds of manslaughter (see especially Num 35:26; Deu 19:3, etc.). Murder was invariably visited with capital punishment (Lev 24:17; comp. Gen 9:6), without the possibility of expiation. Mere homicide (the act of , Num 35:15, or , Deu 4:42) was, however, liable to a forfeiture of life according to all ancient national observances. Winer, 2:105. (See Ewald, Alterthiimer des V. Israel, pages 146-154.) SEE BLOOD- REVENGE.
The principle on which the act of taking the life of a human being was regarded by the Almighty as a capital offence is stated on its highest ground as an outrage-Philo calls it sacrilege-on the likeness of God in man, to be punished even when caused by an animal (Gen 9:5-6, with Bertheau’s note; see also Joh 8:44; 1Jn 3:12; 1Jn 3:15; Philo, De Spec. Leg. 3:15, volume 2, page 313). Its secondary or social ground appears to be implied in the direction to replenish the earth which immediately follows (Gen 9:7). The exemption of Cain from capital punishment may thus be regarded by anticipation as founded on the social ground either of expediency or of example (Gen 4:12; Gen 4:15). The postdiluvian command, enlarged and infringed by the practice of blood- revenge, which it seems to some extent to sanction, was limited by the Law of Moses, which, while it protected the accidental homicide, defined with additional strictness the crime of murder. It prohibited compensation or reprieve of the murderer, or his protection if he took refuge in the refuge- city, or even at the altar of Jehovah, a principle which finds an eminent illustration in the case of Joab (Exo 21:12; Exo 21:14; Lev 24:17; Lev 24:21; Num 35:16-18; Num 35:21; Num 35:31; Deu 19:11; Deu 19:13; 2Sa 17:25; 2Sa 20:10; 1Ki 2:5-6; 1Ki 2:31; see Philo, 1.c.; Michaelis, On Laws of Moses, 132). Bloodshed even in warfare was held to involve pollution (Num 35:33-34; Deu 21:1; Deu 21:9; 1Ch 28:3). Philo says that the attempt to murder deserves punishment equally with actual perpetration; and the Mishna, that a mortal blow intended for another is punishable with death; but no express legislation on this subject is found in the Law (Philo, 1.c.; Mishna, Sanh. 9:2).
No special mention is made in the Law (a) of child murder, (b) of parricide, nor (c) of taking life by poison, but its animus is sufficiently obvious in all these cases (Exo 21:15; Exo 21:17; 1Ti 1:9; Mat 15:4), and the third may perhaps be specially intended under the prohibition of witchcraft (Exo 22:18; see Joseph. Ant. 4:8, 34; Philo, De Spec. Leg. 3:17, volume 2, page 315).
It is not certain whether a master who killed his slave was punished with death (Exo 21:20; Knobel, ad loc.). In Egypt the murder of a slave was punishable with death as an example afortiori in the case of a freeman; and parricide was punished with burning; but child-murder, though regarded as an odious crime, was not punished with death (Diod. Sic. 1:77). The Greeks also, or at least the Athenians, protected the life of the slave (Miiller, Dorians, 3:3, 4; Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. 2:208, 209).
No punishment is mentioned for suicide attempted (comp. 1Sa 31:4 sq.; 1Ki 16:18; Mat 27:5; see 2Ma 14:41 sq.), nor does any special restriction appear to have attached to the property of the suicide (2Sa 17:23); yet Josephus says (War, 3:8, 5) that suicide was dealt with as crime by the Jews. Striking a pregnant woman so as to cause abortion was punished by a fine; but if it caused her death it was punishable with death (Exo 21:23; Joseph. Ant. 4:8, 33).
If an animal known to be vicious caused the death of any one, not only was the animal destroyed, but the owner also, if he had taken no steps to restrain it, was held guilty of murder (Exo 21:29; Exo 21:31; see Michaelis, 274, volume 4, pages 234-5).
The duty of executing punishment on the murderer is in the Law expressly laid on the “revenger of blood;” but the question of guilt was to be previously decided by the Levitical tribunal. A strong bar against the licence of private revenge was placed by the provision which required the concurrence of at least two witnesses in any capital question (Num 35:19-30; Deu 17:6-12; Deu 19:12; Deu 19:17). In regal times the duty of execution of justice on a murderer seems to have been assumed to some extent by the sovereign, as well as the privilege of pardon (2Sa 13:39; 2Sa 14:7; 2Sa 14:11 : 1Ki 2:34). During this period also the practice. of assassination became frequent, especially in the kingdom of Israel. Among modes of effecting this object may be mentioned the murder of Benhadad of Damascus by Hazael by means of a wet cloth (1Ki 15:27; 1Ki 16:9; 2Ki 8:15; see Thenius, ad loc.: Jahn, Hist. 1:137; comp. 2Ki 10:7; 2Ki 11:1; 2Ki 11:16; 2Ki 11:20; 2Ki 14:5; 2Ki 15:14; 2Ki 15:25; 2Ki 15:30).
It was lawful to kill a burglar taken at night in the act, but unlawful to do so after sunrise (Exo 22:2-3).
The Koran forbids child-murder, and allows blood revenge, but permits money-compensation for bloodshed (2:21; 4:72; 17:230, ed. Sale). SEE MANSLAYER.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Murder
Wilful murder was distinguished from accidental homicide, and was invariably visited with capital punishment (Num. 35:16, 18, 21, 31; Lev. 24:17). This law in its principle is founded on the fact of man’s having been made in the likeness of God (Gen. 9:5, 6; John 8:44; 1 John 3:12, 15). The Mosiac law prohibited any compensation for murder or the reprieve of the murderer (Ex. 21:12, 14; Deut. 19:11, 13; 2 Sam. 17:25; 20:10). Two witnesses were required in any capital case (Num. 35:19-30; Deut. 17:6-12). If the murderer could not be discovered, the city nearest the scene of the murder was required to make expiation for the crime committed (Deut. 21:1-9). These offences also were to be punished with death, (1) striking a parent; (2) cursing a parent; (3) kidnapping (Ex. 21:15-17; Deut. 27:16).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Murder
In the Scripture view an outrage or sacrilege (Philo, Spec. Leg. 3:15) on God’s likeness in man. Gen 9:5-6, “whose sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.” His blood was so sacred that “God requires it (compare Psa 9:12) of every beast”; so the ox that gored man must be killed (Exo 21:28). God’s image implies in man a personal, moral, and responsible will. To cut short his day of grace and probation is the greatest wrong to man and insult to his Maker. Cain’s punishment God Himself took in hand, dooming him to a life full of fears, remorse, and guilt. His life was temporarily spared, perhaps in order not to impede the natural increase of mankind at the first. But after the flood God delegated thenceforth the murderer’s punishment, which is death, to man; life must go for life, blood for blood.
Murder results from the instigation of Satan the “murderer (of Adam’s and Eve’s souls, and Abel’s body) from the beginning” (Joh 8:44). Not only the killer but the hater is a murderer before God (1Jo 3:12; 1Jo 3:15).Even a slave’s life sacrificed under the rod entailed death, or some heavy punishment as the judges should decide on the master, unless the slave survived the beating a day or two, when it was presumed the master did not intend to kill him and the loss of his slave was deemed enough punishment (Exo 21:12; Exo 21:20-21). A housebreaker might be killed in the act by night; but if by day he was to be sold, so sacred was life regarded (Exo 22:2-3). The cities of refuge saved the manslayer, but not the murderer, from the blood avenger. (See CITIES OF REFUGE.)
Not even Jehovah’s altar could save Joab (1Ki 2:5-6; 1Ki 2:31). Bloodshed in any way, even in war, brought pollution (Num 35:33-34; Deu 21:1-9; 1Ch 28:3, David; 1Ch 22:8). Striking a pregnant woman so as to cause death brought capital punishment. Two witnesses were required before anyone could be put to death for murder, a check on private revenge (Num 35:19-30; Deu 17:6-12; Deu 19:12; Deu 19:17). The sovereign assumed the power of executing or pardoning murderers (2Sa 1:15-16, David and the Amalekite slayer of Saul; 2Sa 13:39; 2Sa 14:7-11, David in respect to Anmon and Absalom; 1Ki 2:34, Solomon and Joab).
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Murder
MURDER.The observance of the Sixth Commandment, as of the rest, is taken for granted in the Christian system (Mat 19:18, Mar 10:19, Luk 18:20). It concerns those who are outside of the society founded by Jesus. Thus the guilt of murder is predicated of Barabbas (Mar 15:7, Luk 23:19; Luk 23:25, Joh 18:40 robber), and of the unwilling guests (Mat 22:7), and Satan is designated the original (Joh 8:44). In the doctrine of Jesus, the crimes of the Mosaic codes are traced to their source in the heart (Mat 15:19, Mar 7:21), and murder to the passion of anger. He who is angry with his brother, or who says to him Raca, or Thou fool, is accounted guilty of murder (Mat 5:22). With this saying of Jesus may be compared one of Mohammed, Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou unbeliever, one of the two shall surfer as an unbeliever. It is also interesting to note that the Arabic verb katala means both to kill and to curse (Koran, lxxx. 16). In the Koran murder is atoned for by retaliation (cf. Mat 5:38), a free man dying for a free, a slave for a slave; or the relatives of the slain may accept a money payment, which in practice does not exceed 500 (Koran, ii. 173; Lanes Arabian Nights, vi. 8). The Jewish Rabbis distinguished between manslaughter and murder (Exo 21:13-14): only in the latter case did capital punishment follow (Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 375 f.; W. R. Smith, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] p. 420). Self-murder is rare among Semitic peoples, though cases do occur (Mat 27:5, Act 1:18; Josephus BJ iii. viii. 5).
T. H. Weir.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Murder
MURDER.See Crimes, 7; Refuge [Cities of].
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Murder
Every sinner is a soul-murderer. Hence the prophet saith, “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.” (Hos 13:9.)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Murder
murder (, haragh, to smite, destroy, kill, slay (Psa 10:8; Hos 9:13 AV), , racah, to dash to pieces, kill, especially with premeditation (Num 35:16 and frequently; Job 24:14; Psa 94:6; Jer 7:9; Hos 6:9); , phoneus, criminal homicide, from , phoneuo, to kill, slay; , phonos, from , pheno, has the same meaning; , anthropoktonos, manslayer, murderer, is used to designate Satan Joh 8:44 and him that hates his brother 1Jo 3:15; a matricide is designated as , metraloas 1Ti 1:9; compare , adelphoktonos, fratricidal (Wisd 10:3).
1. Terms
The plural of , phonos, murders, occurs in Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21; Gal 5:21 the King James Version; Rev 9:21; compare 2 Macc 4:3, 38; 12:6):
2. The Hebrew Law
The Hebrew law recognized the distinction between willful murder and accidental or justifiable homicide Num 25:16; but in legal language no verbal distinction is made. Murder was always subject to capital punishment (Lev 24:17; compare Gen 9:6). Even if the criminal sought the protection of the sanctuary, he was to be arrested before the altar, and to be punished Exo 21:12, Exo 21:14; Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21; Num 35:16, Num 35:18, Num 35:21, Num 35:31. The Mishna says that a mortal blow intended for another than the victim is punishable with death; but such a provision is not found in the Law. No special mention is made of (a) child murder; (b) parricide; or (c) taking life by poison; but the intention of the law is clear with reference to all these eases Exo 21:15, Exo 21:17; 1Ti 1:9; Mat 15:4. No punishment is mentioned for attempted suicide (compare 1Sa 31:4; 1Ki 16:18; Mat 27:5); yet Josephus says (BJ, III, viii, 5) that suicide was held criminal by the Jews (see also Exo 21:23). An animal known to be vicious must be confined, and if it caused the death of anyone, the animal was destroyed and the owner held guilty of murder Exo 21:29, Exo 21:31. The executioner, according to the terms of the Law, was the revenger of blood; but the guilt must be previously determined by the Levitical tribunal. Strong protection was given by the requirement that at least two witnesses must concur in any capital question Num 35:19-30; Deu 17:6-12; Deu 19:12, Deu 19:17. Under the monarchy the duty of executing justice on a murderer seems to have been assumed to some extent by the sovereign, who also had power to grant pardon 2Sa 13:39; 2Sa 14:7, 2Sa 14:11; 1Ki 2:34. See MANSLAYER.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Murder
The first death was caused by murder when Cain slew his brother Abel, and the second recorded is when Lamech said, “I have slain a man to my wounding,” or “for my wound;” which may mean that he did it in self-defence. Gen 4:23. God set a mark upon Cain that none should kill him; and Lamech said, “If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.” After the flood God made a definite law concerning murder. God would require expiation for the blood of man, whether it was shed by beast or by man; at the hand of every man’s brother, or kinsman, God would require the life of man. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Gen 9:5-6. This injunction was repeated in the law, and has never been rescinded or modified. Neither does the N.T. in any way alter it: indeed it incidentally confirms it by declaring that the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. Rom 13:4. God claims the life of man, and none can set aside His rights.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Murder
See Homicide
Homicide
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Murder
Mule. The law of Moses, while it protected the accidental homicide, defined with additional strictness, the crime of murder. It prohibited compensation or reprieve of the murderer, or his protection, if he took refuge in the refuge city, or even at the altar of Jehovah. Exo 21:12; Exo 21:14; Lev 24:17; Lev 24:21; 1Ki 2:5-6; 1Ki 2:31.
The duty of executing punishment on the murderer is in the law expressly laid on the “revenger of blood;” but the question of guilt was to be previously decided by the Levitical tribunal. In regal times, the duty of execution of justice on a murderer seems to have been assumed, to some extent, by the sovereign, as was also the privilege of pardon. 2Sa 13:39; 2Sa 14:7; 2Sa 14:11; 1Ki 2:34. It was lawful to kill a burglar taken at night in the act, but unlawful to do so after sunrise. Exo 22:2-3.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
MURDER
(1) Forbidden
Exo 20:13; Mat 19:18; Rom 13:9; 1Pe 4:15; 1Jo 3:15
(2) Examples of
Gen 4:8; Gen 49:6; Jdg 9:5; 1Sa 22:18; 2Sa 13:28; 1Ki 21:13; 2Ch 24:21
Mat 2:16; Act 7:58
–SEE Assassination, NATION, THE
(3) Punishment of Wilful
Gen 9:6; Exo 21:12; Lev 24:17; Num 35:16; Num 35:31; Deu 19:11; Pro 28:17
(3) Of Children
Exo 1:16; Mat 2:16; Act 7:19
— of Brethren. SEE Fratricide, HOME
— of Rulers. SEE Assassination, NATION, THE
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Murder
is used (a) of a special act, Mar 15:7; Luk 23:19, Luk 23:25; (b) in the plural, of “murders” in general, Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21 (Gal 5:21, in some inferior mss.); Rev 9:21; in the singular, Rom 1:29; (c) in the sense of “slaughter,” Heb 11:37, “they were slain with the sword,” lit., “(they died by) slaughter (of the sword);” in Act 9:1, “slaughter.” See SLAUGHTER.
Note: In Mat 19:18, AV, phoneuo, “to kill” (akin to phoneus, see below), is translated “thou shalt do (no) murder” (RV, “thou shalt (not) kill”). See KILL, SLAY.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Murder
Among the Hebrews murder was always punished with death; but involuntary homicide, only by banishment. Cities of refuge were appointed for involuntary manslaughter, whither the slayer might retire and continue in safety till the death of the high priest, Num 35:28. Then the offender was at liberty to return to his own house, if he pleased. A murderer was put to death without remission, and the kinsman of the murdered person might kill him with impunity. Money could not redeem his life: he was dragged away from the altar, if he had there taken refuge. When a dead body was found in the fields of a person slain by a murderer unknown, Moses commanded that the elders and judges of the neighbouring places should resort to the spot, Deu 21:1-8. The elders of the city nearest to it were to take a heifer which had never yet borne the yoke, and were to lead it into some rude and uncultivated place, which had not been ploughed or sowed, where they were to cut its throat. The priests of the Lord, with the elders and magistrates of the city, were to come near the dead body, and, washing their hands over the heifer that had been slain, were to say, Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it shed. Lord, be favourable to thy people Israel, and impute not to us this blood, which has been shed in the midst of our country. This ceremony may inform us how much horror they conceived at the crime of murder; and it shows their fear that God might avenge it on the whole country; which was supposed to contract pollution by the blood spilt in it, unless it were expiated, and avenged on him who had occasioned it, if he could be discovered.