Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Thou shalt not kill." What aramaic word was "kill" from?
What is the, perhaps transliteration, of the aramaic version of this commandment? What word or phrase was translated into the word "kill?" Is there any thinking that only murder, not all killing, was prohibited?

I'm sorry if this questions has been asked of you folks ad-nauseam.
I don't know about aramaic version of this commandment in Old Testament, but in NT in Matthew 5:21 there seems to be "kill":

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... elo+Edessa</a><!-- m -->
First, read the vav before the lamed in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Lw=q[/font] (?kill/murder?) versus [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]L=q[/font] (?kill?). Jastrow picks this up: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> as does Payne-Smith.

But this vav-placement is not a hard rule for definition as "murder" because conjugation alone cannot bring about the legal conclusion ?murder?. In the gospel, you need a judge or judgment to do that. That is why we see the conjugation [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0lw=q[/font] (?murderer(s)?) only when the judge appears in Matthew 22:7, but not earlier in verses 22:3-6 (where we see [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]L=q[/font] (?kill?). See also John 15:2 (showing temporal retroactivity); Rev 22:14; John 10:10 (already judged a ?thief?). It?s a subtle point in the gospel, but an important point that can be easily overlooked by those who judge killers prematurely (i.e., everyone).

Matthew 5:21, ?You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Lw=qt 0l[/font] (?not you murder/kill?).? See also Mark 10:19 [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Lw=q[/font] (?murder?). After this, Yahshua describes that murder is really a matter of the heart! That's huge to our word study here. For example, who will judge the heart? See 1 Samuel 6:17; See also, Matthew 19:18 [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Lw=qt[/font] (?you murder/kill?).

So, ?murder? is a legal conclusion, not a translation of a single Aramaic word into English. What I?d like to explain further in this post (in addition to grammatical nuances) is that it?s a question of righteousness and a matter of the heart. For example, if the killing is done by YHVH, even the strongest expression of [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]L=q[/font] (?kill?) in Aramaic as [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Lw=q[/font] (?kill?) would not ?translate? murder; it just means premeditated killing. So if the killing is righteous or forgivable, it is not murder, it is just a righteous or forgivable intentional killing.

Second, context is an important clue in Aramaic to see the distinction between ?kill? and ?murder?, but sometimes our assumptions about context mislead us because we are imperfect and premature judges. Indeed, sometimes the conjugation is quite surprising in Aramaic. See e.g., Matthew 2:16 where Herod [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]L=q[/font] (?kills?) infants rather than [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Lw=q[/font] (?kills?) (more on this below in my comments on sovereign immunity); Matthew 14:5 (the crowd thinks they are righteous to desire to kill Yahshua); John 8:11 (?suicide? not considered murder); John 8:33 (Satan kills).

Also, in Aramaic when a person is described as being ?killed? the expression is [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]tl=q[/font] (?killed?) or similar, so you can?t tell by conjugation alone if the suggestion is ?murder?. Rather, you need to examine the killer and context to learn if it was murder. Indeed, whenever Yahshua described how he was going to be killed, he never prejudged it murder or anyone a murderer, but rather the passive conjugations are used consistently in each gospel. This emphasizes an important point about the timing of judgment.

Third, a key point of clarification comes from considering this verb conjugation [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Lw=q[/font] (?murder?, ?kill?) as a type of imperative form of [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]L=q[/font]. Usually the verb imperative is a command (i.e., ?go there?, ?do this?), but in the bigger picture it is about expressed intention; thus, the heart.

Unlike Aramaic, Hebrew does not form prohibitions with the imperative, so for scholars historically these conjugations added to the ambiguity (ie., the voluminous discussion about the Hebrew imperfect tense and vowel points in the old testament regarding this very question of murder v. killing).

Allow me to summarize the subtlety for you guys in a nutshell -- if a man takes it upon his own mind to kill, that is like an imperative [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Lw=q[/font] (i.e., he is ordering the killing). By contrast, when you kill in self-defense (i.e., you kill an attacker to survive his attack) you would not use the imperative-style conjugation about yourself (ie., your heart is not ordering the killing, but rather circumstances dictate the killing; or in other words, ?you were forced to do it?). The same rationale applies loosely to non-human killings, such as the act of killing plants and animals to eat. These are all interesting and often rhetorical questions ? for example, what about sacrificial killings (to ?defend? your soul, to ?restore righteousness?)?

Caesar?s chief title was IMPERATOR (?Emperor?). This classic example informs our understanding about the greater meaning of the imperative in our world built upon words - orders come from the Imperator in the imperative. Who is your Imperator?
The imperative tense is about self-determinism. Alha is the Supreme Commander of the Imperative tense.

If someone (like Caesar) orders you to kill, then you are not acting in the imperative yourself (you are a soldier, not a murderer). Of course things get messy with killings, and answers are not always clear. In the modern era we have the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809 Art. 90, specifying that military personnel are only asked to obey a ?lawful? command or order of a superior officer. See also, International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement, A Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police (?Officials who refuse unlawful superior orders shall be given immunity.?) And then there is the famous Latin expression LEX INJUSTA NO EST LEX (?an unjust law is not a law?).

Hope this response is helpful and interesting?

Another interesting and related law from the olden days is ?Sovereign Immunity?, which specifies that ?The King can do no wrong.? How?s that for righteousness?! ?Sovereign Immunity? is well-recognized in the world today (which is why in America, for example, we have the Tort Claims Act where the government consents to allow lawsuits against it). See also, The King and I: Separation of Powers in Early Hebraic Political Theory, by David C. Flatto.

But is all this just theory? I don?t think so. There was a major event that occurred in this very generation (around 1998) that brought Sovereign Immunity to its knees for the first time in world history ? it is called ?The Rome Statute?, and it vested the United Nations International Criminal Court (ICC) with the authority to judge the world. Currently the United States and Israel have ?retracted? their signatures, but the UN resists nonparticipation. Time will tell?

[Image: uninvolved-in-peace.jpg]

I don't think everything about the UN is bad, but for those who put their hopes in the UN to save the world, and who seek blessings and protection from the same UN Headquarters building that houses the black stone altar of the new world religion, I don?t think this ends well.

[Image: UN-prayer-room.jpg]

In the meantime, who shall judge the killings?

Revelation 6:9-11, ?And when he opens the fifth seal, I saw underneath the sacrifice altar, to the souls [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Yl=qt0d[/font] (?that were killed?) because of the word of Alha and because of the testimony of Yahshua that they had. And they cried out in a great voice and said, ?Until when Marya holy and true? You do not judge and You do not avenge our blood from the inhabitants of the earth.? And white garments were given to each one of them. And it was said that they will be resting until a little time/exchange, until their fellow brothers have also been delivered, those who are prepared [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]wl=qtml[/font] (?to be killed?) like they also were.?

And so, men must await judgment for the ultimate answer to your question?
gregglaser, thank you for the detailed info in your post. I have a greater appreciation of the issues now.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)