Is there an angel of death?

[jasonc]

Are you referring to the destroyer in Exodus that we've labeled the angel of death from..

Exodus 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

tob

that was god.

 

[for_his_glory]

http://livingtheway.org/dthangel.html

Second Kings 19:35 describes an angel putting to death 185,000 Assyrians who had invaded Israel.

Exo 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

Even in the KJV, verse 23 reads: "For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer [Hebrew shachath, Strong’s #7843] to come in unto your houses to smite you."

The Hebrew word shachath, translated into the noun "destroyer," is actually a verb! It is most often translated in the KJV as the verbs "destroy," or "corrupt," but also a few times as the nouns "destroyer," "corrupter," "waster," "spoilers," etc.

Now let’s look more closely at shachath. As a verb, it means "to decay; to mar; to destroy, devastate; to ruin...; to kill...; to harm...; to violate; to injure; to act wickedly...; (as a subst.) the destroying angel". In context, we might understand that Yahweh sent, not an angel to destroy, but the destruction itself! We might get the picture by reading verse 23 as, "When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the door-frame and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroying to enter your houses and strike you down." The "-ing" ending shows the use of a gerund in English, and also shows us how the verb "to destroy" can be used as a noun.

There is no such thing as a death angel, but God can send out his angels to destroy that of the wicked like in 2 Samuel 24:12-17 for one example.

 

[Deborah13]

http://livingtheway.org/dthangel.html

Second Kings 19:35 describes an angel putting to death 185,000 Assyrians who had invaded Israel.

Exo 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

Even in the KJV, verse 23 reads: "For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer [Hebrew shachath, Strong’s #7843] to come in unto your houses to smite you."

The Hebrew word shachath, translated into the noun "destroyer," is actually a verb! It is most often translated in the KJV as the verbs "destroy," or "corrupt," but also a few times as the nouns "destroyer," "corrupter," "waster," "spoilers," etc.

Now let’s look more closely at shachath. As a verb, it means "to decay; to mar; to destroy, devastate; to ruin...; to kill...; to harm...; to violate; to injure; to act wickedly...; (as a subst.) the destroying angel". In context, we might understand that Yahweh sent, not an angel to destroy, but the destruction itself! We might get the picture by reading verse 23 as, "When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the door-frame and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroying to enter your houses and strike you down." The "-ing" ending shows the use of a gerund in English, and also shows us how the verb "to destroy" can be used as a noun.

There is no such thing as a death angel, but God can send out his angels to destroy that of the wicked like in 2 Samuel 24:12-17 for one example.

Good post! This is how Young translated that scripture.

Exo 12:23 `And Jehovah hath passed on to smite the Egyptians, and hath seen the blood on the lintel, and on the two side-posts, and Jehovah hath passed over the opening, and doth not permit the destruction to come into your houses to smite.

 

[turnorburn]

i can read Jason i was asking if she meant the destroyer towards the end of the verse, in the op she was asking about the angel of death..

tob

 

[jasonc]

i can read Jason i was asking if she meant the destroyer towards the end of the verse, in the op she was asking about the angel of death..

tob

peshac.. I should read up on that. I see something. god was one the one who crucified his son and here that same God taking the firstborn.. connection?

 

[turnorburn]

After her post i did a search for the Hebrew word for destroyer thinking it might come up angel of death but instead found this..

The Hebrew term Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן‎, 'Ǎḇaddōn), and its Greek equivalent Apollyon (Greek: Ἀπολλύων, Apollyon), appear in the Bible as a place of destruction and an angel, respectively. In the Hebrew Bible, abaddon is used with reference to a bottomless pit, often appearing alongside the place שאול (sheol), meaning the land of the dead. In the New Testament Book of Revelation, an angel called Abaddon is written as the king of an army of locusts; his name is first transcribed in Greek (Revelation 9:11 – "whose name in Hebrew Abaddon" (Ἀβαδδὼν)), and then translated ("which in Greek means the Destroyer" (Ἀπολλύων, Apollyon)). The Latin Vulgate, as well as the Douay Rheims Bible, has an additional note (not present in the Greek text), "in Latin Exterminans", exterminans being the Latin word for "destroyer".

According to the Brown Driver Briggs lexicon, the Hebrew abaddon (Hebrew: אבדון; avadon) is an intensive form of the Semitic root and verb stem abad (אָבַד) "perish" (transitive "destroy"), which occurs 184 times in the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, renders "abaddon" as "ἀπώλεια,"[1] while the Greek Apollyon comes from 'apollumi (ἀπόλλυμι) "to destroy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaddon

tob

 

[Edward]

peshac.. I should read up on that. I see something. god was one the one who crucified his son and here that same God taking the firstborn.. connection?

Maybe. I've also wondered if there was a connection somehow about Abraham & Issac?

 

[follower]

IMO this is not an exception.
The context of this is a person committing the crime of burglary . If in act of that crime, the homeowner kills the thief, as a protection of his family, goods and "castle" the death of the homeowner shall not have the death penalty imposed upon him.
.

according to knowledgeable Jews who know Hebrew and Hebrew life, burglary was not a defense to murder someone - if someone was breaking in to burglar a house, in the DAYTIME, and the homeowner hit him and killed him,
THEN the homeowner was put to death (quickly) (i.e. without recourse).
It was only if someone was breaking in at night in the dark, IF the homeowner stuck him and killed him, it was plausible that he killed him accidentally and that is the reason he wouldn't be put to death for killing him.

 

[By Grace]

Seriously, Edward, if you do not know something, it is not wise to make a statement as you did above.

Please look at Genesis 18 and then ask to whom was Abraham pleading when he asked that Sodom not be destroyed? It is YHWH.

In chapter 19, yes, there were two angels, but neither has a title of Angel of Death nor such as Gabriel or Michael, both Archangels as an example. Therefore this seems to not support your statement.

I guess I'm missing your point there brother...What did I say that was inaccurate? There was two Angels, and that they were carrying out the will of YHWH is sort of a given, dont'cha think?

[offensive comment]

Whatever I said, I was not trying rude, crude, offensive, insulting or a jerk.

That being said, I have one general way I look at things:
Anyone is entitled to having an opinion, but unless that opinion cannot be substantiated by Scripture, meaning what Scripture CLEARLY says or else is strongly derived from what is said in related Scriptures (such as the existence of the Trinity) it can never be considered factual.

What I was attempting to say, Edward was that.

I also assumed that you may have read my "mini essay" about angels in post 11 above. My bad if you didn't.

 

[Deborah13]

according to knowledgeable Jews who know Hebrew and Hebrew life, burglary was not a defense to murder someone - if someone was breaking in to burglar a house, in the DAYTIME, and the homeowner hit him and killed him,
THEN the homeowner was put to death (quickly) (i.e. without recourse).
It was only if someone was breaking in at night in the dark, IF the homeowner stuck him and killed him, it was plausible that he killed him accidentally and that is the reason he wouldn't be put to death for killing him.

I find this post is not helpful. Please post the scripture where you see this, otherwise we have to try to figure out where you are getting your interpretation from. I cannot think of the law you may be referring to or where to find it among the Many. Please give the scripture. Thanks
This list may help you to recall it's location.
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

 

[By Grace]

Roro1972 said: ↑
Im thinking there are some exceptions
Exo 22
2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

Here is that verse in several different and good translations:

ESV | ‎Ex 22:2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,
‎‎1901 ASV | ‎Ex 22:2 If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.
NASB95 | ‎Ex 22:2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.
‎‎NIV | ‎Ex 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;
‎‎NIV84 | ‎Ex 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;​

So I ask you, who according to Scripture is killing the burglar, caught in the crime of burglary?
It is the homeowner who kills the thief. It is NOT that the homeowner is having a trial, and is judge, jury and executioner. Instead because there is an inherent danger to the homeowner's home and family, and the thief does not want to be apprehended, a scuffle can happen.

according to knowledgeable Jews who know Hebrew and Hebrew life, burglary was not a defense to murder someone - if someone was breaking in to burglar a house, in the DAYTIME, and the homeowner hit him and killed him,
THEN the homeowner was put to death (quickly) (i.e. without recourse).
It was only if someone was breaking in at night in the dark, IF the homeowner stuck him and killed him, it was plausible that he killed him accidentally and that is the reason he wouldn't be put to death for killing him.

It is also vitally important that one does not take a single verse out of context, and try to "hang a doctrine" on it. I found this adage to be true: "Any verse taken from its context will always result in an incorrect doctrine". My friend, what I post below should help you see this, because it is the next verse, verse 23, and it shows the context of the verse:

ESV | ‎Ex 22:3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎1901 ASV | ‎Ex 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him; he shall make restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎NASB95 | ‎Ex 22:3 “But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make
restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎NIV | ‎Ex 22:3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. “Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.
‎‎NIV84 | ‎Ex 22:3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. “A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.​

So verse 22 is specifically about a NIGHTTIME crime, and verse 23 is specifically about a DAYTIME crime.

In your clarification, you were not wrong, but had you read the next verse, when you posted what you believed was an exception, then the misunderstanding could have been averted. As they say in pick up basketball, "no harm, no foul."

 

[follower]

according to knowledgeable Jews who know Hebrew and Hebrew life, burglary was not a defense to murder someone - if someone was breaking in to burglar a house, in the DAYTIME, and the homeowner hit him and killed him,
THEN the homeowner was put to death (quickly) (i.e. without recourse).
It was only if someone was breaking in at night in the dark, IF the homeowner stuck him and killed him, it was plausible that he killed him accidentally and that is the reason he wouldn't be put to death for killing him.

the difference pointed out in (some translations and context of Scripture) is that at night it is dark and the intruder may be killed accidentally in the dark, not on purpose.

anytime an intruder was killed on purpose, whether day time or night time, the murdered was to be put to death.

the overriding rule from Yhwh is as in Genesis 9:6 - whoever kills another person, by a person shall they be killed, because Yhvh created all persons in the image of Yhvh.

i.e. it is not permitted for an individual on his own discretion to purposefully kill another person, if he does he is to be put to death.

 

[Deborah13]

the difference pointed out in (some translations and context of Scripture) is that at night it is dark and the intruder may be killed accidentally in the dark, not on purpose.

anytime an intruder was killed on purpose, whether day time or night time, the murdered was to be put to death.

the overriding rule from Yhwh is as in Genesis 9:6 - whoever kills another person, by a person shall they be killed, because Yhvh created all persons in the image of Yhvh.

i.e. it is not permitted for an individual on his own discretion to purposefully kill another person, if he does he is to be put to death.

I apologize for my previous post! The scripture under discussion Was posted by roro1972.

I do agree with you that we cannot kill someone for stealing from us. Material goods are not a reason to take a life.

 

[jasonc]

I apologize for my previous post! The scripture under discussion Was posted by roro1972.

I do agree with you that we cannot kill someone for stealing from us. Material goods are not a reason to take a life.

so when im pointing a gun at you just take my word for that im only going steal from you? I wouldn't. I would if im able to with gun shoot. he presented deadly force. a cop in this situation will not hesitate. most crooks have weapon , would you try to rob a big muscle bound male without a weapon? I wouldn't.

 

[follower]

we each get to choose life or death, obedience to Yhvh or disobedience, and Yeshua knows like He knew with His disciples that it is impossible for us to be able to do (on our own).
those who have died to self and to sin and been crucified with Yeshua HaMashiach are able to learn from Him and to live the way He says to.
those who haven't can't.

 

[Deborah13]

so when im pointing a gun at you just take my word for that im only going steal from you? I wouldn't. I would if im able to with gun shoot. he presented deadly force. a cop in this situation will not hesitate. most crooks have weapon , would you try to rob a big muscle bound male without a weapon? I wouldn't.

Jason, I said nothing about self-defense.
So someone breaks into my house and they say they are going to beat me up. I have a gun in my hand, they start towards me....is it OK for me to shoot them because they are threatening me?

Differnet scenario....
Someone breaks into my house, I have a gun. They are stealing my TV. Is it OK for me to shoot them?

 

[Edward]

Whatever I said, I was not trying rude, crude, offensive, insulting or a jerk.

That being said, I have one general way I look at things:
Anyone is entitled to having an opinion, but unless that opinion cannot be substantiated by Scripture, meaning what Scripture CLEARLY says or else is strongly derived from what is said in related Scriptures (such as the existence of the Trinity) it can never be considered factual.

What I was attempting to say, Edward was that.

I also assumed that you may have read my "mini essay" about angels in post 11 above. My bad if you didn't.

I don't know brother, uh, apparently there was a little misunderstanding somewhere by someone...I didn't find your comment rude. I took it rather light hearted actually. And my response about the coffee was me kidding around also, so....I'm not sure what happened there brother, but it's all good.

 

[Edward]

Jason, I said nothing about self-defense.
So someone breaks into my house and they say they are going to beat me up. I have a gun in my hand, they start towards me....is it OK for me to shoot them because they are threatening me?

Differnet scenario....
Someone breaks into my house, I have a gun. They are stealing my TV. Is it OK for me to shoot them?

If they say that they're going to "beat you up" and don't threaten your life...Then technically, you're looking at disparity of force. You're female...are they female or male, and what is their relative build compared to yours? If it's a male, then it is probably legally ok for you to shoot them. You are at home and female, they are male and since they broke in (your words), they have demonstrated their propensity to violence. Even if he only threatened to 'beat you up', you are still in danger of death or grave bodily injury. people can die very easily when struck. you'd be ok to shoot if you were moved to do so.
If it was a female, the same things are to be considered, but if she happens to be smaller than you, then you may not have to shoot her, but then again, for all you know, she could be a 5th degree black belt. And you are at home, so have no duty to retreat. Again, if you felt threatened enough to shoot her, with you being at home and so forth...I doubt they'd even take you downtown. (At least, that's how the law works here in Colorado. Not sure where you're at.

If you're armed and their taking your TV...? (In Colorado...) legally speaking, you could shoot them...but morally...Eh, I wouldn't. What's a TV? If you hadn't of killed them, perhaps they would have repented next week and increased the harvest for the Lord?!

 

[Edward]

Whatever I said, I was not trying rude, crude, offensive, insulting or a jerk.

That being said, I have one general way I look at things:
Anyone is entitled to having an opinion, but unless that opinion cannot be substantiated by Scripture, meaning what Scripture CLEARLY says or else is strongly derived from what is said in related Scriptures (such as the existence of the Trinity) it can never be considered factual.

What I was attempting to say, Edward was that.

I also assumed that you may have read my "mini essay" about angels in post 11 above. My bad if you didn't.

I read your post about the Angels and so forth.
I think this thread has turned a little bit too serious for the topic. Not that death isn't a serious matter, but that it's purely conjectural and not really doctrinal in the least.

What is it that you think I said that was so wrong brother? I am not following you. I don't see anything that I said that was...doctrinal critical enough to...take me to task for it. You have me scratching my head.

 

[jasonc]

Jason, I said nothing about self-defense.
So someone breaks into my house and they say they are going to beat me up. I have a gun in my hand, they start towards me....is it OK for me to shoot them because they are threatening me?

Differnet scenario....
Someone breaks into my house, I have a gun. They are stealing my TV. Is it OK for me to shoot them?

are there to know he wont? he has a weapon there that was used. do you know he wont kill you to cover that act? you don't.im sorry. I have that cop training, in that same scenario I received a call where I heard windows breaking. per the training. draw weapons. you don't know what he is going to do.

with a gun pulled you don't have to shoot its called presentation of force.if he drops the tv and flees then he wasn't a threat to you, if drops the tv and heads toward you then he is a threat.