One of the arguments used to support the theory that the 4th Commandment isn’t ceremonial, is the belief that moral laws held the death penalty for the law breaker, whereas, ceremonial laws never did. Let’s look at some Scripture  which addresses this issue.

We need to look at Scriptures which state, “Cut off” and see how they are used and then later define this phrase.

1.Genesis 9:11 “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
2.Genesis 17:14 “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
3.Exodus 8:9 “Moses said to Pharaoh, “Be pleased to command me when I am to plead for you and for your servants and for your people, that the frogs be cut off from you and your houses and be left only in the Nile.”
4.Exodus 9:15 “For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth.”
5.Exodus 12:15 “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.”
6.Exodus 31:14 “You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.”
7.Leviticus 17:4 “and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD, blood guilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.”
8.Leviticus 17:10 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.”

Now that we have our texts with which we can work, let’s define what is meant by “cut off”. All of these Scriptures use words such as “among”, “by”, “from” after the phrase ”cut off” but they are not used consistently with just one of the Ten Commandments (Exo 31:14) or with just a ceremonial law (Gen 17:14). Therefore, these words do not change the meaning of “cut off”. 

Next, I will discuss each one of these verses in order to show whether or not “cut off” means “to put to death” or whether it means “to cast out of Israel”. I will use their numbers in order to speak of each verse so that I don’t have retype the verse all over again.

1. This verse is obviously speaking of “putting to death” since all of creation, save Noah and his family, died in the flood ie Genesis 6:17. This only supports that “cut off” means “putting to death”…has nothing to do with moral or ceremonial laws.
2. This verse isn’t obvious. We would have to go to other Scripture which is clear in order to back up either view. I will type out the whole text since this verse isn’t clear. Genesis 4:24-26 is the verse which confirms that those who were not circumcised were put to death: “24At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.” This verse supports that “cut off” means “putting to death” and it proves that that ceremonial laws carried the death penalty for the offender.
3. This verse is obviously speaking of “putting to death” since the frogs died ie Genesis 8:13. This verse only supports that “cut off” means “putting to death” and has nothing to do with any law.
4. This verse is obviously speaking of “putting to death” since the only way (at that time) you could leave earth was by death. This verse only supports that “cut off” means “putting to death” and has nothing to do with any law.
5. This verse isn’t obvious as to whether it speaks of “putting to death” or banishment.
6. This verse is interesting in that it states that if you break the Sabbath, the offender shall be put to death and then a few words later says the offender shall be cut off. Obviously, it is clear that “cut off” here means death since I don’t believe God is giving them a choice to either die or be banished. One would obviously choose banishment instead of death. It might not be ideal to live with the Gentiles, but it certainly wouldn’t have been impossible ie Naomi.
7. Even though the offender described in this verse isn’t guilty of murdering another human being, he was guilty of offering a sacrifice in the wrong manner and is described as being “blood guilty”. A verse which can be used in support of this is Lev 10:1-2. This can be used to support both the moral law (2nd Commandment) and the ceremonial laws connected to sacrifices.
8. This verse is not obvious as to whether it speaks of “putting to death” or banishment. 1Sam is the only place I see where God’s people ate blood but they were neither put to death nor put outside of Israel. Gen 9:3-5 and Lev 17:12-14 seem to suggest that one would be put to death if they ate blood, but again, none of these verses directly tells us this nor shows us an example of the offender being put to death. In the end, this verse remains unclear.

Many of these usages of “cut off” mean “to put to death”. It is very clear that one cannot say that “cut off” doesn’t ever mean “to put to death”. The important verse of all these verses is Gen 17:14 and it’s clarifying verse, Gen 4:24-26. To say that the Sabbath can be proven to be a moral law because it required the death penalty if broken, is no proof at all since the death penalty was also used on those who were not circumcised. It would seem that the death penalty was used on both the moral and ceremonial laws.

Advertisement