"Thou shalt not kill," does not
mean what it says. The Sixth Commandment should not be one's default argument
when opposing doctor-assisted suicide, euthanasia, abortion and capital
punishment, or when advocating pacifism and vegetarianism. The 1611 King James
Version of Exodus 20:13, which says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," is an
inaccurate translation. That translation is too comprehensive for the language
originally used. The term "kill" means to put to death and such a
prohibition would condemn the taking of any life, human or animal. This Sixth commandment was never
intended as a complete moratorium on "putting to death" or on
"putting a human to death." When the Ten
Commandments were first scribed in Hebrew, of two possible verbs, one was
selected that best expressed the proscription against the unjustified taking of
an innocent human life, which is murder. "You
shall not murder." In seventeenth century England, when the KJV was
translated, the words 'kill' and 'murder' were used synonymously. Since then, most
translations have adjusted to the linguistic and historical reality, that the Commandment was a
prohibition against murder. Appreciative of that distinction, an effective
debater is compelled to deliver unambiguous, reasoned argument that this
commandment against murder pertains to abortion or doctor-assisted suicide or
capital punishment. I am not saying that this cannot be done, but that the use
of the Sixth commandment as support must be unmistakably understood. That begs
the question "What is murder?"
I have
already proposed that it is the unjustified physical act of taking an innocent
human life. "You shall not murder." Assess the following cases using
that definition. A family must decide whether to remove a loved one from life
support, knowing that the patient's body cannot survive apart from that
intervention and that with the family's permission, the patient's heart will
stop beating. The sniper is involved in a fire-fight and pops off enemy gunners
one after another. Then in entering a local home, he confronts a family of
seven, five of them children, kills them all, because they may be enemy
sympathizers. Aerial assaults by
Coalition forces light up an urban target with 'collateral damage' to civilians
who lie lifeless in the street. A homeowner wakes up to an intruder, seizes a
heavy object and pounds the trespasser to death. A woman drinks wine at a
dinner, and later drives home and loses control of her vehicle, striking and
killing an elderly couple as they cross the road. It is exceptionally
challenging to examine the degrees of blameworthiness, yet the terms
'unjustified' and 'innocent' inform us that we must be discerning about the
nuances.
Further,
as I have stated, this Sixth commandment was not a complete moratorium on
"putting a human to death." Capital punishment and military defense
that takes life, is not automatically censured by this commandment. As
unpalatable as it sounds, not all killing is murder. Of the two Hebrew words,
transliterated as ratsakh and mut, the first, "לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃," meaning
"murder" and other meaning "put to death," the first is
never used in scripture with reference to war or to punishment of a
murderer. It may be appropriate to say
then, not all killing is wrong. God created humankind in his own image and
according to his likeness, that is, possessing certain capacities that
distinguish the species from all other creatures. This speaks to the sanctity
of human life. Notably, the Biblical account of creation portrays earliest
humanity aware of God, at peace with God and at peace with one another for only
a brief time. Within the first family, antagonism arose early and one brother's
life was taken by another. When considering blameworthiness and culpability,
this story demonstrates the fragility of some judgments. The offending brother
was not put to death but was sent away, suggesting that the offence was not
regarded as "murder," but rather as a death incurred through violence
fueled by anger and jealousy and pride. God made that distinction. Similar distinction
was in evidence among Hebrews when God made provision for unintentional
manslayers (manslaughter), to be able to flee to cities of refuge, where they
could remain alive, not pursued or arrested but far from their families, which
was their punishment.
This
is a comment on social justice using the scripture as the primary resource.
Consequently, referring to bad behaviour as "sin," is both
understandable and suitable. God saw that humanity had become sinful and evil,
"lawless" one might say, so he legislated these guidelines -
commandments to modify human behaviour. There are two Greek words as well (phoneuo,
apokteino) that mean respectively, “murder” and “killing,” and are used in
the New Testament. Since not all killing is wrong, but all murder is wrong,
scripture acknowledges the right of the state (government) to take the life of
the evildoer, i.e. capital punishment. Killing that is done during times of war
and is done at the command of superiors is not regarded in scripture as
'murder.' Therefore, like it or not, there are exemptions for taking a human
life, as long as it complies with God's law and will.
As
morally exhausting as this is, when Jesus was here, his teaching aimed at
revealing the true intention for life in God's kingdom. We might all agree that
murder is the unjustified taking of an innocent human life, only to be floored
by higher New Testament standard. Of course God condemns the observable physical
act of murder, yet the entire truth is that God can look into the human heart
to see something there that he regards as murder. Any thought or feeling of
deep-seated hatred or malice against someone constitutes murder to God. When we
contain hatred in our hearts for another person, we commit the sin of murder in
God's eyes (1 John 3:13-16). The referenced section pertains to Christians who
have already said they trust in Jesus and therefore their lives should give
evidence of righteousness at work. It doesn't even have to be visible
outwardly. God sees it.
