Sixth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill
Monday February 25, 2008
Many believers regard this as perhaps the most basic and easily accepted of all the commandments. After all, who would object to the government telling people not to kill? Unfortunately, this position relies upon a very superficial and uninformed understanding of what is going on. This commandment is, in fact, much more controversial and difficult that it appears at first.
Read Article: Analysis of the Sixth Commandment
Comments
I have been unable to open any of the articles on the 10 commandments. help!
Same here. I think there’s something goofy with the linking and od/tencommandments/a directory structure. ?
I think if you are in a rage and feel like murdering your spouse, there should be a 24Hr cooling off period!
Christians often don’t actually like the commandment worded this way, since it prevents them from going to war. They prefer “Thou shalt not murder”, which allows them to support the death penalty and initiating warfare while still opposing abortion.
Cryptic:
You are right. I once had to research suicide in the Bible. I recall coming across different words for death and killing in Hebrew/Aramaic.
A few things I recall that stood out is that this word, used in the command, includes all killing of one human by another–even manslaughter (accidental death).
Also, it was definitely NOT a word that indicated “suicide.” There is a separate word for suicide (more than one). And the command does not, historically support the apologetic that suicide is wrong. There are many ways to approach suicide in the Bible, but people who use “thou shalt not kill” as their basis are simply misusing the phrase. The word was a clear indication of one person killing _another_ person, and is not related ever in the Bible (or even other authoritative Jewish traditional texts) to anyone committing suicide.
But it showed up again and again as a first-line Xian defense for why people shouldn’t kill themselves. I’ve also seen Xians claim the word means “murder”–but it doesn’t–at least, as you note, not in the sense we think of as “murder”–killing someone else without cause on purpose. The term in this verse means _much more_. But I have yet to hear a Xian argue for the death penalty in cases of manslaughter.
Even WorldNet Daily can’t deny that manslaughter is also included (even though they still try to call it “murder”–which to us today would obviously NOT include manslaughter):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52222
“The Hebrew word translated as ‘kill’ would be better translated as ‘murder’ (ratzach), which means the taking of another human life in a maliciously premeditated manner, or as the result of gross negligence (i.e., manslaughter).”
Note that in the rest of the article, where they try to justify the death penalty–they clearly avoid the “manslaughter” problem. They simply keep indicating that premeditated murderers can justifiably be put to death.
“Here Scripture teaches that the execution of those who commit premeditated murder is justified…”
But what about the mom who left her baby unattended in her car to answer the phone and overstayed the call? It was a hot day–why anyone should have known better! Gross negligence punishable by lethal injection?
It reminds me of theists who parse the definition of atheist. If they find a dictionary that reads, “One who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a god,” they hammer “denies” and seem to totally ignore “disbelieves.”
It’s like watching slight of hand–but, rather, it’s a trick people play on themselves, using their own brains (rather than their hands).
To be true to the meaning of the word (and I think “gross” negligence is a stretch–a word inserted to try to avoid “ordinary negligence”–which the word would also cover) any negligent killing should be included:
“The Jewish sages note that the word ‘ratsakh’ applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war.”
I will add this link in another post, as this comment section will not allow me to post with more than one link…
http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html
It’s funny how you can use interpretations and translation to simply make the Bible mean what you want it to mean. All it takes is not actually checking on whether what’s really there is what you’ve been taught or what is most comfortable for you to believe.
I posted part of the content on suicide at a youth site for Xians–I was looking for interpretations on suicide and found a young person had posted to ask whether the Bible condemned suicide. I posted back that it did not and added quite a lot of research material to back it up, based on Bible stories and word intrepretations. I quoted Rabbis, historians, and even Xians in my post. I wasn’t trying to be an ass. But as I was stating that suicide is not condemned (I assume that was the problem?), I went back a few days later to pull some of the text and my post was magically gone. *POOF*
Real information isn’t always welcome in the Xian community.
>A few things I recall that stood out is that this word, used in the command, includes all killing of one human by another…
Just to clarify: I don’t dispute the stipulation regarding war that the Jewish site points out. I was referring to personal killing and not organized warfare–which obviously the Hebrews had not restrictions on.
Thanks, tracieh, for your rather extensive research. Personally, I find it difficult to get interested in researching through the Bible.
I think there are some atheists who have no interest in Biblical research, and some who do. For me (and most of the other atheists I know who are avid with a Bible), it’s about our past upbringing. Most atheist ex-Xians who were involved in religions where Bible study was a huge part of the lifestyle, seem pretty fascinated by the Bible even as atheists.
One common thing I’ve found among us as a group is that we are all amazed at the difference between what the Bible _says_, and what we were taught it says. I guess it’s like being really into drugs and thinking they’re great to the point you become addicted…then, once you’re through rehab, you look back and the drugs look REALLY DIFFERENT to you now.
I read things, and I think “Why didn’t I see that?” It’s a bit disturbing when I think of how much of my brain space was devoted to glossing over problems and accepting ridiculous apologetic explanations for things that were simply explained once someone considered, “Hey, maybe a god didn’t write this?”
(the difference between what the Bible _says_, and what we were taught it says.)
kinda like this? Here, let me interpret that for you.
“The Hebrew scriptures do not treat the developing fetus as equivalent of an adult human, so it would appear that abortion would not be a violation of the Sixth Commandment”
What’s the fallacy in this argument?
“For most Christians, the Sixth Commandment must be read much more narrowly. The most reasonable interpretation would seem to be: Thou shalt not take the lives of other human beings in a manner proscribed by the law. That’s fair and it’s also the basic legal definition of murder. It also creates a problem because it would seem to make this commandment redundant.
What’s the point of saying that it’s against the law to unlawfully kill a person? If we already have laws that say it is illegal to kill people in situations A, B, C, why do we need a further commandment that says you should not break those laws? It seems rather pointless…”
Or perhaps it is our laws which are redundant? At best, this statement is anachronistic.
No, the laws aren’t stated in a redundant manner. Please re-read the quoted passage again.
There isn’t one; if the fetus isn’t a person, then killing it would be no more a violation of the Sixth Commandment than killing any other non-human being.
Are you not arguing that the sixth commandment is redundant because we already have laws on the books against murder?
“The Hebrew scriptures do not treat the developing fetus as equivalent of an adult human…”
According to your understanding, how do the Hebrew scriptures treat a developing fetus?
No. For the second time, re-read the text you quoted before.
As property, not as a human being; killing a fetus in an act of violence is something that requires reparations rather than the punishments imposed for any sort of murder.
I did missunderstand your statement on the laws.
I assume you are referencing Ex.21:22-25: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the courts allow. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye….”? If this is the verse you are referring to, you are taking the position that it is the woman’s death that requires lex talionis and not the woman and the fetus? Is the Hebrew clear enough to make this distinction?
According to your understanding, how do the Hebrew scriptures treat a developing fetus?
As property, not as a human being; killing a fetus in an act of violence is something that requires reparations rather than the punishments imposed for any sort of murder.
I agree with everything Austin says here.
The commandments and so much context of the bible make it clear that children (fetuses or not) and women were property. Only men were people. That’s why Abraham could have been virtuous to sacrifice his son Isaac.
On another note, couldn’t the story of Jesus’ death been deemed a suicide?
That’s the primary verse that’s relevant here. The fact that there is little in the Bible referencing any sort of punishment for killing a fetus, but much about punishment for killing people, is itself instructive.
Yes, the text is clear about only fining the criminal in case of a miscarriage, not a “premature birth.” Lex talonis is invoked if the woman suffers serious problems as a result of the fight.
Yes, the text is clear about only fining the criminal in case of a miscarriage, not a “premature birth.” Lex talonis is invoked if the woman suffers serious problems as a result of the fight.
Please give evidence for this statement. In other words, don’t just make unsubstantiated claims that “the text is clear.” Please explain what it is about the Hebrew grammer that substantiates your claim.
You need merely consult modern translations and commentaries for your evidence. You can also refrain from ignoring what I pointed out before: there is little in the Old Testament about the fetus at all, much less punishing the death of a fetus, while there is much about punishments for killing adults.
Abortion is not a modern invention; inducing a miscarriage is an ancient practice and would have been well-known to these people. Yet, despite this fact, there is no punishment offered for abortion of any sort. The writers took time out to prescribe death for rebellious children, but not abortion.
You can also furthermore pay attention to the fact that both Judaism and early Christianity did not treat the fetus as even having a soul until the middle-to-latter stages of development.
“You need merely consult modern translations and commentaries for your evidence.”
This is a cop-out. If all that is required is for me to “merely consult” these sources, then it should be no problem for you to merely summerize the evidence here. Furthermore and more basic to the point, it is not I who need evidence. You have offered an interpretation on Ex 21 which needs to be proved as true. That burden does not lie with me, Austin, but with you. However, I have humored you anyway, and have looked at scholarly documentation of a liberal bent (in order to avoid charges of bias), as well as translated the Hebrew myself. Having done so, I confess that I am still uncertain as to how you come to such a concrete interpretation of this passage? How are you translating the Hebrew in order to unambiguously restrict the damage as referring only to the woman and not, at least possibly, to include both the woman and the fetus?
“You can also refrain from ignoring what I pointed out before: there is little in the Old Testament about the fetus at all, much less punishing the death of a fetus, while there is much about punishments for killing adults.”
You are making an unfounded assumption. You assume that I am disagreeing that the OT says very little about the fetus; I am not. That is my position on the matter. I am interested in your argument concerign abortion and the sixth commandment because, if it is true that the OT says little about the fetus, yet you have posited that the OT does not equate a fetus with an adult human being and thus abortion is not prohibitted by the sixth commandment, then your conclusion is based on an argument from silence.
“… there is no punishment offered for abortion of any sort. The writers took time out to prescribe death for rebellious children, but not abortion.”
Begging the question. You assume that the sixth commandment does not include abortions in the prohibition, but of course you need to prove this, which you have yet to do.
“You can also furthermore pay attention to the fact that both Judaism and early Christianity did not treat the fetus as even having a soul until the middle-to-latter stages of development.”
Interesting. Please document your sources and give evidence for this position. Of course, since your premise limited source to the Hebrew scriptures as not equating a fetus with an adult human being, you will have to prove this statement using only the Hebrew scriptures. Why? Because you have said that the Hebrew scriptures are enough to conclude that abortion is not probited by the sixth commandment, therfore you must stay within your own, self-constructed restraints.
I’m not going to do your homework for you.
I make no such assumption. I simply observe that you ignore the issue.
The sixth commandment doesn’t necessarily include anything in the prohibition. It’s too vague to say what it does or does not include.
Early church fathers claimed ensoulment occurred after three months; Judaism gave he fetus 40 days. If this is a topic that interests you, there are plenty of sources on the matter. If you don’t, I won’t waste time providing any.
I’ve said no such thing. Either your reading comprehension skills haven’t improved, or you just can’t help putting words into others mouths rather than actually dealing with what they write. Either way, you don’t exactly provide much reason to spend a lot of time trying to explain anything to you.
“I’m not going to do your homework for you.”
Once again, it is not my burden to demonstrate the veracity of your interpretation. You would not submit a scientific theory to a science journal and tell the scientific community, “If you want to know how I came to this theory, You’ll have to do the research. I’m not going to do your homework for you.” It’s your interpretation…you prove it.
“I make no such assumption. I simply observe that you ignore the issue.”
Once again, I do not ignore the issue.
“The sixth commandment doesn’t necessarily include anything in the prohibition.”
This statement is nonsense. It would have made sense had you said, “The sixth commandment doesn’t necessarily include everything {instead of anything] in the prohibition” because of its vagueness. But we know by the very nature of a prohibition that it must have an object which is prohibited, otherwise it is a meaningless statement.
“I’ve said no such thing. Either your reading comprehension skills haven’t improved, or you just can’t help putting words into others mouths rather than actually dealing with what they write. Either way, you don’t exactly provide much reason to spend a lot of time trying to explain anything to you.”
Perhaps it would be helpful to revisit some of the previous conversation, Austin, if for no other reason then to check my reading skills.
In post 13 you wrote, “if the fetus isn’t a person, then killing it would be no more a violation of the Sixth Commandment than killing any other non-human being.” Okay, that’s pretty clear. All that needs to be done is to show that the fetus is not a human being from the perspective of the hebrew scriptures and then there is no violation. Am I reading okay so far?
In response to my question as to how the Hebrew Scriptures treat a human fetus, you wrote, “As property, not as a human being..” (post #15). Again, this seems pretty clear, but on the off-chance I am still a poor reader, perhaps the employment of a syllogism will help to make sure that I have at least an elementary ability to comprehend the written word:
A. Only the killing of human beings constitutes a violation of the sixth commandment (post #13)
B. According to the Hebrew scriptures, a fetus is property and not a human being (post #15)
C. Therefore, it is not a violation to kill a fetus because it is not a human being.
How’s my comprehension?
It is your second premise that I am (still) awaiting evidence for.
It’s not my personal interpretation that you are questioning. It’s not my burden to demonstrate the veracity of current academic biblical scholarship. You know where to look if you have questions about it; I have neither the time nor interest in helping someone with such demonstrably poor reading skills.
So when you fail to address it or give it any attention, that’s how you don’t ignore something? I’d hate to see what happens when you do ignore something.
Except in the case of redundant statements. If you simply say that “it’s prohibited to do that which is prohibited,” nothing is necessarily included in this statement because we don’t know what is ultimately prohibited. That statement could be true even if nothing specific is prohibited.
Pretty poor.
I said that if the fetus is not a human being, then killing it is not prohibited by the sixth commandment. I also said that it was my understanding that a developing fetus is treated as property in Hebrew scriptures. I agreed with what verse was most relevant, but I did not say reaching this conclusion was something that had to be reached sola scriptura, did I? No, I didn’t. You know I didn’t.
However, I don’t get the impression that you care what Jews and early Christians did, nor that their actions are relevant to how you read your Bible. That’s fine, I don’t care how you read your Bible or what you do. If you want to focus solely on the raw text, go right ahead. If you want to investigate current academic scholarship on the text, go right ahead. I’m not going to help you, though. Your reading of modern English is so poor that I’m not going spend any time wondering how you read ancient Hebrew, or how you feel about how others read ancient Hebrew.
Okay, I think we can both agree to happily go on our way with no further conversation about this. I’m certaint hat it is beginning to bore you; it certainly does me! You have your opinion that I can’t read, and my opinion is that you’re method is simply to roll around avoiding the question. You, my friend, are the master of the red herring and the ad hominem. I bow before your supremecy!
At any rate, no bad feelings toward you on my part, and hopefully none on yours toward me.
…so says a person who then proceeds to keep up their end of the conversation. It’s a classic passive-aggressive tactic for having the last word: if I don’t say anything, then your summation of the discussion thus far stands; if I do say something, then I can be painted as having refused your “generous” offer to “agree to happily” end the conversation with “no bad feelings.”
The only valid response to such a tactic is to refuse to play the game at all by call it out for what it is.
This isn’t my opinion. You admitted to misreading the original article and I demonstrated how you misrepresented what I have said.
Questions based on misreadings and misrepresentations of my words don’t need to be answered; the only serious questions you have asked have been answered. Curiously, you also expect me to provide you with explanations of others’ scholarly work for no apparent reason.
So says the Christian apologist who consistently misreads and misrepresents others.
My feelings towards you are about the same as towards every other Christian apologist who stops by: full of nonsense and fallacies, signifying nothing.
Austin:
That was pretty pathetic.
Telling someone to do their homework, but not providing them with information about where your interpretation comes from?
Saying it comes from “current academic biblical scholarship” is about as useful as saying that string theory is a good theory because it comes from physics. How about specifics?
This isn’t an obscure theory of physics which requires a strong math and science background to fully understand. Any modern translation of the Bible will provide the basic information; any recent commentary on the Bible should include a discussion about the verse. Multiple resources of this sort can be found in even an average book store, never mind a library.
What’s “pathetic” is expecting someone else to do that work for you. If it’s a matter that a person cares about, they are capable of picking up these books; if they don’t care, then they shouldn’t ask others to do it for them. My time is limited and I’m not doing basic research for everyone who demands it, but especially not for a person who persistently misreads and/or misrepresents what others say. Serious discussion with such a person isn’t possible.
>I assume you are referencing Ex.21:22-25: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the courts allow. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye….”? If this is the verse you are referring to, you are taking the position that it is the woman’s death that requires lex talionis and not the woman and the fetus? Is the Hebrew clear enough to make this distinction?
Yes. The Hebrew term in this verse means early expulsion of a fetus–regardless of what shape the fetus is in afterward. There is no English equivalent because in English we have “miscarriage,” which is a death, and “premature birth,” which is a live birth. But this word means the baby comes out early, and doesn’t imply either dead or alive. In fact, if you look at the Bible’s marginal notes in good translations, like the NASB, you’ll see that it’s pointed out within the Bible itself. I had to research this awhile back.
Here’s the marginal note: “Or she has a miscarriage”
It’s in addition to “she gives birth prematurely.”
There’s just no comprehensive word in English to replace this Hebrew term, which is “yatsa,” literally “to come out.”
I didn’t summarize that very well (or at all), but the point is that if the child comes out–alive or dead, harmed or unharmed, a fine must be paid. So, if a dead baby comes out, you pay a fine…and if further harm follows–further harm to whom? The dead baby?–it’s a life for life.
Thanks Tracieh. I appreciate your researching the topic and posting your research. May I interact with your conclusions a bit?
“Yes. The Hebrew term in this verse means early expulsion of a fetus–regardless of what shape the fetus is in afterward.”
Agreed. ויצאו ילדיה (yawzah) lit. “and her children go out, are born” refers to the delivery of the fetus, with no reference to what state the fetus is in at the time of delivery. It is used to speak of childbirth in general, and can also refer to a midwife. For the state of the fetus, one must look to the syntax and context of the passage.
Given that yawzah gives us an ambiguous conclusion as to whether it is a premature birth or a miscarriage that results in compensation, the next question is in relation to the phrase, “there is no injury.” To whom does this refer? To the mother or to the fetus or to both? The word ason (harm/injury) is indefinite, meaning that it is unclear grammatically to whom it is referring. In English, we would clarify this ambiguity by adding the phrase “to her” in order to limit reference to the mother alone. The Hebrew language has such a word (lah), yet it is not included, leaving the referent of “there is no injury” unrestricted as to its object. Grammatically and syntactically, then, the phrase “no injury” could apply to both the mother and/or the premature fetus.
Now I must respectfully part ways with you:
“…the point is that if the child comes out–alive or dead, harmed or unharmed, a fine must be paid.”
The passage is not clear enough to draw such a conclusion. It could possibly mean that, but it could also mean that if the child comes out unharmed, a fine is paid for causing a premature birth and that is all, but if the child (and/or the mother) suffers serious injury (probably meaning death since its a life for a life), then a life must be paid in return. One just can’t be certain and dogmatic about it. One certainly cannot use this passage as evidence that the OT equates a fetus with property rather then human life and thus introduce the possibility that abortion is not prohibited under the sixth commandment.
It is perhaps instructive (or at least an interesting aside) that the the Middle Assyrian Laws require a life as payment for the loss of a fetus (cf. ANET 184:50.)
“Here’s the marginal note: “Or she has a miscarriage”
Interesting. I have a NASB (1995) and my margin reads “or an untimely birth occurs; lit. her children come out.” This would seem more in line with the meaning and usage of the word then “or a miscarriage”. I’m not challenging you on this; just a bit confused by the differences. Is it possible that you mean the NIV margin rather then the NASB?