NB: Whether religious believers amongst Jews and Christians study their theological doctrines is not known to me – I presume a certain percentage of them must do so. But the sheer fact that Israel has murdered over a hundred thousand Palestinians since 2023 speaks for itself. Save the Children describes the assault on Gaza as a “war on children.” There are Israeli soldiers and politicians who actually justify and demand the slaughter of children. All the Israel lovers in the USA and India can celebrate: the massacre continues. But those of us who have any conscience remaining need to open our eyes and raise our voices against this unspeakable crime. DS
Israeli strike on Gaza hospital kills at least six, including doctor and child
Time for a harsh truth: even with Netanyahu gone, the killing won’t stop in Gaza:“Every child, every baby in Gaza is the enemy.” In a normal society, a politician who said something so depraved would face total reputational ruin. Not so in Israel. Meet Moshe Feiglin, previously considered a “far-right outcast”, who has just been elected to Israel’s legislature. He said this last May, but he has also called for more Palestinian babies to die and for Gaza’s entire population, newborns included, to be expelled.
Jiří Moskala
The Decalogue is a precious gift endowed to humanity by God Himself (Exod 31:18), uttered (Exod 20:1; Deut 5:4–5, 24) and written (Exod 24:12; 31:18; Deut 5:22) by Him. It presents the foundational principles to preserve life and defines how one maintains the vertical (first four commandments) and horizontal (last six commandments) relationships that are the most valuable properties in life. The Decalogue presupposes salvation and forms the heart of God’s revelation and biblical ethics. It is the Magna Carta of biblical teaching and its summation, the pattern for the rest of biblical legislation. It forms the substance and foundation of divine standards for all humanity; its principles are eternal.
In the book of Exodus, the Decalogue is called “the Testimony” (Heb.‘edut; Exod 31:18); and in the book of Deuteronomy, it is named “the words of the covenant” (Heb. dibre habberit; Exod 34:28). Neither book uses the term “the Ten Commandments” (Heb. mitswah; however, see Exod 20:6), but rather, three times call it “the Ten Words” (Heb. ‘aseret haddebarim, definite plural form of the term dabar meaning “word, sentence, matter, thing, speech, story, promise, utterance”; see Exod 34:28; Deut 4:13; 10:4). In both Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Decalogue lies at the beginning of the law collections and their interpretation.1
Crucial Question
The sixth commandment is a very short statement and was originally expressed in Hebrew with just two words: “lo’ tirtsakh” [negative particle lo’ plus verb in qal, imperfect second person singular of the root ratsakh]. God’s command is identical in both versions of the Decalogue (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17).2 This brief commandment is clearly translated in the KJV as “You shall not kill” (that is, to take or terminate the life of a person) and this rendering is followed, for example, by the following versions: RSV, NAB, ASV, CEB, JB, and NJB. On the other hand, Bible versions like NIV, TNIV, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, NASB, NET, and NLT render this phrase as “You shall not murder.” “Murder” is defined as unlawful killing, or killing without a legal justification, or the premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being. This would be distinct from other forms of killing that are then presumably legal or acceptable, such as execution in cases of criminal activities (capital punishment), killing in times of war, or in self-defense.
Which translation is correct: “You shall not kill” or “You shall not murder”? The answer has tremendous implications for decisions in real life. Diligent students of the Bible know that each translation of the biblical text is an interpretation, so one needs to be sure to follow the right one. This question has to be decided only on biblical grounds, which means using the Hebrew word ratsakh in its particular context and by discerning the intended purpose of this fundamental legislation.
Some scholars and writers claim the commandment “You shall not kill” points to a specific prohibition— that is, murder. Appeal is made to the original Hebrew by arguing that the word ratsakh does not mean killing in general but refers specifically to intended killing, namely murder, or to unauthorized killing. For example, Dozeman observes, “The command forbidding murder is broad.”3 Hyatt comments, “The purpose of the sixth commandment was to prohibit any kind of illegal killing that was contrary to the will and the best interests of the community. Thus its real import was to prohibit murder, in spite of the fact that this meaning is not specifically derived from the verb employed.”4 Ryken states, “What the commandment forbids is not killing, but unlawful killing of a human being.”5 Gane in his exposé on the Old Testament Law for Christians comments, “The familiar KJV rendering ‘Thou shall not kill’ is misleading because the sixth commandment does not forbid all killing,”6 and he argues that this commandment only “prohibits the illegal, unjustifiable taking of life.”7 North, in his article on the sixth commandment, concludes, “So, in reading Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 we must differ with the translation ‘Thou shall not kill” on the grounds that it is too broad, and thus inaccurate and inconsistent with all the contexts in which rskh is used and not used in Scripture.”8 This type of interpretation is reflected in some modern translations as seen above. However, the crucial question remains: Is this argument supported by the biblical data? To the claim that the verb ratsakh is translated as “murder,” Victor Hamilton states, “I do not think it is that simple.”9 I agree. What does the biblical data reveal? John Durham rightly argues that “the precise meaning of the sixth commandment depends on the definition of רצח.” 10
Usage of the Word ratsakh
There are four main words in the Hebrew Scripture used for killing: harag (e.g., see Gen 4:8, 14–15, 25; 12:12; 20:11; 27:41; 37:20, 26; Exod 2:14), mut (in the Hiphil; e.g., see Gen 18:25; 37:18; Exod 1:16), qatal (only in the following four Hebrew texts: Job 13:15; 24:14; Ps 139:19; Obad 1:9; and used in Aramaic in Dan 2:13–14; 3:22; 5:19, 30; 7:11), and ratsakh (see also the more descriptive expression shofek dam, “shedding a blood,” as in Gen 9:5–6; and tabach or shachat for slaughtering animals). It is significant to observe that three of these verbs (harag, mut, qatal) include killing humans and animals, while the verb ratsakh (used in the sixth commandment) applies only to killing humans.11 This discovery is crucial, because then the difference in usage is not primarily regarding “various circumstances of killing”12 (premeditated/ deliberate or accidental/unintentional killing), but who or what is killed. The difference lies “between the object that is killed—humans and animals.”13 The term ratsakh refers uniquely to taking the life of humans.
The Hebrew verb ratsakh occurs forty-seven times in the Old Testament, and its meaning must be determined from the context (study carefully the following nineteen biblical passages):
Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17—employed twice in the sixth commandment.
Numbers 35:6, 11, 12, 16 [twice], 17 [twice], 18 [twice], 19, 21 [twice], 25, 26, 27 [twice], 28, 30 [twice], 31—used altogether twenty times. The motive of killing must be investigated for implementation of the punishment: the intentional killing is punished by death after a court hearing (capital punishment), in contrast to the accidental killing when the killer is required to stay in the city of refuge (the institution of asylum) until the death of the High Priest.14
Deuteronomy 4:42 [twice]; 19:3, 4, 6; 22:26—appears six times.
Joshua 20:3, 5–6; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38—occurs eight times.
The rest of the Old Testament—used eleven times in the following texts: Judges 20:4; 1 Kings 21:17; 2 Kings 6:32; Job 24:14; Psalms 62:3; 94:6; Proverbs 22:13; Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 7:9; Hosea 4:2; 6:9.
A cognate noun retsakh (killing, murder) occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible: In Psalm 42:10 (in Heb 42:11) it means “shattering,” “crushing,” “mortal wound,” or “mortal agony,” while the same noun in Ezekiel 21:22 refers to the slaughter by King Nebuchadnezzar in battles when he was conquering Israel. Thus, the Hebrew root ratsakh is also used for killing in war.
Summary of Findings in Context
God is the creator, He is life, and the source of life; this is why only He gives life and only He can take it away. He is the ruler over life and death (Job 1:21; Deut 32:39; Isa 45:7) and as the creator of life He has all rights over life and death and the authority to command: “Do not take life.” However, we need to underline that it is a strange and alien work for God to kill (Isa 28:21); it is done only out of the necessity to protect life, as in the case of the biblical flood (Gen 6:11–13). The Lord has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 18:23, 32).
The thematic background of the sixth commandment is in the story of Cain and Abel with two brothers worshipping God (Gen 4:3–11). The first murder occurs during their first worship, signifying that the one who kills, kills his brother. The sanctity of human life is underlined. God’s commandment is also associated with the first explicit prohibition of killing (Gen 9:5–6), in spite of the fact this text is misused to justify capital punishment as a divinely ordered act. Humans were created in the image of God; thus, theologically speaking, the one who kills destroys the image of God, and no one has the right to kill this image. This is why killing humans is absolutely prohibited: it is a sin. Hamilton rightly proclaims, “To kill another human being is to destroy one who is a bearer of the divine image.”15 Doukhan observes, “This implies that killing humans impacts God Himself.”16 By respecting life, one shows a deep respect for the Holy Creator. In Genesis 9, the restriction not to kill humans is given in sharp contrast to God’s permission to kill animals (for food and sacrificial reasons, not for sport-hunting purposes); yet, while killing animals, humans have to pour their blood out to demonstrate respect for life because life is in the blood (Gen 9:4–5), while shedding the blood of humans is banned. Wenham aptly comments, “No sin shows greater contempt for life than homicide. Whereas an animal’s blood may be shed but not consumed, human blood cannot even be shed.”17 Life is sacred and people cannot take the life of another person on their own. Human life must be highly respected and preserved. Even negligence in protecting life was punishable (Deut 22:8).
The sixth commandment is an apodictic law. Apodictic laws are unconditional and make categorical assertions, whereas casuistic laws explain different conditions and how they need to be executed/applied. In principle, killing is killing and cannot be excused. It is an absolute command regarding the respect of life. Thus, one might argue that any taking of human life violates the sixth commandment. It is significant that no casuistic law is part of the Decalogue (in contrast to the other collections of biblical law). However, when killing occurs then comes into place casuistic legislation (see Deut 19:1–22:8). Gane compares several collections of biblical laws and rightly concludes, “Casuistic laws appear in all of the major biblical law collections . . . except for the Decalogue.”18 Patrick explains that a casuistic law “defines a specific case, distinguishes it carefully from other similar cases, and stipulates the legal consequences.”19
The sixth commandment is brief and the word “kill” is not qualified by motives (e.g., “do not kill illegally—that is, do not murder), alluding to the fact that it should be taken as a general principle. It has a very broad meaning. Dozeman rightly observes, “The law is stated categorically and does not spell out the consequences for disobedience.”20
The Hebrew word ratsakh is used only for killing humans, and is not employed even for killing sacrificial animals. No provision is made in the Old Testament sacrificial system for killing people. This crime was too serious and could not be atoned for and forgiven by rituals—by killing a sacrificial animal. The legislation was established to investigate acts of killing in the six cities of refuge where the killer could run and be tried to discover if he committed an involuntary slaughter or a murder (Exod 21:12–14; Num 35:9–34; Deut 4:41–43; 19:1–13; Josh 20).
A close examination of the term ratsakh raises questions about translating the phrase lo’ tirtsakh as “do not murder” and using the word alone as a rationale to distinguish between various kinds of killing such as murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide, because the term ratsakh does not necessarily mean to intentionally kill someone. Also, the “avenger of blood” may lawfully kill the one guilty of manslaughter should the latter leave a city of refuge (Num 35:27, 30). In addition, there are several places in Deuteronomy (Deut 4:41–42, 19:3–6) and passages scattered throughout Numbers and Joshua (Num 35:6–31; Josh 20:3–5) that use the word to refer to unintentional killing or causing accidental death, namely manslaughter. Premeditation had to be determined by a judicial process, yet both those found guilty of premeditation and those considered innocent of premeditation were described by the same Hebrew term harotseakh, “the one who kills,” “the one who commits ratsakh.” Thus, the person responsible for accidental killing/ manslaughter is called harotseakh in the city of refuge (Num 35:12). Of course, the term ratsakh also has the connotation of “murder” or “assassination” (Judg 20:4, 1 Kgs 21:19, 2 Kgs 6:32). The term ratsakh is used for premeditated (Num 35:16–21, 30) as well as accidental or involuntary killing (Num 35:7, 11; Deut 4:42). The contextual markers usually indicate if ratsakh means “killing” or “murder.”
In the context of the cities of refuge, the term ratsakh is used for executing capital punishment (Num 35:30).
The word ratsakh used in Proverbs 22:13 refers to a lion killing a person, so motivation for killing is not in place. So not only humans, but also animals can kill (ratsakh), which means that motivation for the action is not always included.
The verb ratsakh is not used directly in situations of war, but a noun retsakh is referred to in Ezekiel 21:22. This cognate noun (meaning “killing, murder”) refers to the slaughter in a battle.
By implication, this commandment cannot be used to support not carrying guns (for protection from snakes or wild animals), unless guns are used only for the purpose of killing people.
God speaks to the nation that consists of people who are members of the covenantal community. It means these laws are highly personal and no one can take his or her own life or the life of the other person. God speaks to Israel, His covenantal people, but these principles are for all His people at all times and are the laws for the whole of humankind to keep.
Sarna appropriately states, “Unlike other verbs for taking of life, . . . [r-ts-kh] is never employed when the subject of the action is God or an angel.”21
When Paul summarizes the law as being love, he quotes from the Decalogue, including the sixth commandment (Rom 13:8–10). Love is indeed the sum of God’s law because He is the God of love (1 John 4:16). Thus, true love is shown in practical actions springing from faith (Gal 6:5).
In light of the above observations, the wrong question is often asked in regard to the sixth commandment: When is killing not murder? There is no exception to it because it is stated as the principle. This perspective is for each individual to take it as a given fact. One does not ask similar questions such as, when is stealing not wrong? Or when is adultery permissible?
Israelite Casuistic Laws
In contrast to the apodictic law of the sixth commandment, the biblical text explains what to do in case someone violates it and kills. This is an immense problem, so the casuistic law needs to be implemented (see, for example, the legislation for the cities of refuge)…..
+++++++++++++++++++
Israel is strong, scared and dangerously divided. But change is not on the ballot paper
The Obscure Scribe Who Invented Judaism
The ‘Gaza genocide’ claim is a blood libel, says historian Simon Schama
“Write my name on my leg, Mama”
‘The Children Haunt Me at Night’: The Protest That’s Forcing Israelis to Face Kids Killed in Gaza
Gaza Doc ‘NAZA,’ From ‘No Other Land’ Directors, earn record-breaking 24.5 minute Venice Ovation
Thanks to ‘NAZA’ Hysteria, Israel Is Finally Talking About Gaza
Juan Cole: Israel’s Gaza Atrocity by the Numbers
Rashid Khalidi: ‘Israel Has Created a Nightmare Scenario for Itself. The Clock Is Ticking’
The retired generals sounding the alarm over the West Bank
‘If we don’t act on the proof against Israel, we can’t redeem ourselves’: Justice Muralidhar
Tracing the Hard Edges of Religion: On Peter Brown’s “Journeys of the Mind”
Sadegh Hedayat on Religion, Power, and Manufactured Ignorance
Communiqué issued by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem in Gaza
Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so” etc., etc.
The Battle for the Soul of Judaism: Tribalism, Amalek and Axial Age Universalism of Isaiah
