How far does "Thou shalt not Kill" go?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rebekah_34
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rebekah_34

Guest
The Catholic Church is against killing obviously because of one of the 10 commandments, “Thou shalt not Kill”. But I’ve heard the Commandment extends to suicide and any behavior that harms oneself, or others. So this includes excessive drinking, drugs, abuse etc.

I dont understand the connection. Sure these are terrible modern behaviors, but how can one infer drinking is wrong from “Thou shalt not Kill”? This is really a matter of opinion, but what I’m getting from it is pretty much anything that changes the “initial” person or makes a person change is wrong cause it’s “killing” or taking away from what God created.

From this, I could also infer brain surgery is wrong, but as far as I know the Church isn’t against this.
 
The Catholic Church is against killing obviously because of one of the 10 commandments, “Thou shalt not Kill”. But I’ve heard the Commandment extends to suicide and any behavior that harms oneself, or others. So this includes excessive drinking, drugs, abuse etc.

I dont understand the connection. Sure these are terrible modern behaviors, but how can one infer drinking is wrong from “Thou shalt not Kill”? This is really a matter of opinion, but what I’m getting from it is pretty much anything that changes the “initial” person or makes a person change is wrong cause it’s “killing” or taking away from what God created.

From this, I could also infer brain surgery is wrong, but as far as I know the Church isn’t against this.
How do you equate anything that “changes the initial person” is killing? You reference brain surgery. Can brain surgery be wrong if it cures a person of a deadly situation? It extends life (and the quality of life) instead of killing it. You may counter that God gave the person the brain damage, but I’d say God gave us the knowledge to cure it and we should use it. Jesus shows us that this is the right thing to do in His many cures in the Bible.

But drug abuse and excessive drinking are forms of “attempted suicide”, for one places their life in danger. I know, because I once drank entirely too much one time (I’m dry now for 5 year, thank God!). When you do something like that which harms God’s creation, than you are sinning.
 
Check out the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
“Thou Shall not Kill” is explained in pages 544 through 559.

Footnotes in CCC include references from the Bible and official Church writings for those who wish to delve deeper.
 
Actually, a good number of scholars translate/interpret “kill” as “murder”. Quite a bit has been written on this exact issue, and when one comes to self defense and just war, it makes perfect sense, as killing under those circumstances is never defined as “murder”, but is always defined as killing.
 
Continuing with my previous post (and I hope any Jewish readers reading this post will correct this if what I say is incorrect), I discussed this with a good Jewish friend and he told me this:

*"In Hebrew, if God meant “you shall not kill”, the wording in Exodus 20:13 would have been “Lo Tihareg”.

But the words used in the verse repeating the Ten Commandments (in Hebrew) are worded: “Lo Tiratzach”, which means: “You shall not Murder”.*

I realize that anyone, including pacifists, will be able to find many passages in the bible for their belief that the killing of ANYONE for ANY REASON - even self defense - is prohibited. Most will cite the quote from Christ about turning the other cheek when harm is done to you.

As far as the OT verses are concerned regarding the use of the word “kill”, note that all of them are used in a certain context. In Exodus, when listing the Ten Commandments, no context is given. God simply says: “You shall not murder”. Period. No context, no explanation, no exceptions. But, I respectfully submit, the key is the word: “murder” vs. “kill”.

I suppose if I am incorrect, then I will have to answer for it (along with all my other sins in life). Because I can tell you that if, God forbid, someone breaks into my home and attempts to harm my family in a manner where (a) I believe one or all of them are about to be killed, and (b) I am in a position where I do not believe I have any alternative but to shoot and kill that person, then . . . funeral two days later for the intruder (if my German Shepherd has not already done the deed).

I do not say this as some caricature of a Clint Eastwood-Dirty Harry movie where I am saying, “Go ahead - make my day!”. I say this with humility in that I sincerely pray this never happens and I am NOT going to try to be some “tough guy” and try to fight the man in hand-to-hand combat. I am discussing a situation where me coming upon such a situation is purely by surprise and my adrenaline has kicked into overdrive.
 
Thank you Salvatore123; i was going to say much the same thing but you said it better.🙂
 
Continuing with my previous post (and I hope any Jewish readers reading this post will correct this if what I say is incorrect), I discussed this with a good Jewish friend and he told me this:

*"In Hebrew, if God meant “you shall not kill”, the wording in Exodus 20:13 would have been “Lo Tihareg”.

But the words used in the verse repeating the Ten Commandments (in Hebrew) are worded: “Lo Tiratzach”, which means: “You shall not Murder”.*

I realize that anyone, including pacifists, will be able to find many passages in the bible for their belief that the killing of ANYONE for ANY REASON - even self defense - is prohibited. Most will cite the quote from Christ about turning the other cheek when harm is done to you.

As far as the OT verses are concerned regarding the use of the word “kill”, note that all of them are used in a certain context. In Exodus, when listing the Ten Commandments, no context is given. God simply says: “You shall not murder”. Period. No context, no explanation, no exceptions. But, I respectfully submit, the key is the word: “murder” vs. “kill”.

I suppose if I am incorrect, then I will have to answer for it (along with all my other sins in life). Because I can tell you that if, God forbid, someone breaks into my home and attempts to harm my family in a manner where (a) I believe one or all of them are about to be killed, and (b) I am in a position where I do not believe I have any alternative but to shoot and kill that person, then . . . funeral two days later for the intruder (if my German Shepherd has not already done the deed).

I do not say this as some caricature of a Clint Eastwood-Dirty Harry movie where I am saying, “Go ahead - make my day!”. I say this with humility in that I sincerely pray this never happens and I am NOT going to try to be some “tough guy” and try to fight the man in hand-to-hand combat. I am discussing a situation where me coming upon such a situation is purely by surprise and my adrenaline has kicked into overdrive.
Actually, you can’t equate lo tirtsach with “you shall not murder,” even though I know I’ve heard apologists (e.g. Jimmy Akin) try to argue this. If you look at the same Hebrew verb in other contexts, such as Numbers 35:30, you see that the same verb is also used for the act of execution. So, in equating ratzach with murder, you would have to translate the actions of the executioner in Numbers 35:30 as “he will murder the murderer.” Regardless of what Catholics believe about the death penalty, I don’t think anyone would refer to authorized executions under the law as “murder”–a term that, unlike “kill” has a very specific legal nuance.

There are actually lots of words for various kinds of killing in Biblical Hebrew; much to the chagrin of most first year Hebrew students 🙂

Also–and believe me, I understand why you may not be at this place right now–you may want to some day consider reading what the Early Church Fathers (e.g., Lactantius, Ambrose and Augustine) have to say about self-defense. Just a little nudge there…
 
Dave,

I will relay what you said to my Jewish friend and report back what he says.
 
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clarifies the meaning of several of the commandments including “You shall not kill/murder” (Some translations use one word and some another). What all translations make clear is the motivations that are to be avoided are those of anger and contempt for other human beings. People can debate whether killing in self-defense, in defense of others, as an end to suffering, or even suicide are acceptable or not. But as the primary motivation of each of those(at least sometimes) is something other than anger or contempt for other people, than the commandment does not seem to directly apply to those situations.

I am not saying at all that I support suicide or abortion or “mercy” killing. I am saying that I think the original commandment was specifically saying that killing out of anger or contempt for another person is not acceptable.
 
Dave (and others following this thread),

I was referred to the following excerpt taken from an article written by a prominent Jewish biblical scholar, Eliezer Segal:

*"[O]ne of the most irksome cases has always been the rendering of the sixth commandment as “Thou shalt not kill.” In this form, the quote has been conscripted into the service of diverse causes, including those of pacifism, animal rights, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.

“Indeed, “kill” in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb “harag.” However, the verb that appears in the Torah’s prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah” which, it would seem, should be rendered “murder.” This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

"It is, of course, not just a question of etymology. Those ideologies that adduce the commandment in support of their gentle-hearted causes are compelled to feign ignorance of all those other places in the Bible that condone or command warfare, the slaughter of sacrificial animals, and an assortment of methods for inflicting capital punishment.

"The good old King James version of the Bible, which introduced this formulation into standard English discourse, is usually much more accurate in its Hebrew scholarship, and I have wondered for many years how the erudite scholars who produced that fine translation managed to slip up on such a simple expression, one that would have been caught by any Jewish schoolchild.

"It turns out that the confusion did not originate with that seventeenth-century English translation. From the writings of Jewish exegetes who lived in medieval France, we learn that the gentiles in their environment were also translating the biblical prohibition incorrectly.

"For example, two of the most eminent commentators of the time, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) and Rabbi Joseph Bekhor-Shor, felt the need to go on at uncharacteristic length in order to explain that the Hebrew text refers only to unlawful killing. Both these scholars pointed out plainly the differences between the Hebrew roots for killing and murdering (for good measure, Bekhor Shor even provides a French translation of the latter term: meurtre), and brought ample evidence of the Torah’s condoning other types of killing.

"Rashbam concludes his discussion of the topic with the following words:

"And this is a refutation of the heretics, and they have conceded the point to me. Even though their own books state “I kill, and I make alive” (in Deuteronomy 32:39) --using the same Latin root as for “thou shalt not murder”–they are not being precise.

"From the words of these French Jewish scholars, we learn that the “thou shalt not kill” translation stems from the Latin Bible translation that was in use in the medieval Roman Catholic church. Indeed, the Vulgate (as that translation is designated) employs the Latin verb occidere which has the sense of “kill” rather than “murder.” By demonstrating that the Vulgate itself employed the root occidere in Deuteronomy, when the Almighty himself is speaking of his own power over the lives of his creatures–in a context where it cannot conceivably be rendered as “murder”–Rashbam aggressively proved the error of the traditional Christian understanding of the sixth commandment. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear that his Christian interlocutors acknowledged their error without a fight.

"This still raises some difficult questions about the Latin Vulgate translation. The author of that translation, Saint Jerome (died in 420), spent much of his career in the Land of Israel, where he consulted frequently with Jewish scholars whose interpretations he often cites with great respect. Even the Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Bible, translated the commandment with a word that means “murder” rather than “kill.” St. Augustine, basing himself on the standard translations, made it clear that the commandment does not extend to wars or capital punishment that are explicitly ordained by God.

"The fact remains, however, that even the Jewish translators were not unanimous in maintaining a consistent distinctions between the various Hebrew roots.

"Don Isaac Abravanel and others noted that ratsah is employed in Numbers 35:27-30 both when dealing with an authorized case of blood vengeance, and with capital punishment–neither of which falls under the legal category of murder.

"In fact, some distinguished Jewish philosophers believed that “thou shalt not kill” is a perfectly accurate rendering of the sixth commandment. Maimonides, for example, wrote that all cases of killing human beings involve violations of the command, even if the violation happens to be overridden by other mitigating factors. It has been suggested that this tradition underlies the virtual elimination of capital punishment in Rabbinic law.

“Viewed from this perspective, we may appreciate that the translation “thou shalt not kill” was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root.”*
 
Dave (and others following this thread),

I was referred to the following excerpt taken from an article written by a prominent Jewish biblical scholar, Eliezer Segal:

…This root refers only to criminal acts of killing…
I would disagree since we do not consider sanctioned executions as criminal (back to the Numbers text I cited above.
"The good old King James version of the Bible, which introduced this formulation into standard English discourse, is usually much more accurate in its Hebrew scholarship, and I have wondered for many years how the erudite scholars who produced that fine translation managed to slip up on such a simple expression, one that would have been caught by any Jewish schoolchild.
Certainly the KJ translators made some mistake, but by-and-large they were some pretty sharp guys. I’ve learned over time that if you want to argue that they are wrong, you had better have your ducks in a row.
"It turns out that the confusion did not originate with that seventeenth-century English translation. From the writings of Jewish exegetes who lived in medieval France, we learn that the gentiles in their environment were also translating the biblical prohibition incorrectly.

"For example, two of the most eminent commentators of the time, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) and Rabbi Joseph Bekhor-Shor, felt the need to go on at uncharacteristic length in order to explain that the Hebrew text refers only to unlawful killing.
I have to disagree again as we would not consider execution unlawful killing, regardless of one’s stand on the death penalty.
Indeed, the Vulgate (as that translation is designated) employs the Latin verb occidere which has the sense of “kill” rather than “murder.” By demonstrating that the Vulgate itself employed the root occidere in Deuteronomy, when the Almighty himself is speaking of his own power over the lives of his creatures–in a context where it cannot conceivably be rendered as “murder”–Rashbam aggressively proved the error of the traditional Christian understanding of the sixth commandment.

"The fact remains, however, that even the Jewish translators were not unanimous in maintaining a consistent distinctions between the various Hebrew roots.
Yes, I would agree, even though the Rashbam accuses the Vulgate of not being consistent, he’s not being very consistent either…
"Don Isaac Abravanel and others noted that ratsah is employed in Numbers 35:27-30 both when dealing with an authorized case of blood vengeance, and with capital punishment–neither of which falls under the legal category of murder.
Ah-hah! 😉 Very nice!!! Murder is a legal term with specific conditions.
"In fact, some distinguished Jewish philosophers believed that “thou shalt not kill” is a perfectly accurate rendering of the sixth commandment. Maimonides, for example, wrote that all cases of killing human beings involve violations of the command, even if the violation happens to be overridden by other mitigating factors. It has been suggested that this tradition underlies the virtual elimination of capital punishment in Rabbinic law.
Interesting.
“Viewed from this perspective, we may appreciate that the translation “thou shalt not kill” was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root.”
Wow, thanks!! Lots of interpretive history here, and I of course couldn’t agree more. So did you find this convincing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top