Andrews University

Digital Commons @ Andrews University

Faculty Publications

7-2019

“You Shall not Kill” or “You Shall not Murder”? The Meaning of
Ratsakh in the Sixth Commandment
Jiří Moskala
Andrews University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pubs

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons

Recommended Citation
Moskala, Jiří, "“You Shall not Kill” or “You Shall not Murder”? The Meaning of Ratsakh in the Sixth
Commandment" (2019). Faculty Publications. 1360.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pubs/1360

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews
University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Theological Focus Book Notes
“You Shall not Kill” or “You Shall not Murder”? The Meaning of Ratsakh Honorable in Business................................................................................14
in the Sixth Commandment......................................................................1 Edwin De Kock Books on Prophecy.........................................................15
The Power of Choice and Life: A Short Theological Reflection.............7
Scripture Applied Index to Reflections............................................................................................20
Lessons from Matthew 8............................................................................10

“You Shall not Kill” or “You

Shall not Murder”? The
Meaning of Ratsakh in the Sixth
Commandment
by Jiří Moskala

T
he Decalogue is a precious gift endowed Crucial Question
to humanity by God Himself (Exod
The sixth commandment is a very short statement
31:18), uttered (Exod 20:1; Deut 5:4–5,
and was originally expressed in Hebrew with just two
24) and written (Exod 24:12; 31:18; Deut
words: “lo’ tirtsakh” [negative particle lo’ plus verb
5:22) by Him. It presents the founda-
in qal, imperfect second person singular of the root
tional principles to preserve life and defines how one
ratsakh]. God’s command is identical in both versions
maintains the vertical (first four commandments) and
of the Decalogue (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17).2 This brief
horizontal (last six commandments) relationships that
commandment is clearly translated in the KJV as “You
are the most valuable properties in life. The Decalogue
shall not kill” (that is, to take or terminate the life of
presupposes salvation and forms the heart of God’s
a person) and this rendering is followed, for exam-
revelation and biblical ethics. It is the Magna Carta of
ple, by the following versions: RSV, NAB, ASV, CEB,
biblical teaching and its summation, the pattern for
JB, and NJB. On the other hand, Bible versions like
the rest of biblical legislation. It forms the substance
NIV, TNIV, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, NASB, NET, and NLT
and foundation of divine standards for all humanity;
render this phrase as “You shall not murder.” “Murder”
its principles are eternal.
is defined as unlawful killing, or killing without a legal
In the book of Exodus, the Decalogue is called “the justification, or the premeditated and deliberate killing
Testimony” (Heb.‘edut; Exod 31:18); and in the of another human being. This would be distinct from
book of Deuteronomy, it is named “the words of the other forms of killing that are then presumably legal
covenant” (Heb. dibre habberit; Exod 34:28). Neither or acceptable, such as execution in cases of criminal
book uses the term “the Ten Commandments” (Heb. activities (capital punishment), killing in times of war,
mitswah; however, see Exod 20:6), but rather, three or in self-defense.
times call it “the Ten Words” (Heb. ‘aseret hadde-
barim, definite plural form of the term dabar meaning Which translation is correct: “You shall not kill” or
“word, sentence, matter, thing, speech, story, promise, “You shall not murder”? The answer has tremendous
utterance”; see Exod 34:28; Deut 4:13; 10:4). In both implications for decisions in real life. Diligent students
Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Decalogue lies at the of the Bible know that each translation of the biblical
beginning of the law collections and their interpreta- text is an interpretation, so one needs to be sure to
tion.1 follow the right one. This question has to be decid-
ed only on biblical grounds, which means using the

Reflections 67, July 2019 1 adventistbiblicalresearch.org

 Hebrew word ratsakh in its particular context and by object that is killed—humans and animals.”13 The term
discerning the intended purpose of this fundamental ratsakh refers uniquely to taking the life of humans.
legislation.
Some scholars and writers claim the commandment The Hebrew verb ratsakh occurs forty-seven times in
“You shall not kill” points to a specific prohibition— the Old Testament, and its meaning must be deter-
that is, murder. Appeal is made to the original Hebrew mined from the context (study carefully the following
by arguing that the word ratsakh does not mean nineteen biblical passages):
killing in general but refers specifically to intended
killing, namely murder, or to unauthorized killing. Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17—employed
For example, Dozeman observes, “The command twice in the sixth commandment.
forbidding murder is broad.”3 Hyatt comments, “The
purpose of the sixth commandment was to prohibit Numbers 35:6, 11, 12, 16 [twice], 17 [twice], 18
any kind of illegal killing that was contrary to the will [twice], 19, 21 [twice], 25, 26, 27 [twice], 28, 30
and the best interests of the community. Thus its real [twice], 31—used altogether twenty times. The motive
import was to prohibit murder, in spite of the fact that of killing must be investigated for implementation of
this meaning is not specifically derived from the verb the punishment: the intentional killing is punished
employed.”4 Ryken states, “What the commandment by death after a court hearing (capital punishment),
forbids is not killing, but unlawful killing of a human in contrast to the accidental killing when the killer is
being.”5 Gane in his exposé on the Old Testament required to stay in the city of refuge (the institution of
Law for Christians comments, “The familiar KJV asylum) until the death of the High Priest.14
rendering ‘Thou shall not kill’ is misleading because
the sixth commandment does not forbid all killing,”6 Deuteronomy 4:42 [twice]; 19:3, 4, 6; 22:26—appears
and he argues that this commandment only “prohibits six times.
the illegal, unjustifiable taking of life.”7 North, in his
article on the sixth commandment, concludes, “So, Joshua 20:3, 5–6; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38—occurs eight
in reading Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 we times.
must differ with the translation ‘Thou shall not kill”
on the grounds that it is too broad, and thus inaccu- The rest of the Old Testament—used eleven times in
rate and inconsistent with all the contexts in which the following texts: Judges 20:4; 1 Kings 21:17; 2 Kings
rskh is used and not used in Scripture.”8 This type of 6:32; Job 24:14; Psalms 62:3; 94:6; Proverbs 22:13;
interpretation is reflected in some modern translations Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 7:9; Hosea 4:2; 6:9.
as seen above. However, the crucial question remains:
Is this argument supported by the biblical data? To A cognate noun retsakh (killing, murder) occurs twice
the claim that the verb ratsakh is translated as “mur- in the Hebrew Bible: In Psalm 42:10 (in Heb 42:11)
der,” Victor Hamilton states, “I do not think it is that it means “shattering,” “crushing,” “mortal wound,” or
simple.”9 I agree. What does the biblical data reveal? “mortal agony,” while the same noun in Ezekiel 21:22
John Durham rightly argues that “the precise meaning refers to the slaughter by King Nebuchadnezzar in bat-
of the sixth commandment depends on the definition tles when he was conquering Israel. Thus, the Hebrew
of ‫רצח‬.”10 root ratsakh is also used for killing in war.

Usage of the Word ratsakh Summary of Findings in Context

There are four main words in the Hebrew Scripture God is the creator, He is life, and the source of life;
used for killing: harag (e.g., see Gen 4:8, 14–15, 25; this is why only He gives life and only He can take
12:12; 20:11; 27:41; 37:20, 26; Exod 2:14), mut (in the it away. He is the ruler over life and death (Job 1:21;
Hiphil; e.g., see Gen 18:25; 37:18; Exod 1:16), qatal Deut 32:39; Isa 45:7) and as the creator of life He
(only in the following four Hebrew texts: Job 13:15; has all rights over life and death and the authority to
24:14; Ps 139:19; Obad 1:9; and used in Aramaic in command: “Do not take life.” However, we need to
Dan 2:13–14; 3:22; 5:19, 30; 7:11), and ratsakh (see underline that it is a strange and alien work for God
also the more descriptive expression shofek dam, to kill (Isa 28:21); it is done only out of the necessity
“shedding a blood,” as in Gen 9:5–6; and tabach or to protect life, as in the case of the biblical flood (Gen
shachat for slaughtering animals). It is significant to 6:11–13). The Lord has no pleasure in the death of the
observe that three of these verbs (harag, mut, qatal) wicked (Ezek 18:23, 32).
include killing humans and animals, while the verb
ratsakh (used in the sixth commandment) applies only The thematic background of the sixth commandment
to killing humans.11 This discovery is crucial, because is in the story of Cain and Abel with two brothers
then the difference in usage is not primarily regarding worshipping God (Gen 4:3–11). The first murder
“various circumstances of killing”12 (premeditated/ occurs during their first worship, signifying that the
deliberate or accidental/unintentional killing), but one who kills, kills his brother. The sanctity of human
who or what is killed. The difference lies “between the life is underlined.

Reflections 67, July 2019 2 adventistbiblicalresearch.org

 God’s commandment is also associated with the first No provision is made in the Old Testament sacrificial
explicit prohibition of killing (Gen 9:5–6), in spite of system for killing people. This crime was too serious
the fact this text is misused to justify capital punish- and could not be atoned for and forgiven by ritu-
ment as a divinely ordered act. Humans were created als—by killing a sacrificial animal. The legislation was
in the image of God; thus, theologically speaking, established to investigate acts of killing in the six cities
the one who kills destroys the image of God, and no of refuge where the killer could run and be tried to
one has the right to kill this image. This is why killing discover if he committed an involuntary slaughter or a
humans is absolutely prohibited: it is a sin. Hamilton murder (Exod 21:12–14; Num 35:9–34; Deut 4:41–43;
rightly proclaims, “To kill another human being is 19:1–13; Josh 20).
to destroy one who is a bearer of the divine image.”15
Doukhan observes, “This implies that killing humans A close examination of the term ratsakh raises ques-
impacts God Himself.”16 By respecting life, one shows tions about translating the phrase lo’ tirtsakh as “do
a deep respect for the Holy Creator. In Genesis 9, not murder” and using the word alone as a rationale
the restriction not to kill humans is given in sharp to distinguish between various kinds of killing such
contrast to God’s permission to kill animals (for food as murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide,
and sacrificial reasons, not for sport-hunting purpos- because the term ratsakh does not necessarily mean
es); yet, while killing animals, humans have to pour to intentionally kill someone. Also, the “avenger of
their blood out to demonstrate respect for life because blood” may lawfully kill the one guilty of manslaugh-
life is in the blood (Gen 9:4–5), while shedding the ter should the latter leave a city of refuge (Num 35:27,
blood of humans is banned. Wenham aptly comments, 30). In addition, there are several places in Deuteron-
“No sin shows greater contempt for life than homi- omy (Deut 4:41–42, 19:3–6) and passages scattered
cide. Whereas an animal’s blood may be shed but not throughout Numbers and Joshua (Num 35:6–31; Josh
consumed, human blood cannot even be shed.”17 Life 20:3–5) that use the word to refer to unintentional
is sacred and people cannot take the life of another killing or causing accidental death, namely man-
person on their own. Human life must be highly re- slaughter. Premeditation had to be determined by a ju-
spected and preserved. Even negligence in protecting dicial process, yet both those found guilty of premedi-
life was punishable (Deut 22:8). tation and those considered innocent of premeditation
were described by the same Hebrew term harotseakh,
The sixth commandment is an apodictic law. Apo- “the one who kills,” “the one who commits ratsakh.”
dictic laws are unconditional and make categorical Thus, the person responsible for accidental killing/
assertions, whereas casuistic laws explain different manslaughter is called harotseakh in the city of refuge
conditions and how they need to be executed/applied. (Num 35:12). Of course, the term ratsakh also has the
In principle, killing is killing and cannot be excused. It connotation of “murder” or “assassination” (Judg 20:4,
is an absolute command regarding the respect of life. 1 Kgs 21:19, 2 Kgs 6:32). The term ratsakh is used for
Thus, one might argue that any taking of human life premeditated (Num 35:16–21, 30) as well as accidental
violates the sixth commandment. It is significant that or involuntary killing (Num 35:7, 11; Deut 4:42). The
no casuistic law is part of the Decalogue (in contrast contextual markers usually indicate if ratsakh means
to the other collections of biblical law). However, “killing” or “murder.”
when killing occurs then comes into place casuistic
legislation (see Deut 19:1–22:8). Gane compares sev- In the context of the cities of refuge, the term ratsakh
eral collections of biblical laws and rightly concludes, is used for executing capital punishment (Num 35:30).
“Casuistic laws appear in all of the major biblical law
collections . . . except for the Decalogue.”18 Patrick The word ratsakh used in Proverbs 22:13 refers to a
explains that a casuistic law “defines a specific case, lion killing a person, so motivation for killing is not in
distinguishes it carefully from other similar cases, and place. So not only humans, but also animals can kill
stipulates the legal consequences.”19 (ratsakh), which means that motivation for the action
is not always included.
The sixth commandment is brief and the word “kill”
is not qualified by motives (e.g., “do not kill illegal- The verb ratsakh is not used directly in situations of
ly—that is, do not murder), alluding to the fact that war, but a noun retsakh is referred to in Ezekiel 21:22.
it should be taken as a general principle. It has a very This cognate noun (meaning “killing, murder”) refers
broad meaning. Dozeman rightly observes, “The law is to the slaughter in a battle.
stated categorically and does not spell out the conse-
quences for disobedience.”20 By implication, this commandment cannot be used to
support not carrying guns (for protection from snakes
The Hebrew word ratsakh is used only for killing hu- or wild animals), unless guns are used only for the
mans, and is not employed even for killing sacrificial purpose of killing people.
animals.
God speaks to the nation that consists of people who
are members of the covenantal community. It means

Reflections 67, July 2019 3 adventistbiblicalresearch.org

 these laws are highly personal and no one can take the other hand, His own orders to kill and punish by
his or her own life or the life of the other person. God taking life in specific cases, like murder, rape, kidnap-
speaks to Israel, His covenantal people, but these ping, defiant transgression of the Sabbath, and holy
principles are for all His people at all times and are the war—one must have in mind the following facts, on
laws for the whole of humankind to keep. the basis of which they should be understood:

Sarna appropriately states, “Unlike other verbs for The Ten Commandments are expressed in a personal
taking of life, . . . [r-ts-kh] is never employed when the way; they address individuals (stated in the second
subject of the action is God or an angel.”21 person singular). It means that no one can kill a
person. When killing occurred, Israel as a society had
When Paul summarizes the law as being love, he a legal obligation to deal with the crime or accident,
quotes from the Decalogue, including the sixth com- but no person had the right to avenge the killing or
mandment (Rom 13:8–10). Love is indeed the sum of murder personally. Proper judicial procedure needed
God’s law because He is the God of love (1 John 4:16). to take place. No Israelite was permitted to take justice
Thus, true love is shown in practical actions springing into his own hands. Only the authorized ending of life
from faith (Gal 6:5). as an expression of the administration of justice upon
God’s command was permissible in a specific situa-
In light of the above observations, the wrong question tion, in which case a judge and at least two witnesses
is often asked in regard to the sixth commandment: had to be involved. Thus, a theocratic community was
When is killing not murder? There is no exception to delegated with such tasks and capital punishment was
it because it is stated as the principle. This perspective rarely executed in Israel’s society.23
is for each individual to take it as a given fact. One
does not ask similar questions such as, when is steal- The gravity of killing is demonstrated by the severity
ing not wrong? Or when is adultery permissible? of the punishment. There was no sacrificial compensa-
tion for killing; only life pays for life in case of murder,
Israelite Casuistic Laws or asylum in situations of accidental killing. Ryken
writes, “Some [I would say: all] accidental death, al-
In contrast to the apodictic law of the sixth command- though unintentional, are nevertheless culpable, which
ment, the biblical text explains what to do in case is why God’s law includes legal sanctions for a person
someone violates it and kills. This is an immense prob- who ‘unintentionally killed his neighbor without
lem, so the casuistic law needs to be implemented (see, malice aforethought’ (Deut. 4:42).”24 The protection
for example, the legislation for the cities of refuge). of one’s life, family, or nation, as well as God’s honor,
cannot be supported by appealing to the meaning of
The legal section of the book of Deuteronomy is the Hebrew word ratsakh alone. Such a move requires
structured according to the Decalogue in such a a much wider interpretive reading. The satisfaction
way that each commandment of the Decalogue is for the crime of murder has to be performed because
further explained or applied in this legal part of life has infinite value (Gen 9:6),25 and it is not within
the second speech of Moses (Deut 12:1–25:16).22 In human power to ultimately forgive a murderer (Num
this way the book of Deuteronomy explains, among 35:31) because the giver of life is God Himself and
other things, the application and relationship to the only upon His command can it be taken away. Ellen
sixth commandment (Deut 19:1–22:8). These three G. White wisely comments, “The safety and purity of
chapters deal with homicide, holy war, and criminal the nation demanded that the sin of murder be severe-
justice, which now justify legitimate killing because ly punished. Human life, which God alone could give,
the principle law of respecting and preserving life must be sacredly guarded.”26 Ryken rightly underlines
was not upheld, or when a nation had to engage in a that the various casuistic legislations have one purpose
holy war under God’s command. How should capital in mind: “The goal is always not the destruction of life
punishment and killing as a result of military actions but its preservation. . . . Sometimes it is necessary to
during a holy war be understood? This excellent take a life in order to save a life.”27
question does not and should not negate, disprove, or
contradict our exegetical, conceptual, and theological God did not intend for the people of Israel to kill
interpretation of the sixth commandment. We recog- other people on the way to the Promised Land. He
nize that capital punishment and holy war legislation wanted to fight for His people as He did during the ten
represent a huge tension with the understanding of plagues (see Exod 7–12) and the crossing of the Red
the Decalogue’s prohibition of killing. However, these Sea (Exod 13–15). Unfortunately, His plan for fighting
issues must be answered on their own grounds and for His people so that they would not need to fight
not by alteration of the meaning and intention of the and kill in war failed because of Israel’s lack of trust in
divine prohibition, “You will not kill.” God and their disobedience (see Gen 15:13–16; Exod
14:13–14, 19, 24–25; 23:23, 27–28; Deut 7:20; Josh
In dealing with strong tensions in the biblical text—on 24:12; cf. 2 Chr 20:20–24).
the one hand, God’s prescription not to kill, and on In interpreting biblical laws regarding capital pun-

Reflections 67, July 2019 4 adventistbiblicalresearch.org

 ishment and engaging in war, one needs to take into thought the Decalogue is perceived as God’s beati-
account the “theocracy principle.” These biblical laws tudes. The Ten Commandments are a special gift from
can be applied only in a situation where God’s people God to guide believers to know what He can do for
live under God’s direct leadership and rules, which is and in them when they let Him. “In the Ten Com-
no longer the case because the theocracy of Israel as mandments God has laid down the laws of His king-
a holy nation ended. So this legislation was only valid dom. . . . The Lord has given His holy commandments
during the ancient Israelite society. to be a wall of protection around His created beings.”32
White declares that “all His biddings are enablings.”33
The Meaning of the Sixth Commandment
In the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus
The meaning is apparent: respect for life, which is Christ made it clear that the intention of the sixth
a precious gift from God. Life is extremely fragile commandment is purity of heart, grounded in deep
and must be carefully preserved; even negligence is respect for the life of other human beings. He elo-
punishable (see Deut 22:8). This commandment lacks quently speaks about right attitudes toward others,
specificity, as no person or object is directly defined, and even against verbal abuse:
and the prohibition is consequently more inclusive:
You have heard that it was said to
1. Respect for the life of other people (against killing your ancestors, “You shall not kill;
or murder). and whoever kills will be liable to
2. Respect for one’s own life (against suicide). judgment.” But I say to you, who-
3. Respect for the unborn life (against abortion). ever is angry with his brother will
be liable to judgment, and whoever
Durham states: says to his brother, “Raqa,” will be
answerable to the Sanhedrin, and
Its basic prohibition was against whoever says, “You fool,” will be
killing, for whatever cause, under liable to fiery Gehenna. Therefore, if
whatever circumstances, and by you bring your gift to the altar, and
whatever method, a fellow-member there recall that your brother has
of the community. . . . The primary anything against you, leave your gift
reference of the commandment is there at the altar, go first and be rec-
religious, not social. . . . ‫ רצח‬as a onciled with your brother, and then
verb describing killing that occurs come and offer your gift. Settle with
primarily within the covenant com- your opponent quickly while on the
munity. . . . What is certain is that way to court with him. Otherwise
‫ רצח‬describes a killing of human be- your opponent will hand you over
ings forbidden by Yahweh to those to the judge, and the judge will hand
who are in covenant with him.28 you over to the guard, and you will
be thrown into prison. Amen, I say
It is true that the Decalogue was given to the faith to you, you will not be released until
community. However, this legislation goes beyond you have paid the last penny. (Matt
borders, beyond Israel’s community of faith. All hu- 5:21–26, NAB)
man beings are included, as all were created in God’s
image. Thus, the prohibition of killing not only applies It is evident that Jesus goes beyond physical killing.
to killing a fellow believer, but also has universal Hamilton aptly comments, “Jesus has the story of
implications. Cain’s act of fratricide against Abel in mind when he
speaks of ‘anyone who is angry with his brother’ as a
Commandments as God’s Promises kind of killing, or something that, if not controlled,
could lead to killing” and he further connects Jesus’
One needs to keep in mind that God’s commandments statement with Genesis 4 “by the emphasis on a ‘gift’
are actually God’s promises. They are given to His peo- in both units.”34
ple to obey out of love and gratitude. As Seventh-day
Adventists, this is our special contribution to under- One needs to pray earnestly and sincerely to not be in
standing the meaning of the Decalogue.29 This is why a situation in which we will be tempted to kill anoth-
God gives these permanent commandments as His er human being. Jesus teaches in the case of Sabbath
promises. White offers this insight into the function of observance that it is a matter of prayer and trusting
the Decalogue: “The Ten Commandments . . . are ten God (Matt 24:20).
promises.”30 She stresses that “the voice of God from
heaven” speaks “to the soul in promise, ‘This do, and
you will not come under the dominion and control
of Satan,’”31 which is why in Seventh-day Adventists’

Reflections 67, July 2019 5 adventistbiblicalresearch.org

 Conclusion second in Deuteronomy 5:6–21. The second version pre-
sented orally by Moses to Israel occurred almost forty years
later, just before entering the Promised Land (Deut 1:3–4;
The Hebrew word ratsakh has a wide range of mean- 4:44–47). These circumstances explain the slight difference
ings. It is used in both versions of the Ten Command- that exists between these two versions of the Decalogue. See
ments, and is not used only for specific unauthorized Ekkehardt Mueller, “Why is the Reason Given for Sabbath
killing because such a narrow view cannot be substan- Keeping in Deuteronomy 5 Different from that Given in
tiated by the biblical data. Thus, the word “murder” is Exodus 20?” in Interpreting Scripture: Bible Questions and
not an appropriate translation of the sixth command- Answers, ed. Gerhard Pfandl (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
ment, even though it includes murder. Our study leads Research Institute, 2010), 169–173.
3 Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus, Eerdmans Critical Com-
to the recognition that all killing or taking of human
mentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 494.
life is prohibited in principle. This commandment 4 J. Philip Hyatt, Exodus, New Century Bible Commentary
is about respect for life, about life’s sacredness, and (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 214. See also Victor
thus about respect for the Creator God who created P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand
humans in His image. So the translation of the sixth Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 344.
commandment should be in broad terms, “You shall 5 Philip Graham Ryken, Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory
not kill,” because it is obvious that the meaning of (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 616.
the word ratsakh is not limited to murder.35 When 6 Roy E. Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians: Original
explaining the sixth commandment, the Seventh-day Context and Enduring Application (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2017), 261.
Adventist Bible Commentary states: “Any rightful un-
7 Ibid.
derstanding of our relation to our neighbor indicates 8 James J. North, “When Killing Isn’t Murder,” For God &
that we must respect and honor his life, for all life is Country: A Journal for Seventh-day Adventists in Military
sacred (Gen 9:5–6).”36 and Public Service 1 (2019): 21.
9 Hamilton, Exodus, 343.
Doukhan supports our conclusion: 10 John I. Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary
(Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 292.
The sixth commandment should not 11 Jacques B. Doukhan, Genesis, Seventh-day Adventist
be translated ‘you shall not murder,’ International Commentary (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2016),
161. “The verb used refers to the killing of persons; it is
implying only the specific case of
never used of animals” (John L. Mackay, Exodus, A Mentor
a criminal act, but ‘you shall not Commentary [Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor,
kill humans’ in a general sense. The 2001], 352). Durham also concurs: “The verb refers only to
prohibition as ‘murder’ would not the killing of persons, never to animals” (293).
make sense for an activity in which 12 Doukhan, Genesis, 162.
most common people would rarely 13 Ibid.
think of engaging.37 14 There are several biblical passages that legislate life in
the cities of refuge (Exod 21:12–14; Num 35:9–34; Deut
Frank Hasel comes to a similar conclusion in his 4:41–43; 19:1–13; Josh 20). Six cities were chosen for this
purpose—namely, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan in pre-Jordan,
study: “The military pledge of allegiance conflicts with
and Kedesh, Shechem and Hebron (Kiriath-arba) in the land
allegiance to God’s Word and His unchanging law that of Israel. The provision was made to establish six cities of
commands, among other things, not to kill another refuge where the killer could flee and was judged to deter-
person (cf. Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17).”38 The sixth com- mine if the killing was intentional or accidental.
mandment is an absolute command and has a preven- 15 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17,
tive character to preserve the gift of life, because life is The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
sacred. It has a universal sense.39 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 315.
16 Doukhan, Genesis, 161.
17 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Com-
mentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 193.
Jiří Moskala, Th.D., Ph.D.
18 Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, 89.
Dean of the Theological Seminar 19 Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta, GA: John
at Andrews University and Knox, 1985), 21.
Professor of Old Testament 20 Dozeman, Exodus, 494.
Exegesis and Theology 21 Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary
(New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 113.
22 Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Structure of the Deuteronom-
1 There are seven main collections of legal material pre- ic Law,” MAARAV 1, no. 2 (1978–1979): 105–158; Walter C.
scribed in the Pentateuch, and the first and principal one is Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI:
the Decalogue. The seven codes are: 1) the Decalogue (Exod Zondervan, 1983), 127–137.
20:1–17), 2) the Covenant Code (Exod 20:22–23:33), 3) the 23 Sarna, Exodus, 113.
Ritual Code (Exod 34:10–26), 4) the Sacrificial Code (Lev 24 Ryken, Exodus, 616.
1–7), 5) the Purity Code (Lev 11–15), 6) the Holiness Code 25 Students of the Bible may find three competing inter-
(Lev 17–27), and 7) the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 12–26). pretations of Genesis 9:6. 1) God is the giver of life, so He
2 There are two versions of the Decalogue with very slight Himself will punish those who transgress this foundational
differences; the first is recorded in Exodus 20:1–17, and the respect for life and kill another person. 2) Humans need to

Reflections 67, July 2019 6 adventistbiblicalresearch.org

 perform the punishment (biblical locus classicus for capital 34 Hamilton, Exodus, 344.
punishment), but not on the basis of personal revenge; 35 See Wilma A. Bailey, “You Shall Not Kill” or “You Shall
each case has to be taken into court, and the guilty person Not Murder”?: The Assault on a Biblical Text (Collegeville,
has to die (it is a legal legislation against a personal feud or MN: Liturgical Press, 2005); idem, “‘You Shall not Kill’: The
hostility). 3) The text only asserts that the guilty person has Meaning of RTSH in Exodus 20:13,” Encounter 65, no. 1
to die—the lex talionis (life for life)—but it does not specify (2004): 39–54.
how or by whom. For details, see Hamilton, The Book of There is an important implication in our study: Seventh-day
Genesis, 315. Adventists’ official position on non-combatancy status is in
26 Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Boise, ID: Pacif- direct harmony with the proposed exegetical, conceptual,
ic Press, 1958), 516. and theological understanding of the sixth commandment.
27 Ryken, Exodus, 617. The biblical flood is the primary The attitude of non-combatancy is rooted in the biblical data
example of this principle when God destroys to ultimately and its interpretation.
preserve life. 36 Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (Wash-
28 Durham, Exodus, 293. ington DC: Review and Herald, revised 1976), 606.
29 See Jiří Moskala, “The Decalogue in Luther and Advent- 37 Doukhan, Genesis, 162. See also Ekkehardt Mueller who
ism,” in Here We Stand: Luther, the Reformation, and Ad- argues that the change from “killing” to “murder” is often
ventism, eds. Michael W. Campbell and Nikolaus Satelmajer done for political agenda (The Power of Culture,
(Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2017), 101–116. https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/
30 Ellen G. White, Manuscript 41, 1896, The Seventh-day Power%20of%20Culture.pdf [accessed 08-22-2019]).
Adventist Bible Commentary, ed. Francis D. Nichol (Wash- 38 Frank M. Hasel, “Ethical Challenges in Military Service,”
ington, DC: Review and Herald, 1953), 1:1105. Adventists and Military Service: Biblical, Historical, and Eth-
31 Ellen G. White, Letter 89, 1898, in The Seventh-day Ad- ical Perspectives, eds. Frank M. Hasel, Barna Magyarosi, and
ventist Bible Commentary, ed. Francis D. Nichol (Washing- Stefan Höschele (Madrid: Safeliz, 2019), 162.
ton, DC: Review and Herald, 1953), 1:1105. 39 No wonder that when rabbis reflected on this prohibi-
32 Ellen G. White, Manuscript 153, 1899, The Seventh-day tion, they posed a serious question: “Why was only one man
Adventist Bible Commentary, ed. Francis D. Nichol (Wash- created by God?—to teach that whoever takes a single life
ington, DC: Review and Herald, 1953), 1:1105. destroys thereby a whole world [of human beings]” (Mish-
33 Ellen G. White, Christ Object Lessons (Battle Creek, MI: nah Sanhedrin 4:5, as quoted in Sarna, Exodus, 114).
Review and Herald, 1900), 333.

The Power of Choice and Life: A

Short Theological Reflection
by Frank M. Hasel

I
t has been said that “man has been endowed As with any freedom, there is a certain risk. Human
by God with the greatest and most awesome of beings are capable of choosing poorly and sometimes
freedoms: the freedom of choice.”1 Indeed, the make wrong choices that are more self-centered than
ability of human beings to make meaningful obedient to God’s will. Making right choices leads to
choices is one of the most significant aspects of blessings, but choosing wrongly leads to negative re-
what it means to be human. Our freedom to choose sults. The Bible uses the terminology of blessings and
is crucial for any theory of ethics, since moral action curses for this experience (cf. Deut 28).
has to do with choosing what is right. Our ability and
privilege to choose grows in the soil of freedom, which According to the Bible, our capacity to choose is an
is also the seedbed of true love. Divine love never forc- essential part of being created in the image of God. It
es us against our will. To be able to choose freely2 is coheres well with the biblical religious experience and
one of the highest human goods. It is at the foundation the nature of God. In the Bible, God is the one who
of many human rights statements and declarations.3 freely chose to create us, and God freely chooses to
One cannot deny human freedom without rejecting save us in the only way He designed for our salvation.
what makes us personal beings rather than animals. Our freedom to choose reflects this important aspect
The priceless freedom to choose gives dignity to our of God’s nature and makes us powerful agents. In the
life. At the same time, it makes us responsible for our words of Ellen G. White:
decisions and the actions that result from them.
What you need to understand is the
Biblically speaking, human beings are created by God true force of the will. This is the gov-
with the ability to choose.4 Time and again we find erning power in the nature of man,
core biblical passages that put before us the option to the power of decision, or of choice.
choose5 and we are admonished to choose wisely be- Everything depends on the right ac-
cause the fear of the Lord6 is the beginning of wisdom. tion of the will. The power of choice

Reflections 67, July 2019 7 adventistbiblicalresearch.org