You shall not murder.
And then,
the same verse from the Jerusalem Bible:
You shall not kill.
There’s a
difference of opinion among recent translators of the Hebrew Scriptures as to
the best translation of today’s key text.
The text is rendered either “You shall not kill”, or else “You
shall not murder” (or “You shall not commit murder”.) Various translations render this commandment
in either way.
The
relevant Hebrew verb found in this commandment can be translated in either
way. At some places in the Hebrew
scriptures, this word refers to premeditated murder; to the sort of rare,
carefully planned murder that happens more in the pages of mystery novels than
it does in real life.
However,
elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, the word found in this commandment also
refers to killing without the intent to do so, even to completely accidental killing. The word also then speaks of killing in
contexts other than the premeditated murder that taxes the brain of Miss
Marple, Monsieur Poirot, and other literary sleuths.
As a
result, I find I prefer the broader usage here, and prefer the more traditional
translation of this commandment as “You shall not kill.” The more limited, “You shall not murder”,
even if preferred by many recent translations, does not do justice to the way
this word is used in scripture.
What does
this tell us ethically?
Does this
commandment call all people of faith to be absolute pacifists?
Does this
commandment call all people of faith to be absolute right-to-lifers?
For that
matter, if we broaden the definition of our neighbour from humanity to all
creatures, does this commandment call all people of faith to be absolute
vegetarians?
In
practice, I’m personally committed to saying that I don’t think so. I’m personally not a vegetarian. I’m personally pro-choice. While I believe most of the wars in the period following the Second World War could have been avoided (and should have been avoided), I
also believe that I would have borne arms had I been living at the time of the
Second World War and been confronted by the threat of Nazism. As a result, while I may be a practical pacifist,
I’m not an absolute pacifist.
This
commandment presents us all with a range of difficult ethical choices. As this commandment is part of the spiritual
and cultural inheritance of three great faith communities, these choices are
presented to people of faith in many different cultures.
The
choices are not only relevant to the handful of people who are tempted to
engage in acts of violence themselves personally, whether they do so for
financial gain, to make some sort of political point, or even just to express
one’s own personal alienation. These
choices are addressed not only to the unhinged perpetrators of personal
violence, but they are addressed to all of us and to the communities in which
we live.
We live in a community that seems to
believe that the only acceptable response to violence is further violence. Many people in our community have bought this
message, including many influential people.
·
Many
talk-back radio hosts speak with great nostalgia of the hangman’s noose or the
headmaster’s cane.
·
The
underlying message of many films and television programmes is that violence is
an acceptable way to solve your problems.
The message of this commandment is
that violence is never an acceptable way to solve a problem, not for an
individual, not for a community. Violence
always creates new and worse problems.
Violence usually invites further violence, worse violence. And so the cycle of violence upon violence,
retribution upon retribution continues.
·
The
retributions taken by the Allies upon Germany after the First World War created
the social conditions that led to the rise of the Nazis and the start of the
Second World War.
·
Many
of the long-standing ethnic-based and religious-based conflicts in our lifetimes had been simmering for centuries: in the Middle East, in the former
Yugoslavia, in South Africa, and in Northern Ireland. (And the people caught up in most of these
conflicts were not so fortunate as to find both a Mandela and a DeKlerk in
place at the same time.)
It is
difficult to break this cycle of violence upon violence, of retribution upon
retribution. When Jesus prayed for
forgiveness for those who were executing him, he set a high standard for us
all, a standard that is difficult for us to achieve all the time, but one that
we are called to at least attempt.
This commandment is an invitation
for our whole community to break the cycle of violence and to establish a
culture of peace. Whether we speak of
·
bullying
in schools or workplaces;
·
abuse
within families;
·
punch-ups
on the football field;
·
thugs
wandering the streets in gangs looking for someone to bash, preferably someone
black, or someone Asian, or someone gay, or someone Jewish, or someone Muslim;
·
or
any of the other intolerable acts of violence that our society somehow
tolerates;
we are
invited, as people of faith, to challenge our society to reject the way of
violence and to establish a culture of peace.
This is not only something that a rare person such as a Martin Luther
King is called to do, but it’s a challenge for each person of faith.
Then God spoke all these words: I am the Lord your God, who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; ...
You shall not kill.
This
commandment is about far more than the sort of planned, premeditated murder
found in a mystery novel. We are
challenged, as well, to examine the violence in the community around us and in
the depths of our being. Both socially
and personally, we are challenged to break the cycle of violence and to
establish a culture of peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Constructive comments, from a diversity of viewpoints, are always welcome. I reserve the right to choose which comments will be printed. I'm happy to post opinions differing from mine. Courtesy, an ecumenical attitude, and a willingness to give your name always help. A sense of humour is a definite "plus", as well.