"Thou shalt not kill" according to modern interpretation and biblical teaching. "Thou shalt not kill" - problems of interpretation Animals in the light of a religious worldview

In the modern, and rather non-modern world, too, it does not work.

I explain.

The suicide takes a fully loaded revolver and shoots himself in the temple. - A clear violation of the commandment. Russian roulette: a suicide loads a six-shot revolver with one cartridge, rotates the drum so as not to know in what position the cartridge is, puts it to his head, pulls the trigger, a shot is fired ... Or not fired - it's still a violation of the commandment.

According to the rules of the road, a car is a vehicle of increased danger, which is confirmed by statistics - more than 30,000 people die on the roads of Russia every year. Moreover, they die not only through the fault of the driver, but also through the negligence of pedestrians, through the fault of drivers of other cars. Therefore, anyone who drives a car is essentially playing Russian roulette has a chance of killing someone, hence he is a commandment breaker. But pedestrians are also aware of the mortal danger that awaits them even when crossing the road strictly according to traffic rules. Consequently, they also play Russian roulette, that is, suicides, and violate the commandment. In the influenza epidemic that awaits us all, there are always deaths. Therefore, any contact with people carries the risk of contracting the flu and death. So, anyone who communicates with any person is a suicide. A man left for the taiga so as not to communicate with anyone, not to intersect with vehicles, but even here he turns out to be a suicide, because ticks, wolves, bears are found in the taiga, ..

In short, a person everywhere knowingly or stupidly (which is even more sinful, because he aggravates the sin of suicide with the sin of stealing his mind) duty exposes himself to mortal danger.

As Zhvanetsky said: "Maybe change something at the conservatory?" Maybe before talking about sins, you should read the original source in the original language with comments, and not be content with retellings?

The Torah says: “Whoever wickedly kills his neighbor wickedly, then take him from My altar to death” (Shemot 21.14). This right extended even to the priest participating in worship. In other words, a frank and impudent murderer cannot find shelter even at the altar, cannot count on the fact that his crime will cover the sanctity of the Temple.

By requiring the death penalty for a murderer, the Torah imposes a number of restrictions and precautions on the Jewish court in order to exclude a miscarriage of justice that could lead to the punishment of an innocent. Even in the era of the Temple, when the courts were given the right to pass death sentences, to exercise this right in practice, i.e. to sentence a person to death was incredibly difficult. The Sanhedrin (Supreme Jewish Court), which passed only one death sentence in 70 years, is called "bloody" in the Talmud.

And immediately a note in the margins: since Christ did not kill anyone, not only the High Priest but also the Sanhedrin were simply not able to sentence him to death. Therefore, Christianity is based on frank delirium.

There is a special commandment in the Torah to prevent murder: "Do not stand on the blood of your neighbor." Among other things, it includes the duty to stop a potential killer in time. Anyone who does not do this is actually encouraging the crime. If you can stop a killer without killing him, then you should. In other words, in this case, it is simply forbidden to kill him. But if it is obvious that "humane" methods will not give a result, then it is necessary to go to the extreme measure of restraint.

Killing is also allowed in the following cases. In self-defense: if someone attempts on your life, you must get ahead of him, kill this person (if there is no other salvation) before he carries out his criminal intent.

The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” also does not apply to the person who executes the sentence of the court.

It is allowed to kill the enemy in war, because war is considered a collective form of self-defense.

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has a connection with the commandment that speaks of honoring one's father and mother. It is said: the one who is financially secure, but does not help his old, needy parents, is like a murderer. At the same time, this commandment warns us against the other extreme: for example, a loving son, jealously guarding the honor and dignity of his parents, is forbidden to encroach on the life of their offender, and parents cannot demand this revenge from their children.

The requirement of compassion and mutual love is embedded in the Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." For all its simplicity and directness, this commandment is rarely taken literally and is generally considered to apply only to human beings.

However, in the Book of Exodus (20:13), in which the commandment is recorded, the Hebrew word is used lo tirtzach. According to Reuben Alkelei, tirtzach means " any murder.

Hence, the commandment calls us to refrain from killing at all. The ban needs no explanation.

The word "kill" causes controversy, usually meaning:

• a) take away life
• b) end something
• c) destroy the vital, basic essence of something.

Since you can kill everything in which there is life, it means that animals are also killed; according to the commandment, the killing of animals is prohibited.

Life is usually defined as the quality that distinguishes a working, functioning organism from a dead body. For all its complexity, life makes its presence known through a set of symptoms known to both the biologist and the mere reader of nature's book. All living organisms go through six phases: birth, growth, maturity, reproduction, decay and death. Thus, according to both human and God's ideas, animals are living beings.

All living things can be killed, and to kill is to break a commandment no less sacred than any other:

“Whoever keeps the whole law and sins in one point, he becomes guilty of everything.

For the same one who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Thou shalt not kill"; therefore, if you do not commit adultery, but kill, then you are also a transgressor of the law.”

(James 2:10, 11).

There is also much evidence in the Old Testament for vegetarianism. To this we can say that Christians are not obliged to follow the ancient Law and have the right to confine themselves to the New Testament.

However, Jesus himself taught differently:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the law of the prophets: I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota and not one tittle will pass from the law until all are fulfilled.

So, whoever breaks one of these least commandments and teaches people so, he will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever does and teaches, he will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven"

(Matthew 5:17-19).

Perhaps the main reason that motivates Christians to "break the law" despite the biblical commandment against killing lies in the widespread belief that Christ ate meat.

However, Jesus was known as "the king of the world" and his teaching calls for all-encompassing, universal love, compassion, and respect. It is difficult to reconcile the peacemaking image of Christ and the permission to kill animals. However, the New Testament constantly mentions Christ's requests for meat, and lovers of meat food use these quotes in order to justify their own gastronomic tastes. But a careful study of the Greek original reveals that Jesus did not ask for meat at all.

Although in the English translation of the Gospels the word meat(« meat”) is used nineteen times, the Greek words of the original would be more accurately translated as “food”: broma- « food' (used four times), brosimos- "things to eat"(occurs once) brosis- "nutrition, the process of nutrition"(used four times) prosphagion- "something edible"(used once) trophy- « nutrition" (occurs six times), phago- « There is(used three times).

Thus, "do you have meat?"(John 21:5) should be read "Do you have food?". And when the gospel says that the disciples went to buy meat (John 4:8), the exact translation would be just "went to buy food." In each case, the original Greek refers simply to "food" and not necessarily to "meat."

The task is reduced to the interpretation of the original and translations, often incorrect. Many errors in the translation of the Bible (For example, Red Sea - "Red Sea" instead of Reed Sea - "Sea of ​​\u200b\u200breeds") are minor and even funny. But some of them deviate significantly from the original; meanwhile, if an erroneous version is used for centuries, it is fixed in the biblical canon. But when the content and purpose of Jesus' life is taken into account, it becomes difficult, or rather impossible, to reconcile meat-eating with Christian doctrine. Meat-eating Christians object, “If the Bible teaches vegetarianism, how then is the miracle of the loaves and fishes to be understood?”

Some interpreters of the Bible, given the compassionate nature of Jesus, suggest that the word " fish" in this case refers to small balls of algae growing in the eastern seas and known as "fish grass"; similar balls are eaten today. Algae are dried on, ground into flour, from which balls are baked. Such "bread" was an obligatory dish of the cuisine of ancient Babylon; they are also highly regarded in Japan. Muslims consider them food for the faithful, and more importantly, in the time of Jesus they were a recognized delicacy. In addition, a purely practical consideration should be taken into account: such balls would rather be put in a basket of bread than real fish - it would quickly go rotten in the sun and spoil the rest of the food.

It is also possible that " bread" And " fish' are words used in an allegorical rather than a literal sense, which is common for scriptures. Bread- a symbol of Christ's body, that is, the divine substance, and the word " fish" was the password for early Christians who had to hide their faith in order to avoid destruction. Letters of the Greek word ichtus- « fish" is also the initial letters of the words Iesos Christos Theou Uios Soter ("Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior"). That's why fish for Christians - a mystical symbol, and her image can still be seen in the Roman catacombs.

It is very important that in the first manuscripts of the New Testament there is no mention of a fish: the miracle is described as the distribution of bread and fruit, not bread and fish. Only in the later lists of the Bible (after the 4th century) does fish appear instead of fruits. The Codex Sinaiticus is the first version of the Bible where fish are mentioned in the story of this miracle.

However, many are unwilling to abandon the traditional example of the loaves and fishes. Such people should be reminded that even though Jesus himself ate fish, he did not permit others to do the same in his name. Christ lived among the fishermen and preached to them. As a teacher, he had to take into account the lifestyle of his students. Thus, he ordered his disciples to leave their nets and become “fishers of men,” that is, preachers. And yet, those who believe that Christ ate fish say: “Since Jesus did this, why shouldn’t I?” But when we remember how Jesus died for the sake of increasing the glory of God, for some reason there are few who want to follow his example.

Easter lamb

Everyone is accustomed to portraying Christ as the good shepherd and the lamb of God, but the Passover lamb presents a problem for vegetarian Christians. Was the Last Supper a Passover meal at which Christ and the apostles ate the flesh of a lamb?

The Synoptic Gospels (the first three) report that the Last Supper took place on the night of Easter; this means that Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover lamb (Matt. 26:17, Mark 16:16, Luke 22:13). However, John states that the Supper took place earlier: “Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that the hour had come to pass from this world to the Father, … got up from supper, took off His outer garment, and taking a towel, girded himself” (John 13:1 -4). If the sequence of events was different, then the Last Supper could not have been the Passover meal.

English historian Geoffrey Rudd in an excellent book "Why kill for food?" offers the following solution for the riddle of the Paschal lamb: The Last Supper took place on Thursday, the crucifixion - the next day, Friday. However, according to the Jewish account, both of these events happened on the same day, since the Jews consider the beginning of a new day to be the sunset of the previous one. Of course, this throws off the whole chronology. In the nineteenth chapter of his Gospel, John reports that the crucifixion took place on the day of preparation for Easter, that is, on Thursday. Later, in verse thirty-one, he says that Jesus' body was not left on the cross because "that Sabbath was a great day." In other words, the Sabbath Passover meal at sunset of the previous day, Friday, after the crucifixion.

Although the first three gospels contradict John's version, which most biblical scholars consider to be an accurate account of events, the two versions confirm each other elsewhere. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew (26:5) it is said that the priests decided not to kill Jesus during the feast, "so that there would not be revolt among the people." On the other hand, Matthew constantly says that the Last Supper and the crucifixion took place on the day of Passover. In addition, it should be noted that, according to Talmudic custom, it is forbidden to conduct legal proceedings and execute criminals on the first, most sacred, day of Easter.

Since Passover is as holy as the Sabbath, the Jews did not carry weapons on this day (Mark 14:43, 47) and were not allowed to buy shrouds and herbs for burial (Mark 15:46, Luke 23:56). Finally, the haste with which the disciples buried Jesus is explained by their desire to remove the body from the cross before the start of Passover (Mark 15:42, 46).

The very absence of mention of the lamb is significant: it is never mentioned in connection with the Last Supper. Biblical historian J. A. Gleizes suggests that by replacing flesh and blood with bread and wine, Jesus heralded a new union between God and man, "a true reconciliation with all his creatures." If Christ had eaten meat, he would have made a lamb, not bread, symbols of the Lord's love, in the name of which the lamb of God atoned for the sins of the world by his own death. All evidence points to the fact that the Last Supper was not a "farewell meal" that Christ shared with his beloved disciples. This is confirmed by the late Charles Gore, Bishop of Oxford: “We acknowledge that John correctly corrects Mark's words about the Last Supper. It was not a traditional Easter meal, but a farewell dinner, His last dinner with His disciples. Not a single story about this dinner speaks of the ritual of the Easter meal ”(New Commentary on Holy Scripture”, part 3, p. 235).

There is not one place in the literal translations of early Christian texts where meat-eating is accepted or encouraged. Most of the excuses invented by later Christians for eating meat are based on mistranslations or on the literal understanding of Christian symbolism, which must be interpreted in a figurative sense. The key here, of course, is interpretation, and the deeds of Jesus and his disciples must be weighed to see if they are compatible with eating meat. Further, the early Christian sects and Church Fathers practiced strict vegetarianism. Thus, in accurate translations of the Bible, in the broad context of the sayings of Christ, and in the openly expressed beliefs of the early Christians, we see the overall support of vegetarianism.

This ideal of living in harmony with all God's creatures is beautifully expressed in a poem by Werner Bergengruer about a dog that entered the church during mass. The little girl, her mistress, was frightened, upset and somehow led her four-legged friend out of the temple. "What a disgrace! she thought. Animal in the church! But Bergengruer points out that there are many animals in the church: an ox, a donkey at the manger with Christ, a lion at the feet of St. Jerome, Ionin's whale, the horse of St. Martina, an eagle, a dove and even a serpent. Animals smile from all the paintings and statues in the church, and the embarrassed girl realizes that her favorite is one of many. The organist laughs and begins to sing, "Praise the Lord, all of His creatures!" Such praise is natural, for in the church, as elsewhere, all living things come by the will of the Lord.

The Great Franciscan Order, for example, glorified the unity of all living beings, emphasizing that they all have a common Creator. “When he (St. Francis) was thinking about the single source of all things, St. Bonaventure, - he was filled with piety even more than ever, and he called all the creatures of God, even the smallest ones, brothers and sisters, for he knew that they were created by the same One who created him himself ""

This is perfect Christian love.

Man meint die Bibel zu verstehen. Weil man gewohnt ist, sie nicht zu verstehen.

D. F. Strauss.

Taken from Strauss' book Der alte und der neue (Bonn, 1873, funfte Aufl., S. 301), which thundered all over the world almost thirty-five years ago, the bitter epigraph most successfully fits the following content of this note, the author of which considers it is necessary to talk with readers about one commandment, which in recent years, and especially now, has become a stumbling block not only for worldly people, but also for those to whose pastoral leadership these latter are entrusted. It is hardly possible to find any other commandment of the law of God, about which so many conversations, disputes and various interpretations would be born among us, as they are born about the sixth commandment: don't kill. What would seem easier in comparison with the assimilation of this brief, clear and precise commandment, and where else could one assume the least dissenting opinions in the interpretation compared with the assimilation of this brief, clear and precise commandment, and where else could one assume the least dissent opinions in interpretation in comparison with the case taken? In reality, unfortunately, we see the opposite of the assumption taken, and no further, as soon as these days, one of such members of the State Duma, from whom it was most natural to expect a correct understanding of the commandment, proposed such an interpretation of it and placed it in such a false connection with governmental actions, that the urgent need for a feasible correction of this interpretation is not subject to any doubt.

"The Great Commandment don't kill looked through, "but in the words of a certain speaker," the prayer book (??!) of the Russian land, Minister Durnovo. Let's leave the minister alone, but let's ask better than the orator himself: has he, the inexorable critic, "overlooked" the commandment he has taken? Is it good to correct a stray with his helpers? Is he himself as merciful as he does not notice mercy in others? Is the “servant of God” so understandable to the listeners, how did the answer of the chief military prosecutor turn out to be “completely incomprehensible” to him?

Before boldly referring to the Bible (in the State Duma, references to this holy book are often heard), it is useful to read it with due attention. It is very easy to distinguish a person who knows the Bible from an unknowing one by the one-sided interpretation of the taken commandment. If the speaker had bothered from the 20th ch. books of Exodus (: don't kill) leaf through the following chapters of both this and other sv. books, he would hardly reproach another for a fault that is the least excusable to the accuser in his own position. In order not to be unfounded, I will turn to biblical data. : Who will strike a man so that he dies, let him be put to death. Art. 14: if someone with intent kills his neighbor deceitfully, then take him also from my altar to death. Art.15: Whoever strikes his father or his mother must be put to death. Art.16: Whoever steals a man and, having enslaved him, sells him, he must be put to death. Art. 17: Whoever speaks evil of his father or his mother must be put to death(cf. vv. 22-23, 28-29). : If anyone finds (at night) a thief digging in and strikes him so that he dies, then the blood will not be imputed to him.. Art. 19: Every cattle-keeper shall be put to death(cf. vv. 18 and 20). After Moses broke the tablets of the covenant in anger because of the Israelites' deviation into idolatry, then, in order to prevent the worst evil, he stood at the gate of the camp and said, Thus says the LORD of Israel: put every one of his sword on his thigh, and every man slay his brother, every man his friend, every man his neighbour.(). tells of the stoning by the whole society of the son of an Israeli woman, who blasphemed the Lord. - about putting to death all the accursed. about the same execution over the one who collected firewood on Saturday. - about the jealousy of the priest Phinehas, who speared a fornicator with a woman (cf.).

So, following a brief commandment don't kill stretches an endless chain of facts, as if in defiance of God's unchanging will. What is it? Several assumptions can be made here, the analysis of which will serve as the best proof of the truth of any one of them. The first is that Moses, as a man, could “overlook” the great commandment over time. But for such an assumption there is no room for the mere fact that the 21st chapter (of course, according to the present work) is a natural continuation of the 20th, in 13 st. which the commandment is written don't kill. About any cruelty() on the part of the Israelite leader it is also inappropriate to speak in view of clear evidence, according to which, Moses was the meekest of all people on earth. If the writer of this verse thought it necessary to point out the outstanding meekness of the man of God, then it must be assumed that there was indeed something phenomenal in it, resolutely resisting even the rudiment of such an assumption. the mildest- and suddenly proclaims the strictest commandments about the many different cases punishable by murder, moreover, - at the stake! (). It must be assumed that it was not easy for such a person to doom criminals to death, and the judicial position cost him the greatest tension and self-control (). To suspect the authenticity of the places where it is commanded to execute criminals by death means to sign in unheard of madness, because one would have to suspect the authenticity of not only the four books of Moses, but also other Old Testament writings. Such criticism, thank God, has not yet seen the light. It would be easier to deny the authenticity of the two words: “thou shalt not kill,” but they are so firmly shackled with the strongest iron links of a single indissoluble chain of commandments that the teeth of the most ardent criticism break on them. Guided by the method of residues, it is necessary to assume the authenticity of the quoted passages and their complete agreement with each other, because scripture cannot be broken() and, therefore, the annoying "overlooked" to put on the bill for the modern "Duma" interpreters.

As it is easy to see already from the "personal" form of the commandment, all of them, and in particular the sixth, have in mind the so-called "individual morality." The Wise Educator of the human race - not like the current guardians of "cosmopolitanism", of "proletarians of all countries", etc., setting unrealizable goals - before proceeding with the construction of a whole building (house-building of our salvation), he began to prepare suitable bricks: from rotten material, after all, you can’t build a solid structure. bricks ( living stones- ) are human personalities, each of which is very valuable in the eyes of God. And so, for the purpose of the best fulfillment of the dispensation of our salvation, the Lord brings up suitable persons, for which He gives them commandments. And since the totality of the chosen personalities (and others) naturally constituted the same chosen, God's people, it was necessary, on the one hand, to curb personal arbitrariness - this enemy of any community life, and on the other hand, to ensure the correct growth of social life , granting society itself such powers that would rise above private law and would stop crimes at the very root.

To resolve disputes and disagreements between members of such a society, one personal opinion, even if wise, was not enough, but not authoritative for the latter. A general educational and imperative voice of a special institution was needed, which was a public court, invested with the highest authority, which is what the Bible says: judgment is the work of God(). It is precisely such a court that is in charge of large and small cases of members of society and, when it finds it necessary, punishes crimes with the death penalty - a prerogative that belongs only to the court, and not to private individuals. People come to me to ask God for judgment Moses speaks of himself, I judge between the one and the other, and proclaim the statutes of God and His laws(). And further mention is already made of the appointment by Moses of special judges who decided all cases, with the exception of the most important ones, which were transferred to the judgment of Moses himself (vv. 25-26). It must be assumed that the judges who did the work of God, sentencing the guilty to death, did not violate the sixth commandment and the “foundation” of the laws in force was not “lawless”. Otherwise, He Himself would not have praised, for example, the great zeal of the priest Phinehas, and 24,000 who died from defeat, indeed, would have loudly cried out to heaven about “contempt for divine and human laws” (). According to the Lord, Phinehas turned my (God's) wrath away from the children of Israel, jealous of me among them(Article 11). No matter how severe the verdict of the judges, the law, however, forbade "slandering" them (; cf.).

It is hardly fair to make such a judgment out of the "bloody vengeance of the right of the mighty", especially since the sanctity of the judgment is clearly witnessed by Christ the Savior, from Whom all our "modern moral principles" come. To verify this position, let us read the Gospel carefully. You have heard what the ancients said: Thou shalt not kill; whoever kills is subject to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother is subject to judgment(). In his own words, the Savior 1) solemnly recognized the indisputable authority of the court, 2) expanded the scope of the cases subject to its conduct, since he included even anger among such, and 3) confirmed the sanctity of the sixth commandment, for came not to break the law, but to fulfill(Art. 17). If the Savior had held a different way of thinking on this score, then, of course, he would not have been afraid to express them before Pilate. In fact, we hear something completely different: you would have no power over me, if it had not been given to you from above(). So the Lord acknowledges:

1) the divine origin of power (“from above”, say, from Caesar, but Caesar’s? From the King of kings) and 2) its right to condemn (i.e., full rights, otherwise there would be “no” power). When the prudent thief hanging on the cross, "pacifying" another, said: we are condemned(i.e. to death) justly, because they accepted what was worthy according to our deeds(), the Savior did not object to this, while he could have consoled those crucified by pointing out cruel untruth in death penalty, for that he certified the truth of the words of the robber (i.e., that the robbers were crucified in justice and worthily according to their atrocities) with a blessed promise: I tell you truly, today you will be with me in paradise(Article 43). The secret of recognizing the sanctity of power lies in the fact that we are not like bastards(). "The ruler is so that we do not devour each other." Here is also the justification for military service, the bearers of which are especially often subject, apparently, to a clash with the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, especially in modern times, when at every step almost everyone without exception stigmatizes the military with the names of murderers, executioners, bloodthirsty guardsmen, etc. .P.

But here is what is surprising: how did it refrain from such reproaches, for example, St. I. The Baptist, a preacher who had a good vocabulary of the most bitter names? Why is so inexorable towards others, the Forerunner is comparatively less strict towards the “warriors” and did not require them to be removed from military service, if only it is incompatible with the fulfillment of the commandment in question? (). It is also well known that the Baptist visited the tetrarch Herod, who he was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and took care of him; did many things in obedience to him, and listened to him with pleasure(). It is difficult to admit that, while denouncing the relatively lesser (illegal cohabitation), the Forerunner never once guessed to denounce the greater (the then "cruel manners"), but it is more accurate to think that in military service, as such, in essence, nothing was presented to the prophet sinful.

Also, the Savior did not exhort the Capernaum centurion to leave his service, although he, with his reasoning about “subordinate soldiers”, was really asking for strong admonition (). On the contrary, the military rank of centurion is left in vain; Not only that, in your own words: and in Israel I did not find such a faith(v. 10) The Savior certifies the compatibility of a highly religious life with military rank. Called to the centurion Cornelius, St. Peter also does not say a word to him about renunciation of military service, despite the following speech of Cornelius: now we all stand before God to listen to everything that is commanded to you from God ().

Surely in "everything" there was no place for only one and, moreover, the most important thing - for the question of the compatibility of military service with m? “If the centurion Cornelius, having become a fully Christian, remained a warrior, and yet could not be divided into two alien and incoherent faces, then it is clear that he became a Christian soldier. The collection of such warriors forms Mt. Army. But the army is both an extreme expression and the first real basis of statehood. Another example. To the question (remember, under what tragic circumstances!) of the guard in Philippi: what should I do to be saved? Paul and Silas answered: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ(), - not a single word about leaving the service in prison.

We dare to think that, for all its imperfections ( who is without sin?), representatives of state power are not “rapists”, that they do not “mock” the “country”, that the military are not “murderers”, the laws are not “lawless”, and that our courts are obliged to govern them. If, breathing threats() the members of the State Duma will undermine all respect for legitimate authority, then they themselves will find themselves in a terrible situation: they will pronounce laws, but no one will fulfill them, they will want to show power, but they will not be obedient. At least some kind of order, after all, is better than disorder, and at least an imperfect government is incomparably better than anarchy. "We live in such days when the great law must triumph" - here I disagree with the speaker - not he who lifts the sword from the sword and perishes, But by this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another ().

Etc. E. A-c.

The ban on murder is based on the well-known biblical provision that man is created in the image and likeness of the Almighty. Therefore, murder is nothing but a daring and open rebellion against the Creator.

In one of the previous conversations on the Ten Commandments, if you remember, we talked about an atheist who, when meeting with a rabbi, said that he also keeps the Ten Commandments, since universal human morality is based on them. Then, however, it turned out that he had not heard about the commandment to honor the Sabbath, and therefore did not honor the Sabbath. In addition, being a convinced materialist living within the framework of Western culture, he sincerely believed and worshiped a number of modern idols, not knowing about the prohibition of the Torah. To crown it all, he did not fulfill the commandments requiring the recognition of the existence of the Almighty, as well as forbidding to pronounce His Name in vain. He did not always speak respectfully to his parents, as required by the commandment "honor your father and mother." And, only when the turn came to the commandment “do not kill”, the atheist sighed with relief: “That’s what I had in mind when I said that I also observe universal human laws and rules! I fulfill this commandment one hundred percent.” To this, the rabbi remarked: “Don't be in a hurry. Do you even know what it means?"

So, the sixth commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.” The Torah expressly forbids killing. Moreover, it is forbidden to directly or indirectly endanger human life. The Torah declares the absolute value of life, for the sake of which it allows and in extreme cases even requires the violation of many other commandments.

The ban on killing is based on the well-known biblical provision that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, murder is nothing but a daring and open rebellion against the Creator. It is said in the Talmud: “He who kills at least one soul will destroy the whole world. And the one who saves at least one soul will save the whole world.”

Small digression. On the pages of the Russian-language press, one can sometimes come across completely ridiculous accusations: they say that repatriates who have settled in a religious quarter cannot call an ambulance on Saturday, and in some place an ambulance that was going to the patient on an urgent call, orthodox pelted with stones. Note: those who pour detailed nonsense on the innocent heads of readers violate an important universal commandment: "do not nonsense." But we will talk about this ban another time, but for now - the ban on murder.

In the event of a threat to human life, the Torah cancels all Shabbat restrictions. You don't have to look far for examples. Pay attention - who comes for women in labor on Saturday? And not only in religious quarters. The entire ambulance team, including the driver and the orderly, consists of Hasidim - real ones, with sidelocks and kippahs. Sometimes you can see how a religious Jew, interrupting the Sabbath rest, himself carries his wife to the emergency room of the maternity ward.

For it is forbidden to endanger life. When the Torah was given, the Ten Commandments were imprinted on two stone tablets and placed in pairs, one opposite the other. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" coexists with the first law "I am the Most High." It turns out that the violation of this commandment, i.e. murder means, in fact, the denial of the Creator of the Universe.

"Dont kill"! - one of the three commandments, about which it is said: "Die, but do not". (The same group includes prohibitions against idolatry and certain types of adultery.) What does this mean? If they say to you: “Kill such and such a person, otherwise we will kill you,” you must answer: “Is my blood redder than his blood?” In other words, one should prefer one's own death to murder under duress. Otherwise, know that you are committing a crime by violating the prohibition against killing.

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" seems obvious and understandable. In fact, there are many subtleties here. After all, the world is complex and consists not of extremes, but of nuances. Take at least a fashionable phenomenon today - euthanasia. Some terminally ill people or people suffering from depression claim the right to voluntarily die in order to get rid of torment and a sense of doom as soon as possible. There were even doctors who, contrary to professional ethics (although ethics are now also a changeable thing) and the Hippocratic oath, specialize in “helping” such patients.

The Torah categorically condemns euthanasia, as it does any other form of suicide. For suicide is essentially no different from murder. This also includes cases where the killing of a seriously and hopelessly ill person, no longer able to decide his fate, is carried out at the request of his relatives, who cannot bear to see his suffering.

Let's be honest. With an atheistic view of the world, it is difficult to explain why it is necessary to save a person who is burdensome for society, for his family, and besides, he himself does not want to live anymore. But the Jewish tradition assesses this situation differently. She says that a person has an immortal soul, that the appearance of this soul in our world is not accidental, just as all its manifestations at every moment of its life are not accidental. Our life is filled with deep meaning. To take on the role of the Creator, who decides when it is time for a person to leave the earth, the Torah considers a crime.

Even if a person is unconscious or in severe pain, any active action aimed at hastening his death even for one second is considered murder. And for murder, Judaism requires punishment according to the principle of "measure for measure", i.e. in this case - "the highest measure."

Let's talk right away. By requiring the death penalty for a murderer, the Torah imposes a number of restrictions and precautions on the Jewish court in order to exclude a miscarriage of justice that could lead to the punishment of an innocent. Even in the era of the Temple, when the courts were given the right to pass death sentences, to exercise this right in practice, i.e. to sentence a person to death was incredibly difficult. The Sanhedrin (Supreme Jewish Court), which passed only one death sentence in 70 years, is called "bloody" in the Talmud.

Another serious problem of today is abortion. Abortion is also considered murder if there is no danger to the life and mental health of the expectant mother. Under the danger to mental health is meant not domestic difficulties caused by the unplanned appearance of a child, but quite specific and serious mental illnesses. In each individual case, it is necessary to consult a doctor and a competent rabbi who specializes in such matters.

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" also requires avoiding situations that could lead to murder. If you see that someone is going to endanger his life or the lives of others, you must do everything to stop him.

Let's take the most common case as an example. Let's say after a heavy drink our friend is going to drive a car. Of course, he doesn’t have any thoughts of killing anyone, but it is obvious that in this state he turns into a potential killer - or a suicide, which, from the point of view of the Torah, is equally criminal. Therefore, our duty is to prevent him from going on his way. To do this, you can use any means - persuasion, cunning, physical impact, up to calling the police.

In Israel and other developed countries, the car has long become the most common means of unintentional killing. On Israeli roads, reckless driving has become a sad norm, violating all driving laws - overtaking, speed limits and other obvious provisions of the road code. Therefore, it is not surprising that more people died on our roads as a result of car accidents than from all the Arab-Israeli wars combined. We remind you once again: if we are being driven by a reckless driver, we should not be shy about reprimanding him. We need to stop him, stop him. Do everything in human power. Thus, we will not only prevent a possible tragedy, but also fulfill one of the most important commandments of the Torah: “Thou shalt not kill!”

Yet Judaism is far from pacifist. Moreover, he considers this idea immoral. There is a special commandment in the Torah to prevent murder: "Do not stand on the blood of your neighbor." Among other things, it includes the duty to stop a potential killer in time. Anyone who does not do this is actually encouraging the crime. If you can stop a killer without killing him, then you should. In other words, in this case, it is simply forbidden to kill him. But if it is obvious that "humane" methods will not give a result, then it is necessary to go to the extreme measure of restraint.

Killing is also allowed in the following cases. In self-defense: if someone attempts on your life, you must get ahead of him, kill this person (if there is no other salvation) before he carries out his criminal intent.

The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” also does not apply to the person who executes the sentence of the court.

It is allowed to kill the enemy in war, because war is considered a collective form of self-defense.

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has a connection with the previous commandment, which speaks of honoring the father and mother. It is said: the one who is financially secure, but does not help his old, needy parents, is like a murderer. At the same time, this commandment warns us against the other extreme: for example, a loving son, jealously guarding the honor and dignity of his parents, is forbidden to encroach on the life of their offender, and parents cannot demand this revenge from their children.

The prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" applies to all people: Jews and non-Jews, men and women. He is one of the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah, given to all mankind long before the Sinai revelation and the giving of the Torah.

It is known, however, that if a commandment is given repeatedly, it means that something is added to it. In Jewish tradition, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is closely related to the prohibition of publicly insulting a person. The Talmud explains in detail that we are talking about a crime that is equated with bloodshed - if the insult was inflicted in the presence of a sufficiently large number of people (10 people or more).

However, a public insult is detrimental not so much to the victim as, first of all, to the offender himself. Jewish tradition says: the one who publicly humiliated his neighbor, the soul does not escape hell.

We used the word "hell", but in the Hebrew dictionary there is no such concept, there is a term geinom. Moreover, the latter has nothing to do with hell in the Christian view. It has a different function. Our tradition states that after a person's death, his immortal soul leaves the body and goes to the Judgment. (Surprisingly, this phenomenon has been confirmed by a number of modern studies in various fields of medicine and psychology.) During the "trial" before the soul, like in a movie, visible pictures of her earthly life pass. She sees all her deeds, good and bad, and is fully aware of her responsibility for them before the Creator. Evil deeds cause her a painfully burning feeling of shame and regret. This shame is "hell fire". It purifies the soul, rids it of the spiritual consequences of negative actions. After this process, the purified soul leaves the Geinome and continues its development.

But if it turns out at the Judgment that its owner, during his lifetime, publicly humiliated people and in a timely manner - i.e. he did not repent even during his lifetime, then the soul can forever remain in genome. The prospect, you see, is by no means joyful.

The topic of life after death and the latest research in this area are quite complex and extensive; they deserve separate analysis.

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has several other important aspects. Among other things, a murderer is equated with one who deprives a neighbor of the opportunity to earn a living, and also one who, not having the right to make decisions in the field of Jewish law, nevertheless takes on such a function.

But this rule also has a downside. Anyone who has the right to pass judgment and teach people the Torah, but does not do so, is also equated with a murderer. For wisdom and knowledge prolong man's life in this world and the world to come. Therefore, to deprive people of vital information is also a serious crime, bordering on a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”

Share this page with your friends and family:

In contact with

Please explain in connection with which Orthodoxy believes that killing in war is not a sin, but, on the contrary, a feat. Why, in the name of supporting the murder of their own kind, in the First World War, whole wagons with icons were sent to the front? After all, the New Testament clearly says "thou shalt not kill." It seems to me that all attempts in theological Orthodox books to justify violence during the war years are nothing but the service of the church to state interests at this particular moment in time. And for this the Lord reproached the Pharisees. At the same time, the Church excommunicated Leo Tolstoy for trying to convey to everyone that in the New Testament Christ said exactly what he said (including on the issue of murder). Could the Lord in the Bible speak allegorically, as current and past theologians are trying to present? And this is in their appeals to the common people? Hardly. Forgive me for some pride and doubt. I would be glad to hear a competent answer on the merits. And I would be glad to believe sincerely (if possible).

Priest Afanasy Gumerov, a resident of the Sretensky Monastery, answers:

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was given by the Lord through the prophet Moses on Mount Sinai, and was first recorded in the books of Exodus (20:15) and Deuteronomy (5:17). Let's start with these sacred texts. The law, which included this commandment, was established in the 2nd month of the 2nd year after the exodus from Egypt. God led the Jewish people to the Promised Land - Canaan, which was inhabited by 7 nations. They had their own kings and armies. I would like to ask the author of the letter: how to fulfill the Divine plan, take possession of the Promised Land and at the same time not kill a single warrior? The Lord helped, but the battles were to be waged by the Israelites: “When you go out to war against your enemy and you see horses and chariots [and] people more than yours, then do not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God, who brought you out of the earth, is with you Egyptian” (Deut. 20:1). So, we must try to understand what meaning is invested in Holy Scripture in this commandment? What is its scope? If we get acquainted with the Sinai legislation, we will also pay attention to such an establishment: “If [anyone] catches a thief digging in and strikes him, so that he dies, then the blood will not [be imputed] to him” (Ex. 22: 2). The murder of an intruder is here as a measure to protect the house and those living in it from the robber. So is it allowed? Two chapters before that, “Thou shalt not kill” is written. How to agree? It is clear that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" forbids a person to take the life of another person, guided by personal motives. No one but God can give life to a person and no one but Him has the right to encroach on it. But protecting your citizens from rapists is not a personal motive. Any idea of ​​“contradiction” in Holy Scripture should be immediately discarded as false and extremely dangerous: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). In the apostolic age, Scripture meant only the corpus of sacred Old Testament books. The canon of the New Testament has not yet been formed. We should not, like the Gnostics and representatives of other heretical sects, contrast the Old and New Testaments. The Savior addressed the authority of the inspired Old Testament books: “Search the Scriptures, for you think you have eternal life through them; but they testify of Me” (John 5:39). Our Lord Jesus Christ did not cancel the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” given through Moses. When a rich young man approached Him, He reminded Him of her (as well as of others given in the Law): “If you want to enter into [eternal] life, keep the commandments. He says to him: what? Jesus said: do not kill; do not commit adultery; do not steal; bear no false witness" (Matt. 19:17-18). What was new was that the Savior pointed to the condition of the heart as the internal source of this grave sin (Mark 7:21).

We will deeply distort the meaning of the New Testament if we do not see that the Lord Jesus Christ was irreconcilable to evil. It only forbids to respond with evil for evil, to become like it. With this, the Savior calls for a personal spiritual achievement: “Do not resist evil. But whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). The Savior Himself gave us the highest example by sacrificing Himself for our sins. But when evil takes root and is dangerous to many, it should not go unpunished. What does the Lord say about the evil vinedressers?: “So when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do with these vineyards? They say to Him: He will put these evildoers to an evil death, and give the vineyard to other vinedressers, who will give him fruit in their seasons. Jesus says to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures that the stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner? Is this from the Lord, and is it marvelous in our eyes? Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who bear its fruit. and whoever falls on this stone will be broken, and on whom it falls, he will be crushed” (Matthew 21:40-44). In another parable, Jesus Christ warns evil people against the idea of ​​impunity: “If that servant, being angry, says in his heart: my master will not come soon, and begins to beat his comrades and eat and drink with drunkards, then the master of the servant will come on a day that he does not expect, and at an hour that he does not think, and he will cut him, and subject him to the same fate with the hypocrites; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 24:48-51). As you can see, he will be put to death for evil deeds. And the holy apostles speak of resisting evil by force: “They know the righteous [judgment] of God, that those who do such [deeds] are worthy of death; yet not only [them] are made, but even those who do are approved” (Rom. 1:32); “[If] the one who rejected the law of Moses, in front of two or three witnesses, without mercy [is punished] with death, then how grave the punishment, you think, will be the one who tramples on the Son of God and does not revere the blood of the covenant, which is sanctified, and the Spirit of grace offends?" (Heb. 10:28-29).

Why can't they send icons to soldiers? It's not a weapon. Shrines keep believers from spiritual and bodily evil. As a priest, I know many examples.

I don't want to simplify anything. The need to destroy evil by force testifies to the tragic situation in which the supporters of good find themselves in this world, which, according to the words of the holy Apostle John the Theologian, “lies entirely in evil” (1 John 5:19). Already in the Old Testament times, the shedding of someone else's blood (even in war while protecting the chosen people) made a person temporarily unclean. The Lord did not please David to build a temple. Shortly before his death, he said to Solomon: “My son! It was in my heart to build a house in the name of the Lord my God, but the word of the Lord came to me, and it was said: "You shed much blood and waged great wars; you must not build houses in My name, because you shed much blood on the ground before My face. Behold, a son will be born to you: he will be a man of peace; I will give him rest from all his enemies "(1 Chronicles 22: 7-9). St. Basil the Great to those who in battle (meaning the defense of the Christian fatherland) the murder of an opponent, suggested abstaining from Holy Communion for 3 years (canon 13). A difficult but necessary duty to protect people. What does the New Testament say about this?: "[the boss] is God's servant, it's good for you. If you do evil be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain: he is God's servant, an avenger for the punishment of the one who does evil ”(Rom. 13: 4).

In order to help the author of the letter to free himself from a simplistic view and misunderstanding of spiritual issues, I invite him to participate in solving some painful problems. Let me ask him. Should the state protect its people (women, children, the sick, etc.), shrines and, in general, its land from anyone who wants to attack and rob? If so, how can this be done realistically without defeating the armed aggressor? Was it necessary to defend our country from the Nazis in the last war? How to do it without killing the armed rapists? Is it possible to pray for your compatriots defending their land? Moral principles should not be abstract and dreamy, but concrete and realizable. Otherwise we will hurt people. God does not give unenforceable laws. Let's test the vitality of our moral convictions. Here is the real situation. A large terrorist gang has formed. He does not go to negotiations, he does not want to lay down his arms. Dozens of innocent people (including children) die every day. What solution do you propose, based on everything that you formulated in your letter? Our inaction (out of cowardice or due to misunderstood principles) makes us indirect accomplices in the ongoing killings of defenseless people.

Literalism in relation to the commandments (without understanding the spirit and meaning) is very dangerous. I'll give you an example. "Judge not, lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1). With this command, the Lord has given us a personal standard. If we absolutize the meaning of this verse, then we will have to abolish every law and judgment in society. History gives quite a few examples when state power was inactive, and a difficult and painful period of general arbitrariness set in for society. It is difficult to understand how a completely lifeless, utopian moralism is born. In the 19th century anarchism emerged. P. Kropotkin and others argued that any state power is evil, as it shows violence against people, forcing them to comply with laws and regulations. In their books, it sometimes even looks attractive. There are many examples of abuse of power. But why did the anarchists treat the facts of history so selectively and arbitrarily, bypassing those periods in the life of peoples when there was anarchy. What a misfortune this time was for society! Everything cloudy, sinful and evil rose to the surface and caused violence. Let us recall the Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Anarchists fought together with other forces against the existing state and indirectly contributed to the establishment in 1917 of a power that surpassed all previous ones in violence and flooded the country with blood.

Surprising reference to L. Tolstoy. Does the author know why he was excommunicated from the Church? For denying all the basic provisions of Christianity: the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the afterlife, the future Judgment. He rejected the holy sacraments (including the holy Eucharist). L. Tolstoy tried not to “bring to everyone what is in the New Testament”, but to remake it, excluding from it miracles, testimonies of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, all the Epistles of St. Apostle Paul and more. L. Tolstoy spoke rudely about the great apostle Paul, whom the Lord calls "My chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15). Here is what he himself writes in the Preface to his own version of the Gospel: “I ask the reader of my exposition of the Gospel to remember that if I do not look at the Gospels as sacred books, I look even less at the Gospels as monuments of the history of religious literature. . I understand both the theological and the historical view of the Gospels, but I look at them differently, and therefore I ask the reader, when reading my presentation, not to stray either into the church way, or into the historical view of the Gospels that has recently become accustomed to educated people, which I did not have. . I look at Christianity not as an exceptional divine revelation, not as a historical phenomenon - I look at Christianity as a teaching that gives meaning to life. Jesus Christ speaks of the Divine origin of His teaching: “My teaching is not mine, but that of him who sent me” (John 7:16). L. Tolstoy does not recognize the Gospels as sacred books. Is it possible to offer an example of such an "interpreter" of the New Testament.

Evil has no future. Only goodness is eternal. At the end of time, the last great battle will take place. The Lord Jesus Christ, appearing in power and glory, will destroy evil: “He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:25-26).