Question 105: What does God require in the sixth commandment?

Answer: I am not to dishonour, hate, injure, or kill my neighbour by thoughts, words, or gestures, and much less by deeds, whether personally or through another; Gen. 9:6; Lev. 19:17-18; Mt. 5:21-22; 26:52

rather, I am to put away all desire of revenge. Prov. 25:21-22; Mt. 18:35; Rom. 12:19; Eph. 4:26

Moreover, I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself. Mt. 4:7; Rom. 13:11-14

Therefore, also, the government bears the sword to prevent murder. Gen. 9:6; Exo. 21:14; Mt. 26:52; Rom. 13:4

Question 106: But does this commandment speak only of killing?

 Answer: By forbidding murder God teaches us that he hates the root of murder, such as envy, hatred, anger, and desire of revenge, Prov. 14:30; Rom. 1:29; 12:19; Gal. 5:19-21; Jas. 1:20; 1 Jn. 2:9-11

and that he regards all these as murder.1 Jn. 3:15

Question 107: Is it enough, then, that we do not kill our neighbour in any such way?

 Answer: No. When God condemns envy, hatred, and anger, he commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves, Mt. 7:12; 22:39; Rom. 12:10

to show patience, peace, gentleness, mercy, and friendliness toward him, Mt. 5:5; Lk. 6:36; Rom. 12:10, 18; Gal. 6:1-2; Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 3:8

to protect him from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies. Exo. 23:- 5; Mt. 5:44- 45; Rom. 12:20

A. Theme⤒🔗

It is tempting to select a theme that revolves around the word "life," for example "respect for life" or "freedom to live" (K. Barth) or "a life of love.” However, the disadvantage is that in this way a general concept becomes the focal point, while in the Heidelberg Catechism it is not a concept but one’s fellow human being, our concrete neighbour, who is the centre of attention. This is also apparently the intention of the entire second table of the law and it is also how the sixth commandment is explained by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (see Matt. 5:21-26).

For this reason it seems better to formulate the theme based on the text of the Heidelberg Catechism: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” or “God hates it when we hate” (see G.Th. Rothuizen, page 25).

It seems obvious to take Genesis 9:1-7 as your reading of the Old Testament, as verse 6 is mentioned twice in the text references in Answer 105. However, one can also think of Genesis 4:1-16, the account of Cain and Abel. In any case, Matthew 5:20-26 could be taken as the Gospel reading from the New Testament. One may also choose from the letters: 1 John 3:10-15 or Romans 12:9 (possibly 14-21) or James 2:8-13.

B. First Impressions←⤒🔗

One is inevitably impressed by the radical nature of the love proclaimed to us in this Lord’s Day. But then a feeling of impotence can also overtake the hearer because the personal atmosphere of loving interaction with each other, which the Heidelberg Catechism evokes for us here, is in such stark contrast to the world in which we are living. After all, we can see death on television every day: victims of war or oppression, traffic fatalities, victims of (natural) disasters, and so on. We also know about the mass killings that have taken place in our continent in this century. We remember places such as Verdun, Auschwitz and the Gulag Archipelago. This commandment seems to be so powerless! This sixth word of the law is heard so feebly in the midst of all the violence!

In addition I am gradually realizing that the Western society, of which I am a part, claims many victims elsewhere in the world, and that in many respects it can be deadly. But I live here and now — unable to change this culture.

Can I love my neighbour in the personal sphere while there is blood on my hands as a citizen and as a European, as a producer and a consumer?

The Heidelberg Catechism limits itself entirely to the personal sphere here. But is that still possible in the twentieth century, when our private lives are controlled by all kinds of impersonal "forces," such as the economy, politics, industry, advertising, fashion, and so on?

A feeling of helplessness can also overtake the minister when he thinks about the great issues of abortion, euthanasia and suicide, which will surely need to be addressed in a sermon on the sixth commandment. What should he say about these matters in the short space of a sermon? How can he ever do justice to the commandment of God and at the same time address the questions and problems of people and the complexity of those issues?

It will be important to convey the liberating and gracious nature of this commandment: that you may live from God and that others also may live because God is the God of life, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who came that we might have life and have it more abundantly, and that we might not die.

C. A Summary Explanation←⤒🔗

To begin with, the translation of the sixth commandment (Exo. 20:13) requires our attention. The ESV reads, “You shall not murder,” and appends a footnote: "The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence."

In the commentaries one can find that the translation “Thou shalt not kill” is not entirely correct. For the Hebrew verb used here, [lō] trəṣāḥ, is not the ordinary word for killing. It is also never used for killing in war or for the judicial killing of a murderer. That is why one often encounters the translation "you shalt not murder" in later translations. However, even this translation is also not always satisfactory, because sometimes the verb refers to non-intentional killing. The best translation therefore appears to be: “you shall not kill unlawfully”—or as the AMP reads: “You shall not commit murder (unjustified, deliberate homicide).”

This means that the commandment is against lawless manslaughter and that one cannot rely on this commandment to defend rightful killings or deaths in a war. (See, for example, F.C. Fensham, 1970, pages 138 and following.) In a world where one person posed a threat to another and in which blood feuds sometimes exterminated entire families, this commandment must have had an enormously liberating effect.

Genesis 9:1-7←↰⤒🔗

At the beginning of the new humanity (after the Flood), the blessing of creation (Genesis 1:28) is repeated and the command to rule over the earth and the animal world is confirmed. It is now expressly stated that this also includes the fact that humans may use animals as food. However, a limit is set: “You shall not eat the flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (verse 4). After all, the blood is the carrier of life and therefore belongs to God. As such the blood of the animal is sacred as well. This life was also created and that is why humans must handle it thoughtfully and respectfully. Killing animals is not a self-evident matter and it should never be done mindlessly. That kind of carelessness would also be rather surprising, so soon after the animals came out of the ark, in which they were saved from death and preserved for life. The lives of animals proved precious in God’s eyes. Therefore, consideration must be given to killing an animal. The Creator is to be remembered every time.

 In God’s sight, however, human blood is regarded as more precious than the blood of animals. Under no circumstances should that blood be shed. God puts it under his special protection: “And truly I will require your own blood” (verse 5; note that the verb "require" is repeated three times.)

 The reason for this distinction between man and animal lies in the fact that man bears the image of God and the animal does not: “for God made man in his own image”(verse 6). It is not relevant here what exactly is meant by this expression "image of God" (many books have been written on this topic). What is important is that God knows what it means and that he recognizes his own image in man and continues to do so, even though man has become so wicked and depraved. God entered into a special relationship with man. When he created man he stamped his mark on him as a king displays his image on a piece of gold. And we have to respect this imprint. Respect for man is ultimately showing reverence to God.

The connection made here between respecting the blood of the animal and that of man can also lead us to discuss our attitude towards animals when discussing the sixth commandment, as traditionally has been done.

Matthew 5←↰⤒🔗

The Heidelberg Catechism places the sixth commandment directly in the light of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus Christ expands the command not to murder to include anger and hatred in one’s heart. This concept is not foreign to the Old Testament (see Leviticus 19:17) and it is also found in rabbinical writings. Pinchas Lapide (1985, page 52) quotes from the Talmud: “Anyone who makes the face of his comrade pale in the presence of many others is as if he were shedding blood.” And Schalom Ben-Chorin (1988, page 83) points out that in Deuteronomy 5 the commandments of the second table of the law are always connected by the conjunction "and," and he explains that the rabbinic exegesis deduces from this that all those commandments can be traced back to to the prohibition of murder. One can also kill someone by destroying someone’s marriage or slandering his good name. Pinchas Lapide (Ibid., p ages 50 and following) claim that in Matthew 5:22 he recognizes "the typical rabbinic climax in three steps, where three possibilities are mentioned to hurt a brother before it becomes an actual violation of the literal text of the Torah": the angry thought in the heart, an open insult, followed by a gross offense. He admits that this does depend on the translation of the Greek term "mōre”: "If it is a Greek vocative it would mean "fool"; in Hebrew it could mean "rebel," but in Aramaic it would be "apostate" or "slander," which would probably be the greatest degree of libel.” (See also Strack-Billerbeck, 1926, page 279 and following.)

The Heidelberg Catechism explains the sixth commandment in three questions and answers:

• the first (105) explains the prohibition;
• the second (106) shows the radical nature of the prohibition by pointing to the root of murder in the heart of man;
• the third (107) indicates what is in fact commanded in this prohibition.

It is clear that Matthew 22:39 (“you shall love your neighbour as yourself”) plays a role in two of the three answers (105 and 107). It is striking that the Heidelberg Catechism pays special attention to the words “...as yourself" and also tries to give meaning to "loving yourself.” In our time of "standing up for yourself" and "self-realization," this can be heard often. Before one heads too eagerly down this road, it is good to know that Buber-Rosenzweig wanted to translate: “love your comrade, like you” (so the fact that he is equal to me should be the reason for me to love him). And it is also good to note that the Heidelberg Catechism in reference to "loving yourself" also refers to Romans 13:14, where the limits of "making provision for the flesh" are indicated.

D. Exposition←⤒🔗

Luther (in The Large Catechism) and Calvin (Institutes II.8.39-40) limited themselves in the explanation of the sixth commandment to direct Bible interpretation: the prohibition of anger and hatred (which, according to Calvin, "is nothing but inveterate anger") and encouraging Christian charity towards friends and enemies. They did not address typical situations from daily life. However, Luther does emphatically point out the fact that the government is called to hate and kill, namely towards murderers. The Heidelberg Catechism raises slightly more ethical issues when it talks about reckless behavior and not harming yourself. In the centuries that followed, this ethical concern took up more and more space when discussing this commandment in explanations of the catechism. The list of topics that would need to be discussed is forever getting longer: killing and eating animals, dressage and animal abuse, dueling, suicide, self-inflicted death in war situations or out of fear of torture, capital punishment, self-defence, war, abortion and the abandonment of babies. In our century, the issue of euthanasia has been added.

A clear development can also be seen in the way in which these topics were discussed.

This can be illustrated very clearly by discussing the issue of warfare. Traditionally, a distinction was made between unlawful and justifiable warfare, and men such as B. Smijtegelt and J. van der Kemp did not hesitate to criticize the government in their application of this commandment because, for example, it instructed its soldiers to rather let a ship go down with all hands on deck rather than to let it end up in the hands of the enemy. Yet Van der Kemp was still able to settle the war issue by simply making a distinction between "public enemies, disruptors of the Commonwealth," who must be opposed, and "special and personal enemies," to whom one must do good based on the rule and nature of love. (Heidelberg Catechism, page 697).

Abraham Kuyper (1893, IV) saw the demon of war and the real possibility of an unlawful war much more clearly. But he solves that problem by stating that the subject bears no responsibility for this. Only the government is responsible; the subjects only have to obey and do their duty (Ibid., page 120).

In the course of the twentieth century there was an increasing emphasis on personal responsibility. In 1939, G.Oorthuys (page 202) wrote that the moment can and must sometimes come "when the subject, in order to obey God, courageously renounces obedience to the government.” That moment has arrived, he says, when the government initiates robbery and murder by itself.

Since we all know the terrible consequences that World War II’s “Befehl ist Befehl” (“An order is an order”) has led to, and since we have entered the nuclear age, this emphasis on personal responsibility has only become all the more urgent. But at the same time the question of how any person can ever bear such a great responsibility has become an oppressive one.

 With the Gulf War we seem to have entered a new phase of the war issue: that of a "police" war—a means of punishment in the hands of the United Nations. Such a war may be legally justified, but the fact that it constitutes therefore also a "just war" seems to me to be something that still needs to be proven.

With regard to suicide, one can observe an increasing reluctance to condemn the person who commits it, and a growing empathy for people who kill themselves in desperation. Yet even in the past, pastoral care was not lacking. In his explanation of the catechism from 1724, J. d’Outrein already provided a number of practical tips for dealing with people with suicidal tendencies, and for offering positive help.

In our century there is also a growing awareness of the fact that every person has a death-wish and that one can also commit suicide in a "decent" way, namely by working or studying excessively, or by taking too great risks in sports or holiday activities

Schalom Ben-Chorin (Ibid., pages 85 and following) points out that Judaism knows situations in which man is obliged to sacrifice his life: namely, when one is forced to commit idolatry, to adopt another faith, to murder or to commit adultery. Yet the rabbis forbid seeking martyrdom. It is interesting to read what he wrote about the well-known "collective suicide" by the desperate occupants of the fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea in 74 AD. The Talmud does not mention anything about this heroic moment in the history of the Jewish people. People do not want to condemn it, but they certainly do not want to set it as an example either. Death should not be glorified, for we are called to live.

In our time, when more and more people suffer from depression and have to seek psychiatric help, the problem of suicide has to be raised with extreme caution and in a pastoral manner so that people with suicidal tendencies are not being encouraged in their feelings of guilt, but instead are brought to experience the goodness of God’s mercy. In this way, surviving relatives will also discover that it is not an empty phrase when God is called "the God of all comfort.”

Similar things can be said regarding the issues of abortion and euthanasia. In our time an instructional worship service on the sixth commandment should not ignore such matters, because the church expects help and direction in this regard. Here too, the preacher is faced with the task of making God’s commandment to be heard and at the same time of being aware of the inexorable reality in which the church members find themselves.

K. Barth (K.D., III, pages 4, 473-488) provides an extensive discussion of these problems, in which he raises some of the following points of view:

1. these sins are not unforgivable; 
2. life does not represent an absolute value; sometimes it has to be given up for a higher purpose;
3. God’s "no" to killing must be clear; God desires life and not death;
4. there may be a borderline case in which one feels called before God to act differently; then one breaks the letter of the commandment for the sake of the God of the commandment.

As far as abortion is concerned, the principle of the protection of unborn life is beyond dispute within the Christian community. The work of pro-life organizations will therefore be able to count on the support of the congregation.

At the same time, however, it will only be possible to deal with it in a sermon in such a way that someone who has undergone or performed an abortion can also sit in church without feeling silenced in advance or condemned outright. It should be clear that there is also forgiveness for these sins.

As for euthanasia, here too one needs to realize that there is an increasing number of church members who have had to deal with a certain form of euthanasia in their family. One will have to speak in a nuanced manner, in such a way that one does justice to the situation in which doctors have the ability to sometimes prolong life for a very long time and in which human responsibility has also increased enormously as a result, and in such a way that one does justice to the commandment of God.

Schalom Ben-Chorin writes in this context: “For me the words that Franz Kafka addressed to Dr. Klopstock (the doctor who treated him) are unforgettable: "Kill me, otherwise you are a murderer" (Max Brod, Franz Kafka, eine Biographie, Prague 1937, page 258, page 87)

Every pastor will know how much people fear deterioration and long-term suffering. We are living longer and healthier than ever before, yet at the same time we are becoming increasingly fearful of illness and death. It is important to discuss this fear. And it will only be overcome because the God of life inspires us with so much confidence that we dare to live and therefore also to die, and because there are people and doctors who care so much about the lives of their fellow human beings that they feel safe with them.

When, based on Matthew 22:39 (love your neighbor as yourself) and what the Heidelberg Catechism says about "not harming myself" (Answer 105), you want to discuss matters in the sermon such as "being allowed to be yourself," self-realization and justified self-love, then one will find well-written material with K. Barth (Ibid., pages 391-453).

Traditionally, attention is often also paid to man’s relationship with the animals. Issues such as animal abuse and eating meat are then discussed. An exegetical basis for this can be found, among others, in Genesis 9:1-7 (see Summary explanation above).

In our time, with its biotechnology and bio-industry and its gigantic meat consumption (with growth hormones and all), there is every reason to raise this subject. The realization that you are approaching a limit when you kill an animal has become very distant. Principled vegetarianism cannot be founded on the Bible; however a practical form of vegetarianism or at least great restraint in the use of meat may well be required:

When prohibiting the abuse of animals, Maimonides points out that not only the animals need to be protected, but also humans themselves. Cruelty to animals easily turns into cruelty to humans, and its final and most terrible consequence is murder. (Schalom Ben-Chorin, Ibid., pages 90 and following)

Dr. J. Douma also wishes to include respect for the life of flowers and plants. For example, Israel was not allowed to do whatever they wanted with the trees (Deuteronomy 20:19): “The environmental challenge has rather harshly imposed on us the need to become more sensible in our management of plants and animals” (II, 1986, page 135).

E. Directions for the Preaching←⤒🔗

One can construct the sermon directly from the answers given in the catechism. Then one almost automatically comes to the classification: 1. explanation of the prohibition; 2. the radical nature of the prohibition; 3. the actual command in this prohibition.

One might also base the sermon from the Scripture readings. My preference would be the latter.

Should one choose the theme: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," then the reading of Genesis 4:1-16 may be preferable, and in addition one could read either Matthew 5:20-26, or Matthew 22:34-40 (or both).

When one chooses the theme "God hates it when we hate," then the reading of Genesis 9:1-7 is preferable. In either case, 1 John 3:10-15 could be the additional epistle reading.

In the justification of the sixth commandment, Calvin seems to connect Genesis 9 (the image of God) with Genesis 4 (“am I my brother’s keeper?”):

Scripture notes a twofold equity on which this commandment is founded. Man is both the image of God and our flesh. Wherefore, if we would not violate the image of God, we must hold the person of man sacred — if we would not divest ourselves of humanity we must cherish our own flesh.  (Institutes II.8.40)

The sermon will need to make it clear that God is the Source of Life, who, as Creator, communicates to us his life, who, as Redeemer, predestines us for life in Christ and who, as Re-Creator, calls us to be his imitators and to guard our life:

It is nothing less than a powerful liberation when we can hear it in this world at this time: you shall not murder. All that fear that overtakes so many, the anxiety of whether there is still a God, and how various mass murders can be "reconciled" with the love and omnipotence of God — all that fear is driven out by the commandment. With great relief we may conclude: ‘God does not want it that way!’ No, he doesn’t want it that way. He comes between good and evil, He separates his goodness from our evil, and says: You shalt not murder. In doing so he pulls us away from evil and transfers us into the Kingdom. (J.Koopmans, no date, page 47)

 Let us not forget for a moment that the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount never wished to be a moral preacher, but the Reconciler, who was prepared to descend into the very darkest depths of a judicial murder on Golgotha, where he allowed himself to be nailed to the wood of the cross between two murderers, to prove in deed what the lives of sinners as his nearest brothers was worth to him. (Th.L. Haitjema, 1962, page 262 and following)

Should one wish to address ethical issues more broadly in the sermon, one should limit oneself to one or two topics, which one can then treat in greater depth. After all, a sermon may not become a lecture.

One can also choose to shed light on our situation and our many issues from Scripture and the catechism, so that the hearers learn to look at it in a certain way and are helped to deal with it independently.

One could conclude the sermon by pointing out that the commandment is stated in the singular: you shall not murder, you shall promote the life of your neighbour. It always starts with the one person who takes upon himself the commandment of God. In the grand, complex scheme of this world, that seems entirely insignificant and pointless. But "whoever saves one person has saved a whole world," as a well-known Jewish proverb states.

As Christians we know of the One who walked entirely alone in the way of God’s commandment. And God has given him a name that is above every name, and he has committed the future into his hands. Anyone who simply begins to walk in the path of the commandment may know that he is walking in the path paved by Jesus Christ: the road that leads to the promised Kingdom of God.

It may be inspiring to read Noordmans’ sermon on Genesis 4:26 (V.W., VII, pages 193 and following) and the one on Mark 15:27 (pages 281 and following).

Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment includes a scene where the murderer Raskolnikov asks Sonya, a girl of ill repute, to look up the story of the resurrection of Lazarus for him and to to read it to him, even though he says he does not believe it. In this way he expresses a certain hope that resurrection and a new life will also be possible for him, the murderer.

One can also think of Gerrit Achterberg’s poem “Conversion,” from his collection “And Jesus wrote in the sand" (1947):

Conversion←⤒🔗

You broke the great mystery, Lord Jesus,
between us and the Father; according to Your Word
may we be without sin and new creations,
regardless of what may have happened in our lives.

Of all things that could be done, my actions
were the most criminal — and I was damned.
But before God You called out a white name
which was mine. Now it has become quiet,
like summer blossoms around the villages.

And while the flowers must wither again:
my loins are girded, my feet are shod.
Having been born anew, by Your gracious hand
I step out of the darkness to meet You.