Exod 20:13

“It is significant that in Holy Scripture no passage can be found enjoining or permitting suicide either in order to hasten our entry into immortality or to void or avoid temporal evils. God's command, "You shall not kill," is to be taken as forbidding self-destruction, especially as it does not add "your neighbor," as it does when it forbids false witness, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."”

“And God also gave the law by the hand of Moses, which was filled with many and divers commandments, and to all the commandments He linked fear, for without fear the commandments would not be kept. "Thou shalt do no murder", and "whosoever slayeth shall be slain;" for the sickness He ordained the medicine of fear, that it might not increase and grow strong in iniquity.”

“לא תנאף THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY — The term ניאוף, “adultery”, is technically only applicable to the case of a married woman, as it is said, (Leviticus 20:10) […the wife of his neighbour], the נואף and the נואפת shall surely be put to death”, and it further states, (Ezekiel 16:32) “The woman that comitteth adultery, that taketh strangers instead of her husband”. לא תגנוב THOU SHALT NOT STEAL — Scripture here is speaking about a case of one who steals human beings, whilst the command (Leviticus 19:11) “Ye shall not steal” speaks about a case of one who steals money (another person’s property in general). Or perhaps this is not so, but this speaks about the case of one who steals money and the other about the case of one who steals human beings! You must, however, admit that the rule applies: a statement must be explained from its context. How is it in regard to, “Thou shalt not murder” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery”? Each, speaks of a matter for which one becomes liable to death by sentence of the court; similarly, “Thou shalt not steal”, must speak of a matter for which one becomes liable to death by sentence of the court, and this is not so in the case of theft of money but only in that of kidnapping (Sanhedrin 86a; cf.Mekhilta).”

“THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. He is stating: “Now I have commanded you to acknowledge in thought and in deed that I am the Creator of all, and to honor parents because they joined [Me] in your formation. If so, guard against destroying the work of My hands and spilling the blood of man, whom I have created to honor Me and acknowledge Me in all these matters.. And do not commit adultery with your fellow-man’s wife, because you will thereby destroy the principle of honoring parents, [causing the children] to deny the truth and acknowledge falsehood. They will not know their fathers and will thus give their honor to another, just as the idol-worshippers do, who say to a block of wood, ‘thou art my father,’ and they do not know their Father who created them out of nothing.” After that, He warned against stealing a human being, for that too brings about a similar [disintegration of values]. With respect to their stringency and penalties, the order of the commandments is as follows: after idolatry comes bloodshed, and after that adultery, and then stealing of a human being and false testimony and robbery; and he who does not covet, will never harm his neighbor. Thus, He completed all obligations that a person owes towards his neighbor. After that, [in the Seder of Mishpatim which follows], He will explain the ordinances in detail, for he who has been found guilty in any suit to pay his neighbor will pay the amount he is so obligated if he does not covet or desire that which is not his. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [of the commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house… thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, etc.], that Scripture adopted a normal course of life. First, it mentioned the neighbor’s house, for an enlightened person will first acquire a house, and then marry a woman to bring her to his house, and only afterwards will he acquire a manservant or a maidservant. But in the Book of Deuteronomy, it mentions the wife first, because young men desire to marry first [before they acquire a house]. It may be that because the coveting of a neighbor’s wife is the greatest sin of all things mentioned in that verse, [it is listed first]. Thus, of the Ten Commandments, there are five which refer to the glory of the Creator and five are for the welfare of man, for [the fifth commandment], Honor thy father, is for the glory of G-d, since it is for the glory of the Creator that He commanded that one honor one’s father who is a partner in the formation of the child. Five commandments thus remain for the needs and welfare of man. In some commandments, He mentioned their recompense, and in others He did not. Thus, in the second commandment, He mentioned a jealous G-d; in the third, for the Eternal will not hold him guiltless; in the fifth, that thy days may be long. But in the others, He mentioned neither punishment [for transgression], nor reward [for fulfillment]. The reason for this is that the last five commandments deal with the welfare of man, and behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him. But in the case of idolatry, a warning of punishment is needed because of its great stringency, involving as it does the glory of the Creator. It appears to me that His saying a jealous G-d refers to the commandment, Thou shalt have no other gods, and that His saying, And He showeth mercy refers to I am the Eternal, for punishment comes for [transgressing] the negative commandments, and reward for [fulfillment of] the positive commandments. [He did not mention the reward immediately in the first commandment because] the acceptance of the Kingdom of G-d, [as mentioned in the first commandment], and the admonition against the worship of anything besides Him, constitute one subject. Therefore, He first finished that entire matter and then warned the idol-worshipper of punishment, and then He assured reward for he who fulfills the commandments. He warned of punishment in case of a vain oath, the Eternal will not hold him guiltless, but He mentioned no reward [for observing it]. For profaning the Sabbath, He mentioned neither excision nor any other punishment, neither did He mention a reward for him that keepeth the Sabbath from profaning it. This is because it is included in the first two commandments. He who observes the Sabbath testifies to the Creation and acknowledges his belief in the commandment, I am the Eternal, while he who profanes the Sabbath denies the Creation and admits the eternity of the universe, thereby denying the commandment, I am the Eternal. Thus, [the punishment for profaning the Sabbath] is included in: a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity, while [the reward for he who keeps the Sabbath] is included in the verse, And He showeth mercy unto the thousandth generation. In the fifth commandment, which concerns the honor due to parents, He mentioned the reward because it is a positive commandment, [and as mentioned above, reward is for fulfillment of the positive commandments]. With reference to the writing on the Tablets of law, it would appear that the first five commandments were on one Tablet, for they are for the glory of the Creator, as I have mentioned, and the second five commandments were on another Tablet. Thus there were five opposite five, something like the Rabbis mentioned in the Book of Creation: “With ten emanations, intangible, as is the number of ten fingers, five opposite five, and the Covenant of the Unity placed directly in the middle.” From this it will be made clear to you why there were two Tablets, for up to Honor thy father, it corresponds to the Written Torah, and from there on it corresponds to the Oral Torah. It would appear that it is this that our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have alluded to in saying that the two Tablets correspond to heaven and earth,) to a groom and bride, to the two friends [of the groom and bride], and to the two worlds [this world and the World to Come]. All these constitute one allusion, and the person learned in the mystic lore of the Cabala will understand the secret.”

“But because the neighbor is an image of the Trinity, and to him, insofar as he bears the image of the Father, piety is owed: insofar as he bears the image of the Son, truthfulness is owed, insofar as he bears the image of the Holy Spirit, benignity is owed: hence it is that there are seven commandments which pertain to the second tablet. For with respect to piety there are two: one which commands piety, namely concerning honoring one's father: the other which forbids impiety, namely concerning not killing.”

“The commandment which pertains to innocence must necessarily be multiplied, because it consists in this: that a man guard against giving offense to his neighbor. Now it happens that one offends his neighbor in three ways, namely in mind, word, and deed. Offense in deed occurs in three ways, because a man can offend his neighbor through an act either against his own person, or against a person joined to him, or against his earthly possessions. And accordingly there are three commandments: "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal."”

“In this commandment: "You shall not kill," anger breaking forth into injuries destructive of natural or substantial life and of sound life and of honorable life is prohibited. For nature desires what is better, and therefore it does not suffice for it to have mere existing life; rather, beyond this it desires a healthy and sound and honorable life; and accordingly the Lawgiver in this commandment: "You shall not kill," first prohibits anger breaking forth into injuries destructive of natural life; second, of sound life, namely, when injury is done through beatings or wounds; third, of honorable life, such as the injury done through open or hidden insult, such as that which is done through a gesture. Hence in the Gospel: "You have heard that it was said to the ancients: You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. And whoever says to his brother: Raca, shall be liable to the council. And whoever says: You fool, shall be liable to the fire of Gehenna." Therefore it is plain that in three ways a man acts against that commandment: "You shall not kill," namely when someone is angry with his brother, or when he says: Raca, or when he says: You fool. And when he does this from deliberation of mind, then he says that he is liable to the fire of Gehenna. And because natural life is the foundation of the others, therefore under this form: "You shall not kill," the Lawgiver expressed the commandment. Now the Manichaeans object to us and say that the Lawgiver contradicts himself. For he says: "You shall not kill," and elsewhere he says: "You shall not suffer sorcerers to live." And this is against rulers in Christian law, who kill others through judicial sentence. Likewise they object that the Lord says: "All who take up the sword shall perish by the sword"; therefore it is not lawful to take up the sword. And similarly they say that it is not lawful for a priest to be a slayer. And this is against the Church and ecclesiastical persons, who by executing judgment and commanding take up the sword. Likewise they object that it is said "But I say to you, not to resist evil," and this is against the Lawgiver. We ought to understand that what is prohibited here is the slaying of man, not of beasts or plants, as the ancient Manichaeans said, who refused to eat from the fruits of trees. Now the slaying of man can be by law, or by man in truth, or interpretively. The slaying of man by man as by man, not as by law, is prohibited: but God, who is the founder of nature and the preserver of nature and of law, can deprive a man of life whenever He wills. Law however slays a man when the minister of the law slays, and this with a just order having been observed, a just cause, and a just intention. It is necessary that there be a just order and a just cause, that is, that one be slain from a just cause, because the law says: "That which is just you shall justly pursue." Likewise, it is necessary to have a just intention, so that the man who is the minister of the law slays a man by law, not from the desire for vengeance, but from the love of justice. Whence the Apostle to the Romans, speaking to rulers, says that "the ruler does not bear the sword without cause. For he is the minister of God, an avenger unto wrath against him who does evil." What therefore the Lord says to Peter: "All who take up the sword shall perish by the sword": this refers only to this, that he who is not a minister of the law ought not to slay. And what is said, that it is not lawful for a priest to be a slayer, this does not refer to rulers. The first thing, therefore, that the Lord says: "You shall not kill," is true, as man, but as minister of the law. The second, that the Lord says: "All who take up the sword shall perish by the sword," is true, if one does not preside over the commonwealth. The third, that the Lord says: "But I say to you, not to resist evil," is true, from the desire for vengeance: but from the love of justice it is well lawful to resist evil. It is now clear how the law slays a man. Likewise, a man is slain by man as by man, and this happens in three ways: either by chance, or by necessity, or by will. If a man slays a man by chance, either he applies his effort to a lawful matter and exercises due diligence; and then he is excused from so much and from the whole. If however the homicide is accidental, and the man applies his effort to an unlawful matter and does not exercise due diligence: then he is excused from so much, not from the whole. If however the homicide was committed out of necessity, this is twofold: either out of avoidable necessity, or unavoidable. The necessity is avoidable if I can flee but refrain on account of shame or some other cause: and in this case the person is excused from so much, not from the whole, because it would have been better for him to flee. If however the necessity is unavoidable, namely such that a man kills another not from the desire for revenge but from the love of preserving life and soul, so that he does not slay him out of cruelty but rather prevents him from destroying his own life and soul, and if this is done with the moderation of blameless self-defense; then it is conceded to imperfect persons, not to perfect ones — and Augustine says this in On Free Will — and such a person is excused both from the whole and from so much. In a third way homicide is committed by a man willfully, and this is twofold: either from the desire for revenge, as when someone kills another's father; or from cruelty of spirit, as when robbers or the wrathful kill others: and both of these are prohibited, and the first is graver than the second. Likewise homicide is committed interpretively, and this occurs in three ways: first, by omitting in deed: whence Ambrose says: "Feed the one dying of hunger: if you have not fed him, you have killed him." In the second way it occurs when someone kills another by counseling, or accusing, or disparaging, when he does this from malice of spirit. In the third way homicide is committed interpretively by hating in the soul: whence in the epistle of John: "He who hates his brother is a murderer." I say therefore that according to the principal meaning, what is prohibited here is killing — not that which is by law, but that which is by man — and that which is done willfully or interpretively: and this is what it says: "You shall not kill."”

“And because the lower portion of the soul is informed by the higher and is given to it as a help, it is necessary that the lower have commandments by which it would be conformed to the higher, so that it behave piously, truly and holily. Piously toward superiors, most of all parents, hence, Honor your father and your mother. Truly and justly toward equals, hence: You shall not kill, which precludes any harm. Holily toward inferiors, hence, You shall not commit adultery, which forbids any act of impudicity.”

“In the divine law which tells us we must love God and our neighbor, it is commanded that we not only do good but also avoid evil. The greatest evil that can be done to one's neighbor is to take his life. This is prohibited in the Commandment: "You shall not kill." In connection with this Commandment there are three errors. Some have said that it is not permitted to kill even brute animals. But this is false, because it is not a sin to use that which is subordinate to the power of man. It is in the natural order that plants be the nourishment of animals, certain animals nourish others, and all for the nourishment of man: "Even the green herbs have I delivered them all to you" [Gen 9:3]. The Philosopher says that hunting is like a just war [Politics I]. And St. Paul says: "Whatsoever is sold in the meat market, eat; asking no questions for conscience' sake" [1 Cor 10:25]. Therefore, the sense of the Commandment is: "You shall not kill men." Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: "I will kill and I will make to live" [Deut 32:39]. It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things" [Prov 8:15]. And again: "For if you do what is evil, fear; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister" [Rm 13:4]. To Moses also it was said: "Wizards you shall not allow to live" [Ex 22:18]. And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For "the wages of sin is death" [Rm 6:23]. Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of "You shall not kill" is that one shall not kill by one's own authority. There are those who held that although this Commandment forbids one to kill another, yet it is lawful to kill oneself. Thus, there are the examples of Samson (Judges, xvi) and Cato and certain virgins who threw themselves into the flames, as St. Augustine relates in The City of God [I, 27]. But he also explains this in the words: "He who kills himself, certainly kills a man" [ibid. 13]. If it is not lawful to kill except by the authority of God, then it is not lawful to kill oneself except either upon the authority of God or instructed by the Holy Spirit, as was the case of Samson. Therefore, "you shall not kill." It ought to be known that to kill a man may happen in several ways. Firstly, by one's own hand: "Your hands are full of blood" [Is 1:15]. This is not only against charity, which tells us to love our neighbor as ourself: "No murderer has eternal life abiding in himself" [1 Jn 3:15]. But also it is against nature, for "every beast loves its like" [Sir 13:19]. And so it is said: "He who strikes a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death" [Ex 21:12]. He who does this is more cruel than the wolf, of which Aristotle says that one wolf will not eat of the flesh of another wolf [De animal. IV]. Secondly, one kills another by word of mouth. This is done by giving counsel to anyone against another by provocation, accusation, or detraction: "The sons of men whose teeth are weapons and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword" [Ps 56:5]. Thirdly, by lending aid, as it is written: "My son, do not go with them... for their feet run to evil, and they rush to shed blood" [Prov 1:15-16]. Fourthly, by consent: "They are worthy of death, not only they who do such things, but they also who consent to those who do them" [Rm 1:32]. Lastly, one kills another by giving a partial consent when the act could be completely prevented: "Deliver those who are led to death" [Prov 24:11]; or, if one can prevent it, yet does not do so through negligence or avarice. Thus, St. Ambrose says: "Give food to him that is dying of hunger; if you do not, you are his murderer." We have already considered the killing of the body, but some kill the soul also by drawing it away from the life of grace, namely, by inducing it to commit mortal sin: "He was a murderer from the beginning" [Jn 8:44], that is, in so far as he drew men into sin. Others, however, slay both body and soul. This is possible in two ways: first, by the murder of one with child, whereby the child is killed both in body and soul; and, secondly, by committing suicide. In the Gospel of St. Matthew (ch. 5) Christ taught that our justice should be greater than the justice of the Old Law. This means that Christians should observe the Commandments of the law more perfectly than the Jews observed them. The reason is that greater effort deserves a better reward: "He who sows sparingly, shall also reap sparingly" [2 Cor 9:6]. The Old Law promised a temporary and earthly reward: "If you are willing and will listen to Me, you shall eat the good things of the land" [Is 1:19]. But in the New Law heavenly and eternal things are promised. Therefore, justice, which is the observance of the Commandments, should be more generous because a greater reward is expected. The Lord mentioned this Commandment in particular among the others when He said: "You have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not kill.... But I say to you that anyone who is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment" [Mt 5:21-22]. By this is meant the penalty which the law prescribes: "If any man kills his neighbor on set purpose, and by lying in wait for him; you shall take him away from My altar, that he may die" [Ex 21:14]. Now, there are five ways to avoid being angry. The first is that one be not quickly provoked to anger: "Let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak and slow to anger" [James 1:19]. The reason is that anger is a sin, and is punished by God. But is all anger contrary to virtue? There are two opinions about this. The Stoics said that the wise man is free from all passions; even more, they maintained that true virtue consisted in perfect quiet of soul. The Peripatetics, on the other hand, held that the wise man is subject to anger, but in a moderate degree. This is the more accurate opinion. It is proved firstly by authority, in that the Gospel shows us that these passions were attributed to Christ, in whom was the full fountainhead of wisdom. Then, secondly, it is proved from reason. If all the passions were opposed to virtue, then there would be some powers of the soul which would be without good purpose; indeed, they would be positively harmful to man, since they would have no acts in keeping with them. Thus, the irascible and concupiscible powers would be given to man to no purpose. It must, therefore, be concluded that sometimes anger is virtuous, and sometimes it is not. We see this if we consider anger in three different ways. First, as it exists solely in the judgment of reason, without any perturbation of soul; and this is more properly not anger but judgment. Thus, the Lord punishing the wicked is said to be angry: "I will bear the wrath of the Lord because I have sinned against Him" [Micah 7:9]. Secondly, anger is considered as a passion. This is in the sensitive appetite, and is twofold. Sometimes it is ordered by reason or it is restrained within proper limits by reason, as when one is angry because it is justly fitting to be angry and within proper limits. This is an act of virtue and is called righteous anger. Thus, the Philosopher says that meekness is in no way opposed to anger. This kind of anger then is not a sin. There is a third kind of anger which overthrows the judgment of reason and is always sinful, sometimes mortally and sometimes venially. And whether it is one or the other will depend on that object to which the anger incites, which is sometimes mortal, sometimes venial. This may be mortal in two ways: either in its genus or by reason of the circumstances. For example, murder would seem to be a mortal sin in its genus, because it is directly opposite to a divine Commandment. Thus, consent to murder is a mortal sin in its genus, because if the act is a mortal sin, then the consent to the act will be also a mortal sin. Sometimes, however, the act itself is mortal in its genus, but, nevertheless, the impulse is not mortal, because it is without consent. This is the same as if one is moved by the impulse of concupiscence to fornication, and yet does not consent; one does not commit a sin. The same holds true of anger. For anger is really the impulse to avenge an injury which one has suffered. Now, if this impulse of the passion is so great that reason is weakened, then it is a mortal sin; if, however, reason is not so perverted by the passion as to give its full consent, then it will be a venial sin. On the other hand, if up to the moment of consent, the reason is not perverted by the passion, and consent is given without this perversion of reason, then there is no mortal sin. "Whoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment," must be understood of that impulse of passion tending to do injury to the extent that reason is perverted—and this impulse, inasmuch as it is consented to, is a mortal sin. The second reason why we should not be easily provoked to anger is because every man loves liberty and hates restraint. But he who is filled with anger is not master of himself: "Who can bear the violence of one provoked?" [Prov 27:4]. And again: "A stone is heavy, and sand weighty, but the anger of a fool is heavier than both" [Prov 27:3]. One should also take care that one does not remain angry over long: "Be ye angry, and sin not" [Ps 4:5]. And: "Let not the sun go down upon your anger" [Eph 4:26]. The reason for this is given in the Gospel by Our Lord: "Be at agreement with your adversary betimes whilst you are in the way with him; lest perhaps the adversary deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison. Amen, I say to you, you shall not go out from hence till you repay the last penny" [Mt 5:25-26]. We should beware lest our anger grow in intensity, having its beginning in the heart, and finally leading on to hatred. For there is this difference between anger and hatred, that anger is sudden, but hatred is long-lived and, thus, is a mortal sin: "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer" [1 Jn 3:15]. And the reason is because he kills both himself (by destroying charity) and another. Thus, St. Augustine in his "Rule" says: "Let there be no quarrels among you; or if they do arise, then let them end quickly, lest anger should grow into hatred, the mote becomes a beam, and the soul becomes a murderer." Again: "A passionate man stirs up strife" [Prov 15:18]. "Cursed be their fury, because it was stubborn, and their wrath, because it was cruel" [Gen 49:7]. We must take care lest our wrath explode in angry words: "A fool immediately shows his anger" [Prov 12:16]. Now, angry words are twofold in effect; either they injure another, or they express one's own pride in oneself. Our Lord has reference to the first when He said: "And whoever says to his brother: 'You fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire" [Mt 5:22]. And He has reference to the latter in the words: "And he who shall say: 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council." Moreover: "A mild answer breaks wrath, but a harsh word stirs up fury" [Prov 15:1]. Finally, we must beware lest anger provoke us to deeds. In all our dealings we should observe two things, namely, justice and mercy; but anger hinders us in both: "For the anger of a man does not work the justice of God" [James 1:20]. For such a one may indeed be willing but his anger prevents him. A certain philosopher once said to a man who had offended him: "I would punish you, were I not angry." "Anger has no mercy, nor fury when it breaks forth" [Prov 27:4]. And: "In their fury they slew a man" [Gen 49:6]. It is for all this that Christ taught us not only to beware of murder but also of anger. The good physician removes the external symptoms of a malady; and, furthermore, he even removes the very root of the illness, so that there will be no relapse. So also the Lord wishes us to avoid the beginnings of sins; and anger is thus to be avoided because it is the beginning of murder.”

“Kill. These precepts are to be taken in their full extent, as prohibiting not only the ultimate act, but every thing which leads to it. Magistrates are authorized to inflict capital punishments. We are allowed also to defend ourselves against an unjust aggressor. But we must never intend to kill him. (Calmet) — The laws will not condemn us, perhaps, if we do; but God sees the heart, and judges. A night thief may be slain, because we know not how far our own lives may be endangered, chap. xxii. 2. (Haydock)”

“The other Five Words or commandments, which determine the duties to one's neighbour, are summed up in Lev 19:18 in the one word, "Love thy neighbour as thyself." The order in which they follow one another is the following: they first of all secure life, marriage, and property against active invasion or attack, and then, proceeding from deed to word and thought, they forbid false witness and coveting. (Note: Luther has pointed out this mirum et aptum ordinem, and expounds it thus: Incipit prohibitio a majori usque ad minimum, nam maximum damnum est occisio hominis, deinde proximum violatio conjugis, tertium ablatio facultatis. Quod qui in iis nocere non possunt, saltem lingua nocent, ideo quartum est laesio famae. Quodsi in iis non praevalent omnibus, saltem corde laedunt proximum, cupiendo quae ejus sunt, in quo et invidia proprie consistit.) If, therefore, the first three commandments in this table refer primarily to deeds; the subsequent advance to the prohibition of desire is a proof that the deed is not to be separated from the disposition, and that "the fulfilment of the law is only complete when the heart itself is sanctified" (Oehler). Accordingly, in the command, "Thou shalt not kill," not only is the accomplished fact of murder condemned, whether it proceed from open violence or stratagem (Exo 21:12, Exo 21:14, Exo 21:18), but every act that endangers human life, whether it arise from carelessness (Deu 22:8) or wantonness (Lev 19:14), or from hatred, anger, and revenge (Lev 19:17-18). Life is placed at the head of these commandments, not as being the highest earthly possession, but because it is the basis of human existence, and in the life the personality is attacked, and in that the image of God (Gen 9:6). The omission of the object still remains to be noticed, as showing that the prohibition includes not only the killing of a fellow-man, but the destruction of one's own life, or suicide. - The two following commandments are couched in equally general terms. Adultery, נאף, which is used in Lev 20:10 of both man and woman, signifies (as distinguished from זנה to commit fornication) the sexual intercourse of a husband with the wife of another, or of a wife with the husband of another. This prohibition is not only directed against any assault upon the husband's dearest possession, for the tenth commandment guards against that, but upholds the sacredness of marriage as the divine appointment for the propagation and multiplication of the human race; and although addressed primarily to the man, like all the commandments that were given to the whole nation, applies quite as much to the woman as to the man, just as we find in Lev 20:10 that adultery was to be punished with death in the case of both the man and the woman. - Property was to be equally inviolable. The command, "Thou shalt not steal," prohibited not only the secret or open removal of another person's property, but injury done to it, or fraudulent retention of it, through carelessness or indifference (Exo 21:33; Exo 22:13; Exo 23:4-5; Deu 22:1-4). - But lest these commandments should be understood as relating merely to the outward act as such, as they were by the Pharisees, in opposition to whom Christ set forth their true fulfilment (Mat 5:21.), God added the further prohibition, "Thou shalt not answer as a false witness against thy neighbour," i.e., give false testimony against him. ענה and בּ: to answer or give evidence against a person (Gen 30:33). עד is not evidence, but a witness. Instead of שׁקר עד, a witness of a lie, who consciously gives utterance to falsehood, we find שׁוא עד in Deuteronomy, one who says what is vain, worthless, unfounded (שׁוא שׁמע, Exo 23:1; on שׁוא see Exo 23:7). From this it is evident, that not only is lying prohibited, but false and unfounded evidence in general; and not only evidence before a judge, but false evidence of every kind, by which (according to the context) the life, married relation, or property of a neighbour might be endangered (cf. Exo 23:1; Num 35:30; Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15; Deu 22:13.). - The last or tenth commandment is directed against desiring (coveting), as the root from which every sin against a neighbour springs, whether it be in word or deed. The חמד, ἐπιθυμεῖν (lxx), coveting, proceeds from the heart (Pro 6:25), and brings forth sin, which "is finished" in the act (Jam 1:14-15). The repetition of the words, "Thou shalt not covet," does not prove that there are two different commandments, any more than the substitution of תּתאוּה in Deu 5:18 for the second תּחמד. חמד and התאוּה are synonyms, - the only difference between them being, that "the former denotes the desire as founded upon the perception of beauty, and therefore excited from without, the latter, desire originating at the very outset in the person himself, and arising from his own want or inclination" (Schultz). The repetition merely serves to strengthen and give the great emphasis to that which constitutes the very kernel of the command, and is just as much in harmony with the simple and appropriate language of the law, as the employment of a synonym in the place of the repetition of the same word is with the rhetorical character of Deuteronomy. Moreover, the objects of desire do not point to two different commandments. This is evident at once from the transposition of the house and wife in Deuteronomy. בּית (the house) is not merely the dwelling, but the entire household (as in Gen 15:2; Job 8:15), either including the wife, or exclusive of her. In the text before us she is included; in Deuteronomy she is not, but is placed first as the crown of the man, and a possession more costly than pearls (Pro 12:4; Pro 31:10). In this case, the idea of the "house" is restricted to the other property belonging to the domestic economy, which is classified in Deuteronomy as fields, servants, cattle, and whatever else a man may have; whereas in Exodus the "house" is divided into wife, servants, cattle, and the rest of the possessions.”