Soldiers, Executioners, and the Police
Questions Concerning the Biblical Mandate to Not Kill
ABSTRACT: One of the most familiar biblical mandates of all time is contained in the sixth commandment, which states: “You Should Not Kill.” On the surface, this decree seems to condemn anyone involved in the taking of human life, such as soldiers, executioners, or police. In every case, there’s a tendency to enlist God and His word in the holy crusade of anyone citing this prohibition against the killing of humans. The only problem: The God of the Paradox isn’t that easily corralled into such one-dimensional thinking. And this is where The Bible becomes a quagmire of apparent contradictions, leading to centuries of confusion on the part of a disbelieving world who, without even knowing it, are themselves victims of the most unnecessary form of disinformation in the history of Scripture. Because unlike so many biblical misconceptions, which demand extensive review of their proper context to disarm them, this misconception requires very little…
THERE’S CERTAINLY no more effective ingredient in a great misconception of The Bible than the human tendency to ignore the paradoxical nature of Scripture.
For instance, the truth contained in the Sermon on the Mount has the potential to offer a tremendous boon to anyone who confronts it. But ironically, if we really pay attention to what Jesus said, we’d realize He disqualified His entire audience when He employed His famous sayings: “You’ve heard it said … but now I say…” By failing to grasp the paradoxical quality of Scripture, the tendency is to presume its lessons can be performed by anyone, instead of seeing its real purpose, which was to forever shatter the illusion that we can obey God’s word in our own strength.
This kind of confusion is never more evident than when we examine the implications of the sixth commandment, which is itself quite telling because the number six has a great deal of spiritual significance when it comes to its subject matter. On the sixth day, God created Adam from the dust of the ground, and as such, it’s fitting that the sixth commandment is: “You Should Not Kill.” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)
This, of course, is usually considered a prohibition against any form of killing humans, and because of this, we see this verse invoked in other areas of life that frankly do more to confuse the truth of The Bible than to clarify it. This happens when society applies this prohibition so zealously that if we didn’t know better we’d think those expressing such a view were themselves believers of Scripture as opposed to their citing this commandment simply to win their argument.
This, if you’ll notice, is never more evident than in the way the media, whether in fiction or nonfiction, uses this verse as a dramatic device. In short, when it comes to matters of life and death, pointing to this commandment makes for great drama. When it comes to the ultimate crisis of the taking of a human life, this ancient prohibition is always the first element that finds its way into the scenario.
In times of war, this verse is used to condemn anyone who’d be so bold as to answer the call of duty. In the fight against crime, this verse is used to call into question the motives of anyone who’d defend the safety of others. It’s also used to inflict all manner of guilt and shame on the part of anyone who’s ever been driven to the point of suicide or euthanasia. In every case, there’s a tendency to enlist God and His word in the holy crusade of anyone citing this prohibition against the killing of humans.
The only problem: The God of the Paradox isn’t that easily corralled into such one-dimensional thinking. And this is where The Bible becomes a quagmire of apparent contradictions, leading to centuries of confusion on the part of a disbelieving world who, without even knowing it, are themselves victims of the most unnecessary form of disinformation in the history of Scripture. Because unlike so many biblical misconceptions, which demand extensive review of their proper context to disarm them, this misconception requires very little.
OUR FIRST ORDER of business is to take a closer look at the word used in this verse: “You should not kill.” In the original Hebrew, the word translated as “kill” is ratsach, which can just as easily be understood as “murder.” This is made clear in virtually all of our modern translations of The Bible, which now read: “You should not murder.” Such was not the case, however, for more than four hundred years, during the time when The King James Bible dominated the Western world, from the time of its publication in 1611.
Just think: From the earliest days of Colonial America, we’ve consistently viewed this biblical injunction, in its strictest sense, as prohibiting any form of killing humans. Yet as a nation, which was born in revolution, which enforced capital punishment for offenses involving the death of others, and which, in its westward expansion, fought numerous wars, has also been haunted by a moral dilemma that’s hung over the national conscience like a dark cloud.
But only in the English translations of the early twentieth century did biblical translators begin to dig deeper into the contextual setting of Scripture, prompting them to translate the word in the sixth commandment, and others that referred to it, as “murder” rather than “kill.” Only then did the debate over what The Bible seemed to be telling us, in saying we should never kill, finally enter new territory. Only then did people who felt beholden to their beloved version of Scripture—in this case, The King James Bible—finally realize there might be another way to view this age-old concern.
Story Continues Below
To hear Kent and Zen Garcia talk about correcting biblical misconceptions, from September 9th, 2021, CLICK BELOW.
Story Continues From Above
And it’s not as though anyone couldn’t make the leap of understanding toward the real meaning of what The Bible had been saying all along. Even when faced with the King James translation as the only source on the matter, clearer heads could always discern the truth, considering how this word “kill” was often used in the context of manslaughter or self-defense, as opposed to premeditated murder.
Of course this is even more critical in Hebrew than it is in English, because the limited number of Hebrew words demands that they contain a wider variety of meaning and thus require a greater awareness of their context to determine their meaning. That’s why translating the Hebrew word ratsach as “murder” isn’t always so cut-and-dry.
This brings up an interesting question: If The King James Bible translators could discern a more accurate meaning of the word ratsach from its context in other areas, when it referred to accidental deaths, why did they translate the sixth commandment as a prohibition against all forms of killing? It’s not as though they weren’t aware of God’s ordering of other kinds of killing throughout the rest of Scripture.
God destroyed an entire world overrun by the wicked with the Great Flood. Moses and Joshua orchestrated the killing of some three thousand people who’d been worshipping the Golden Calf. The Israelites eradicated the population of seven nations who’d occupied Canaan before they took possession of the land. Not to mention an array of biblical mandates for the killing of lawbreakers of various kinds.
SO, CONSIDERING that God saw no problem with ordering the killing of humans for any number of apparently lesser offenses than murder, what motivated biblical translators to insist that God, in His sixth commandment, forbid killing of any kind rather than specifically forbid murder? More importantly, why’d they do this when, before the sixth commandment was ever given, God made it clear He condemned the shedding of innocent blood—from the days of Cain and Abel, to Noah and his sons?
But unfortunately, although these seem like logical questions, there don’t seem to be any logical answers. It’s just one more case of the Rorschach phenomenon we’ve seen at work throughout the history of our wrestling with the meaning of the biblical message.
I suppose one way to explain such an enigma would be to say it’s another example of the social and psychological development of the human race. What I’m talking about here is the development of humans as a species, much in the same way children develop socially and psychologically. Only after many years of learning the difference between ideas that at first seemed black and white do children begin to perceive the nuances in human behavior that eventually become multicolored in nature. In this case, I’m not talking about an understanding of the natural world but, rather, of the spiritual world.
Maybe what we’re finally beginning to understand is something that until now only God Himself has known—that built into Scripture is a revelation of the dark mystery of the divine and the human, which speaks of life and death, of punishment and forgiveness, of law and grace. Maybe what we now see as being a clear distinction between murder and killing wasn’t as clear in those earlier times when a knowledge of the truth was still trying to establish a foothold in the collective psyche of humanity.
And although the preceding speculation is only offered as food for thought, one thing is certain about this timeless debate. Consider how many people throughout history could’ve benefited from knowing that the Scriptures should no longer be feared, as if it were a God-ordained weapon for the righteous to wield their all-consuming weapon of guilt and shame. Soldiers called to defend their country, police officers charged to defend the civil authority, or executioners called on to perform an authorized act of capital punishment—all these, whether they even considered themselves religiously inclined, could’ve been reassured knowing the Good Book didn’t condemn their actions done on behalf of others.
This neutralizing of guilt and shame is critical because it’s only for the greater good of society that these institutions exist in the first place. Certainly, those running about with their placards and signs, condemning those who must kill in their capacity as servants of these God-ordained agencies aren’t the ones who’ve answered the call of duty to serve a purpose higher than themselves. Only soldiers, police officers, or executioners have been courageous enough to answer that call.
On that basis alone, then, we should see that viewing the sixth commandment, as a prohibition against all forms of killing, is itself counterproductive and indeed counterintuitive to maintaining the peace and tranquility of society as a whole.
After all, without the soldier to defend our national security, without the police officer to guard our civil security, without the executioner to enforce the punishment of murder, what opportunity would there be for anyone to express their opinion through the peaceful redress of government? Take away the soldiers, take away the police officers, and take away the executioners, and the next ones they’ll take away will be the conscientious objectors.
SO, HAVING examined the various nuances of this injunction “You should not kill” on its own terms, we’ll look at how Jesus took this Scripture and completely reinvented it when He said:
You’ve heard it said in days of old: “You should not kill; and whoever does kill will be in danger of judgment.” But I tell you that anyone who’s angry with someone, without just cause, is in danger of judgment. Matthew 5:21-22
Three things can be taken away from this verse. The first and second are overlooked until we consider the meaning of the Greek words in this sentence, while the third is what everyone usually takes away from it.
The first thing to notice: When you look to the Greek words in this sentence, the word translated by The King James Bible translators as “kill” is phoneuseis, which always means “murder,” unlike the Hebrew word ratsach which is dependent on its context. This goes a long way toward verifying the correct rendition of this word, originally found in the sixth commandment as intending to mean “murder.” Particularly because Jesus Himself is quoted as having used this word, as opposed to other Greek words used elsewhere in The New Testament that are all translated as “kill.”
The second thing to notice: When Jesus spoke of being angry with someone, a great many of the modern translations, apart from those who apparently took their cue from The King James Bible, have deleted the words “without just cause” from this sentence. This is important to register, because the Greek word for “angry,” which is derived from the root word orgizó, is a word that oddly enough, unlike most Greek words, is one that is determined by its context. What that means is, when Jesus warned us about being angry with someone, it’s not as if being angry is a sin, in and of itself, and is therefore why anyone who’s angry is in danger of judgment.
To the contrary, this word orgizó is such that, according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, “it’s positive when inspired by God and negative when inspired by the flesh,” which is to say, when “the anger is focused on punishing the offender rather than the moral content of the offense.” In short, according to Jesus, being angry is only a sin when we’re angry with someone without a just cause.
This is borne out by the fact that Paul used the same word when he said, “Be angry, and sin not.” (Ephesians 4:26) Jesus also used it repeatedly in His parables, which spoke of the angry master who delivered the unforgiving servant over to the jailer; (Matthew 18:23-35) as well as the angry king who sent his armies to destroy those who’d murdered his servants after inviting them to the king’s banquet. (Matthew 22:1-14)
NEXT, WE TURN to what most people take away from this verse. And to do this, we’ll resume a train of thought I introduced earlier, which involved mankind’s ever-changing understanding of what God is teaching us about the finer points of life and death, of punishment and forgiveness, of law and grace. Do you remember how I talked about the social and psychological development of humanity?
In asking the question as to why the biblical translators chose the word “kill” instead of “murder,” considering what they obviously knew about the rest of The Bible, I proposed it might’ve been because, when it comes to our attempt to grasp such mysteries, we were reacting the same way as children. In this case, when it comes to our response to such things as death and killing, we simply don’t perceive these things from God’s eternal perspective. As such, we’ve typically viewed them as children would view them by virtue of our ignorance of their true significance. This, in turn, could account for the way mankind in ages past have reacted to death with either a complete lack of empathy on the part of some or in absolute horror on the part of others. And because of this inability to view death and killing beyond the perspective of—for lack of a better term—an ignorant child, they were viewed much differently than they are today.
All we have to do is remember the sheer callousness of ancient times in regard to the sanctity of life to see what I mean by that. Because of this, it’s not so far-fetched to think that, even though biblical translators knew this word ratsach could’ve been restricted to “murder,” in the interest of trying to sensitize a callous world toward a more humane—and thus more mature—view of life, they chose to broaden this prohibition by translating the word as “kill.” In other words, in their view, it was better to err on the side of caution if it were at all possible to teach mankind that life was too precious to be extinguished without the utmost consideration, regardless of whether the killing involved murder, manslaughter, or self-defense.
Now, just in case anyone reading this is getting frustrated with this train of thought, I wouldn’t blame you in the least. But in my defense, it’s not as though the subject we’re dealing isn’t itself riddled with contradictions at every turn. This leads us, then, to another key point in our discussion, which has to do with what I described at the start.
When it comes to this debate over the meaning of the sixth commandment, we’re more than anything else dealing with that age-old aspect of God’s word that involves its inherently paradoxical nature. As such, the way The Bible reveals God’s attitude toward death is one that’s never as straightforward as we’d like it to be. By turns, God seems to be playing both ends against the middle when it comes to His actions regarding life and death. Sometimes He clearly reveals His concern for human life, while at other times, the apparent opposite. In many ways, trying to figure out what God really thinks about life and death is much like trying to ride a bucking bronco.
It should also be remembered that this must be understood in light of what we learned in Reel Two of Fish Tales when we saw that although God’s character is changeless, we humans perceive a change in God from our limited perspective. However, this change doesn’t occur because God Himself is changing. Rather, it occurs when an old contract with humanity is replaced by a new one, which in turn elicits a new view of God’s unfolding plan. This is precisely what we see when Jesus picked up the idea of how we should relate to our fellow human beings on this issue of killing. “You’ve heard it said … but now I’m telling you…” In essence, “You thought you’d figured out what God was saying, but now I’m here to tell you what God really means.”
So, in riding the bucking bronco of God’s revelatory word, we can only hope to hold on for dear life as we grapple with the paradoxical nature of biblical truth down through the ages. And as children who grow first into adolescence and then into adulthood, we inevitably discover that we can never rise above the need to learn something new at every turn.
That’s why when Jesus came along and told His disciples there was more to how God viewed the killing of human beings, the first thing He did, in the gospel writer’s usage of the word phoneuseis, was to confirm that it wasn’t just killing that was prohibited but murder. Yet ironically, no sooner had Jesus done this than He instantly shifted gears concerning what God really thought of murder. As the old adage goes: “No one ever steps in the same river twice, because it’s not the same river, and they’re no longer the same person.” The same can be said of the truth of God’s word that’s always evolving, too. But to repeat, it’s not really God or His word that’s changing but, rather, it’s merely a shift in the unfolding revelation of God, which itself unfolds as a function of His contracts with mankind in each subsequent age of His plan of salvation.
So, from Adam to Moses, even though we knew murder was wrong through an inner witness of our very being—what we know of today as our conscience—it wasn’t until the Law was given that it was made clear beyond doubt. But unfortunately, even though the difference between murder and all other forms of killing had been clearly stipulated, humanity, from the time of Moses to Jesus, persisted in vacillating between these two meanings.
Now, even after Jesus came along and “pushed the envelope,” as it were, further still, the darkened mind of humanity has again had a hard time fully grasping what He said. Just as mankind, from Moses until Jesus, wrestled with the difference between killing and murder, we, also, from Jesus’ day until now, wrestle with the difference between the physical act of murder and the underlying cause of murder itself. That’s what Jesus tried to explain in His Great Sermon, and what He meant when He said that anger, without a basis in a just cause, was the real outlaw.
In the final analysis, as we continue to wrestle with the right and the wrong of the killing of others, the important thing to remember is, because God sees things from an eternal perspective, it’s only natural that He views death and killing differently than we do. And when we finally get it straight in our minds that The Bible doesn’t condemn killing done in conformity to the rule of law, this should, at the very least, alleviate the guilt and shame of those who kill in the line of duty, particularly because this killing conforms to the demands of Jesus. In short, when a soldier, a police officer, or an executioner kills, they clearly aren’t motivated by anger and are thus exempt from any fear of coming under judgment.
What’s more, when we understand the nuances of what Jesus said about anger, we move that much closer toward embracing our fellow humans in a spirit of peace and harmony because then we’re far less concerned with immediate justice and much more concerned with justice in God’s due time.
