You Can Kill, But Not Murder

Keith Breeze Ten CommandmentsThat is the King James translation of the sixth commandment. It is a magnificent translation. But this one has led to much moral confusion.

Yesterday, PragerUniversity.com, which has had more than 20 million views this year, released 11 courses (each five-minutes long) — the Ten Commandments and an introduction.

The reason we made these video courses is that I believe that everything we need to make a good world and rid ourselves of evil is contained in the Ten Commandments.

For the next few weeks, my column will be selected transcripts of the courses, all of which I present.

Whatever your faith, or if you have no faith, I invite you to watch the videos at www.prageru.com — from the introduction through the tenth, or any of the Ten. They are cleverly animated with text and graphics.

Here is the text of commandment six — explaining why the King James translation is wrong:

You would think that of all the Ten Commandments the one that needs the least explaining is the sixth, because it seems so clear. It is the one that the King James Bible, the most widely used English translation of the Bible, translates as, “Thou shall not kill.”

Yet, the truth is the quite the opposite. This is probably the least well understood of the Ten Commandments. The reason is that the Hebrew original does not say, “Do not kill.” It says, “Do not murder.” Both Hebrew and English have two words for taking a life — one is “kill” (harag, in Hebrew) and the other is “murder” (ratzach in Hebrew).

The difference between the two is enormous. Kill means:

1) Taking any life — whether of a human being or an animal.

2) Taking a human life deliberately or by accident.

3) Taking a human life legally or illegally, morally or immorally.

On the other hand, murder can only mean one thing: The illegal or immoral taking of a human life. That’s why we say, “I killed a mosquito,” not, “I murdered a mosquito.” And that’s why we would say that “the worker was accidentally killed,” not that “the worker was accidentally murdered.”

So why did the King James translation of the Bible use the word “kill” rather than “murder”? Because 400 years ago, when the translation was made, “kill” was synonymous with “murder.” As a result, some people don’t realize that English has changed since 1610 and therefore think that the Ten Commandments prohibits all killing.

But, of course, it doesn’t. If the Ten Commandments forbade killing, we would all have to be vegetarians, as killing animals would be prohibited. And we would all have to be pacifists — since we could not kill even in self-defense.

However, you don’t have to know how the English language has evolved to understand that the Ten Commandments could not have prohibited all killing.

The very same part of the Bible that contains the Ten Commandments — the Five Books of Moses, the Torah as it is known by Jews — commands the death penalty for murder, allows killing in war, prescribes animal sacrifice and allows eating meat.

A correct understanding of the commandment against murder is crucial because, while virtually every modern translation correctly translates the commandment as “Do not murder,” many people cite the King James translation to justify two positions that have no biblical basis: opposition to capital punishment and pacifism.

Regarding capital punishment and the Bible, as I note in my Prager University course on capital punishment, the only law that appears in each one of the Five Books of Moses is that murderers be put to death. Opponents of the death penalty are free to hold the view that all murderers should be allowed to live. But they are not free to cite the Bible to support their view.

Yet, many do. And they always cite the Commandment, “Do not kill.” But that, as should now be abundantly clear, is not what the commandment says, and it is therefore an invalid argument.

As regards pacifism, the belief that it is always wrong to kill a human being, again, anyone is free to hold this position, as immoral as it may be. And what other word than “immoral” can one use to describe forbidding the killing of someone who is in the process of murdering innocent men, women and children, in, let’s say, a movie theater or a school?

But it is dishonest to cite the commandment against murder to justify pacifism.

There is moral killing — most obviously when done in self-defense against an aggressor — and there is immoral killing. And the word for that is “murder.”

The Ten Commandments are portrayed on two tablets. The five commandments on the second tablet all concern our treatment of fellow human beings.

The first one on that list is “Do not murder.” Why? Because murder is the worst act a person can commit. The other four commandments — prohibiting stealing, adultery, giving false testimony and coveting, are all serious offenses.

But murder leads the list because deliberately taking the life of an innocent person is the most terrible thing we can do. That is why it is so important to understand that the commandment prohibits murder, not all killing. When people liken killing in self-defense to murder — such as when they equate killing the terrorist who is murdering people with the murders that the terrorist is committing — all they are doing is reducing the evil that murder is. And when they use the Ten Commandments to justify that position, all they are doing is making the Ten Commandments, the moral foundation of Western Civilization, morally irrelevant.

The next time you hear someone cite, “Do not kill” when quoting the sixth commandment, gently but firmly explain that it actually says, “Do not murder.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Tradecraft46

    Glad someone has come to remind the self-righteous goons of basic truths….

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    The problem I have, Dennis, is that your interpretation makes the commandment circular. “Thou shall not murder” means “thou shall not kill against the law” because murder means killing against the law (moral law, God’s law, or man’s law). If the commandment is the law it says nothing more than don’t kill when you shouldn’t kill. As a law that’s inadequate.

    It doesn’t get better by reading further. Take Exodus 21:12: “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.” Anyone? How about the person killing the 1st killer? One has to make assumptions, obviously. What are they?

    In Exodus 32 Moses comes down from the mount and sees the worship of the Golden Calf. He orders the ritualist slaughter as punishment: “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’ The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.” (Exodus 32:27-28)

    Thus the commandment is “don’t kill unless God so says.” This is circular, it changes throughout the OT, it is nothing but God’s whim, and it gives us no guidance. This is why “natural law” and “natural right” replaced God’s arbitrary commandments in the 17th and 18th century philosophical movements. After the Thirty Years War, the most vicious war in Western history, it was clear that His word could never settle human affairs but only led to the most brutal slaughter ever known to man. This religious war led thinkers to seek natural grounds for moral law. Grotius, Locke, and Jefferson followed the logic to its conclusion. It culminated to the Declaration of Independence.

    • mdemetrius

      I guess I see it from another vantage point. Murder is a word most people understand, although we probably couldn’t give a lawyer-proof definition.

      To shoot a home invader who is approaching when he has the means to kill (murder) your family and you–and has expressed that intention in one way or another, is not forbidden by God, nor in almost all circumstances, state or national law. This is not murder, it is self defense.

      To be that home invader, and be successful in killing a family, when that is your intent, is murder. This is forbidden by both God and man. That’s oversimplified, and there are other examples: War, duties of police in certain circumstances, etc.

      • JayWye

        to me,it’s all plain common sense. there are times when it’s good to kill(war,self-defense,defense of others,and protection of property.),times when it’s not good.(wrongful killing.)

      • Debbie G

        Thanks for mentioning the word “intent.” It has everything to do with it.
        What is our intent in executing a criminal? Justice (not malice).
        What is our intent in shooting an enemy soldier? Protection of liberty (not malice).
        What is the intent in aborting a baby? Convenience. This one doesn’t fly, does it?

    • emptorpreempted

      Natural law theories date back to the ancient Greeks, especially Zeno of Citium. For my part they are even less acceptable than the Bible. They pretend to follow uniform “nature” even though all natural law philosophers have disagreed with one another, because there is no sufficiently uniform human nature. And even if there WERE such a nature, the most that this natural law would have the right to claim is to provide a pragmatic set of rules for obtaining a desired social outcome — like game theory! Finally, they suffer from the same difficulty as the Biblical Commandments, in that you can’t prescribe rules for every future situation.

      • dynbrake

        Now you have just shown why It was necessary for Jesus Christ to come. The Law is good, but it cannot deliver or save anyone from every circumstance, nor was it intended to do so. The purpose of Law is to show us why we need Jesus Christ — that is to show us how deficient we are in meeting and in being able to meet God’s moral standards. There is no difficulty in the Commandments, rather the difficulty lies in humanity’s ability to obey them. The Unique son of God lives the perfect life we are unable to live, then endured the punishment for our disobedience; rising from death as only God can do, He thus overcame that punishment. When a person accepts Jesus Christ, God applies the righteousness of Christ to our account, by which we are saved.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Thanks for a reasonable response. But what a variation among commenters!

        Dynbrake argues whatever God says it is right by divine fiat and our opinion of His commands are irrelevant. If God orders Moses to slaughter thousands for blasphemy, it is good because God ordered it. When Lutherans and Catholics killed each other in the Thirty Years war, it was to obey God’s command to kill the blasphemers. (See Paul below for the mindset.) If ISIS kills Christians and Shiites … you guest it, God commands, we must obey. It’s faith; there’s nothing to argue about.

        Mdemetrius appeals to common sense. Most of us accept or reject religious teachings by applying reason and criteria external to religion. Thus, secular concerns trump religious teaching. When we see atrocities, we reject the religion or those parts of the texts. Jake Neuman (on his website) rejects both Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions on such a basis.

        You raise an excellent question of whether appeals to nature can establish ethical truths. The Greco-Roman tradition starting with Socrates suggests it can. Ethical skepticism was the exception prior to 1800 AD. I’d suggest that broad acceptance of core principles is possible. Hugo Grotius and John Locke argued for a classical liberal ethos based on natural rights. Jefferson paraphrased Locke in the preamble to the Declaration because it was broadly accepted.

        However, that was the end of the natural rights tradition as utilitarianism became the new fashion. Here expediency trumped appeals to natural rights, which the founder of Utilitarian called “nonsense on stilts.” Utilitarianism and Pragmatism failed to provide a solid foundation for ethics and the West drifted into socialism as “the greatest good for the greatest number” led to everything imaginable. I’d argue that it wasn’t “natural rights” that failed but expediency that led to the rationalization of rights violations.

        Grotius, Locke, Adams, and Jefferson were influenced by Cicero’s ethical treatise on ethics, “De Officiis.” It discusses the question of honor versus utility. It provided a good foundation for rights in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War and helped established individual liberty. Thus, we have a solid tradition. We just have to learn about it.

    • dynbrake

      You seem to forget: God is the Creator, and He makes the rules. He has the right to determine when His rules have been violated. He has the right to specify when the ultimate penalty is to be applied, and He has the right to determine who carries out His command to execute the judgment He has made.

      Because God IS God, there is no one superior to Him to judge Him, indeed no one to base His commandments upon other than His own Righteous character. That is why it is irrelevant if this or any commandment is circular.

      It is also important to note that God is superior to His creation, and thus is not subject to man’s interpretations of Himself. He is not subject to man’s judgment. Since God is infinite and we are finite, we are of insufficient knowledge, wisdom, power, and authority to judge Him. God is also perfect, unable to lie, and unable to change or to be changed from Who He Is.

  • Jake Neuman

    READ WHY at http://godofmoralperfection.net/new-page-69.htm

    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT THE TEACHINGS OF GOD

    WHY MOSES NEVER MET GOD.

    WHY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE FRAUDULENT

    GOD HAS NO RIGHT TO BE IN THE BEDROOMS OF THE NATION

    15 COMMANDMENTS FOR THE 21st CENTURY

    Moses labored mightily for 40 days and nights on Mt. Sinai with
    hammer and chisel in hand to scribe the 10 commandments upon 2 stone tablets.

    We Hold This Fundamental Truth To Be Self Evident: If God exists then only a GOD OF MORAL PERFECTION™ is God. If God Killed
    or Ordered The Killing of Just One Human Being Or Any Other Creature Throughout The Universe Then God Would No Longer Be Moral Perfection And Therefore No Longer God. God would not exist.

    God never drowned the Egyptian army, murdered their first born, sent plagues to torment the Egyptians, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, ordered Abraham to kill his son and then cancelled the order, slaughtered his flock who worshipped the golden calf *Exodus 30), brought down the walls of Jericho allowing Joshua to put to the sword every men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys, sent Noah’s flood, etc. If God committed any these acts he would be no God but a mass
    murderer.

    We must destroy the concept of God as the great avenger, murderer, destroyer of the universe. This concept of God as a criminal pollutes the 21st
    Century. We must destroy this violent avenger depiction of God or go to
    extinction as a species.

    WHY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT FROM GOD

    Sorry Charlton Heston I hope you don’t get mad up there but the Ten Commandments are not from God. Moses never met God – God never carved with his almightily power the Ten Commandments into stone tablets.

    How do we know that the Ten Commandments are not from
    God? go to: http://godofmoralperfection.net/new-page-69.htm

    • RIckuh

      Nonsense.

    • dynbrake

      Double Nonsense!

  • greg scott

    It was “legal” to kill Jesus. Force is only moral in self-defense.
    This commandment had nothing to do with animals or plants(which are also alive).

    • RIckuh

      Although the Jews technically didn’t kill Jesus, even though many accepted responsibility, they did break many of their own laws and Biblical laws during the “trial” of Jesus. Even Pontius Pilate washed his hands, disavowing personal responsibility for the death sentence. Of course, Jesus’ death and subsequent resurrection is why He came.

      • greg scott

        The Romans killed him as they did thousands of others and had the ‘legal right’ to do so according to their laws. It was a ‘legal’ killing but it was still murder. God’s laws trump the laws of men. Men come with all kinds of ‘legal’ justification for murdering other people but the only moral use of force is in self-defense.

        What is legal has nothing to do with what is moral.

        • mollysdad

          It wasn’t legal even for the Romans. Pontius Pilate sent Jesus to the cross having acquitted Him.

    • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

      Absolutely not !! If you study it carefully you ll see that his arrest ,and put to death for doing good,heal,delivered people demonised,rose others from the dead ect………….. 1- He was arrested in secret ( mmmm ? looks like todays certain law !1»«« + much more but the main thing as He came to give His life for humanity, but rose from the dead cause he was sinless !!

      • johninohio1

        Jesus was wanted dead by the Jews because they viewed his claim to be God, or the Son of God, to be blasphemy, which was punishable by death.

        • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

          Thing is : He was right !! He was the son of God, and is also God John 1 He proved it by His actions John 14 ,Healed the sick , delivered the demonised, rose people from the dead…ect «He was not all talk, but applied wath he preach ! And boldly said to pilate !<< no one takes mt life from me, but I give it for the world ! As He rose from the dead ! (only one so far )

  • emptorpreempted

    If murder means killing when it’s immoral, then the commandment you shall not murder is circular. It’s still up to you to determine when killing is immoral.

    • dynbrake

      No, rather look to the rest of the Torah, to make that determination.

    • mdemetrius

      Murder is killing when it is illegal. Morality is culture driven, and varies from place to place and time to era. I don’t know if a culture that sanctions murder. An exception might be said to be Islamic Sharia killings, but in their worldview, killing infidels is not illegal, because it’s acceptable under their law. Now *there’s* circular reasoning. Honor killing is not honorable, if you ask me.

    • ScarletPimpernel

      “It’s still up to you to determine when killing is immoral.”

      Um, no, it isn’t. When someone is threatening your life, or the lives of your loved ones, you already know that they are in the wrong and that you are justified – no, you are obligated – to protect innocent life. The morality of protecting innocent life has already been decided, and not by you.

      • emptorpreempted

        I think when someone’s threatening you (or your family), you don’t ask whether he is in the right or in the wrong, you act on base impulses that you have in common with animals. This is not to say it’s not MORALLY RIGHT to kill in self-defense, but it’s easy to come up with situations where our feelings and the whole weight of human thinking about morality comes clearly on one side and not the other. The real problem with moral codes is that they are of no help in the nuanced and novel situations in life. A rule simply prohibiting murder amounts to saying that killing when it’s immoral is immoral. If we already know just when it’s right to kill and when not, then we didn’t need the commandment in the first place.

        • Trond Larsen

          Some goats topple sideways, while other animals roll up into a ball. Which animals did you have in mind, the ones that fit your argument? Simple rule? It was simple, but people keep trying to redefine it to fit their perspective. Better you ask, “Who’s my neighbour” huh?

        • Debbie G

          Can you give me an example of a “nuanced” or “novel” situation? I’ve been trying to think of one and can’t.

  • cacslewisfan

    Atheists in 3…2…1 Oh look, they’re already here. It’s like anti Jehovah’s Witnesses. Watch what happens when I say “Sarah Palin.”

  • Captlee

    What compels you to write such idiotic drivel about the Catholic Church? Stop reading Jack Chick and lose the hate.

    • Trond Larsen

      Please. The history of the catholic churches atrocities are well documented. Part of the reason I left the faith.

      • TienBing

        If commission of atrocities prompted you to leave the church I assume you have also left the human race.

  • ForTheRepublic

    One might argue that this is why God said David would be unable to build His temple, since he had the blood of Uriah on his hands. 1 Samuel 16:7 states that God looks at the heart. This is why his son Solomon was selected to do this task.

    Keep in mind that Solomon had people executed in his rise to power, two prominent ones being Joab and Shimei. Both of those were justified killings, not murder. Joab for the innocent blood he had shed, and Shimei for his cursing of David (the Lord’s anointed during the rebellion) and then breaking the terms that Solomon laid out for him.

    I agree with the statement that killing a home invader that is seeking to murder you or your family, is not murder but in itself self defense and defense of family.

    ~ForTheRepublic
    Deo Optimo Maximo

  • ScarletPimpernel

    Pacifism is for cowards. The coward’s favorite verse is “Turn the other cheek.” The coward’s second favorite verse is “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” The coward misinterprets and misapplies both.

  • Trond Larsen

    He writes religious tracts.

  • Debbie G

    Christ said we are all guilty of murder? Can you provide a scripture reference? I don’t recall ever hearing that…..

  • Magdiel

    God also permits extra-judicial killing when the authorities are incompetent enough as not to deliver proper punishment to murderers. And that’s precisely how authorities are nowadays.