Does the Bible Ever Justify Killing?
Introduction
This paper attempts to evaluate and analyze the Just War Theory and as well as critique from a Biblical worldview the foundational issue of moral permissibility to kill another individual in a war that meets the just war criteria. This will be accomplished first through providing a clear understanding of what the just war theory is, what is its history and what are the just war criteria. Then the foundational issue, that of killing, that divides the just war theorist from the Christian pacifist will be critiqued and the questions will be answered: does the Bible ever justify killing, if so to whom does the Bible give authority to carry out the killing and third what about the Christian and mercy. The objective of this critique is to gain a Christian perspective on the issue of killing thus one must focus on what the Bible says about the issue, therefore no statistics, case studies or judicial systems will be critiqued and a Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) approach will be taken.
The Just War Theory
The just war theory focuses on the "special conditions on which a resort to war, or its subsequent conduct, can be morally justified." Holmes states "both in theory and in historical statement, then, the key thesis of the just war theory is that on the basis both of Scripture and of natural law, government (and only government) has the right to use armed force, and then only in the defense of peace and justice and with severe limitations on both the ends and the means adopted. Inasmuch as Christians participate in government and serve as government's official
agents, then, they may--however regretfully and with however much moral caution--fight." It should be understood that war is evil or as General Sherman said war is hell and Napoleon was quite wrong when he said that "soldiers are made to be killed." And again in the words of Holmes, "to call war anything less than evil would be self-deception." Nor by the phrase just war theory is it to be intended that the theory tries to justify war. Rather the purpose of the theory is to bring war under the control of justice and if it were consistently adhered to then there would be no war for the only purpose for going to war is self defense which thus eliminates the option of aggression.
There are two parts of the moral reality of war. First is jus ad bellum , meaning the justice of war or the decision to go to war, and second is jus in bello , which is justice of conduct in war and this "dualism is at the heart of the moral reality of war." Richard J. Regan does a phenomenal job of providing a historical synopsis of how the just war theory evolved into what it is known as today. Here I will follow his line of thought. While Augustine is typically attributed as being the first to write about just war, it should be noted that a few pre-Christian thinkers also contributed to the development of the theory. The most important of these thinkers are Aristotle and Cicero. "Aristotle's main contribution was in the study of ethics as a rational discipline . . .moreover, Aristotle considered the justice of human relations." Though Cicero felt the Roman people, of whom he was one, were superior and all others were inferior and that this reality justified Roman rule, he did have some contribution to the theory. He stated, "No just war can be waged except for the purpose of punishment or repelling enemies," and "the only excuse . . . for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed." These are the two most significant early Greek and Roman philosophers in dealing with the issue. St. Augustine, one of the greatest early church fathers and theologians, built upon and revised some of the earlier Greek and Roman thinkers when dealing with the issue of Christians and war. Augustine advanced his just war theory in response to a Roman general who asked him if he should lead troops or retire to a monastery. With the breakup of the Roman Empire and the influx of Germanic peoples there was a new militant attitude towards violence inside the church that paved the way for the crusades. He believes that the "law of love" disallows Christians from killing or wounding other people, even in their own defense. He does make exception, however, that as Christians whose second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves, that we are to come to the rescue of others who are in danger and thus force is justified. Thus "war is not a matter of choice but of necessity, forced on us by the need to control violence in a fallen world. It is waged only to restore peace, so he should preserve the spirit of peacemaker, limiting violence to what is needed in resisting and deterring aggression, and extending mercy to the vanquished and the captive." It should also be said that Augustine's approach, an approach called "just war", was greatly influenced and depended greatly on Romans 13 when the Apostle Paul discusses that God has ordained government to punish evil doers and that one of the tools that is available to carry out the punishment is the "sword". It is important tot note that Augustine's influence has carried to present day and can be seen as the guiding idea for every Christian that would write about just war up until the present day. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas built upon Augustine's ideas and laid down three conditions: "legitimate, that is, constitutional, authority should make the war decision; 2) war should be waged for a just cause; 3) statesmen should resort to war with right intention. The sixteenth and seventeenth century theologian-philosophers Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez added three further conditions: 4) the evils of war, especially the loss of human life, should be proportionate to the injustice to be prevented or remedied by war; 5) peaceful means to prevent or remedy injustice should be exhausted; 6) an otherwise just war should have a reasonable hope of success." The above is an abbreviated summary of how the just war theory came about. Attention will now be turned to restating and expanding on the meaning on the various criteria for the just war theory.
The order that we will evaluate the just war criteria in will follow the order that Holmes utilizes when he spells out the application of justice to war. The first rule of the just war theory is that there must be a just cause before a country is to resort to armed conflict. That is that one can only engage in an armed conflict in self-defense against an aggressor. Therefore it must be sad that only a defensive war is a legitimate war. "Nations have a prima facia just cause to defend their territory and citizens against armed attacks." "A nation need not wait until it is attacked to have just cause to use military force against a would-be aggressor; it is as much an act of self defense to initiate hostilities to prevent imminent attack as it is to respond to hostilities all ready initiated by an aggressor. Nor would a would-be victim nation wait until a would-be aggressor nation is immediately posed to attack . . . or wait until a would-be aggressor nation has stockpiled nuclear or chemical weapons before the potential nation has just cause to strike." While this quote is taken from Richard Regan, it is also significant that Paul Ramsey adheres to the same stance.
The next criterion is that of just intention. That is that "the only legitimate intention is to secure a just peace for all involved. Neither revenge nor conquest or economic gain nor ideological supremacy are justified." Just intention would not include fighting for religious reasons such as a crusade or jihad or simply to gain more lands. Therefore many conquerors throughout history such as Alexander and Napoleon, who were greatly motivated to conquer more lands for the purpose of being the greatest ruler of their time, did not have a just intention for doing so.
The third criterion for just war is last resort. Last resort means that a resort to armed conflict can only be morally acceptable when all other options have been exhausted hence if there is no feasible way for peace to come about and if there is no more room for negotiation, then and only then can war be morally permissible.
The fourth rule in the just war theory is that there must be a formal declaration. A formal declaration can only be declared by legitimate authority. Walzer frames the issue more narratively by saying, "a government that receives economic and technical aid, military supply, strategic tactical advice, and is till unable to reduce its subjects to obedience, is clearly an illegitimate government." Thus a legitimate authority is officially the highest authority of the land. It should also be noted that a careful study of Romans 13 provides understanding that God has authorized the civil magistrate to use force.
The fifth criterion for the just war theory is that there must be limited objectives or goals. "If the purpose of the resort to armed conflict is to resist aggression, to defend the innocent, to restore peace and to secure justice, then annihilation of the enemy or total destruction of his civilization is never acceptable. In other words, 'total war' is always beyond the pale. Also, unless one's survival or freedom is imperiled, just war decrees that resort to lethal force through warfare is unacceptable unless the stated goals for the war have a reasonable chance of being achieved."
The sixth component of the just war theory is said to be the proportional rule or the doctrine of proportionality. Proportionality is a rule that is said to "fix firm limits to the length of wars and the shape of settlements." Walzer states that due proportion involves three elements. "1) a value judgment about the worth of the cause that purports to justify recourse to war; 2) factual judgments about the war's likely casualties and costs; 3) a value judgment about the proportional worth of the war's cause in relation to its likely casualties and costs."
The last component to the just war theory is non-combatant immunity. Non-combatant immunity focuses on those who are not combatants (i.e. civilian non-participants, casualties, and POW's) should all be immune from attack. In other words, a war that targets civilians opposed to military targets can never be justified.
The Bible and killing
Thus far the just war theory has been defined, historically traced and the criteria summarized. It is at this point that attention will now be turned to critiquing from a biblical worldview one of the foundational ideas that can be traced back to Augustine and that is, is killing ever biblically justified? If so, who has the legitimate authority to carry out the killings and does this contradict with the biblical concept of mercy. It is the author's intention that once this foundational question regarding killing is answered and found to be at times biblically legitimate then the next logical step would be to try and formulate some criteria to bring under the control of justice such actions. It is my goal to present a biblical understanding of punishment by killing, which will in turn, direct back to the just war theory.
Before exploring the Biblical view on killing a note should be made as to why I am using the word killing verses violence. The reason for this is two-fold. First, the term 'violence' is a much broader term than 'killing' and in this paper we wish to stay focused on the taking of ones life, and for our discussion the taking of ones life happens to be in military service. Secondly, the term violence seems to carry more baggage than the term killing. At least in my own mind whenever I think of the word violence I automatically think of something that is evil. This is not always necessarily true with the word killing and it is this word that is used in the just war theory as opposed to violence or murder. Thus the term kill may be, however unfortunate this truth is, sometimes necessary according to Scripture. Also it is my desire to respond to the Christian pacifist, such as Augsburger, who focus in their writings on a Christian being able to serve in a government position but not a military position where the potential to take the life of somebody that Christ died for is at stake. And because his focus is on the taking of life as never scripturally permissible thus we will stay with such a focus.
The first of two key Scripture passages addressing the issue of killing occurs as part of the Noahic covenant. Immediately following the flood, Noah built an altar where he worshipped and sacrificed to the Lord. The Lord then responded to Noah and his family with a "general or universal covenant" (8:20-9:17) which says that "the principle of human government which includes the responsibility of suppressing the outbreak of sin and violence, so that it will not be necessary to destroy the earth again by flood." It is paramount to the issue to understand that the Noahic covenant was made between God and all of creation and mankind, which at that time was Noah and the seven members of his family and is " an unconditional covenant inasmuch as no conditions are attached to the covenant" and therefore is still in effect today: And I, behold, establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; ? and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you (Genesis 9:9-10) . God then established a visible demonstration of this promise in the form of a rainbow to serve as a constant reminder that this covenant is "one, which shall extend to all ages, even to the end of the world." The permanency of this promise is vital in that it makes Genesis 9:6 of utmost relevance in dealing with the issue of killing.
It is at this point that the Christian pacifist would disagree, saying that the "law of love" which is taught throughout the New Testament supersedes the Old teaching that "a principle of love, a practice of respect for the ultimate worth of each individual, which when followed makes participation in both slavery and war antithetical." As is explained above the Noahic covenant was for all of creation for all of time. Thus the Christian should have no conflict with both justice and love.
Part of the Noahic covenant, Genesis 9:6, deals with the sacredness of human life and the consequences for murder: ? Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. In evaluating this verse, careful consideration will be given to the commentary of Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. The reason for quoting these gentlemen has to do with the manner in which they went about hermeneutics. The great strength of their commentary is their ability to interpret the text for what it is saying without imposing outside opinions and illustrations. In their writings they were, in a sense, setting aside all that had been traditionally taught so that they may rediscover what the Scriptures are actually saying. With this in mind the first part of verse 6 deals with the severe retribution for taking an individual's life. The Bible clearly mandates that if one man kills another man, then that individual must be killed. Luther sees this directive as God sharing His power with man and therefore the individual guilty of murder is himself being killed by God though the act may be carried out with human hands. Luther's evaluation of this Scripture demonstrates how the government official putting a murderer to death is not himself committing murder.
To gain a proper understanding of this Scripture, careful study must be given to certain words. The Hebrew term used to describe one man shedding another mans blood is shaphak and has been translated in other places as to pour out or to spill and means to "cause or make an event happen with intensity or great amount, as a figurative extension of pouring a liquid or mass out of a container (La 4:11; Eze 9:8)." This is an extremely violent and gruesome picture being painted of one man causing the life-blood of another man to be spilled from his body thus leading to death. Calvin says the language being used here
Expresses the atrociousness of the crime; because whosoever kills a man draws down upon himself the blood and life of his brother. God so threatens and denounces vengeance against the murderer, that he even arms the magistrate with the sword for the avenging of slaughter, in order that the blood of men may not be shed with impunity.
What God is stating in the first part of Genesis 9:6 is plain and unmistakable, if an individual murders another individual, then retributive justice must be served by in turn killing the murderer.
The second half of Genesis 9:6, for in the image of God He made man , provides the reason that those who murder should be executed. If a man slaughters another, then he abdicates his opportunity to continue to exist on earth and in society as a human being made in the image of God. Calvin states that, "Men are indeed unworthy of God's care, if respect be had only to themselves; but since they are engraved with and bear the image of God, He deems himself violated in their person." It is important to understand the reason a murderer is to be put to death is directly tied to the image of God in mankind. One must realize that killing does not exist so that man may have justice because one of his family members was killed; justice for mankind is secondary. The foremost reason is that God's image has been violated. Even in the establishment of what many have referred to as capital punishment in the Noahic covenant, the grace of God is evident. This is supported because life is sacred and God places a high value on each individual because all are made in His image.
At this point the argument may be made that the Genesis text is dealing with those who commit murder. This is true but that does not negate the essentiality of studying the text to answer the question does the Bible ever allow or command for one to be killed. The Christian pacifist sees this text as not longer applicable since we are to now live by a principle of love. Thus in establishing, as we have, that this text is still relevant we can understand that the Bible does speak of killing. The point to be made is that killing is not exhaustively prohibited and that there are times when it does take place.
The command for retribution that is laid out in Genesis 9:6 is not simply to be carried out by any individual of society. Most commentators agree that God is laying the foundation for civil government. Simply because God had promised never to destroy the earth again did not mean that evil men would no longer exist. And since God was never to destroy the earth again, the authority to distribute the highest form of punishment must then be appointed to rulers who can properly represent and carry out the mandates of God. Luther said of this passage:
This text is outstanding and worthy of note; for here God establishes government and gives it the sword, to hold wantonness in check, lest violence and other sins proceed without limit. If God had not conferred this divine power on men, what sort of life do you suppose we would be living? Because He foresaw that there would always be a great abundance of evil men, He established this outwardly remedy, which the world had not had thus far, in order that wantonness might not increase beyond measure. With this hedge, these walls, God has given protection for our life and possessions.
Some have tried to argue that this passage is predictive and not prescriptive, in other words this passage is indicating to us what will happen to those who take an individuals life as compared to commanding the death penalty be issued to one who takes a life. Morphological analysis does not verify that this verse is predictive as supported by Feinberg, Feinberg and Huxley in Ethics for a Brave New World; there are several indications that would lead to that conclusion.
First, it seems that based on the last phrase of verse 5, And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man , God will demand retributive justice to be carried out on the murderer by another man. Second, verse 6 makes clear why the prerequisite of verse 5 is to be carried out, thus the end of verse 6 would make no sense if it were merely predictive. Finally, other passages in the Pentateuch (Exodus 21:12, Numbers 35:16-21) necessitate the murderer to be killed at the hands of an individual. Therefore structural analysis of this text can only lead to the conclusion that this verse is a mandated or prescriptive.
Support for the command of Genesis 9:6 comes in the fact that it is the basis for the Mosaic command found in Exodus 21:12: ? He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. There is nothing in the Mosaic Law that suggests killing was something new. The Mosaic Law was often times used to temper and control certain practices that were not themselves bad but could possibly be abused without proper regulation. The question is often raised as to the relevancy of the number of capital offenses articulated in the Mosaic Law to today's society. The list of capital offenses included: various forms of homicide (Lev. 20:2, Num. 35:27, Ex. 21:29), bearing a false witness (Deut. 18:18-21), kidnapping (Ex. 21:16), striking or insulting ones parents (Ex. 21:15, Lev. 20:9), forms of sexual immorality (Lev. 20:14, Deut. 22:21) and religious offenses (Ex. 22:18, Num. 1:51). Before addressing whether this list of offenses should be prosecuted as capital crimes today, it should be noted that the Bible continues to speak very clear concerning the mandate of killing. In other words, the foundation for this directive has been set in Genesis 9:6 and the Mosaic Law assumes this in its wording. Questions concerning the practice of the Law of Moses over killing today have been answered in that modern society is not exempt from the mandate of Genesis 9:6. Killing is repeated in the New Testament and therefore, since it is repeated from the Old Testament, it is still applicable today. Jesus addressed the issue of murder in Matthew 5. Here he said that not only murderers, but also anyone angry, are in "danger of punishment." While Jesus was not saying killing would be given to anyone who was angry, if killing was always murder, it would make sense for Jesus to address that here. William Baker in his book On Capital Punishment suggests a tactic to answer this question:
This approach is to recognize that in much of Scripture our interpretation requires us to seek for enduring principles by recognizing the historical and cultural elements that are not normative and sifting out the lasting principles. The question in the case of the death penalty in the Mosaic Law is: Are the requirements pertaining to the witness a matter of culture, or do they stand as timeless principles? In my judgment, contained in them are two principles, so that the application in a literal manner cannot be insisted upon. These principles are (1) the evidence against the defendant must be convincing and (2) the witnesses should themselves be fully truthful and responsible, as shown by their willingness to participate in the execution.
Thus the establishment of the death penalty and that the death penalty is still relevant today is adequate evidence that the pacifist position that the New Testament principle of love supersedes what the Old Testament teaches and never allows for killing is in fact inconsistent with what Scripture teaches.
The second key Scripture passage needed in having a Christian perspective occurs in Romans 13: 1-7, the most fundamental passage in understanding the purpose of government and the Christian's relationship to it. Romans 13:3-6 states: ?
3? For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. ?4? For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. ?5? Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.
There are several words and phrases in these verses that must be understood in order for an individual to have a clear perception of the government's responsibility to punish evildoers, which include defending oneself against aggressors and would be aggressors. The first is the phrase 'for rulers' stated at the beginning of verse 3. Paul then illuminates further as to what this phrase means at the beginning of verse 4 when he uses the phrase 'for he is God's minister'. The term used in verse 3 is a very generic one referring to all officers of government. The word used in verse 4 reiterates that governing authorities are in fact appointed by God , as seen in verse 1 and are therefore ministers of God in a civil sense. This may be hard to understand when one observes cruel governments such as communism and Hitler's Germany but one must keep in mind that the context in which Paul wrote these words was under the rule of the vicious and tyrannical emperor Nero. Secondly, Paul describes what these authorities are mandated to do. In verse 3 they are to be a terror to evil, meaning they are to be a cause of fear or a deterrent for wickedness. In verse 4 evildoers, aggressors, are to be afraid because governing authorities bear the sword and can use it not only to execute wrath on those deserving of capital punishment but also use it against aggressors. It is important to keep in mind that the apostle Paul most likely had much of the Torah committed to memory.
It is widely accepted that this passage is talking about authorities punishing evildoers, what is debated has to do with the meaning of the phrase for he does not bear the sword in vain . Opponents of killing have argued that "the sword clearly refers to the state's authority to punish evildoers, it does not demand that the state punish by execution." It is argued that crucifixion, not the sword, was the means by which the Roman government would have executed a criminal. While this is true, it would have made less sense to say 'for he does not bear the cross in vain.'
On the other hand, an accurate understanding of this phrase was widely accepted by church fathers, theologians and commentators to symbolize the right of the civil government to inflict the ultimate penalty of death and defend against aggressors. The fourth century church father Augustine says of 'the sword' in Romans 13:4: "'For he beareth not the sword in vain,' saith the apostle. Draw not the sword wherewith thou dost strike Christ...The authority is hated because it is legitimate; he acts in a hated manner who acts according to the law." The leading Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas said, "It is lawful to kill an evildoer...Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death." Luther said of the sword, "even heathen rulers have the right and power to punish; nay, it is their duty to punish them, for it is just for this purpose that they bear the sword." Calvin, in his commentary of this passage said, "It is another part of the office of magistrates...that they are armed with the sword, not for an empty show, but that they may smite evil doers."
The apostle Peter reiterates Paul in 1 Peter 2:13-14 when he writes: ? Therefore submit yourselves to every ?ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. One who adheres to the just war theory is understands that war only begins because of evil and evildoers. The term, which I have been using, to describe these evil doers is the word 'aggressor'. Walzer describes aggression as the name given to the crime of war. "Aggression is remarkable because it is the only crime that can commit against other states...Every violation of the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of an independent state is called aggression...All aggressive acts have one thing in common: they justify forceful resistance, and force cannot be used between nations, as it often can between persons, without putting life itself at risk." There is good reason to believe that Peter had the same thinking on this issue as Paul in dealing with 'the punishment of evildoers'. Peter uses the word ekdikesin for punishment, which comes from the root word Paul used, ekdikos , meaning avenger or one who seeks justice in Romans 13:4. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that Peter's use of the word carried with it the same meaning of justice that Paul ascribed to it. The 1Peter passage is mentioned here out of its clear connection and support of the key Romans passage.
In Acts 25:11 there is further support for Paul's mandate in Romans 13. Though this passage is not directly dealing with the subject of killing, there is a clear recognition and submission to this mandate given to the civil government. Paul responds to a question asked of him by Festus: ?" For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. ?I appeal to Caesar.?" There are those who object the killing claim in Paul's statement regarding 'anything deserving of death' as a reference to martyrdom. For Paul's statements to be interpreted as anything other than the Roman government's right to exercise the justice would have been somewhat hypocritical. This is a clear recognition that there are crimes for which an individual can be put to death. Paul is clearly declaring justice by recognizing what justice is.
There appears additional support for killing from the lips of Jesus in John 19:10-11 as He stands on trial before Pilate. Then Pilate said to Him, "Are You not speaking to me? Dou You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You? Jesus answered, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." At this point in the trial, Jesus had been silent, not responding to any accusations or questions. Because of Jesus' silence, Pilate asks why Jesus would not respond to the accusations being brought against him and proclaimed to Jesus that he had the civil authority to crucify Him or to free Him. The word exousia is translated here 'power' and has also been translated 'authority' in the NASB and means "action given authoritatively by the king, government or laws of a state and conferring authority, permission or freedom on corporations or in many instances, especially in legal matters, on individuals." This is the same governing authority given by God to an individual that is referred to in Romans 13. The authority or power that Pilate is heralding he has, according to Jesus, is given to him from God. This is not saying that God was giving permission to Pilate to crucify His Son, as he had no authority over Jesus who went to the cross willingly, but rather as Calvin states this "speaks to the office of the magistrates." Jesus is clearly reminding Pilate that all authority is granted by God and therefore carries with it accountability to God to do what is just. It is my contention that the just war theory is aiming at that very idea, governing authorities attempting to bring war under the umbrella of justice. It is important to note that Jesus was not referring Pilate's clout over Him specifically but rather to the power given to him. Jesus' statements, while speaking to the general category of governing authority, recognized the authorization of killing. Therefore the mandate for justice is not only supported by the apostles, but Jesus as well.
It becomes increasingly obvious that key Scripture passages not only permit but also commands the use of killing by civil authorities. While other passages support or presume this, at this point the position of Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:1-7 is unwavering and clear and to come to any other conclusions would be a direct result of faulty exegesis. It has been stated earlier that the Noahic covenant is still relevant for today and thus the mandate for retributive justice is applicable. Even if one were to hold that Old Testament Codes were inoperative today one would have to still hold to the mandate of Genesis 9:6 since the New Testament reaffirms that position. It is important to remember that the Old and New Testament are in harmony because Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-20).
Upon understanding what key passages say concerning killing, other questions arise and need to be understood in an effort to gain a Christian perspective. One such question has to do with the sixth commandment: You shall not murder (Ex. 20:13). If the Bible clearly states not to murder in the Ten Commandments and then prescribes that one who does murder should be put to death in other places, then is there a contradiction? To answer this question it must be understood that the first five commandments deal with the individual's relationship with God and the second five commandments deal with the individual's relationship with others. It is no surprise that the first subject dealt with in the second half of the Ten Commandments is the sanctity of human life because it is the basis of human existence. In answering the above question it should be understood that the purpose of the verse as Calvin put it in Institutes for the Christian Religion is that "each man ought to concern himself with the safety of all." The intention of this command is that we are to conduct ourselves as respecters of human life.
Second, to have a clear comprehension of this commandment there needs to be a clear understanding of the term used here for 'murder'. The term used here is ratsach , which means to "take the life of another so as to cause a state of death." There are forty-seven occurrences of this term in the Old Testament, most of which occur in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, all having to do with murder. The Bible clearly states in Exodus 21:12 and Numbers 35:16-21 that the penalty for breaking this command is death. A civil government that takes the life of a murderer or authorizes war, thus authorizing the killing of soldiers who serve the aggressor state is not murder but administering the retributive justice that God has given them the authority to carry out. A government that seeks to defend itself against aggressors and sends young men into battle is not legitimizing murder but killing in the name of self defense. They are not guilty of breaking the sixth commandment because they are in fact carrying out the command of God. Luther said of this, "if such a person is killed, even though he is killed by the human sword, he is nevertheless correctly said to have been killed by God. If it were not for this command of God, it would be just as unlawful to kill..." This distinction between murder and carrying out justice under divinely granted authority causes any argument that may attempt to utilize the sixth commandment against killing null and void.
Another question raised after understanding the Scriptural mandate for killing has to do with reconciling it with the Biblical idea of mercy. There are two concerns that must be addressed here. The first has to do with the instances in the Bible where God spared the life of an individual guilty of the capital crime of murder, for example in the cases of Cain, Moses and David. It should be understood that there are many other examples where God did not spare the life of the evildoer. It should also be understood that in the instances where God did spare the individual's life, it was He extending that grace to that individual and not society. The fact that God spared certain individual's lives at various times cannot be used as an argument to overturn the mandate issued in Genesis 9 and Romans 13.
The second concern often asked has to do with the woman caught in adultery and brought before Jesus by the Scribes and Pharisees in John 8. Under Mosaic Law, adultery was a capital offense. Upon observing this passage, Jesus prescribes nothing concerning killing; therefore it would be reading something into the text that does not exist to attempt to use this passage as an argument against killing. After the woman was brought before Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees explained her crime and delivered their sentence of what should be done to her according to the Law of Moses, Jesus' first response was a question concerning their own morality, He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first (John 8:7).
The word translated 'without sin' is anamartetos and a possible better translation may be 'without fault'. To translate this phrase 'without fault' speaks specifically to the case at hand. This is essential in understanding that Jesus is not suggesting something contrary to but is rather conforming to Mosaic Law. The reality is that the Scribes and Pharisees were at fault in desiring to see this woman put to death for adultery. They possibly failed to meet Mosaic qualifications on three points.
First, the Law required that there are to be two or three witnesses to establish guilt (Deut. 17:6-7) and if that requirement was not met and the accusations were still made, then the penalty that would have been inflicted on the accused was inflicted on the accuser (Deut. 19:16-19). Secondly, both parties guilty of adultery were to be present when tried and executed (Deut. 22:22-24). Obviously this requirement was not met because the man this woman was accused of having an affair with was not present. Thirdly, the Law required that the accusers and witness bring the woman forth with pure motives (Exodus 23:1-8).
We know that the motives of the Scribes and Pharisees were impure which is probably why Jesus asked the first question having to do with anyone who is 'without fault'. We also know from verse 8 that their motive was to test Him that they may have something of which to accuse Him . Since their motives were impure, the woman they brought to Jesus was not condemned and Jesus simply told her to go and sin no more (verse 11). There is nothing in this passage that suggests Jesus is teaching something new about killing.
Before concluding, a word must be said concerning the attitude of one who has been convinced that the Bible not only permits, but also mandates killing. Evangelical Christians have rightly been accused of heralding this truth with a sense of excitement and enthusiasm. While we are individuals who pursue to know and defend what is right and should do so with zeal and excitement, when dealing with an issue such as this, much will be communicated to those of whom we represent the truth by the attitude in which we defend as well as the words we use to do so. Our enthusiasm should be found in pursuing and defending right and wrong for the glory of God and not in the killing of murderers.
Eisenhower stated in his Chance for Peace speech in 1953, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies...a theft of those that are hungry and are not fed, and those that are cold and are not clothed." Our hearts should resonate with the words of our compassionate Father when He said "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11). As C. S. Lewis stated in Mere Christianity :
We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it...Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves--to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him; wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.
In conclusion, to have a Christian perspective on killing, one must have a clear understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Many times in dealing with this issue, statistics, case studies and testimonies are introduced to try and persuade one way or another but if one accepts the authority of the Bible, then the issue must be decided upon what the Bible says. While it may be true that the judicial system has flaws, this does not mean we are to abolish a clear mandate from God. And while government has been given the responsibility to protect its people from evildoers or aggressors we as Christians must never substitute compassion, even for the wicked, for a charismatic zeal to punish. It would in fact be sin to rejoice in the suffering that aggressors face for their actions. "War has always been horrible whether fought by sticks and stones, bows and arrows, swords and spears, muskets and rifles or bayonets and bombs. The Christian mind cannot operate in a vacuum however strongly we hold fast to God's once and all revelation of Himself in Christ and Scripture, we have to struggle to relate this to the harsh realities of the contemporary world. Thus revelation and reality being need to be united together as we seek to discern God's will."