Taking life

[Kris762]

As Christians are we able to take anothers life in the line of duty or defence?

It's something I've often pondered as a Christian, especially for those that are members (past or present) of the Military or law enforcement agencies, or those of us who are civilians but have defended innocents from criminals.

As Christians can we fight and engage the enemy where we find him, is there a clear passage of Scripture that answers my question and someone can show me?

[ForgivenOne]

I don't have any scripture references, but there are hundreds of instances in which God has set armies against each other. Outright murder is a sin, but I think being in the military, and executing lawful orders of the chain of command does not fall under outright murder.

[Noah Cotterill]

Exodus 22:2

Here's one instance (granted it's old law) where killing is allowed. Note that this is Moses' law, and is therefor not perfect. Remember when Jesus said that divorce which Moses sanctioned was not something Jesus said was good, but allowed because of hardness of hearts?

Ask this question, would a loving God let justice go undone? If your family was being raped and murdered, and the police said they don't want to solve the problem because they would have to kill the perpetrators, is that love?


I hope wiser people comment further. I don't know much scripture on this.

[readytogo]

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" should be more appropriately translated, "Thou shalt not murder." It doesn't extend to the military or law enforcement who are doing the job that they are called to do---protect and defend. However, since Jesus told us that if we're angry at someone (Matthew 5:21-22) that that is the same as murder. So, essentially, we're all murderers.

[mattfivefour]

Taking the life of another is not as definitive as "Thou shalt not kill". First of all, that is a mistranslation. The meaning of the Hebrew is "Thou shalt do no murder." Murder is not merely the act of killing someone; otherwise legal governments would be murdering criminals when they execute them; God would be murdering people when he takes their lives. No, murder is specifically the unjust taking of life. It is killing somebody out of malice. And malice is the result of a person's overwhelming love of self that manifests itself in everything from hatred of others to covetousness of what others have. We are to do no murder, because it springs from the unrighteous motives of an evil heart.

So, if murder is what is proscribed, then when is it alright to kill ... if ever?

For all Christians, in all situations, there is usually a tension between two scriptures. The one is to love God with all of our hearts, minds, soul, and strength. This means obeying His Word. And the other is to love our neighbor as Christ loved us. We need to keep both of these at all times. But did you know that the first defines the last; and the last fulfills the first?

Therefore, when in doubt as to what God would have you do, always ask if what you are contemplating doing is loving your neighbor. This means helping the weak, the poor, the widow, the orphan, the one in need. And it equally means stopping those who would harm them.

And when in doubt as to what you should do for your neighbor, always ask if what you are doing is in obedience to God. This means helping the weak, the poor, the widow, the orphan, the one in need. And it equally means stopping those who would harm them.

You see, both commandments are mutually interwoven. The outcome of both will be identical!

When any issue of Christian living—from the least significant situation all the way to that of taking a life—arises, submitting it to these two commandments will instruct you what to do.

I pray that helps all who read here.
_________________

(Edit: Karen I was writing my response when you posted yours. I did not mean to step on your correct interpretation of the sixth—for Jews it is the fifth—commandment.)

[forensics]

This only brings to mind the story of Abraham and his being asked to "kill" his son. God knew already that he would not do it based on Abraham's faith that god would provide another means for sacrifice. But God did indeed ask Abraham to "kill" his son. How do we answer that question in our minds when linked with "thou shalt not kill" ? Even though this was (if I recall correct) before the ten commandments were written. I just have to wonder on that until someone can clarify better for me.

Genesis 22:1-2

[dave-o]

I can't really add much to what mattfivefour said but as for scripture there is this:

Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 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.

The sword is a symbol of deadly force, specifically directed here towards those who do (or are trying to do) evil and note that the authority for this is sanctioned by God (V.1)
(If Paul wrote that today he would undoubtedly say "For he does not bear a firearm in vain;")

If you are ever (God forbid!) in situation where innocent life is threatened lets pray that there is an official law enforcement officer (i.e., God's minister for good) to take the appropriate action. But if not and you must do it you yourself than you will merely be a proxy for the officer who couldn't get there in time.

[Kris762]

I can't really add much to what mattfivefour said but as for scripture there is this:

Romans 13
13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

How can one submit to evil corrupt regimes or governing bodies such as Bashar Assads or the Ayotollahs of Iran etc? Or am I taking this out of context?

[mattfivefour]

Forensics, God alone has the right to take life. What He gives, He can take. And, since He is perfectly righteous, everything He does can only be righteous. The Ten Commandments that He gave Moses were an expression of that righteousness in terms of how man should live. Because of all of the forgoing, His ordering Abraham to take Isaac's life was not unrighteous.

Dave-o, you are correct. (Except when you labeled your first verse as Romans 13:13. It is of course Romans 13:1.)

Kris, let us never forget that God gives man what he wants, not necessarily what He wants. God did not want Israel to have Saul, but He gave him to them. If man persists in walking away from God, then God will give him over to what he wants. We get the leaders we deserve. And, because they are allowed by Him to lead and because of the necessity of we as Christians maintaining a good testimony in the eyes of society, we owe these leaders the DUTY of obeying them in everything. Everything, that is, EXCEPT where their commands are in direct opposition to God's commands.

Perhaps the issue can best be summed up by what the great Bible expositor Albert Barnes wrote in his commentary on Romans 13:1 almost 200 years ago. It is worth the couple of minutes to read:
_______

"¹ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Let every soul - Every person. In the seven first verses of this chapter, the apostle discusses the subject of the duty which Christians owe to civil government; a subject which is extremely important, and at the same time exceedingly difficult. There is no doubt that he had express reference to the special situation of the Christians at Rome; but the subject was of so much importance that he gives it a "general" bearing, and states the great principles on which all Christians are to act. The circumstances which made this discussion proper and important were the following:

(1) The Christian religion was designed to extend throughout the world. Yet it contemplated the rearing of a kingdom amid other kingdoms, an empire amid other empires. Christians professed supreme allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ; he was their Lawgiver, their Sovereign, their Judge. It became, therefore, a question of great importance and difficulty, "what kind" of allegiance they were to render to earthly magistrates.

(2) the kingdoms of the world were then "pagan" kingdoms. The laws were made by pagans, and were adapted to the prevalence of paganism. Those kingdoms had been generally founded in conquest, and blood, and oppression. Many of the monarchs were blood-stained warriors; were unprincipled men; and were polluted in their private, and oppressive in their public character. Whether Christians were to acknowledge the laws of such kingdoms and of such men, was a serious question, and one which could not but occur very early. It would occur also very soon, in circumstances that would be very affecting and trying. Soon the hands of these magistrates were to be raised against Christians in the fiery scenes of persecution; and the duty and extent of submission to them became a matter of very serious inquiry.

(3) many of the early Christians were composed of Jewish converts. Yet the Jews had long been under Roman oppression, and had borne the foreign yoke with great uneasiness. The whole pagan magistracy they regarded as founded in a system of idolatry; as opposed to God and his kingdom; and as abomination in his sight. With these feelings they had become Christians; and it was natural that their former sentiments should exert an influence on them after their conversion. How far they should submit, if at all, to heathen magistrates, was a question of deep interest; and there was danger that the "Jewish" converts might prove to be disorderly and rebellious citizens of the empire.

(4) nor was the case much different with the "Gentile" converts. They would naturally look with abhorrence on the system of idolatry which they had just forsaken. They would regard all as opposed to God. They would denounce the "religion" of the pagans as abomination; and as that religion was interwoven with the civil institutions, there was danger also that they might denounce the government altogether, and be regarded as opposed to the laws of the land,

(5) there "were" cases where it was right to "resist" the laws. This the Christian religion clearly taught; and in cases like these, it was indispensable for Christians to take a stand. When the laws interfered with the rights of conscience; when they commanded the worship of idols, or any moral wrong, then it was their duty to refuse submission. Yet in what cases this was to be done, where the line was to be drawn, was a question of deep importance, and one which was not easily settled. It is quite probable, however, that the main danger was, that the early Christians would err in "refusing" submission, even when it was proper, rather than in undue conformity to idolatrous rites and ceremonies.

(6) in the "changes" which were to occur in human governments, it would be an inquiry of deep interest, what part Christians should take, and what submission they should yield to the various laws which might spring up among the nations. The "principles" on which Christians should act are settled in this chapter.

Be subject - Submit. The word denotes that kind of submission which soldiers render to their officers. It implies "subordination;" a willingness to occupy our proper place, to yield to the authority of those over us. The word used here does not designate the "extent" of the submission, but merely enjoins it in general. The general principle will be seen to be, that we are to obey in all things which are not contrary to the Law of God.

The higher powers - The magistracy; the supreme government. It undoubtedly here refers to the Roman magistracy, and has relation not so much to the rulers as to the supreme "authority" which was established as the constitution of government; compare Matthew 10:1; Matthew 28:18.

For - The apostle gives a "reason" why Christians should be subject; and that reason is, that magistrates have received their appointment from God. As Christians, therefore, are to be subject to God, so they are to honor "God" by honoring the arrangement which he has instituted for the government of mankind. Doubtless, he here intends also to repress the vain curiosity and agitation with which men are prone to inquire into the "titles" of their rulers; to guard them from the agitation and conflicts of party, and of contentions to establish a favorite on the throne. It might be that those in power had not a proper title to their office; that they had secured it, not according to justice, but by oppression; but into that question Christians were not to enter. The government was established, and they were not to seek to overturn it.

No power - No office; no magistracy; no civil rule.

But of God - By God's permission, or appointment; by the arrangements of his providence, by which those in office had obtained their power. God often claims and asserts that "He" sets up one, and puts down another; Psalm 75:7; Daniel 2:21; Daniel 4:17, Daniel 4:25, Daniel 4:34-35.

The powers that be - That is, all the civil magistracies that exist; those who have the "rule" over nations, by whatever means they may have obtained it. This is equally true at all times, that the powers that exist, exist by the permission and providence of God.

Are ordained of God - This word "ordained" denotes the "ordering" or "arrangement" which subsists in a "military" company, or army. God sets them "in order," assigns them their location, changes and directs them as he pleases. This does not mean that he "originates" or causes the evil dispositions of rulers, but that he "directs" and "controls" their appointment. By this, we are not to infer:

(1) That he approves their conduct; nor,

(2) That what they do is always right; nor,

(3) That it is our duty "always" to submit to them.

Their requirements "may be" opposed to the Law of God, and then we are to obey God rather than man; Acts 4:19; Acts 5:29. But it is meant that the power is intrusted to them by God; and that he has the authority to remove them when he pleases. If they abuse their power, however, they do it at their peril; and "when" so abused, the obligation to obey them ceases. That this is the case, is apparent further from the nature of the "question" which would be likely to arise among the early Christians. It "could not be" and "never was" a question, whether they should obey a magistrate when he commanded a thing that was plainly contrary to the Law of God. But the question was, whether they should obey a pagan magistrate at "all." This question the apostle answers in the affirmative, because "God" had made government necessary, and because it was arranged and ordered by his providence. Probably also the apostle had another object in view. At the time in which he wrote this Epistle, the Roman Empire was agitated with civil dissensions. One emperor followed another in rapid succession. The throne was often seized, not by right, but by crime. Different claimants would rise, and their claims would excite controversy. The object of the apostle was to prevent Christians from entering into those disputes, and from taking an active part in a political controversy. Besides, the throne had been "usurped" by the reigning emperors, and there was a prevalent disposition to rebel against a tyrannical government. Claudius had been put to death by poison; Caligula in a violent manner; Nero was a tyrant; and amidst these agitations, and crimes, and revolutions, the apostle wished to guard Christians from taking an active part in political affairs.
_______

I pray that helps.

[Kris762]

Excellent explanation Adrian, thanks very much! Leaves no further questions in my mind.

[Kris762]

Kris, let us never forget that God gives man what he wants, not necessarily what He wants. God did not want Israel to have Saul, but He gave him to them. If man persists in walking away from God, then God will give him over to what he wants. We get the leaders we deserve. And, because they are allowed by Him to lead and because of the necessity of we as Christians maintaining a good testimony in the eyes of society, we owe these leaders the DUTY of obeying them in everything. Everything, that is, EXCEPT where their commands are in direct opposition to God's commands.

That says it all pretty much.

[nillapoet]

Taking the life of another is not as definitive as "Thou shalt not kill". First of all, that is a mistranslation. The meaning of the Hebrew is "Thou shalt do no murder." Murder is not merely the act of killing someone; otherwise legal governments would be murdering criminals when they execute them; God would be murdering people when he takes their lives. No, murder is specifically the unjust taking of life. It is killing somebody out of malice. And malice is the result of a person's overwhelming love of self that manifests itself in everything from hatred of others to covetousness of what others have. We are to do no murder, because it springs from the unrighteous motives of an evil heart.

So, if murder is what is proscribed, then when is it alright to kill ... if ever?

For all Christians, in all situations, there is usually a tension between two scriptures. The one is to love God with all of our hearts, minds, soul, and strength. This means obeying His Word. And the other is to love our neighbor as Christ loved us. We need to keep both of these at all times. But did you know that the first defines the last; and the last fulfills the first?

Therefore, when in doubt as to what God would have you do, always ask if what you are contemplating doing is loving your neighbor. This means helping the weak, the poor, the widow, the orphan, the one in need. And it equally means stopping those who would harm them.

And when in doubt as to what you should do for your neighbor, always ask if what you are doing is in obedience to God. This means helping the weak, the poor, the widow, the orphan, the one in need. And it equally means stopping those who would harm them.

You see, both commandments are mutually interwoven. The outcome of both will be identical!

When any issue of Christian living—from the least significant situation all the way to that of taking a life—arises, submitting it to these two commandments will instruct you what to do.

I pray that helps all who read here.
_________________

(Edit: Karen I was writing my response when you posted yours. I did not mean to step on your correct interpretation of the sixth—for Jews it is the fifth—commandment.)

This is almost exactly what I wanted to say. I finally know something, and you beat me to it Adrian.

[mattfivefour]

I apologize.

[alishaba]

Here are a couple of items related to "murder" versus "killing."

The Self Defense Clause: If somebody breaks into your house at night and you kill them, this is not treated as murder. (Exodus 22:2)

Also, there is the circular argument. God said not to commit murder, but he also provided a long list of infractions in the Law of Moses where offenders were to be put to death. If people were not allowed to murder anybody, then how could an offender of the Law be put to death? God obviously considered this to be an "acceptable murder." (Or maybe I should say an "acceptable killing.")

[mattfivefour]

Here are a couple of items related to "murder" versus "killing."

The Self Defense Clause: If somebody breaks into your house at night and you kill them, this is not treated as murder. (Exodus 22:2)

Maybe in man's eyes, but not always in God's. Remember that the Exodus 22:2 defense was only available at night when, in those primitive days, it could not be determined who a person was or what danger he posed. If the killing of an intruder occurred in the daytime, that defense was not available (Exodus 21:12; 22:3.) I know that this self-defense law has been written into modern legal systems in America. But while a person today can kill an intruder with no serious legal repercussions in most jurisdictions, that impunity does not necessarily apply to the eternal Bar of Justice. It depends on what was in the heart of the person who did the killing. It also depends on whether the killer's life or family was threatened. Man's laws may set aside God's; but that will not prevent the eventual judgment.

Also, there is the circular argument. God said not to commit murder, but he also provided a long list of infractions in the Law of Moses where offenders were to be put to death. If people were not allowed to murder anybody, then how could an offender of the Law be put to death? God obviously considered this to be an "acceptable murder." (Or maybe I should say an "acceptable killing.")

Respectfully, I am not sure why you would consider this a circular argument? As I think is pointed out above, there is a vast difference between murder and killing. Murder is never acceptable. It is unrighteous killing. And stands eternally condemned. But in Hebrew the word that is used in the Ten Commandments is רָצַח (ratsach, pronounced raw-TSACH) and literally means to murder. The verb meaning simply "to kill" is usually הָרַג (harag, pronounced haw-RAG. Harag​ is usually necessary or rightful killing.

[readytogo]

Also, there is the circular argument. God said not to commit murder, but he also provided a long list of infractions in the Law of Moses where offenders were to be put to death. If people were not allowed to murder anybody, then how could an offender of the Law be put to death? God obviously considered this to be an "acceptable murder." (Or maybe I should say an "acceptable killing.")

God's word says that "the wages (penalty) of sin is death". Although if certain crimes were committed, the punishment would be immediate death. God is our creator and, as such, can create the laws as He sees fit to govern us and impose the penalty that He wants. We are not to judge God. The only time that I've ever heard of this termed a "circular argument" was by atheists. Those who believe in Him and understand grace know that it's only by His grace that we sin and continue to live. Killing is not against God's law in the absence of the malice that Matt spoke of.

[dave-o]

How can one submit to evil corrupt regimes or governing bodies such as Bashar Assads or the Ayotollahs of Iran etc? Or am I taking this out of context?

Even those maniacal despots are not, as Paul writes, "a terror to good works". In Iran God has allowed pastor Yousef to be horribly persecuted and yet God has shown the HE is STILL in control there and pastor Yousef not only lives but has been used by God as a worldwide witness for Christ. If he had used guns instead of faith he'd be dead for sure.

[Joe B]

The only thing that I would add to this discussion is that if we had not taken up arms against the Nazis then they would now be ruling this world.

We speak often on this board of Israel attacking the Iran power stations which will, of course, involve the death of people.

I think it was Paul who said 'Insofar as it is possible live in peace with your fellow man' that doesn't excuse murder but may acknowledge that there will be times when war is the only answer?

[mattfivefour]

Indeed, Joe. (BTW, I was born just outside London in the middle of a Luftwaffe air raid!) I believe the war against the Nazi's would be covered under "love our neighbor as Christ loved us", giving ourselves for them and protecting them from those who would, with malice, harm them.

[Joe B]

Hi Matt

You beat be by a few years as I was boom baby, 1946.

I was asked on a rememberence Sunday if my Sunday School children would lead the prayers. One of the prayers that I included was to quote the words, 'No greater love have any man than to lay down his life for a friend' which was followed by, 'You are all our friends for you laid down your lives for us'.

Not sure that went down too well in my church but they were from my heart.