Executive Summary
This white paper examines how the sixth commandment of the Hebrew Bible—traditionally rendered in English as “Thou shalt not kill”—came to be misunderstood and misinterpreted in much of modern thought as a blanket prohibition on all forms of killing. It analyzes the original Hebrew terminology, the contexts of biblical law, and the ways self-defense, military service, and capital punishment were explicitly regulated but not prohibited. The paper further explores how mistranslation, theological shifts, and modern ethical trends contributed to this misinterpretation, creating confusion among believers and non-believers alike about the biblical position on lawful killing.
Introduction
One of the most often-quoted and least-understood biblical injunctions is the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). Many English Bibles render it as “Thou shalt not kill.” As a result, many assume the Bible universally forbids all acts of taking life. Yet the same biblical text prescribes capital punishment for certain crimes, permits defensive violence, and even commands military campaigns. How, then, did such a specific prohibition on murder evolve into a perceived blanket condemnation of all killing? This paper seeks to clarify the linguistic, legal, and historical dimensions of the commandment and explain the roots of its misunderstanding.
The Original Command: Language and Context
The Hebrew Text
The sixth commandment reads:
לֹא תִּרְצָח (lo tirtzach)
The key verb ratsach (רָצַח) refers specifically to murder, the unlawful, premeditated, or malicious killing of another human being. It does not refer to all forms of killing. Other Hebrew terms—such as harag (to kill, in a broader sense) and muth (to put to death)—are used elsewhere to describe lawful executions, killings in battle, and even accidental killings.
Biblical scholars and lexicographers consistently distinguish ratsach as referring to acts of personal violence that violate the social and moral order. For example:
Numbers 35 distinguishes ratsach (murder) from accidental killing and outlines cities of refuge for manslaughter. In Deuteronomy 19 and Exodus 21, specific penalties and procedures distinguish between intentional murder and accidental killing.
Biblical Sanction of Lawful Killing
The Mosaic law, immediately following the Ten Commandments, prescribes the death penalty for certain offenses (e.g., Exodus 21:12–17, Leviticus 20).
It also allows defensive killing during a home invasion (Exodus 22:2–3).
Furthermore, Israelite men were conscripted into military service, and God commanded offensive wars under certain conditions (Deuteronomy 20).
These examples clearly indicate that the biblical prohibition did not apply to judicial executions, defensive violence, or just war.
Misinterpretation Through Translation
The misinterpretation of the commandment stems in part from translation choices:
The King James Version (1611) rendered lo tirtzach as “Thou shalt not kill.” At the time, “kill” in Early Modern English could still mean “murder,” but as English evolved, “kill” became broader in meaning. Later English speakers, unaware of the narrower intent, began to treat the commandment as forbidding all killing.
In contrast, modern translations more accurately render the verse as “You shall not murder” (e.g., ESV, NIV, NASB).
Latin and Greek translations also contributed to confusion:
The Septuagint (LXX) uses ou phoneuseis, from phoneuō, which means “murder.” The Vulgate uses non occides, which literally means “do not kill,” though in Latin legal usage it often carried the sense of “murder.”
Thus, linguistic shifts in target languages obscured the nuance of the Hebrew original.
Theological Shifts and Ethical Trends
Early Christian Pacifism
Some early Christian writers, particularly in the ante-Nicene period, advocated a degree of pacifism that rejected all forms of killing. Writers like Tertullian and Origen opposed military service and capital punishment, partly in reaction to Roman pagan violence. Their views influenced subsequent Christian attitudes toward killing in general.
Medieval Scholastic Distinctions
By the Middle Ages, theologians like Augustine and Aquinas reasserted the legitimacy of defensive violence, just war, and capital punishment under proper authority. They argued that the commandment prohibited only private, unlawful killing.
Modern Ethical Movements
In modern times, especially under the influence of Enlightenment humanism and 20th-century pacifist movements, many religious and secular thinkers began to treat the commandment as an absolute prohibition. This perspective aligned with broader anti-war, anti-death-penalty, and humanitarian sentiments but departed from the biblical context.
Implications for Self-Defense, Military Service, and Capital Punishment
Self-Defense:
Biblical law explicitly allows defensive killing when one’s life is in immediate danger, especially in the home (Exodus 22:2). This right was balanced by penalties for excessive or retaliatory violence.
Military Service:
Military service was not only permitted but at times required under biblical law. The book of Joshua and the commands in Deuteronomy assume the legitimacy of collective defense and conquest under divine command.
Capital Punishment:
The Mosaic covenant instituted capital punishment for a range of serious crimes (Exodus 21, Leviticus 20). This was viewed as an extension of divine justice administered by legitimate authority.
Thus, the sixth commandment never forbade these forms of killing.
Conclusion
The misinterpretation of the sixth commandment as a general prohibition on killing is a product of linguistic shifts, translation imprecision, and ethical movements in later centuries that prioritized pacifism and humanitarianism. Properly understood in its original Hebrew context and biblical legal framework, the commandment prohibits only murder—the unlawful, intentional killing of another person—while allowing for the lawful taking of life in defense, justice, and war under rightful authority.
Clarifying this distinction is crucial for both biblical interpretation and ethical discussions on issues like self-defense, military service, and capital punishment.
Recommendations
Encourage use of accurate translations (“You shall not murder”) in liturgy, education, and scholarship. Promote teaching on biblical legal distinctions between murder, manslaughter, and lawful killing. Engage in theological education to counteract oversimplified or sentimental interpretations.
References
Brown, F., Driver, S., & Briggs, C. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Augustine. City of God. Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Christian Life. Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
I largely concur: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/06/reference-counter-to-traditional.html?m=1
–
But appreciate that the old WCG actually realized that the sixth commandment-related arguments for the doctrine nwere less than solid. I know this from discussions with pre-1995 WCG ministers, as well as post-1995 UCG ministers, and folks of the CGI branch network. Exodus 22 and the death penalty cut Hyde g hope a the whole idea. The reason for the pacifism doctrine was actually only to keep people out of the draft. The reason for keeping people out of the draft was not to avoid killing, or political involvement, or even bonded servitude (besides, the 1 Corinthians 7 argument used in that latter regard wouldn’t apply to compulsory service). It was the Sabbath. Or at least, that was the official unofficial statement, as explained to me by then-UCG/now-COGaWA minister. The idea was that military service made Sabbath observance… difficult, shall we say. (I go into that issue in the context of military service in the above link.) As a result, Armstrong took the pacifist approach to the issue. Then, normal political involvement was renounced under the claim that it helped members gain CO status.
But this is where the plot thickens. Armstrong was reared a Quaker. Quakers are known for two things in this regard — conscientious objection and political activism. They are living proof that one does not preclude the other. Armstrong would’ve known this. Yet he put out this claim. This should tell the honest observer that there was more to the story. I believe there is. But more on that later.
Looking at all the various rhetoric I heard in my time in Armstrongism, what emerges is a figure-8 circular reasoning where the sixth commandment is interpreted as pacifism in order to keep people out of the military, despite the pacifism doctrine being known to be wrong. Part of the reason military service was said to be as wrong was that it would constitute political involvement. But civilian political involvement was barred in order to avoid the draft, even though it doesn’t work that way at all. All this was done over Sabbath observance — which, of course, points back to “True Church” identity, and the resultant authority — even though the same logic used to justify set-up for services can be applied to the original Noachide Genesis 9 military duty.
If this sounds like an interlocking contradiction, it’s because it is. There is, though, one constant through all of this — control. The ultimate reality is the desire of “church authority” (and that means Armstrong himself) to hold members. Political involvement would divide loyalties. Military service would divide obedience. Never mind that both are themselves functions of divine directive (Gen 9; Rom 13). They would be authorities from God not passing through or subject to Armstrong. Add in his emphasis on the “Government of God” concept as being represented by himself/his church, and the reason to separate members from the aforementioned Civic Duty as apparent and quite logical.
Honestly, on a more gritty level, the whole matter looks like an effort to keep members from seeing a way out of some of the encumbrance on which so much Armstrongist culture (I could play with that word here, but I won’t) and eschatology — linking again to the “True Church” identity/authority — is built. Imagine a church composed heavily of military, First Responder, and medical people. People involved in their community, serving their neighbors, actively loving their country, and not being hypocritical when they and/or their church speak out on issues of the day — all the while maintaining their faith and convictions. It would not be the same faith community! It sounds… Actually, that sounds kind of awesome, as well as biblical. Maybe for all its issues, the Church of God World Missionary Society is onto something there.
That’s my take.
LikeLike
It’s good to know what you would like about that picture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is almost certainly that contortion more than anything else – save perhaps the April 1979 statement we’ve been discussing – that led me to specifically invoke the December 1, 1980 Tucson statement. But that is a judgment you will have to make for yourself.
LikeLike
On a more psychological note, one reason I suspect Christian seventh-day Sabbatarian movements are disproportionally pacifist is a simple matter of legalism. I don’t intend this characterization in a bad way at all. Rather, seventh-day Sabbatarians are by very nature of that going to be a bit… particular, shall we say. They are going to read what others perceive as technicalities as central and crucial. (It’s the difference between one-day-in-seven and THE seventh day of a seven-day cycle since Creation.) As a result, the classic “turn the other cheek” directive is, by a disproportionate number of them, not taken as a platitude or a concept in a particular context (cf Lamentations 3), but rather, black-letter law unto itself. Add in a certain masochism that can develop the more emphasis they place on their very specific and at times seemingly encumbering Fourth Commandment application, and to see their faith is demanding such a vulnerability becomes a little more reasonable to them.
But to again head that off for the thinking Sabbatarian (and any other Christian-professing folks in the audience), please see: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/06/reference-counter-to-traditional.html?m=1
Just my take.
LikeLike