A (67). The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

A (68). The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others.

If the home is the fundamental social unit to the ethics, and that explains the place of the fifth commandment at the head of the second table of the law, then life itself—the image of God as an individual unit—explains the place of the sixth commandment. And the development of the Genesis narrative, from 1:26-27 to 9:5-6, is even more foundational than this. Let us begin there: 

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (1:26-27).

“From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image’” (9:5b-6).

Now it is the opinion of David VanDrunen that the rationale for the image of God as a reason for the mandate in 9:5-6 was misunderstood in the historic Western view:

“Contrary to popular assumptions, the reason this text appeals to the image of God is probably not to highlight why murder is so bad but to explain why God delegates such a profound authority to human beings.”1

By contrast, Abraham Kuyper represented the classical view of that verse in saying:

“It is a requirement to punish the murderer, not because he overpowered a creature ... but because he stretched out his hand to strike a creature that stood in relationship with me, originally created in my image, and thus could not be assaulted without at the same time violating and attacking my royal majesty.”2

Two Classes of Taking Life

That murder and killing are different is seen in four ways: (1) the Hebrew words רָצַח versus הָרַג, the former used in the Sixth Commandment; (2) in God’s command to take life in Genesis 9:5-6; (3) in God’s further directives to Israel; and (4) in the civil magistrate in all nations, testified to in Romans 13:1-5.

Reason 1. That murder and killing are different is seen, first, in the Hebrew words. We note the difference between the word רָצַח versus the word הָרַג, and that it is the former used in the Sixth Commandment, so that the King James Version was not helpful here in using the English word “kill” generically. This is crucial because when we see God commanding the taking of life over here, and then we see him forbidding the taking of life over there, what we find is not an “exception” to a rule, but rather two distinct rules. That which is an identical act, in one sense (taking of life) is not at all the identical act, in another sense (murder versus killing). So, to be crystal clear—not an exception. Two fundamentally different things.

Reason 2. That murder and killing are different is seen, second, in God’s command to take life. We refered to Genesis 9, and the reaffirmation of the creation covenant to Noah and all his generations.  The last line of the answer to Heidelberg Q.105 is “TO RESTRAIN MURDER, the magistrate is armed with the sword.” But before the state ever emerged, God had already invested, by the law of nature, or “written on the heart” (Rom. 2:14), for man to exercise a just force to uphold the image of God.

Such is the ground of 1. self-defense, 2. capital punishment, 3. the use of force by police and 4. by military in just war. The primary object here is the image of God. That is every single human being.

This right and duty is pressed upon every individual: the image as an image. Life is given by God directly. The sanctity of that life, and the responsibility each life has to preserve himself and all others, is given directly from God to each and every bearer of his image. Not yet to the civil magistrate.

As we will see, the magistrate comes after and derives his design, secondarily, in civil law, from that charge of the individual defense of life that is primarily to each individual in natural law—known by natural law, or moral law, as Paul describes in Romans 2:14-15.

Reason 3. That murder and killing are different is, third, confirmed in God’s directives to Israel. Here I do not mean that “holy war” or “devoted to destruction” (חרם) military campaign, which was unique to that stage of the Theocracy, and which I have defended elsewhere in any event. Instead, I am referring to the normal civil law of Israel, as in Numbers 35: “The murderer shall be put to death” (v. 16). The Mosaic law set forth a system of a “city of refuge” which became foundational for a place of waiting for one’s trial or the end of the sentence for the lighter case of negligence (vv. 10-34). But in any event, this showed God’s demand for there to be capital crimes.

Reason 4. That murder and killing are different is, fourth, confirmed in the civil magistrate of all nations. So Paul uses the imagery of the sword, as an authority derived from God (Rom. 13:1, 4). This is what I call the “design language” of Romans 13, as opposed to the “decree language.” The ground of that design is rooted back in Genesis 9:5-6 as we saw. In an unthinking age as ours, Romans 13 is read out of both (i) its historical first century context in the Roman provincial form of government, as well as (ii) that, much deeper, biblical-theological context that starts in Genesis 9—and which runs through Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8 and Matthew 22:17-21—a biblical worldview which would teach us that the sword is for the image of God and not against the image of God.

This requirement is just as that other catechism says, TO RESTRAIN MURDER. Not willy-nilly to wave it around in whatever way the temporary office-holder pleases. That office is to restrain murder and not to justify murder, nor to commit murder itself. But the fact that it is given by God at all proves that this taking of life is not the same as the forbidden: murder.

Now to summarize these four points, consider this simple logic. Since God can neither (i) contradict himself nor (ii) command evil, it follows by resistless logic that the taking of life he commands is both just and of a different kind altogether than those forms that he forbids. In his classic, The City of God, Augustine spoke to this very classification of “other kinds” of taking life, that is, other than murder.

“These [i.e. that are NOT MURDER] ... are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men.”3

This distinction is not hair-splitting. It is actually crucially important to setting up the preservation of life implied by the rest of the catechism answer. And what we have already seen in Genesis 9:5-6 explains why. If another human being (or group of human beings) is set upon committing violence against another image of God (or group of images of God), and if such a person can no longer be reasoned with, well then, how exactly does one preserve that life-in-danger but by a counter force against the life of the aggressor? 

Preservation of One’s Own Life

Before one even gets to the form of self-preservation when under violent attack, there is an initial stumbling block, which is the focus on one’s self. But Paul tells us,

“In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (Eph. 5:28-29).

Objection 1. Self-love is condemned everywhere in the Bible and replaced with self-denial, especially in the call to follow Christ.

Reply Obj. 1. Actually, that is false; and this is not a mere semantics issue. 

Paul’s statement is not alone. Think of where Jesus speaks of gaining our soul (i.e. not “losing” it in Mark 8:36), or even the Golden Rule which premises fair treatment of others on self-interest: “whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them” (Mat. 7:12). But if one side of that is intrinsically bad, then so would the other side have to be. Even the texts on denying the self are more ultimately driven to gain the real self for eternity. John’s version makes that plainer with the words, “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (12:25).

At any rate, the right to defend oneself is intrinsic to the nature of man as God gave us life after his own image (Gen. 9:5-6). Turretin made the same connection: “The injunctions to love our enemies do not take away the necessary defense of life because the foundation of the love of neighbors is the love of ourselves.”4

Consequently, the command to defend life includes the right of self-defense. This has been the historic Christian position. Now firearms are simply a modern form of that defense, and so this issue has to be understood in light of the same right to life by which we defend life of the unborn.

A state seeking to disarm the citizens of a country is not properly government but an occupying army. Only violent invading forces disarm populations. Proper governments only exist to aid in this defense of life. At this point we must trace out that logic—the same logic of the narrative progression from Genesis 1 to 9—but now, instead of in biblical theology, that same logic in the form of political-philosophical reflection. Perhaps no one has put it more concisely than the nineteenth century French statesman Frederic Bastiat,

“Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. 

“What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property … Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existence, its lawfulness—is based on individual right … Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against another person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”5

At the end of the day, the Self is God’s property, and so no one of us has the right to discard the image of God by violence, not even in ourselves; but as the Reformed catechisms all maintain, we have a duty to preserve all life—starting with our own. This is a revolution in thought today, where it would have been the ABCs of ethics for 2500 years prior. Today, supposedly Christian pastors and seminarians mock Western notions of “natural rights” like life, and its extension in liberty and property, as “selfish” or “individualistic,” an invention of the Enlightenment. This is devilish nonsense, and a pretext for a return to the violence of barbarism. 

Can we give some specifics from the Scripture on self-defense? Yes. The Mosaic Law explicitly allowed the defensive use of lethal force by individuals. In dealing with a thief in Exodus 22, a person could kill an intruder at night (v. 2). However, after sunrise, this was not permissible (v. 3). At night a homeowner could not tell whether the intruder was a thief or a murderer. In daytime he could decipher the person’s intention was to murder. An individual could kill a murderer at any time. He could not kill a thief to protect property; there is no parallel between a person and property. Moses laid down laws for the limited use of self-defense (Ex 21:12-22:3). Exodus 22:2-3 explicitly permits defense of self by lethal force (even if not in every situation). In John 18:11 Jesus rebuked Peter for his misuse of the sword, but He did not reject the use of the sword in general. Luke 22:36 allows for a legitimate use of the sword for self-defense. The disciples said, “Here are two swords.” Jesus responded, “It is enough.” When traveling from city to city, it was assumed that people carried swords to defend themselves from robbers.

Hodge makes a four point argument from the premise that the hatred of murder consists in malice, namely, that “desire to inflict evil to gratify.” But he says, 

“That homicide in self-defense is not forbidden by the sixth commandment is plain, (1.) Because such homicide is not malicious, and, therefore, does not come within the scope of the prohibition. (2.) Because self-preservation is an instinct of our nature, and therefore, a revelation of the will of God. (3.) Because it is a dictate of reason and of natural justice that if of two persons one must die, it should be the aggressor and not the aggrieved. (4.) Because the universal judgment of men, and the Word of God, pronounce the man innocent who kills another in defense of his own life or that of his neighbor.”6

Preservation of the Life of Others

A crucial verse comes from the Proverbs, both because it implies an imperative and because of how clear it is:

“Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?” (Prov. 24:11-12).

Now this passage has been utilized much, and rightly so, by public advocates for the unborn. But of course the logic of it applies to any group of people who are targeted for extermination. This recalls the moral responsibility to be intelligent, because the first fight will be persuading the ethical invalids that the church has created that there are any demographics targeted for extermination. To suggest that such clear and present danger is a norm of a people’s relationship to civil government has now been permanently dismissed as “conspiracy theory,” when previous generations would have simply called it by its common name: history.

History continues to raise to us a very ancient question—literally one of the oldest in history—to which God gives a resounding YES. It is the question that Cain asked disingenuously: “am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9) There should be no doubt for the Christian that we are our brother’s keeper.

APPLICATION

Use 1. EVANGELICAL USE. The Westminster divines used as one of their prooftexts here what might seem like an obscure Old Testament story. 

“And Ahab called Obadiah, who was eover the household. (Now Obadiah feared the LORD greatly, and when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave and fed them with bread and water.)” (1 Kings 18:3-4)

The point is that, to his great potential for harm to himself, Obadiah preserved the lives of God’s prophets from the wicked plot of a murderous tyrant. Have we taken every step, even to our own harm, to preserve life where there is clear and present danger to it? 

Use 2. CIVIL USE. The duty of the private citizen to war against murder is not contradicted by his relative lack of power. Remember that cardinal maxim of Christian ethics: We do what we do because of what it says about God—not because of what it says about any lesser thing. Now, what do we have here in our excuse-making but an appeal to (i) our lack of power and / or (ii) our lack of knowledge? I do not deny that those who use the “badge” for murder often have a tremendous advantage over us in both power and knowledge. What the Christian must deny is that this is why we are commanded to stop them to begin with. We are not commanded to resist murder because of how sure we are that we can pull it off. When did the bad guy ever become off-limits by how effective he was at being bad! 

This is crucial in applying the mandate of Proverbs 24:11-12 outward to a more expansive scope. Let’s ask it like this: Are we obligated to protect life against initated violence unless the state initiates that violence? According to who? Where is that in Scripture? The person defending that position will predictably circle back to their wrong interpretation of Romans 13. But that is the constant struggle in even getting real Christian political reflection off the ground. 

__________________

1. David VanDrunen, Politics after Christendom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 107. Additionally, he divides the image according to “protological image,” “fallen image,” and “eschatological image.” “There is organic unity, but not identity, among them” (Divine Covenants and Moral Order, 41).

2. Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, Volume I (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013), 79.

3. Augustine, City of God, I.21.

4. Turretin, Institutes, II.11.17.18.

5. Frederic Bastiat, The Law (New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1990), 6, 7.

6. Hodge, Systematic Theology, III.19.10.