"Do Not Murder vs. You Must Kill: Understanding 'Kill' and 'Murder' in Biblical Commands"

[Chrysostomos]

You Shall Not Murder. (Exod. 20:13)

This prohibition does not apply to every form of killing. This is already evident from the Mosaic Law itself. For the violation of about 20 laws, the death penalty is prescribed. Additionally, one can recall the wars that Israel waged with the blessing of Yahweh (see: Num. 21:14; 1 Sam. 18:17; 25, 28).

The word used here, תִּֿרְצָֽח (tirṣaḥ), from the verb רָצַח (raṣaḥ), is never used when referring to death sentences or deaths in war. For these purposes, the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) has two other words—הָרַג (harag) and מות (mot)—which appear much more frequently in Scripture. The latter not only denotes unlawful murder out of hatred (see: Num. 35:16, 21, 31; Deut. 22:26), for which death was unequivocally prescribed (see Exod. 21:12), but also unintentional murder. In the latter case, the person who commits unintentional murder could seek refuge from vengeance at the altar of Yahweh (see Exod. 21:12-14) or in one of the cities of refuge (see: Num. 35:11, 24-28; Deut. 4:42; 19:1-13; Josh. 20–21). Note that the term "unintentional murder" is used here to maintain consistency with the focus on raṣaḥ as a form of unlawful taking of life, even when not premeditated, distinguishing it from lawful killing in war or execution.

But someone might object: why should we trust the Masoretic Text? After all, the Masoretic Text, which is based on variants developed and disseminated by the Masoretes in the 8th–10th centuries CE, appeared much later than the Septuagint (3rd–1st centuries BCE) and the Gospels. Therefore, on what basis and with what justification can the Masoretic Text claim to be the ultimate authority? Is it only because the Masoretic Text is written in Hebrew, and for that reason alone it is supposedly more accurate than the Septuagint? So, all the "wordplay" by Jews with Hebrew words regarding the Old Testament is likely an attempt to interpret a lost original.

This is a fair point. However, in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, different words are also used in various contexts. In the commandment itself, the word "φονεύω" (phoneuō)—"to murder"—is used. But when it comes to death sentences, deaths in war, or cases where God Himself kills people, the word "Θανατόω" (thanatoō)—"to put to death, to kill"—is used.
For example, in Gen. 38:10: "What he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He put him to death (Θαναтόω)."

For instance, the apostle quotes from Proverbs, so one can always compare Perverted Preachers foolishness and the translation with the word of God in Hebrew.
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread" (Prov. 25:21). These are the very words the apostle quotes in Greek in his letter to the Romans (Rom. 12:20). What word is used for "enemy" in Hebrew? It is called "sanē" (נַאֲךָ)—"hater, adversary, personal enemy."
But what word is used for a real, military enemy? In Exod. 15:9, it says, "The enemy said: 'I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my desire shall be satisfied on them. I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.'" The military enemy is called "oyev" (איב).
"If sanē is hungry, feed him, but oyev—let him manage on his own. Therefore, love your sanē, bless them, and do good to them. But oyev are subject to death."

Now, about murderers and other lawbreaking enemies:

As we have already established, "do not commit criminal murder" is "raṣaḥ." But regarding the killing of the guilty ("but you shall kill him" – Deut. 13:9) or killing in war ("They waged war against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every male" – Num. 31:7), the word used is "harag."

It is worth noting the semantic distinction in English translations between the words "kill" and "murder." While both can mean "to deprive of life," there is a significant difference: "murder" specifically refers to premeditated, criminal killing, whereas "kill" can refer to any act of taking a life, including in war or legal execution, without necessarily implying criminal intent. In major English translations like NIV, NET, ASV, and ESV, Exodus 20:13 is consistently translated as "You shall not murder," reflecting the specific prohibition of unlawful murder (raṣaḥ). However, in Deuteronomy 13:9, the ESV uses "kill" ("But you shall kill him."), while the NET translates it even more emphatically as "you must kill him."

The difference between "shall" and "must" is also significant. "Shall" can be translated as "should" or "ought to," implying a duty or expectation ("you should act this way"). In contrast, "must" conveys a stronger, more absolute obligation, meaning "you must act this way" or "you are required to." Thus, in Deuteronomy 13:9, God is not merely suggesting or advising that the guilty be killed but issuing an unequivocal command: "you must kill him."

Do not commit raṣaḥ, but you must harag the guilty, and let your hand not spare him

And no Perverted Preachers nonsense about doing good to murderers or military enemies.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Secondly: Regarding the Quote (Matt. 26:52)

By the time the arrest party arrived in the Garden of Gethsemane to seize Jesus, there had already been several previous attempts to arrest Jesus Christ, but each time they had failed. For example, in chapter 7 of the Gospel of John, we read: "The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things about Him, and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to arrest Him" (John 7:32). But!

"The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, 'Why did you not bring Him?' The officers answered, 'No one ever spoke like this man!' The Pharisees answered them, 'Have you also been deceived?'" (John 7:45-47).

In other words, the temple officers, while near Jesus Christ, awakened to their conscience and personal responsibility for their actions. Consequently, the herd instinct, collective irresponsibility, and mindless obedience to their masters... all of this faded to such an extent that it allowed reason to make the right decision and avoid committing a grave crime. A similar situation occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane.

"So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to Him, came forward and said to them, 'Whom do you seek?' They answered Him, 'Jesus of Nazareth.' Jesus said to them, 'I am He.' Judas, who betrayed Him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, 'I am He,' they drew back and fell to the ground" (John 18:3-6). And this happened several times. Until Peter stepped in.

No one could arrest Jesus Christ because, in His presence, people’s consciences and personal responsibility for their actions were awakened.

Only after the apostle Peter shed blood—only then could Jesus Christ be arrested.
"Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) But Jesus said to Peter, 'Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given Me?' So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound Him" (John 18:10-12).

The blood that splashed everywhere, first, triggered a powerful surge of negative emotions among all those present, inciting in them a desire for more blood, even murder—this united the heterogeneous crowd and drove them into a state of unquestioning executioners. Second, Peter provided the Messiah’s murderers with a moral and logical justification for laying hands on Jesus and binding Him: "We suspected that this gang around the Nazarene wasn’t seeking anything spiritual—they’re just common bandits, and here’s the proof: things have escalated to swords, even a Jew raising a hand against a Jew!"

At that moment, Jesus spoke these words: "Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword'" (Matt. 26:52).

In other words, these words mean: "Put your sword back in its place, or they will slaughter us all as criminals."

After all, Jesus and His disciples were surrounded by an armed crowd with clubs and swords.

In other words, these words apply exclusively to the situation in which Jesus and Peter found themselves.

But Perverted Preachers make life-affirming conclusions from this incident, applying it to all of humanity and projecting it onto the entire history of mankind. Absurd!