Heidelberg 105–107: You Shall Not Murder (1)

cain-and-abel-titianDepending upon one’s age and location in the world one might have learned the sixth commandment as “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13). That is how the Authorized Version (KJV) translated it in 1611. In the pre-Reformation period, the Wycliffe Bible translated the commandment, “Thou schalt not sle.” The verb sle is Middle English for slay. Schalt, of course, is just a spelling variant of shall. In the early 16th century, Tyndale translated the 6th commandment as “Thou shalt not kyll.” Remember that English spelling varied until the 19th century. The American Standard Version followed the AV as did the Revised Standard Version in the mid-20th century. Since World War II translations (e.g., NASB, NIV, ESV),  have tended to use murder instead of kill in Exodus 20:13. It is an interesting question why the translators of the AV used the verb to kill. The Tyndale translation, from which the AV borrowed heavily, only used the word murder twice. It used forms of kill much more frequently, even when the context referred to murder. Indeed, the AV used kill interchangeably with murder regularly. The verb to murder certainly existed but it might not have been used as frequently as we use it now. The AV was also influenced by the Vuglate, which used the verb occido, which may mean to kill or to murder.

The Hebrew verb used here (רצח) refers to manslaughter or murder. It is used 11 times in Numbers 35 in those senses. It does not refer to all taking of human life. Indeed, it is used many times in the Hebrew Bible and it seems to refer primarily to manslaughter or murder.

The equivocal translation “you shall not kill” is a little confusing but it is odd that people should think that “you shall not kill” would be absolute. The very same Torah teaches that sometimes, in some cases, some people are to be put to death. This was taught even before the law given to Moses at Sinai. Genesis 9:6 says

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image (ESV).

Clearly, in both cases, the shedding of blood is the taking a human life. In the first case it is unjust and in the second it is sanctioned by God. This instruction ad command was given to Noah, after the fall. The protection of legally innocent human life is grounded in the reality that, even after the fall, humans are still image bearers. We need to distinguish between two aspects of the image of God: general and special. The special or spiritual aspect is, after the fall, destroyed and is only renewed by the free grace alone (sola gratia) of God, through faith alone (sola fide) in Christ alone, in union and communion with Christ.. As a consequence of our salvation and justification, the Spirit is at work in believers renewing them in the image of Christ, which gracious process shall only be completed in glory  (2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10; Eph 4:24; 1 Cor 15:49). Typically, the classical Reformed theologians speak of the image in the broader sense as having been defaced or obliterated, i.e., painted over. It is present but marred. The point of invoking the history of creation in Genesis 9:6 is to say that humans are still image bearers. The intent is not to say, in effect (as some have it), “We were created in the image but it was totally lost in the fall. Still, do not murder people.” Such an interpretation is strained and improbable. The purpose of reminding Noah that we were originally created in God’s image is to say that it remains true and therefore serves as the basis for the punishment of murderers.

The injunction against murder and the institution of capital punishment is grounded not in Moses but in creation. That is why even in the New Covenant the state is sanctioned to take life in the execution of justice. This is why Paul says in Romans 13 that the magistrate does not “bear the sword in vain.” One reason the magistrate bears the sword is to punish and swords are intended to take lives. That is why ancient soldiers carried them. They were not decoration.

I understand that it is trendy (again) to say that capital punishment is unjust and it would be were it applied unjustly but in the case where there is no doubt about the facts, as say in the notorious 1957-58 Starkweather case that Charlie Starkweather murdered and cooperated in the murder of 11 people. When the State of Nebraska took his life, that was the execution of a just sentence.

God, in the Mosaic covenant, not only commanded his people to drive out the Canaanites, as in Exodus 23, but sometimes the Lord sanctioned the large-scale taking of human life in military operations. The God of the Bible is not a pacifist. Our Lord Jesus never told soldiers to quit their jobs nor did he tell Pilate that he had no business punishing criminals. What Pilate and the other authorities did to Jesus was unjust because he was innocent and righteous but that did not mean that the authorities had no brief from God to take the lives of murders. There were, after all, a number of capital crimes in the Torah in which the taking of life was commanded as the punishment.

There are not two Gods in Scripture, a mean Old Testament God and a nice, sweet New Testament God. The fundamental declaration in Deuteronomy 6:4 is “Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.” Paul alludes to this passage (known as the Shema, after the first verb in the verse) in Romans 3:30 as does James 2:19. Our Lord Jesus himself quoted the Shema in Mark 12:29. The same God who thundered at Sinai is our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnate (Heb 12:23–24).

In Heidelberg 105 we confess that, in the 6th commandment, God requires that

That I do not revile, hate, insult or kill my neighbor either in thought, word, or gesture, much less in deed, whether by myself or by another, but lay aside all desire of revenge; moreover, that I do not harm myself, nor willfully run into any danger. Wherefore also to restrain murder the magistrate is armed with the sword.

We list thoughts, words, and gestures because our Lord taught, in the sermon on the mount, that if we say to someone “You fool” we have already murdered him in our hearts (Matt 5:22). Truth be told, in our hearts, we all mass murderers are we not?

I think we all know about gestures.

In Heidelberg 106 we confess:

Does this commandment speak only of murder?

In forbidding murder, God teaches us, that he abhors the causes thereof, such as envy, hatred, anger, and desire of revenge; and that he accounts all these as murder.

In other words, the sixth commandment, like all the moral law demands that we love God with all our faculties and our neighbor as ourself, from the heart and not just with the hands or with the mouth, as it were. The catechism keeps pressing us:

But is it enough that we do not kill any man in the manner mentioned above?

No: for when God forbids envy, hatred, and anger, he commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves; to show patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and all kindness, towards him, and prevent his hurt as much as in us lies; and that we do good, even to our enemies (Heidelberg 107).

The true fulfilling of this commandment is not the mere absence of murder from our hands or even from our hearts but real love toward our neighbor—notice that we are not talking about warm feelings but love. Those are two distinct things. Sometimes we may have warm feelings toward our neighbor and sometimes we may not. Our feelings are beside the point. We are seeking to cultivate an attitude, a disposition, of patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and all kindness toward him. How does this work out? By seeking his good rather than his harm. We do this with our hands, our feet, our tongues, our keyboards, and our mobile devices. Our model is Christ. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return. When we are reviled, we bless (1 Pet 2:23; 1 Cor 4:12).  That is the standard to which Christians, as private persons, are called.

As citizens in a twofold kingdom, however, we also have public duties. This is why we may serve on juries or as lawyers, judges, governors, or soldiers. In that public capacity, i.e., when we are not acting on our own behalf but on behalf of the public, with the authority of just laws, we may have a duty to do things that we may not do as private persons or citizens. When someone breaks into one’s house in the middle of the night, one have a duty as a citizen to protect the people in one’s house as much as lies within one. Public officials, in case the public is threatened or attacked, as, e.g., on 9/11, have a duty to protect and defend.

The Reformed churches are deeply indebted to the Augustinian tradition in many ways. Part of that inheritance is the Just War theory. We live in a fallen world but some causes are, relatively speaking, righteous. It was righteous to defend the free world against Fascism in the WWII. It was  just to defend the free world against global Communism in the cold war. When, however, it is merely a matter of personal dignity or perhaps, as in the case of the early Christians and as it is for Christians in Africa, China, and in the Middle East, suffering for the sake of Christ, that is another matter. Christians are forbidden by Christ from murdering. We hope and pray that we shall never have to take the life of another for the sake of civil justice.

Some early English translations of the 6th commandment created some confusion in the modern period. What is not ambiguous, however, is the truth that Christians are the wholly-owned subsidiaries of Christ (1 Cor 6:20), who was murdered for us, that we might seek the life and well-being of our fellow image bearers. This reality ought to control us as we think about how to interact with other image bearers. Those who have been redeemed by Christ ought to seek both the general life (nature) and the spiritual life (grace) of their neighbors. We do the first by seeking justice (law) and mercy in the civil realm and we do the second particularly by the ministry of the gospel (grace), in the spiritual sphere.

Next time: Does the sixth commandment apply to really small humans?

Here are all the posts on the Heidelberg Catechism.

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. I have a question, that is not about murder but it is about moral law. It is about incest. In the OT we have general rule over what is incest but these rule is limited on just two generation. For example, my grandchildren and grandchildren of my sister can get married according to that law. Is any other biblical principle that can explain more about it. I am very often asked about this from my Catholic friends because with this they want to prove that we need tradition.
    Thank you very much in advance.

    • Goran,

      The issue is that of “consanguinity.” Westminster Confession 24, summarizing the teaching of Scripture, says:

      i. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.

      ii. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

      iii. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

      iv. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.

      v. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

      vi. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.

      Your Romanist friends are burning a straw man. Protestants believe in and learn from tradition but we do not allow it to replace holy Scripture as the principal and final authority for the Christian faith and life.

      There’s a discussion of the role of tradition in Reformed theology in Recovering the Reformed Confession.

      On this section of the Confession, A. A. Hodge wrote:

      These Sections teach the divine law of marriage as to incest and as to divorce.

      1st. INCEST consists of sexual intercourse between parties forbidden by the divine law to marry, because of their relationship. Marriage between these parties is impossible; and no matter what may be the provisions of human laws or the decisions of human courts, such pretended marriages are void ab initio—invalid in essence as well as improper and injurious. Since the degrees of relationship within which marriage is excluded differ in nearness, so the crime of incest differs, according to these varying degrees, from the highest to the least measure of criminality. The obligation to avoid intermarriage between near blood-relations is a dictate of nature as well as of the word of God.

      The only law on this subject in the Scriptures is the Levitical law recorded in Lev. 20:10–21. If this law is still binding, it carries with it the principle that it is incest for a man to cohabit with any one of his deceased wife’s relations nearer in blood than it is lawful for him to do of his own. If this law is not binding now, there is no other law of God remaining on the subject of incest except the law of nature.

      The Greek and Roman Catholic churches agreed in holding that this law is still binding, since the reason of the law rests upon permanent relationships, and not upon any special circumstances peculiar to society among the Jews. All branches of the Protestant Church—Episcopal, Lutheran and Presbyterian—have maintained the same principle in their Confessions of Faith or canons of discipline. It is asserted in these Sections of our Confession. But a great diversity of sentiment and practice prevails in different parts of our Church on this subject, and for the most part the enforcement of this rule has been left to the discretion of the majority of each local church court. Several efforts have been made, in 1826 and 1827 and 1843, 1845 and 1847,* to have this Section of this Chapter changed, but without effect.

      Archibald Alexander Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1869), 416–17.

Comments are closed.