The Sacredness Of Human Life - Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments
THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN LIFE
(Ex. 20:13; Matt. 5:21-26, 38-42: KJV)

Subject
The Law That Protects the Sanctity of Human Life

Golden Texts
“Thou shalt not kill.” (Ex. 20:13); “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15).

Plan of the Lesson
The Commandment Protecting Human Life (Ex. 20:13)
The Teaching of Jesus Regarding the Sin of Unjustified Anger or Animosity (Matt. 5:21-26)
The Teaching of Jesus Regarding Our Attitude Toward Those Who Injure Us (Matt. 5:38-42)

Setting of the Lesson
Time: The Ten Commandments were given 1498 B.C.; the Sermon on the Mount was preached by our Lord in the early summer of A.D. 28.
Place: The Ten Commandments were given on Mount Sinai. We do not know the particular mountain from which Jesus preached this famous sermon.

Scripture Reading: Exodus 20:13

The Commandment Protecting Human Life

10:13 … “Thou shalt not kill.” The English Revised Version makes the verse read more accurately, “Thou shalt do no murder,” because the verb translated “kill” really implies violent, unauthorized killing. The New American Standard Bible renders the verse: “You shall not murder.” One should compare the list of crimes in Hosea 4:2, and Jeremiah 7:9, where the verb also occurs. The very next chapter in the book of Exodus has a great many details concerning Hebrew legislation relating to the question of the killing of a man, accidental and intentional (21:12-35).

“The sanctity of human life is founded on the fact that man was made in the image of God (Gen. 9:6). Murder may be instigated by hatred (Num. 35:20, 21); or by thirst for blood by premeditated design (Deut. 19:11); or accomplished by deceitful stratagem (Ex. 21:14). Assassination is an aggravated form in which life is destroyed by surprise or unexpected assault and dangerous violence (see 2 Sam. 4:5, 6; 1 Kings 15:27; Jer. 41:2). There is no mention of parricide (the murder of a person very close to one, as, e.g., a relative) and infanticide (the killing of babies) in the Mosaic code, as if these crimes were not known to exist or to be possible. No sanctuary was to be allowed to a murderer (Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16, 18; Deut. 19:1-13)”. (J. Poucher).

In this commandment we have clearly passed over to that series of laws that deal entirely with man’s duty to his fellow men. We must clearly distinguish between deliberate murder and killing.

“Killing is unwitting and unintentional taking of life; murder consists in the intentional taking of human life on the alone responsibility of human will. However, let it be clearly noticed in passing that killing unwittingly was not looked upon as a light office. The man who took life in this way was denied his liberty for an indefinite term” (G. Campbell Morgan).

“Two exceptions are to be understood. A man may forfeit his natural right to live, through crimes against society; death as the hands of public justice is there one exception to the commandment. Equally a man forfeits his right to live when he attempts my life; therefore, self-defense forms a second exception; self-defense when it is on a national scale being termed defensive war. Homicide by public justice and homicide in self-defense (individual or national) are the exceptions to be read between the words of the statute. And they are the only exceptions. Death by public justice is permissible to the magistrate both from the nature of the case and by express allowance of God’s Word. War is to be justified when its object is to restrain aggression – aggression which cannot by any less extreme measure be restrained” (J. Oswald Dykes).

Regarding capital punishment
There is an increasing propaganda against capital punishment in the western hemisphere, and many States in our Union have abolished it; but certainly the abolishment of capital punishment cannot be supported by the Word of God, for again and again throughout the Old Testament capital punishment is divinely ordered as a fundamental law for the protection of society.

“The true idea of murder involves malice and disregard of the rights of others. In the very chapter after this law was given solemn capital punishment was commanded. There come times when a man surrenders his right to life, and when the proper authorities in the proper way may take it from him. The wickedness of murder does not consist in the wrong done to the murdered man, but in the attack that is made on the prerogative of God. Man is made in His image, and whoever strikes a blow at that image offends Him whose is the image. And it is He whose earliest law in this matter is, ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.’ That is not ceremonial law, it is not Mosaic law, and it has not been abrogated. The reason for it still exists. No man ever forfeits his right to justice, but he has the same right to suffer it as to receive it” (C.B. McAfee).

Violation of this commandment in our day
Life is growing chapter by chapter in our modern civilization, and to our awful shame the United States must acknowledge that it has the highest rate of murders of any civilized country in the world.

There are other forms of killing people besides deliberate murder. For instance, many are killed by automobile accidents. Some of these accidents could not be called murderous. If a man has every reason to believe that his auto tires are sound, and yet, driving along the road he unexpectedly strikes a rock, tipping his car over and throwing it in the path of a car coming in the opposite direction, with the consequence that others are killed, the man certainly cannot be held for murder. He had no intention of harming anyone, and as far as he was able was driving reasonably and within the law. On the other hand, a man who drives down a highway in an intoxicated condition, moving from one side to the other, unable to control his car and smashing into another vehicle killing one of its occupants; though he did not intend to kill anyone, yet, by his own carelessness, that man has brought about a person’s death and is liable too punishment and should be punished. A man who drives on the highways today, either in a car without brakes or with worn-out, bad tires that any moment might blowout or under the influence of liquor, is a potential murderer because he does not know but before the day is over some life will be taken by his carelessness. Foremen in shops and owners of industrial plants who do not provide adequate protection for their workers from dangers of machinery, poisonous gases, etc., are potential murderers, and in their hearts violated this commandment; for by neglecting to provide adequate protection they have declared their indifference to life, and have not given to human life the high value that God puts on it. Many other illustrations in modern life could be given, but these will suggest themselves to intelligent teachers. (Note: for a deeper study of this subject, see “Governmental & Judicial Ethics in the Bible & Rabbinic Literature” in Religion Library section of Contents)

Scripture Reading: Matthew 5:21-26

The Teaching of Jesus Regarding the Sin of unjustified Anger or Animosity

5:21, 22 … “Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.” Thee word “Raca,” which is not translated into English in our Bible, means “Contempt for a fellow man, more inhuman than anger, a violent passion, prompting to words and acts often bitterly regretted when the hot temper cools down. The word here translated ‘thou fool’ is an equivalent for ‘good-for-nothing,’ ‘morally worthless,’ a more serious form of contempt than ‘Raca.’ ‘Raca’ expresses contempt for a man’s head, ‘You stupid!’ ‘Fool’ expresses contempt for his heart and character, ‘You scoundrel!’ The regular use of such opprobrious epithets Jesus regards as the supreme offense against the law or humanity” (A.B. Bruce).

There are occasions when such words may be necessary to utter in love, to awaken one to one’s own dire need or one’s own wretched character, for our Lord spoke of a foolish builder (Matt. 7:26); and of foolish virgins (Matt. 25:2, 3, 8). Our Lord cannot thus be condemning every use of this word (12:34, 39; 16:23; 23:13-35), but the use of it when one utters it in a spirit of contempt, of hatred, which might ultimately lead to murder, and which often results in at least a murderous desire. The judgment spoken of here is that of a local Jewish court as ordered in Deuteronomy 16:18; however, the council is the great Sanhedrin, whereas the hell of fire reefers ultimately to everlasting punishment, a judgment executed by God. “In the spiritual kingdom of Christ shall the sins even of thought and word be brought into judgment and punishment, each according to its degree of guilt, but even the least of them before no less a tribunal than the judgment-seat of Christ” (Henry Alford). We confess that in studying these two verses we have come to a new realization of how wrong it is for Christian people to speak contemptuously, hatefully, and bitterly of one another. Regrettably, these words are seldom if ever preached on, almost never expounded – yet, they came from the lips of our Lord, and by ignoring His implicit teaching we are not the full Christians we ought to be.

5:23, 24 … “If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” For the Jew, the altar was the place where he drew nigh to God, not only for worship, but also for the offering of a sacrifice for the cleansing of his sins, a place where he was made right again with God. No man can be right with God and wrong with men, i.e., a man cannot have hatred toward a fellowman, be dishonest with a fellow man, live in sin with some other person, and ever think that he can be right with God while these things continue. If, then, when a man approaches God, he remembers (and how our sins and our grievances against others rise up like specters in the night when we bow down to pray to God, or sit down together at the Lord’s Supper) not so much that he has something against his brother, but that a brother has something against him, he is to immediately cease his devotional exercises, leave his gift before the altar, find his brother with whom he is involved in this grievance, be reconciled to him, and then come back for worship. If after making every possible effort to remove that which has grieved our brother, the brother refuses to b reconciled, that is not our affair. We are to do everything on our part to bring about reconciliation, and that will allow us to come freely to God with a clear conscience. We are to do this not only for our own sakes, not only that we may truly approach God, but also for the sake of the brother; because God is grieved with any and all of us who refuse to do everything within our power to save a brother who has a grievance against us from developing a spirit of anger, bitterness, hatred, and revenge. We must not selfishly think that God is going to save our souls from disaster when, by something we have done, we cause others to go to pieces in their moral life, ultimately to come under God’s eternal wrath.

An illustration
“I recall a story I heard recently of one converted by the grace of God after a wild life. They urged him to join the church and take the Lord’s Supper. ‘No, never,’ he said; ‘at least, not yet.’ He left his home and sought through the slums of three great cities for the girl, once pure and undefiled, upon whom he had laid his tainting touch, and who had drifted to the furthest lengths. He found her in a top attic, burning with a consumptive fever, on a straw pallet, with no one but the woman of the house to look in on her now and again and moisten her lips. He hastened away, and procured what was necessary for her wants. Then, as a pure brother to a pure sister, he nursed her for three weeks until she died. But in that time he had won her back to Christ, and she blessed and forgave him with her dying breath. Then he came and took the Lord’s Supper. He had put it right with her, and had been forgiven; and her forgiveness opened the door for the flood-tide of Christ’s. Some of you will never get right with God till you have found the man, woman, or child who, if death intervened, would go to complain to God about you, not only because of what you did, but because of what you did not do” (F.B. Meyer).

5:25, 26 … “Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing.” Cf. Luke 12:58.

“According to the Roman law the plaintiff could carry the accused with him before the judge; the defendant might settle the matter on any terms while they were on the way, but after the tribunal was reached the thing must go according to law (a farthing represents a small Roman coin of brass equal in value to about two-fifths of a cent). Most ministers understand our Lord’s language as referring allegorically to the necessity of being reconciled to God, lest He cast us into the perpetual imprisonment of perdition. We might say that the passage affords a good illustration of the spiritual truth in question, but there is no sufficient indication that our Lord here meant to teach that truth” (John A. Broadus).

“The connecting link is “quickly.” Enmity is hateful to God, therefore put an end to it without delay. The offended brother may die and you may die; and, if you both live, the enmity is likely to become more intense. In either case there is a disastrous conclusion” (Alfred Plummer).

The teaching of the whole passage concerns the nature of our animosity toward other men. Murder is only the final of a hateful, revengeful spirit. What our Lord is getting at is not the prevention of murder, which surely no Christian would be guilty of, but cleansing the heart of those passions that so easily arise in the injustices and animosities of life as we mingle among people; that flame our hearts with revenge, burning hatred, and a desire to do evil to others; rejoicing in their misfortunes and thus scarring our characters, burning the finer fibers of our inner life – making us restless, unhappy, joyless, impotent in prayer, without the peace of God.

How can we truly experience in our own lives the lofty teachings Jesus here enunciated? What would be the consequences to others if they saw us really manifesting such a life as the Lord has here set before us? What are the things that men do because in their hearts they have come to hate or look with contempt on another person? If, day by day, we truly ask God for strength to live our lives without bitterness or enmity one toward another, our speech free from malice and rancor, and our acts divorced from all malevolence and malignity, what will we find happening in our lives toward these very people?

Scripture Reading: Matthew 5:38-42

The Teaching of Jesus Regarding Our Attitude Toward Those Who Injure Us

5:38 …“Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” The Old Testament teaching to which our Lord here refers is found in Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21.

5:39 … “But I say unto you.” The conjunction here is not to be taken as introducing a statement by our Lord repudiating the law of the Old Testament, but, rather, enlarging on it, and discovering its true, deeper meaning.

5:39 … “Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This is a very difficult and variously interpreted passage, and we do not pretend to exhaust it in any way or to be dogmatic in our interpretation of the passage. To begin with, let us remember that smiting the cheek is not to be interpreted as an attack or assault to do bodily injury, or for the purpose of killing, but is an act intended to insult. This is not a fight, but simply the expression of one’s desire to shame, insult, or anger one against whom there is a grudge. According to our Lord’s teaching, the person so struck is not to strike back, because that would mean he has become angry, and in doing so sins. Hatred is aroused in his heart, and he becomes as much involved in iniquity as the one striking him. Instead of striking back, he is to manifest no offense whatsoever, being unrevengeful to the point of allowing the other cheek to be struck without retaliation. Our Lord is not condemning or forbidding the right of self-defense, either personal or national. An attack on one’s person or body is not involved in our Lord’s illustration.

“Taken slavishly and literally, neither did our Lord Himself conform to this precept (John 18:22, 23); nor His apostles (Acts 23:3). Truly and in the spirit, our blessed Redeemer obeyed it; He gave His back to the smiters, and His cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, and hid not His face from shame and spitting (Is. 50:6), and His apostles also (1 Cor. 4:9-13)” (Henry Alford).

The way not to do this is illustrated by the following story: “Many years ago an eminent minister of the gospel, who had been a great athlete in his youth, on returning to his native town soon after he had been ordained, encountered in the High Street an old companion whom he had often fought and thrashed in his godless days. ‘They tell me you’ve turned Christian,’ said the man. ‘Yes,’ replied the minister. ‘Well, then, you know the Book says, ‘If you’re struck on one cheek, you’re to turn the other. Take that’; and with that hit him a stinging blow. ‘There, then,’ replied the minister quietly, turning the other side of his face toward him. The man was brute enough to strike him heavily again, whereupon the minister said, ‘And there my commission ends’; pulled off his coat, and gave his antagonist a severe thrashing, which no doubt he richly deserved” (George D. Boardman).

5:40 …”And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” John A. Broadus pointed out that “the Greek denotes the inner garment worn by a Jew in those days, resembling what the Romans call a ‘tunic,’ and corresponding most nearly to a long shirt, which usually reached almost to the ground.” The idea here is that If for security or in payment of something due, a man demanded before the court one’s inner coat, assuming this was about all that the man had, instead of being revengeful, furious or rebellious about it, the man should let him have his cloak also, which undoubtedly here denotes the outer garment, a large, loose robe, somewhat resembling a shawl, which the person wrapped about himself in the daytime, and often used for covering himself at night.

“It is matter of common observation in all ages that a man who is threatened with an unjust lawsuit will show a peculiar animosity and, if he thinks himself unjustly treated in the sentence, a peculiar rancor and revengefulness, declaring that he will yet make his adversary suffer for it. Rather than feel and act thus our Lord says it would be better even voluntarily to give far more than the aggressor is awarded. (Comp. 1 Cor. 6:7). How evil, then, must be this rancorous spirit, and how carefully should Christians avoid it” (John A. Broadus).