Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 5:17
Thou shalt not kill.
17 20. The Sixth to the Ninth Commandments, as in Exo 20:13-16, except that for the simple not used there, we have here and not = neither, to introduce the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Commandments; and that in the Ninth instead of sheer = false of Exo 20:16 there is the wider term shav’ = vain, groundless, as in the Third Commandment. For this term see on Exo 20:7; and cp. Exo 23:1 (E), where it is applied to a report or rumour.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Deu 5:17
Thou shalt not kill.
The Sixth Commandment
First, we are here forbidden to injure our own flesh; to desire our own death out of impatience and passion, or in any way to hasten our end, and bereave ourselves of life.
1. It is a sin against ourselves, and against that natural principle of self-love and self-preservation which is implanted in us, and which is the rule of our love to ethers, which renders the sin more heinous, because it is a plain contradiction to the law of nature.
2. This is a crime against others, as well as against ourselves. For the community hath a share in us, and therefore when we destroy ourselves we injure the public. And then more especially we wrong the family which hath an interest in us, and of whom we are a part.
3. This is a crime against God as well as against ourselves and our brethren. He is a self-slayer, and an enemy of the workmanship of God. And this workmanship is no less than the image of God, for in the image of God made He man (Gen 9:6). Further, this is an offence against God because it is a distrust of His providence and His management of future events. Vibius Virius, a Roman senator, prevailed with twenty-four senators to drink poison with him, before Hannibal entered the city of Capua, and so they died unanimously with resentments of their countrys deplorable condition, but were not so religious as to confide in the Divine Providence. Cato fell on his sword and slew himself, that he might not fall into the hands of Julius Caesar. Demosthenes drank poison and ended his life that he might be sure not to be apprehended. Cleopatra killed herself that she might not be taken by Augustus. And others have despatched themselves on like grounds, namely, because they were uncertain of the future event of things, and they had not faith enough to rely on Him who governs the world.
4. This must be voted to be a very heinous offence if we respect the source and principles from whence it is derived. As generally, from fear and cowardice, which, possessing the minds of some men, have caused them to make all the haste they could out of the world, lest they should be overtaken with the miseries that attend it. Even the ancient Roman courage was stained with this pusillanimity. This argues a poor impotent spirit. But on the contrary, it is truly brave to bear calamity contentedly. Another ill principle from whence self-murder proceeds is pride. Cowardice and pride are often coupled together. A haughty and a dastardly spirit meet in the same persons. Hannibal, beaten by Scipio, scorned to see himself in disgrace, and poisoned himself, Mark Antony and Cleopatra being conquered by Augustus, scorned to survive their greatness, and to submit to the conqueror. Yea, it is probable that Care slew himself in an arrogant humour, being loth to truckle to him who had vanquished Pompey. Another source of this wicked practice is impatience and discontent. When these are deeply rooted in mens minds they sometimes put them upon this fatal enterprise. Thus Pilate, turned out of his place, and fallen under the emperors displeasure, abandoned the world. Themistocles, the famous and renowned captain of the Athenians, being banished by them, and brought into disgrace and poverty, sought for a redress of his melancholy by poison. Porcia, when she heard of the untimely death of her husband Brutus, like Catos own daughter, put an end to her life by swallowing burning coals. And discontent is the general and most common spring of this evil I am speaking of. Lastly, when discontent and impatience ripen into despair, the persons thus possessed do often fling themselves out of the world, and will not be persuaded to stay here any longer. Which was the case with Saul, Ahithophel, and Judas. And now, after all these brief hints, I question not but it will be freely granted that self-murder is a very heinous crime, and therefore deservedly forbidden. If you ask whether we must wholly despair of the salvation of those that kill themselves, I answer, If this violence done to themselves proceed merely from any of the causes before mentioned, I conceive we cannot entertain any hope of such persons. And my reason is, because this is their voluntary act, and in itself vicious, and they have not time to repent of it when it is done. But we must not judge so severely concerning those whose violent laying hands on themselves is the immediate effect of a distempered body and a disordered mind. It is most probable that no man shall answer for any miscarriage that is wholly caused by the violence of a disease or the distraction of the brain. The reason of my assertion is this, because whatever fault may be committed in such a case, it is not a mans free and voluntary act, and consequently is not his own, and therefore shall not be charged upon him. But, secondly, this commandment respects not only ourselves, but others, and those chiefly; wherein not only the gross act, but all inclinations towards it, are forbidden; as hatred: for whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer (1Jn 3:15). That is, he is a murderer in his heart, which God chiefly looks after. And all envy; for this passion lies not idle, but will, if possible, procure mischief to those that it is fixed upon: whence envy and murder are joined together in Rom 1:29. And all undue anger and wrath are here forbidden, as Christ Himself hath interpreted this commandment (Mat 5:21-22). Anger is a degree of murder in the interpretation of the Gospel. And in itself it is a disposition to it, for wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous (Pro 27:4). Here also might be mentioned the wishing of other mens death, or the contriving of it, which, without doubt, are condemned by this commandment Josephs brethren intended his death, for they conspired against him to slay him (Gen 37:18). There is not only the murder of the heart, but of the tongue. For we find that reproachful words are referred by our Saviour Himself to this commandment of not killing (Mat 5:21-22). He that takes away his brothers good name is in the next capacity to rob him of his life. He that maliciously uses his tongue against his neighbour is disposed to use a weapon against him when he finds opportunity. Aristophanes, who scoffed at Socrates in his plays, was one of the conspirators against his life. Next, I am to mention those actions which are disallowed by this commandment. As, first, the hurting of the bodies of others, though their life be not concerned. The impairing of the bodily strength and health of any person is here forbid. So is all oppression, extortion, and persecution. Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves, ravening the prey, to shed blood, to get dishonest gains (Eze 22:27); where it is evident that tyranny and oppression in rulers are shedding of blood, and are a kind of murder. We are forbid also to countenance any persons in their attempts of taking away a mans life. He that any way abets this action, he that connives at it, is guilty of it. Too much severity in taking away a mans life is disallowed by this commandment. So we read of a French soldier, who was the first man that mounted the bulwark of a besieged fort, whereupon ensued the gaining of it. But the general first knighted him, and then hanged him within an hour after because he did it without command. Judges and jurors, and persons concerned in courts of judicature, where capital causes are tried, may soon be found offenders if they be not very cautious here. For if they be any ways assisting towards the condemning of the innocent, they incur the imputation of bloodshed. The like do physicians if they carelessly administer their medicines, and value not the lives of men; if they rashly make experiments on their patients, and are perfidious in their art. This I will add, in the next place, that to engage in an unjust war is forbidden in this commandment, for it is unlawful killing. For here men are hired to make a slaughter of others; killing is a trade and an art. Fighting of duels falls under the prohibition of killing. Lastly, here is forbidden the actual taking away of anothers life, and that unlawfully. For every taking away another mans life is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder. Here, then, it is necessary that I distinctly show in what cases the actual taking away of a mans life is unlawful, and in what cases it is lawful. First, then, under the old dispensation, when God was pleased in an immediate way to stir persons up to effect what He intended should be brought to pass, it was lawful for a man to take away anothers life, if he had an extraordinary impulse from God to do it. Thus Moses killed the Egyptian, Phineas slew Zimri and Coshi, Samson destroyed the Philistines, Elias put to death Baals priests, Ehud stabbed Eglon, Jehoiada killed the she-tyrant Athaliah. These are rare and extraordinary examples, and were founded on the Jus Zelotarum, whereby it was lawful for private men immediately stirred up by God to punish open wickedness even with death., This right of zealots is not now allowable; nor was it lawfully practised always by the Jews, and it grew at last to notorious villainy, as in the Jewish war. But I am to speak of what is lawful under the settled dispensation of the Gospel, and therefore–Secondly, I assert that it is lawful to take away a mans life in the way of public justice on notorious criminals. This is to be done by appointed magistrates and officers, and as they are such, for these have authority and power to punish malefactors even with death (Gen 9:6; Gen 26:11; Deu 17:6-7; Jos 1:18; Rom 13:4; Act 25:11). Thirdly, in a lawful and just war it is no sin to take away a mans life. We may kill our enemies in a just cause, because we execute justice in so doing. Fourthly, we may take away another mans life in case of necessary defence, that is, when we are constrained to it in defence of our own lives. Fifthly, this may be done in the necessary maintaining of public justice, and the conservation of public peace. Sixthly, if a man kills a person by chance or misadventure, this is not to be reckoned a sinful and unlawful act. But excepting these limitations, there is no taking away a mans life but it is to be reckoned unlawful and downright murder. For it is the wilful killing of an innocent person, and that is the thing that is here forbidden. I am in the next place to assign the reasons of the prohibition, or to show what are the arguments against this killing which is here forbidden,. They are these two: the sinfulness, and the danger of it.
1. The shedding of mans blood is forbid because of the sinfulness, the absolute depravity and enormity of it. We find it is that which our nature recoils at most of all. The very name of murder strikes a terror into the hearts of all that are not become wholly insensible. The wild and savage brutes have a courtesy for those of their own species, and seldom prey upon and devour one another. It must therefore be very repugnant to human nature to shed the blood of mankind. Besides, a mans life is the most precious thing he is owner of, and is the foundation of all other blessings and enjoyments: wherefore all is parted with for this, and all hardships are undergone to secure this. All the laws and constitutions of magistrates aim at the preservation of this, either directly or indirectly. I proceed next to the danger and punishment which attend this sin, which is another reason of the prohibition. All sin is troublesome and penal, but this of murder especially. It lies heavy on the conscience. It hath been known that after the commission of this horrid act, the guilty parties have not been able to enjoy a minutes rest, but have shifted from one place to another, and have rather chosen to be their own executioners than to live to be their own tormentors. And as this sin is most clamorous in the sinners own breast, so the voice of it is heard the soonest in heaven. The voice of thy brothers blood crieth to Me from the ground, saith God to Cain, that first murderer (Gen 4:10). All sins speak, but this crieth. And that we may avoid this horrid crime, it will be necessary to observe these brief rules.
1. We are to beware of covetousness, and all greedy desire of wealth, and riches, and worldly possessions. Naboths vineyard was coveted by Ahab, and this put him on contriving Naboths death.
2. Let us curb ambitious thoughts and a desire of being great, lest these administer to bloodshed. Abimelech killed three score and ten of his brethren to get to the throne. The next direction is, that we put a check to lust and lewdness; for these have zoo often proved the forerunners of bloodshed. Uriahs wife is unlawfully desired by David, therefore he must be taken out of the way, that Davids lust may be satisfied. Herod, to gratify a lewd woman, struck off the Baptists head. Also, be careful to avoid all licentiousness, evil company, and debauchery, and particularly excess in drinking; for these proceed in time to this extremity of wickedness. Again, be not forgetful to suppress the inward springs and roots of actual murder, and those are pride, hatred, envy, revenge, and excess of anger; which are indeed themselves a kind and degree of murder, as I have shown before. This likewise must be enjoined, that we avoid the outward occasions of this sin, and whatever leads and prepares to it. We should carefully shun all bloody shows and inhuman spectacles, which are incentives to cruelty. Lastly, pray we unto God with great earnestness and fervour, in the language of the Psalmist (Psa 51:14), that we may be kept by the Divine assistance and influence from the guilt of bloodshed and slaughter, of what kind soever. (J. Edwards, D. D.)
The Sixth Commandment
The primary aim, of course, of the commandment is to inculcate reverence for human life. Man is, or rather should be, a sacred thing to man. But for the tendency of the selfishness which makes every bad man his own idol, each mans life would be thus sacred in each mans eyes. It is Christianity that has made it so. The Romans would assemble by myriads in the amphitheatre to see men hew each other to pieces for their amusement. In China, in Dahomey, in all savage countries, human life is utterly cheap; in Christian countries it is infinitely precious. When the body of poor George Ebbens was cut and dashed to pieces on the rocks above Niagara, tens of thousands of spectators assembled on the shores of the river to help him if possible, and one universal sob shook the heart of the whole mighty multitude when that poor unknown boy missed his leap, and was swept over the rushing Falls. Only the lowest nations, only the basest or the most pernicious men, care not who perishes so their interests be fed. Was there ever a more wicked speech uttered than that of Napoleon I, when Prince Metternich told him that his plan would cost the lives of 100,000 men, and he haughtily replied, A hundred thousand men! What are a hundred thousand men to me? Metternich walked to the window and flung it open, exclaiming with indignation, Sire, let all Europe hear that atrocious sentiment. The Sixth Commandment, taken as the Rabbis took it, and as it ought to be taken, in connection with the First, was meant as a check to this hateful egotism. You will say, that the commandment forbidding murder is needless to most men now; there is scarcely one man in a million who becomes a murderer. How that may be I know not. It is thought by some that more murders by far are committed than are ever detected, and that many a child, for instance, as well as many a mother, has been done to death, directly or indirectly, even for so mean a bribe as an insurance fee. A murderer is by no means always a dull, bestial, and ferocious soul. Many a tender and delicate man, who dreamed as little of being a murderer as we do, has become a murderer out of greed, or envy, or fury, or to hide some awful shame, or as the sequel of indulged passion, or of a life made reckless by gambling or debauchery. Some of these have left behind them a terrible warning of the slow degrees by which temptation, smouldering at the basis of the life, has leaped in one moment into the uncontrollable flame of a great crime which shews itself to be, not a sudden aberration, but the necessary result and epitome of long years of secret baseness, Now, which of us is wholly free from one or other form of this murderous sin so common and so rank? Anger: how many almost pride themselves on being irritable! They think it shews magnanimity, whereas it only shows weak pride and lack of self-control. What an abyss of crime has anger often hurried men into! Then there is what is called bearing a grudge. How often has one heard on vulgar lips those wretched sayings, Ill pay him out! Ill put a spoke in his wheel! I owe him one for that! I will give him as good as he gave! Sometimes this becomes a feeble spite, sometimes it deepens into a sullen revenge that has turned men into raging maniacs, and women into frightful demons. But the spirit of this commandment is, Avenge not yourself, neither give place unto wrath. And if many of you leave religious hatred to priests, is there no one here who has been guilty of that murder of the soul which may often in Gods sight be more heinous than the murder of bodies? He who lends to a younger and weaker brother some impure book in which in ten minutes be may read himself to death, he who acts to some comrade, whom he calls his friend, as the torch bearer to sin; he who first plants the seeds of hell in the soul of one of Christs little ones; he who leads another over the thin borderline of wrong by teaching him to lie, or to gamble, or to drink, or to devastate the inner sanctities of his own being, may be in Gods sight a ten times worse murderer than many who have been hanged. Again, all selfish, guilty, oppressive trade is murder in Gods sight. Once more, in conclusion, there is a spirit of murder even in cold indifference and callousness to human misery. (Dean Farrar.)
The Sixth Commandment
I. The disposition of heart it enjoins us to bear one towards another.
1. Thou shalt not bear an envious, but thou shalt bear a complacential spirit towards others. Envy, strictly speaking, is that inward hatred of another for some good thing he has, which we have not, but wish for.
2. As we may not bear an envious, so neither may we bear a revengeful temper towards any of our neighbours, but must be disposed in meekness of spirit towards all and every one of them. We must consider that by this commandment those dispositions which are the direct contraries to this revengeful spirit, and which fall under the general word meekness, are enjoined upon us.
(1) We must bear a kind and courteous temper of heart towards others, as being members of ourselves; we and they being of one blood, and having the same Father.
(2) A disposition to construe everything in the best part.
(3) Another part of this meekness is a forgiving temper.
(4) A peaceable temper is another branch of meekness.
3. But we may not be of a cruel, but must be of a compassionate disposition. As we may not rejoice in others sins, so may we not lead any into sin; as those do who take pleasure in making others drunk, or in putting them upon any kind of wickedness. Nor, finally, may we encourage any sin by our example and conduct.
II. We must indulge neither envy, revenge, nor cruelty in our tongues; but from a real affection one towards another, our words must be charitable and kind.
III. Our conduct. Thou shalt not do any damage to thy brother in soul or body, but shalt do him all the good thou canst in both. (S. Walker, B. A.)
Eights of Life
There is a nobility in life. It is a grand thing to live. Whether in the ephemera of an hour or the eagle of a century, the flower of a day or the yew tree of a thousand years, the infant of a week or the man of threescore and ten, life is a glorious fact. Life is everywhere; it is the only thing of which God seems prodigal. There is life in the earth and on the earth, in the sea and on the sea, and throughout the vast expanse of the atmosphere. Give the microscopist more light, and he will reveal the existence of more life. It is not possible to conceive of life devoid of grandeur. Whatever may be the misery incident to existence, to live is preferable to annihilation. The lease of life varies in animals and in plants. In some it is a song, a thrill of love; in others it sweeps through the centuries. What life is, is one of the deepest of all mysteries. The answer has baffled the chemist, the biologist, and physiologist, who have toiled in vain on this splendid theme. But whatever may be our definitions, life seems to be an impartation rather than a creation. There is but one life in the universe–the life of God. The Scriptures are accurate in the assertion that in Him is life, which has a depth of meaning to command our keenest thought and widest research. The old Hindus entertained this loftier conception of life as an impartation, and said that all human lives were parts of the Infinite Life, and as drops of water return to the ocean, so all souls return to the Infinite Father by absorption. Underlying this description there is a deep thought, but by them misunderstood and misapplied; for all imparted lives, whether of men or of angels, will retain their individuality forever. But life is of immense importance primarily to the individual, secondly to society at large. To the individual it is the beginning of his immortality, given for the noble purpose of self-development and for that probation from which he is to enter upon the exalted state of his blissful eternity. Who can contemplate a thought so sublime without placing the highest value upon our mortal existence? To the individual, life is the unfolding of his character; it is the accumulation of those forces which enter so largely into his destiny, and to destroy such a life is to interrupt the great process of nature and cheat man of his inalienable rights. Among civilised men there are two estimates of the importance and value of human existence–one of vanity and contempt, the other of dignity and power. From whatever standpoint human life is viewed, its grandeur is conspicuous. The fact is recognised by all governments, under all civilisations. Human law conceives an immeasurable distance between the life of a man and that of an animal. The organic law, Thou shalt not kill, condemns murder, suicide, duelling, war, intemperance, malice, indifference, and unkindness. The crime of homicide consists primarily in three things: the destruction of the image of God; for one human being to lay his hand upon another is to lay that hand on the image of God, and, in a certain sense, upon God Himself. It is usurpation of the prerogative of the Sovereign of the universe, who has the right to create and the right to destroy. It is also the interruption of the unfolding of that individuality to which all have an unquestionable right, and he who interrupts that unfolding commits a crime against mankind. It is robbing society of an individual life, the influences of which might have gone forth as so many beneficent streams issuing from the fountain of goodness. Society depends largely upon its individual component parts, out of which come public opinion and public conscience. By the protection of the individual society reaps the golden harvest of purity, charity, and devotion. But the original law is not confined to homicide; it has a vaster amplitude and a more solemn comprehension. The deaths from homicide are but a fraction of the whole number who annually depart this life. There is a looseness in public sentiment touching the right of suicide. It is a mistake to suppose that suicide is largely from cowardice. The greatest characters in history have thus ended their existence. There is such a thing as despair. It may spring from temperament, sickness, misfortune, unbelief, bereavement, intemperance. How vast the army of suicides headed by Samson, Saul the son of Kish, Hannibal, Cato, and Brutus! There is a question among some physiologists of today, and the question is coming to the front more and more, whether life is worth saving in those afflicted with a chronic disease, who are beyond the scope of science, for whom there is no known restoration. Is it true science to perpetuate the life of such? May not the dictates of reason and of love suggest that in their case life should be permitted to end in a superinduced sleep, in the interests of a common humanity? This is not a new thought. It is as old as Plato, who suggested that the science of medicine was designed only for those who have temporary and curable ailments. But a truer science should place a higher estimation upon human existence and cherish life until the last respiration. This ancient law of Mount Sinai not only covers the extreme cases of murder and suicide, but all causes leading to premature death. A blasted life by dissipation is only another form of self-destruction. The Divine law of life is as minute in its application as it is comprehensive in its requirements. Where life is imperilled, from whatever cause, a refusal to aid the helpless and comfort the distressed, when within the range of possibilities to aid and rescue, the law condemns such refusal as violative of its benign spirit. The law makes each man the preserver of the life of every other man. The dictates of reason and the precepts of religion demand that you should rescue a man from a burning house, from a watery grave, from a state of starvation. In its higher range of thought it demands the advancement of those sciences which preserve health and prolong human existence. There is, however, a vaster sweep in this law of life, comprehensive of those sanitary conditions which are promotive of human existence. In its grander sweep this beneficent law of life includes the existence of nationalities. The right of a nation to defend itself on the principles of justice tallies with the right of the individual to defend himself. But what shall we say about those wars for glory, for empire, for commerce? (J. P. Newman, D. D.)
Thou shalt not kill
Beginning with this commandment, God lays down the rules to be observed by men in relation to their fellows. To kill, to murder, to slaughter, etc., are words which make us tremble. Mans life is precious to him–he gives it up with a struggle; and God takes it under His especial protection. Man has been made in the image of God, and His image must be honoured in every human life. Notice–
I. How this command is transgressed.
1. In old catechisms this commandment is illustrated often by two pictures–the fulfilment of it by the picture of the good Samaritan, the breaking of it by Cain with the club with which he slew his brother. Thus, whoever acts as Cain did–whatever the weapon he uses–transgresses this command (Gen 9:6). And it is seldom that the Divine order regarding this is escaped–not even here vindicated. A drop of blood, the lethal weapon, a footprint, a chance word, the pangs of remorse, etc., will bring the deed to light. Blood unjustly shed cries for vengeance; and anyone deprived of life–even though a child or man in extremity–is murdered. The life which God has given God alone may take; and one is not guiltless even when he risks his own life in the deadly encounter.
2. The commandment also forbids the maiming, wounding, or injuring the body of another. When the man inflamed by drink injures another, when a man attacks his foe in the descending darkness, etc., there also lurks the spirit of murder.
3. But the tongue, too, may wound bitterly. There is an art by which, through insult or reviling, a neighbour is deeply wounded and bears about the scars for many a year.
4. But the Word of God requires more. It requires that the roots from whence those murderous words or actions spring should be torn up (Mat 5:22). Such roots are anger, hatred, envy, malignity, revengefulness (1Jn 3:15, etc.). He who laughs and is glad when another weeps because of misfortune, etc., has the spirit of the murderer (Pro 24:17). Nor must any take on themselves the rewarding of unrighteousness without waiting for Gods time (Rom 12:19). In the spirit of revenge lurks the spirit of murder.
II. Notice how the command is obeyed.
1. We must turn away from the image of Cain and look on that of the good Samaritan–save those who are in danger of being murdered. If we see one in danger of losing life, say not with Cain, Am I my brothers keeper?–pass not by with priest or Levite. Let us cultivate the spirit of the peasant who saved the lives of the bridge keeper and his family when the bridge had fallen, bringing them in the light skiff through the raging flood and crashing in drift safely to the shore and then going his way, putting aside every offer of reward.
2. We must also help men in time of need. If we neglect the hungry when we have plenty and refuse to succour the sick, we are not fulfilling this command (Isa 58:7-10).
3. But not only does God seek to take a poisoned root out of mans heart by this command, but to implant another which will bring forth the fruit of love and mercy (Col 3:12).
4. We are to live in love and peace even with our enemies. God has forgiven us much; we also must learn to forgive our enemies, etc. Love is like dew, says the proverb; it falls on roses and nettles alike. If your foe comes to you saying, Let us be at peace, he comes in the spirit of this command. But even if he does not thus, come, but goes forth to de what is unjust, then heap coals of fire on his head by gentle forbearance; and remember ever the promise, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. They who turn aside disputing and striving turn the curses into a blessing, says the proverb.
5. Although animals are not made in the image of God, yet mercifulness to his beast is part of the adornment of a Christian mans character. The man who starves or overdrives his beast sins against the spirit of this command. The tormenter of animals may become the slayer of men. Let the spirit of love reign. (K. H. Caspari.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
6-20. I am the Lord thy GodTheword “Lord” is expressive of authority or dominion; andGod, who by natural claim as well as by covenant relation wasentitled to exercise supremacy over His people Israel, had asovereign right to establish laws for their government. [See on Ex20:2.] The commandments which follow are, with a few slightverbal alterations, the same as formerly recorded (Ex20:1-17), and in some of them there is a distinct reference tothat promulgation.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Ver. 17-20. Thou shalt not kill,…. The following commands begin with the copulative “and”, different from the manner in which they are expressed, Ex 20:17 which joins these together, and them with the preceding ones; hence the law is by some said to be one copulative, and may serve to illustrate a passage in Jas 2:10.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(17-20) The wording of these four commandments is the same with that of Exodus 20.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
XVIII
THE DECALOGUE THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
Exo 20:13
1. Who was the first murderer?
Ans. The devil. So John in Joh 8:44 says, “He was a murderer from the beginning.”
2. Which was the first murder?
Ans. In Gen 4:8-15 , Cain, under the promptings of Satan, killed his brother Abel.
3. Which was the first penal law against murder?
Ans. I will quote it for you; it preceded this law we are on now: “And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man” (Gen 9:5-6 ). This is the Noachian law given to Noah when he was the second representative head of the human race, after the flood, and particularly do you need to know the reason assigned: “For in the image of God made he man.” Therein is the heinousness of murder, viz.: that man was made in the image of God.
4. Now repeat this commandment.
Ans. “Thou shalt not kill.” I stated in the preceding chapter that the great covenant adopted at Sinai was set forth in the book of Exodus 19-23, and that covenant consisted of three parts: (1) This moral code which we are discussing; (2) The civil code arising from it; (3) The law of approach to God through the altar.
5. As that whole covenant from Exodus 19-24 is the constitution, what special Mosaic statutes were derived from this commandment?
Ans. (1) We will take up the case of homicide, which means the killing of a man (from homo, man, and caedis or caedo , to kill). The first Mosaic legislation concerning homicide, which is murder, has the death penalty. I want you to look at the special legislation on that subject. You will find this law with the death penalty assessed clearly stated in the following scriptures: Exo 21:12 ; Exo 21:14 ; Lev 24:17 ; Num 35:30-33 ; Deu 27:24 . Now, Moses developed special statutes out of this constitution, and every one of these statutes which I have recited you are to read carefully, and you will see that in any of the cases specified, this homicide is murder, with the penalty of death.
(2) The next special legislation on the subject is found in Num 35:16-21 , and it is homicide where malice is presumed because of the deadly weapon used. Let us turn and read it, for I want you to get this Mosaic legislation clearly in your mind, for all of our laws by which we go in our courts today are derived from this law. There is not a single principle of law, as attached to murder, in the government of any civilized country that is not derivable from the Mosaic law: “But if he smote him with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer.” Now, if you were to hit a man with a straw and it were to kill him, you could not prove malice, because the thing with which you struck was not calculated to kill. Here is where the weapon comes in and helps to determine murder, and you will hear the lawyers pleading that in all the murder cases that come up. “The murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smote him with a stone in the hand, whereby a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to: death. Or if he smote him with a weapon of wood in the hand, whereby a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.” Suppose I kill one with a cane, (and I have one with which one could kill a man) it would be murder. “And if he thrust him of hatred, or buried at him, lying in wait, so that he died, or in enmity smote him with his hand, so that he died; he that smote him shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer.” So you see the idea of murder there is that this man, even though he has not a weapon, lying in wait, he deliberately got his victim, having come along and anticipated it. Suppose he just leaps out and grasps him by the throat and chokes him to death? The law declares that murder on account of its malice; it was murder prompted by hatred, on account of its deliberation as he lay in wait for him.
(3) The next case is found in Deu 27:25 : “Cursed be he that taketh a bribe to slay an innocent person.” The first thing here is not personal animosity against the one killed, but the murderer accepting a bribe to kill him. He kills him for money; it is assassination for bribery; that is murder. It would be no defense for him to say, “I had no sort of enmity against that man; I never saw him in my life before.” But inasmuch as he took money as the price of killing, it is murder.
(4) The next case is homicide that results from false testimony, Deu 19:16-19 . Here’s a man accused before the courts with an offense, and the witness through whose testimony he was accused lost his life because of perjury; then that witness, though he did not actually do the killing, committed murder, and the Mosaic law says you must do to that witness, when you have proof of his perjury, what his testimony had done to the other man. If through false evidence he had a man hanged, why then you hang him, because that is murder.
(5) The next is a case of homicide resulting from criminal neglect, and the first case I take up under that charge is cited in Exo 21:29 , right after the giving of this code. Now here is a special statute that applies to that code: that if a man is gored to death by a vicious ox or bull, and there is evidence that the owner of that ox had been notified of the vicious character of that animal and did not keep him in, and through the running of it at large this man was killed, then the owner of that ox shall be put to death. That is criminal negligence, not safeguarding the life of others. If a little girl was going to school, and a man kept a bloodhound, a ferocious animal, and he should leap the fence and tear the throat of that little girl till she died, that man could be hanged under the Mosaic law; it was a criminal neglect.
The next case of criminal neglect cited is Deu 22:8 . When a man built a new house (you know the houses in that country were all flat on top) if the man did not erect battlements to protect anybody that might walk on the roof, or if children playing thoughtlessly got too close to the edge, fell off, and killed themselves, that man who did not put up battlements was guilty of murder; it was a criminal neglect. The third case of criminal neglect is Exo 22:23 : If two men get to fighting in a house where people are, or on the street, and as a result of their fighting an innocent bystander is killed, they are guilty of murder, because that was not the place to fight. Whoever fights in a public place where the people have a right to be, and though he shoots at his enemy, misses him and kills somebody that he did not aim at all, he is guilty of murder. It wasn’t the place to shoot.
The next case is that of a man punishing a slave, and while the weapon he uses is not called a deadly weapon, yet if he makes that punishment so extreme that the slave dies under the punishment, he is a murderer; and he could be put to death; but in order for him to be guilty of murder, the slave must die under the punishment. He might wound him so that he did not die for a week or two, then the law would not apply. But if he dies under the punishment, it is murder.
(6) The next law is expressed in Deu 21:1 . I had better quote that to you, as some of you prohibitionists, if you do as I used to do, will make a great deal of it: “If one be found slain in the land which Jehovah God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him; then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities that are around about him that is slain; and it shall be, that the city which is nearest unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke . . . And all the elders of that city shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley; and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Forgive, O Jehovah, thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of thy people Israel. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the innocent blood from the midst of thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah.” So that those elders who had washed their hands over the slain heifer and in the name of God who had Just been evoked by the sacrifice, they must swear that no neglect upon their part occasioned the death of that man. That is called municipal responsibility. Now, when the sheriff was killed in Fort Worth by that saloonkeeper, simply because the sheriff was discharging his duty, I wrote an article holding the city of Fort Worth responsible for that murder. They were tolerating the death-gendering business, also associated with murder, and through their licensing those saloons, and through their failure to enforce the law against those saloons that this murder came by, the municipality was guilty in the sight of God.
(7) The special Mosaic legislation, under the head, “Thou shalt not kill,” is all embodied in what is called lex talionis. You will not forget that: lex talionis , law of retaliation, and that lex talionis is set forth in the scripture, Exo 21:23-25 . Let us read that and see what it is: “But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” that is, every man under the law, “Thou shalt not kill,” is to be held responsible for the amount of damage which he inflicts, whether it kills or not. If he knocks out a man’s eye, then eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, one of his must now be taken out; if he cuts off a man’s nose then off comes his; if he breaks three or four teeth, then the same number of his shall be broken; “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burning for burning.” If he picks up boiling hot water and throws it over him, then he must be scalded. Let us see how that law is applied in Lev 24:19-21 : “And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and he that killeth a man shall be put to death.” And now let us look at the lex talionis in Deu 19:18-21 : “And the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to do unto his brother . . . And thine eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” That is lex talionis . Now, so far as we have considered the case of homicide where it was adjudged to be murder, and the penalty was death.
We will now consider accidental homicide. Deu 19:4-6 : “And this is the case of the manslayer, that shall flee thither and live: whoso killeth his neighbor unawares, and hateth him not in time past; as when a man goeth into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, so that he dieth; he shall flee unto one of these cities and live: lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and smite him mortally; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.” Now, he killed him but there was no hatred toward him and no intention to kill him. It was a pure accident; that is not murder.
I take a still stronger case, however, presented in Num 35:22-23 : “But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or buried upon him anything without lying in wait, or with any stone, whereby a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, so that he died, and he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm”; then that is not murder, for the congregation delivered the manslayer out of the hand of the avenger of blood and restored him to his city of refuge whither he had fled. There you come upon both suddenly, and it would be such if I were working on the top of a three-story house and pushed off the coping and it fell on somebody and killed him, I not seeing him, yet there being a sign up all around that there was danger on that building. But there was something here more than that. It says, “If a man suddenly thrust.” Now that is not an accident; it is this kind of a case: if the killing is brought upon you when you are not expecting it and the whole issue of it is thrust upon you without any premeditation on your part, and in the heat of the moment, you, in defense, lay hold on anything you can get your hand on, when they are crowding you, and you thrust suddenly and kill a man, this is not murder. Why? There was no malice, and there was no deliberation. It all came upon you in a moment, and you find that principle recognized in every law court in the United States. A question comes up: “Was the lex talionis to be enforced individually or through the courts?” I will explain that directly, we will come to it again, a strange kind of court, a part of it, yet it was a court.
6. Now give the Mosaic definition of murder, the process of court procedure in determining it to be murder, and its penalty.
Ans. Here’s my answer: (1) Homicide with deliberation and enmity is always murder. (2) The use of a deadly weapon in smiting implies malice and intent to kill and is murder. (3) Taking a bribe to kill, though without personal malice, is murder. (4) Homicide resulting from perjury, without personal malice, is murder. (5) Extreme punishment of the slave, though one did not mean to murder when he commenced punishing him, yet if he persisted until the slave dies under that punishment, it is murder. (6) Homicide resulting from criminal negligence, as in the case of an ox, or of the battlement. (7) In the case of a fight on the streets or in the house where the public have a right to be; (8) as in the case of the municipality in not safeguarding the lives of the citizens, or in not enforcing the law which does safeguard these, all are murder, criminal and otherwise at special courts; and (Deu 19:15-19 ) every man (a) was entitled to a trial, (b) and no man could be convicted of any offense, and especially in that of murder, by one witness; there must be two witnesses, one would not do; (c) no bail could be given, and (d) no fine allowed in a murder case, (e) and a false witness was himself to be put to death. (I will explain another feature of the court at the end of the chapter.) Now continuing the Mosaic definition: (9) Accidental (Deu 19:4-6 ) homicide in self-defense is not murder. (10) Sudden homicide is not murder (Num 35 ). (II) When a thief in the act of burglary is killed, that is not murder. (12) But, if you wait to kill him till the next day, then it is murder. (13) War is not murder; killing in war is not murder. Now I have given you the Mosaic law for murder.
7. What was our Lord’s exposition on this Sixth Commandments?
Ans. It is in Mat 5:21-22 , in the great Sermon on the Mount: “Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt 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 judgments; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [an expression of contempt], shall be in danger of the council [the Sanhedrin]; and whosoever shall say, Thou goal [an expression of condemnation] shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire.” There you see our Lord goes down to the root of the matter, and he puts the murder not in the overt act, but in the angry passion, or hate, that prompts the act, and that passion or hate may be expressed in a word. You may kill with the word, Raca, Fool, a worthless fellow; so that our Lord does not take back the Mosaic law, but he gives the spirit of it; he goes deeper than the words of the law; fool [an expression of condemnation], shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire.” There you see our Lord goes down to the root of the matter, and he puts the murder not in the overt but in the state of the mind which prompts to kill or to call a man curse words, as Raca, Fool, or whatever you please.
8. Now give our Lord’s exposition of the lex talionis.
Ans. In Mat 5:38-39 , we have this: “Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth [he does not take that back; he goes far beyond that] : but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” That is, the Christian man is not allowed to be executor of the lex talionis; he is not judge, or sheriff. The law says, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” and if a man has knocked your eye out, you are not to reach out your hand and knock his out; you are not the executor if he hits you on one side of the face. Rather than hit him back, you had better turn the other side and let him hit you again. God did not make you executor of the law.
9. What is John’s exposition of murder?
Ans. 1Jn 3:15 : “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” He may not shoot him; he may not be guilty of assassination, but if he hates him he has the spirit of a murderer.
10. Now give our Lord’s exposition of the source of murder.
Ans. Here he goes deeper than he went before. There he put the murder in the passions; in Mat 15:19 , he gives the source of it: “For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, etc.” There you do not have to prove the murder to be of the sword or pistol, nor even by anger, whether it manifests itself or not in word or gesture, but the permanent state, the attitude of the inner self toward God; out of the heart it comes forth, and that is the source.
11. Now give our Lord’s positive side of the commandment, the negative side of it being, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Ans. In Mat 5:43-45 , we find his positive side of it: “Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” As murder is hate “Thou shalt not hate” (that is the negative side) so, “Thou shalt love” is the positive of the commandment.
12. What is Paul’s positive side of it?
Ans. Rom 12:19-21 : “Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord. But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” There you begin to get at the idea that Christ is not speaking of the governmental execution of law. He is saying to the Christian people that they are not the executors of the law; and Paul says, “You have been wronged, now you give place to the wrath of God; just get out of the way and let God hit him. ‘Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay,’ and so far as you are concerned, do not hit him. Love him and pray for him.”
13. Does our Lord condemn all anger? If not, what is his law of anger?
Ans. As a proof that he does not condemn all anger, three or four times in his life he was himself intensely indignant, and ought to have been, and we ought to have an anger and wrath against any and all evil things, but he says, “Let not the sun go down on your wrath.” Now if they are wicked things they will make you mad, and that would not be sin, but if you took vengeance it would be sin, or if you nourished that, let the sun go down on that anger, it would breed something that would be sin, i.e., if you let it hang on long.
14. Does Christ condemn killing by the state through the courts of justice?
Ans. He certainly does not. He is not discussing that subject at all; nobody could call him out on these political questions.
15. What, then, is the sum of his teaching on killing and private resistance?
Ans. The sum of his teaching is that as God sends his sunlight and his rain upon the evil and good alike, so we, to be the children of God, must love the good and the bad; must desire their good; must refuse to execute judgment on him by taking vengeance into our hands. That is the sum of his law.
16. What is the sum of his teaching on courts and wars?
Ans. As I have told you, he avoided putting himself in antagonism in any way to any form of government. He says in whatsoever condition you are to be content, and you are to obey the magistrates and observe the requirements issued for the good of society. But he teaches principles that will ultimately put an end to the necessity of the human courts and to all courts whatever. One of the prophets says, “He shall be the arbiter between nations.” He says to his own children, “Do not go to law brother against brother.” We should either arbitrate or select any two or three good brethren in the church and let them decide; suffer wrong rather than go to law. He established the great principle of arbitration which appears in The Hague Commission and which has done a great deal of good and gives expression to the principle which he teaches, as the prophets declare: That the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and a little child shall lead them, and there shall be wars no more, and the swords shall be turned into plowshares and the spears into pruning hooks, and from one end of the earth to the other there shall be peace, and peace only. He is to bring it about, not by political legislation, but by inculcating the principles that will govern public opinion and will spread until a millennium of glory shall come in the power of his teachings.
17. What is the nature of murder?
Ans. It has about a dozen elements: (1) Sacrilege, because you are killing somebody who was made in the image of God; that is sacrilege. (2) And again you are killing your brother; you are destroying a member of society, and the great reason for a legislation against murder is that the man is made in the image of God, etc.
18. Cite special cases of murder.
Ans. (1) Homicide, the killing of a man; (2) suicide, the killing of self; (3) parricide, the killing of a parent; (4) infanticide, the killing of infants; and feticide, the killing of unborn children. Every one of them is murder.
19. Give the case of the Negro judge.
Ans. In Reconstruction times some Negroes got into office, and very near the edge of Arkansas, close to Texas, a Negro became a judge, and one of the cases brought before him was that of a man who had killed another man and stolen his horse. When they brought him before the Negro, he said: ”This court knows two kinds of justice; there is the Arkansas justice and there is the Texas justice. Well, now, which will you have?” “Well, if it is Texas justice you want, I set you free for killing the man that is nothing in Texas, but I will hang you for stealing the horse.” “Well, hold on,” the culprit said, “give me Arkansas justice.” “All right, I’ll set you free for stealing that horse, but I’ll hang you for killing that man.”
20. What is the great reflection on our laws as they are administered?
Ans. That the courts will not condemn a man for murder; they just simply will not do it. They condemn to death for stealing, without ever failing, and for a great many other things, but you can come nearer killing a man with impunity than stealing a paper bag of popcorn.
21. What is one of the greatest causes that lead to murder?
Ans. The love of money; as in the case of that man who killed by taking a bribe; as in the case of that man who swore falsely for money’s sake; as in the case of that saloonkeeper, who for the love of money kept and sold the things that brought about murder. The love of money is one of the greatest causes of murder.
22. Explain the avenger of blood and the cities of refuge.
Ans. The question was asked whether the lex talionis was vested in that individual or in the court of the cities of refuge. There were six of them, three east of the Jordan and three west; they were set there for this purpose: that when one killed a man, he could instantly flee that city nearest, and if the avenger of blood overtook him before he got there, he perished; if he got there, he had a trial. If it was proved that he had maliciously killed him, then the city of refuge could not hold him, nobody could hold him, he must be given up, says Moses. But the object of those cities of refuge was to give time for passion to cool, to give time for a fair trial. Now what was the avenger of blood? He was the closest of kin to the murdered man. That looks like putting it into the hands of the individual, but while it was in the hands of the individual, it was an individual commission of the law; the law commissioned him, as soon as his kinsman was killed, to strike right out for the murderer, and it was a hot race; if the murderer got to the city of refuge he was safe from the avenger of blood until the evidence could be brought there and the case tried, and if he had actually committed murder, then he must be publicly executed. If it was a case of accidental killing, or accidental homicide, they could not put him to death. Now we have no such thing as the avenger of blood, making the nearest of kin the avenger of blood, as the law of Moses did. But he was an officer of the law just as the sheriff is. The Mormons created a body called the Danites, a secret organization, and made them the avengers of blood, until the whole United States was stirred with the drama, The Danites repeating what they did in dramatic art. That drama, The Danites, thrilled the whole United States, and the Danites had to go out of business.
23. How about a missionary in a heathen country carrying a pistol?
Ans. If I had been out with Theodore Roosevelt in the wilds of Africa, I would have carried both gun and pistols. Wherever my life was in jeopardy by the necessity of my situation, I would carry them, but in a school or a church, or in the streets of a peaceful city, where there are officers of the law on all sides ready to protect that is the kind of pistol carrying that is inexcusable.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 5:17
17 You shall not murder.
Deu 5:17 murder The Hebrew VERB murder (BDB 953, KB 1283, Qal IMPERFECT) originally meant to violently crush. Life belongs to God. This does not mean killing of any kind because Israel had both capital punishment (e.g., Num 35:30) and Holy War (e.g., Deu 20:13; Deu 20:16-17). The commandment is saying Thou shalt not violently murder for selfish reasons or revenge or do not commit non-legal, premeditated murder. In my opinion this passage cannot be used as a biblical admonition against military service or capital punishment.
SPECIAL TOPIC: NOTES ON Exodus 20 (MURDER)
SPECIAL TOPIC: PEACE AND WAR
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Exo 20:13, Mat 5:21, Mat 5:22
Reciprocal: Mal 3:5 – the sorcerers Jam 2:11 – Do not commit
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Deu 5:17. Thou shalt not kill Hast thou not tempted any one to what might shorten his life? Hast thou tempted none to intemperance? Hast thou suffered none to be intemperate under thy roof, or in thy company? Hast thou done all thou couldest, in every place, to prevent intemperance of all kinds? Art thou guilty of no degree of self-murder? Dost thou never eat or drink any thing because it is pleasant and agreeable to thy taste, although thou hast reason to believe it is prejudicial to thy health? Hast thou constantly done whatever thou hadst reason to believe was conducive to it? Hast thou not hated thy neighbour in thy heart? Hast thou reproved him that committed sin in thy sight? If not, thou hast, in Gods account, hated him, seeing thou didst suffer sin upon him. Hast thou loved all men as thy own soul, as Christ loved us? Hast thou done unto all men as, in like circumstances, thou wouldest they should do to thee? Hast thou done all in thy power to help thy neighbours, enemies as well as friends? Hast thou laboured to deliver every soul thou couldest from sin and misery? Hast thou showed that thou lovedst all men as thyself, by a constant, earnest endeavour to fill all places with holiness and happiness, with the knowledge and love of God?
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The sixth commandment 5:17
The meaning of the Hebrew word ratsah translated "kill" or "murder" (NASB, NIV) is "murder" or "slay." Of course, humans rather than animals are in view. Both forms of murder, premeditated and non-premeditated (i.e., second degree homicide, without pre-meditation, yet intentional killing, e.g., resulting from rage or using a weapon with an unfair advantage to kill someone that is unarmed), are in view. The Israelites distinguished and punished these two forms of murder differently, and manslayers were protected instead of punished, as we do in modern times. The exceptions in which God commanded the Israelites to take another human life are the execution of certain law-breakers and participation in holy war. He gave the command to execute murderers to Noah before the Mosaic era (Gen 9:6). This law of capital punishment provided the foundation for civilized government. God incorporated it into the Mosaic Law. Even though God has terminated the Mosaic Law (2Co 3:7-11), the command to execute murderers continues since it was in force before the Mosaic Law. [Note: See Charles C. Ryrie, "The Doctrine of Capital Punishment," Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):211-17, reprinted in his book, You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . ., pp. 23-32.]
There are several reasons for the sixth commandment (Gen 9:6). The first is the nature of man. Not only did God create man essentially different from other forms of animal life (Gen 2:7; cf. Mat 19:4), but He also created humans in His own image (Gen 1:26-28). Consequently when someone murders a person he or she obliterates a revelation of God. Second, murder usurps God’s authority. All life belongs to God, and He gives it to us on lease (cf. Eze 18:4 a). To take a human life without divine authorization is to arrogate to oneself authority that belongs only to God. Third, the consequences of murder, unlike the consequences of some other sins (e.g., lying, stealing, coveting), are fatal and irreversible.
We must interpret Jesus’ words about hatred being as bad as murder in Mat 5:21-22 (cf. 1Jn 3:15 a) in their context. Jesus was stressing the fact that attitudes are as important as actions to God in the Sermon on the Mount. He was correcting false teaching by the Pharisees that external actions were more important than internal attitudes. He was not saying that the consequences of hatred and murder are the same. Obviously they are not.
The Apostle John’s teaching that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1Jn 3:15 b) means that an abiding Christian will not commit murder (cf. 1Jn 3:6 a, 1Jn_3:24 a). This should be clear from the way John uses the word "abide" in his epistles (cf. John 14-17). A Christian can commit murder (cf. 1Pe 4:15), but if he does so he is not abiding in a close relationship with Christ when he does so.
In view of the sixth commandment we should not murder other people or ourselves (suicide). [Note: See J. P. Morgan, "The Morality of Suicide: Issues and Options," Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):214-30.] We should also punish those who commit this crime as God has commanded (Gen 9:6). Moses, David, and Paul were all murderers whom God specially pardoned (Exo 3:10; 2Sa 12:13; 1Ti 1:13). Moreover we should realize the seriousness of hatred and deal with it in our own lives.