Trxr:—"Thou shalt not kill." Or, as the revised version translates it, and as it appears in cur catechism and service books...
"Thou shalt do no murder." Exodus 20, 13 of old time should be even more apparent now that we have the revelation of the new covenant. Christ has shown the infinite worth of human life—the possibilities which lie in each individual life. He has taught us human brotherhood as fellow members in the family of God.
This teaching in regard to the sacredness of human life helps us when we come to consider the case N nearly every form of society of which we know anything, we find laws in defence of certain fundamental rights. The right to existence. Every man has a right to his own life—nobody else has the right to take it from him. The right to his home. Every man has a right to his own home—nobody else has a right to break it up. And certain property rights, Every man has right to his own property: nobody else has the right to steal it or take it from him without adequate reason.
No society can hope for permanence or stability unless these rights are respected. However crude it may be, every society forbids murder, theft and adultery.
It may forbid these crimes in strange ways and it may exact even stranger punishments for them yet the face of humanity is set like a flint against them.
"Thou shalt do no murder crime forbidden in this commandment meets with universal condemnation. In civilized countries all men approve the sixth commandment. The average person does not dream of breaking it except in warfare, Centuries of education and religious teaching have taught us the sacredness of human life, and built up a horror of the act which robs a man of his existence. We live in an enlightened age. We have not only the law and the prophets, but we have as well the revelation of Jesus Christ, and yet when we come to study law given on Sinai and the Hebrew legislation which interpreted the commandments, we are amazed to find how many of our present day ideas are there in germ and often explicitly stated. This is particularly noticeable when we come to consider the legislation set up for the enforcement of the sixth commandment, Present Day and Ancient Practice Today the punishment for murder and, indeed, for all other civil offences is in the hands of the state. In most cases there is a public prosecu-for. It is the state that has made the laws. It is the accredited servants of the state who conduct the trial. It is the state that prescribes the punishment and it is the state that administers it. Vengeance in all important matters belongs to the state, the private individual is not allowed to exact his own; but in the ancient world in general this was not the case. In Israel, in common with other countries, the principle of blood revenge was the common practice. When anyone committed a murder, the nearest male relative of the murdered man was required to find the murderer and exact from him the punishment of death. The principle behind the system of blood revenge is plain. The family has a corporate personality. Each member of it shares in the fortune and misfortunes of every other member. When the blood of any member is spilt, it is the whole family which is being attacked and vengeance is a sacred and religious duty. Now notice how the Hebrew legislation qualifies this ancient practice, making a tremendous step forward. First of all, there was a clear distinction drawn between murder an manslaughter. The system of blood revenge, when strictly carried out, fakes no account of accidents. Life for a life is demanded. and often. the case of bodily accidents, limb for limb, but in Israel it was appointed that judges should sitar the city Bate to consider cases. To constitute murder these had to be malice aforethought; greed, hatred, or the desire for revenge had to be proven in him that committed it And further to safeguard the man who had killed another accidentally, Hebrew law ordained that certain cities might be used as cities of refuge. Thither the man who had been so unfortunate Some have urged the sixth commandment as an argument against capital punishment. I am mot concerned this afternoon to make a case r or against it, but it is obvious that the Hebrews did not so interpret it. They awarded the death penalty not only for murder, other than manslaughter, but for many forms of sexual immorality, and alë for idolatry. blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking and for witchcraft, If it seems overly severe, we must remember that they lived in an age and amid such environment that there could be no compromise, Intolerance was the condition of freedom. These sins were sins against God. They were violation of the covenant relationship. They could not be tolerated and the only sure preventative was drastic punishment of the sinner. Looking pack we see that nothing less could have accomplished law enforcement. Others would urge this commandment as an argument against war. Here again Ido not want to be drawn into an argument on a controversial subject. The Hebrews did not so interpret it. They believed that there could be just wars and acted upon that principle, but Old Testament qualification of war can guide us in several important parti-Culars. The Prophets speak emphatically against wars of aggression, Any war undertaken must be in defence of sound ethical principles. The war must be the expression of ihe conscience of the community to be right. They must be able to cry, "The sword of the Lord" as well as, "The sword of Gideon."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.