← Back to sermon library

Exodus chapter 20, we'll review 
a bit of the sixth commandment and then pick up on that exposition. 
That's verse 13 in Exodus 20, but I'll begin reading in verse 
1. And God spoke all these words saying, I am the Lord your God 
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of 
bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not 
make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that 
is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that 
is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, 
nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am 
a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children 
to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me. but showing 
mercy to thousands, to those who love me and keep my commandments. 
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for 
the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Remember 
the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and 
do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord 
your God. In it you shall do no work, you nor your son, nor 
your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, 
nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For 
in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea 
and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore 
the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Honor your 
father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the 
land which the Lord your God is giving you. You shall not 
murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, 
you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, you shall 
not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's 
wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, 
nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. Now 
all the people witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, 
the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. And when 
the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off. Then they 
said to Moses, You speak with us, and we will hear, but let 
not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said to the people, 
Do not fear, for God has come to test you, and that his fear 
may be before you, so that you may not sin. So the people stood 
afar off, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God 
was. Amen. So last week we looked at the 
explanation of the command. Tonight we'll look at the application 
of the command, but we didn't finish the explanation. So remember 
that we talked about terminology. Is there a difference with reference 
to killing people and murdering people? And if so, what is the 
difference? Are we free to kill people? That was a trick question. We're 
not free to kill people. What makes murder murderous, 
or what constitutes murder murder? Premeditation. Absolutely. Premeditation, 
malice aforethought, some sort of an intent, some sort of an 
act of anger involved that fleshes itself out in the actual execution 
of a person. So you've got murder, which is 
the unlawful killing of another human being. What are the three 
instances of lawful homicide that we find in the Bible? Capital punishment. Which one 
else? Just war. Just war. And is there 
one other? Yeah. I can't remember. You can't remember. Okay. Capital 
punishment and just war. That's good. Two out of three. Any other? Self-defense. Self-defense. That's 
right. So where does the Bible teach 
capital punishment? Do you know that one? I'm looking 
right at you, Sophia. Do you know where the Bible teaches? 
What is it? No, not in this particular passage, 
but where does the Bible teach capital punishment? Genesis 9. Anywhere else? Romans 13, and 
where does the Bible teach that it's lawful to kill somebody 
in the act of robbery or somebody breaking into your house? Anybody? 
One other proof, though, for capital punishment would be Paul 
when he says, I refuse not to die. Like, Paul would have accepted 
a death sentence, but it needed to be done lawfully. That's right. 
Due process and so on. He wasn't going to let himself 
be killed by law. Right. Bonus points if you know where 
it's at. 25. Good, that's a good point. Alright, so where does the Bible 
authorize the use of homicide? Now, that doesn't mean we sit 
on our couch, we can't wait until somebody opens the door and comes 
in so we can inflict bloodthirsty trauma on their heads and dispatch 
that. But in the act of aggression, when somebody comes in, we don't 
know what their intentions are, we are not held guilty or liable 
if we kill them in that exchange. What does the Scirtus teach that? Anyone remember? Exodus 22, very 
good. And it's assumed in the teaching 
of our Lord Jesus, certain analogies that Jesus uses, talking about 
the man, if he knew of the hour, a strong man would come, he'd 
be ready for him, and he would defend his home. And then where 
does the Bible teach the lawfulness of killing in the act of war? Through example with Israel going 
into Canaan. a whole bunch of places in the 
Old Testament, that's right. Deuteronomy 7 is the specific 
parameters for holy war. When the children of Israel go 
into the land of Canaan, they were to dispossess the land of 
the Canaanites. They were not to take them as 
prisoners, they were not to marry them, they were not to So we have those lawful instances 
of homicide. So it's not as if it's exceptions. It's not like there's murder, 
and then there's exceptions to the rule. Remember, all murder 
is killing, but not all killing is murder. So there are two different 
categories. You've got unlawful homicide, 
and then you've got lawful homicide. So the unlawful is the act of 
murder, premeditation, malice aforethought, taking somebody 
out. Does anybody remember what scriptures differentiate those 
two particular acts? Where does God make the distinction 
between murder and manslaughter? Or accidental homicide? Yes, 
Exhibits 21, 12, and 13. Number 35, which is the one at 
the end of number 35, you see the mandate, or rather prohibition, 
against accepting a payment for a murderer. In other words, number 
35 demands the execution of a murderer. You cannot pay a fine, you cannot 
make a deal, you can't go to jail, that sort of thing. It 
must be capital punishment for a murderer. And then Deuteronomy 
chapter 19, verses 4 to 13, make that distinction as well between 
murder and accidental homicide. Those contexts, specifically 
the numbers of the Deuteronomy passages, refer to the cities 
of refuge. Cities of refuge are places in 
Israel that were safe havens for those who engaged in accidental 
homicide. Well, if it was accidental, then 
why does anything happen to them? Well, it's to discourage accidents 
from happening. You need to be a responsible 
citizen in the body politic. And if your accident flies off 
and kills your neighbor, then you deserve to be troubled for 
a few years. That's why you go to the city 
of refuge. So there's some sort of sanction attached to carelessness 
in the body politic in Israel. And in reference to the prohibition, 
is it simply concerned with stopping the heartbeat of another human 
being? No. What else is prohibited with 
reference to you shall not murder? Character assassination, unwarranted 
anger, hatred, this kind of vindictive attitude that is reflected in 
mistreatment of others, and that sort of thing. And then in terms 
of the reasons specified, we look at the exceptions around 
the other. instances of killing, the reasons specified. You shall 
not murder. It's not spelled out there. But 
in Genesis chapter 9, with reference to the death penalty, what is 
the purpose and what is the rationale for the execution of a murderer? Does anybody remember? It's theological 
evasion. That's right. For in the image 
of God, he made man. So that's the rationale for you 
shall not murder. Man is created in the image of 
God. So the animals are not. So when 
we kill an animal, that's not murder. Peanut is wrong. Meat 
is not murder. Meat is good. And we kill animals 
because God said that we can in order to eat animals. Now 
obviously, viciousness and cruelty and torture of animals is not 
authorized by God. The righteous man, according 
to Solomon Proverbs, has to guard for his beasts. So he doesn't 
do vicious or vile things to animals. But if a man needs to 
eat, or a man needs to work, or a man needs to utilize, the 
lesser creature that God authorizes him to do that. But with reference 
to man, according to Genesis chapter 1, verses 26 to 28, Genesis 
chapter 5, verse 1, and then many passages subsequent to that, 
the Bible teaches that man is created in the name of God. So 
that is the reason for the Prohibition. It's not the case that it's simply 
anthropological and man-centered. We don't kill man because other 
men will be unhappy. We don't kill man because man 
bears God's image. And Vos says, in life's way, 
it is the image of God, i.e., the divine majesty that is to 
solve it. Now, with reference to the biblical 
testimony concerning the image of God, these passages that we 
go through in the Sanctity of Life Sunday Sermon, perhaps it 
would be good to review that. So the reality that man bears 
the image of God is true of man prior to his fall into sin. So Genesis 1, 26 to 28, again, 
it's a general overarching statement concerning man as image bearer 
of the living and true God. We possess intrinsic worth. We 
possess intrinsic dignity. There is, in fact, a sanctity 
of life for human beings. Now, after the fall into sin, 
does man still bear the image of God? It's been a question 
debated in theology for many, many years. Does fallen man bear 
the image of God? Does the Bible teach that or 
no? Yes. Where does the Bible teach it? 
Genesis chapter 9. Again, Genesis chapter 5 as well. Is there any New Testament passage 
that speaks of man, fallen man, as the image of God? renewed according to the new 
man in Christ, but that's not the one I'm looking for. What 
is it? James chapter 3. Yeah, in fact, 
you can turn there. It's good to get these passages 
in our head. Obviously, we live in a death culture that celebrates 
the wholesale slaughter of babies and old people, so it's good 
for us to be on our game and to understand what the Bible 
says concerning the sanctity of human life. So notice in 3, 
9, he's talking about the tongue and the reality that we can cause 
great damage with it. And in verse 9 he says, with 
it, the tongue, we bless our God and Father, and with it we 
curse men who have been made in the similitude or likeness 
of God. Now, it's true not only prior 
to the fall of man into sin, but it's true after or post-fall, 
post-lapsarian condition, but then it's true with reference 
to each status or each part in a man's life. So where does the 
Bible teach that it's wrong or that a baby in the womb is in 
fact an image-bearer? Does the Bible teach that babies 
in the womb are image-bearers? Yes. Yes. Where does the Bible 
teach that? Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, 
Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 
139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 
139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 
139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 
139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 
139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 
139, Psalm 139, Psalm 139, Psalm 51, in sin my mother conceived 
me, David says. He's not saying that the act 
of conjugal relations within the marriage covenant was sinful. He's saying that the moment that 
David was conceived, David was in sin and Adam all died. But 
nevertheless, we see that David is David even in his mother's 
womb. As well, we have Genesis chapter 25, the twins of Rebecca. You've got Job's references in 
Job 10, and then in Job 31. You've got Solomon and Ecclesiastes, 
and then you've got Jeremiah and Paul. who speak of being 
separated from their mother's womb, Jeremiah for the task of 
prophetic ministry and the Apostle Paul for the task of the apostolic 
ministry. So in Galatians chapter 1 he 
says, it pleased God who separated me from my mother's womb. And 
then in Luke's gospel, you have the baby in the womb referred 
to as with the same language that is utilized in babies outside 
the womb in Luke chapter 18. And intriguingly, Mary, or rather 
Elizabeth, says, why is it that the mother of my Lord should 
come to me? Well, of course, she was pregnant 
at that time. The Lord is in the womb, and 
therefore we see the dignity or the sanctity of that human 
life. Jesus is not a blob, he's not a mass of cells, he's not 
the product of conception, but he is the Lord over all, even 
in the womb. Where does the Bible teach that 
this is true of children, outside of the womb children? Again, 
the language may not be because they're in the image of God, 
but the fact that God requires certain treatment for image bearers 
underscores the image bearer-ness that they possess or that they 
have. Does the Bible teach us where to treat children with 
respect? Yes. Does anybody know where? Ephesians chapter 6. Fathers 
are not to provoke their children to wrath. They are to bring them 
up in the training and admonition of the Lord. As well, Leviticus 
chapter 18. We have a prohibition against 
offering our children to Molech or to some sort of a sacrificial 
system. Leviticus 18.21. You shall not 
let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor 
shall you profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. You see, it's not that persons 
get sanctity of life status at a particular age. I mean, there's 
a lot of people, even in the history of the church, that taught 
that, that it was part of being self-aware. So that a baby in 
the womb not being self-aware was not actually a human person. Peter Singer, the professor of 
bioethics at Princeton University, says that a two- or three-year-old 
cat has more self-awareness than an infant. So of course, the 
cat is more dignified, or it's more valuable rather, than the 
actual human child. So there's all kinds of atrocious 
reasoning out there. And again, the people of God 
need to know their Bibles and what God says concerning children, 
babies, and then as well, handicapped. We see this move with reference 
to euthanasia. Who does euthanasia typically 
target? The elderly, who the Bible protects, 
and as well the handicapped, or those who are ill. The scriptures 
protect the ill, the handicapped. Where does the Bible do that? 
Anybody remember? Who's that? Jonathan's son. Jonathan's son, Mephibosheth? Yeah, Mephibosheth had a lame 
foot. Yeah, for sure. He had dignity 
as a creature of God. Specifically, Leviticus 19, you're 
still there. Look at verse 14, you shall not 
curse the deaf. nor put a stumbling block before 
the blind, but shall fear your God. I am the Lord." They're 
not persons to be taken advantage of, they're not persons to be 
mocked, they're not persons that you can make fun of, but rather 
they bear the image of God most high, even with their handicap. 
and therefore we are to treat them with respect. We of course 
have the case of Boyan Bartimaeus, whom Jesus obviously dignifies 
when he stops in the city streets of Jericho, walks over to Bartimaeus 
and asks, what would you have me to do? Bartimaeus says, Lord, 
I want to see. And so Jesus restored his sight. 
And then where does the Bible teach that it's true? The elderly. 
How do we know that you don't get to a certain point and no 
longer are you considered in the arena of sanctity of life 
and so you're open praying for euthanasia. Does the Bible protect 
the elderly? Which one? Leviticus 19, yes. What is it? Yeah, 32. You shall rise before the gray-headed 
and honor the presence of an old man and fear your God, I 
am the Lord. Is there a New Testament equivalent 
to this particular passage? Just a hint, we read it a few 
weeks ago in our morning worship. 1 Timothy chapter 5, that's right. Oh, that's fine. That's good. 
To be fair, that's OK. That's a good way to help remember 
things and a good way to stir up the memory with reference 
to these particulars. And then with reference to the 
sick, those who are ill among us, do they still possess the 
sanctity of human life? Are they still image bearers 
of the living and true God? I think, obviously, the answer 
is yes. I guess I'm looking for the text. 
Anybody have it? James chapter 5. That's right. 
James chapter 5, specifically at verse, let's see, 14 and 15. If anyone among you is sick, 
let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray 
over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 
And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will 
raise him up. And if he has committed sins, 
he will be forgiven. So at every stage of life, no 
matter what his age, no matter what his condition, physically, 
mentally, whatever it is, hardships may it be, his afflictions, his 
trials and difficulties, he nevertheless bears the image of God. And as 
a result, it is unlawful to take the life of those persons. Again, 
unless it is just war, self-defense, or capital punishment. Those 
are instances of lawful homicide, but with reference to murder, 
we're not supposed to murder anybody on that particular continuum 
because they bear the image of God Almighty. And then as far 
as man over the animals, you see that in the creation account. 
Again, we are in a clown world today, and it's only getting 
worse. So we really need to understand, 
with reference to scripture, and man and animals. God made 
us in his image. He didn't make the animals. in 
his image. And then when we get to the Levitical 
sacrificial system, God commands the killing, almost said the 
murder, the killing of animals with reference to sacrifice. 
Blood atonement needed to be made by the worshipers in Israel, 
and animals serve that particular function. So we have man who 
has dignity over the animals. So we're not supposed to put 
the animals before man, rather man comes before the animals. 
With reference to the command, we've got the terminology, the 
particular word ratza, the word murder, it's the word chosen 
that best reflects those concepts of premeditation or malice aforethought. The prohibition extends not only 
to the external act of actually stopping someone's heart, but 
to the internal disposition. As well, the exceptions, not 
again really exceptions, but actual lawful uses of homicide 
in the death penalty, just war, and self-defense, and then the 
various stages of human life all bear the image of God, or 
man is in the image of God. And now with reference to the 
application of the command, with reference to the prohibition 
externally, obviously any act of stopping somebody's life unlawfully 
is prohibited by the command. So it's just not the case that 
we can do this. It's just not the case that other 
people can do this. There must be stiff penalties. 
It really should be capital punishment for anybody who does engage in 
the act of murder. That's the legitimate, lawful, 
biblical remedy for somebody who's engaged in murder. But 
let's turn to Matthew chapter 5. I think we're probably more 
inclined to the internal disposition violations than we are to actually 
ax murdering our next door neighbor because he parked on our grass. 
So when it comes to Matthew chapter 5, remember that Jesus is not 
setting himself up over against Moses, but what he is doing is 
he is clarifying the original intention of Moses. Remember, 
Moses didn't come up with the law of God. Moses was the mediator 
of the old covenant. Moses functioned as a prophet 
to the people of God. The prophet, remember, speaks 
for God to the people. The priest goes to God on behalf 
of the people. So Moses functions as a prophet, 
comes on behalf of God, and speaks the word of God to his people. 
So when Jesus says in Matthew 5.21, you have heard that it 
was said to those of old, you shall not murder, and whoever 
murders will be in danger of the judgment. He's not saying 
that he is strengthening the law. He's not saying that he 
is making an internal sort of application that Moses never 
did. He is simply ripping on the Pharisees 
and those who had said, as long as you don't stop somebody's 
heart from beating, you've fulfilled the command. No, Jesus says it 
was never intended to be that way, not only in the New Testament 
or in the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, but we saw that 
in Leviticus chapter 19. You're not supposed to hate your 
brother in your heart. You're supposed to rebuke him. 
You're supposed to love your neighbor as yourself. And that's 
a curious statement, Leviticus 19.18. You're not supposed to 
hate your neighbor in your heart, but rather you're supposed to 
rebuke him. What does that mean? The idea, I think, means this. 
Instead of bearing a grudge against him, instead of just internalizing 
your difficulty with him, man up and go to him and deal with 
him man to man so that you don't harbor bitterness, so that you 
don't harbor that sort of a discontent, and so you don't have this sort 
of murderous rage. The Bible is very clear with 
reference to fixing our relationships. There are two passages in particular 
that deal with fixing our relationships. When it comes to our sin against 
another person, Jesus addresses that with reference to when you 
come to lay your gift at the altar and there you remember 
that your brother has aught with you, go to him, be reconciled 
to him, and then go and present your offering. But if our brother 
sins against us, what are we supposed to do? Throw darts at 
his picture? So just, you know, hate him and 
despise him? Or do we do something about that? 
Matthew 18, we go to him. I think that's how you need to 
understand that statement, Leviticus 19, 18. You're not supposed to 
hate your neighbor in your heart. Rather, you're supposed to rebuke 
him. Again, you probably will hate somebody in your heart because 
you have an issue with that. I don't know that many of us 
just wake up in the morning, walk down to the Starbucks, and 
hate the person that serves us. No, usually our hate is specifically 
directed to somebody who messes with us, somebody who has wronged 
us, somebody who has done something to us. So what's the remedy? 
You're not supposed to hate them, rather rebuke them, deal with 
them, and get it out on the table, and flesh it out, call for repentance, 
and fix the relationship. God is all about fixing relationships. And if we harbor this sort of 
hatred in our heart, it's going to be the sort of thing that 
falls under the prohibition, you shall not murder. You see 
that in 1 John chapter 3 in the reference to Cain. It says, whoever 
will, verse 13, do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates 
you. We know that we have passed from death to life because we 
love the brethren. He who does not love his brother 
abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is 
a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life 
abiding in him." Now, prior to this, he mentions Cain, Cain 
who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. Now, Cain 
obviously engaged in the external act, but the internal disposition 
of a Cain is the same as the internal disposition of a brother 
who is not dealing with his brother. whoever hates his brother is 
a murderer and you know that no murderer has eternal life 
abiding in him. So the sixth commandment not 
only forbids the act of Cain, you know, clubbing Abel to death, 
but it's that internal disposition and typically it's that internal 
disposition that the people of God need to be on guard against. 
Again, I don't know that our temptation is to go out and physically 
end somebody's life, but there might be that temptation for 
bitterness, anger, being upset, avoiding people. Well, live in 
light of Leviticus 19, live in light of Matthew 18, live in 
light of, I think it's Matthew 6, where you go to the altar 
and there you remember that your brother has ought against you. 
Is it Matthew 6? Matthew 5, yeah. Where are we at? 23, thank you. All right. Yeah, 
23, there it is. Therefore, if you bring your 
gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has 
something against you, leave your gift there before the altar 
and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, 
and then come and offer your gift. You see, it's in the context 
of the sixth commandment. So go back to verse 21. You have 
heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not murder, 
and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I 
say to you, whoever is angry with his brother without a cause 
shall be in danger of the judgment." This anger without a cause. That's 
a good qualification because we find in the Gospel records 
that Jesus is angry with the Pharisees of His particular day. Notice specifically in Matthew 
21. Matthew 21 at verses 12 and 13, when Jesus cleanses the temple. I doubt Jesus had a great big 
grin on his face, a big toothy smile. Notice in verse 12, then 
Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who 
bought and sold in the temple and overturned the tables of 
the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And 
he said to them, it is written, my house shall be called a house 
of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves. And then 
notice in Mark's gospel, Mark chapter 3, Mark chapter 3, specifically 
at verse 5. Mark tells us specifically that 
Jesus was angry. Notice in verse 1. He entered 
the synagogue again and a man was there who had a withered 
hand. So they watched him closely, whether he would heal him on 
the Sabbath so that they might accuse him. And he said to the 
man who had the withered hand, step forward. Then he said to 
them, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to 
save life or to kill? But they kept silent. And when 
he had looked around at them with anger, being grieved by 
the hardness of their hearts, he said to the man, stretch out 
your hand. And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored 
as whole as the other. Then the Pharisees went out and 
immediately plotted with the Herodians against him how they 
might destroy him." Notice that. He looked around at them with 
anger. So anger in and of itself is 
not sinful. God is angry, Psalm 711, with 
the wicked every day. God is able to manage that without 
sinning. Now typically, that's a challenge 
for us. When we get angry and try not 
to sin, it doesn't always work out. But we should keep in mind 
this particular passage in Matthew 5.22. I say to you that whoever 
is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of 
the judgment. So this unwarranted anger reflects 
that position that John condemns in 1 John 3.15. This idea of 
hating one's brother, not rebuking him, not dealing faithful with 
him, not going to him when either we've wronged him or when he's 
wronged us. Go to him and call his attention 
to his particular sin. But he goes on to speak of character 
assassination. Whoever says to his brother Raka 
shall be in danger of the council, but whoever says you fool shall 
be in danger of hellfire. So again, this is an attack upon 
man's reputation. Raka simply means something like 
empty head or numbskull or airhead or blockhead. It's an attack 
on man's intellectual ability. And then fool. If Raka expresses 
contempt for the man's intellect, fool expresses contempt for his 
heart and character. Now brethren, you know as well 
as I do, God uses that terminology all throughout the Bible to explain 
the ethical perversity of the godless, and as well to describe 
the remaining corruption of the godly. It is folly, it is foolish 
when we do certain things. So there are seasons, there are 
places and contexts where we can use such language, but with 
reference to this particular activity, he's not condemning, 
you know, if you tell your son, oh, that's not foolish for you 
to jump off the roof into the rose bushes. You're acting like 
a fool. I don't think you're in danger 
of judgment. I think you're doing your job 
as a faithful parent. So when Jesus is addressing this, 
it's the heart disposition or the attitude that violates the 
sixth commandment relative to an image-bearer. And most likely 
in context, it's a brother. It's somebody that we're supposed 
to love, and somebody that we're supposed to be faithful with, 
and somebody that we are supposed to deal honestly with. C. H. Spurgeon says, to call a man 
raka, or worthless fellow, is to kill him in his reputation. 
And again, this isn't simply condemned by Jesus in the New 
Testament. He's not strengthening the law. 
We go back into the Old Testament, we see the same sort of emphases. 
In fact, turn to Leviticus 19. Leviticus 19 is foundational 
to what we find in terms of the second table of the law. I was 
saying verse 18, I'm sorry, it's verse 17. Leviticus 19, 17, you 
shall not hate your brother in your heart, you shall surely 
rebuke your neighbor and not bear sin because of him. You 
shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children 
of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. 
I am the Lord. See, that internal disposition. 
Don't bear grudges. Don't have that pettiness of 
spirit. Don't have that sort of vindictive 
mindset where you're hoping that a brother for whom Jesus died 
gets his comeuppance. No, rather, it's best to deal 
with him, to be faithful with him, and to actually obey the 
scripture with reference to Matthew 5, when you know that your brother 
has a problem with you, or Matthew 18, when you know you have a 
problem with your brethren. Honestly, brethren, in my experience, 
people are afraid to do what God says. People would rather 
avoid a friend or avoid a brother, rather than take them apart and 
say, look, you sinned against me, I want you to repent of this 
sin. I mean, it sounds like, you know, 
we just are terrified to do that. But faithful are the wounds of 
a friend. I mean, that's the way you forge 
good relationships. I like to think in our husband-wife 
relationships, every time something happens, we don't just internalize 
it and get bitter and embittered and just want them, you know, 
the worst thing to happen to them. No, we deal with them. 
We're open with them. You know, honey, or, you know, 
whatever you call your beloved, you sinned against me. Let's 
deal with that. Why? Because you repair the breach. Well, we need to extend that 
same courtesy outside of our marriage relationships to our 
friend group or our brothers and sisters in the context of 
the church. Why would we end a friendship with somebody because 
they sinned against us? Eventually, we'll have no friends 
because everybody's going to sin against us. It's just the 
inevitability. So, with reference to dealing 
with sin with one another, again, if I know somebody has a problem 
with me, I need to go to him, get reconciled, and then do my 
vertical thing in terms of worshipping God. If I know that somebody 
has sinned against me, instead of just saying, you know, I'm 
just going to treat them like a pariah, I'm going to avoid 
them, I'm perfectly acceptable with them not in my... No! Go 
to him, rebuke him. And then, of course, there's 
1 Peter chapter 4, which is let love cover a multitude of sins. 
You can do that too. But typically, or at least sometimes, 
people say, well, I'm going to let love cover that particular 
sin, only they don't. They treat the person differently. 
They avoid the person. There's a bitterness, there's 
a spirit of unforgiveness there, and that is not a right invoking 
of 1 Peter chapter 4. If you're going to let love cover 
a multitude of sins, that means you actually have to let love 
cover it, and that means the relationship is restored, it's 
fine, it's not hindered. So everybody understand that? 
That's the way to make sure that we're not guilty of violating 
the internal disposition with reference to the Sixth Commandment. 
Spurgeon again says, thus our Lord and King restores the law 
of God to its true force. Again, he's not saying he is 
setting it up over and above Moses. He is saying that he is 
setting it up over and above the Pharisees and their misinterpretation. Thus our Lord and King restores 
the law of God to its true force and warns us that it denounces 
not only the overt act of killing, but every thought, feeling, and 
word which would tend to injure a brother or annihilate him by 
contempt. Again, if somebody jumps off 
the roof into a rosebush and you say, hey, you look like a 
real fool, you haven't broken the command. That's not the internal 
disposition of hatred toward a brother. It is that anger, 
it is that bitterness, it is that grudge, it is that unwillingness 
to let love cover it, that unwillingness to go to that particular person 
and correct the situation but that willingness to let the relationship 
suffer and then to just avoid that individual. That is not 
a good practice. That is in the context or in 
the confines of actually being a Sixth Commandment violation. So while you may never go out 
and actually stop somebody's heart, if you have that internal 
disposition, you and I, as believers, can be guilty of the crime of 
murder or the sin of murder. Murray comments on Jesus' teaching 
in the Sermon on the Mount. The effect, in summary, of what 
Jesus says is that if a contemptuous word is worthy of hellfire, how 
much more must the actual murder be? And the total effect of Jesus' 
emphasis is that murder has its fountain in the malice of the 
heart and has its judicial issue in the blackness of darkness 
forever. So it's a vicious and vile practice 
that, again, because we're unwilling to utilize Matthew 18, to utilize 
1 Peter chapter 4, we oftentimes create these sorts of situations 
when if we just had a little bit of courage and said, look, 
you sinned against me. And if somebody ever comes to 
you to do that, know that that's not easy. If somebody has to 
come to you and say, you know, brother, sister, you sinned against 
me, you hurt me, and I'd like to correct this situation, that's 
not native to us. Why do you think there's many 
admonitions in scripture that we're supposed to take this particular 
tact? It's because we choose the path of least resistance, 
and we don't like to do uncomfortable things. We would much prefer 
just to let it go, let the relationship dissolve, and jeopardize, ultimately, 
our own heart and soul with a bitterness and an enmity or a grudge that 
is simply not godly, and it is simply not righteous. So we've 
got this internal disposition. And then as we survey our particular 
situation, Euthanasia and abortion. Now obviously, to go on a murder 
spree and go down to the mall and take out a gun and shoot 
people, that's bad, obviously. We all know that instinctively. 
Who prayed Wim's prayer tonight? We see the war in Ukraine. We see the war obviously going 
on in Myanmar. There's war going on in other 
countries in the world as well. But we don't see the war against 
the unborn. We don't see the war against 
the old people. We don't see the war against 
those who are the most vulnerable among us that actually deserve 
more protection and not less protection. So this medical assistance 
in dying. Who has the right to end another 
person's life? Does that person have a right 
to end their life? No, you and I do not have that 
prerogative. God most high has that prerogative. If somebody has a difficult situation, 
somebody is in pain, somebody is suffering, somebody has great 
hardship, the answer isn't let's call the doctor and have you, 
you know, put out of your misery. We're not dealing with dogs here. 
We're not dealing with, you know, a barn cat. We're dealing with 
image bearers of the living and true God. We encourage them, 
we pray for them, we read scripture to them, we try to help them 
along, we minister compassion to those who have need for compassion. That's mercy, that's the application 
of kindness and love that God would have us to do. Now, with 
reference to abortion, the Bible clearly demonstrates that babies 
in the womb are certainly image-bearers of God. Where does the Bible 
specifically address the sin or crime of abortion? Anybody 
remember that? Exodus chapter 21. Exodus 21, 
a particular passage that deals specifically with the protection 
of babies in their mother's womb. Exodus chapter 21 at verse 22, 
if men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives 
birth prematurely, yet no harm follows. he shall surely be punished 
accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him, and he shall 
pay as the judge has determined. But if any harm follows, and 
that's to woman or babies, remember, her children come out is the 
language, it's plural, to envisage the potential or possibility 
of twins, triplets, or quad, what is it, quad, whatever, four 
of them, or five of them, if she just keeps having them, those 
babies are all protected by the law. So the language is literally, 
the children come out. So verse 23, if any harm follows, 
either her or the children who have come out, then you shall 
give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, 
foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. So a specific piece of legislation, 
an old covenant law, speaks to the babies in the womb. So this 
idea that the Bible is silent, the Bible doesn't really address 
this, the Bible doesn't really speak to the issue of abortion. It speaks loudly and it speaks 
clearly, we just need to have ears to hear and hearts to understand. And then I would suggest that 
another violation is the neglect of capital punishment. Let's 
get the Numbers 35 passage before us. Numbers 35, specifically 
at verse 29, these things shall be a statute of judgment to you 
throughout your generations in all your dwellings. Whoever kills 
a person, the murderer, shall be put to death on the testimony 
of witnesses. But one witness is not sufficient 
testimony against a person for the death penalty." Brethren, 
I can only encourage you to keep these things in your mind. Whenever 
you talk to people about the death penalty, and they say how 
barbaric it is, and how bad it is, and all these sorts of things, 
you need to remind them that the Bible, God Most High, through 
his legislator Moses, put checks and balances in place. you couldn't 
bring a criminal offender to capital punishment on the testimony 
of one witness. You had to have a plurality of 
witnesses. Notice in verse 31, moreover 
you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is 
guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. That's 
the emphasis in scripture. Ursinus says the magistrate therefore 
may be guilty of doing wrong. not only in being cruel and unjustly 
severe, that's how we would typically see or envisage the magistrate 
doing wrong, is if he wielded the sword arbitrarily or capriciously 
or, you know, this guy did this, let's chop his head off. That 
would be bad. And we certainly wouldn't want 
to live in a body politic like that. But he goes on to say, 
but also in being too lenient in granting permission to certain 
persons to injure others. In other words, if you don't 
execute a murderer, we see it all the time. These guys are 
thrown in jail, they murder, and they get thrown in jail, 
which is wrong. They should be executed. But 
they're out in a couple of years. And what do they typically do? 
They re-offend. These people are problematic. 
They are sinners. And God has the remedy with reference 
to their crime. Now finally, the positive aspect 
of the command. I take the easy way out. I'm 
just going to read the Westminster Larger Catechism. It says, what 
are the duties required in the Sixth Commandment? So it's a 
negative statement. You shall not murder. So it's 
a prohibition. But as the reformed tradition 
is rightly appreciated, not only is there a prohibition, you shall 
not murder, but we flip it on to a positive. Therefore, you 
should promote life. You should seek to help others. You should be kind. You should 
try to preserve life and safety, not only for yourself, but for 
others. So it says, what are the duties required in the Sixth 
Commandment? The duties required in the Sixth Commandment are 
all careful studies and lawful endeavors. And it says, to preserve 
the life of ourselves and others. So positively, the commandment 
calls upon us to preserve our own life and the lives of others 
by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, 
and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices which tend to the 
unjust taking away the life of any. Makes sense, right? We need 
to protect life around us, so let's try to minimize any potential 
threat. You happen to see guys moving 
a safe and they have it on a crane, don't tell your beloved to walk 
underneath it. Might be a good thing for you 
to tell them to cut a large swath around that. You want to preserve 
life. If that cable breaks and that 
safe falls, you want to make sure that your loved one is cared 
for. It goes on to say, by just defense 
thereof against violence. So here's the self-defense clause. 
By just defense thereof against violence. And then patient bearing 
of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit. Again, I think that has to do 
with that internal heart disposition, that Matthew 5 sort of a dynamic. If you have this sort of bitterness 
and this anger and this rage, pray to God to help you to deal 
with it. Pray to God to help you to take 
it away. Pray to God to help you to find peace and quietness 
of mind and cheerfulness of spirit. And then it directs us this particular 
way. And I, I'm sorry, brethren, but 
I think our government is in violation here. Because when 
the COVID-19 pandemic came out, they not only didn't tell us 
to take vitamin D and, and zinc, I remember the Minister of Health, 
I think she was the Minister of Health, condemned vitamin 
D and, you know, other very proven therapeutics were forbidden to 
be used by people. I mean, hydroxychloroquine and 
ivermectin. Again, these things aren't going 
to kill you, and they might actually help you. So we've got a government 
complicit in not helping. And so the next section in the 
catechism, it says, a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, 
labor, and recreations. In other words, instead of them 
just lecturing us on wear your mask and don't go out of your 
house, the emphasis should have been on build your immune system, 
get out and exercise, fresh air, sunshine. So it's not just abortion 
and euthanasia that our government has some issues. Well, not issues. They've got blood all over their 
hands. But with reference to this pandemic and the way that 
they proceeded. As well, bicharitable thoughts, 
love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness, and then peaceable, 
mild, and courteous speeches and behavior. Forbearance, readiness 
to be reconciled. Goes back to the Matthew 5, Matthew 
18. Forbearance and ready to be reconciled. Are we the kind of person that 
if somebody comes to us and says, you know brother, I didn't sin 
against you, I would never do that. I mean, if that's our disposition 
and our attitude, we may have some problems in our heart relative 
to the Sixth Commandment. If we have that kind of a mindset, 
I can't believe you'd ever... Now, if somebody's given a false 
allegation and it wasn't you, there's ways, obviously, to deal 
with that. But if your first instinctual reaction is, oh, 
there's no way I could have ever sinned against you, This is what 
the Catechism is addressing, forbearance, readiness to be 
reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting 
good for evil, comforting and helping the distressed, and protecting 
and defending the innocent. It's a good, robust, positive 
explanation of what is required by the Sixth Commandment. So 
the prohibition don't end somebody's life unlawfully. But the positive 
aspect is seek to protect and extend and be a benefit to your 
own life and to the lives of others. And obviously, You know, 
this whole use of meat, drink, physics, sleep, labor, recreations, 
that's speaking to us as individuals. We have a responsibility as stewards 
of the bodies that God gave us to exercise our stewardship in 
a responsible manner. So they're not making stuff up, 
they're not just hyper, you know, spiritual puritans. This is a 
very good reflection of what is at the heart and core of the 
Six Commandments. It's not just the external act 
of ending somebody's life, but it's that internal disposition 
as well. And then with reference finally 
to the use of the Sixth Commandment, we always talk about the civil 
use, pedagogical use, and then the normative use. The civil 
use. Imagine a society that instead 
of celebrating equity and diversity and whatever it is in the sexual 
realm that we're celebrating perversion-wise, Imagine if safety 
and law and order and protection from foreign and domestic enemies 
was the actual priority of civil government. It'd be a whole different 
place. If the government existed simply to do what they're supposed 
to do, life would be a whole lot better. Machen said the state 
exists for the repression of evildoers and the protection 
of individual liberty. That's it, brethren. I mean, 
Machen was bang on. The state exists for the repression 
of evildoers and the protection of individual liberty. They have 
flipped that right over on its head. The state now exists for 
the violation of individual liberty, the non-protection of persons 
in the body politic, and the celebration of evil, wickedness, 
and lawlessness. He also said that civil government 
is not intended to produce blessedness or happiness. You don't want 
your government trying to bless you or make you happy, do you? I don't. I want them to leave 
me alone. And this is what Machen says. 
The state or civil government is not intended to produce blessedness 
or happiness, but intended to prevent blessedness or happiness 
from being interfered with by wicked men. They're not supposed 
to bring me happiness and blessedness, but they're supposed to protect 
me from somebody who would encroach upon my happiness and blessedness. See, that is a far cry different 
than the government that we are presently looking at. So when 
you pray, brethren, pray for the extension of the gospel of 
our blessed Savior. I hope that's always our prayer. 
God, save sinners. Send forth your word, conquering 
and to conquer. The language of Paul in Thessalonians 
is, let the word of God run swiftly and be glorified. But as well, 
with reference to his law. God, may it be the case that 
our lawmakers would actually take seriously the law of God 
Most High and put some emphasis on it. Secondly, the pedagogical 
use. How do you know your misery? 
The law of God tells me. I mean, this is a great commandment 
to search our own hearts and to see our need. for the Lord 
Jesus Christ. And then normatively, I think 
the Westminster Larger Catechism provides a good context or good 
framework there for living in light of the Sixth Commandment 
in a positive way. Obviously, again, I don't think 
most of the people of God are struggling with the desire to 
go out and end somebody's life. But I think most of the people 
of God probably struggle with some anger, some bitterness, 
some unwillingness to deal with the sins of brothers and sisters, 
and that sort of thing. So if we take seriously this 
command, and we take seriously our responsibility in light of 
the command, hopefully we'll not sin the sin of Cain. Obviously 
not by killing Abel, but by having that disposition of heart that 
ultimately led him to that particular place. Well, I'll close in prayer, 
and then if there's any questions or comments, we can deal with 
that. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank 
you for its clarity at the level of the sixth commandment. And 
God, I pray that you would indeed move the hearts of those in high 
places to do their jobs and to do them according to not only 
what Scripture says, but what our laws, the laws in our land 
say. As well, Father, we pray that 
you would just be gracious with reference to the church, help 
us to be faithful in our dealings with one another, help us to 
be faithful in our families and in our church life, and grant 
us grace not to shrink back from doing what you call us to do 
in the Holy Scriptures. And we pray these things through 
Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. Any questions or comments 
on any of that material? One thing I was wondering, with 
regards to, like, The Bible addresses that. I can't 
remember exactly. I think it's the punishment would 
depend on the degree of the false accusation, probably. But like, 
is that partially there, do you think? Because you do see often 
now, I mean, I watch sports and stuff, and you hear a lot of 
athletes are not great people. And they get away with all these 
things, and you hear that they just basically paid someone off death or at least I don't know 
whatever proper punishment would that kind of be part of the point 
of that too is that two-sided is that for one you don't get 
a walk away with just handing cash out and two you also don't 
have people falsely accusing other people hoping to get a 
cash grab because the person would rather hand out cash and 
walk away than even deal with what even if there wasn't that 
even if it was a false accusation they just rather would like Take 
your 20 grand and leave me alone. If I bring you to court and I 
let you know that you committed a particular offense and it's 
proven that you didn't, whatever the punishment would have been 
for you, it's inflicted on me. Up to and including death. So 
that would, I really believe, would discourage If I knew that I was a fake, 
but I was going to try to get you in trouble, I would think 
twice knowing that I would get the punishment that you would 
have gotten. And then with reference to your 
observation about sports, I think we have a big problem in Western 
civilization right now. Jussie Smollett was released 
from jail today pending his appeal. I just don't think that would 
have happened to you or I. I think there is a two-tier system 
that they have created. I think it discourages people. I think it takes the hope out 
of people when they see elected officials, they see criminals 
getting away with all kinds of things. And conversely, the non-elitists, 
they do their thing, and they suffer for it. So I think the 
application of due process is extremely important, and I know 
I've said it many times in the pulpit, but as we see these things 
decay in our society, We really should be praying God have mercy 
on us. I mean, when your bank account 
could be seized because you gave money to an organization that 
they just don't like, there was not a crime involved. I could 
see if I was sending money to bomb makers that were going to, 
you know, level Ottawa, but sending money to guys driving their trucks 
there. The thought that they can do 
that shows us that there is not an application of due process. 
It shows us that basically the train is off the tracks and it's 
just flying through the wilderness. Hopefully we survive, but there's 
not a lot of indicators that a society that lives like that 
can't long survive. So I don't know much about the 
sports stuff. But yeah, I would suggest people 
would much rather just pay a bribe than end up in court or end up 
in any sort of a difficult situation. Do you think that's also an argument 
for, like, lawyers might not actually be a good thing in that 
regard? Because basically, the one who's got the best-paid lawyer 
typically wins. They know how to defend the system. 
Whereas if you have two people just basically pleading their 
case to a right judge, It depends on a whole lot of 
things. I think there are times where 
if you don't have a lawyer, you're a fool. I mean that in the jumping 
off the roof into a rose bush sort of way. You need to lawyer 
up in certain instances. Are there times where you can 
just find a mediator? Sure, I think so. But if it's 
something beyond that, I think there's a place. That's a whole 
other can of worms. Lawyer's kind of synonymous with 
liar, so you need to make sure that you find the right one. 
On another note, this is kind of over in the back streets of 
our government, but in Canada, they have what's called case 
law, which is if you have the laws and then you have a judge 
makes a ruling, it becomes law, and it's an individual made a 
ruling. In Canada now, there's, I don't know how long it's been 
around, but it's something, it's called Jordan, Jordan case law. There's a guy named Jordan, he 
was a murderer. He was convicted of theft. In 
Hogan's Supreme Court, that is trial for too long. So now there 
are, there's within, there's a date of 18 months. If you're 
a murderer, your trial has to be from the day you're charged 
to the day your trial's done. Has to be within 18 months, and 
if it goes beyond that, you get Jordan and you're free to go. 
Wow. Yeah, and that's... And they 
can delay it. It doesn't matter which party. 
In the case of Jordan, Jordan delayed it because he was sick. 
Because of this and that. He stretched it out, and then 
that's the lead. And it went to Supreme. So that's what he's 
on about. So I wonder if they are going 
to fix the Canada tickets for 19 months. Do you think they'll 
say we get Jordan? I wonder. I don't know how Jordan 
is. It might be nice to find out 
about the tickets. I think they might be willing 
to make an exception in our case. So, video games or movies with 
violence, it's kind of the equivalent on the 60-minute, right? Well, 
the only thing I would say different is that they're not really murdering 
people in movies and video games. They really are engaged in pornography 
or actual life sentences. So this is like anime, which 
is like artistic. but there's no real people involved. But the idea is still going on, 
right? Yeah. Yeah, I don't know what the whole 
animus is saying. But I mean, I'm not going to 
make laws on what you can and can't block. That's the pleading 
of God. I mean, if a person, I mean, 
if that's all they're filling their minds with, I would say 
that's not a good thing. But I mean, if you're watching 
a war movie, well, that's not murder. But there might be enough 
murder in there. Sure, people can get desensitized. Certainly can happen. Yeah, there 
were two guys that pulled a bank robbery in the 90s in Los Angeles. Broad daylight. They were motivated 
by a movie called Heat. It had an adult filmer and someone 
else in it. And these guys, body armor, broad 
daylight, walking down the streets, guns raised, shooting at everybody 
in sight. I have a cousin who was in that 
firefight and got shot six times. He survived. He had all of his 
scars. Every time we were with him, 
my sons would want to see the scars, right? But yeah, he was 
in that scene. It was just incredible. in L.A. and that was the movie 
that these guys, that sort of inspired them. It was the same 
sort of an M.O. with the body armor, with a lot 
of guns, and they were kind of bodybuilders and figured they 
would give it a shot, no pun intended, and they ended up shot 
dead, I think, in the exchange from L.A.P.D. So, yeah, it was 
a bizarre situation. All right, anything else? You 
look like you're... Any application to our government, 
right? Just a piece of news. I think 
it was Idaho just recently that introduced more anti-abortion 
legislation. Did you see this? Yeah, I think 
I did. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Makes sense. Idaho's a decent 
state. There's a little flip one I saw 
about some... In the states, some black man, 
he's... been invited to teach in school 
there. I'm not sure what are they teaching. Yeah, it's amazing. I mean, if 
they are going to put guys in jail instead of execute them, 
make it for life. I don't know how you can murder 
somebody and eventually be free. It just doesn't make sense. And as far as Jordan goes, so 
it's 18 months for a provincial court, and then 30 months for 
a superior court. OK. So in terms of Canadian crim, 
it depends on what kind of charge you're facing, which impacts 
which court, and if there's appeals involved. OK. But still, several 
other cases have been tried out since the Jordan precedent in 
2016. Wow. in conjunction with all the probations 
and all the rather weak sentences they're making. Times have changed 
since the Harker regime. It was the Harker regime that 
wanted mandatory minimums as a baseline. But not under this 
circumstance. Well, it's pretty disturbing 
when you stop and think about it.