← Back to sermon library

We can turn in your Bibles to Deuteronomy chapter 5 for our last study in the sixth commandment. Basically, we've looked at the definition of the word, the prohibitions of the commandment, the explanation of the exceptions. And then tonight, the reason specified and then some application. So much of this will be review to many of you that have been here usually on Lord's Days in January, I know that review at times can be a bit tedious, but hopefully it serves rather to get these texts in our minds and hearts, because certainly we live in a culture of death, and a culture that celebrates death and murder. So I'll read Deuteronomy 5, and as I said, our focus is on verse 17. "'So Moses called all Israel and said to them, "'Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments "'which I speak in your hearing today, "'that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. "'The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. "'The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, "'but with us, those who are here today, "'all of us who are alive. "'The Lord talked with you face to face on the mountain "'from the midst of the fire. "'I stood between the Lord and you at that time "'to declare to you the word of the Lord, "'for you were afraid because of the fire, "'and you did not go up the mountain.' "'He said, 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. Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 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 ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm. Therefore, the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God has given 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 wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's. These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly in the mountain, from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice. And he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me. Amen. Well, with reference to the passage that we're looking at, remember, it's you shall not murder. It doesn't say you shall not kill, because as we've seen, there are three instances of justifiable homicide in Scripture. We have the death penalty, we have self-defense, and we have just war. So we took each of those in a single night and explored them in some detail. Remember that with reference to murder, there needs to be built into it premeditation, some sort of hatred or malice aforethought, some sort of planning involved to execute that sort of a sin or crime against your fellow. So you shall not murder is a good translation versus you shall not kill, which can be misunderstood understood as prohibiting death penalty, self-defense, and just war. If you've seen the news of late, the current pope has said it's untenable to be pro-life with reference to abortion and at the same time maintain a pro-capital punishment position. Now, obviously, that pope is wrong biblically, but he's also wrong according to Catholic tradition and Catholic history. Their two greatest theologians, Augustine and Aquinas, certainly taught that the death penalty was not only suggested in Scripture, but it was mandated, and it should be carried out by the civil government. So whatever the current pope happens to be smoking, he is not consistent with the Roman Catholic Church. But that is an idea out there. When we suggest that we're pro-death penalty, people then question, well, how could you be pro-life? Well, pro-death penalty is to be pro-life, and we'll see that as we move through the study tonight. But as I said, we've defined the word, we've looked at the prohibitions of the commandment, the explanation of those exceptions, and again, by definition, they're not really exceptions because they don't contain those concepts of malice aforethought or premeditation. So when it's the civil state, that's not involved, this malice of forethought or premeditation. If it's self-defense, you didn't premeditate getting mugged so that you could then murder that particular individual. And same thing with just war. if a war is just and it is legitimate and it fits those rules or guidelines or some of those rules or guidelines that we looked at last Wednesday night, it's not murder when you go out on the battlefield and you kill people in defense of country, in defense of life. So, definitionally, they're not technically exceptions, but we do usually refer to them as that. But go back with me to Genesis chapter 9. Genesis chapter 9, we're going to look at the reason specified for this particular commandment in Deuteronomy 5. Genesis chapter 9, it's a capital punishment text, 9-6, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, and the theological rationale is at the end of verse 6, for in the image of God he made man. So man has that dignity, man has that sanctity of life, he is an image bearer of the living and true God. So I think it's very helpful for us to understand that image-bearing isn't located at one particular point in the continuum of life, but rather it encompasses the entirety of life. So go back now to Genesis chapter 1. Very important that we understand the reason for the prohibition, it's because of the image of God in man. Vos said, in life slain it is the image of God, the divine majesty that is assaulted. So it's wrong. I'd argue it's wrong to just willy-nilly and recreationally, well, maybe some sort of recreation, but to just slaughter animals for no good reason, it's wrong, but it's not murder, because they don't bear the image of God. You know, burning down forests for no good reason, it's wrong, but those plants don't bear the image of God. The reason why murder is wrong is because man bears the image of God, and that's true of man with reference to his creation. Notice in Genesis chapter 1, specifically at verses 26 and 27, let us make man in our image according to our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle. over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image. Now, I should say that there are differing opinions on whether or not man, subsequent to the fall in sin, does currently or presently possess the image of God. That's a sort of a theological intramural debate. And it seems to me it hinges on how we define or describe what is the image of God. I'm going to use it in the broadest possible way simply as rationality. We image God with reference to the ability to add two plus two. We image God with reference to the ability to read lines from a page. As noble as the ape might be and as wise as a dog or as smart as a dog or a pig might be, I hear pigs are quite smart, they can't read books, they can't do mathematical problems, they can't buy houses, they don't go to Walmart. So they lack something that man does possess, and what man possesses is the image of God. So I'm going to assume the image of God, again, in its broadest possible way, is that aspect of rationality, wherein we image God with the ability to communicate, with the ability to understand, with the ability to interact and to discourse. And if you consider the creation of man, there wasn't sort of an evolutionary stage. God didn't make Adam all hunched over and Adam, you know, dragged his knuckles for several years and then he stood upright and then he started to grunt and then he started to formulate words. When immediately from the hand of God, he was able to hear and receive instruction from God. Immediately from the hand of God, he was able to communicate to God. He was built in with this capability. He was built in with this rationality. He was built in with the concept of language. the concept of understanding that this is a tree and this is a dog. He was built in with the concepts that we take for granted because, again, they're built into us. So what we have is rationality, again, in its broadest definition as being that place where the image of God is. not is, but what it is about man that separates him from non-image of God creaturely things. So back to verse 27, so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. So that's the basic bottom foundation or the axiomatic principle as to why it is unlawful to take another person's life without justification. In those instances of capital punishment or self-defense or just war, again, that's not murder, that's justifiable homicide. But if somebody unjustifiably murders somebody, the basis for its being wrong is that we bear or we are the image of God Most High. Now if you turn to Genesis chapter 5, and this is one of the proof texts I would argue with to maintain that the image of God does, go forth even beyond the fall into sin. So my position is, is that man does bear the image of God even subsequent to the fall. And I think Genesis 5, 1 to 3 indicates that. This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them and called them mankind in the day they were created. and Adam lived 130 years and begot a son in his own likeness after his image and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were 800 years and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were 930 years and he died. So again, notice in verse one, in the day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them and called them mankind in the day they were created. created. And Adam lived 130 years and begot a son in his own likeness after his image. So if Adam bears the likeness and image of God, when he has sons, he passes that image of God onto them. And I'm not going to get into the discussion as to how that takes place in terms of the creation of a soul, or rather the soul is passed on through parental copulation and generation. But the idea being is that the image of God is seen subsequent to the fall into sin. And then in James chapter 3, we have another proof text, again, that I think supports the idea that the image of God remains even in fallen man. James chapter 3, specifically at verse 9, Well, verse 8, but no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil full of deadly poison. He's condemning the ill use of the tongue. He says, with it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men who have been made in the similitude or likeness of God. Again, a text that underscores to me the idea that the image of God remains in man subsequent to the fall. As well, it's true of unborn babies in the womb, or what we would call the pre-born babies in the womb. And there's a whole host of texts that deal with this. It's not some, you know, one obscure text out there that indicates that the baby in the womb is the image of God. No, we know that what is in the womb is a person, and if personhood means image of God-bearer, then it stands to follow that that baby in the womb is an image-bearer of the living and the true God. Later on in the study, we'll see a particular text in the Law of God that specifies the horror of abortion, or deals with the horror of abortion. As well, the image of God is in children. in Old Covenant Israel, they were prohibited from throwing their children into Moloch's arms. What did that mean? It meant death. It was child sacrifice. Moloch stood out, stood in the midst of flames and had his arms outstretched, and they would take their babies or children and throw them up into the arms of of Moloch, and of course he didn't have opposable thumbs and the ability to move his arms, and so these babies or children would bounce out and fall into the fire and die. Well, why was that wrong? Because they bear the image of God. In Ephesians chapter 6, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. When we ask the question, why is that? Because they bear the image of God. You're not supposed to abuse children. You're not supposed to exploit children. You're not supposed to harm children. Why? Because they bear the image of God. As well, it's true of the handicapped. Leviticus 19, you can turn there. True of the handicapped. They're not supposed to be marginalized and forgotten about. They're treated with dignity because they bear the image of God. Leviticus 19, 14, you shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shall fear your God, I am the Lord. And then, of course, the case of Bartimaeus. You know, those people were trying to silence him. Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. Shush, Bartimaeus, he doesn't want to hear from you. You're blind, you're a beggar, you're marginalized, nobody cares about you whatsoever. Jesus stops, Jesus comes over to him, and Jesus says, what would you have me to do? And of course, Bartimaeus says, I want to see. And so Jesus heals him. As well, it's true of the elderly. Leviticus chapter 19, you're still there? Look at verse 23. I'm sorry, not Leviticus 19, 23, 1932, sorry. 1932, you shall rise before the gray-headed and honor the presence of an old man and fear your God, I am the Lord. Why? Because he bears the image of God. If you turn to 1 Timothy chapter five, the Apostle Paul gives very specific instruction to Timothy on how he is to conduct himself with people, various people groups within the context of the local church. And in First Timothy 5.1, he says, do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters with all purity. Why? Because they bear the image of God. They're not supposed to be trampled on. They're not supposed to be disregarded. They're not supposed to be held in contempt, but you're supposed to treat them properly. As well, the image of God is present in those who are sick. You can turn to James chapter five. James chapter 5, specifically at verses 14 and 15. Is anyone among you 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. Again, not marginalized, not forgotten about, not trampled down, not held in contempt. But in each phase of man's existence, healthy and unhealthy, pre-born or born, whether he's young, whether he's old, whether he's sick, whether he's well, he bears the image of God. We retain that. That's the theological rationale for the death penalty. And it's the theological rationale for the very Sixth Commandment itself. You're not supposed to murder, because in doing so, you are assaulting the divine majesty. You are seeking to take out that which bears the image of the living and true God. as well with reference to man in comparison to animals. I already mentioned animals can't read Shakespeare. Well, not many, not most people can read Shakespeare, but animals can't do, you know, simple math equations. Animals can't, you know, engage in trade. They just don't have that capability. But does the Bible show a gradation? Absolutely. Genesis 128. What is Adam's charge? He is to exercise dominion over the other creatures. As the pinnacle of God's creation, as the summit of God's creation, vis-a-vis, he bears God's image. He is therefore God's vice-regent to govern the earth. And that means subduing the animals. as well. You've got the killing of the fatted feast at the return of the prodigal. You've got Jesus talking about the sovereignty of God, and not even a sparrow falls out of the sky except for the Lord's providence. So it's not the case that animals are held at the same level as human beings. And again, I personally don't think people should be brutal to animals. Proverbs, Solomon says that a righteous man has regard for his beast. I think it's an unrighteous man that savages beasts, an unrighteous man that treats with content beasts. I think that that's just a vicious, vile thing. But it's not murder. Again, it may be horrible, it may make us sad to see a kitten die, or whatever the issue is, but they don't bear the image of God. And so scripture is very clear at this point. The very theological reason undergirding the Sixth Commandment, and then the specific legislation for capital punishment, is that man bears God's image. So then we've got, in terms of application, obviously the unlawful killing of others, any form of stopping another person's heart. That's not lawful. That's not the death penalty. That's not self-defense. That's not just war. Again, there's accidental homicide. I'm swinging my axe and the head flies off and it falls into my neighbor's head. I didn't plan to do that. I didn't have malice aforethought. I didn't premeditate it. There should be some sort of penalty. There should be some sort of fine. There should be some sort of thing that inconveniences me, like in the old covenant when you had to go live at the city of refuge. But that's not murder. So murder, as I'm describing it here, is the unlawful taking of another person's life with those components built in, malice or premeditation or anger or rage or whatever it might be. Think of biblical precedent for first-degree murder and second-degree murder. I think second-degree murder is probably your crime of passion versus, you know, you plotted this out for six months. It's not the unlawful taking of another human's life, but they typically in court systems, and I think there's biblical warrant for this to argue for sort of a second-degree homicide, but that's for another time. So unlawful killing of others, but then let's look specifically at the Sermon on the Mount again. And here we see that it's not just the external cessation of a person's heart, but it's also our own internal disposition which can be murderous, which can compromise or rather transgress the sixth commandment. And it's probably at this point that most of us are likely liable to commit a violation vis-a-vis the Sixth Commandment. I don't think any of us have a desire to do a drive-by shooting in, you know, downtown Chilliwack on our way home from Bible study. I don't think that, you know, we're cooking methamphetamine or smuggling in fentanyl and giving it to neighbor kids, you know, when they come over for for a snack. But these things that Jesus speaks to concerning murder in Matthew chapter 5, He speaks them because these are the kinds of things that people do. Again, it's not just the external act, me shooting you, me poisoning you, me cutting your throat or whatever. But there can be in my own heart a hatred, an unwarranted hatred, or a character assassination. And I think that's what he's talking about. Notice in 521, 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. Remember the antitheses there in the Sermon on the Mount. You have heard that it was said to those of old, and then he cites the specific, and then he goes on to give his correction. The problem is not that Moses got it wrong and Jesus is setting him straight. The problem is, is that the Pharisees and the scribes and Moses' interpreters got it wrong, and he's setting them straight. And so by the time of Jesus in the first century, the focus was only on the external. The focus was only on not, you know, doing or stopping somebody's heart from actually beating. As long as you didn't stop somebody's heart from beating, you weren't guilty of committing a violation against the Sixth Commandment. But again, when Jesus says these things, they have Old Testament precedent. You couldn't hate your neighbor in your heart in the Old Testament any more than you could according to the Sermon on the Mount. So the antithesis is not Moses and Jesus. It's Moses' bad interpreters and Jesus. So that's what he's addressing in the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount. So notice again at verse 21, you have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not murder. Whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raka shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says you fool shall be in danger of hell. So basically there is first a prohibition against unwarranted anger, verse 22a. Now that without a cause is a necessary qualification because Jesus himself got angry. The Bible seems to make a distinction between righteous anger and unrighteous anger. God is angry with the wicked every day, so in principle, anger is not necessarily evil. If Jesus was angry, then we know that anger is not necessarily evil, if you're angry with your sin. You're angry about the godlessness that's all about us. You're angry about legitimate things. That's not sinful or unrighteous. And so what he's condemning here is an unrighteous, unwarranted anger. Look at Mark chapter three for just a moment. Mark chapter three, just to see the anger of our Lord according to his humanity. Mark 3, verse 3. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, step forward. And 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. Again, In principle, anger is not sinful. So this unwarranted anger is absolutely necessary in terms of qualification in Matthew 5.22. And of course, when Jesus expresses his righteous anger in cleansing the temple, you know, when he drives out the animals, when he flips over the tables, I doubt he had a big, you know, grin on his face as he was doing that. I mean, true humanity doesn't smile as it's flipping over tables, as it's driving out animals. So anger, in and of itself, is not necessarily sinful. In fact, Paul, quoting the Psalms, says, be angry and do not sin. He says that in Ephesians chapter 4. That's from Psalm 4. And so we need to understand that anger is not necessarily a sin. But what Jesus is addressing is necessarily a sin. So in verse 22a in chapter 5 of Matthew, but I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And again, this is not confined to Jesus' sermon on the mount. Psalm 4 verse 4, be angry, do not sin. Paul quotes that in Ephesians 4 and verse 26. Solomon deals with angry men in the book of Proverbs in many places. It is wrong and transgression abounds in such a condition as that. So what Jesus is doing as he's detailing or rather clarifying clarifying or clearing away misinterpretation with the murder command is saying that it was always God's intention, not only to police the external so that you don't stop people's hearts from beating, but you stop your own heart from beating in the direction of unwarranted anger at other people. That you stop your own heart from beating in a direction that brings, you know, disrepute upon your own soul and its status before God. So Jesus is showing that the law of God, Deuteronomy 517, for instance, you have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not murder, that's Deuteronomy 517, comprehended and encompassed not just the physical act of stopping another person's heart, but also the internal disposition that led or can lead to the external stopping of another person's heart. And then he goes on to deal with character assassination in 22B. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And 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 basically, this is the attack on a man's reputation, character assassination. Now, you know, we hear that as a kid, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Oh, yes, they will. They can ruin your life. Somebody alleges something falsely against you, it can ruin your life, it can ruin your family, it can ruin your business, it can ruin your church, it can ruin a whole host of things. Character assassination, in some sense, some might prefer to have their throats cut and left out in the field than to be thrown into that abyss where nobody trusts you or nobody thinks highly of you anymore. So character assassination is a bad thing. Now, raka simply means empty head, numbskull, airhead, blockhead, basically an attack on a man's intellectual ability. Now, I think in a particular context. I mean, to make the observation that, you know, that guy's not that bright, that's just a factual statement. But it's in the context of murder. It's in the context of heart murder. There's an attack upon the intellect that comes from a place of hatred in your own heart and a desire for something bad with reference to this particular man. As well, fool. If Raka expresses contempt for the man's intellect, fool expresses contempt for his character. So these things are associated under the Sixth Commandment with doing harm to another person. If I said to my son, and he was, you know, 10, you know, son, most likely we're not going to have to save for university for you. I don't think I've violated the Sixth Commandment. It's a factual observation that, you know, most likely academia is not going to be your career field. Which, honestly, if my son was 10, I wouldn't point him anywhere near secular or, in many instances, Christian universities. So it's Sixth Commandment character assassination stuff. You know, if you hear somebody that's not that bright, you haven't broken the sixth commandment to conclude in your heart, he's just not that bright. I mean, if that's violating the sixth commandment, yeah, I think we're all done at that point. Spurgeon says, to call a man raka or worthless fellow is to kill him in his reputation. It's to kill him in his reputation. So the point is, with reference to this bit in the Sermon on the Mount, this particular antithesis where Jesus is dealing with Deuteronomy 517, specifically the prohibition against murder, he is saying to his hearers that it's not just the external act of stopping another person's heart from beating, but it's the internal heart disposition that you maintain or you possess And if you have unwarranted anger, and if you have this desire to ruin another person by calling him names, reflecting poorly upon him, then you are guilty. If you are out to destroy somebody, not by the cessation of their heart, but by damaging their career, by damaging their family, by damaging their standing in society, you are as much a murderer as the guy who cuts throats and leaves dead bodies in a field. Again, Spurgeon says, our Lord and King, this is based on many Old Testament passages that speak to this same thing. He says, 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. That's what's in view here. Turn over to 1 John, 1 John chapter 3. 1 John chapter 3, you see something similar in John's epistle here. Excuse me. First John chapter three, specifically at 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. It's a pretty simple application of Deuteronomy 517 with reference to the internal disposition of the sinner. Not the external cessation of the heart of his victim, but the internal disposition of the one who sins in this particular regard. John Murray says, the effect 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 he's saying it's not just externally stopping somebody's heart, but it's the internal disposition that may want to stop the heart, but would never do something like that. So with reference to the command, the unlawful killing of others, the unlawful or unrighteous hatred of others. Now, just by way of conclusion, and we're not going to spend a lot of time here because, as I said, it's review material for most of us, but societally, when it comes to this Sixth Commandment, we have some dark things going on presently. Mate, you know, medical assistance in dying. I was brought up thinking medical assistance was always for living. You didn't go to doctors to die. You went to doctors to promote health and doctors to promote life. If you've seen some of the recent buzz in the news of late, they're harvesting organs from that practice and making quite a tidy buck. on that. I mean, what an arrangement. Talk people into offing themselves and then selling their organs. I mean, how did we get here? This is as ghoulish as it gets. I mean, we're going to make, you know, the Huns blush eventually here. We're going to make, you know, the Roman Empire condemn us. We're going to make, you know, Sodom and Gomorrah shake their head in disbelief at the sorts of things that are going on. When it comes to euthanasia, the Lord God Almighty alone determines when it is someone's right to die. It's not the person, and it's not the physician. The Bible clearly demonstrates that the image of God is present. Usually, subjects for euthanasia are the elderly or the physically infirm. Again, if the elderly and physically infirm and mentally ill, that's still pending with reference to Canada. They pushed it forth and then backed it off. But something tells me they'll push it forth again so that if you've got mental illness and you choose to opt out, well, the government will be there with your pill or your potion. But with reference to each of those persons at that particular continuum, they bear the image of God. They don't have the right to do that. Nobody has the right to take a life other than God when it comes to these things. And one of the things that this really does minimize, and again, I'm not immune or ignorant to the suffering and the difficulty and the hardship and the pain. I've lost people, I've seen people lose people, and it's tough, right? It's tough to see people suffer. But what do we know as Christians? We know that God gives grace even in the midst of suffering. We know that God gives grace and dignity, even in the midst of hardship and pain and difficulty, to suggest otherwise and to say, well, no, we just, we gotta go this route, is simply utilitarian, and it's not biblical, and it's not Christian. Again, not just euthanasia, but abortion. So I always mention the pre-born. The baby in the womb is a baby in the womb. The scripture acknowledges that. In Luke chapter 1, there's a particular Greek word used for baby in the womb. You'll know that because in Luke chapter 1, guess what's happening? You've got John the Baptist in a womb, and you've got Jesus Christ in a womb. So in John 1, there's a particular word, brephe, if you're interested in that, for baby in the womb. Luke 18, there's little children brought to the Lord Jesus Christ so that he could bless them. Guess what they're called? They're called brefe. Same word, same concept, same idea. Intriguingly, back in Luke chapter 1, when Mary and Elizabeth come together, what does Elizabeth say? Why is it that the mother of my Lord has come to see me? Intriguing, isn't it? Mother of my Lord, the Lord in the womb. The Apostle Paul speaks of him having been separated from his mother's womb. Of course, Jeremiah the prophet says the same thing. There's a bit of a Paul-Jeremiah connection, Jeremiah 1, Galatians chapter 1. Again, it's not, you know, this confined to Psalm 139, though Psalm 139 is a great evidence and a great testimony. In the womb are babies in the womb. They're not products of conception. I mean, that's a nice sanitized term we try to place on it to justify and lawfully engage in abortion. Or a fetus. I always think that one's fascinating because fetus in Latin means unborn baby. But it just sounds a bit more dehumanizing. It's a fetus. Yeah, it means unborn baby. ghoul, lump of cells, lump of cells, again, to dehumanize in order to pacify the conscience so that we can rid the womb of its, you know, unwanted contents. Well, again, the Bible clearly demonstrates that babies in the womb are the image of God. And if you look at Exodus 21, again, we won't rehearse it in detail. I'm sure most of you could probably give this exposition. And in some sense, that makes me very happy, and I hope that you can. In Exodus chapter 21, there's a particular passage that deals with I'll call it accidental abortion. This is not even dealing with, you know, state-licensed medical places where you go to actually commit abortion. But in Exodus 21, 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 judges determine. But if any harm follows, 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. Now this is a good translation, but literally, I think the ESV's actually better in this instance. What the ESV has, let me back up here. so that her children come out. It is a plural form, the idea being she might have twins, she might have triplets, she might have four in there, she might have quintuplets, whatever, however the numbers go, octuplets, however, you get the point. But it's not a singular noun. Herd a woman with children so that she gives birth prematurely. Prematurely is a good translation. But the text literally says, so that her children come out. That's the language of childbirth used in Genesis chapter 25 and other places in scripture. Children come out. They come out of the womb. But they're children that come out of the womb. Do you see that? They don't become children once they come out of the womb. It's not that they're not children, come out of the womb, and then they become children. No, no, children come out. David traces his native depravity back to his mother's womb. In sin, my mother conceived me. He's not saying it was sin for his mother to have relations with his father. He's saying that the moment David was, which is back in his mother's womb, he was a sinner in Adam. So the scriptures are very clear. So back to our text, if men fight and hurt a woman with children so that she gives birth prematurely, or her children come out, yet no harm follows. Okay? So when we look at that, the yet no harm follows modifies not only the woman, but the children that came out. So I've got a big problem with any translation that says miscarriage, if she has a miscarriage. Because what you then have is a woman gets hurt, the baby dies and she miscarries, and yet no harm follows to the woman. That's not what the text envisages. The text envisages children coming out, yet no harm follows either to the woman or the children coming out. And interestingly, the Hebrew language has specific words for product of miscarriage, has a specific word for untimely born. That's not used in Exodus 21. It's the language of childbirth, which is coming out. So prematurely is good. It's good rendition. So the idea being is that the woman is struck, her children, because of her stress, come out, yet no harm follows to the children who have come out or to the woman, then there's a monetary fine imposed. But if harm does follow, either to the children that come out, or to the woman from whom they came out, or to both of them, then the death penalty applies. That's hardcore. And again, this is a case of accidental abortion. These two bozos weren't standing out on the street saying, let's find a woman and punch her in the stomach so we can kill her baby. That's not what they're doing. They're fighting with one another, and this woman gets too close, and she's struck. Most likely, she's the wife of one of the said bozos. And she gets struck in that exchange, and then these bad things happen. So if a case of accidental abortion is a predicate for capital punishment, what do we do with a bloodthirsty age like ours that celebrates it? I mean, that's become increasingly more prevalent. Are these women celebrating their abortions, boasting? And how many they have had? It's horrible. The implications of this are really gut-wrenching when we ponder them. So with reference to the historical position, the Didache said, you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide. That was probably roughly, conservative estimate, 100. Some put the Didache at like 90. which is a very early document on, you know, on the heels of the New Testament documents. Calvin says, He's right, this is wretched. And I would suggest not only euthanasia, not only abortion, but the neglect of capital punishment. That is not the mark of a liberated age. That is the mark of a depraved and wretched age. Ursinus says, the magistrate, therefore, may be guilty of doing wrong, not only in being cruel and unjustly severe, but also in being too lenient in granting permission to certain persons to injure others. Imagine being a judge letting murderers go free. Imagine being a judge letting violent offenders go free. That judge is not only not a net positive, he is a bad thing in a civil society. Listen to Lloyd-Jones on Romans chapter 13. Not a guy we would typically lean on. I mean, your sinuses and your turretins and, you know, these guys that were tight-wound theological machines. Not that Lloyd-Jones wasn't, but more of a popular preacher. He got this absolutely right. He says, the argument for the death penalty can be put like this. Capital punishment is designed to maintain, to emphasize, and to establish the sanctity of life. The only reason I knew this, because I didn't read, I hadn't read Lloyd-Jones on Romans. If I ever preach through Romans, I'm not sure I would read Lloyd-Jones, because he's got about a billion volumes on it. But Banner of Truth tweeted that in light of the Pope's statement. When the Pope of Rome, a guy again, that in his heritage is Augustine and Aquinas, makes a reckless statement like, you can't really be pro-life and pro-death penalty. You can't oppose abortion and be for the death penalty. You absolutely, positively, 100%, not only can be, but you must be. Because the Bible forbids and prohibits abortion, and the Bible maintains and demands the death penalty. So if somebody said to me, you're not pro-life, I'd, okay. I'm pro-judicially innocent life, but okay, if you think it's not pro-life to be death penalty, I'm not pro-judicially guilty life. I don't think that's required of me. But Lloyd-Jones goes on. It's interesting to observe the people who are opposed to capital punishment. Generally, you will find that they are the humanists, the atheists. It's the same people. It's unfortunate because now, you know, a lot of that that they're in the church. And people in the church, death penalty, we can't be pro-life and be for death penalty. So going back to Lloyd-Jones' day, you know, we'll cut him some slack. Well, he didn't have to cut him slack. Did he realize that the church would be populated by people that think like humanists and atheists? Did he think the church would be filled with people that say, oh no, death penalty is terrible. Jesus wants us to turn the other cheek. Yeah. So he says, it's very interesting to observe the people who are opposed to capital punishment. Generally, you will find that they are the humanists, the atheists. And generally, it is the same people who have been agitating for what they call this quote, unquote, new morality, and who have succeeded in passing a law to allow homosexual practices between adult males. They are acting on the same consistent principle. They do not recognize God, and their view of men and women is that they are only animals. They know nothing about the sacredness, the sanctity of life. They do not know that God alone is the author of life. They are ignorant of all this, being blinded by the God of this world. As humanists, they start and end with man and have no other considerations whatsoever." I think he's right, and I think the scripture endorses that type of thinking. So, societally, what we've got in terms of a culture of death, euthanasia, abortion, and a failure to exercise God-mandated capital punishment. It always makes me think, and I'll close on the reading of this text in Proverbs chapter 8. He who sins against me, and I think Proverbs chapter eight is Christ speaking his wisdom. I think the whole chapter is about Jesus. But he says, he who sins against me wrongs his own soul. All those who hate me love death. Death is antithetical to the one who is the way, the truth, and the life. Remember when he upbraids the unbelieving Jews in John 8, 44? You are of your father, the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer and a liar from the beginning. When you have a culture saturated in blood guiltiness, it's tough to maintain that this is a Christian society. It's a satanic society. It is filled with violence and wretchedness, and may God indeed have mercy on the Church that we would think biblically and be able to respond to the humanists and the atheists, but may God have mercy and holy restraint over the lawlessness of men. Well, let us pray. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for the clarity of Holy Scripture with reference to do not murder. We thank you for the one who came to live, to die, and to rise again so that we might have everlasting life. And we pray that you would protect us, that you would help us to restrain our own hearts and minds against these prohibitions in Matthew 5.22. We ask that you would just give us grace to glorify you in this present evil age. And we pray, have mercy upon this land, have mercy upon a people that celebrate abortion, a people that revel in blood guiltiness. God, we pray for the preaching of the gospel, that it would go forth and that many would come out of darkness into marvelous light, repenting of these lawless deeds. And we pray through Christ the Lord, amen.