A. The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.

There’s an old saying: “Good fences make good neighbors.” It is an ethical maxim that will help in several of the commands. But it is especially relevant in a time when a whole country is at each other’s throats. In the law it says, 

“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him” (Lev. 19:17). 

My wife and I used to watch those shows like NBC Dateline and 20/20 on ABC, and it seemed like at least half of the shows were always the story of yet another murder mystery of one spouse of another. These all seemed like completely avoidable tragedies. I can remember actor Jimmy Stewart and his wife both being on the Johnny Carson show, and Johnny asking Stewart’s wife, “Have you ever contemplated divorce?” To which she responded, “Oh, no, never! Murder—but never divorce.” And of course everyone laughed because they knew she was kidding anyway. But one cannot help but think when watching those domestic murder stories, “Of course divorce is always hated by God and is to be shunned by us! But, if it comes down to murder or not, step back and get some separation!” 

People think they are being pious by following the letter of the law as a cold abstraction, without letting the law do that real war-time triage of the medic on the battlefield. Because that’s real life. And the trouble is that without a cool-down, nothing remains but a blow-up. And what’s true in marriage is true in a larger society. We are commanded in that verse in the law to “reason frankly with your neighbor” (Lev. 19:17), as in Lot’s desperate call, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly” (Gen. 19:7). Now that can have application to the “micro” level of a single conversation about ethical matters, or on the “macro” level of a people group within an expanding country, for example, peaceably backing away from violent conflict from another group that is clearly communicating murderous threats. Purposeful escalation and forcible entrapment of others in conflict are both a manifestation of a murderous heart, begging for bloodshed. 

What if I told you that there are some political forms—that is, forms of government—that are more inherently violent than others. And I don’t just mean monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, and so on. I mean that size of a nation and therefore the scope of a government’s power over a greater number of people (and especially over a people who have very different cultures). That is a recipe for bloodshed and all decent political philosophers have always known that and written much about it. 

But let’s go back from the macro level to the most micro-level: namely one’s own life.

Violence Against One’s Own Life Forbidden

Suicide takes what belongs to God as much as murder of another. The answer continues, MOREOVER THAT I HARM NOT MYSELF. A word about literal suicide first. Strictly speaking, suicide is not the unforgiveable sin. Matthew 12:31-32 and 1 John 5:16-17 suggest there is only one like that. Suicide is nonetheless of utmost seriousness, since it belongs to God to give or take away life, and so the person who does so, in all consciousness, makes it difficult to believe that they could have been saved. On the other hand, there are issues related to loss of that consciousness, whether demonic oppression, mental incapacitation, etc. It is also important to note that none of us are saved because of how we performed at repentance, and so some “last repentance” would not be what justifies someone in this case either. Christ alone is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30), plus nothing. Although we must be careful not to give false hope, for that same reason we cannot absolutely deny that a person could have had true faith, evidence it in their life in other respects, but then be overcome to that tragic extent. Ultimately, we must confess mystery here and trust in God’s goodness. 

But having said that, we need to talk about a real moral confusion that plagues the church in America now, and has for some time. The American church is suffering under a suicidal martyr’s complex as we speak. And any kind of self-harm is never what the Bible means by suffering righteously for our faith. Putting oneself into death’s path, when greater power exists for doing its opposite, is not righteous suffering. The biblical teaching that, if you are a Christian you will be persecuted, is a guarantee and not an item on a menu. To what extent or what kind each of us is persecuted will vary and is determined by God. You don’t go forcing it by unrighteous behavior. You get it precisely by righteous behavior! Peter says, 

“For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God” (1 Pet. 2:20).

There is great virtue in going to the guillotine for Christ. There is no virtue in searching land and sea to find one, and fitting one’s neck for it. To the degree that violence against the church can be stopped, by perfectly lawful means, and the shepherd bullies the sheep away from taking up those lawful means, that shepherd is a Trojan horse of the dragon, or at least one who incompetently does his bidding.

Slow suicide is still suicide. THAT I HARM NOT MYSELF (as the Heidelberg puts it) includes that intentional bodily harm that does not kill all at once but which one knows has a great tendency toward unnatural death. We are never told that it is acceptable “that I harm myself if it takes a while.” I think we know that with the use of substances (drugs, alcohol, nicotene) that can shorten our life over time. The otherwise righteous king Hezekiah had a wicked moment, about a moment he would not personally have to endure. When the Babylonian officials were visiting him and he gave them a tour, showing off the temple gold, the prophet Isaiah rebuked him, 

“Hear the word of the Lord: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.” For he thought, “Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?” (2 Kings 20:16-19).

Suicide of one’s own people group is murder of the offspring. It is violently selfish. And it follows, from the greater to the lesser, that selling oneself into slavery, or slower self-imposed genocide, is enslavement of one’s offspring, the selling of them into captivity, bloody hatred multiplied by the whole people group. We speak of lacking the motive, opportunity, and numbers of an Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin. I beg to differ, as that picture of Hezekiah reads our mail. We may say we are not kings. But we have more wealth and ability to stop evil than any earthly king that ever lived, and have in our own families within the church the offspring that far outnumber any of their countries, by the tens of millions. And we are at this moment deliberately watching their genocide in slow motion, like suicidal cabbages.

Indirect suicide is still suicide. The answer to Heidelberg Q.105 continues: NOR WILLFULLY RUN INTO ANY DANGER. We can see this easily enough in that a man who jumps in front of a moving car to die, would be just as guilt of suicide as if he drove his own car off of a cliff. But we may object to the comparison to Hezekiah and to our comparative greater amounts of power today. “We are not directly killing our children! We are not even the abortionists, let alone the death camp guards!” But this changes the subject from what one can do to what one cannot. In our own system of government, the local government is duty-bound to separate from the state or federal levels, wherever those have broken down into a more complete state of war. Now it requires classes on politics to prove this, whereas no one would have needed it proven in generations past. 

Violence Against Your Neighbor’s Life Forbidden

Let’s just cut right to the chase with a clarifying set of questions:

Q1. “Is murder always evil?” Yes.

Q2. “What if I hire somebody else to do it for me? Still evil?” Yes.

Q3. “But what if he’s a doctor?” Still.

Q4. “But what if I don’t ‘hire-hire’ them, but I vote for them instead?” It is the same.

Empowering a false state to accumulate the powers of mass violence is something you will be held morally responsible for by God: “Do not plot harm against your neighbor, who lives trustfully near you” (Prov. 3:29).

Any ideology that is aimed at violence is naturally a blueprint for murder. That makes modern collectivism in all of its forms, which centralizes power in the hands of a few to commit violence against the life, liberty, and property of your local neighbors. Why is that?

Simply put, for any individual or group to assume coercive power over more individuals or groups—particularly when such groups disagree on more non-negotiable practices—requires violence. But we have seen that there is a legitimate force that reacts to this initiating threat of violence.

David seems to praise the Lord for making him a warrior (Ps. 144:1), but in Psalms 11:5 it says the Lord hates those who love violence. How do we resolve what seem at first like divergent passages? Violence (like the distinction between murder and killing) is relative to defense of the image of God (see Gen. 9:5-6). David's being a warrior is only as good as the justice of the cause, but what we call “violence” is required in both the just and the unjust. To love violence in that unjust context is to do it for its own sake. Sooner or later, a mature view of the sixth commandment is going to have to reckon with issues like capital punishment, law enforcement, and just war. 

What then are the conditions for just war? We have to first admit that there is no such authoritative list in Scripture. All such lists will be a result of theologizing, as with so many other doctrinal and ethical matters. However, the classical view summarizing the thought of Augustine and Aquinas, among others, can be divided into those principles proceeding toward a just war (jus ad bellum) and those for conducting a just war (just in bello).

To the first—jus ad bellum, we consider: 1. Legitimate authority; 2. Just cause; 3. Good intentions; 4. Last resort; and 5. Reasonable chance of victory. The first three may seem very subjective and the last one may seem pragmatic. 

What about the criteria for executing the war itself, the jus in bello? They have been summarized as 6. discrimination and 7. proportion. In other words, one must only fight against combatants and not those who may be members of said country, but have not taken up arms against your own. Then the damage done to life, liberty, and property cannot be excessive. It must be justified in terms of the execution of disarming the enemy and not as an additional punitive measure. 

What should we make of this list? Since this is not a course in political science, I think the main thing we should take from it is general. The principle of what makes for just and unjust war is really analogous to, or an extension of, the same principle that makes for a legitimate and illegitimate state. Power minus justice equals violence. It does not have the force of real law. 

So Turretin says,

“Unjust and hasty wars, undertaken without just and necessary cause from mere ambition or avarice in order to extend the boundaries of an empire, we detest as mere highway robberies.” 

Whatever Tends Toward That Violence—Forbidden

Now if we are talking about tendency, then we have to start where Jesus does, namely, in the heart.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (Mat. 5:21-22).

Hatred is the root of violence against God’s image. GOD MEANS TO TEACH US THAT HE ABHORS THE ROOT OF MURDER. So the whole sixth commandment shows us the whole wicked plant of violence, from the fruit of physical violence, all the way down to the root: a spiritual violence. “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer” (1 Jn. 3:15).

This hatred (or malice) is an ill-will toward others. Whatever is in the image of God or whatever good could come to that person, malice wishes the opposite and would do whatever in its power to turn such blessing into curse. Another word used in our Bibles is enmity (Gal. 5:19), ἔχθρα, which can be rendered also as “hostility” or “alienation.” This to forget who we are and how we got here. It is to exalt ourselves as Judge of who should be here and who shouldn’t. And so we can’t separate hatred of others from haughtiness against God, as the beginning to that parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee was told, “to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt” (Lk. 18:9).

One thing that all men are forbidden, but which Christians especially are given much deeper theological rationale for is vengeance. Just as we saw with the distinction between murder and a just use of force, so a distinction must be made between venegeance and a just use of force (for the same reason). And let’s remember the principle of Scripture: That God’s word never contradicts itself has implications here as well. Vengeance is forbidden back in the Old Testament: “You shall not take vengeance” (Lev. 19:18), or, “Vengeance is mine, and recompense” (Deut. 32:35). Now the word is translated in a few texts that “give” vengeance down to the Jews, whether to David (2 Sam. 22:48), or to the people of Israel as a whole (Esther 8:13), or to the avenger of blood on the intentional manslayer, in that Numbers 35 passage. In these places there is good reason to see it as a special dispensation, or else manner of speaking. Our main point is this: if (i) some taking of life is commanded by God and if (ii) there is a vengeance that is always forbidden, then it follows by resistless logic that the just use of force cannot be the same thing as that forbidden vengeance. What then is this sinful vengeance?

The New Testament passages begin to construct our doctrine of vengeance. First, let us hear the Apostle Paul: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Rom. 12:19). Note the contrast: taking vengeance versus leaving it to God, and the latter being “left” as in “left for later.” So just like the taking of life, so it is here. Something about vengeance is good and something bad. But unlike the just and unjust taking of life—which is sometimes just for man and other times unjust—in the case of vengeance, it is always wrong for man, but always right for God. But why and in what sense? Two other passages help us. Although they do not use the word “vengeance,” they parallel the Romans 12:19 passage concerning our relationship to unjust treatment from others.

“This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed” (2 Thess. 1:5-10)

“When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Pet. 2:23).

Sinful vengeance is taking God’s final justice, or proper temporal justice, to ourselves. So praying for God to meet out vengeance (e.g. the Imprecatory Psalms) or seeking justice through proper channels of the civil sphere—neither of these are the same thing as vengeance. As we will see next time, one can have a spirit of vengeance and yet no power to execute it, just as Jesus spoke of that hatred in the heart in Matthew 5 that does not manifest in actual bodily harm. So in the same way, vengeance is not a matter of how much force is applied, but rather the degree to which it is rooted in God’s own justice and our contentment in that proper justice.

And of proper justice that takes life, there are two kinds: (1) God’s final justice reserved for Christ “inflicting vengeance” (2 Thess. 1:8); (2) God’s appointed means in the collective force, or the magistrate, police, or military where that is just. But taking “justice” into our own hands—“going rogue”—without reference to God’s sovereign and duly appointed justice is really no justice at all. Why? Because “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (Jas. 1:20).

APPLICATION

Use 1. EVANGELICAL USE. Whatever we do that tends toward death is murder. But all sin earns death and so tends toward murder of the whole soul. Thus in all sin we break the Sixth Commandment, every day lashing out against the one image of God nearest to us: ourselves. Thus every sin is a suicide of the soul. So heresy and even neglect of orthodoxy is the seed of the soul’s murder. Thus ministers must be more under warning than any here. 

Brakel speaks of “the spiritual murder of his neighbor, which is done by ministers if they do not warn the ungodly (Ezek. 13:18, 22). This is true when one either brings soul-destructive errors and heresies in vogue or promotes them; gives evil examples whereby others are enticed, deceived, or offended; keeps others away from the Word and the practice of religion; or persecutes and resists others for their godliness.”

Use 2. CIVIL USE. Someone once said, “Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror.” We see that this description is true of our fallen world. But is this God’s valuation? How does this square with the sixth commandment? The violence of statism is violence on the largest scale and thus the most violent. No one favors mass murder more than the statist; and so it follows that any vote for statism is a vote for mass murder. At the very least, do not join in with them. The words of Proverbs 1:10-19 speak to any action of collective violence, whether it be a neighborhood gang or a societal revolution. Bloodshed is bloodshed. 

Now how does one get to that point of discernment? That is where we must come back to Calvin’s expression (and that in the Heidelberg) to “make a study of” preserving life. Think about this as two sides to the same coin. If the command is broken by ANYTHING TENDING TOWARD the destruction of life, then it stands to reason that the command is obeyed by the whole soul (starting with the mind) by placing oneself in the way of the aggressor and the victim, and, if possible, to neutralize that violence at the root, disarming aggressors not just on the surface of their hand that holds the gun, but by dissolving those associations which assemble for the express purpose of committing the violence. Consequently the sixth commandment demands that Christians include 1. ethics in their curriculum, then 2. civics in their ethics, and then 3. the history and logic of decentralization of power in their civics. Maximizing the force and intensity of this teaching maximally prepares the soul to obey the sixth commandment. 

Use 3. DIRECTIVE USE. The root of violence against the image is the failure to love and treasure the image of God. As John puts it, “If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 Jn. 4:20). We are told to be “slow to anger” (Jas. 1:19), but nothing slows anger altogether like seeing God’s valuation of his image. So if the image of God is the object of this violence, then how to positively resist? Calvin suggests positive obedience as “to cultivate fraternal affection with all men,” which word suggests a kind of brotherhood. We understand that we are not brothers or sisters in Christ with those who will not have Christ. And yet, can we not study to see the image of God in others? Paul knew that the Athenian idol-worshipers were not ultimately his brothers. They were not in his “forever fraternity,” but he does plead with them from the words of one of their poets, “For we are indeed his offspring” (Acts 17:28).

__________________

1. Turretin, Institutes, II.11.17.5

2. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, III:199.

3. Jean Rostand, Pensees d’un biologiste (Paris: Stock, 1939), quoted in Markos, From Plato to Christ, 26

4. Calvin, Commentaries, III:23.