God’s Estimate of Human Life

GOLDEN TEXT: “Thou shalt not kill.” —Exodus 20:13

GOD’S estimate of human life was so high that he gave his dearly beloved Son “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) In his Law given to Israel he made it morally wrong to take human life. He knew that selfishness had become so deeply ingrained in the human heart that a definite command was needed to restrain the Israelites from destroying each other, given sufficient provocation.

While it would be just as great a sin for a Christian to commit murder as it was for the Jews, this Sixth Commandment was not given to the followers of the Master. Instead of “thou shalt not kill,” we have received a “new commandment” which is so far-reaching that it involved loving even our enemies. People do not kill those whom they love; so, if we love our enemies, we do not need to be told not to kill them.

MATTHEW 5:21-26

JESUS magnified the Law. In the case of the Sixth Commandment he explained that to be angry with one’s brother would be a violation of divine law, as is murder. This, of course, should not be interpreted to mean a temporary flare-up of emotion which one soon regrets and for which proper apologies are made, but rather, a deep-grained and abiding hatred which continually influences one’s attitude toward another, causing injuries whenever the opportunity permits.

Jesus said that those who are thus “angry” “shall be in danger of the judgment.” This is an apparent reference to the court of judges set up in the synagogues which consisted of seven men—some say 23—and might well be illustrative of similar courts to be established during the millennial age.

Jesus explained further that those who say to a brother “Raca,” that is, “vain fellow,” or villain, shall be in danger of the council—a probable reference to the Sanhedrin. This was the highest court of the Jews, and consisted of seventy-one men. Saul of Tarsus was a member of this court before he became a Christian. It might be that some similar arrangement will exist again during the Millennium.

To accuse a brother of being a “fool” was considered by Jesus to be the most serious manifestation of hatred. It is a little difficult to understand just why this offense should seemingly be so much more serious than calling one’s brother a villain. The literal meaning of the Greek word here translated “fool” is “dull, or stupid.” It may suggest that the one who accuses another of this thereby implies that there is no possibility that his viewpoint of their differences could be right, or even partially right. Thus by one’s own proud assumption of superior understanding he would bar all possibility of a reconciliation. This would certainly be a very serious offense.

Such a one, Jesus said, would be in danger of hell-fire. In the Greek text it is “Gehenna fire,” a reference to the fires which were kept burning in the Valley of Hinnom, just outside the walls of Jerusalem. The refuse of the city was burned in this fire, including the carcasses of dead animals. Nothing alive was ever thrown into the fires of Gehenna. Jesus used it as a fitting symbol of destruction, of death.

How unfitting it would be for one in a condition of heart indicated by the use of these uncomplimentary names, to presume to present a gift to the Lord. Jesus advised the proper course to take. He said that first, one should be reconciled to his brother, and then he could offer an acceptable gift.

If “thy brother hath ought against thee.” We need not read into this what it does not say. Many, even “brethren,” may assume that they have something against us. The thought is, rather, if we know that we have done something to injure our brother and have not made it right, then we should go to him in an effort to make reconciliation.

Verse 25 seems definitely to be associated with the preceding ones, and to be in the nature of instruction as how best to become reconciled to a brother. There is very seldom a misunderstanding in which all the blame lies on one side. For one to take the position in a dispute that he is always right, and could not possibly be wrong, would be a sure way to block all possibility of reconciliation. This would, indeed, be like saying that the other party in the dispute was dull and stupid if he couldn’t see that he was wholly to blame.

Where a dispute exists, those involved are for the time not very brotherly, but are more like “adversaries,” so Jesus’ advice was, “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him.” Those acquainted with Oriental customs say that the expression, “in the way with him,” is a reference to the fact that disputants, in seeking a court of justice before which to present their case, often find it necessary to travel together. In ancient times these journeys might well, on occasions, take several days.

On the journey they might meet bandits who could rob and kill them, so they found it necessary to assist each other. The tradition is that on these occasions often those who started out as enemies would become friends, and would find a way of settling their differences without the necessity of bringing them before a “judge” and thus run the risk of being unjustly sentenced to prison.

This seems a reasonable explanation of Jesus’ words. In any case, it represents the principle involved, which is that if we are to become reconciled to those with whom we have differences, there must be a willingness to agree where agreement is at all possible, and then let this be a steppingstone to further understanding. To paraphrase his words we might say, “While you are traveling with your adversary seeking a judge, agree with him quickly, before you reach your destination. Talk over your differences with the view of seeking an understanding without risking your case before a ‘judge.’”

MATTHEW 18:5, 6

VERSE 4 is needed here to give us the correct thought of the Master. It reads, “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” These are the “little ones” referred to in verse 6, those, that is, who become as little children in their humility before the Lord and obedience to him. These are very precious in his sight, and he will not let pass unpunished any effort that is made to “offend,” ensnare, stumble, or otherwise injure them.

This emphasizes the sacred responsibility we bear toward one another as brethren in Christ. We should not endeavor to shirk this responsibility by the attitude taken by Cain, when he said, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” We are “keepers” of the brethren, and our dedication to the Lord calls for the laying down of our lives for the brethren.

This responsibility implies carefulness in our association with the brethren that we neither discourage nor stumble them. It also means that we should all safeguard one another in preventing teachers of false doctrines to prey upon the flock. And each one of us should be especially careful that we do not ourselves teach theories which are out of harmony with the Word of God. Let us be careful in these and in all other ways, that we do not “offend” any of the Lord’s “little ones.”

LUKE 9:51-56

THIS incident in the Master’s life never lacks interest to those who are seeking to know the way of the Lord, and follow in his footsteps. Jesus had said a great deal to his disciples on the subject of love. James and John were particularly close to him, and John was later identified as “that disciple which Jesus loved.”

But when they asked if fire should be called down from heaven to destroy the Samaritans who refused to entertain them, he said, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” The disciples remembered the account of how Elijah had called down fire from heaven in demonstration of the fact that Jehovah was with him and against the priests of Baal; and as they saw it, why should not One so much greater than Elijah demonstrate that the Lord was also with him!

This did not necessarily imply that James and John were vindictive. Their chief motive may well have been the honor and dignity of the Master’s position in the matter. In any case, their viewpoint was wrong. They had not yet caught the spirit of Jesus’ ministry, that he had come to save lives, not to destroy them, and that he intended to let his enemies destroy him in order that all men might have an opportunity to live forever.

John, the “loving disciple,” learned this later, beginning particularly with Pentecost. So did the other apostles. It is a viewpoint which can be appreciated only by those whose hearts and minds have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. It is a viewpoint which should be appreciated and practiced by all the Lord’s people today. In principle it means that the Lord wants us to yield and to suffer, yea to die, rather than to do anything which would injure another.

QUESTIONS

Is it necessary for God to command a Christian not to take human life?

Explain briefly the progressive degrees of guilt mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 5:21-26, and the better way which he outlined for settling disputes with our brethren.

Who are the “little ones” referred to in Matthew 18:5, 6, and how can we avoid offending them?

| Home Page | Table of Contents |