The sixth commandment

This sermon was preached on 13/1/2011

With the sixth commandment, the divine requirements of God move to behaviour within society. They are given in an order of seriousness – murder is more heinous than adultery, adultery is more heinous than theft, theft is more heinous than false witness, and all actual disobedience is worse than wrong inner desires. Although some sins are less heinous, it does not mean that they are not dreadful. Every sin is an insult to God’s character and an assault on his authority.

Of course, there are aspects of killing other people that are not wrong. The two examples of this are killing in war and execution in capital punishment. Admitting this, however, is not the same as approving of all occurrences of death in these circumstances. There can be illegitimate killings in war situations and there can be wrong motives for capital punishment (a person can be executed because he is a dangerous opponent, with the executor as guilty of offences as the executed).

Regarding capital punishment in the Bible, it was authorised in the covenant God made with Noah in Genesis 9:5-6 (this explains why Cain was not put to death for murdering his brother). Paul affirms that the civil authority has power to use the sword (Rom. 13:4), although capital punishment in Roman law was not limited to murder – indeed Paul and countless other Christians suffered death at the hands of the civil powers. Such abuse by civil authorities is murder and they will yet be judged by God for their behaviour.

In the Bible, some individuals were guilty of murder and not punished for it. Moses slew an Egyptian (his action may have been unintended when he attempted to restrain the Egyptian from beating the Israelite in Exodus 2:12, nevertheless his action involved death. David arranged for the death of Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, in a particularly callous manner (of course, it would be hard to prove in a law court that Uriah had been killed by murder; after all, some soldiers have to lead the advance into battle). Luke says in Acts 9 that Saul of Tarsus breathed out threats and murder against Christians, and in particular he was involved in the murder of Stephen (Acts 8:58). Instead of being punished, these individuals later served God, which is a reminder that God’s grace can forgive and change individuals (it is hard to work out when Moses was converted; David sinned in this regard as a believer; Paul was not a Christian when he committed his terrible actions).

Peter, in 1 Peter 5:15, warns his readers about the possibility of committing murder. I suppose the danger they faced was engaging in acts of revenge for atrocities against family members and friends; perhaps there was the possibility that deprivation of food and clothing would make them desperate; there was even the likelihood of participating in revolutionary activities. In any case, there was the danger, especially when living in times of great opposition, for Christians to resort to acts of violence, and Peter warns them against such a response.

Developments in technology have to take this commandment into account. We are all familiar with the practices of abortion and euthanasia, and the biblical arguments against them. Suffice to say, that these practices clearly reveal a society that has no fear of God nor a true understanding of the extent of love to be shown towards one’s neighbour (the unborn and the unwell are our neighbours).

Jesus and the Sixth Commandment

There are two occasions in the life of Jesus in which this commandment comes to the fore. One is his death, which was an act of murder, and the other is his application of this commandment in the Sermon on the Mount when he connected anger and irate words to it.

At the cross

With regard to the death of Jesus, it was judicial murder (the state arranged it), it was vengeful murder (the Jews urged it because of envy), and it was indifferent murder (the soldiers treated it as their job). Taking the obligation of always loving God and one’s neighbour, we can see how Jesus responded to the various level of murder.

To the civil authority, he did not use his own power to prevent their actions (he could have called a legion of angels), which is a reminder that God’s way is not usually that of immediate punishment – Jesus was fully aware that the proponents of that evil system would yet stand before him in judgement, and I would suggest that is the practice he also expects from his followers if they find themselves powerless in a hostile situation.

Regarding the vengeful attitude of the Jewish leaders and mob, we see his response in the words he gave to the women who were weeping: ‘Weep not for me, but for yourselves and for your children’ (Luke 23:28). There may be a connection here to the words of the crowd, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’ (Matt. 27:25) – after all, Jesus would have heard it. Jesus did not desire thoughtless expressions of sympathy from the women of Jerusalem – instead he tenderly urged them to focus on their calamitous futures rather than mourn over his present circumstances. His words were an expression of love and also a clear warning, because the Jewish crowd had sinned on purpose and broken the sixth commandment when they called for his death. The appropriate response was to weep in repentance.

Yet how different his attitude was to the soldiers who actually executed him. He prayed for their forgiveness (Luke 22:34), and his request was answered (Luke 22:47). Jesus kept the commandment perfectly even when he was the victim of others who were breaking it.

Anger and the sixth commandment

The other occasion is the application made by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. I take it as a given that this application is recorded in Scripture because it has permanent relevance, indeed may describe the commonest way of breaking the sixth commandment. In that passage (Matthew 5:21-26), the Saviour is concerned about public worship and makes it clear that wrong attitudes prevent acceptable worship. He points out that a gift to God cannot balance out a wrong attitude towards another disciple. His words make clear that relationships matter when it comes to the worship of God.

The Pharisees taught a literalistic interpretation of the law when they said, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ Their teaching was not a new development; instead it had been handed down to them from their fathers, which is a reminder that opposition to personal application of God’s commandments occurs in every generation.

The basic concern of these religious leaders was outward behaviour. As long as a public performance was maintained, they imagined that everything was fine. It does not seem to have entered their minds that God looked on the heart. They did not realise that he law of God is spiritual in its dealings with us. Its focus is on our hearts, not only on our outward behaviour. This is so obvious, but yet we often forget it.

Jesus interprets the sixth commandment and applies it to his listeners. He is not describing a development in disobedience by his three examples of anger, insult and verbal dismissal, as if anger was the least and ‘raca’ was the worst. Instead he is mentioning three possible expressions of disobedience to the sixth commandment. Similarly, he is not saying that there are different punishments for breaking the law; instead he is saying that divine punishment is certain.

Eventually, the mouth reveals the real me. Jesus teaches here that we usually reveal our real selves by what we speak about and by how we use our tongues when describing other people. ‘Anger’ describes illegitimate rage, for no valid reason. Of course, there is such a thing as righteous anger, but we have to be very careful that we don’t use that legitimate activity to cover our illegitimate words. When a person said ‘Raca’ to another, it meant that he regarded the other as unintelligent, as incapable of making a valid comment about anything, as a dimwit. And when a person said, ‘You fool,’ he was stating, not that the person was a bit silly, but that he was devoid of any spiritual good whatsoever (we can note the description of the fool in the Book of Proverbs; these descriptions do not refer to his mental ability, but to his moral character).

Can Christians speak in such a way of one another? How may words does it take to destroy the reputation of another Christian? The answer to this question is ‘one’. Jesus here is not referring to truthful talking about other believers, but to inappropriate and malicious aspersions about them. One such word flies faster than the speed of light. Of course, such words are the expression of our hearts, revealing a spirit of bitterness, if not hatred, and a breaking of the sixth commandment.

Jesus states clearly that a person guilty of such attitudes cannot worship God. No degree of public display (buying and offering an animal) can balance out the sin. Instead he must repent of his attitudes, not only to God, but to the person against whom he said them.

Paul reminds us that our sins of speech expressed to or about other believers grieve the Holy Spirit: ‘Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and slander be put away from you, along with all malice’ (Eph. 4:29-31).

The appropriate response, says Jesus, is reconciliation initiated by the offending party. The reconciliation should be immediate, it even takes priority over attendance at public worship. And if the person does not do it, he is heading for difficult times.