Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.
D. L. MOODY (1837-1899): First, let us see what this commandment does not mean. It does not forbid the killing of animals for food and for other reasons. Millions of rams and lambs and turtledoves must have been killed every year for sacrifices under the Mosaic system. Christ Himself ate of the Passover lamb, and we are told definitely of cases where He ate fish and provided it for His disciples and the people to eat.
WILHELMUS à BRAKEL (1635-1711): This commandment neither applies to the vegetative life of trees and herbs, nor to animal life, for God has given both to the benefit of man. The killing of animals may, however, not proceed from cruel motives. The killing which is forbidden here pertains to human life, which is the most precious thing that man possesses.
JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): “Thou shalt not kill.” The words are better rendered, ‘thou shalt do no murder.’
D. L. MOODY: It does not forbid the killing of burglars or attackers in self-defense.
THOMAS WATSON (1620-1686): The commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ requires that we should preserve our own life and soul. It is engraven upon every creature that he should preserve his own natural life.
WILHELMUS à BRAKEL: The slaying of one’s neighbour out of self-protection is also not included in the forbidden homicide. This occurs when either a murderer, a person who is in a fit of wrath, or a demented person attacks someone in order to slay him―he either must permit himself to be killed, or he must in self-defense kill the attacker. If he kills him, he is not guilty of bloodshed; rather, this is referred to as self-defense. One is obligated to preserve his life and this is the only objective here. If this culminates in the death of the other person, the attacker is guilty, and not the person being attacked.
D. L. MOODY: Directly after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God laid down the ordinance that if a thief be found breaking in and be smitten that he die, it was pardonable, Exodus 22:20. Did not Christ justify this idea of self-defense when He said: “If the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up,” Matthew 24:43?
WILHELMUS à BRAKEL: The killing of an enemy in a lawful war also is not included in the homicide which is forbidden. A war is lawful when enemies conspire to attack a nation that has not offended them, but which dwells quietly and peacefully—these enemies robbing them of their goods and making the people their bond servants. If the government of such a country then arms itself against such enemies, resists violence with violence, punishes them, and renders them incapable of returning, this is a righteous undertaking whereby the wicked are punished, and good persons are protected both personally as well as relative to their religion and belongings.
C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): The wars in which David was engaged were honest wars for the defense and deliverance of the country, in which God had helped him, and yet even the best war is bad in God’s esteem. When blood is shed, God delights not in it.
WILHELMUS à BRAKEL: The legality of such wars is not only abundantly evident in the Old Testament, where God commanded them and prescribed the time and manner of attack, as well as promising to deliver up the enemy.
MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: But now, of course, immediately the pacifist brings up an argument against this teaching; “But that’s only the Old Testament teaching.” Now, there are those who say that fighting is always wrong, the “taking of life” they say, is “always wrong.” They therefore argue that no state should ever go to war, that war is always wrong, for every state, and every country.
THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): Though war is exceeding far from being desirable, it is not always unlawful.
ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER (1772-1851): There is no excuse for war but dire necessity. As long as possible, every nation should avoid war; but a state of warfare may be forced upon a nation. Self defence is the first law of our nature, and is a duty. On the contrary principle, the lawless and violent would have everything in their own hands, and the virtuous and peaceable would be the prey of the wicked.
MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: For a state to go to war, it must be regarded as a part of the duty of the state in certain circumstances; it is as an extension of the duty and the function of the magistrate, Romans 13:1-6―That as the magistrate has to maintain law and order within the state, he is also called by God to do the same in the external relationships of the state…If another state from the outside, is attempting to interfere with the life of this state in an evil sense, then it is the duty and the business of the magistrate to protect the interests of the citizens of the state. And I think there can be no question about this at all. Once you see that it is but an extension of the duty of the magistrate, the governing power within the state, this then follows by a logical necessity.
JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): War is not rashly to be undertaken.
MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: This must always be the last resort. Every other effort must have failed. Every other possibility must have been exhausted. The state only goes to war when all its endeavours to prevent war, and to right the wrongs, have completely failed. And that leads me to my third point, which is this: that when the state does go to war, she must be able to show that she’s doing so in a just cause. Now, throughout the centuries, there has been great discussion on this matter in the church―the just war, a righteous war.
CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): There is not a nation under heaven where the art of war is not cultivated…Under these circumstances it is not optional with a nation whether they will have a military force: they are compelled to maintain armies, and to preserve their lives and liberties by the same means that others use to subjugate and overwhelm them―and if there were any one nation determined to cultivate peace to the uttermost, it would still be necessary for them to learn the art of war, in order that they might be ready, when attacked, to repel aggression, and to maintain their liberties.
MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: Well, now, that’s the point at which we’ve arrived, and we come now to the next problem, which of course, is very closely related to that last one―the question of capital punishment.
ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): This commandment was not intended to touch the questions of capital punishment or of war. These were allowed under the Jewish code, and cannot therefore be supposed to be prohibited here. How far either is consistent with the deepest meaning of the law, as expanded and reconsecrated in Christianity, is another question.
C. H. SPURGEON: I shall not enter into the question of the rightness of capital punishment. I have my opinion upon it, but this is not exactly the place to state it.
MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: Very well, we’ve got to leave it at that.
