Some have narrowed it to assassination only, frankly paraphrasing the simple law, as "Thou shalt do no murder," and excepting the whole range of war-slaughter, of legal execution, of "self-defence" and "justifiable homicide."
Some have widened it to cover not only all human beings, but all animal life as well; the Buddhist and his modern followers sparing even the ant in the path, and the malaria-planting mosquito.
Such extremists should sit in sackcloth and ashes over the riotous carriage of their own phagasytes; ever ruthlessly destroying millions upon millions of staphyllococci and similar intruders.
Where should the line be drawn? And why? Especially why? Why is it wrong to kill?
If we hark back to the direct command, we find that it could not have been intended as universally binding.
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed," and all the explicit directions as to who should be killed, and how; for such and such offences, certainly justify the axe and rope of the executioner; and beyond that come numbers of inspired commands as to the merciless extermination of opposing tribes in which men, women and children were "put to the sword"—even to babes unborn. Killing seemed highly honorable, even compulsory, among the people on whom this stern command was laid.
Scholars teach us that the ten commandments were in truth not given to the Israelites until after the return of Hezekiah; that may alter the case a little, but assuredly if we are to believe the Old Testament at all there was no blame attached to many kinds of killing.
The Prophets and Psalmists particularly yearned to have their enemies destroyed, and exulted in their destruction.
In the teachings of Jesus we find another spirit altogether, but we have not therefore abrogated the old commandments, and the problem of this clear prohibition remains unsolved.
Those of us to-day who feel most keenly the evil of "taking life" are almost Buddhistic in attitude. They object to killing for food or killing in self-defence.