RESPECT FOR LIFE
I. Introduction
A. Rabbinic discussions during days of Jesus
1. Examples of the individual: justified killing: self-defense; defense for
another; unjustified: kill a third party to save self!
2. War: Talmud distinguishes between wars of defense (“wars of the
Lord”) and wars of empire (“wars of the king”).
3. Rabbis: so “cluttered” capital punishment with stipulations, essentially
invalidated it. Sanhedrin:
a) No sentences based on confession alone.
b) No death penalty based solely on circumstantial evidence.
c) If death sentence, carry out almost immediately (on humane grounds –
interim be most terrible time of man’s life. If stoning, witnesses must
cast first stones.
B. Contemporary Irony (Smedes)
1. We members of a race that habitually slaughters its own children (we
gorge ourselves while children far away die of hunger). Is there a
positive connotation?
2. We honor those who kill, as long as they kill our enemies.
3. We prepare for nuclear holocaust, as if it our human destiny.
4. Sixth commandment spoken into a world filled with individual, national,
and international violence.
C. Contemporary discussions
1. War / conscientious objection
2. Suicide
3. Capital punishment
4. Abortion
5. Euthanasia
II. What does this commandment forbid us to do? (Relevant passages
concerning killing)
A. Exod 20:13 / Deut 5:17
1. Terminology
a) Rsh (about 46 times in OT)
(1) Primarily refers to deliberate killing. Most frequently used in
passages involving blood vengeance (and asylum).
(2) Most occurrences connected with asylum (Nu 35; Deut 4:42;
19:3-6; 22:26; Josh 20-21).
(3) A few times used for accidental killing.
b) Hrg (about 165 times in OT)
Marrs 2
B.
C.
D.
E.
c) Hmyt (about 201 times in OT)
2. What not envisioned in this commandment
a) Capital punishment (i.e., death within the context of the
administration of justice [the phrase here is often “put to death,” cf.
Exod 19:12]).
b) War (the term often used is “smite”).
(1) “Holy War” (slaughter of all) / “Just War” (pacifism vs. pacifistic).
(2) Some aspects of war in OT
(a) War “holy” only when entered at God’s direct commission.
(b) War a manifestation of life in a fallen world.
(c) Prophets
(i) War: either judgment of God against rebellious Israel or
judgment of God against haughty nations.
(ii) When envision God’s future, war always absent!
(d) NT church: reinterpreted holy war in spiritual way!
c) Just War Theory – distinguish “just war” and “just conduct in war.”
Elements of Just War
(1) Having just cause (eliminates most acts of aggression)
(2) Being declared by a proper authority (government vs. individual)
(3) Possessing right intention (no self-interest or self-aggrandizement;
cause of justice preeminent vs. cause of national / self-interest)
(4) Having a reasonable chance of success
(5) End is proportional to the means used (goals of war must be
proportional to cause of justice sought)
Cf. Exod 21:12-17: 4 offenses that incur death penalty (premeditated
murder; assault on parent; cursing parent; kidnapping). (Cf. also Lev 24:17;
Deut 27:24).
Gen 4 (Cain and Abel)
Gen 9:6 (image of God)
Lex talionis (“eye for an eye” [Exod 21:22-25; Lev 24:17-22; Deut 19:18-19,
21]).
1. ancient Near East background: generally, brutality present in ancient
Near East law codes absent in OT. E.g.:
a) Slave strike member of upper class or challenge owner’s claim to title
– ear removed.
b) Adopted son: repudiate foster parents – tongue removed; if goes to
live with natural parents – lose eye.
c) Numerous mutilations: ears, eyes, hands removed; castration;
flogging.
Marrs 3
2. OT differences
a) Sacredness of human life: life far more highly valued than private
property.
(1) *Note treatment of debts (Lev 25:35-38; Exod 22:25-26; Deut
23:20; 24:10-13).
(2) Goring ox: in ancient Near East (Eshnunna [#54-55]; Hammurapi
#250-252]) concern strictly economic compensation; in OT work
from perspective of Gen 9:6 (sanctity of human life).
(3) Slavery: ancient Near East (Hammurapi [#15-16]) runaway slave
incurs death penalty; OT diametrically opposed (Deut 23:16-17).
3. Lex talionis
a) Misrepresentation: represents primitive vengeance; epitomizes
dominant principle of law in OT.
b) OT: Exod 21:22-25 (injury involving pregnant woman); Lev
24:17-22 (person blasphemously using divine name during brawl);
Deut 19:18-19, 21 (law of witnesses).
(1) **Represents standardized formula (meaning: equitable restitution
[cf. Samson in Jgs 15:11]). *Not taken literally. *Note also
implications of Nu 35:31 (*no compensation for premeditated
murder; implies compensation was practiced and sanctioned in
cases of physical assault other than murder).
(2) The thrust of the talionic principle was not vengeful nor penal but
compensatory.
F. Lev 19:17-18 (Cf. Matt 5:21-22). NT use of Exod 20:13 – Matt 5:21-22
1. Punishment mentioned in agreement with Exod 21:12; Lev 24:17; Nu
35:16-17.
2. Three elements: statement on anger; 2 statements on use of invectives.
*Anger indicates one’s feelings of estrangement, the invectives make the
feeling explicit.
a) “Anger:” in some ways Jesus matches rabbis in casuistic manner –
Law outlaws murder; Jesus outlaws anger.
b) Invectives
(1) “Idiot” (raka)
(2) “Fool” (more)
3. Message – contrast between prohibitions reflecting as primary reality
broken relationships and reality of Jesus that demands relationships
without alienation.
III.
Why does this commandment forbid us to do it?
Marrs 4
A. Position of the commandment – Table #1: begins with command to have no
other God than Yahweh. Table #2: begins with command against taking
human life.
B. “Sanctity of life” / “Sacredness of person” (Gen 9:6)
1. Ancient Israel – community required by God to take human life if
someone dared to do so against God’s requirement that human life not to
be taken. **No one to enter into the realm of God’s reserved activity,
daring to take action where God alone is to act. Human life belongs to
God (as author and giver of life). So here community acting on God’s
behalf to take life of blood shedder. *Here the dilemma: how dare the
community claim the right to act on God’s behalf? If life belongs to
God, under what circumstances may community understand itself to be
invited by God to act in his place to take life of another human being?
2. Concern not with punishment in case of violations, rather with sacrosanct
nature of human life! To underscore kinds of action that would ruin
human life in community. Commandment designed to protect without
qualification the life of human beings from acts of violence threatening
the continued existence of life itself (Harrelson, 113).
3. View of humanity (Smedes, 106)
a) Not based on diagnosis of human character (for then be persuaded of
our own divinity or depravity
b) See each as one who lives each moment in relationship with God.
c) Careful not to confuse sacredness with value. I.e., some more
valuable because make “better contribution.”
d) When focus on “sacredness of persons” rather than “value of life,” can
deal more fruitfully with obscurities of reality (e.g., can force oxygen
and warm blood through entity that has life without person).
C. The Authority of God – God alone author of life; he alone has authority to
take it away. God’s unique authority to determine the ending of human life
strong theological reason for our duty to respect and not to destroy it. Yet, at
both ends of life, he lets us collaborate. (Smedes)
D. The Community of Care-Taking
1. Cain: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Silence of God = an eloquent yes.
Cain violated his role as brother and caretaker.
2. *Killing destroys community as much as it destroys individual.
IV. Practical Applications / Implications
A. Various facets of the taking of life
Marrs 5
1. Breadth of discussion: may take in discussion of murder, capital
punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia, forms of birth control, suicide. (K.
Barth)
2. World in which we live: ethics of utilitarianism. I.e., good = greatest
benefit to the most; least harm to the fewest. Example: Police officer
kills hostage taker who already has killed. May in fact be
acknowledging the importance of life in the very taking of life?!
3. *If life essentially belongs to God, human beings not free to take a life
without thought of its having been given to the particular person by God
himself. Since life essentially belongs to God, and gift from God, when
we dare to take, we “challenging” Yahweh’s gift of life and a place in
“Israel” for that individual.
B. How to Respect Life in Dialogue with Death (Smedes, 110ff.; begin with
presumption: if a human being is involved, we are not permitted to kill him
and we are obligated to preserve him. Are there exceptions to rule?)
1. Suicide
a) Paradox
(1) Essential sign of human power, power to determine one’s own
destiny
(2) Ultimate sign of human weakness and failure.
b) Moral attitudes toward Suicide
(1) Suicide condemned as a moral wrong (e.g., T. Aquinas)
(2) Suicide justified as a responsible option (e.g., Stoics; Kervorkian).
(3) Suicide excused as a tragedy (Freud).
c) Moral motives for suicide
(1) The suicide of arrogance (more fictional than real)
(2) The benevolent suicide (“sacrifice?” E.g., take one’s life so that
lives of others be easier)
(3) The suicide of escape (e.g., from pain, shame [Saul]).
(4) The suicide of despair (usually the act of sensitively good people)
2. Capital punishment
a) Is capital punishment required by the Bible?
(1) *If Genesis tells us murderers should be killed, Paul tells us it is
government that should do the killing (Rom 13:4).
(2) If looking for biblical examples, could as easily use Gen 4! (God
provides protection!).
(3) Rom 13: authority to punish is not necessarily mandate to kill!
b) Is capital punishment permitted by the Bible? Capital punishment
might be understood as a form of self-defense.
3. Abortion
Marrs 6
a) Two distinct moral questions
(1) Personal: is it right before God for me to kill this fetal being inside
of me?
(2) Social: is it right for a government to prevent mothers from killing
a fetus?
b) Distinguish morality from legality: government may tell us what
legal; cannot tell us what moral.
c) The Personal Question (where intersect interest of fetus and others
involved). *Abortion is killing (no disagreement). If abortion
destroys life, does it destroy a person!
(1) When does fetus become a person?
(2) What counts besides the life of the fetus?
d) The Social Problem (cannot be resolved unless one of two adversarial
parties has radical conversion [i.e., pro-life vs. pro-choice]).
e) The “Church” Problem – if anti-abortion stance (which morally
clearly justifiable), what is our responsibility to these “unwanted
babies?”
4. Euthanasia (Letting people die).
a) What does it mean to let someone die? Difference: letting one die
and causing death.
b) How can we know when to let someone die?
c) Who may decide when it is right to let someone die?