A Christian Perspective on Capital Punishment and the Sanctity of Life - Part 2

Part 2 - Abortion and the Sanctity of Life

 

In Part 1 of this two part series I discussed the conditions when the Bible expressly allows a human to take the life of another.  We found that by Biblical standards the only time it is permissible to take another human life is in the case of self-defense.  In part 2 we will discuss the issue of abortion and what the Bible says about this divisive issue.

Does the Bible condone abortion?

Many have tried to use the text of Numbers 5:11-31 to say that God condones abortion. In the ritual described in this passage, the woman who is accused of infidelity is made to take and oath and drink "the water of bitterness".

 

Some translations (NIV 2011 edition and New Revised Standard Version) say that if she is guilty the woman will miscarry (effectively the drink causes an abortion).  The vast majority of translations, however, do not use this language and looking at the interlinear text, it is difficult to see how it could be translated as "miscarry" (another of the many mistranslations in the NIV)¹.

In fact, what this passage is taking about is a curse whereby the woman would become barren if she was guilty and would remain fertile if she was not.  The interpretation of "miscarriage" would also presuppose that the illicit extra-marital affair resulted in a pregnancy, which is not a given.

Similarly, some have also used Exodus 21:22-25 to say the value of the fetus is less than that of a born child.  The passage says this:

²² “Now if people struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, but there is no injury, the guilty person shall certainly be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. ²³ But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.(NASB)

The text does not specifically state that the injury in question should be to the mother or to the prematurely born child, however, in the absence of such delineation, it is reasonable to assume it applies to both.

 

Some try to interpret this verse as saying that if the baby is aborted and dies then it is only a fine, but if the woman dies then it is an "eye for an eye", etc.  There is no justification for this interpretation.

Once again, the NIV has a footnote equating "gives birth prematurely" to "miscarries".  And once gain, a look at the interlinear text shows no justification for interpreting this as a miscarriage or abortion, both of which imply the death of the child.

 

In fact, the only case in which a fine is levied is in the case that "there is no injury".  It is easy to interpret this text to mean that if the child is born prematurely, but there is no injury to the child or the mother then a fine can be levied as agreed by the husband and the court, but if there is harm to the child or the mother, then the "eye for an eye" principle is applied.  This interpretation puts the value of the child equal to the value of the mother and is the more reasonable one.

Since there are no other verses in the Bible which (even in poor translations) allude to intentionally causing a miscarriage or abortion, we can safely say that the Bible in no way condones abortion.

 

But does the Bible forbid abortion?

Some have said that since the Bible does not forbid abortion then it must be okay.  This is a ridiculous argument.  If this were true then the Bible would have to list all possible actions a human may take and specify if they are allowed or not.  Such a volume would be impossible to pen.  What does the Bible say about cyber crime?  If it is not explicitly forbidden does that make it permissible?  Of course not.

Therefore, just because the Bible does not say "Thou shalt not have an abortion" does not mean that it is a moral or acceptable practice.  So absent a specific ban on the practice, how can we know where the Bible stands on the issue?  We look to the more overarching issue of the sanctity of life.

What does the Bible say about the sanctity of life?

According to the Bible, individual humans (like all living creatures ) are created by and are a gift from God. He knows each of them individually and causes each individual to grow in their mothers' womb.

 In Jeremiah 1:5, God says he knew the prophet before He formed him in the womb.  His intimate knowledge of each individual begins before that person is even conceived.

David in Psalm 139:13-16 says that God knows every day of his life before he even has one.

This is a deeply personal God who cares deeply for his creation.  According to  2 Peter 3:9, God wants every single person to become a believer and partake of his goodness.

 Psalm 127:3-4 says that children are a gift of the Lord.

Is is not reasonable to infer from an honest reading of the Bible that God does not care about those whom he creates or is indifferent to the ending of a life which He created and is actively forming in the womb.

When is a fetus a life?

The verses above talk about God's love for each individual before they are even formed in the womb (conceived), which makes the discussion of when a fetus is "alive" moot.  God knows about and loves each person before they are even conceived.

 

But since an abortion cannot be performed before conception, the earliest time at which the fetus exists is when the egg is fertilized, has implanted in the uterine wall, and begins to replicate.  It is at this time that fetus is living human being.  At this time the fetus has DNA which is separate from that of the mother and father making it a separate individual human (not just a part of the mother or a parasite) and thus subject to God's love as is evidenced throughout the Bible.

 

Some have argued that God does not imbue a person with a soul until the baby is born.  It has been said that without a soul the fetus is no different than any other animal or plant which is considered "alive".  This argument depends upon the doctrine that the soul is added to a human at some point at or after conception, but this is mere supposition and is not supported by any biblical text that I was able to find.

 

The doctrine of traducianism says that the soul of a newly conceived child comes from its parents just like their physical body.  If this is the case, then the soul becomes a part of the child at conception.

 

Others have argued that the Old Testament says that "life is in the blood" and thus the fetus cannot be called "alive" until there is blood flow (about 21 days post-conception). Once again the NIV version is deceiving.  Notice the difference in the NIV and the NASB below.

¹⁴ because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.” (NIV)

¹⁴ “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ (NASB)

The text itself (in the NASB) explains that "its blood is identified with its life".  This text gives additional detail on the previous statement that it's blood is it's life.  This text eliminates the possibility that a fetus is not a human beloved by God until its blood is flowing because before it's blood flows it is not alive.  This text clearly states (in reliable translations) that a life is "identified" with blood and is not synonymous with it.

Looking at the interlinear text, the verse literally says "for the life of all flesh the blood sustains its life" and not that the blood is its life.  The word "nephesh" translated as "life" here implies "soulish" creatures.

The blood of a creature is not synonymous with its life, it merely sustains its life and therefore, any reasoning which says the fetus is not alive prior to blood flow is flawed.

 

As an aside, in most US states (if not all), if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with two murders, one for the mother and one for the unborn child.  In those same states, however, that same unborn child can be legally killed by an abortionist at the will of the mother.  The only difference is whether or not the mother wanted the child to be killed.  There does not seem to be any debate as to whether the unborn child is alive and a separate human being unless the issue is abortion.  This is an egregious double standard.

Can abortion be justified for any reason?

There are a few conditions which can occur during pregnancy where the growing fetus, if allowed to continue to develop, will invariably result in the death of the mother.  A good example of this would be an ectopic pregnancy.

In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg implants somewhere outside the main uterus, often in the wall of a fallopian tube.  The fallopian tube will not stretch with the growing fetus like the uterus does and once the fetus becomes a certain size the tube will rupture and the mother will bleed to death (if surgery cannot be provided soon enough).  This is a true emergency which can cause the death of the mother in a matter of minutes and also results in the death of the fetus.

In this case, the previously discussed self-defense principle can be applied.  If the baby is not aborted before it gets too large it will most certainly kill the mother and then the baby will also die.  Removing the baby from the tube (which will result in its death) in defense of the life of the mother is preferable to both the baby and mother dying.

This makes protecting the life mother the only morally and biblically justifiable reason for intentionally aborting a baby.

---

1. The NIV version is a less literal translation directly from the original texts created to make the Bible easier to understand. In the course of trying to make it easier to understand, however, some passages are more or less paraphrased using verbiage which cannot be easily justified by the original text and makes those passages subject to the biases of the interpreter.

   When the NIV was updated in 2011 many of the texts were made gender neutral which is in no way justified by the original texts and significantly alters the meaning of many verses.

   For these reasons the NIV is an unreliable translation and should only be used in conjunction with other more literal versions where the authors did not take so many licenses with unjustified interpretations (such as the NASB or ESV).

A Christian Perspective on Capital Punishment and the Sanctity of Life - Part 1

Part 1 - Capital Punishment

In recent weeks the issue of whether it is right for a person to take another person's life in any situation can be justified.  The news has been filled recently with the trials of Kyle Rittnehouse and the killers of Ahmed Arbery.  Prior to that were other high profile cases of lives that were taken which caused widespread rioting in the US.

All of these issues go to the central issue of the sanctity of life and the question: "when is it morally permissible (if ever) to take another human life"?

It is a polarizing issue and unfortunately it has also become a political one.  The political climate has become so charged that people on one side or another of the issue have ceased to look at the issue objectively.

The responsibility of the Christian is to look at these issues through the lens of the Bible and not through that of any particular political party.

What does the Bible say about the sanctity of life?

Brooklyn Museum
The Ear of Malchus (L'oreille de Malchus)
 James Tissot

Most Christians who support capital punishment do so because of verses like Luke 22:35-36 where Jesus tells his disciples to sell their cloaks and buys swords.

There are also a number of times in the Old Testament where capital punishment is prescribed by God Himself for certain crimes.

For instance, in Deuteronomy 17:1-7, God commands the Israelites to stone people to death if they have done "evil in the sight of the LORD" (NASB).

There are a number of other crimes which God makes punishable by death.

Doesn't this in and of itself mean that the Bible condones capital punishment?

For the answer we must understand that for the Israelites at this time there were three types of law: Moral Law, Ceremonial Law, and Civil Law.

In a nutshell, Moral Law is immutable and is the same for all people at all times and in all situations.  The Ten Commandments is the best example of Moral Law.

Ceremonial Laws are religious law and have to do with the relationship of the Israelites to God HImself.  The sacrificial system is a good example of Ceremonial Law.  Ceremonial Laws in the Old Testament all point to the coming of the Messiah in the New Testament.  This is the law Jesus was referring to when he said he came to "fulfill the law" (Matthew 5:17).

The last kind of law is Civil Law.  These are not unlike our civil laws today and can change based on time and circumstances.  For instance, civil law changed when the Israelites changed from being governed by the judges to having a king.  Civil law which was put in place in the Old Testament was never established to be Moral Law and be the same for all peoples at all times and in any situation.

In addition to the types of laws discussed above, there is also a significant difference between a "command" and a "commandment".  A commandment is a command that is given which should be obeyed by every person at all times and in all situations - for instance, the Ten Commandments.

A command, then, is a specific command given to a specific person or group of people at a given time and for a specific reason.  This is analogous to the difference in me telling my 14 year old "don't hit your brother" (a commandment) vs "mow the lawn" (a command).  It is common for people to mix up the two and to use one as the other whenever it suits their purposes.

What About Commands to Kill (or not to kill) in the Old Testament

First of all, we must address the fifth commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13).  The word interpreted as "kill" in the King James Version is interpreted as "murder" in most others.  This is an important distinction and there is little doubt that the latter is the correct interpretation considering the situations in upcoming days and years where God commanded the Israelites to kill.

The interpretation of "You shall not murder" leaves open the possibility of killing for other reasons (e.g. self defense).

Whether or not you agree that God should or should not have given the command for the Israelites to kill various peoples in the Old Testament (a subject for a different post), it cannot be denied that each of these instances were "commands" and not "commandments" and they were certainly not laws of any kind. This precludes the possibility that any of these commands can be used as justification for any kind of killing in the modern day.

There is no commandment or Moral Law (the only kind of law from the Old Testament which is still applicable today) which provides for murdering anyone.  Additionally, Old Testament revelation ended with the prophet Malachai (400 BC) and the New Testament ended with the various epistles (50 - 70 AD).  According to the prophet Daniel, there can be no new revelations whereby any new commandments could be given (Daniel 9:24)¹.

What does "murder" mean?

Numbers 35:9-29 gives a pretty good definition of murder.  Remember that this is civil law and not moral law and is given to the Israelites only.  The penalties described in this passage were not given to all people at all times which is clear from the text itself.

The bit we are interested in which describes what should be considered murder is:

"15 These six cities shall be for refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills any person without intent may flee there.
16 “But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 17 And if he struck him down with a stone tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 18 Or if he struck him down with a wooden tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 And if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled something at him, lying in wait, so that he died, 21 or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
22 “But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait 23 or used a stone that could cause death, and without seeing him dropped it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, 24 then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these rules."

Clearly, the difference in a murder and a "manslayer" is intent.  If you read the entire passage you will find that merely not intending to kill someone does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions, they just cannot be killed for it by the "avenger of blood" as long as they reside in the sanctuary city until the current high priest dies.

From this passage we see that the definition of murder given by God here is very much similar to our modern sense of the word.  Interestingly, manslaughter, also is defined similarly to the modern definition of the word.

What about killing in self defense?

Exodus 22 describes a person's right to self defense:

2 If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no guilt for bloodshed on his account. 3 If the sun has risen on him, there will be guilt for bloodshed on his account... (NASB)

Verse 3 is a bit ambiguous, but the way I would paraphrase this (in keeping with the sanctity of life espoused elsewhere in the Bible) "If someone breaks into your house you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, but if you wait until later, seek him out and kill him, then you are guilty of murder".

I interpret it this way assuming (as is specifically stated in other translations) that the thief has broken into the house at night and surprised the homeowner, vs someone broke in and stole something and the homeowner found out about it later and sought the perpetrator out and killed him.

The former is self-defense and the latter is not.

In the New Testament (Luke 22:36), we see Jesus commanding his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (if they don't already own one).  This is in the Garden of Gethsemane just before Jesus is betrayed and arrested.

Importantly, these weapons were only for self defense.  In verses 49-51 of that same chapter we find Peter cutting off the ear of the slave of the high priest (an offensive gesture since the slave was unarmed) and Jesus rebuking him and then healing the ear.

We also find that Jesus teaches his disciples to "turn the other cheek" when being wronged by someone else (Matthew 5:38-40).  Note the difference in that here, he is talking about non-lethal offenses vs the situation in the garden later.

Clearly, both the Old and New Testaments grant a person the right to kill in self defense, but only when faced with a lethal threat, but not when in a non-lethal situation.  Life is precious and should only be taken as a last resort.

It is left to the reader to apply these principles to modern day events (Rittenhouse and Arbery) to determine which killing (if any) was Biblically justified due to self-defense.

I might also add here, that being legal does not make an act moral and vice versa.  Whether or not the current US law allows it, the Biblical record is pretty clear on which acts are morally acceptable.

What then about capital punishment?

An argument can be made that capital punishment is the justifiable killing of a person who cannot be rehabilitated.  It could be considered self-defense as the government is taking someone who cannot be rehabilitated and preventing them from ever taking another life.

As much as this kind of punishment is considered "justice" by a large number of American citizens, in fact, it seems clear that this is much more about "revenge" than justice.  Simply removing the perpetrator from active society (incarceration) removes the threat.  Capital punishment in this case seems to fit well into the category outlined in Exodus 22:3 "if the sun has risen on him, there will be guilt for bloodshed on his account".

In fairness, Exodus 22:3 is talking about theft and not murder, but I think the principle still applies for the following reason.

In Romans 12:17-19, Paul, referring to Deuteronomy 32:35 ("vengeance is mine, and retribution"), instructs Christians to "never take your own revenge... but leave room for the wrath of God" (NASB).

For the Christian, in a situation other than protecting one's self, family, or others from immediate lethal harm (self defense), the question when considering capital punishment must be: "Who is beyond redemption"?

The movie "Unforgiven" outlines the moral conundrum for Christians particularly well:

The Schofield Kid: It don't seem real. How he ain't gonna never breathe again, ever. How he's dead. And the other one, too. All on account of pulling a trigger.
William Munny: It's a h*** of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
William Munny: We all have it coming, Kid.

Regardless of whether the mechanism of taking a life is a gun, a lethal injection, or an electric chair, the end result is the same.  Regardless of whether the perpetrator is a serial killer, a thief, or a government, the end result is the same.

By taking a person's life you have taken from him everything he has and everything he will ever have, and, more importantly any possibility of him hearing about and coming to accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Moses and Paul were both murderers and God forgave them and used them both in mighty ways.  There are other modern day examples of very similar conversions (See Nicky Cruz from the book The Cross and the Switchblade).

A bit less dramatic, but for equally as unlikely instances of the power of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, one need look no further than Kanye West, Alice Cooper, and possibly even Marilyn Manson.  These people were high profile anti-Christians whom many in Christian circles would have considered beyond redemption.

Based on the previously referenced verses in Deuteronomy and Romans, how can we as humans arrogate to ourselves the right to decide that a person is beyond redemption?  This is a right which is very clearly reserved by God for himself and none other.

The fact is, that given the right circumstances, there is no depravity that any of us is not capable of and none of us deserves God's saving grace.  More importantly, though, none of us is beyond God's saving grace.

According to the Bible (Old Testament and New) we humans have no right under God (other than self defense as defined above) to deprive another human of the chance to hear and respond to the gospel message of the saving grace of Jesus Christ regardless of what atrocities they may have committed.

Removing them from society by incarcerating them for the rest of their life?  Yes. Taking their life, and depriving them of the chance for salvation?  Absolutely not.  There is simply no room in the teachings of Jesus Christ for capital punishment.

In Part 2 we will discuss how this applies to the case of abortion.

---

1. 24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

   This verse is speaking about the results of the coming (and subsequent death) of the Messiah.  Later, it goes on to specify exactly when the Messiah would be "cut off" (martyred)..See How Do We Know Jesus is the Messiah? for more information.
   
   Of specific interest to this discussion is "to seal up vision and prophecy".  That means that the death of Christ (around 33 AD) ends the giving of any new prophetic gifts leaving only those who were alive at the time of His death to finish writing down the prophecies they had been given.

   Anyone who says they have a "new revelation from Christ" is a false prophet.