Tuesday, January 16, 2007 AD
This morning's gospel reading (from the St James's Daily Devotional Guide) was a familiar one, but my mind got snagged on the last sentence in a new way:
As so often with the sermon on the mount, it all seems so reasonable until you actually concentrate on what Jesus is saying, at which point you are tempted to say, "Whoa! Steady on there, a minute!". I mean, it's one thing to say, "Don't go around making extravagant oaths; just stick to a simple 'yes' or 'no', and stand by your word". That's the sort of thing that Great Moral Teachers™ say all the time. Makes perfect sense. But to go on and say that those additional oaths that people use every day are satanic? Wow. That's a bit strong, don't you think?
So I was trying to think through why Jesus might have used such strong language to describe these oaths. It occurred to me that one clue to this can be found in another incident in the gospels, in Luke 12:13,14:
Now, of course God is concerned about the minutiae of existence, with not a sparrow falling to the ground without his noticing it. The gospel itself is about God's self-giving, self-emptying love in entering into our world rather than standing aloof from it. But there is all the difference in the world between receiving as a gift God's loving, self-giving concern for every aspect of our lives, and snatching it for ourselves like a spoiled child who (in WH Vanstone's words) "[takes] as a right that which should be received as a gift".
Jesus' exposure of the true motive behind our oaths - the desire to put God at our disposal and in our power, to lay hold of his concern for us as a right rather than receiving it as a gift - helps us to see why it "comes from the evil one".
‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.I'm so familiar with the first half of that last sentence - "Let your word by 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No'" - that I've tended to let my eyes glide effortlessly over the second half: "anything more than this comes from the evil one".
- Matthew 5:33-37
As so often with the sermon on the mount, it all seems so reasonable until you actually concentrate on what Jesus is saying, at which point you are tempted to say, "Whoa! Steady on there, a minute!". I mean, it's one thing to say, "Don't go around making extravagant oaths; just stick to a simple 'yes' or 'no', and stand by your word". That's the sort of thing that Great Moral Teachers™ say all the time. Makes perfect sense. But to go on and say that those additional oaths that people use every day are satanic? Wow. That's a bit strong, don't you think?
So I was trying to think through why Jesus might have used such strong language to describe these oaths. It occurred to me that one clue to this can be found in another incident in the gospels, in Luke 12:13,14:
Someone in the crowd said to him, ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.’ But he said to him, ‘Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?’When we swear by God's name - and all oaths, as such, are sworn by God's name, whether expressly or by implication, as Jesus makes clear in verses 34 and 35 - we are asking God to be "judge or arbitrator" in our own private affairs; to take sides in our own interests. By implication, we are bringing God down to our level, even putting him at our disposal, turning him into a means for attaining our own ends.
Now, of course God is concerned about the minutiae of existence, with not a sparrow falling to the ground without his noticing it. The gospel itself is about God's self-giving, self-emptying love in entering into our world rather than standing aloof from it. But there is all the difference in the world between receiving as a gift God's loving, self-giving concern for every aspect of our lives, and snatching it for ourselves like a spoiled child who (in WH Vanstone's words) "[takes] as a right that which should be received as a gift".
Jesus' exposure of the true motive behind our oaths - the desire to put God at our disposal and in our power, to lay hold of his concern for us as a right rather than receiving it as a gift - helps us to see why it "comes from the evil one".
Labels: biblical ethics, biblical interpretation, sermon on the mount
This was previously part of the post which appears above this, but I've separated it out to avoid derailing the main point of that post on a discussion about oaths in court.
What I said at the end of the preceding post was as follows:
What I said at the end of the preceding post was as follows:
This also helps us to see why, despite Jesus' words in this passage, the church has historically accepted the use of formal oaths in legal situations. An oath sworn in court emphasises that the human justice of the court derives from the justice of God himself; it is a means by which the witness sets aside their own selfish interests in favour of the interests of truth and justice, rather than a means by which the witness invokes God as a servant of the witness's own interests. (Of course, even an oath sworn in court could be sworn with such motives, in which case Jesus' stern words would continue to apply to it.)Thomas then left a comment suggesting that this explanation
...smack[s] of the same long-winded explanations we Christians always give when we find good reasons to do what we want in spite of the clear command of Jesusand suggesting that:
If one must take an oath to testify in court or fulfill some otherwise lawful and moral duty (and not everything demanded of us by the authorities will fall under that heading), then let's at least have the guts to 'sin boldly' and not wring out lengthy self-justifying examinations of our decidedly mixed motives.I think Thomas has a point about the skill and expertise Christians have long demonstrated in side-stepping Jesus' more awkward commands. Whether that applies in this case, given the other examples of oaths being used without complaint in other NT situations, is a different matter. Further discussion is welcome in the comments.
Labels: biblical ethics, sinning boldly
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 AD
A couple of times in the past days, I've come across bloggers blithely asserting that capital punishment is straightforwardly commended/commanded by Scripture. I'm grateful to them for doing so, as it has forced me finally to go back and examine more closely my own opposition to the death penalty, and how that opposition can be squared with what the Bible teaches.
Now, I'm aware this is a bit of a dead-horse topic - and I'm also acutely aware of how divisive an issue this is, and how strong the emotions can be on both sides of the argument - so rather than present The Complete Biblical Argument For/Against The Death Penalty, this post consists of a few short meditations based on my reflections on this issue over the past day or so.
Desert and authority
First, there is no doubt that the Bible teaches that murder deserves the death penalty (see, for example, Genesis 6:5,6). Saddam deserved to die. Timothy McVeigh deserved to die.
Also, the Bible acknowledges the power and authority of the state to impose the death penalty ("the authority does not bear the sword in vain", Romans 13:4).
So is that an end to the matter? Many would say that it is: the murderer deserves to die, the state is entitled to execute him/her, and that's that.
Now we move on to the "but"s...
Scriptural exceptions
There are two striking instances of God himself commuting the death penalty. First, the account of Cain and Abel, where Cain acknowledges that he is subject to being killed as a consequence of his fratricide ("anyone who meets me may kill me!"), but God replies:
Neither of these texts constitutes a formal abrogation of the death penalty. It is, however, highly telling that we are presented with two instances where God himself is directly confronted with the question of giving offenders what they deserve, and in each case he declines to do so.
Who deserves the death penalty?
Let's return to John 8:7. According to the OT law, the woman deserved to die. Jesus doesn't deny this; he simply invites his questioners to be, as it were, careful where they point that thing. Recall that Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, equates adultery and a "mere" lustful glance; who among us can therefore claim to be without sin in the matter of adultery?
But in the same sermon, Jesus also equates murder and "mere" anger. So in the same way, who among us can claim to be "without sin" in the matter of murder? So when calling for the death penalty for murderers - well, just be careful where you point that thing.
So murder may deserve the death penalty, but who deserves to carry it out?
The authority of the state
Well, the obvious answer to that last question is, "the state". After all, as Paul tells us in Romans 13:
But what does seem clear is that the purpose of this passage is not to expressly approve the death penalty. Paul is calling on Christians, not to uncritically accept the ruling authorities, but to acknowledge their due status as instruments used by God for restraining evil. In that context, Paul's passing reference to "the sword" is as an instrument and symbol of that status, and does not merely refer to the death penalty - unless we are to say that Paul is arguing only that Christians should obey laws that carry the ultimate penalty, and that we needn't obey laws where "the sword" is not literally involved as the means of punishment.
Acknowledging that the state is used by God to restrain evil is, of course, a long way from accepting all the claims the state makes for itself. This reading of Romans 13 does seem easier to reconcile with the decidedly ambivalent attitude towards the civil authorities found elsewhere in the NT, not least in the teachings of our Lord himself (as I have posted before at some length).
To put it another way, Paul is telling us that the Roman state's use of the death penalty is an instrument of God to restrain evil. But - given what we are told about Rome in the rest of the NT - do we really want the modern state to model itself on the Roman authorities, or to be used by God solely in the same way as Rome? Should we be happy to think that our modern rulers are nothing more and nothing less than modern-day Caesars? Shouldn't we demand something a little better from them?
The inevitable slavery comparison
Invoking the issue of slavery is the Godwin's Law of biblical ethics. But I do think the comparison is worth making here.
Both capital punishment and slavery (and, for that matter, the divine right of kings) can be seen as being supported by texts in the OT and NT. But, over time, the church's reflections on slavery led to an appreciation of a deeper undercurrent of teaching, based both on specific texts and on a general growing awareness of the dignity of the person.
The same, I believe, can be said of capital punishment, and following much the same arguments. (Indeed, it is difficult to see how most biblically-based arguments in favour of capital punishment - "the plain teaching of plain texts", that sort of thing - could not apply equally well to the issue of slavery. Once again, be careful where you point that thing.)
To return to Romans 13, Paul's call for Christians to respect the civil authority as an instrument of God's restraint of evil cannot be read as a requirement for Christians to support the death penalty in all times and all places, any more than his practical admonitions to slaves not to seek the immediate overthrow of the Roman economic order (while, crucially, condemning slave traders) are to be seen by us as a continuing endorsement of slavery.
Capital crimes and the Mosaic law
When the OT is invoked to support capital punishment, it should be noted that no-one (I hope!) who invokes the OT in this way is arguing that the full range of capital crimes in the OT - adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, sabbath-breaking, disobedience to parents, etc - should still carry the death penalty today.
Now, I'm aware that even in the OT, murder is singled out for special treatment as compared with these other offences for which the death penalty has now been abrogated. But it's a reminder that applying OT examples and laws to the post-resurrection world is not as straightforward as it is sometimes presented.
And anyway, examples drawn from the Mosaic law and the OT kingdom of Israel fall down because of the unique position of Israel in God's economy of salvation. As someone has argued, "Christians would have to engage in a national idolatry to suppose that all the acts allowed in ancient Israel are permissible in Connecticut".
The Mosaic law is exceptionally rigorous in the standards and penalties it imposes, but as noted above this is due to Israel's unique position under the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic law is saying, in effect, "Look at what God's requirement for justice looks like when tranposed into a system of civil justice" - as such, it should drive us trembling to God for mercy, not inspire us as a pattern for ordering our own societies.
Conclusion (or not, as the case may be)
I'm aware this has been a slightly disjointed and rambling post. I've made a conscious decision to "think aloud" on this issue, and some of the points I've made have been provocatively stated in order to generate responses that I hope will help clarify my own thinking.
In a sentence, what this all comes down to is the following: "The state can kill criminals in principle; but I do not think it should do so in practice, and I think that position can be supported from the Bible."
Now, I'm aware this is a bit of a dead-horse topic - and I'm also acutely aware of how divisive an issue this is, and how strong the emotions can be on both sides of the argument - so rather than present The Complete Biblical Argument For/Against The Death Penalty, this post consists of a few short meditations based on my reflections on this issue over the past day or so.
Desert and authority
First, there is no doubt that the Bible teaches that murder deserves the death penalty (see, for example, Genesis 6:5,6). Saddam deserved to die. Timothy McVeigh deserved to die.
Also, the Bible acknowledges the power and authority of the state to impose the death penalty ("the authority does not bear the sword in vain", Romans 13:4).
So is that an end to the matter? Many would say that it is: the murderer deserves to die, the state is entitled to execute him/her, and that's that.
Now we move on to the "but"s...
Scriptural exceptions
There are two striking instances of God himself commuting the death penalty. First, the account of Cain and Abel, where Cain acknowledges that he is subject to being killed as a consequence of his fratricide ("anyone who meets me may kill me!"), but God replies:
"Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance." And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.Then we have the account of the woman taken in adultery, where Jesus is asked to affirm the Old Testament's imposition of the death penalty for adultery. I scarcely need to quote the reply that is eventually drawn from him:
‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’But Jesus' parting words to her ("Go your way, and from now on do not sin again") demonstrate that he is not simply letting her off, any more than God was simply letting Cain get away with murder.
Neither of these texts constitutes a formal abrogation of the death penalty. It is, however, highly telling that we are presented with two instances where God himself is directly confronted with the question of giving offenders what they deserve, and in each case he declines to do so.
Who deserves the death penalty?
Let's return to John 8:7. According to the OT law, the woman deserved to die. Jesus doesn't deny this; he simply invites his questioners to be, as it were, careful where they point that thing. Recall that Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, equates adultery and a "mere" lustful glance; who among us can therefore claim to be without sin in the matter of adultery?
But in the same sermon, Jesus also equates murder and "mere" anger. So in the same way, who among us can claim to be "without sin" in the matter of murder? So when calling for the death penalty for murderers - well, just be careful where you point that thing.
So murder may deserve the death penalty, but who deserves to carry it out?
The authority of the state
Well, the obvious answer to that last question is, "the state". After all, as Paul tells us in Romans 13:
...the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.However, anyone who argues that Romans 13:1-6 teaches anything "straightforwardly" is I think on very shaky ground. This is a notoriously difficult passage, with its apparent call - on a superficial reading - to submit meekly and without argument even to the most abhorrent and tyrannical regimes.
But what does seem clear is that the purpose of this passage is not to expressly approve the death penalty. Paul is calling on Christians, not to uncritically accept the ruling authorities, but to acknowledge their due status as instruments used by God for restraining evil. In that context, Paul's passing reference to "the sword" is as an instrument and symbol of that status, and does not merely refer to the death penalty - unless we are to say that Paul is arguing only that Christians should obey laws that carry the ultimate penalty, and that we needn't obey laws where "the sword" is not literally involved as the means of punishment.
Acknowledging that the state is used by God to restrain evil is, of course, a long way from accepting all the claims the state makes for itself. This reading of Romans 13 does seem easier to reconcile with the decidedly ambivalent attitude towards the civil authorities found elsewhere in the NT, not least in the teachings of our Lord himself (as I have posted before at some length).
To put it another way, Paul is telling us that the Roman state's use of the death penalty is an instrument of God to restrain evil. But - given what we are told about Rome in the rest of the NT - do we really want the modern state to model itself on the Roman authorities, or to be used by God solely in the same way as Rome? Should we be happy to think that our modern rulers are nothing more and nothing less than modern-day Caesars? Shouldn't we demand something a little better from them?
The inevitable slavery comparison
Invoking the issue of slavery is the Godwin's Law of biblical ethics. But I do think the comparison is worth making here.
Both capital punishment and slavery (and, for that matter, the divine right of kings) can be seen as being supported by texts in the OT and NT. But, over time, the church's reflections on slavery led to an appreciation of a deeper undercurrent of teaching, based both on specific texts and on a general growing awareness of the dignity of the person.
The same, I believe, can be said of capital punishment, and following much the same arguments. (Indeed, it is difficult to see how most biblically-based arguments in favour of capital punishment - "the plain teaching of plain texts", that sort of thing - could not apply equally well to the issue of slavery. Once again, be careful where you point that thing.)
To return to Romans 13, Paul's call for Christians to respect the civil authority as an instrument of God's restraint of evil cannot be read as a requirement for Christians to support the death penalty in all times and all places, any more than his practical admonitions to slaves not to seek the immediate overthrow of the Roman economic order (while, crucially, condemning slave traders) are to be seen by us as a continuing endorsement of slavery.
Capital crimes and the Mosaic law
When the OT is invoked to support capital punishment, it should be noted that no-one (I hope!) who invokes the OT in this way is arguing that the full range of capital crimes in the OT - adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, sabbath-breaking, disobedience to parents, etc - should still carry the death penalty today.
Now, I'm aware that even in the OT, murder is singled out for special treatment as compared with these other offences for which the death penalty has now been abrogated. But it's a reminder that applying OT examples and laws to the post-resurrection world is not as straightforward as it is sometimes presented.
And anyway, examples drawn from the Mosaic law and the OT kingdom of Israel fall down because of the unique position of Israel in God's economy of salvation. As someone has argued, "Christians would have to engage in a national idolatry to suppose that all the acts allowed in ancient Israel are permissible in Connecticut".
The Mosaic law is exceptionally rigorous in the standards and penalties it imposes, but as noted above this is due to Israel's unique position under the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic law is saying, in effect, "Look at what God's requirement for justice looks like when tranposed into a system of civil justice" - as such, it should drive us trembling to God for mercy, not inspire us as a pattern for ordering our own societies.
Conclusion (or not, as the case may be)
I'm aware this has been a slightly disjointed and rambling post. I've made a conscious decision to "think aloud" on this issue, and some of the points I've made have been provocatively stated in order to generate responses that I hope will help clarify my own thinking.
In a sentence, what this all comes down to is the following: "The state can kill criminals in principle; but I do not think it should do so in practice, and I think that position can be supported from the Bible."
Labels: biblical ethics, capital punishment, jesus is lord so caesar isn't, thinking aloud
