Justifiable Homicide?
Covenantal View of Justice
By Jay Rogers
Ever since the shooting deaths of two abortionists,
many pro-
lifers are asking questions about the use of violence.
A
recent CBS-TV program, Eye-to-Eye, featured convicted
murderer Paul Hill being interviewed by network anchorwoman
Connie Chung. Throughout the interview, Paul Hill calmly
and
smugly defended his stance of "justifiable homicide"
in the
case of killing those who murder unborn children.
A sad commentary on the coverage of the Paul Hill trial
is
that none of the pro-life leaders interviewed by the
national media have been able to put forth a consistently
biblical stance against the use of violence in pro-life
activism. An appeal to human reasoning and "common
sense" is
often utilized, but I have not yet heard or read a
biblically-based condemnation of the actions of Paul
Hill
and those who call the killing of abortionists "justifiable
homicide."
Instead of skirting the central issue at hand in an
attempt
to distance themselves from murderers, pro-life leaders
should raise legitimate questions: "Should Christians
take a
stand against violence in all circumstances?" -
"Is it ever
right to use deadly force in defense of life in the
way some
pro-life people have done?"
From the outset, we should maintain that it is not within
the jurisdiction of the Church to execute this type
of
justice even against violent offenders who violate the
laws
of God. Pro-life groups should never advocate this type
of
violence as Church-related organizations.
Some pro-life activists have recently become interested
in
covenantal theology and especially the area of theonomic
ethics. This area of study will be valuable in helping
to
rid our nation of abortion. However, some have misapplied
their knowledge in order to advocate what they call
"justifiable homicide" in the shooting deaths
of
abortionists.
Covenantal Theology
Covenantal theology and theonomy deal, in part, with
applying biblical law to reform our nation's laws. A
general
principle of covenantal theology is that laws of the
Old
Testament, except where specifically changed or fulfilled
by
Jesus Christ or one of the Apostles in the New Testament,
are still binding today - not only in the Church - but
in
governing all society.
Some examples of laws that have been changed or fulfilled
are dietary laws, ceremonial laws and sacrificial laws.
Covenantal theology is distinguished from the more popular
(yet flawed) dispensational theology which views the
Old
Covenant Law as non-binding under the New Covenant.
Confusion among some novice covenantal theologians in
the
pro-life movement is occurring because, in the Old
Testament, they see God's people executing violence
against
God's enemies. What they fail to understand here is
that in
some instances there is a discontinuity between the
Old and
New Covenants. The use of violence is an area in which
there
has been a "covenantal shift" or an area in
which the law of
God has taken a different tack under the New Covenant.
Jesus speaks in the Sermon on the Mount about not executing
vengeance: "You have heard that it was said: 'An
eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do
not
resist him who is evil" (Matthew 5:38,39). Here
Jesus is
changing the law regarding individuals taking vengeance.
The
Apostle Paul plainly says: "The weapons of our
warfare are
not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:4). Here Paul negates
the
responsibility of the Church or individuals wielding
the
sword in executing judgment. We may not do that today.
But that does not mean that the civil magistrate may
not
execute vengeance. The court systems can execute vengeance
according to Romans 13:4. But the Church itself does
not
have the authority to execute vengeance on murderers
or to
act as a court of law in determining guilt. The Church
may
not, in fact, use violence to enforce the decrees of
God.
This is an example of a covenantal shift between the
Old and
New Covenants. In the New Covenant, the job of judging
and
executing vengeance on perpetrators of violence belongs
to
the state or the "civil sphere" of authority.
However, there are instances when individual responsibility
to defend life becomes a separate issue. Under the Old
Covenant, individuals could take vengeance if they or
family
members were harmed. Under the New Covenant, there are
still
instances when an individual may use violence in defending
life. If someone breaks into a family's home and is
attempting to either molest or kill the wife or children,
it
is biblically justified that the head of the household
should try to prevent that from happening and, if necessary,
to kill the person attempting to do so (Exodus 22:2,3).
In this example, everything changes because we are talking
about the "family sphere" of authority. If
someone is being
attacked inside the home and the only way to prevent
a
family member from dying or suffering serious injury
is to
kill the assailant, the defender is biblically justified
in
doing so.
According to Exodus 22:2,3, the defender is even biblically
justified on the basis of property rights. If a thief
is
breaking into a house at night and the defender kills
him,
then there is no blood-guiltiness on the part of the
defender. On the other hand, after the sun has risen
there
is blood-guiltiness. In other words, a family member
cannot
turn himself into vigilante and go hunting down and
shooting
the guilty party.
The question some pro-lifers are asking is this: If
abortion
is the wanton taking of human life and we would defend
life
violently inside the home, then why would we not defend
life
violently in front of an abortion clinic? If we really
believe that the fetus is indeed a child and it is being
destroyed, then is it contrary to the law of God to
use
violence to protect it? These are valid questions and
covenantal theology must give the answers.
There is a fundamental difference between the case of
defending life within the household and an individual
taking
it upon himself to become jury, judge and executor in
the
case of a murder that is about to be committed or one
that
has already been committed through abortion. Under the
New
Covenant this authority belongs to the civil sphere
of
government only.
In Matthew 26:52, Peter strikes the ear of Malchus with
the
sword and Jesus rebukes him by saying, "He who
lives by the
sword shall die by the sword." Jesus Christ was
going to the
Cross and He was suffering the greatest act of violence
in
the world. He was fulfilling the specific will of God.
He
was indicating that the kingdom of God and the plan
of God
is not advanced by violence. We don't use the violent
crusades of the Middle Ages to advance the kingdom of
God.
The kingdom is advanced by the declaration of the Word
of
God.
But violence used in self-defense is a different matter.
In
Luke's Gospel, in the same passage where Peter strikes
the
high priest's servant, Jesus tells his disciples that
if
they had no sword they ought to sell their garment and
buy
one (Luke 22:36). Apparently, he was telling them that
they
were about to go out among their enemies and were to
take
some means of self defense. We can't advance the kingdom
by
guns and knives, but if someone attacks us, it's perfectly
legitimate for us to defend ourselves. This is exactly
what
the Old Testament law teaches.
The covenantal view of authority includes individual,
family, church and state. A covenantal interpretation
of
scripture gives us absolutely no circumstance in which
an
individual may be biblically justified in killing an
abortionist in order to protect life. The strategy of
the
Church is to exhaust all other methods to stop abortion.
There are always other means to stop an abortion from
taking
place besides taking a life. The main tactic is to use
the
weapons of spiritual warfare, such as prayer and preaching,
to change the hearts and minds of those practicing child
murder. The taking of a life is never a legitimate tactic.
Subduing the murderer non-violently or persuading a
mother
not to enter an abortion clinic are legitimate tactics
that
may be used by Christians in spiritual warfare.
Pro-life groups, church-related organizations, and
individuals who advocate violence against abortionists
as a
legitimate tactic for stopping child murder are lawless
covenant-breakers. Those who advocate shooting abortionists
as "justifiable homicide" are promoting murder
in our
society. Those individuals who shoot and kill abortionists
are murderers. If found guilty, they should be executed
for
capital crimes according to the Law of God.
Covenantal Shift
This view is based on the fact that there has been a
covenantal shift in how God's justice is executed ever
since
Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again. In the
Old
Covenant, God's people warred according to the flesh,
but in
the New Covenant, we must war according to the Spirit.
Covenantal theology provides a model for our response
to
abortion. The Old Testament provides examples of what
we
must accomplish in the New Covenant. For example, natural
Israel followed a man named Joshua into the promised
land.
The Church, or spiritual Israel, follows a man named
Joshua,
or Yeshua (Jesus), into the land of promise. Everything
that
the Israelites experienced in possessing the land of
Canaan
has a direct New Covenant application.
Israel was commanded to destroy the detestable idolatry
of
child sacrifice in the land of Canaan. In our day, the
idolatry of child sacrifice is being accomplished through
abortion. The Church is also commanded to drive this
idolatry from the land. How do we accomplish this in
light
of the New Covenant? Should we, like the ancient Israel,
begin to attack the individuals responsible for the
idolatry? Again, these are questions that demand answers.
They should not be lightly dismissed.
In Old Testament times, the Holy Spirit had not yet
been
given in the way that we experience Him today. Man had
neither the anointing nor the authority to confront
the
demonic powers directly. There are, in fact, no examples
of
exorcism of demon spirits in the Old Testament. In order
to
defeat the forces of wickedness, there was no other
solution
except to destroy the people through whom those forces
acted.
But with the coming of Jesus, the whole scenario changed.
For the first time we see a man directly confronting
the
spiritual forces of darkness. In Luke 11:20, Jesus even
defines this as one of the primary signs that the kingdom
of
God has come into this world: "But if I cast out
demons by
the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come
upon
you." God's people can now direct their efforts
to the real
problem. Instead of destroying their human adversaries,
they
can love them and work for their salvation.
After Joshua led Israel into the promised land, they
began
to obey God's commandment to destroy all idolatry. Often
their obedience resulted in the destruction of entire
cities. In the same way, God wants us to be just as
ruthless
as Joshua and his armies in destroying the forces of
idolatry in the world. Only now, we are to direct our
attention to the real enemy - the spiritual forces of
wickedness in heavenly places. Jesus Christ commanded
His
disciples to go into all the world wrenching it from
the
control of Satan and his forces:
^ "All power and authority has been given to me
in heaven and
earth" (Matthew 28:18).
^ "And these signs will accompany those who have
believed: in
My name they will cast out demons" (Mark 16:17).
^ "For I say unto you, Among those that are born
of women
there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist:
But he
that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than
he"
(Luke 7:28). Here, Jesus is saying that even the least
Christian has more spiritual authority than an Old Testament
prophet.
^ "He who believes in Me, the works that I do shall
he do
also; and greater works than these shall he do, because
I go
to the Father" (John 14:12).
We cannot use violence toward human beings in accomplishing
our goal. But God still expects His Church to manifest
the
same authority and power as did Jesus Christ during
His life
on earth.
The "Sanctity of Life" View
Today there is a wide difference in what some pro-life
activists are saying about the abortion issue and the
biblical authority of the law of God. On either side,
there
are two extremes. On one side, there are a few who would
advocate violence. On the other side, there are some
who are
so extreme in their sanctity of life view that they
would
deny that capital punishment by the state is a proper
biblical punishment for the murderer.
We have already discussed the misuse of the covenantal
law
of God in advocating violence. Now let's look at another
error: the "sanctity of life" view based on
the natural law
theory introduced by the great Roman Catholic scholar
Thomas
Aquinas and developed by rationalist philosophers such
as
John Locke.
First, we need to define a term: natural law. This is
the
idea that there is inherent in all men the sense of
good and
evil. We all know deep down that murder is wrong; theft
is
wrong; adultery is wrong. Natural law is derived not
from
the Bible, but from principles of reason. Natural law
is
further distinguished from natural revelation, which
Paul
describes in Romans 1:18-21. Natural revelation testifies
of
the nature of God, His power and the nature of His creative
acts. Man recognizes the existence of the power of God
and
His creative acts even without knowledge of the Bible.
The problem comes when people take the idea of natural
revelation and try to build a system of natural law
or a
natural theology out of it. Although natural law theory
has
some strengths, it pales in comparison to a system of
covenantal theology based on biblical law. The covenantal
view is to affirm clearly the idea of natural revelation
and
natural law. We should never deny that. In fact, that
is one
of the bases on which the lost will be condemned when
they
stand before God one day (Rom. 1:18-21). But it is precisely
for that reason why we can't found a natural theology
or a
workable natural law theory - because unregenerate men
in
their depravity suppress the truth and hold it down
in
unrighteousness.
Some pro-lifers use the vague, amorphous idea of natural
law
in constructing an argument against abortion. In doing
so,
they fail to realize that most people will never agree
with
natural law no matter how much they know it. Our society
is
never going to assent to these truths. If we affirm
the
natural law view, we hold the idea that all people
instinctively know that abortion is wrong. But will
unconverted abortionists ever affirm that? Of course
not!
Obviously, natural law teaches us that abortion is wrong.
But this knowledge will not alleviate the evil of abortion.
In most cases, knowing that abortion is murder will
only
sear the consciences of the unconverted. Such is the
depravity of man. We would do well to remember that
natural
man is not "basically good," but he is intrinsically
evil.
Natural revelation alone is not sufficient. That is
why the
written Word of God was given. For example, natural
revelation doesn't teach us anything about salvation.
We
know about salvation only from the written Word of God.
In
the same way, the basis for civil government must be
the
written Word of God. Had man never sinned, the written
law
of God would never have been necessary. But because
man
sinned, then biblical revelation, as opposed to natural
revelation, becomes necessary.
Therefore, the sanctity of life view is inferior to
the
covenantal view of Scripture. Sanctity of life ideology
has
been derived from the idea of the "natural law"
- that
people can see through natural revelation that human
life is
precious and therefore we ought to oppose abortion.
For many
years, Roman Catholics have held this view. When
evangelicals finally got involved in the pro-life movement
in the late 1970s (largely due to the influence of Francis
Schaeffer), they began to see the terrible tragedy of
abortion. The evangelicals quickly adopted the pro-life
rhetoric of the existing Roman Catholic movement.
But "sanctity of life" is not the grounds
on which we ought
to oppose abortion. The reason why we ought to oppose
abortion is not because human life is precious (although
human life is precious in the eyes of God). The reason
why
we ought to oppose abortion is because taking an innocent
human life violates the moral law of God. When we don't
recognize that, we fall into the trap of being against
capital punishment and serving in the armed forces,
because
we think we need to have a consistent pro-life view.
The
problem comes when we don't stand for the moral law
of God.
The sanctity of life view is not really a principled,
long
term strategy for dealing with the problem of abortion.
The "pro-law" view is more principled. The
pro-law view
comes from the covenantal applicability of the law of
God.
In the long run, this way of thinking is much more powerful.
Our approach to the abortion issue should come from
the law
of God rather than from the vague, abstract idea of
inalienable human rights and the sanctity of life.
This position does not negate the sanctity of life and
inalienable human rights in any way. At the time of
the Roe
v. Wade decision, "sanctity of life" was the
only prevalent
view and it sustained the pro-life movement. But a long
term, sustained approach is not going to come to the
movement unless a pro-law view is adopted. This won't
require pro-lifers to sacrifice anything. We can do
just
what we are doing now and even more. But if one holds
only
to the sanctity of life view - that life is sacred -
then
not only can he become idolatrous, but he can also fall
into
the trap of thinking that capital punishment is wrong,
when
it is nonetheless mandated under certain circumstances
by
the law of God.
The confusion among pro-lifers at this juncture in time
is a
result of an instinctive emotional response. We know
that
abortion is wrong, but we don't know what to do about
it.
The Bible gives us a blueprint. The blueprint is the
written
Word of God, not natural law.
Natural law theory - when applied to society - leaves
the
door open for human autonomy. Man stands up and decides
that
he is the one to decide what is right and wrong rather
than
looking at what the Word of God says. As a result of
the
"natural law" and "sanctity of life"
worldviews within the
pro-life movement, we have those who advocate "justifiable
homicide" and those who are against capital punishment.
The
biblical "pro-law" view indicts what some
call "justifiable
homicide" and mandates the execution of murderers
under
proper biblical and civil authority.
Pro-life activists must not engage in violence. Those
who do
kill abortion doctors should be tried as murderers and
executed if found guilty.
The pro-life movement must look to the horizon and try
to
envision broader reformation. We have to ask ourselves
the
question: What is our vision for America twenty, thirty,
forty years from now? What will it look like? What type
of
society do we want our grandchildren to inherit?
This should be our vision: Not just the eradication
of
abortion, but a complete reformation of our culture
according to biblical principles. A revival of the Law-Word
of God will affect not just the Church, but it will
transform our political system and restore our nation
as a
beacon of righteousness in the world.
[I am indebted to the writings and teachings of Andrew
Sandlin, editor of Chalcedon Report, in the preparation
of
this article. I am also indebted to Eric Holmberg, founder
and president of Reel to Real Ministries, in the preparation
of the section entitled "Covenantal Shift."]
Jay Rogers is director of Media House International.
For the
past six years, he has served as an editor and editorial
consultant to Christian publications emphasizing reformation
worldview, such as: The Forerunner, Predvestnik (the
Russian
language Forerunner), The Mandate, The Puritan Storm
and The
Champion.
Back to document index
| NEW DVD! The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED Who is the dreaded beast of Revelation? Now at last, a plausible candidate for this personification of evil incarnate has been identified (or re-identified). Ken Gentry's insightful analysis of scripture and history is likely to revolutionize your understanding of the book of Revelation -- and even more importantly -- amplify and energize your entire Christian worldview! Historical footage and other graphics are used to illustrate the lecture Dr. Gentry presented at the 1999 Ligonier Conference in Orlando, Florida. It is followed by a one-hour question and answer session addressing the key concerns and objections typically raised in response to his position. This presentation also features an introduction that touches on not only the confusion and controversy surrounding this issue -- but just why it may well be one of the most significant issues facing the Church today. Ideal for group meetings, personal Bible study -- for anyone who wants to understand the historical context of John's famous letter "... to the seven churches which are in Asia." (Revelation 1:4) |
(Available in DVD only) $17.95 ORDER NOW! |
NOW ON DVD! Sixteen Christian leaders and scholars answer some of the most common questions and misperceptions related to this volatile issue: Download the free |
Perfect for group instruction as well as personal
Bible study. Speakers include: George Grant, Howard Phillips,
R.C. Sproul Jr., Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, Jay Grimstead, R.J. Rushdoony,
Steven Schlissel, Andrew Sandlin, Eric Holmberg, and more!
Ten parts, over four hours of instruction! Watch over 60 streaming videos from God's Law and Society at:
Price just reduced! |
|
The Forerunner Forum is the discussion group for this web site. The purpose of the group is to engage in discussion about the articles on-line. If you want to discuss any article or video on this web site, visit The Forerunner Forum. |
| VIDEOS | WORDS | BLOG | DISCUSSION | WHAT'S NEW | ABOUT US | FEEDBACK | SEARCH | DONATE | JAY'S BIO | HOME |
For more information, contact:
| The Forerunner jrogers@forerunner.com |
|
P.O. Box 362173 Melbourne, FL 32936-2173 |
