Does God Allow Murder?
To purchase the entire Summit Lecture Series, Vol. 2 on DVD, visit summit.org.
What we have, for example, we see deception in cases, even in scripture, in cases of criminal activity, for example, the Rahab herself deceives those who are trying to take the lives of the spies in Joshua chapter two. We see the Pharaoh in Exodus chapter one, wanting to take the lives of the newborn Hebrew boys. And we also see in and get this, God is actually involved in deception. When Saul has been basically rejected by God and now Samuel is told to anoint a new king. Samuel tells the Lord in first, Samuel 16, if Saul hears about this, he’s going to kill me. Well, what does God tell him to do? He says, well, if anyone asks you, tell them that you’re going to Bethlehem to offer a sacrifice. That was not the real reason he was going, but he was giving him this backup in case anyone asked him.
In fact, we do this all the time when it comes to criminal activity. How many of your parents leave the lights on when you go out at night? Isn’t that deceptive if you’re not there? Well, yeah, I mean, it’s assuming criminal activity is possible. And so therefore it would be morally justifiable to engage in that deception. We also see deception warfare. God himself sets an ambush for the Israelites. So, again, I’m giving you an example here of yes, generally speaking, you should not deceive. You ought to tell the truth, but when say something like the Nazis, when they violate certain fundamental rights to the truth, by trying to take innocent human life, you are not morally obligated to tell them the truth. Deception would be morally permissible. So, we have, yes, there are absolute rules that should not be violated.
For example, there could be no justification for hating God, for refusing to love God. No, that is commanded and that is absolute and unwavering. Then you have those prima facie duties, like do not deceive. And I would add another one, do not take innocent human life. That’s another one that is not an absolute rule, but it is generally speaking true and we ought to abide by it unless there are cases of supreme emergency and that’s brings us to our third category. So you’ve got the absolute, you’ve got the prima facie, the general duties that are binding upon us all, but there may be overriding considerations in certain circumstances. So talked about the Nazis. We talked about warfare, but let me also say this. When it comes to taking innocent human life, let’s just say that innocent human life was taken in [inaudible 00:02:57] considerations in certain circumstances.
So we talked about the Nazis. We talked about warfare, but let me also say this. When it comes to taking innocent human life, let’s just say that innocent human life was taken in the warfare with the Canaanites. Let’s just say that that happened. Again, we don’t have indications from the text that took place, but I’ll get to that in a bit. But even if innocent life was taken, if there is overriding reason to permit that, then we have moral permissibility. Let me give you an example. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, that is the fertilized egg is trapped in the fallopian tube and does not implant in the uterus, then the woman and the unborn will die. So in order to protect at least the woman having unfortunately, taking this unborn life is going to be necessary in order to preserve at least one life, rather than losing both of them. Do you see?
Or another example, let’s say that there is a terrorist attack comparable to September 11th, and we see that these planes have been used to destroy large numbers of people, maybe in a sports stadium and then there is a final plane that is not yet honed in on its target. Would the president be justified in calling for that plane to be shot out of the sky even if it would mean the taking of innocent men, women and children on board? Yes, it would be morally permissible. In fact, this is not something I’m making up. I mean, this is discussed in all sorts of ethical systems and schools where they do allow for these exceptions in cases of supreme emergency. So this is widely discussed and certainly is not abnormal.
And so the question then comes for us to ask, what if there is a good God who is all wise, who knows the ins and outs of everything, if this God issues a command, temporary command, unique command, unrepeatable command to say, kill the Canaanites. Does this mean that all morality is thrown into disarray? No, God has a good reason for that in a case of supreme emergency and the corruption of the Canaanites bringing deliverance to the entire world through the coming to the Messiah through Israel, we see that there are scenarios here that ought to be considered. So we have overriding reasons. So rather than saying how could a good God issue a command to kill Canaanites? Of course, we question that these Canaanites were innocent, at least the adults, but we need to reverse it and say, if God commands the killing of the Canaanites, he must have a very good reason for doing so. So in a sense, we turn it on its head rather than saying, oh, this can’t be. No, we’ve seen God showing himself to be faithful, showing himself to be wise and gracious and so forth.
And so given this kind of an experience, we see that God has morally justifiable reasons, even if we don’t know them, or just even a portion of them. God would be morally justified in this, given who he is being the greatest conceivable being. So God can give difficult commands, but we need to remember that God will not give impossible commands. Like God commanding us to commit idolatry or God commanding us to hate him or something like that. So there are, yeah, there may be difficult commands, but we need to distinguish difficult commands from impossible commands that God simply could not do. We also need to understand what is going on in the ancient near east, when God makes a covenant with Israel, he is telling the Israelites that he is binding himself to them, and they’re binding themselves to him in this treaty that was common in the ancient near east. God is initiating.
He’s saying, I will protect you. I will be your God. You’ll be my people, but you must obey me. And this is common. These sorts of treaties were common between maybe a conquering ruler. What are called the Suzerains. And then the vassals, those who are subject to him, he makes an agreement with them. So it’s kind of like, Hey, if you give me a dollar a day I’ll like a bully at school, I’ll protect you. But there’s this sort of agreement that God enters into with people. And this is very much central to the identity of the people of Israel. That for them to bind themselves to God means spiritual protection. It means protection from compromise, from moral degradation and so forth. It means that they are amply paving the way for the coming of this Messiah. And so you have this sort of a demand upon the people.
Follow Christian Podcast Central on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to see our ongoing discussion with Dr. Jeff Myers regarding worldviews.
(This podcast is by Summit Ministries. Discovered by Christian Podcast Central and our community — copyright is owned by the publisher, not Christian Podcast Central.)
