Menu

Devotional and Bible

Biblical Anthropology: The Authorities

0

Here’s what happened. This topic was not originally in the Biblical Anthropology series (although it should have been). But around the same time, we were doing this series at our church in Mexico, we also found ourselves in Romans 13.

And so as I’ve been sharing this series, I’ve been including this series. I’ve already written an index for it, because I posted it last year. But I’m going to share the index again here in case you’re following along in order.

That’s just an explanation of why this doesn’t look like all the other topics. It is a little different than I would have done it as part of the Biblical Anthropology series because it is more focused on Romans 13. But it does cover other relevant passages as well. And it will be helpful as we continue the series. So here it is, part 6 – The Authorities.

sword
  1. Introduction to Romans 13 – The specific terminology that both Peter and Paul use is worth a look…
  2. Why should we “be subject”? – Wrestling especially with the Bible’s teaching about the ultimate origin of government.
  3. Government in a sinful world – Why do we need government in a sinful world? How does it actually function in the Old and New Testaments?
  4. God using the government – More reasons why we should “be subject” – and, did Paul really understand how bad governments can get?
  5. Paul, Peter, Jesus, and Taxes – Some parallel passages and a closer look at our proper attitude toward various authorities.
  6. Cursing vs. Interceding – As believers, we have an important responsibility when it comes to our authorities.
  7. The responsibility of government – What does the Bible teach about the responsibilities and limits of government?
  8. Spheres of authority – More about limits and responsibilities: When “men of valour” said NO to the government.
  9. Disobeying government – Do these teachings from God’s Word give us any guidance?
  10. “Love your neighbour”: Why the world gets it wrong – One way in which Romans 13 is misinterpreted when it comes to love.
  11. When governments go astray – When an authority defies its purpose from Romans 13, how should we respond? Thoughts from church history.
  12. Final Applications – 7 suggested applications for the Christian from Romans 13 and related texts of Scripture.

Suffering and Death in the Bible

0

It has been very useful to me to look at the way the Bible talks about homicide, and to think through some of the modern arguments for euthanasia and abortion and related matters. But so much of this topic is painful to even talk about. It relates to real people dealing with what may be the most difficult issues they will face in their families.

crying

And so it was actually the last part of this study, the part that we’ll talk about today, that may have impacted my thinking the most. It’s just a brief look at what the Bible has to say about death and suffering, and how our modern world so often misses the boat completely when it comes to these topics.

Because, after all, there has been an elephant in the room in this discussion. What if someone is suffering? I mean, really suffering. Does that give anyone the right to kill that they would not otherwise have? Whether we’re talking about abortion, or euthanasia, or suicide?

Let’s start by talking about death. As Christians, we believe that to die is to go and be with Christ – we do in fact go on to a better life. (If we’re true believers, that is. God forbid that we risk passing through death when we’re not sure!)

But even though, as Paul says, “to die is gain” for a believer, that does not mean that death in itself is a “good”.

The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:26

What is death? The enemy.

What profit is there in my death,
if I go down to the pit?
Will the dust praise you?
Will it tell of your faithfulness?

Psalm 30:9

We have a special purpose in this life. Even an older person who is bedridden can, in most cases, praise God and pray for their family. And that is a beautiful and powerful ministry.

Throughout the Bible, death is judgement. Death is a terrible thing. Yes, as believers we know that the Good Shepherd will guide us through the Valley of the Shadow of Death. God is always with us, even as we die. We’re not afraid of death, because we know that our Lord Jesus is waiting on the other side to receive us. But we don’t desire death itself. Personally, I would like to be here when Jesus returns, if that is His will.

Death is an enemy.

But what about suffering? There’s no doubt that suffering can be a terrible thing to go through. Some of us have experienced more suffering than others. And we don’t want to see anyone else suffering.

We know that our Lord has great compassion for those who suffer.

When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.”

Matthew 8:5-7

Jesus didn’t hesitate to go and help someone who was suffering. Neither should we.

But the apostles and prophets are actually examples to us of suffering, and their example may surprise us. Paul says in Colossians 1:24 – “…I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake…” In fact, we are commanded to share in suffering. “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” 2 Timothy 2:3.

And we know that suffering actually has a purpose.

…we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Romans 5:3-5

Listen carefully to what Paul says here:

For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison…

2 Corinthians 4:17

Do we really understand that?

Paul is explaining that the suffering that we encounter in this life is light, compared with the reward. He’s not saying that suffering will be easy and no big deal. But in comparison … yes! Every affliction has a purpose. The world says it’s all by chance. Even some Christians claim that some suffering is beyond God’s control. But no, the Bible teaches that God has purpose even in our suffering.

We don’t seek suffering and death. But suffering is actually something that God uses in our lives. May God give us the grace to accept suffering, if it makes us more like the Lord Jesus. And remember, for a Christian, all suffering is temporary. Sickness is temporary. Old age is temporary.

How might this transform the way in which we live?

We can trust God to choose the time of our death. For ourselves, for an unborn baby, for an old man, for a disabled person, for someone with a mental illness.

And in fact, we help one another to avoid death where possible. We want everyone to have every chance to accept Christ as their Saviour. We want everyone to have the privilege to praise Him in this life, to know Him in this life. Even if all we can do is pray to Him from our sick bed. And that is a powerful service.

And what if someone has advanced dementia? Do you believe that God can still use that person? Do you believe that God may have something to teach us as we care for that person?

And is it possible that the heart of that person can still respond to God? If an unborn baby can respond to God, maybe that person can as well.

We accept suffering as a gift from God. We don’t avoid it at all cost. We recognize that it always has a purpose, and that, for believers, it is always temporary.

However. And this is very important. We should never be hasty to allow suffering in our life or the life of someone else when God has provided a way to avoid it. And obviously here I’m talking about ethical means that would be in line with God’s Word. And I’m not suggesting we accelerate the natural process of death, as we already discussed. What I am saying is that we should seek to alleviate suffering in this world when we are able to do so.

Why am I even mentioning something that seems so obvious? Because some people, even in God’s Name, have permitted or even encouraged suffering because they see that suffering has a good purpose in the Bible. Yes, suffering is good when God permits it in the life of the believer. But we see the compassion of our Lord as our example. We should do all we can to minimize suffering when God provides a way.

What do we say to the young girl who finds herself to be pregnant – who is terrified and thinks that her life is over? We don’t encourage her to murder her baby. We love them both. We serve and help them both.

When someone is sick, we don’t simply tell them that they deserve it, or that God wants them to suffer. We provide medicine. We pray for them. We bring them food.

As the body of Christ, when one member suffers, we all suffer. We bear one another’s burdens. And in the end, we look to Christ to carry our burdens.

As Christians, we don’t minimize the reality of suffering and death. But we do know that there is hope in suffering and death. We admit that we often have not valued the life of another as we should have. But we look to the Lord to give us strength to truly serve one another.

May God truly transform the way that we see the people around us, even when they are young, old, sick, or disabled. May we have an attitude of love and service toward them.

Additional Resources

(Since I originally developed these materials in Spanish, note that the above resources are also available in Spanish.)

The Borders of Life: Types of Euthanasia

, 0

As we saw last time, the world struggles to speculate about when human life has value, and when it’s “ethically permissible” to end it. Who decides, and how do they decide, when a human life is worthy of life?

As Christians, we believe in the amazing value that God Himself places on human life. But for much of the world, we’re simply animals. Perhaps a bunch of molecules which came together by chance. And so, maybe our value is based on how valuable we seem to be to the community around us. Or maybe it depends on our mental ability. Or our current level of happiness. Or, our value is simply determined by those around us, or the government.

And these questions don’t just apply to the unborn or recently born. We have to ask about the other “border of life”. Someone who is very old. Or someone with a serious illness. Someone who is suffering. And so on.

And once again, the world comes up with elegant words to describe ending such lives.

Euthanasia usually refers to ending someone’s life with their permission. But lately, the word has been expanding to include just about anything.

We have active euthanasia, when someone uses specific means to end a life, or we could say to bring life to an end quicker. For example, you can kill someone using a drug.

Passive euthanasia is when you take away something that someone needs to live, and kill them in that way. For example, you stop feeding someone.

Voluntary euthanasia is the person was in agreement, and not coerced. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the person cannot express their wishes either way. Perhaps they’re unconscious. Abortion is a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, because the baby is unable to say if it would like to live or not.

Finally, there’s involuntary euthanasia, when the person has not expressed a wish to die, or has specifically expressed that they do not wish to die.

And we should mention the related word “suicide”, which is self-murder. To kill yourself is to take the life of someone made in the image of God. It’s murder.

Obviously killing someone without their permission is also murder. Involuntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is also murder. You’re not permitted to kill someone just because they can’t tell you otherwise.

Active euthanasia would also fall under the category of murder.

So that brings us to passive euthanasia. Normally, if you take away something that someone needs to live, that would be murder. If you asphyxiate someone, you’re taking away the air that they need to breathe. That would be murder.

So normally, in most cases, what we call euthanasia simply refers to murder. But in the modern world, we can have some very complicated situations. And there’s no way to cover every possible situation, but let’s look at a few principles. That is, let’s at least look at some of the questions that we need to think about ahead of time.

A classic example is when someone is unconscious, and it seems likely that they will never regain consciousness. And there are basically machines in the hospital that are keeping them alive.

We have to admit here that there are many stories of people like this who actually, surprisingly, have regained consciousness, and have gone on to live normal lives. (Not that living a “normal life” is how you measure a person’s value. Careful!)

But that being said, we know that these days there are situations where you could keep a person’s body functioning almost indefinitely, even though they may not be conscious or even really “alive”. That is, you might keep their organs functioning, even though they have no ability left to think or feel. Is their soul still in their body? These are difficult questions.

But this being the case, I think that there may be situations where you may eliminate the artificial means of keeping that body functioning if the person has given prior permission, or if the family makes the decision when the patient can’t.

This would be passive voluntary euthanasia, or passive non-voluntary euthanasia, which may be an appropriate ending of life and not murder. Remember, you’re removing an artificial aid to life, not simply starving the patient (for example).

Here’s another important possible situation. What if you give someone some medicine to make the last part of life more comfortable? And that medication also accelerates death? Well, here are some questions to think about. What is the actual purpose of the drug? What are the risks that it may accelerate death? What are the chances that the person may recuperate? Basically, I don’t believe we should be intentionally hastening someone’s death in that kind of a situation.

Now, what if there is a common and relatively safe medication that could extend life? Is it biblical to reject it? Because remember, even medicine is a gift from God, a means that He may use to heal. These are things we need to think about.

These issues are becoming even more complex as governments begin to feel they have a voice in end-of-life issues. For example, if we rely on governments to take care of our health, they need to pay for it and administrate it. And it’s undeniable that ending life early can save huge amounts of tax dollars. We all want to believe that the people in government have our best interests at heart, but what one politician believes is not the same as how the overall system works. And that system simply isn’t going to care about you personally the way a loving family member would.

Today, more and more people are being pressured to sign documents that express their desires for end-of-life treatment. Now, it’s certainly not a bad thing to make your family aware of what kinds of treatment you may want and so on. But we need to think carefully about what the Bible says about these issues, and who we’re giving the control to, especially when money is involved.

First, we need to have a clear understanding of what murder is, biblically. Second, we need to recognize that every situation is different. So different, in fact, that it’s quite possible that we (or our families) won’t really know what we want until the actual moment arrives.

It’s nice to have a clear list of categories of what we want to happen in what situation, but chances are good that our situation won’t actually fit in one of those neat categories.

The Bible emphasizes the responsibility of the family to take care of the family. And so I would encourage anyone, if someone in your family makes one of these documents, to leave as many options open to the family as possible, so that the people closest to you can decide in the moment, when they have all the facts. You may need to simply name the person who will make the final decision. But if at all possible, that person should be a family member (or in unusual cases, a friend), and not a doctor or government or insurance company.

We’ve raised a lot of questions this time, without giving a lot of answers. I think there are some important biblical principles that we haven’t talked about yet. And those principles circle around suffering and death. So next time we’ll get more into Scripture and continue to think about these very real, often painful, and usually difficult questions.

Is the Church Right to Value Young Life?

0

We’re taking our time with this topic, The Borders of Life, continuing the series on Biblical Anthropology, because frankly there’s a whole lot to meditate on. And after all, it is a major topic that our world is focused on.

Every once in a while the debate comes back about how “incremental” our approach should be when it comes to law. Should we change a law that only stops some abortions? Or should we only aim to stop all of them together? Are we being consistent? Is it all right to be inconsistent politically or legally on our way to an ultimate goal?

I’m not taking the time to answer these questions because I’m focusing on laying foundations in this series. But you can certainly see how tricky things can get when you take a simply example – a law that outlaws the killing of a baby as soon as a heartbeat can be detected. In theory, this may stop a lot of murder. But of course there’s a lack of consistency. Does a detectable heartbeat make one a person? Someone of value? What about someone with an artificial heart, who technically has no heartbeat at all? Can they be legally killed?

When it comes to law, it is strange but true that one Scripture passage is brought up by two very different sides in order to support their point of view. And it’s not an easy passage. But I want to give you an introduction to it, because you will hear it come up in debate. Let’s take a look:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Exodus 21:22-25

Now, at first glance, it would appear (in English, anyway) that if the woman has a miscarriage – that is, the baby dies – the guilty party simply pays a fine. If, however, the woman dies, the guilty party is executed.

However, there are some problems with this interpretation.

There is some challenging translating going on here, but the above is a fairly literal translation of the first part – “her children come out”. Some versions obscure this, but the law does indeed consider the unborn to be “children”. It (or they) is/are a human life.

You’ll also note that it doesn’t specify if the baby lives or dies. So if we read this more or less literally, this seems to be the idea. If the baby is born prematurely, but the mother and the baby are fine, the guilty party pays a fine. But if the child and/or mother dies, he is executed.

But there’s something else. There’s a very difficult phrase here – translated above “he shall pay as the judges determine”. There’s actually a lot of disagreement about what this phrase in Hebrew even means, but it seems that somehow the guilty party pays for his guilt. In the Law of Moses, this could be a fine, but it could also be the death penalty. When we look at other uses of this phrase in Scripture, it is always talking about something extremely serious.

Trust me, that is only an introduction – there are a number of interesting issues here, but that would be a series of posts in itself! But the idea seems to be that the Bible clearly identifies the unborn as a child, and that the punishment would be the same for mother or child – life for life.

Of course, the Bible is very clear about the value of human life, including at the borders of life. So we should not take a less clear text and try to overturn the clearer ones, even if we could somehow argue that this text supports abortion (which it does not!).

In spite of modern attempts to make the Bible support the killing of the unborn, the Church throughout history has been remarkably consistent here. One of the earliest texts from church history is the Didache. It’s so early that some people believe it may have been written before the New Testament was completed. It’s not inspired Scripture, but it does give us a picture of what some of the earliest Christians believed.

And it says it well –

…you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

The Didache

In both cases, it’s a child. Do not murder.

Back in those days, people found that infanticide was quite convenient if you don’t want the baby. They knew very well that it was the same life in the womb as it was outside, and so why not be allowed to end the life either way? And so many people would “expose” their babies – leave them outside to die (or be picked up by someone looking to build up their slave resources).

And I should mention that today, some respected scholars think that this is a reason why we should allow infanticide again.

The first Christians rescued and raised many many of these abandoned babies. There are many stories of this in early Christian writings. Until finally, government outlawed exposing babies. That’s actual progress.

But today, some want to bring the practice back. An article from 2011 featured in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, explored this. Scholars from Australia and Italy wrote: “…we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.” They suggest we emphasize the morality of this by changing language from “infanticide” to “after-birth abortion”. How can they defend this? Because, they claim, the baby is really only “a potential person”.

I wonder who decides who is only a “potential” person? Hitler decided that Jews were not people at all. And millions were murdered.

Let’s admit it, many of us would agree in one way – a few centimetres or a few days does not change the value of a person. These scholars do indeed conclude, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus”. But of course they don’t believe that either was made in God’s image. And so, according to many, we can decide – or the “experts” can decide – who is a person and who is not.

If we don’t believe in the imago dei, we look for value in other places. Maybe if someone is severely handicapped, they have no value. Maybe if they can no longer contribute to the community, they’re no longer a “person”. Or perhaps we let the government decide. Brothers, NO!

And so this brings us to the other border of life. We’ll look at that next time.

Killing at the Beginning of Life

0

Last time we were looking at the Bible and also modern law, talking about various terms for murder, and various different categories.

Interestingly enough, our culture has piled on all kinds of terms and terminology around killing, especially at the “borders of life”. For example, killing a baby before it’s born is “abortion”. Killing a baby after it’s born is “infanticide”, or more commonly now “postpartum abortion”.

And instead of “baby” we use various words depending on the stage of development, “fetus” being the most well-known (of course, “baby” refers to development as well).

We know more about the development of human life in the womb now than ever before in history. For example, we know that from day 1, the new little life has its own DNA. It is not its mother – it is a different, growing, alive, human being.

From the start, this new human is an independent life. Not, of course, in the sense of not needing its mother. We all depend on others, to a certain point (see Genesis 1 and 2: Keywords #2 and #3). A two year old depends on its parents (which does not give them the right to kill it!). But it’s independent in the sense that it’s its own living human life, apart from its mother.

At only 8 weeks old, we can see the hands and feet of the baby. The baby can already suck its thumb! The main component of its eyes has already formed. “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made!” (Psalm 139:14a)

People in past ages didn’t know as much about baby development as we do, but they did know that there was a new life in the womb. And yet, in some places in the world, people seem to have the irrational and seemingly archaic idea that if you can’t see it, it’s not really a person! (Just cover your eyes and look in a mirror and see if it works.) I’m not sure how else you can explain why some seem so willing to kill a baby in the womb, but not a newborn (although, of course, there are many advocating for the right to kill the newborn as well).

Sadly, in the first days and weeks, some mothers voluntarily take a “morning after” or “plan B” pill, which murders this precious new person. And we have to say that some so-called contraceptives actually do murder the baby. And some go to clinics where the baby is murdered. Maybe we should use the word as it should be used.

And speaking of terminology, what do we call people who commit murder? I’m not talking about anyone in particular at this point, just clarifying terminology. But it’s hard to say – even to type – when you’re talking about certain categories….

There are some arguments that are used in favour of killing the unborn baby which disappear when we start using biblical categories.

What about in the case of rape? Well, why should the child be murdered for the sake of a parent?

The mother was too young. So you’ll murder the child because of the mother’s age?

The baby is part of my body, and “my body my choice”.

We already know that this is another life, so saying it’s part of the mother’s body isn’t exactly honest in the first place. But it begs the question again, what magic changes the baby into a person worthy of life when it’s born? Does it depend on its location? You can murder someone who is here, but not there?

There’s a reason why many people have pointed out that it’s important to know what it being “terminated” in an abortion. Terminology is important.

This is not to ignore the challenges and pain and complications and emotions in all the many different situations that mothers find themselves in. It’s not to ignore the complications of law and society. I understand the differences of opinion about how we should try to legislate or not in various situations. But let’s not ignore the seriousness of taking a life either. God takes it very seriously. And we must start with His Word, not with out current legal situation.

Those are just a few quick thoughts, but next time we’ll take a look at a much-discussed Bible passage, and then go on to see how the Church and the world look at this topic.

The Bible on Murder

0

Continuing our discussion on the borders of life, let’s take a closer look at what the Bible says about murder.

We’ve repeated it several times now – every human has incredible value in God’s eyes. God made this clear even in his covenant with Noah:

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

Genesis 9:6

Yes, the image of God (imago dei) is important when it comes to our discussion of murder – God Himself says so. (Read Part 3: The Image for more details on the image of God.)

Coming to the Ten Commandments, we have the well-known words – well, especially in old English – “Thou shalt not kill.”

That word for “kill” is an interesting word. I’m told that there are actually seven different Hebrew words for “kill”. The idea here is not that we should never kill anything, like a caterpillar or a cow. We also know from the rest of the law given to Moses that God does order certain legal executions. And so the idea here is what we would call murder – taking a human life that you should not take. And there are very few exceptions to this in the law.

danger fence

So we might say in English, “You shall not murder”. But things get more complicated from there. For example, there’s intentional murder and unintentional murder. It gets confusing to get into all the legal terms, but an example of unintentional murder might be “involuntary manslaughter”.

You can kill simply by doing something reckless, or by being negligent. In fact, you can kill by doing nothing. So that could be involuntary manslaughter through negligence. Maybe you want to save money, so you stop feeding your kid. (Don’t do that.) Or, I dig a hole in my front yard, and someone falls in and breaks their neck. (Maybe put up a fence next time.) Negligence.

Again, this is not an article about legal definitions – I’m aware that a lot more nuance would be required. But we just need to be aware of some of the general categories.

You can kill someone entirely by mistake. Involuntary homicide.

And we could go on, but those are some basic concepts. And these general concepts are in the Bible. And it all starts with Genesis 1, and the purpose of the Creator. After all, if we’re all just bags of chemicals, what does it matter if those chemicals get rearranged?

Let’s look at a few passages today and see what kind of homicide might be involved.

But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you.

Deuteronomy 19:11-13

Easy – this is premeditated, first degree murder.

This is the provision for the manslayer, who by fleeing there may save his life. If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past— as when someone goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he may flee to one of these cities and live,

Deuteronomy19:4-5

Here we have unintentional homicide. It could be because of negligence (if you knew that the axe head was loose), but looking at the details here it’s probably just talking about something totally unintentional.

When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.

Deuteronomy 22:8

In a culture where people are often on the roof, if you don’t make it safe it’s definitely negligence. Like not putting a fence around that hole, or around your swimming pool.

It’s usefully to summarize intentional, illegal (against God’s law) killing of a human being as murder. But there is guilt involved in other types of killing, right? If someone drives dangerously, and someone dies as a result of an accident, the driver is guilty.

There’s a lot to talk about here! But now that we have some of the basic categories down, we’ll start by talking about the first border of life – the beginning.

«‹ 9 10 11 12›»
Back To Top
All content at CottrillCompass.com is © J. Cottrill 2002-2024. If you quote any material, please be courteous and provide a link.