|
|
|
| The Laws of Murder Issue #144
January 2001 The
next laws that we find in Exodus 21 are laws regarding murder and accidental
homicide. Exodus 21:12 says,
12
He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely
be put to death. This
law did not begin with Moses, but with Noah in Genesis 9:5, 6. Other than
God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
at the beginning, this was really the first law that God made man responsible
to enforce. I
have observed in the newspapers many cases of murder. I do not recall
at any time seeing any relatives of the murder victim who did not believe
in the death penalty. It is one thing to talk about whether or not the
courts should enforce the death penalty, and quite another when you become
the victim. God's
law is primarily about justice. God's law upholds the victim's rights
and sees to it that the victims are awarded justice according to the crime
committed. On the other hand, God's law is not devoid of mercy, though
the path to obtaining mercy must certainly be in a lawfully-prescribed
manner. Joab Murders Abner Even
the manner and timing of executing the sentence of the law has much to
do with the mercy factor. For example, when King David's general, Joab,
murdered Abner (2 Sam. 3:27), David did not execute Joab. Instead, we
read in 2 Sam. 3:28, 29,
28 And afterward when David heard it, he said, I and
my kingdom are innocent before the LORD forever of the blood of Abner
the son of Ner.
29 May it fall on the head of Joab and on all his father's
house; and may there not fail from the house of Joab one who has a discharge,
or who is a leper, or who takes hold of a distaff, or who falls by the
sword, or who lacks bread. David
passed sentence upon Joab, but he was not executed until after the death
of David. On his deathbed David told his son Solomon in 1 Kings 2:5, 6,
5
Now you also know what Joab the son of Zeruiah did
to me, what he did to the two commanders of the armies of Israel, to Abner
the son of Ner, and to Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed; he also
shed the blood of war in peace. And he put the blood of war on his belt
about his waist, and on his sandals on his feet. 6
So act according
to your wisdom, and do not let his gray hair go down to Sheol in peace. Some
have been critical of David, saying he must have gotten senile in his
old age. But Solomon's purpose in executing Joab is explained in 1 Kings
2:31,
31
And the king said to him, "Do as he has spoken and fall
upon him and bury him, that you may remove from me and from my father's
house the blood which Joab shed without cause. In
other words, the house of David would remain under the curse of Joab's
murder indefinitely, if David did not carry out the death penalty sentence
of the law. It would never do for Jesus Christ, a descendant of David,
to be born under such a curse. Even
so, this did foreshadow Jesus being born under the law (i.e., under the
curse of the law) for the murder that was committed by Adam himself. Not
only did Adam kill himself by eating of the forbidden tree, but he also
killed all of his descendants, all of whom were born mortal. This
brings to light a deeper problem, which is also very relevant to our present
discussion of murder and the death penalty law. Adam was told that if
he ate of the forbidden tree, he would die that day (Gen. 2:17). We know,
however, that he did not die that day, but 930 years later (Gen. 5:5). Adam's
death was deferred to a later time. His Word was still fulfilled, in that
Adam immediately became mortal. More than that, with God a day can be
a thousand years (Psalm 90:4). It is up to God to decide how to apply
the law, and when the judges on earth enforce God's law, it is their responsibility
as well to determine the mind of God and apply the law accordingly. Why Was Joab's Judgment
Deferred? There
are mitigating circumstances in everything, and these are the things that
can change the application of the law in various cases. The New Testament
calls it being led by the Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can fine tune the
way in which we apply God's law. In Joab's case, the mitigating circumstances
were that technically speaking, there was still a state of war between
the house of David and the house of Saul (i.e., his son, Ishbosheth).
Joab no doubt felt that he was innocent, because in war, one is allowed
to kill the enemy without being brought up on murder charges. Secondly,
Joab's brother, Asahel, had been killed by Abner in the battle of Gibeon.
The Bible makes it clear that Abner was very reluctant to kill Asahel
in the battle, but that Asahel gave him no choice (2 Sam. 2:22). Joab
was avenging his brother by committing murder under the guise of war-time
laws. It was not the right thing to do, but technically, going only by
the strict letter of the law, he was legally not guilty. However, he was
indeed guilty of going against the king's heart and mind in this matter. So
David made it clear that Joab bore full responsibility in this murder.
Yet David did not execute Joab that day, but deferred his judgment to
a later time. In doing this, David did not put away the divine law, but
applied it by the leading of the Holy Spirit. The
same principle holds true today with prisoners who are guilty of premeditated
murder. Our courts have no love for God's law, and only a minority of
judges pray for divine guidance. You and I are unable to change this by
ourselves. But we do get letters from prisoners who have received sentences
for premeditated murder. They ask if they have committed an unpardonable
sin. Is there no word of comfort for them? Yes,
there is. Because the judges usually have little or no use for God's justice,
but have established their own, God has seen fit in recent years to allow
them only a limited ability to impose the death penalty. Usually, only
a particularly heinous murder draws the death penalty. This has served
to extend murderers mercy and time to repent and learn of His ways. Jesus'
death on the cross gave mercy to a murderer and robber named Barabbas
(Mark 15:7). Barabbas and Adam Bar-Abbas
means "son of the Father." Luke 3:38 says that Adam was the
son of God, the Father. Barabbas is an allegorical representative of Adam.
Jesus' death on the cross freed Adam and his children from the death sentence
of the law. The
fact is that Adam could not possibly know the full consequences of his
disobedience, for he had never yet experienced sin and death. In one sense,
this is the same principle by which children and adults are treated differently
when crimes are committed. Adam was yet a child, experientially speaking.
So God showed him mercy by imposing upon him a slow death called "mortality."
That way, he would be able to produce children that would allow the plan
of God in history to continue. How God Judged David for
His Murder David's
sin with Bathsheba is quite well known among those who have studied the
Bible. Adultery itself was punishable by death, but worse yet, David committed
murder by having her husband killed in battle. David's
prayer of repentance is recorded in Psalm 51. The way that God judged
David was quite unlike that which was prescribed in the law. David and
Bathsheba's son paid the price for this sin (2 Sam. 12:15-18). In
this case God allowed David to pass sentence upon himself, rather than
to simply impose the death penalty upon him. This gives us another way
in which God's mind works in the application of His lawful judgments.
God sent Nathan the prophet to him with a story about a poor man whose
one lamb was taken by a rich man and butchered in order to feed his guest.
What was to be done about this?
5
Then David's anger burned greatly against the man,
and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, surely the man who has
done this deserves to die. 6 "And
he must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did
this thing and had no compassion." Nathan
then said, "Thou art the man!"
David repented, but nonetheless, four of his sons ultimately died, because
David had pronounced that sentence upon himself. He made restitution for
the "lamb" fourfold. Those sons were (1) the unnamed baby mentioned
earlier, (2) Amnon in 2 Samuel 13:29, (3) Absalom in 2 Samuel 18:14, and
(4) Adonijah in 1 Kings 2:24, 25. One
can only speculate what might have happened if David had been less hypocritical
in his "righteous indignation." Even so, the principle of law
has been laid down that God often will allow men to judge themselves.
This principle is related to the law in Matt. 7:2, which tells us that
as we judge, so shall we also be judged by the same standard of measure. This
is another method by which God brings mercy to the sinners. David had
opportunity to obtain mercy, but it was lost in his judgmental attitude.
He should have prayed about this judgment first, but he assumed the answer
was obvious. Answers are not always obvious, nor are murder cases always
what they seem on the surface. Those who attempt to implement the divine
law need the infilling of the Holy Spirit and to pray for divine wisdom
in order to judge as God would judge. To
be a true biblical judge, one must not only know the law, but also to
have the mind of God in its application. Must All Murderers Be
Executed? The
law appears on its surface to demand the death penalty for all who are
guilty of first-degree murder. Yet we have already seen how this sentence
may be imposed in more merciful ways. Usually, this is to give them time
to repent, for God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that
all should repent. The
next question before us is whether it is an absolute requirement under
God that murderers be executed--at least at some point in time. The law
of God, as we said earlier, is about justice. It is about giving restitution
and satisfaction to the victims of injustice, in order to recompense them
fully for their losses. In
the case of theft, the judge must impose the law of restitution upon the
thief, forcing him--by slavery, if necessary--to repay his victims at
least double. The judge has no right to forgive the thief. Only the victim
has the right to forgive. Thus,
if the judge sentences a thief to repay his victim $10,000 for stealing
$5,000, justice has been awarded to the victim. At that point the victim
has the option of demanding the full payment or forgiving some or all
of it. There is no law demanding that the victim receive the full $10,000
from the thief. It is simply treated as a debt owed to the victim. The
victim can release the debtor or not, and the law will uphold that right
to the letter. But
what about the case of murder? Numbers 35 says,
24 then the congregation shall judge between the slayer
and the blood avenger according to these ordinances. . . . It
seems plain that all murderers must die at some point for their sin. Of
course, as we have already shown, this does not necessarily mean that
they must die immediately. Secondly,
take note that the law above is spoken to the "congregation"
that is called to judge between the murderer and the blood avenger (gaal,
the "kinsman-redeemer" of the victim, not someone who wants
revenge). The
"congregation" is obviously not the whole nation or the whole
Church, but their representatives at the trial. Today we call them the
jury, and in biblical days they served much like a committee of judges. So
we understand that Moses was instructing the judges on how to conduct
a murder trial. He tells them that they are not to impose any sentence
other than the death penalty for premeditated murder. The judges are then
to give the murderer into the hand of the kinsman-redeemer, as we read
in Deut. 19:12,
12
then the elders of his city shall send and take
him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood,
that he may die. This
shows that the kinsman-redeemer is given life-and-death authority over
the murderer. Once this is done, the judges have completed their duty
of dispensing justice. It is assumed that the murderer will be put to
death, for this is normal in cases like this. But this does not necessarily
mean that the kinsman-redeemer MUST impose the death sentence upon the
murderer. It is merely in his power to do so, for the judges have passed
the sentence of death upon him. It
would be unlawful for a kinsman-redeemer to collect money (ransom) from
the murderer. Otherwise, justice might be thwarted, because if the murderer
were wealthy, there would certainly be a temptation to use the situation
to become wealthy. This, then, would be unjust to the murderer's children,
for whatever wealth he owned should rather be his children's inheritance.
To give up his estate would be to make his children liable for his own
guilt. But
some will say, "Does not the blood of the innocent pollute the land
unless the murderer's blood is shed?" It is my view that injustice
pollutes the land, especially when a murder has been committed, and the
judges do not do their duty in giving the murderer into the hand of the
redeemer. If
only the shed blood of the murderer can keep the land from being polluted,
then how is it that Joab's blood was not shed until after David had died?
How is it that David's blood was not shed? Was David's kingdom polluted?
This was God's perfect judgment upon David, and yet David was not executed.
It is true, of course, that four of David's children died violent deaths,
but if we are to take the law literally, the only way to expiate the blood
upon the land would be by the blood of the murderer himself (Num. 35:33,
quoted earlier). The Authority of the Kinsman-Redeemer It
seems to me that the precedents indicate that the law was merely putting
it into the hands of the victim's near kinsman, and that the law would
fully uphold his right to execute the murderer. In
the case of David's murder of Uriah, the Hittite, it would seem that Uriah
had no near kinsman in the land. He was obviously from the land of the
Hittites. In such cases, God Himself would take the role of the kinsman-redeemer,
even as He said He would do if men oppressed the widows, orphans, or strangers
in the land. Exodus 22:21-24 says, Widows,
orphans, and foreigners generally have no one to plead their cause in
order to obtain justice for them. So in such cases, God Himself becomes
their redeemer, acting as their guardian. David himself makes reference
to this law when he writes in Psalm 27:10, This
was written, no doubt, while David was running away from King Saul. If
David's parents had attempted to help him during that time, they might
have lost their life and their land inheritance. They really had no choice
but to forsake David for a time. But during that time, God became his
defense, his kinsman-redeemer. In
the same manner also, the overcomers, who represent the Davidic Company
during the Pentecostal Age (Saul's Kingdom), are orphans and strangers.
Thus, they fall into the same category as David and are under the direct
covering of their Kinsman-Redeemer, Jesus Christ. The representatives
of Saul disdain such people as rebels and outlaws, but God has become
their covering. This
special relationship also gave David an unusual attitude toward King Saul--the
man who was trying to kill him. In any case of attempted murder, it is
certainly lawful for a man to defend himself. It was David's lawful right
to execute Saul when God gave him into David's hand. But David did not
do so, because David knew the mind of God and knew that it was not Saul's
time to die. He knew that God would end the persecution when His purposes
had been fulfilled. Just
because one has a lawful right does not mean that one must exercise that
right. The victim always has the discretion to be merciful, and those
who are led by the Spirit are led in a higher way. This does not put away
the law. It merely shows that men have learned to apply it by the mind
of God. God is just, but He IS LOVE. He allows many of His children to
suffer at the hands of evil doers in order to teach them how to truly
love as God loves. Loving
the lovable is easy. Loving those who kill you is a bit harder. Not all
who experience injustice and abuse at the hands of men will rise to be
a Davidic Overcomer. But I am convinced that no one can become an Overcomer
who has not experienced abuse and learned to rise above it in the power
of Love and Forgiveness. Stephen's Martyrdom When
Stephen was stoned, with Saul consenting unto his death, we read in Acts
7:59, 60, and 8:1,
59
And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon
the Lord and said, "Lord
Jesus, receive my spirit!"
60 And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud
voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against
them!" And having said this, he fell asleep. 1
And
Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. Stephen
had every lawful right to hold their sin of murder against them. If he
had done so, the law would have backed him 100%. But then, Stephen would
have pronounced judgment upon Saul as well. If he had done so, then many
years later, when Saul was stoned, he would have died, and his ministry
would have ended at the little town of Lystra (Acts 14:8-20). But Stephen's
attitude was that of David. He had the right to commute the sentence. So
the Pentecostal Church Age had opportunity to rule a complete 40 Jubilees
unto the time appointed for that Church to give way to the next Church
of the Feast of Tabernacles and the Davidic phase of God's Kingdom. God’s
Kingdom Ministries |