Genesis 9:1-7
But, is it Murder?
“God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
“And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.’”[1]
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court, with a 7 to 2 decision, discovered abortion of the unborn to be a constitutional “right” long hidden in the Constitution of the nation. Since that time, evangelical churches throughout North American have observed the third Sunday of January as “Sanctity of Life Sunday.”
It has been my practise for a number of years to address issues concerning the sanctity of human life on this third Sunday of the month of January. Though I am quite clear that abortion is murder—deliberate killing of the most vulnerable member of society—I am convinced that normalising abortion destroys the fabric of society, leading to disrespect for the weak and for the elderly. Thus, I have addressed the biblical view of euthanasia and suicide, both assisted and unassisted, during these sermons. I have not, to this point, addressed the view of the Word on capital punishment, taking the life of individuals condemned to death because of grievous crimes. The message today will address this contentious issue, as I look to the Word of God for understanding of the responsibility imposed on those who govern us. I seek also to lay a foundation for us as Christians to serve as salt and light in any debates surrounding this issue in days to come.
Angel Nieves Diaz was convicted of murdering Miami bar manager, Joseph Nagy. Twenty-seven years after that murder, Angel Nieves Diaz was executed by the State of Florida. His final statement was, “The state of Florida is killing an innocent person. The state of Florida is committing a crime, because I am innocent. The death penalty is not only a form of vengeance, but also a cowardly act by humans. I’m sorry for what is happening to me and my family who have been put through this.”
Mr. Diaz’s cousin, Maria Otero, expressed her outrage at his execution to reporters. “Who came down to earth and gave you the right to kill somebody?” she asked, referring to Governor Jeb Bush.[2]
Her question, and the sentiment expressed by Mr. Diaz demand an answer. Angel Diaz was denied a retrial on a variety of legal grounds, the appellate judges noting that the trial judge had commended him for his competence and skill in directing his own defence. Moreover, though he had rejected a court appointed lawyer, he did receive a thorough examination by both psychiatrists and psychologists who pronounced him competent to defend himself. Whatever view we hold at this time concerning the death penalty, there was no rush to judgement in executing Mr. Diaz.
The death of the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, hanged under authority of the Iraqi government, has galvanised debate on the ethics of government-sanctioned execution. Hussein, convicted of the murder of 148 Shiite Muslims, was sentenced to death by hanging. His execution, captured in graphic detail via a covert cell-phone recording, has been repeatedly shown on the Internet. Government and religious leaders express their dissent to his death. Especially vocal are protests against capital punishment issued by the Vatican. These protests have a patina of religious legitimacy, but those protesting failed to provide scriptural justification for their opposition.
God requires a reckoning for the life of every human being. We rightly understand that murder is condemned in this statement. However, we struggle to define the parameters of the reckoning that must be given for life. For instance, is it ever right to take human life? What if we are defending another life—a member of our own family, for instance? Can we take a life in the defence of someone who is vulnerable? What if a mother’s life is threatened by the child she is carrying? Is a doctor permitted to kill the child in utero in order to spare the mother’s life? Can the state hold a murderer accountable by taking his life, or by taking her life? Time constraints prevent answering all of these questions, but I do hope to address the issue of capital punishment.
Perhaps the reason questions such as these are difficult to answer is that we live in a culture that exalts personal gratification at the expense of corporate rights and responsibilities. British civil law, drawing heavily upon New Testament principles, demanded that participants in the civic contract seek the “common good” instead of seeking individual fulfilment. During the past several decades, the view promoting the common good as socially desirable has been jettisoned in favour of a contemporary view that elevates individual desire as the highest good to be sought in society. Accordingly, we have multiple views of what is good, and the loudest voice almost always prevails.
These modern views exalt the individual at the expense of the common good. One example of that exaltation of the individual at the expense of the common good is found in the realm of marriage. Whereas all history pointed to the necessity of strong homes to produce men and women of character capable of taking their place in society to continue the advance of goodness, the contemporary view demands that individuals must do what makes them feel good. Consequently, we justify same sex marriage, serial adultery, and children are expected to raise themselves.
The Noahic Covenant and Capital Punishment — Some people reject capital punishment saying we should not impose an ancient religious law on a modern society. Though there are elements of the Mosaic Law that are ceremonial and of limited utility outside of a theocracy, we must not to reject those aspects of the Law that address governmental responsibilities. Though the Law of Moses did set the penalty of death for a number of crimes, the demand for the death of those taking human life preceded Sinai.
Noah and his family had been spared when God judged the ancient world. The flood brought the Dispensation of Human Conscience to an end; and when the ark settled on Ararat, a new beginning for mankind dawned. Noah’s first act was to build an altar and present an offering to God in gratitude for His mercy [Genesis 8:20]. God’s response to Noah’s worship was to institute a covenant with mankind [Genesis 8:21, 22]. God did not restrict this covenant to Noah, nor even to Noah and his immediate family; rather, God instituted a covenant with all mankind.
Theologians refer to this covenant as the Noahic Covenant. With this Covenant, God instituted human government, making man responsible to govern himself, no longer simply relying on his conscience or doing what he felt like doing. History before the Flood was characterised by extreme violence. In Genesis 6:11, we read, “The earth was filled with violence.” Examples of the violence that marked that world include the fact that Abel’s murder went unavenged [see Genesis 4:8-16], and that Lamech overreacted when insulted [see Genesis 4:23, 24]. Now, a strict retribution was introduced.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed.”
[Genesis 9:6]
This was a divine Covenant. Man did not covenant with God, but rather, God covenanted with man. God pledged that He would never again strike down all living creatures as He had when He sent the Flood. He also instituted human government as a provision to restrain the wicked impulses of mankind. Specifically, government was to restrain man from acting on the spontaneous impulses that arise from anger and rage.
What were the provisions of this Noahic Covenant? God pledged that fear of man would be upon all the animals, upon all the birds, and upon all the fish. The animals were given to man as food, as part of this covenant. This leads me to believe that before the Flood, the animals were not wild, but that they were rather domesticated. Moreover, it would lead me to anticipate that before the Flood, mankind maintained vegetarian diets. Before, someone gets the idea that the Bible advocates a vegan lifestyle; I remind you that those vegetarians were all killed because they were so wicked and violent.
God continues by proscribing man from eating the blood. With this provision, God is not prohibiting blood in the diet; rather, God is commanding man to take care to ensure that the animals that are to be eaten are killed in a merciful manner. The blood represents the life force of the animal. The idea is that one must not eat the flowing blood of a living creature. The meaning of the restriction is that one “must not eat the life of an animal together with its flesh.”[3]
The fear that the world will be overpopulated is grossly overblown. There is no warrant in this Covenant for women to slaughter their unborn children. In Scripture, children are described as a blessing, not a curse. To have many children and grandchildren was evidence of God’s favour [e.g. Genesis 24:60; Psalm 127:3-5]. God promised Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars [Genesis 15:5], and the patriarchs invoked the blessing of fruitfulness of their heirs [Genesis 15:5; 18:4]. God covenanted with Israel to give them many children if the people would obey His laws [Leviticus 26:9; Deuteronomy 7:13].
There exists a vocal element in modern society that no longer considers children to be a blessing, just as that same element appears to inveigh against capital punishment. Such people have rejected God’s oversight of life and the responsibility of government to hold mankind accountable for the shedding of blood. When God begins the quatrain found in the sixth verse with the words, “Whoever sheds the blood of man,” he speaks of wilful and unwarranted shedding of blood. This is not referring to accidental bloodshed, for which kind of manslaughter the law would later provide [Numbers 35:11 ff.]. Neither does this speak of judicial bloodshed, for man himself, acting as God’s instrument and agent, is responsible to shed the blood of those who murder wantonly and deliberately.
Society can no longer be said to be composed of a Bible-oriented population. Contemporary society is accurately described in the words of the Apostle to the Gentiles. “Being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” [Romans 10:3]. Modern society appears determined that mankind can set his own standard for righteousness independent of God’s holy standard. The society in which we live is wilfully ignorant of God’s Word. Thus ignorant of God’s Word, the governing and judicial elite of society has determined that capital punishment must be relegated to the history of unenlightened people.
These same elite perpetuate the myth that capital punishment has no deterrent effect on crime. Certainly, the murderer who forfeits his life is deterred from committing another crime. The protestations of multiplied social activists argue against capital punishment as the legitimate role for society; but it is obvious that there is essentially no deterrent effect resulting from the mere threat of the loss of liberty for a relatively short period. Rejecting the rule of God over our lives, we have substituted our best thoughts for His command, resulting in judicial caprice and increasing social chaos.
Under the Noahic Covenant, the life of man was secured against animals as well as man. God pledged to avenge or inflict punishment for every murder. He promised, not that He would do this directly, but that He would hold all mankind and all animals accountable indirectly by giving the command found in verse six. God placed in man’s hand the judicial power. “This was the first command,” says Luther, “having reference to the temporal sword. By these words temporal government was established, and the sword placed in its hand by God.”[4]
The punishment of the murderer is enjoined upon “man” universally. The command does not sanction revenge, but rather lays the foundation for the judicial rights of the divinely appointed “authorities that exist.”[5] In issuing this command, God laid the foundation for a well-ordered civil government, and formed a necessary complement to the continuation of nature that had been promised to mankind.
No sin shows greater contempt for life than homicide. Under the Covenant God made with Noah, an animal’s blood may be shed, but not consumed. However, human blood cannot even be shed without retribution. Three times God says He will require a “reckoning.” “For your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man” [Genesis 9:5]. The “reckoning” that is required is clarified in the demand that society—human government—must act as God’s agent [see also Psalm 9:12; Ezekiel 33:6].
Our judicial system recognises this truth. The accused is neither accountable to the one that was murdered nor even to the family of the murder victim. Rather, the one accused of murder stands accused and answerable to “the Crown.” It is not so much that the accused has committed an offence against the one murdered, nor against his family, nor even against society at large, though obviously the murder affects all these; rather, the murder is a blow against God Himself, for the one murdered was made in God’s image.
Capital Punishment Dignifies Human Life — Many people argue that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. Undoubtedly, the person who is executed will never again commit a crime. In the United States, where Capital punishment is still exercised by many of the states, judicial activists have pretty much made it certain that the deterrent effect has been minimised, because of the length of time between the trial and any execution. Society has been robbed of the opportunity to know the connection between the crime and the punishment. What is seen is a prison system in which execution is simply reported in the paper, and there is no longer any public sense of why justice cried out for this to be done. That does mitigate the deterrent effect for certain. Despite the evidence for deterrence, this is not a particularly strong argument for capital punishment, since many crimes deserving a strong response are spontaneous. It is not that Scripture is unaware of deterrence, but rather that the Word emphasises responsibility before God.
The text before us, among other texts that speak of the requirement for society to hold mankind accountable for murder, instructs us in the need for Capital punishment. We see that the value of human life demands capital punishment in a just society. God spoke of man being made “in His own image.” Of course, the language harkens back to the earlier account of the creation of man. In Genesis 1:26, 27, we read, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’
“So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.”
Man bears the image of the Divine. It is significant to recognise that man is unique among all the creatures that exist on the earth. Man alone has the ability to worship God. When God had created our first father, He assisted Adam to recognise his uniqueness. He did this by having him review all the animals in order that he would realise that there was none that were “fit for him.” There was no counterpart for Adam.
The divine text states, “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
“’This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.’”
[Genesis 2:18-23]
To reject the responsibility of government to impose capital punishment devalues the life of the one murdered. It effectively states that the life of the murderer is of greater value than was the life of the one murdered. The refusal to hold mankind accountable for wilful murder is tantamount to the creation of a class system that assigns a higher arbitrary value to the life of the murderer than is true of the life of the one murdered.
In verse six, God says,
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.”
Notice that the Lord provides a concise, poetic formulation of the principle of talion. The legal principle of lex talionis refers to the concept of proportionate justice. The concept is understood to hold that judges—and hence, governments—must not exact more than is required when imposing sentence for a crime. However, the principle also holds magistrates accountable to ensure that sentence for a crime holds the criminal to a standard that is fitting, so that sentence expresses reciprocity.
In verse six, notice what is known in biblical literature as a chiastic structure. Chiastic structure is a common feature of Hebrew literature, especially in the Torah. “Sheds,” “blood” and “man” in the first line of the verse is contrasted with “man,” “blood” and “shed” in the second line. The tight chiastic formulation (shed, blood, man, man, blood, shed) repeating each word of the first clause in reverse order in the second emphasizes the strict correspondence of punishment to offence.[6]
God provides the rationale for governmental execution of the murderer, stating, “God made man in His own image.” It is because of the original dignity of man that God declares that the murderer must not be permitted to avoid justice. The logic of capital punishment is often misunderstood. The logic is this: The sanctity of human life is so important, the worth and dignity of every single human life is so important, that to take a life in hostile murder is to forfeit one’s own right to life. Society, in exercising that ultimate sanction, is simply underlining the importance and value of every life.
A biblical view of love demands justice. Considering the selfless, ennobling love described in Scripture, we are forced to confess that we live in a society that is fundamentally ignorant of divine love. What passes as love in contemporary society is an exaggerated exaltation of the self—it is self-love, it is gratification of personal desires. Consequently, because we love our own selves so much, we do not wish to inconvenience ourselves by assuming responsibility to act in concert for social justice. We are uncomfortable at the thought of demanding accountability from anyone.
The text provides insight in emphasising this point. All mankind bears the image of the Divine, and thus to murder any individual is as though one had murdered a brother. One of the most influential Hebrew commentators of the past century, commenting on verse five has written, “And of man, of every man’s brother] How much more so shall I require a reckoning for the blood of man in this instance, seeing that the slain person is the brother of the slayer. Whoever takes human life is like Cain.”[7]
When in verse five God states that He will require a reckoning from one’s fellow man, He literally says that He will require a reckoning for his brother. Man is the brother, the relative, of all men. This is the first time the Hebrew term for “brother” has been used since the account of Cain murdering Abel [Genesis 4:8-11]. There, in the original tongue the term is stressed to emphasise the incongruity of Cain’s action. It is reasonable likewise to assume that this is the reference here.[8]
A more literal translation of the fifth verse is provided by the JPS translation. “[A]t the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man.”[9] The original readers would have understood that God is emphasising that murder is fratricide—the killing of one’s own relative, even the killing of one’s own brother. Under this divine covenant, man is both victim and avenging agency. Humanity itself is the instrument of God’s recompense against the murderer, and by extension, against all criminals.
Love without justice is mere sentimentality. Our goal and our motivation must be love; but justice is one of the requirements of love. Justice is not the opposite of love. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that any Christian, conversant with the Word of God and knowledgeable of the will of God, could deny the responsibility of society to hold man accountable for murder through capital punishment. It is only as individual feelings have been exalted above responsibility that such a view has gained traction.
Capital punishment Honours the Lord God — Hearkening back to Creation, God demands capital punishment for the murderer. The reason given is that God made man in His own image. It is important to understand that the death sentence is neither retribution, nor simply preventative. Because we bear God’s image, each human being is irreplaceable. Every human life is so significant that no penalty less than death provides an adequate measure of its value. Only by decreeing capital punishment as a penalty for murder can society affirm the ultimate worth and value of each individual citizen.
Verse six states, “By man shall his blood be shed.” Notice that God issues a command that society must assume responsibility to execute the murderer. This is not mere permission to legalise capital punishment; this is a divine injunction. The Lord alone has the “right” to avenge the violation of the image of God. To take human life unlawfully is to usurp God’s sovereignty over life and death.[10] The person who thus usurps God’s authority places himself or herself in the position of facing God’s justice.
Indeed, society must erect safeguards to ensure that justice is done. The accused must not be sentenced according to caprice of judges employing a novel legal interpretation. Instead, society is responsible to understand that God has appointed mankind to act as his agency to administer justice. Wenham is correct in his understanding that “a community is only justified in executing the death penalty in so far as it respects the unique right of God over life and death and in so far as it respects the inviolability of human life that follows therefrom. Every single violation of this limit, be it based on national, racial or ideological grounds is here condemned.”[11]
God appointed human society to exercise the exacting of retribution as a societal obligation. This is not vengeance, but it is accepting the responsibility to honour God. Paul recognises the effectiveness of government accepting the provision of this divine appointment, even as he decries personal vengeance [cf. Romans 12:19; 13:1-5]. Capital punishment is not interpreted as a threat to the value of human life, but rather is society’s expression of God’s wrath upon anyone who would profane the sanctity of human life. The state is defined in Scripture as God’s divinely designated “servant” (diakonos).
I have sometimes been challenged by an interlocutor, “Don’t you believe violence begets violence?” I answer, “I certainly do believe that; and if possible I will prove it to be accurate.” The violent person invites violence of even greater intensity than that which he unleashed. The violence rained down on the perpetrator of evil is deserved. This is precisely the warning Solomon issued in Proverbs 21:7.
“The violence of the wicked will sweep them away,
because they refuse to do what is just.”
In similar manner, the state must be prepared to hold violent people accountable for their violence, exacting appropriate retribution, including sentence of death when called for.
Modern society is greatly exercised over the possibility that the innocent might be wrongly executed. This is exceptionally rare and especially so if care is taken to ensure that justice is applied according to the law and not at the whim of a judge. Nevertheless, society must be prepared to pay that terrible price if we will be just. Dennis Prager answers this concern by noting, “more innocents will be killed by murderers who are not executed (in prison, or once released or if they escape) than will be killed by the state in erroneous executions.”[12]
We often have the tragedy of innocents dying because of a social policy. Higher speed limits lead to more traffic fatalities. Violence directly emanating from alcohol consumption—from drunk drivers to spousal and child abuse—is incredibly high. Social policy does have an impact on innocents, and society is unwilling to address this inequity. People who reject capital punishment do so knowing that freeing murderers will lead to the murder of innocent people, just as I believe in capital punishment knowing that it could lead to the killing of an innocent person. So those who still wish to argue for keeping all murderers alive will need to argue something other than “an innocent may be killed.” They already support a policy that ensures innocents will be killed.
I have spoken at length from the Word of God. I have carefully studied the text, and presented the fruit of my studies. Those studies lead me to conclude that capital punishment is a necessary requirement for a just society. I do not imagine that my studies will have persuaded many who are determined not to believe the Word of God. However, the people of God must confront their confession of faith in what God says with their desire to embrace contemporary culture in this instance.
What is necessary above all else, is that all who hear the message would come to the knowledge of life in Christ the Lord. Whether one accepts the Bible or rejects it has more to do with one’s relationship to the Son of God than with his or her acceptance within contemporary cultural. If you have no relationship to the Son of God, or if you have attempted to believe as you think best, rejecting what is inconvenient and accepting what seems pleasant and non-controversial, you need to know that Christ died because of your sin, and that He rose for your justification.
The Word of God calls you to “confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” The call of God is a call to life, not to death. Therefore, God reminds all mankind that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” [Romans 10:9, 10, 13].
We call each one to faith in Christ and obedience toward God. Do this now. Amen.
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] Ron Word, Man Executed for Miami bar slaying takes 34 minutes to die, The Ledger Online, December 13, 2006, http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061213/APN/612132547, accessed 15 December 2006
[3] Claus Westermann, Genesis: A Practical Commentary (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI 1987) 64
[4] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1 (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI 1987) 152-3
[5] Romans 13:1, New King James Version (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN 1982)
[6] Cf. G. J. Wenham, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI 1979) 311-2
[7] U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part Two, From Noah to Abraham (The Magness Press, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1949, 1964) 127
[8] Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15 (Word, Dallas, TX 2002) 193
[9] The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, PA 1947, 1945, 1955)
[10] K. A. Matthews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26 (Broadman & Holman, Nashville, TN 1995) 403
[11] Wenham, Genesis 1-15, ibid.
[12] Dennis Prager, Capital Punishment: Another Argument for it, Townhall.com, December 12, 2006, http://townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/12/12/capital_punishment_--_another_argument_for_it, accessed 15 December 2006
