From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Genesis 9:6 and Capital Punishment
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 09:19:47 GMT

(Genesis 9:6 NRSV) Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.

Those who construct their theology solely by finding a verse from scripture that answers a particular question need read no further in this post. From the above, there is no question that the death penalty is mandated to Christians and Jews for the sin of murder.

Those who are interested in examining the context of the above words, undertaking the complex task of relating them to other teachings in scripture on the same topic, and applying logic and common sense to arrive at a Christian understanding of this issue for the world of today are invited to read on. What follows is based on my understanding of the Pentateuch and the issue of Capital Punishment.

1. Authorship.

It is possible to find some published authors and biblical scholars who consier that the entire pentateuch was written by Moses some 1100-1200 years before the time of Jesus. This has always been the traditional view, since before the time of Jesus. Since the 19th century, this view has been widely challenged, and a survey of biblical scholars in any theological college or university library would show that most modern interpreters of the Bible believe that the final editing of the pentateuch was done during and after the Babylonian captivity, some 500 years before the time of Jesus, drawing on ancient material, some of which may very well date back to the time of Moses. The four principle sources are identified by the letters JED and P, and the understanding that the final editors drew on these four sources is known as the 'documentary hypothesis'.

Whilst I accept the broad thrust of the documentary hypothesis, I believe that the material which is of highest importance to modern interpreters is the final text, not the real, hypothetical or artificially concocted sources behind the text. Whether a particular passage dates back to Moses, the Jahwist storytellers, or whoever, is of less importance than that it was considered by the final editors of the text worthy of inclusion in scripture.

Having said that, for what it is worth, Genesis 9:1-17 is generally considered to come from the Priestly writers, the source of the Pentateuch which is latest in date, and most preoccupied with legalities and the social order.

2. Context

The whole of Genesis chapters 1-11 is the creation story of the Hebrew scriptures. It echoes the creation stories of other cultures who lived around the ancient Hebrews, and according to the documentary hypothesis it is mostly made up of the work of the Jahwist storytellers who preserved the ancient stories of the Jewish people and may have begn to write them down in the courts of David and Solomon some 1000 - 950 years before the time of Jesus, and the Priestly writers who finally edited the pentateuch. Genesis 1-11 contains stories illustrating the power of God over creation, stories illustrating the sinfulness of humanity and God's response in discipline and blessing, and stories underpinning and explaining many of the laws and customs of the Jews.

Genesis 9: 1-17 is part of the story of Noah's Ark - a story much beloved of sunday school children and artists the world over. Some people tell this story to illustrate God's wrath and judgement, but it can equally be told as a story of God's unfailing love and promise of blessing. By chapter 9 the flood is over, and God is promising to Noah and his descendants that destruction and evil will never again be allowed to overwhelm the world. Verses 3-6 require the same reverence and respect for life of the people that God is promising to them.

(Genesis 9:3-6 NRSV) Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.

Sunday school plays about Noah seldom include the events of Genesis 9:18-29.

3. Related texts

Note the prohibition on flesh with its blood, a requirement specifically repeated for Christians at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:20,29). It is worth noting that most Christians do not consider themselves to be bound by this law today.

Note also that the warning "Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed" is given for a reason - "for in his own image God made humankind.". It is unclear whether this is a threat, a warning, or a command. No exceptions or exemptions are given in Genesis 9. It could be argued that the import of Genesis 9:6 is no more and no less than the very similar comment attributed to Jesus in Matthew 26:52 "... all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (This is the NRSV, and it accurately reflects the Greek, although older translations had the more evocative "he who lives by the sword shall die by the scord").

It is often remarked that the God of the Hebrews is a bloodthirsty and vengeful God, commanding his people to kill, crush and destroy sinners from amongst their own community, those who corrupt the purity of the race by intermarriage, and those who have the misfortune to be the occupants of the 'promised land'. There are three possible responses to this for Christians;

a) God is the same yesterday, today and for ever, and therefore capital punishment, racial purity and vigorous prosecution of war and justice in His name should be the aim of every faithful person.

b) The authors of the hebrew scriptures understood themselves to be God's chosen people, and when they wrote accounts of their nation's history they told the story in terms that expressed their faith, their confidence that God approved the victories and actions of their armies, and their vocation as the pure and holy people of God. In other words, the commands to execute capital punishment are put in the scriptures to validate the laws of the community. Similarly, the commands to slaughter enemies etc. are put into the histories as a retrospective validation of a particular view of those events.

c) The God of the Hebrews was exactly as described in a) above, but Jesus brought in a new relationship with God in which love, not vengeance, is the rule over all things. In this understanding, violence (including war and capital punishment) was OK under the old covenant, but is no longer appropriate under the new.

Many conservative Christians would opt for a). Most liberal Christians would opt for c). I would opt for b), and I think that most biblical scholars would agree. a) has the benefit of being simple and internally consistent, but the unfotrunate side- effect of making Christianity an abhorrent faith to thinking civilised people in the twentieth century. Some may argue that this is exactly what Christianity should be... but I disagree. c) is an option that provides 'warm fuzzies', but does not really deal with the biblical evidence. b) is in accord with my understanding (which I believe to be consistent with most modern Biblical scholarship) that the Bible was written by people of faith, with the express purpose of passing on that faith. The Bible is "useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,.." but not particularly useful for reconstructing an objective history of most of the events it describes.

Much has been written on the newsgroup recently about John 8:1-11. Some (including me) doubt that it is part of the original text of John's Gospel. Some (not including me) think that it should be included from the canon of scripture, but I think that everyone has agreed that it describes an event which is consistent with what we know of the teaching and attitudes of Jesus. In that passage a woman is caught committing a crime punishable by death under the law. The woman is brought to Jesus by the crowd, and he challenges them "let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone", refuses to condemn her, and sends her on her way with the injunction "sin no more". To me, this is a clear case where Jesus was tested regarding his views on capital punishment, and he shielded the intended victim and challenged those who would administer such a penalty to look at their own sinfulness.

Jesus himself was a victim of capital punishment, administered legally (the Roman governor had the legal authority to administer summary execution, so whether or not there was a trial, and how it was conducted, is irrelevant).

There are NT passages which seem to indicate approval of the death penalty for religious/moral offences (Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5, the notorious sinner of 1 Corinthians 5, and the passages much beloved of both the reforrmers and their opponents in the 16th century in which Jesus commanded that the rotten fruits of the Church should be burned (Matthew 7:19, John 15:6 et.al.).

But there is nothing in the New testament which addresses the issue of capital punishment for the crime of murder.It is therefore somewhat strange, to me anyway, that Christians who campaign infavour of capital punishment for murder, on which the NT is silent, do not also campaign for capital punishment for religious and moral offences, on which the NT (and the OT) has m uch more to say.

4. Conclusion.

I believe that Genesis 9:6, looked at in context in the creation story of the Hebrew scriptures, establishes a fundamental principle about the sanctity of life. To kill another person made in the image of God is a heavy thing. Those who take it upon themselves to kill another will answer to God for theri actions.

I think that the armies, prophets and judges of the ancient Jews who killed in war and justice did so in the certainty that they were doing God's will, but I do not believe that modern Christians can share their certainty.

It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would have approved of capital punishment. I suppose it could be argued that this shows a deficient understanding of Jesus on my part, but I do not see anything of Jesus in the pro- capital punishment, pro- war, pro-gun, so-called 'religious right' of today. Rather, I see echoes of the crowd that cried 'crucify him'.

For me, the definitive passage in forming my attitude to capital punishment is John 8:1-11. Jesus shielded the guilty person from the crowd who wanted to administer capital punishment, he challenged the crowd (society) to examine their own sins - perhaps the sins which had caused or led to the sin for which the person stood accused; and he spoke in love and compassion to the sinner, commending her to sin no more.

I am sure that shielding the guilty from capital punishment, challenging society to repent of the sins that lead to crime, and speaking in love and compassion to all sinners, is the Christ-like vocation of the Church and every Christian. I am sure that clamouring for the death penalty, for whatever crime, is not.

Genesis 6:9 establishes the principle that God will require a reckoning from those who shed the blood of their fellow human beings. It also contains the warning which Jesus echoed, that those who live by violence risk dying by violence.

I choose not to live by violence, as far as it is possible. If killing is neccesary, by me or on my behalf, in the cause of the greater good, then I consider that a cause fror regret and repentance.

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell