Is it Permissible for God to Kill People?

On the Prosblogian an argument against God’s killing (or commanding killing) of persons as being permissible was made. I quote the essence of the No Divine Killing Allowed argument:

[NDKA] “So here is an argument that it is wrong for God to kill people as he does in the Bible. Argument: unless very strong utilitarian considerations are not at stake, it is wrong to violate a right. If (b) or (c) is true, then God is violating people's rights in the Bible when he kills them or commands others to kill them. Very strong utilitarian considerations are not at stake. Therefore, it is wrong for God to violate people's rights in the Bible when he kills them or commands others to kill them.”

Of course there are a multitude of responses one could give, different directions a rebuttal might take, I’ll just copy and paste the posts I gave (others responded so you can go there to read some of the rebuttals to my argument) in the meta over there as one way to argue against the NDKA argument:

**************

Paul said:

I take it that it is not wrong for one person to kill another person if that is the just penalty he deserves for his crime. God even gives us this right in Genesis.

I take it that this is what is going on when God kills people (e.g., when God commands the Israelites to wipe out certain people-groups, including children).

When we put certain criminals to death, we don't own their body. So, even if God did't own our bodies, I find that irrelevant.

There's more to say, but that's sufficient for now...I think.

April 5, 2008 10:24 PM


Paul said:

Hi Andrew,

But on the doctrine of original sin one need not *do* anything in order to be guilty.
Then, if you fill that out with a robust doctrine of the federal headship of Adam, it is all the more a defensible position. This is argued for primarily in Romans 5 (but cf. various arguments from federal headship by covenant theologians).

The Bible operates on the principle of federalism. This is the worldview presupposed. You may disagree, but the Bible does provide the resources for defending this view. Thus, pulling from all my resources, I find the muscle needed to defend my position inherent in my position.
Conversely, I'd say that if the federal representation of Adam for all his is denied, then one can't turn around and take Christ's federal representation for all his. It's like this, for example: Say you are a child and your father makes some bad business decisions. He loses everything. Now you guys are dirt poor. Rice and beans for dinner. Holes in your jeans. All that. You didn’t do anything wrong per se. But, you still suffer for the decisions of your representative. The state doesn't come and take you away, give you to new parents, and give a "fair shot" at a comfortable upbringing. No, you suffer with the family for the decisions the head or representative made. You can't very well go and divorce your family, asking for a new representative. You were born with the representative you had.

Now imagine this situation is reverses. Your father invests in some stocks that blow up over night. He earns millions of dollars. If it wasn't fair or right for you to reap the fruits of his poor decisions, why would it be fair to reap the fruit of his wise decisions?
Thus notions of federalism are still in play, though not as prevalent as in ancient societies (cf. Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, for evidence to this effect), and so you can still see hints of this prevalent and pervasive notion that informed the world of the Bible in our own time.

I would thus argue that if the doctrine of the federal representative status of Adam is denied, so would that of Christ's. Romans 5 links the two together, and it cannot be denied that Christ stood in as a representative of his people. So, Adam's federal headship can't be denied either, I would argue.

And so this is the way I would answer your argument. You may not be persuaded by it, but that is somewhat person relative. If my position is correct, though, then I've presented a model where it is not wrong for God to kill (or command to be killed) people since I take it that it is not wrong to issue just penalties for crimes committed. And the penalty for Adam's transgression was death.

Blessings,
Paul

April 8, 2008 2:55 AM

Paul said:

Hi Andrew,

I thought you might remain unconvinced.

But, your post did talk about the "best way out for the *Bible*-believer." And if my interpretation is correct, then this may be one of the best ways out since I do not think anyone has a problem with justly punishing criminals.

Now, you may not agree with the biblical position regarding its stance on federal headship, but that's another argument (which would also take us too far off course).

I'm not too sure about your inability to make sense of the claim that "A is guilty for B's actions and deserves punishment." For example, if A hired B to murder A's wife, and B succeeds, many times our court will try *both* of them for first-degree murder.

Adam represented all mankind. That is, God tested mankind in Adam. This was a fair representation in that Adam was infallibly chosen and perfectly represented us such that he was the best possible representative. If he did X, any of us would have done X. That we didn't choose him, or weren't born yet, does not mean that we can't suffer the consequences (we would have gladly accepted the blessings if he were to have had kept the covenant of works!). Our children, and children's children, will reap the consequences of our choices. We reap the benefits of America, the choices of our founding fathers. If we're going to be intellectually honest, why do we take the benefits while not wanting the consequences?

I would wonder, though, given your reasoning, why you would think anyone should get the other end of the stick? That is, why should someone (say, someone we *know* is a sinner) get treated as *not*-guilty based on *another's* [Jesus'] actions? Why doesn't *this* seem unjust? Why is it just that Jesus should die for our sin? He didn't sin? If Adam had fulfilled his covenantal obligations, all of humanity would not have been born into a state of sin and misery. We would have been born sinless and unable to sin. So it seems, to me, that you would have to deny some major themes in the Bible in order to deny my argument.

But, yes, other arguments never hurt anyone! And, thank you for granting the position I (and others) offered was a possible solution.

April 8, 2008 8:50 PM

Paul said:

Hi Philip,

I'm not sure I grasp your objection about "deserving." In Federal Headship theology, the representative *stands in for you*. He makes decisions for you. He speaks *for you.* It would be like during the Revolutionary war. Say you voted for some person to represent your town. This man goes to a meeting where it is decided, by his vote and others, that we will go to war with England. Now, say that a red Coat comes to your door. He aims to take your property, etc. What sense does it make to say, "But I don't deserve this? I didn't vote to go to war against you."?

Now, you may say, "Ah, but you chose your representative." Fair enough. Granting me all the parts of my theology on this matter, our representative was chosen, not by us, but by God. Now, let's explore that. When we pick someone to stand in for us, we hope to pick the best man for the job. But we are finite. We don't know for sure if he is making false promises. We don't know, for certain, that those we vote for are the best man (or woman!) for the job. He may or may not be. In the case of our original representative before man in fulfilling the covenant of works, there was a choice for us, God made it.

Now, what follows from that? Well, for one thing, the choice (Adam) was *the best possible choice* that could have been made. It is not as if Adam failed but if it had been you, you would have succeeded. This choice was perfect. Adam really was, the best man for the job. So, say you are in a voting situation. Say you can chose for A or B candidate. You think about it, and you think you have some good reasons to chose A over B. You want your choice to be the best one possible. After all, you have children and you don't want someone who will make foolish decisions which could affect your children. Now, say that God comes down to you, tell you that B is the best bet for you. Since God cannot be wrong, knows everything, is all-good, etc., then the most rational thing to do would be to go with B.

Apply that to the Garden Scenario GS. In the GS God was totally fair. it would have been *unfair* for God to let *you* chose. You may have picked the wrong candidate. God picked for us. His choice was perfect and infallible. I take it as obvious that whenever someone gives me the best shot to win, they've been fair with me. Thus I deny the intuitions behind your argument.

Moving along to your comments on Jesus vs. Adam. I have already covered the "choosing" portion. But furthermore, since faith is a *gift*, then even your choice was not something you made all on your own. Indeed, given a Reformed view of Scripture, you did not chose God out of your own free will, he had to change your nature first, giving you a heart which desired to chose him. Indeed, in John 6:44 Jesus says that "no man can come to him [Jesus] unless the Father who sent him [Jesus] draws him, and I [Jesus] will raise him up on the last day." Since not all men are raised up (putting aside universalism for now), then the father chooses who comes to Jesus.

So, though we did pick Jesus, God picked Adam. To say that "none of us would have consented to Adam being our representative" is to say, "I know better than God. I could make a better choice than God." So, I don't think that maneuver works.
Lastly, it is not a counter-factual claim I'm appealing to. Original sin is not about a counter-factual state of affairs. It states that all men *do* have a sinful nature. A nature that is opposed to God. A nature that if left to develop on its own will necessarily sin. So, we *are* sinners.

Jeremiah 17:9 says that "the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it." This seems to assume original sin--wickedness is a property of the human heart. Ecclesiastes 9:3 declares a similar truth: "...the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil, and insanity is in their hearts through their lives."

So, given the *truth* of Christian theism (or my representation of it), then the argument goes through.

Let me make another distinction that has not been brought here. Maybe this works. Since, on the traditional view, all men have a soul that can never die, we will live forever, then technically God isn't "killing" anyone so much as he is allowing them to progress to the next stage of *life.* All those "killed" do not cease to exist. I don't see why God is required to keep your body in *this stage* of life rather than the next. The physical "death" is just a vehicle for God to move you on to your next stage of life--heaven or hell. It could also be that God does not allow any infant to go to hell. So, he moves infants on to their next stage of life, heaven. Anyone older than an infant, given original sin and total depravity, will have committed actual sin, and so this meets some of the worries here.

I hope the above wasn't too jumbled!

Blessings!
Paul

April 10, 2008 9:35 PM

Paul said:

Hi Philip,

You said, "I agree that if we grant your theological position then the problem is solved. However, I think that our intuitions about desert may give us reason to question some aspects of your theological system." Okay, but my response has aimed to satisfy the question put to me in the original post, namely, what is the "best way out for the *Bible*-believer." I'd furthermore add that I don't come to the Bible and expect it to conform to my moral intuitions, I conform my intuitions to the Bible. This especially true given the nature of my fallenness, my epistemic situation with respect to God's plan, etc. Surely there are some that have the intuition that it is immoral to punish an innocent man for the sins of the guilty. Yet this is what we ask people to accept when we ask them to consider the claims of Jesus' death for sinners. Would your intuitions not have a problem with, say, the nice old grandma on the block being punished for the crimes of the pedophile on the block...even if they both agreed for this transaction to take place!?

You have agreed that someone S can be punished for the crimes of another S* (say, a S hires a hit man S* to knock off his wife in order to collect the insurance money; in this case S can be tried for murder even though S did not commit the murder himself, S* did), but this is acceptable for you because S chose S* to act as his representative. I don't think this is necessary, though. Our children may be economically punished by the voting decisions of their parents. Their parents chose their representative for them, and they get punished for the decision of their parent. Besides this, I have not totally removed the notion of choice, I just transferred it out of your hands and into God.

At this point, I think this is the best position to be in for us. I would rather have God make choices that mattered for me, given that he is all-wise, all-good, all-just, etc. Now you balk at what I took to be an eminently plausible position! How strange for a philosopher to balk at plausible assumptions! You invoke the baseball illustration to make your point. But, I do not think that was an appropriate illustration. How about this:

Say you got the opportunity to win a million dollars by kicking a football through the uprights from 45 yards away during the half-time show of the Super bowl. Suppose they gave you the option of having Adam Vinatieri represent you and kick for you. Who has the better shot? Who would you rather kick for you?

Or,

Say you had to answer 20 questions for a terrorist otherwise he would blow up NYC. Say they were multiple choice, but they were all mensa level questions. Now, you had get all of them right. No error. Say that, unwisely for his purposes perhaps, the terrorist also allowed you to step down and have "the smartest man alive" answer the questions for you. He was smarter than you in every conceivable category. Who would you rather have making the choices? For my sake and everyone else affected, I would hope you would choose "the smartest man alive."

That is to say, when the steaks are high, I want the best man for the job. God put that man in there. He made our choice for us. There was going to be a choice no matter what, and so given that, I have no problem that he chose our representative for us. Therefore, I do not find it entirely against intuition for us (and not problematic at all, for me), that (a) we could be punished for someone else’s crime, and (b) that the representative was chosen for us, and (c) that the choice made for us was the best possible choice. And, say it was guaranteed that you would fail just as quick and miserably. Does it matter? Why the need for the existential involvement in the situation?

Now, if your view is that we are born evil, then I fail to see why it is unjust for God to enact the consequences of evil--"death". I would also take issue with the idea that original sin is like someone planting an evil psychology in us. Furthermore, your view seems to imply Pelagianism. So, since this view has been dubbed heretical in Christian theology (cf. the many cross-denominational councils), it would be no help to the *Bible*-believer.
Lastly, regarding John 6:44 and John 12:32, you're right, there are responses one could make to this! You say my view would lead to universalism. But that is odd, I think the Arminian view would since they believe all are "drawn" in a John 6:44 way. And since John 6:44 is a conjoined with "raise him up on the last day," and the two "hims" are the same him, we have universalism. Here are some problems:

i) John 6:44 *clearly* states that no one can (is able) to come to Jesus unless the father draws him.

ii) Since the sentence is a conjunction, and if all men are drawn, then all men are raised. All sides must take this view, then.

iii) Since universalism is false (as you seem to grant), then it can't be that John 12:32 refers to all men whoever. The context seems to indicate that it is classes of men being referred to as right before v.32 some *gentiles* now come and are seeking Jesus.

iv) Other passages would also seem to indicate that not all men whoever are drawn to the cross: 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 says, "For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

v) Dr. White James white comments: "To whom is Christ the power and wisdom of God? To "the called." What is the preaching of the cross to those who are not called? Something that draws them or repels them? The answer I think is obvious. The cross of Christ is foolishness to the world. These considerations, along with the immediate context of the Gentiles seeking Christ, make it clear that if He is lifted up in crucifixion, He will draw all men, Jews and Gentiles, to Himself. This is exactly the same as saying that He has sheep not of this fold (John 10:16), the Gentiles, who become one body in Christ (Eph. 2:13-16)."

vi) It is not clear that "draw" is used the same in John 6 and 12. And in John 6 it is the who does the drawing and in John 12 it is Jesus who does the drawing.

Now, sorry for all that theology ;-), but the important point is to show that God chooses who will come to Jesus. Thus, if this is established, then I have reinstated the Jesus counter in my argument viz. you can't deny Adam's imputed guilt and sin and accept Jesus' imputed righteousness.

As far your acknowledging the possible answer my “moving to the next stage of life” argument gives and to answer your question, I’d say that the reason God can send someone into the next stage of life and not man is (a) man can do that sometimes, when authorized by God, and (b) he can’t when not-authorized. Because God can doesn’t mean man can. Not all laws that apply to man apply to God. For instance, God doesn’t have to pray to himself and say something like “Our *Father*” though men are commanded to pray. Jesus commands men not to judge and indicates that God will do so. Paul says that we are not to take vengeance, though God can do so.

Thank *you* for the good conversation, and your time!

Blessings,
Paul

April 11, 2008 7:06 PM