It's often said that Scripture presents suicide in a uniformly negative light. I think that's largely the case. However, it skates over some morally complex examples. It also turns on how broadly or narrowly we define suicide.
1. Let's stipulate that in the following cases, Scripture presents suicide in a negative light: Abimelech, Ahtiophel, Zimri, Judas.
2. Saul's armor-bearer
Now the Philistines were fighting against Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. 2 And the Philistines overtook Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. 3 The battle pressed hard against Saul, and the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by the archers. 4 Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and mistreat me.” But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. 5 And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him (1 Sam 31:1-5).
The text doesn't say why the armor-bearer killed himself, so we can only speculate. It was a snap decision. Yet I expect many soldiers have contemplated what they'd do if cornered by the enemy.
Perhaps he's acting in solidarity with his king. Maybe he thinks it would be disloyal and dishonorable for his king to die while he survived. As the king's bodyguard, it was his duty to defend his king to the death. Once Saul took his own life, perhaps he felt that he had outlived his usefulness. A dead king needs no bodyguard. Or perhaps he felt it would be shameful to fall into enemy hands, especially heathen hands.
If so, those motivations reflect a military honor code. I don't think those are morally sufficient reasons to kill yourself.
However, it's quite possible that his motivation was more pragmatic. Maybe he figured that death was inevitable, and he preferred a quick death at his own hands to a long, excruciating death by torture at the hands of the enemy. If that was his motive, then I'm not prepared to say his action was wrong.
One might object that this is an extreme case, and it would be fallacious to extrapolate from this case to normal situations. I agree. Mind you, the logic cuts both ways. By the same token, it is fallacious to extrapolate from normal situations to extreme cases. The battlefield often places men in extreme, exceptional situations. Some actions which are normally impermissible may be permissible (or even obligatory) under those circumstances. That doesn't mean anything goes. Just that we must sometimes make allowance for the demands of the situation.
3. Saul
Saul's case is, of course, similar to that of his armor-bearer's, but there are differences.
i) His armor-bearer was in that situation through no fault of his own, whereas Saul put himself in that bind through a series of impious actions.
ii) Capturing a king is not only a case of personal disgrace, but national disgrace. A captured king is a trophy.
iii) Perhaps what Saul most feared wasn't death by torture, but humiliation and mutilation (e.g. 2 Kings 25:7). The ignominious fate of Samson may have been in the back of his mind. Samson was blinded, and made a clown.
I'm less sympathetic to Saul because of (i).
4. Samson
23 Now the lords of the Philistines gathered to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god and to rejoice, and they said, “Our god has given Samson our enemy into our hand.” 24 And when the people saw him, they praised their god. For they said, “Our god has given our enemy into our hand, the ravager of our country, who has killed many of us.” 25 And when their hearts were merry, they said, “Call Samson, that he may entertain us.” So they called Samson out of the prison, and he entertained them. They made him stand between the pillars. 26 And Samson said to the young man who held him by the hand, “Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests, that I may lean against them.” 27 Now the house was full of men and women. All the lords of the Philistines were there, and on the roof there were about 3,000 men and women, who looked on while Samson entertained.28 Then Samson called to the Lord and said, “O Lord God, please remember me and please strengthen me only this once, O God, that I may be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes.” 29 And Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and he leaned his weight against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other. 30 And Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines.” Then he bowed with all his strength, and the house fell upon the lords and upon all the people who were in it. So the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those whom he had killed during his life. 31 (Judges 16:23-31).
i) Samson is motivated in large part by personal revenge.
ii) However, there's a providential irony to his death. God delivered Samson into the hands of his enemies in order to deliver his enemies into the hands of Samson. At one stroke, Samson takes out the ruling class of Philistia.
iii) Moreover, there's a religious element. In the providential ordering of events, this is less about Samson v. the Philistines than Yahweh v. Dagon. That's the symbolism.
iv) Samson's action isn't purely or primarily suicidal. Rather, he's seizing the opportunity to strike a blow which will cripple the Philistine war machine.
I'm inclined to say his action is subjectively dubious (because his motives are morally compromised), but objectively justifiable.
5. Choosing death over life
Desperate women sometimes prostitute themselves to feed themselves and their children. From a Christian standpoint, it would be morally preferable to starve. So there are situations in which a Christian might effectively opt for suicide over survival by refusing to save himself (or herself) through sinful means.
Martyrdom is another example. You could save your skin by recanting the faith, but you choose death in lieu of public apostasy (cf. Mk 8:34-36). Of course, there's a sense in which that's a forced option.
6. Jesus
There's a sense in which the atonement of Christ was a calculated, long-range suicide mission. He intentionally came to die. He engineered his death by going out of his way to get himself arrested, convicted, and executed.
Of course, this isn't suicide in the usual sense. Rather, this is laying down your life for the sake of others (Jn 15:12; 1 Jn 3:16).
The case of Christ is uniquely redemptive, but there are lesser examples. Eric Liddell forfeited his shot at freedom by giving another inmate that chance:
On one occasion Liddell was given a chance to leave the camp through an exchange arrangement made by Winston Churchill, but he instead arranged for a pregnant woman to take his place.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/04/50-stunning-olympic-moments-eric-liddell
Along the same lines is the sacrificial act of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe. In those situations, Christian altruism trumps self-preservation.
To take a rather more mundane example, if a home comes under attack, it's the duty of the father and older sons to hazard their own lives to defend the mother and younger children.
7. Paul
There's a sense in which Paul courted death as an opportunity to evangelize the ruling class. Instead of seeking a quick acquittal, he pursued an appellate process that put his life at grave risk, but also gave him access to the political elite.
No comments:
Post a Comment